See, just as if this was entertainment – it isn’t, it’s a real thing – we wind up back where we started. Remember I told you we would do that right about when we started this whole parallel resignation story thing?
And by the way, if you want to understand this post and most of the others over the last couple of days, you have to start at the beginning and read each one in order, plus any uploaded documents.
There’s a lawyer I know who was familiar with the goings on between Judge Patricia Marks and Tom Moran and knew what had happened. I’m not going to identify the lawyer for reasons of prudence. But suffice it to say he was in a position to know and a reliable source and a good colleague.
This lawyer tells me something I didn’t know when all this other stuff was going on in ’09. Maybe I should have known it earlier, it certainly makes a lot of sense but Patty Marks never told me in our meetings because she knows that the Grievance Committee takes the position that the “confidentiality” of attorney disciplinary proceedings under NY Judiciary Law 90(10) applies to everyone, and considers disclosing the very existence of a Grievance Committee complaint or investigation by an attorney to be “misconduct”.
So what I learned from this lawyer was that Patty Marks had gone to the Grievance Committee about Moran’s evidence fabricating in that other matter she had told me about. And that was around 2004 – several years before I ran into my problems with him on the Sephora Davis matter. It had to do with this case.
And that’s why she recommended to me that I go to the Grievance Committee about it a couple of years later when I met with her, even though she never told me during those meetings that she had earlier gone to the Grievance Committee herself.
And I guess what it all amounted to was that Moran – and for all I know God knows who else, which is another question entirely – was using this bank created account designed to reimburse the victims of this fraud crime by a Livingston County car dealer as some kind of slush fund and making false claims against it by phantom people. This, at least, was the implication based on what Judge Marks had told me.
But as you might imagine when you think about it, this information was also very disturbing to me for other reasons. As you recall, because I asked you to remember the date, I had gone to the Grievance Committee in April of 2006 and was accused of making “wild” allegations and being “mentally ill”; yet the supervising judge of criminal courts in the seventh judicial district had earlier made a similar complaint about similar misconduct to that very same committee concerning that very same lawyer. Apparently nothing was done then either, but that’s not the point.
The point is that for Dan Drake to greet my complaint by calling the allegations “wild” and me “mentally ill” under those circumstances begins to look sinister. Like it’s just pure, mindless intimidation and thuggery.
It begins to look even more sinister when the iron clad proof that Sephora Davis was being prosecuted on fabricated evidence is ignored, an “investigation” into the matter is supposedly undertaken which is kept secret from me, and – somewhat ominously under the circumstances – the only tangible result of it is that more witnesses get threatened and intimidated. It looks, in other words, not simply like favoritism to public prosecutors, but rather complicity in what they do. Complicity, that is, in criminal conduct. And a purported reliance on flimsy interpretations of a statute – Judiciary Law 90(10) – to cover it all up.
And this is emanating from the Attorney Grievance Committee. And by extension the Appellate Division. The people I had confided in and relied upon to uphold the integrity of our profession. The people holding the reins of power in all this. Instead, they turned it around and threatened me for bringing it up.
Do you understand my thinking that I should get out of town yet? Maybe even the country? You see the problem?