Posted on 07/16/2009 2:26:31 PM PDT by kristinn
The following letter was confirmed to me by Mr. Greenberg with the following statement:
"The letter was sent to Senators Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Graham and Coburn. It was also sent to Cong. Peter King (R) NY. The story is being covered extensively by the photo blogs, the trade publications and the NY Times. No politician has responded. The NY Times quotes attributed to me are accurate and therefore I assume that the quotes of my adversary Mr. Fairhurst are accurate as well."
Text of the letter:
I am an attorney in NYC who represented White House Photographer Chris Usher in litigation against Corbis, a privately held company wholly owned by Bill Gates. The case principally concerned lost Presidential and campaign photography during the 2000 Bush v. Gore Campaign and the US Supreme Court case related thereto.We won at the trial level in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York but the award to the victorious plaintiff was absurdly low.
We appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals where the award was inexplicably upheld. The New York Times reported on this high profile case today, please see:
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/behind-6/
It was revealed therein by opposing counsel hat Judge Sotomayor and Mr. Gates’ counsel have known and (possibly worked with) each other for decades. Such relationship was never disclosed to me as plaintiff’s attorney by the Court. No opportunity for us to request that Judge Sotomayor recuse herself was afforded as this information was never disclosed.
The appearance of impropriety is astounding as Judge Sotomayor could have recused herself and we could have had another Appeals Panel within days.
Please contact me so that this apparently unethical judicial behavior is brought to the attention of the judiciary committee immediately.
Edward C. Greenberg, Esq.
contact info redacted
It may be whining on Greenberg’s part but that’s part of the confirmation process.
The fact is that we do not know. You seem to think that it was just ‘working with the guy’. But the opportunity to find out more was never made available.
For example, if Sotomayor had disclosed in chambers that defense counsel and her had worked previously, or if defense attorney had been overheard at lunch or in corridors that he knew the judge from having worked with her before, then Greenberg could have investigated and motioned for a new judge.
Once again the issue is not that the two worked together previously, the issue is that she withheld the information.
We are talking about an attorney for the world’s richest man who she knew and worked with previously. Surely Sotomayor understood that. Was she blind to that in her conduct of the case? That is the question. According to Greenberg she could care less about the photographer’s loss.
If those photos were as unique as claimed and corraborated, then one could expect substantial licensing and royalty income over a course of decades. She omitted any of this from her analysis. She also did not address the irresponsible and callous behavior of Gate’s company Corbis.
In a larger context, during that time, Gate’s and his companies were filled with arrogant condescending schmucks who thought it was always a game to shaft people. It would not be beyond reason to believe that Gate’s personal attorney would play those games and ‘shop’ for a judge.
That is one of the best political summaries I have ever seen. It is applicable in so many situations that it's scary.
Sadly, you are probably right about that. We got a damn lying crypto-marxist usurper in the White House and no one in officialdom even wants to INVESTIGATE it.
Those are all perfectly valid reasons to oppose her nomination. The fact that she has friends who are lawyers is not.
It’s much harder to shop for a judge at the appellate level.
I do understand your concern, but a judge is bound by the code of ethics, among others, that I linked in my previous post. None of those was really applicable, and so I disagree with the findings that she should have to disclose that she knew the appellee’s trial attorney.
This was sent to Grahamnesty?
By citing Perry Mason’s prosecutor as her reason for wanting to be a prosecutor, Sotomayor did reveal something. Had she cited “Law and Order’s” Jack McCoy she would have been much more believable.
She didn’t so she isn’t.
Interestingly, though, Pat Robertson likes her better than Souter. The truth is that Souter ALWAYS voted the liberal side. She can’t really be more liberal than that.
The real danger is the age of Scalia.
Ed Greenberg has gone to bat for me a few times and is the BEST in the business. Its really sad that this future Supreme Court Justice doesn't understand our craft.
She was writing about the NY Times article, not today's controversy.
That would be nice, but I doubt it. At best, this will be Sotomayor's Anita Hill moment. Remember, Clarence Thomas did get confirmed.
The guy making the charge only found out about this prior relationship yesterday, when the article came out, so he hasn’t had an opportunity to dig into it any further.
I’m sure we will learn more, if there is any merit to the allegations, in the next week or two.
You bring up good points about her (and the lower court’s) handling of the original case and judgement amount.
It reminds me of the N.B.A., when they fine a basketball player $500 when he’s making millions. This judgement is pennies to Gates/Corbis, and it says they can lose, steal, give away photographic images all they want and it will only cost them $7 per image, rather than the potential $125,000 PER INSTANCE of copyright infringement that could be awarded.
I agree with Greenberg on that point, that the judgement was pathetically undervalued.
I can see you mean well and you may have a point but I still think Greenberg should be given weight over your view for the following reasons:
1. That link you posted in Post #131 is just an introductionary pamphlet and describes itself as an introduction to help new judges understand conflicts triggering recusal.
2. I think Greenberg would not reference that pamplet but would reference 28USC455:
http://vlex.com/vid/disqualification-judge-magistrate-19212687
In part: (scroll down a page in the above link)
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
..............
Now clearly Greenberg could stand on (a) above because he poses a reasonable question and would have posed a reasonable question leading to a motion for a new judge, as he said so himself.
And certainly in (1) above could be questioned as the judge knew Gate’s attorney and could reasonably be suspected of having a bias.
So I am not sure you have any ground here to defend Sotomayor. She clearly withheld the information of her past working relationship with Gate’s attorney, and by doing so prevented plaitiff’s attorney from exploring the relationship, personal and professional.
Sorry but I will go with Greenberg here. And I don’t think he is whining.
>And just the other day they said they want to buy the houses of distressed homeowners and let them live there and pay rent. So Obama’s going to be the landlord.<
how magnanimous ... maybe he should have not created the problem in the first place if he wanted to help people eh?
It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong. ~~~ Thomas Jefferson
See Post # 154.
Tell me if you think Greenberg was thinking along these lines when he described her “appearance of impropriety is astounding” or her “apparently unethical judicial behavior”.
For some on this thread, they need to see the US Code or hear Greenberg cite chapter and verse, before they can be swayed that he has a legitimate gripe, else they conclude he is “whining”.
Thanks for the post, Kristinn.
Only White males are guilty of crimes.
Judge Crater’s body is in the Bronx? No wonder we couldn’t find it in Virginia.
Maybe Jimmy Hoffa is also buried there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.