Andrew Cuomo's Probe: Political Interference is Found

What Cuomo's probe found

Then-attorney general's investigation shows pattern of "political interference"

By Brendan J. Lyons

Updated 7:34 am, Monday, July 22, 2013

 

LINK

 

Then-Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo subpoenaed thousands of records during an intensive investigation of the New York State Police. Cuomo issued a 2009 report that found top State Police brass engaged in "political interference" but the probe fell short of proving there was a "rogue unit."

 

U.S. Rep. Gregory W. Meeks claimed to be late for a dinner meeting with then-Gov. David Paterson.

The Queens congressman was behind the wheel of his Lexus, which was outfitted with tinted windows and an expired police placard in arm's reach. He flicked on police strobe lights as a trooper attempted to stop him along the Thruway just south of Albany. Meeks was driving at "triple digit" speeds and weaving through traffic. The trooper eventually backed off, believing the luxury sedan might be an undercover police vehicle.

"It's not pulling over," he told a dispatcher.

"It could be the president out on a little escapade in his Mercedes," the dispatcher said.

Minutes later, Meeks' grey Lexus was boxed in by three State Police cruisers as he exited the Thruway in Albany. One of the troopers, in an internal memo filed days after the March 2008 incident, said the congressman was "indignant." Another trooper said the congressman told them he was "driving a police vehicle" and "en route to 'pick up the governor.' "

Meeks could have been ticketed for speeding and unlawful use of emergency lights. Instead, aState Police sergeant let him go with a warning.

The encounter, which was never made public, is one of dozens of politically charged events revealed in documents gathered during a far-reaching investigation of the State Police by then-Attorney GeneralAndrew M. Cuomo.Cuomo's office declined to release the investigative files when he was attorney general — claiming the probe was active — but the records were recently made available to the Times Union in response to a Freedom of Information request filed last year with the office of Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Although heavily redacted, the documents show extraordinary efforts by Cuomo's office to penetrate the inner dealings of the State Police and New York Power Authority, which has a history of political ties to governors, including supplying planes for their travel and jobs for their friends. Cuomo's 16-month investigation ended in September 2009 with an 11-page report that concluded that top State Police officials engaged in "political interference," but found no evidence of a "rogue unit" operating within the 4,500-member agency.

Cuomo's investigation was prompted by an April 2008 executive order by Gov. David Paterson, who became entangled in his own controversies involving his State Police protectors. Paterson publicly disclosed that he had an open marriage because he said he feared State Police operatives might disclose the information. He said his directive to Cuomo was also based on concerns that a cabal of state troopers was engaging in political espionage — an allegation unsustained by Cuomo's investigation.

Still, the records indicate that some governors, including George E. Pataki, bypassed State Police protocols and hand-selected the leaders of their own security details, leading to a series of political scandals and abuses of authority. They also reveal transgressions that were not included in the report: troopers using connections to gain promotions; running personal errands for governors; teaching governors' children to drive; walking dogs; and ferrying governors' children to social events.

The investigators also learned of unusual interactions between governors and the state troopers who protected them under a code of silence for anything they witnessed.

Eliot Spitzer demanded that troopers guarding him leave his hotel room floor at night — "Now we know why," a trooper assigned to Spitzer's security detail wrote in an email, referring to the governor's use of prostitutes; Pataki's wife, "Libby," had her cellphone paid for by the State Police, a former State Police major testified; Pataki's son, Ted, got "a pass" when a trooper stopped him for driving 91 mph on the Northway in 2007; and Thomas Doherty, who was a senior aide of Pataki's, drove a state-owned car outfitted with police lights and a siren, another trooper testified.

The files, packed in 65 bankers' boxes, reveal more serious abuses uncovered in the testimony and subpoenaed emails of dozens of troopers, NYPA officials and governors' aides who were interviewed for Cuomo's investigation. Still, the files' greatest details remain secret because Schneiderman refused to release transcripts of the more than 130 interviews, which were sworn testimonials compelled under threat of subpoena.

The witnesses included former State Police superintendents and numerous troopers assigned to protect governors. Zenia Mucha, a former top Pataki aide, and Chauncey Parker, who headed the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, were among those interviewed. Former Congressman John Sweeney and his wife, Gaia, testified about their 2005 domestic-violence incident and a decision by State Police officials, including former Superintendent Wayne Bennett, to "sanitize" the police report and remove any reference to domestic violence, in case it was leaked.

Cuomo's office subpoenaed the email and telephone databases of governors, the State Police, and the New York Power Authority. Investigators also were given records of State Police internal affairs probes dating to the 1990s and subpoenaed the motor vehicle records for anyone with state-issued legislative license plates, including members of theSenate and Assembly.

Around the time Cuomo's investigation began, a state lawmaker complained publicly that he believed troopers followed him when he drove to and from Albany. The investigation found no evidence lawmakers were singled out by State Police, though, and it's unclear that members of the Legislature were informed their motor vehicle records had been subpoenaed.

Fourteen months before the probe began, Lt. Walter Teppo, who was assigned to the governor's protection unit, sent an email to another trooper, Lisa Galbraith, warning what to expect as she joined the governor's detail.

"You are about to enter an environment of such backstabbing, lying and distrust it will make IAB (Internal Affairs Bureau) seem like the Mickey Mouse Club," Teppo wrote. "You will be intentionally lied to and deceived. You will be undermined and patronized ... Nothing about this place has to do with security, it has to do with 'him' and their (expletive) cloak and dagger agendas."

Teppo was referring to Daniel Wiese, a former State Police colonel who, as Pataki's hometown friend, rose rapidly through the ranks and headed the governor's security detail from 1994 to 2003. Wiese remained a controlling force in the detail even after leaving the State Police in 2003 when he was appointed inspector general for the New York Power Authority. At NYPA, personal tax filings from 2007 show that Wiese's gross income, including a State Police pension, topped $271,000.

The investigators drilled deeply into Wiese's life, using subpoenas to obtain his personal emails, EZ-Pass toll records, cellphone-call history and computer files, even reviewing the wedding guest list for Wiese's daughter. (Pataki and his wife, as well as Eliot and Silda Wall Spitzer, were among the listed attendees.)

The investigative files indicate that Wiese, who was allowed to keep his badge after retiring, wielded power within the State Police and influenced superintendents in their decisions, including promotions. Wiese had a direct line to the State Police's top brass, and logs subpoenaed by Cuomo's office indicate that Wiese left "too many messages to document" at the superintendent's office between 2003 and 2007.

In one instance, the files show, a trooper who was a close friend of Wiese's was suspended but not fired when he came to work intoxicated and with alcohol in his troop car. That incident followed an off-duty encounter when the trooper, who worked on the governor's security detail with Wiese, was let go by police in New Windsor when he was stopped for allegedly driving drunk.

Cuomo's office also accused Wiese of destroying evidence as the probe began, but that allegation was left unsustained. They said Wiese had wiped his BlackBerry on the day their investigation was revealed, but a computer analyst for NYPA told Cuomo's office he erased the data because the device was malfunctioning and needed to be reset.

Wiese did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

In the early weeks of the investigation, the attorney general's investigators interviewed a State Police major, Robin Benziger, who worked for Wiese on the governor's detail in 1994. Benziger told the investigators she was unaware of any political espionage by Wiese, whom she described as "insecure and paranoid." She said he lacked the experience to run the detail and had been given the job due to his connections to Pataki.

Wiese "brought in a number of his own people for the detail and used those guys to do his dirty work," according to a summary of Benziger's interview. "Benziger said she never ordered anyone to 'hawk down' a politician or knew of anyone that did. Benziger said that in the event that a trooper stopped a politician, they either called it in to a supervisor or made notes of the incident."

A 2008 traffic stop of an aide to state Sen. Joseph Griffo of Rome was among a series of traffic incidents examined by Cuomo's investigators. The aide, Brian Adey, who is still is?Griffo's director of operations, was ticketed for driving 73 mph in a construction zone along the Thruway while workers were present. Court records indicate that Adey pleaded guilty to a "parking violation" and paid a $150 fine. Adey could not be reached for comment.

In May 2008, a month into the investigation, Cuomo received an email from Fredric U. Dicker, a state editor for the New York Post who had written articles critical of Wiese. In the email, Dicker detailed why he believed Wiese, whom he referred to as "Danny," had been illegally hired by the New York Power Authority. The email was sent to Cuomo's private BlackBerry email address. Dicker also criticized Wiese's pension waiver, known as a 211, that allowed him to collect a salary and State Police pension.

Cuomo forwarded the email to Ellen Biben, one of his top assistant attorney generals leading the investigation. "Also, forward all of the past ones like this to Sharon. Do ustill have them," Cuomo wrote. He was referring to Sharon L. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who led the attorney general's investigation.

Steven M. Cohen, who was Cuomo's chief of staff as attorney general, on Friday characterized Dicker's email as part of a broad effort to obtain intelligence from "individuals familiar with Albany, credible information pertaining to any improper political influence infecting the State Police. This email in question, and every email we received containing tips or information related to the probe, was sent to our team for review."

Another email sent to McCarthy raised questions about whether Wiese may have been a "protector" of a politically connected owner of a Putnam County towing company owner. The email was sent by Cohen, who last week said he could not recall sending it or where the information originated.

"After Pataki got elected (the towing company) did not have the NYS Thruway service contract, he lost it to another firm, (the towing company) suddenly got the Thruway back," the email stated. "(The towing company owner) was able to fix anything through Weiss (sic) and Pataki, he also had another ex-employee in Pataki's private service to connect with."

Cohen expressed surprise that unsubstantiated information would be released to the public, but confirmed that he referred the email to McCarthy and her team. Cohen said the investigators concluded the information was without basis.

Yet It wasn't the only account in the Attorney General's files about troopers allegedly playing favorites with towing companies.

The files also contained a letter from Sean Brooks, who owns a Sullivan County towing company, outlining how troopers in Liberty removed his company from a towing call-list used by State Police. Brooks accused specific troopers of using a favored company, and not his, because of personal connections and favors the company may have done for the troopers.

In an interview last week, Brooks said nothing was ever done. He said State Police had briefly reinstated his company, but quickly removed him again after he met with internal affairs investigators in Poughkeepsie.

"Before I got back (home) I was off the list again," Brooks said. "They took me off for nine years. I probably spent $300,000 in attorneys fees. ... The court ruled it's their list and they can do whatever they want."

Brooks said the Attorney General's office represented the State Police in his lawsuit and that no one from Cuomo's office contacted him during the 2009 investigation.

Coming Monday: The Cuomo investigation examined NYPA planes, Spitzer's prostitution scandal, the suicide of a trooper and "political interference" for then-U.S. Rep. John Sweeney.

blyons@timesunion.com • 518-454-5547 • @blyonswriter

 

"The Prisoner's Dilemma" is Tested and Comes Up Short

They Finally Tested The 'Prisoner's Dilemma' On Actual Prisoners — And The Results Were Not What You Would Expect

 LINK

The “prisoner’s dilemma” is a familiar concept to just about anybody that took Econ 101.

The basic version goes like this. Two criminals are arrested, but police can’t convict either on the primary charge, so they plan to sentence them to a year in jail on a lesser charge. Each of the prisoners, who can’t communicate with each other, are given the option of testifying against their partner. If they testify, and their partner remains silent, the partner gets 3 years and they go free. If they both testify, both get two. If both remain silent, they each get one. 

In game theory, betraying your partner, or “defecting” is always the dominant strategy as it always has a slightly higher payoff in a simultaneous game. It’s what’s known as a “Nash Equilibrium,” after Nobel Prize winning mathematician and A Beautiful Mind subject John Nash.

In sequential games, where players know each other’s previous behaviour and have the opportunity to punish each other, defection is the dominant strategy as well.  

However, on a Pareto basis, the best outcome for both players is mutual cooperation.

Yet no one’s ever actually run the experiment on real prisoners before, until two University of Hamburg economists tried it out in a recent study comparing the behaviour of inmates and students. 

Surprisingly, for the classic version of the game, prisoners were far more cooperative  than expected.

Menusch Khadjavi and Andreas Lange put the famous game to the test for the first time ever, putting a group of prisoners in Lower Saxony’s primary women’s prison, as well as students through both simultaneous and sequential versions of the game. 

The payoffs obviously weren’t years off sentences, but euros for students, and the equivalent value in coffee or cigarettes for prisoners. 

They expected, building off of game theory and behavioural economic research that show humans are more cooperative than the purely rational model that economists traditionally use, that there would be a fair amount of first-mover cooperation, even in the simultaneous simulation where there’s no way to react to the other player’s decisions. 

And even in the sequential game, where you get a higher payoff for betraying a cooperative first mover, a fair amount will still reciprocate. 

As for the difference between student and prisoner behaviour, you’d expect that a prison population might be more jaded and distrustful, and therefore more likely to defect. 

The results went exactly the other way for the simultaneous game, only 37% of students cooperate. Inmates cooperated 56% of the time.

On a pair basis, only 13% of student pairs managed to get the best mutual outcome and cooperate, whereas 30% of prisoners do. 

In the sequential game, way more students (63%) cooperate, so the mutual cooperation rate skyrockets to 39%. For prisoners, it remains about the same.

What’s interesting is that the simultaneous game requires far more blind trust out from both parties, and you don’t have a chance to retaliate or make up for being betrayed later. Yet prisoners are still significantly more cooperative in that scenario. 

Obviously the payoffs aren’t as serious as a year or three of your life, but the paper still demonstrates that prisoners aren’t necessarily as calculating, self-interested, and un-trusting as you might expect, and as behavioural economists have argued for years, as mathematically interesting as Nash equilibrium might be, they don’t line up with real behaviour all that well.

Trust: An Effective Vehicle for Succession and Estate Planning

The growth in personal wealth fueled by the overall growth in business in economy, especially mushrooming of affluent businesses governed by families, has created the need for structures that provide effective and hassle-free wealth management, asset protection and tax efficiency. In this respect, trusts are increasingly being recognized as a vehicle for effective succession and estate planning.

The law relating to private trusts is governed by the Indian Trusts Act ("Trust law"). A trust is basically a vehicle under which property is transferred from the original owner and held by the person to whom it is transferred for the benefit of another. The "author of the trust", the "trustee", the "beneficiary", the "trust-property", the "beneficial interest" and the "instrument of trust" are the integral elements of a trust. A trust can be created for any lawful purpose.

A trust, in relation to an immovable property, must be in writing and registered. A trust is created when the author of the trust indicates an intention to create a trust along with its purpose, beneficiary and the trust-property, and transfers the property to the trustee. A trust is different from a gift.

A trust structure comes with certain inherent advantages. A trust provides the flexibility to be set up in more than one form or in hybrid forms as per the requirement. A trust can be either private or public. As opposed to a public trust, a private trust is a trust generally for the convenience and support of individuals of families. Trust can be structured as revocable or irrevocable.

A revocable trust can enable the settler to exercise control over the property but can be prone to clubbing provisions under the tax laws. An irrevocable trust can provide safeguard against future creditor claims on the assets in case of bankruptcy, since the settler ceases to have the title to the trust property, yet at the same time enable indirect control over the property through terms of the trust deed.

This is one the prime benefits of a trust structure which allows ring fencing of wealth, the downside, however, being the settler losing ownership.

Further, while settling equity stake of a loss making company in a trust to ensure asset protection, one may need to be careful of tax provisions due to which losses could lapse in case of a substantial change in stake. A trust can be further set up either as discretionary, where trustees can have the discretion as regards distribution of benefits to one or more beneficiaries and extent thereof which may be especially useful if the settlor is the trustee, or as determinate, where entitlement of beneficiaries is fixed by the settlor through the trust deed.

Trusts can be set up inter vivos or by will. Both have their own characteristic advantages and purposes to serve. Multiple trusts can be set up to suit multiple purposes or even hybrid trusts combining various forms, thus, obviating the need to have multiple trusts.

Except for necessary governing provisions, the trust law provides enough flexibility in creating and managing a trust. Any person competent to contract can create a trust and any person capable of holding property can be a beneficiary including a minor. Any person capable of holding property can be a trustee. A trust can be an efficient tool for succession planning without the need for probate process through Court, thereby protecting privacy by preventing public disclosure.

 Source: www.economictimes.com

Margarita Lopez and Emily Youssouf, Whose Jobs at NYCHA Were Eliminated, Keep Getting Their $187,000 Salaries

NYCHA board members keep drawing six-figure pay — for their eliminated jobs

This week, NYCHA board members Margarita Lopez and Emily Youssouf — who each made $187,000 last year — were still on the New York City payroll, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office confirmed.

BY GREG B. SMITH / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013, 2:30 AM

UPDATED: THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013, 2:30 AM

LINK

Margarita Lopez

Two weeks ago, a state law went into effect terminating the jobs of the two full-time New York City Housing Authority board members who make six figures and are assigned their own drivers.

Somehow, they didn’t go away.

This week, NYCHA board members Margarita Lopez and Emily Youssouf — who each made $187,000 last year — were still on the city payroll, the mayor’s office confirmed.

It remains to be seen what this means for the board, now supposed to be made up of a salaried chairman and six volunteers — or whether the board even legally exists in its present form.

Assembly Housing Committee Chairman Keith Wright (D-Harlem) who sponsored the bill that restructured the board, was puzzled at Lopez and Youssouf’s continuing presence.

“If the legislation says it’s supposed to go into effect immediately, it should go into effect immediately,” he said. “I can only presume that maybe Mr. [Mayor Michael] Bloomberg is paying these board members out of some other pot of money.”

The mayor is to appoint the new seven-member board, but as of this week, Bloomberg had not done so, and the old board continues to run the authority.

It includes Lopez; Youssouf; Chairman John Rhea, who made $220,000 last year; and one volunteer tenant representative, Victor Gonzalez.

Judith Goldiner of the Legal Aid Society questioned whether the current board even has a quorum to vote on anything. A seven-member board would require at least four votes, and at NYCHA’s regular meeting yesterday, only three board members voted.

She noted that the board is required by law to oversee an annual meeting next week: “The board is required to oversee that and there is no board. How is that going that to work? How can they do anything? I don’t see how legally they do any of it.”

 

Emily Youssouf

Bloomberg says the full-timers can stay because state law allows board members whose terms have expired to stay on. But the two full-timers’ terms did not expire — their positions were abolished July 3 when the law went into effect.

On Wednesday neither the mayor nor NYCHA would reveal the current job titles or whether they’re still assigned full-time drivers.

Julie Wood, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg, said, “The current board members are continuing to serve until we appoint new members, which will happen soon. Our proposal to reform the NYCHA board is about instituting best practices and proper governance over the long-term.”

On Wednesday after voting on several items at the regular meeting, Lopez and Youssouf both declined to comment.

Lopez ran out of the meeting when a reporter asked her why she was continuing to collect a city salary when her job had been eliminated July 3.

On mobile? Click here for video

Spitzer’s reckless leadership

His tenure as attorney general was a demonstration of how not to wield power

Comments (3)

By John Faso / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Thursday, July 18, 2013, 4:10 AM

LINK

Eliot Spitzer, as everyone knows by now, is back. He has qualified for the upcoming Democratic Party primary for New York City controller — and, at this early stage, is polling solidly ahead of Scott Stringer in the race.

Much commentary to date has focused on the circumstances of the former governor’s resignation from office five years ago. Others can opine on those issues.

But a recurring theme of some Spitzer sympathizers is that, before the sudden fall, he had been a highly successful attorney general. Others even contend that his tenure as governor was off to a successful start.

Actually, Spitzer was a disaster both as governor and as attorney general. His approach in both offices was to use strong-arm tactics to get his way.

Were he to be elected city controller, we’d likely see a return of the same old Eliot, and the impact won’t be good for either the city or the state. We can be sure that, if given a new platform, Spitzer will use it to bully and intimidate those in his path — on the way almost certainly to seeking higher office sometime in the future.

Start with his two terms as AG. While New York’s anti-business left enjoyed the spectacle of his self-appointed role as the “Sheriff of Wall Street,” impartial analysis of his tenure suggests that his actions were harmful to the state and its economy.

Armed with the powers of the Martin Act, a 1920s-era state statute empowering the AG to investigate conduct in the financial services industry, Spitzer abused his office. He routinely intimidated companies with the threat of prosecution if they did not comply with his demands and frequently utilized selective media leaks to stalk his quarry.

Since the Martin Act does not require evidence of criminal intent, its powers, in the hands of a prosecutor driven by ambition instead of facts, are ripe for abuse.

Spitzer, who governed through vendettas, was a chronic abuser of this authority.
Public companies are faced with few alternatives when they’re under the gun of a reckless AG pursuing them under the Martin Act: Usually they agree to a vaguely worded settlement, where they pay a fine but admit to no wrongdoing.

Again and again, Spitzer got the headlines and was onto his next target.
Witness his vicious attack against then-AIG chief Maurice (Hank) Greenberg. Spitzer said, on national TV, he would bring criminal charges — before he offered any evidence in court as to wrongdoing in an alleged accounting fraud.

He also then privately threatened John Whitehead, an esteemed figure in financial and governmental circles, because Whitehead chastised Spitzer’s conduct in a Wall Street Journal opinion article.

Spitzer never criminally charged Greenberg, but the AIG board, under threat of Martin Act prosecution, fired the longtime CEO. The ultimate irony was that without Greenberg’s leadership, AIG subsequently engaged in insurance deals relating to securitized mortgage debt obligations, which brought down the company and almost the entire economy in 2008.
Spitzer reveled in his media-driven tenure as AG — but the fact is that he rarely won any major case when the defendants had the ability and finances to fight back, like businessmen Ken Langone and Dick Grasso.

During his short tenure as governor, he continued with the same style of impetuous “leadership.” Spitzer overspent and overpromised, increasing spending almost 8% in 2007 alone despite clear signs of a slowing economy. This led to calamitous budget cuts and tax increases between 2008 and 2011, from which the state has not yet recovered.

He foolishly gave the plaintiffs in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity school funding case what they were after in new state aid promises despite the fact that the state actually won the case and didn’t have to provide anything. These promises, too, were yanked away when the economy tanked.

Spitzer also proved to be singularly incapable of advancing his agenda in the Legislature without engaging in unnecessary and counterproductive personal battles that hurt the citizens of the state.

The aspiring city controller, an otherwise intelligent man, seems consumed by a need to be in the spotlight. But he does not possess the temperament to be trusted with public office. He does not deserve another chance.

Faso was the Republican candidate for governor, losing to Eliot Spitzer, in 2006 and a former minority leader of the New York State Assembly. He is now a lawyer at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Attorney Susan Robbins

Re-posted from Ethicsgate:

Ethics Inquiry Widens Against Attorney Who Set-Up Brooke Astor Son

The Monday, July 22, 2013 New York Law Journal story by Brendan Pierson, "State Recommends Medical  Parole for 89-Year-Old Marshall," explains the pending application before the medical parole board seeking the release of the wrongly-convicted former U.S. Ambassador, Anthony D. Marshall.

However, the Law Journal fails to address the recent revelations that support the claim that the convictions of Anthony Marshall and Francis X. Morrissey, Jr., were a complete set-up, a sloppy money-grab orchestrated by one of New York's own "officers of the court."

Anthony Marshall

The New York Law Journal has yet to report about the fact that Manhattan's ethics committee, The Department Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC"), on July 5, 2013, formally asked New York admitted attorney Susan I. Robbins, of the Detroit-based Miller Canfield law firm, to explain herself.

Susan Robbins

And the proof of the Robbins' ethics inquiry, and as being officially advanced by the DDC, sits as a public document, filed in federal court in SDNY case #13-4423 in The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York.

$ Twenty Million Reason $

The ethics complaint against attorney Susan Robbins alleges that she, in concert with others in and outside of the Miller Canfield firm, have, since at least 2007, advanced a complex scheme to defraud  law enforcement, courts of law and individuals involved in matters concerning Brooke Astor and her $150,000,000.00-plus estate.  

The filing references other attorneys from Miller Canfield: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. (now employed at Schiff Hardin LLP in Ann Arbor, Michigan) and Marcy L. Rosen, Esq. (currently employed at Miller  Canfield in Detroit, Michigan), and that Miller Canfield principal attorney and Chief Executive Officer Michael P. McGee, who is based in Detroit, Michigan), and who has been apparently aware of the ethics allegations.  

The complaint says that, "Ms. Robbins' scheme required the removal of Anthony Marshall so that her client, Philip Marshall, could advance his court filing to be the lone administrator of the Astor monies.  Indeed, had Philip Marshall succeeded in becoming the administrator of the estate, Susan Robbins and her law firm, Miller Canfield, stood to gain $18-20 million dollars in legal fees."

Making Tammany Hall Proud: Triple Dipping

If he were alive today, Boss Tweed would be beaming, "Crank out the legal fees, then use someone else's money to prime your future client (to the tune of $800,000.00).  All so you can get $20 million as the Astor estate's attorney.  It might be criminal NOT to set someone up for this......" 

The complaint presents evidence from Ms. Robbins' former client, Philip Marshall, that Robbins "had been emailing the Manhattan district attorney’s office about the Astor proceedings on many occasions and over an extended period of time...... those emails were never provided, in violation of well-settled Brady provisions, to any member of the  criminal defense team, the court, nor apparently the involved prosecutors...."  

The status of the relationship between Philip Marshall and his former attorney Susan Robbins is unclear, but what is known is that Philip Marshall's children's receipt of $800,000.00, and his (Philip's) filing against his father ultimately cost him (Philip) and his brother Alec $10-15million dollars each.  (Apparently, Ms. Robbins was unaware of prior agreements that provided for a heavy payday for Philip and Alec-  $10-15million dollars each.)      

Apparently, Philip Marshall's confession as to Ms. Robbins behind-the-scenes activity was not made known until April 15, 2013- well after Marshall and Morrissey were set-up and convicted.  Had Robbins' Brady material it been revealed during the trial, a mistrial would have resulted.

Another issue worthy of a Tammany Hall bronze star is the fact that an alleged forged document, and  that was advanced to prosecutors by Ms. Robbins, was always under her control.

Conflict, What Conflict?

The complaint against Robbins says that it, "is undisputed that while Brooke Astor was alive, Susan Robbins distributed  $800,000.00 to Philip C. Marshall’s two children..... [and] shortly after Brooke Astor’s death, attorney Susan Robbins filed papers, on behalf of Philip Marshall personally, seeking his (Philip’s) appointment as administrator of Brooke Astor’s estate, and where Susan Robbins and Miller  Canfield would receive tens of millions of dollars as the estate’s legal representative."

The conflict, according to the complaint, arises when, "At no time did Susan Robbins reveal her true motives or conflict as Philip Marshall’s attorney after having been Brooke Astor’s attorney....[or] reveal to the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, or to the defense, that she and her Miller Canfield law firm were seeking tens of millions of dollars that could only result from criminal convictions." 

A former government employee who has reviewed the Astor filings in federal court has a lot to say on the subject, "Everyone knows Anthony Marshall and Francis Morrissey were framed- completely set-up.  Look at their history. Marshall was a valuable member of the U.S. Marines, receiving a Purple Hearth. He was a U.S. Ambassador and a highly respected member of the State Department.  And most people will unfortunately never know how much they owe Francis Morrissey - all beyond his life a good works.  Francis Morrissey has been recognized for his work in keeping us all safe after 9/11 - just ask someone you know who works for the NSA."

A high-level former member of the NYPD agrees that Marshall and Morrissey are innocent, adding, "If two white guys with money can get pounded with such injustice, we're all screwed." 

TIMELINE:

July 20, 2006  -  Philip C. Marshall files an ex parte Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) to strip his Anthony D. Marshall of any involvement over the affairs of Brooke Astor.

July 21, 2006  -  Judge John E. Stackhouse appoints attorney Robbins as court evaluator in the Brooke Astor guardianship matter.

July 24, 2006  -  Judge Stackhouse appoints Samuel Leibowitz as court evaluator, and attorney Susan Robbins is appointed Brooke Astor’s attorney/guardian.  Shortly thereafter, Attorney Robbins  dispenses $1,200,000.00 to Mrs. Astor’s three great-grand children. $800,000.00 is distributed to Philip Marshall’s two children ($400,000.00 each).

Dec. 4, 2006  -  Judge Stackhouse grants legal fees/expenses to Susan Robbins and her Miller Canfield law firm in the amount of $123,841.34.

August 13, 2007  -  Brooke R. Astor dies. 

August 13, 2007  -  Dela Renta files petition seeking to be appointed co-administrator.

August 22, 2007  -  Anthony D. Marshall files petition seeking appointment of “disinterested, impartial, independent administrator.”

August 22, 2007  -  Philip C. Marshall files papers supporting appointment of Dela Renta, and offers himself to also be appointed.

August 26, 2007  -  Anthony D. Marshall files petition seeking appointment of Fiduciary Trust and Howard Levine as co-administrators.

Sept. 28, 2007  -  Philip Marshall files petition to be appointed sole estate administrator.

Nov. 15, 2007  -  Court appoints Temporary Letters of Administration to JPMorgan Chase and Mr. Levine.

Nov. 27, 2007  -  Criminal Indictments unsealed.

Dec. 13, 2007  -  Filed Surrogate’s Court papers indicated Susan I. Robbins, Esq. as “Attorney for Philip C. Marshall” (Exhibit “B” Notice of Appearance of James Ayers).

January 4, 2008  -  Slip decision reveals Miller Canfield firm as  “attorneys for Philip Marshall” (Exhibit “C” 2008 18 Misc 3d 1124A).

Sept. 5, 2008  -  Another Slip decision reveals Miller Canfield firm as “attorneys for Philip Marshall” (Exhibit “D”- 21 Misc 3d 400).

May 20, 2009  -  Philip C. Marshall testifies at the criminal trial that his application to be administrator of Brook Astor’s estate is “still pending.”

More soon...........................