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
Lawyer me says all smoke, no fire. Totally normal.
The issue is not whether or not she knew the guy, it’s that she failed to DISCLOSE that she knew the guy, thereby not giving the plaintiff opportunity to request that she recuse herself.
Yes, it is expected that judges know attorneys, but it is also expected that those relationships be disclosed.
Mr. Greenberg is apparently a rather prominent attorney. I doubt he would bring this up if it wasn’t at least somewhat of a big deal.
The current state of the Republicans in the Senate is soooo weak kneed, you could have proof that Sotomayor was the Boston Strangler...and there’d be Lindsay Graham leading the charge that she is “pretty much in the mainstream”.
That is why the NRSC got an non-contribution return from me last month.
No, that’s not really how it works. Judges are not required to disclose every time they “know” one of the parties attorneys.
We all need to realize one thing. This stuff does not matter. The communists have their votes. We have all accepted 32-33 unvetted czars. If we accept that and all else Obama has done, why does anyone think this is going to matter?
AfterPorkulis, healthcare, Sotomayor, Cap and Tax, they are coming for the guns. The just know we will squeal and roll over like we have on everything else.
Maybe we couild have a Tea Party with drinks and dancing and stop this.
Ya think?
Mr. Fairhurst said in an interview Wednesday that he has known Judge Sotomayor since the 1980s, when they both served on the legal committee of an imported automobile trade association. (She represented Fiat, he Jaguar.)
It's not known if there are more working relations than the one mentioned.
possible unethical behavior....
Too little, too late. Its over now. a done deal.
Isn’t there a venue they could go after her without congress. I thought there is a group that investigated judicial miscondut and ethics.
Her inclination to think that rules for everyone else need not apply to her was detected in the following editorial before this news broke.
It is good the news broke. But as the above editorial averred, are a majority of senators indeed so spineless as Sotomayor has assessed that they will still lack the courage to protest her confirmation should these allegations prove to be true?
And if that is the extent of the "relationship," that is simply not the kind of thing that requires disclosure. Mr. Greenberg certainly seems to have his knickers in a twist over losing his case and is trying to get some mileage for his client, but that doesn't mean this suddenly becomes a legitimate issue.
This is important.
Does Drudge have this yet?
The pubs are too scared about the Hispanic vote to give a damn about how biased this woman is. They are also no doubt aware that ostammer will grow the Hispanic voter rolls through amnesty programs that get them to the voter registrar and then immediately into the voting booth. They don’t care about the long-term impact on the American people of having her on the court with her extreme and out-of-the-closet biases.
As always, the congressional pubs are whoring for a vote they’ll never carry anyway. Us? We’re yesterday’s stale bread.
I still want to know who Sotomayor’s housekeeper and gardener are and if they or anyone in their employment are illegals and whether she took out Social Security taxes when she paid them.
This little trick gets used on Republicans all the time. They should get a dose of their own medicine.
We’ll see soon how this plays out.
Agreed, they are worthless. It is a dog and pony show. It was a done deal even before Sessions announced he would not support his party filibustering her.
Of course not.
But I think Soto should be questioned about it and, depending on her answers, a closer look should be taken just to verify her statements with respect to the nature and depth of the relationship.
Lots of judges know lots of lawyers. They all came from the same slag heap. A small-county courthouse could not operate if a recusal was demanded from every judge who knows one of the lawyers in a case. In small counties, in most cases the judge knows both of the lawyers in a case and may have served on some panel or council with him or her or been freind or foe in cases before one of them became a judge. If that’s all there is to this, it’s much ado about nothing.
Oops! Make that “friend”.
Watch this “wise Latina” sweet bullets in the hot seat!
Ok. I have no personal knowledge of how it works, obviously. I am relying on Mr. Greenberg’s belief that she should have disclosed the relationship.
This is what the article said:
“Mr. Fairhurst said in an interview Wednesday that he has known Judge Sotomayor since the 1980s, when they both served on the legal committee of an imported automobile trade association. (She represented Fiat, he Jaguar.)”
Well! That will solidify her standing with the criminal enterprise democrats, fer shur!
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.