Letter to Grievance Committee
ALTON H. MADDOX, JR. TELEPHONE: 718-834-9034
FAX: 718-834-1275
16 COURT STREET, SUITE 1901
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11241
October 27, 2006
Diana Maxfield Kearse, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Grievance Committee for the Second
and Eleventh Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street, Suite 2400
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: In the Matter of Alton H. Maddox, Jr.
Dear Ms. Kearse:
With respect to due process of law, attorneys are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard. The “Notice of Hearing” claims that I violated “Disciplinary Rule 8—102(b) of the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility [22 NYCRR 1200.43(b)]. The charges, however, fail to comport with the statutory language which purportedly gave rise to this disciplinary proceeding.
The charges herein have been diluted by deleting the speaker’s state of mind. No charging authority has the ability to rewrite a court rule to accommodate a personal goal of the charging authority. Moreover, any claim, affecting a First Amendment right, must comply with New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
New York Times arose out of the Civil Rights Movement. Alabama officials were bent on silencing anyone who was opposed to white supremacy in the same way that New York is behaving today. The Alabama Supreme Court backed the muzzling of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr, et. al despite the First Amendment
Even under New York law, this Grievance Committee is acting in excess of its jurisdiction. This ruling arose out of In re Erdman, 33 NY2d 559 (1973). Any isolated statement made out of the “precincts of a court are not subject to professional discipline.” The within statements were made in the New York Amsterdam News in an opinion column twenty years after respondent’s acquittal in a criminal prosecution involving the explained-about jury instructions. This disciplinary investigation flouts First Amendment rights concerning freedom of press and freedom of speech.
Gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer has ordered that state Senate Minority Leader, David Paterson, who is also an attorney, be muzzled. Moreover, former New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams filed a false disciplinary complaint against respondent. Spitzer, acting as state attorney general, is sitting on exculpatory materials in the Tawana Brawley file. What is New York hiding? This is selective prosecution and it promotes a badge of slavery.
Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments coupled with Article 31 of the CPLR and Article 240 of the CPL, an accused person or a party to a proceeding is entitled to any statement which is the subject of the hearing. The complained-about jury instruction should have accompanied the “NOTICE OF HEARING.” No answer can be fashioned without the jury instructions.
Although the Court Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department fail to define the contents of a disciplinary complaint, 22 NYCRR §605.6 (b) states that a complaint “shall contain a concise statement of the facts upon which the Complaint is based.” The charges herein fall far short of this definition since it contains conclusions rather than facts. This violates due process.
The transcript of the actual jury instructions will not only reveal its content but also any objections to the jury instructions. During the course of the jury instructions, the transcript will show a disruption. Attorney Louis Clayton Jones, who is now deceased, was, indeed, removed from the courtroom. His comments during the jury instructions will demonstrate his reaction to the jury instructions. Attorney Helene Holmes, who is also deceased, upon information and belief, was in the courtroom and made negative comments about the jury instructions.
The petit jury was also present. Respondent demands that these jurors should be permitted to give testimony at this disciplinary hearing. Their testimony is critical especially given the unavailability of other witnesses. This Grievance Committee must issue a ruling that the right of respondent to offer a defense should surmount any obstacles outlined in Civil Rights Law § 14.
It is my understanding that the Grievance Committee has the burden of proof with respect to the issues herein especially in light of New York Times. I will proceed under this view especially since I have been unable to find a Court Rule to the contrary. In American jurisprudence, the charging authority also has the burden of proof. Otherwise, any hearing is actually a fishing expedition.
Although an answer has been demanded herein, no Court Rule is available which defines an “Answer.” This is unlike the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
which defines an “Answer” under 22 NYCRR § 605.12. No full, complete and intelligent “Answer” can be fashioned without a definition under the Court Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department.
I am hereby demanding the immediate production of the complained-about jury instructions in People v. Maddox, Docket No. 4N057843 (Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1984) made by Judge William Erlbaum who, I have been informed, sits in Queens County. Time is of the essence and I am entitled to adequate notice, time and opportunity to be heard under the applicable provisions of the state and federal constitutions.
No defense can be fashioned for the charges herein without the jury instructions. These instructions and any correspondence from Judge William Erlbaum would have been necessary to sustain the sua sponte investigation.
Very truly yours,
.
AHM:sr
FAX: 718-834-1275
16 COURT STREET, SUITE 1901
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11241
October 27, 2006
Diana Maxfield Kearse, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Grievance Committee for the Second
and Eleventh Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street, Suite 2400
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: In the Matter of Alton H. Maddox, Jr.
Dear Ms. Kearse:
With respect to due process of law, attorneys are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard. The “Notice of Hearing” claims that I violated “Disciplinary Rule 8—102(b) of the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility [22 NYCRR 1200.43(b)]. The charges, however, fail to comport with the statutory language which purportedly gave rise to this disciplinary proceeding.
The charges herein have been diluted by deleting the speaker’s state of mind. No charging authority has the ability to rewrite a court rule to accommodate a personal goal of the charging authority. Moreover, any claim, affecting a First Amendment right, must comply with New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
New York Times arose out of the Civil Rights Movement. Alabama officials were bent on silencing anyone who was opposed to white supremacy in the same way that New York is behaving today. The Alabama Supreme Court backed the muzzling of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr, et. al despite the First Amendment
Even under New York law, this Grievance Committee is acting in excess of its jurisdiction. This ruling arose out of In re Erdman, 33 NY2d 559 (1973). Any isolated statement made out of the “precincts of a court are not subject to professional discipline.” The within statements were made in the New York Amsterdam News in an opinion column twenty years after respondent’s acquittal in a criminal prosecution involving the explained-about jury instructions. This disciplinary investigation flouts First Amendment rights concerning freedom of press and freedom of speech.
Gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer has ordered that state Senate Minority Leader, David Paterson, who is also an attorney, be muzzled. Moreover, former New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams filed a false disciplinary complaint against respondent. Spitzer, acting as state attorney general, is sitting on exculpatory materials in the Tawana Brawley file. What is New York hiding? This is selective prosecution and it promotes a badge of slavery.
Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments coupled with Article 31 of the CPLR and Article 240 of the CPL, an accused person or a party to a proceeding is entitled to any statement which is the subject of the hearing. The complained-about jury instruction should have accompanied the “NOTICE OF HEARING.” No answer can be fashioned without the jury instructions.
Although the Court Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department fail to define the contents of a disciplinary complaint, 22 NYCRR §605.6 (b) states that a complaint “shall contain a concise statement of the facts upon which the Complaint is based.” The charges herein fall far short of this definition since it contains conclusions rather than facts. This violates due process.
The transcript of the actual jury instructions will not only reveal its content but also any objections to the jury instructions. During the course of the jury instructions, the transcript will show a disruption. Attorney Louis Clayton Jones, who is now deceased, was, indeed, removed from the courtroom. His comments during the jury instructions will demonstrate his reaction to the jury instructions. Attorney Helene Holmes, who is also deceased, upon information and belief, was in the courtroom and made negative comments about the jury instructions.
The petit jury was also present. Respondent demands that these jurors should be permitted to give testimony at this disciplinary hearing. Their testimony is critical especially given the unavailability of other witnesses. This Grievance Committee must issue a ruling that the right of respondent to offer a defense should surmount any obstacles outlined in Civil Rights Law § 14.
It is my understanding that the Grievance Committee has the burden of proof with respect to the issues herein especially in light of New York Times. I will proceed under this view especially since I have been unable to find a Court Rule to the contrary. In American jurisprudence, the charging authority also has the burden of proof. Otherwise, any hearing is actually a fishing expedition.
Although an answer has been demanded herein, no Court Rule is available which defines an “Answer.” This is unlike the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
which defines an “Answer” under 22 NYCRR § 605.12. No full, complete and intelligent “Answer” can be fashioned without a definition under the Court Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department.
I am hereby demanding the immediate production of the complained-about jury instructions in People v. Maddox, Docket No. 4N057843 (Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1984) made by Judge William Erlbaum who, I have been informed, sits in Queens County. Time is of the essence and I am entitled to adequate notice, time and opportunity to be heard under the applicable provisions of the state and federal constitutions.
No defense can be fashioned for the charges herein without the jury instructions. These instructions and any correspondence from Judge William Erlbaum would have been necessary to sustain the sua sponte investigation.
Very truly yours,
.
AHM:sr
posted by Attorney Alton Maddox at 6:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home