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
Lame.
Agree.
She’s a RAT. RATs need not have ethics; it’s not expected of them.
Wow...she fits the bill perfectly for the Dems as a nominee. Congrats to Stopandbuybeer or whatever her name is. I ‘m sure she has many many liberal rulings in her back pocket ready for use...
The gutless GOP will say a word about this.
“They could find a few dozen bodies buried in her backyard and she’d still be confirmed. The Dems are too corrupt to care and the Repubs are too wimpy to fight back.”
Exactly. The Dems could confirm John Gacy in today’s political media climate.
won’t vs will
I think there's some truth to both speculations.
Says “possible.” If this were grounds for disqualification there wouldn’t be any courts.
I’m not exactly sure why Greenberg (who comes across in this letter and his post in the NYT’s comment section as rather...eccentric, let’s call it) thinks an Circuit Court judge knowing an attorney, even for decades, is either unusual or unethical.
Agreed. It happens all the time (as one might expect given the nature of the profession, what with associations, required continuing eduction, etc.)
The issue is she failed to disclose the relationship.
Disclosure. She didn’t disclose the relationship. He just learned about it in the NY Times article published yesterday and today.
Repubs are too wimpy to fight back.
Sad, but true...it IS a bombshell, but it will be a dud in the hands of these cowardly bstrds.
The smell of a liberal wretches the stomach of patriots but is sweet smelling amphoria to our enemies.
It says that they have known and possibly worked with each other for decades. It doesn’t really explain the degree of the relationship—it could have been mere acquaintanceship or a casual working awareness.
Wow, she should have to take that one right in the kisser!
Well, it would help to know what the "relationship" was, wouldn't it?
If a judge used to be partners with a litigant, represented them in the past, or has a business relationship with them, that's the sort of thing requiring disclosure. If a judge worked at the same firm or office as a litigant, went to law school with them, or has known them professionally for 50 years, that's not the sort of thing that requires disclosure.
“They could find a few dozen bodies buried in her backyard and she’d still be confirmed.”
Yup, she could be eating babies on the steps of the SC and the Dems would ask her if she needed something to drink to wash them down!
Pathetic and beyond frustrating, if
the pubbie senators had this information
in time and didn’t raise it with her
during her public questioning.
I believe the hearings are over, at least
with her participation, are they not?
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.