The Sullivan & Cromwell Insane Asylum

"Now I know everyone has a favorite nick name for Albanian the Anus: ladka, Balki, wild & crazy guy, but as a member of the ESL (English as a Second Language) set he is part of the inner-sanctum at Sullivan & Cromwell. So much so that a 10k phone bill Ennus racked up in the United Kingdom to call the US to bore and confuse his coworkers or exchange animal husbandry tips with his close relatives was hidden by Pary Garchment. But what Gary could not cover up was his rank incompetence in which he lost....irretrievably terrabytes of BP documentation. Apparently they sent MF like Martin sheen in appocalypse now to relieve him of his command.

Point of order stop calling the ladies of S&C "Big Mama" it is quasi racist and not specific enough since S&C likes its underlings fat, female & affirmitive action. Next week I will tell you about either: Cokie Lopez the addicted associate, the porny paralegal & the stairwell vidoetape that Fave Digaro tried really hard not to see."

Gang-style art theft: Caravaggio recovered from criminal group

Ukrainian and German police recovered a Caravaggio that had been stolen from a museum in Odessa in 2008. “The Taking of Christ” was found in the hands of a criminal group that deals with high value theft. Such reports reinforce our knowledge that organized criminal activity is involved with art crime. Authorities must aggressively uncover the relationships between criminal networks and art crime in order to combat this large, global problem that funds other crimes. Today's recovery by police is welcome news.

Take Advantage Of The Unemployed Week

As Congress plays games and twists itself into political gridlock, millions of Americans are losing their unemployment benefits. Coincidentally, just as benefits stalled last week, rates for several upcoming reviews plummeted. I am sure this is all just a normal function of the market and not just a carpetbagging opportunity for certain sleazy agency middlemen to stuff extra money in their pockets.

"Contracts Attorneys Needed ASAP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-06-28, 6:17PM EDT
Reply to: job-ytcgp-1816081049@craigslist.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fortune 500 Company is seeking several contract attorneys for a review starting this Wednesday!

We are seeking licensed attorneys who can commit to at least 10 hours a day and who are available to work through this upcoming holiday weekend and all of next week.

If you are interested, please send your resume in WORD.

Compensation: $26/hr (flat rate)"

Stephen Krane, Partner at Proskauer Rose, Dies

Stephen C. Krane, Proskauer Rose General Counsel, Dies
By the Staff of the New York Law Journal

Steven C. Krane, the general counsel of Proskauer Rose and a former state bar president who was instrumental in a wide-ranging reformulation of the state's attorney ethics rules, died of a heart attack Tuesday. He was 53.

Mr. Krane collapsed at the conclusion of a business lunch at a restaurant near Proskauer's office at 47th Street and Broadway. He was pronounced dead at Roosevelt Hospital at 2:19 p.m.

As president of the New York State Bar Association, Mr. Krane spearheaded a new compilation of New York's Rules of Professional Responsibility in 2009. He also led the American Bar Association's legal battle to exempt lawyers from the Federal Trade Commission's "red flag" rule to prevent identity theft.

Mr. Krane was co-chair of Proskauer's law firm practice group, specializing in legal ethics. He was an expert in cross-border legal practice issues. In that area, he worked with both the state bar and ABA in their efforts to persuade foreign governments to liberalize restrictions on lawyers.

Mr. Krane was the youngest person to serve as president of the state bar when he was elected in 2001. As president, he coordinated the efforts of the organized bar to provide legal advice to the families of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Also during his two years as bar president, Mr. Krane established, and then later served as chairman of, a program that provides grants to young lawyers who take public interest jobs to help them pay off student loans.

Last year, Governor David A. Paterson appointed Mr. Krane to the 13-member New York State Commission on Public Integrity. Two years earlier, in 2007, former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye

(pictured at left) appointed him co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law.

Mr. Krane did his undergraduate work at State University of New York at Stony Brook, where he graduated Phi Beta Kapa in 1978. He received his juris doctorate from New York University School of Law in 1981.

Later that year he joined Proskauer as an associate. He was made a partner in 1989.

Ms. Kaye said yesterday in an interview that Mr. Krane, one of her first clerks, was "like a son" to her. She added that Mr. Krane worked closely with her late husband, Stephen R. Kaye, a former Proskauer Rose partner. After Mr. Kaye died, Mr. Krane moved into his office and sat "at the table where Stephen practiced law," she said.

Allen I. Fagin, Proskauer's chairman, said in an interview that Mr. Krane was "a beloved individual, a remarkable human being and lawyer."

Mr. Krane is survived by his wife, Faith, and two children, Elizabeth and Cameron.

The family has not yet announced arrangements.

The Subprime Student Lending Bomb

The short-seller, Steve Eisman of FrontPoint Partners, is perhaps best known as being immortalized in Michael Lewis’ book, “The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine,” as having warned about the sub-prime mortgage mess when nobody cared. He is scheduled to testify today in front ot the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Eisman has recently noted:

“Until recently, I thought that there would never again be an opportunity to be involved with an industry as socially destructive as the subprime mortgage industry. I was wrong. The for-profit education industry has proven equal to the task.”

With Title IV student loans, “the government, the students and the taxpayers bear all the risk and the for-profit industry reaps all of the rewards.”

“We have every expectation the industry’s default rates are about to explode.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37896158

Amicus Curiae Filed In Anderson v First Department Disciplinary Committee

Iviewit Patentgate Fraud Jumps Into Anderson Appeal
09-5059-CV
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY, Defendants-Appellees


MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038

P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. respectfully moves this Court for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the instant appeal of Christine C. Anderson v. Thomas J. Cahill, et al. (CA2 Docket No. 09-509-cv, filed November 25, 2009). Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption. Additionally, Amicus Curiae have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the relief requested in instant appeal herein, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications.

Date: June 22, 2010

Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
(914) 217-0038

*******************************************
09-5059-CV

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY,
Defendants-Appellees

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038
Table of Contents

IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE
INTEREST IN THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
A. DISTRICT COURT’S RELIANCE ON ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE
B. IMMUNITY ANALYSIS WITHIN THE ORDER
1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief
2. Explicit §5 Override
3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity
CONCLUSION

Table of Authorities

Cases

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) 9
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983) 7
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) 8 -- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908) 8
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) 7
Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) 9
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972) 9 -- U.S.C. 28 §1331 6

Constitutional Provisions

§5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 7, 8 -- Eleventh Amendment 7, 8

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1291 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1254(1) 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1331 6 -- U.S.C. 42 § 1983 9


IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The Amicus Curiae parties in this instant action are Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellants, and Petitioners in the following cases:

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (07-cv-11196, S.D.N.Y filed December 12, 2007), Opinion and Order filed August 8, 2008 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (08-cv-4873, CA2 NY, filed October 3, 2008), Opinion and Order filed January 5, 2010 dismissing appeal, Opinion and Order filed January 22, 2010 denying Motion for Reconsideration.

Lamont, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (Docket No. _____________, U.S., filed April 22, 2010).

INTEREST IN THE CASE

Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption.
Additionally, Amicus Curiae, have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit, whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the Inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the instant appeal, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications. Amicus Curiae’s interests may not be adequately represented by Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson. Thus, Amicus Curiae’s interests, as a practical matter, may be impaired or impeded by its inability to protect these interests without supporting the appeal, particularly given the fact that an adverse ruling by the Court could result in the continuation of the patent sabotage conspiracy, countless unpaid royalties to Amicus Curiae, and the resultant unwillingness of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue patents to Amicus Curiae based on the inventions. It remains at best uncertain whether the current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson’s request for relief will encompass all possible issues related to the whitewashing and corruption in hearing attorney disciplinary complaints. It is much more likely that current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson in this case will only develop the limited issues pertaining to her individual situation and therefore only seek the relief that would provide her individual remedy. Amicus Curiae will bring to the case a variety of fact patterns involving both conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints and the occurrences of civil racketeering among the same group of Defendants, in part; thus, Amicus Curiae’s support sharpens the argument on both sides and provides the Court with a more useful framework of advocacy from which to issue its decision.

STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
The District Court had jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1331, and issued its Opinion and Order on August 8, 2008. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on August 18, 2008, and the District Court denied the Motion on August 19, 2008. A Notice of Appeal was filed on September 4, 2008, and the Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 § 1291. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on January 5, 2010. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on January 12, 2010, and the Court of Appeals issued its final judgment on January 22, 2010. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on April 22, 2010, and the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1254(1).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Is a fundamental underpinning of Rooker-Feldman doctrine that the proper forum to appeal State court decisions is in State court (Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005))?

2. Does §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grant Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment, and if so, does this Amendment abrogate the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment?

3. Is the purpose behind the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to secure the protection of Plaintiff-Appellant’s constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law?

ARGUMENT

Amicus Curiae maintain the following:

A. District Court’s Reliance on Rooker-Feldman Doctrine - In Amicus Curiae’s proceedings, the District Court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a means to support its Order in granting Amicus Curiae’s Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), makes clear that claim preclusion is a separate doctrine entirely. Exxon stipulates the requisite elements that must be met for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply (See also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983)). None of the factors of Exxon are present in the instant appeal; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine simply does not apply.
B. Immunity Analysis within the Order Regarding Immunity, Amicus Curiae’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, Opposition Memorandums, Appellant Brief, and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari pray for injunctive relief; this was clearly stated.

1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief - The District Court’s bald assertion that in Amicus Curiae’s proceedings the Complaint lacked any foundation upon which the District Court can grant legal relief is clearly erroneous. The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suit against State officers for the kind of injunctive and declaratory relief at issue here. If a State official acts in contravention of the Constitution, pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, or in a manner that violates an individual's constitutionally protected rights, suit to enjoin the offending behavior is proper and does not run afoul of a State's sovereign immunity. (See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908), Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). Additionally, Ex Parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan provide that the District Court could have provided retroactive monetary relief against an officer sued in his individual capacity, as bringing an action against an officer in his individual capacity does not implicate State sovereignty.

2. Explicit §5 Override - §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment; courts have recognized that this new Amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment. In Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), this Court said that Congress can use its Fourteenth Amendment power to override a State's Eleventh Amendment protection.

3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity. - Furthermore, in their proceedings, the District Court cannot allow Amicus Curiae’s Respondents to use the guise of State authority as a license for violating Amicus-Curiae’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the entire purpose behind the enactment of U.S.C. 42 § 1983 was to secure the protection of individuals' constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law; Section 1983 creates a private cause of action for damages (as well as injunctive relief) against those "persons" responsible for the deprivation (See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972)).
In Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997), the court determined that declaratory and prospective injunctive relief are available, and that the Plaintiff-Appellants' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curaie respectfully supports that this Court reverse the judgment entered herein, with a finding of fact in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant; or if the Court does not feel that it would be justified by the facts in so doing that it should remand the case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced jury, on proper evidence, and under correct instructions as the law may deem just and proper.

Date: June 22, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: (914) 217-0038

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P. RULE 32(a)(7)

The undersigned, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se, furnishes the following in compliance with F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7): I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7) for a brief produced with a proportionally spaced font. The length of this brief is 1365 words.

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: 914) 217-0038

The Lord And A Million Serfs

"At the same time, law firms are instead expressing a “growing enthusiasm” for a staffing alternative—contract lawyers, according to an Altman Weil press release. Last year, 39 percent of the law firms used contract lawyers. This year, 53 percent will or might do so, while 52 percent expect that contract lawyers will become a permanent part of their staffing plans."

And the TTT schools love them, too! After bilking 40,000 kids out of $150,000, why not dump them onto your grubby biglaw partner friends who can exploit them in cockroach infested basements and not have to worry about contributing towards those pesky health/dental plan and 401K things? They will be so desperate to ward off Sallie Mae that they won't mind slaving away for 80 hours a week in unventilated, superheated basements. Meanwhile, you can share in the loot with your skeletor Joan Wexler look-a-likes and enjoy obscene, record profits and jacked up tuitions in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_firms_express_growing_enthusiasm_for_contract_lawyers/

Gifted and Talented Programs in NYC 2010 - Increase in High-Scoring Students

The number of students qualifying for gifted kindergarten programs in New York City public school districts rose by 10 percent this year, and those qualifying for the elite citywide program jumped by a third, raising the possibility that parents and their children have begun to master an admission process that was retooled three years ago.

According to figures released Friday by the Department of Education, the spike in students eligible for gifted programs occurred despite a 16 percent drop in the number who took the exams. The city described the decrease as a “leveling off” after an increase in test-takers last year, which they attributed to a publicity campaign.

Of the 12,454 in New York City who took the test this winter, 3,542 (or 26 percent) scored at or above the national 90th percentile, up from 3,231 the year before, qualifying them for one of the 70 gifted kindergarten programs spread through the city’s school districts. But the most striking increase occurred in the number of children scoring at or above the national 97th percentile: 1,788, up from 1,345 last year. Those students qualify for one of the five citywide gifted programs, which have only about 300 seats in all, meaning the competition for them this year will be even fiercer.

Already, the bar for admission to at least one of the citywide programs, the Anderson School on the Upper West Side, has been raised to the 99th percentile for most of its 50 seats. Almost 300 parents whose children scored that high attended recent daytime tours.

Anna Lewiston of the Upper East Side was determined to send her daughter, Lena, to Anderson but was told that the girl’s 97th-percentile score would not make the cut. Lena will go to a private school. “It’s really too much pressure for preschoolers,” Ms. Lewiston said of the test.

Another citywide program, the Brooklyn School of Inquiry in Gravesend, allowed 540 parents on tours before turning others away. The principal, Donna Taylor, said she noticed growing anxiety among them when they saw the odds of getting one of her 56 slots.

“It’s heartbreaking,” she said. Children who are not selected for citywide programs are eligible for district-based gifted programs; students may also enroll in regular kindergarten classes at their neighborhood schools.

The cause of the higher passing rates was not clear, but increased preparation might have been a factor. Hundreds of parents hired tutors or bought commercial test preparation materials before taking this year’s test, a mixture of the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, a reasoning exam, and the Bracken School Readiness Assessment.

At the Perry School, a preschool in the West Village, children spent an hour a day in a “think tank program” designed to expose them to the reasoning and materials they would see during the test. They also had professional tutoring. Of the five students who took the gifted exam, “we got two 99s, a 98, and two 97s,” said Dawn Ifrah, the founder.

Bright Kids NYC, the tutoring company that worked with those children, reported that 80 percent of the 120 children for whom it had results had scored over the 90th percentile, and 60 children had scored in the 99th.

Department of Education officials acknowledged that preparation may have played a role but said they were confident that most children who passed belonged in accelerated classes. They added that the city was trying to increase the number of full-day preschools in poor, black and Hispanic neighborhoods, which are underrepresented in the gifted programs.

Anna Commitante, who heads the gifted and talented program, said the city “may very well think about something different” after next year, when its contract with testing companies expires. But officials later said no policy change was under consideration.

Susan K. Johnsen, the president of the Association for the Gifted, a division of the Council for Exceptional Children, recommends the use of many measures to assess giftedness, like observation, recommendations and student work, not simply tests. “Any test is susceptible to test preparation, and that’s why you start to invalidate those assessments,” Dr. Johnsen said.

The increase in high-scoring students was concentrated in the middle- and upper-middle-class districts of Manhattan and Queens. In the Bronx, fewer students qualified this year.

In District 3, which includes the Upper West Side, 455 children, a full 47 percent of those who took the test, scored at or over the 90th percentile, and 250 scored at or over the 97th, compared with 218 last year. In Manhattan’s District 2, 44 percent of the test-takers qualified, and 341 pupils got top scores, a 42 percent increase.

In the past, the city’s 32 school districts used diverse criteria for gifted admission, but the city made the test the sole factor in 2008, in part to address allegations of favoritism and the overrepresentation of white children in the programs. Yet nearly 70 percent of students in the programs are white or Asian, the reverse of the racial composition of the school system as a whole.

FBI Art Program Presentation in NYC

Theft, Fraud, and Forgery: Cultural Property Crime in the U.S. and the FBI Art Theft Program

When: Thursday, July 22nd, 2010, 2:00 - 5:00 pm
Where: Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York 10019

Description:
Art crime is a multi-billion dollar endeavor that affects collectors, dealers, galleries, museums and artists world-wide. The FBI has investigated these crimes for many years, and five years ago established the Art Crime Team to develop a cadre of Special Agents trained specifically in art crime investigations. Although spectacular thefts from major museums capture the headlines, most art thefts in the U.S. are residential burglaries and art fraud is even more rampant. This talk will cover federal jurisdiction, elements of the U.S. criminal statutes, international treaties and conventions, as well as case studies of recent investigations. Basic strategies for protection of collections will also be covered.

Lecturer:
Bonnie Magness-Gardiner
Bonnie Magness-Gardiner is Manager of the Art Theft Program at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Art Theft Program was established after the looting of the Baghdad Museum in 2004. Dr. Magness-Gardiner coordinates the work of 13 special agents assigned to various geographic regions, and manages the National Stolen Art File. She received her Ph.D. in Near Eastern Archaeology from the University of Arizona. After teaching archaeology for five years, she entered government service as program manager for the Archaeology Program at the National Endowment for the Humanities then became a program manager for the American Memory Project at the Library of Congress. For eight years she was the Senior Cultural Property Analyst for the Department of State, implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention against illicit traffic in cultural property. She also served as the program manager for cultural heritage restoration projects in Iraq. She has been with the FBI since 2005.

Registration Fees:

VLA Member Attorney or Arts Professional: $200
Non-Member Attorney or Arts Professional: $250

Attendees must register before July 20th and be on the security list to attend. Seating is limited to 30 people. (There is an additional $25 fee if you register after July 15th.)

*3.0 CLE credits, 1 Professional Practice, 1 Skills and 1 Ethics (Approved for Non-Transitional and Transitional Attorneys)


To register and for more information, please see this registration form, or register via phone at 212.319.2787 x1. For more information please contact VLA's Kathleen Mallaney at 212.319.2787 x12, or via e-mail at kmallaney@vlany.org.

This event is organized and sponsored by Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.

The Youth DWI and Y.O. (Youthful Offender) Status

Often people in Ithaca City Court are confused by the jargon being spewed around the Courtroom. The defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judge love to use an assortment of acronyms and numbers. These abbreviations are not without deeper meaning. They often allow the process to occur more smoothly and quickly. Sometimes the Court has over a 100 cases on the docket between the hours of 9:30am and 12:30pm. Shortcuts prove helpful to successfully go through each and every case.

In many DWI cases we have the numbers 710.30. These are statements (either written and/or verbal) that the prosecutor attends to use against you. Hence, from your Miranda warnings, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of law." A 710.30 Notice means that you (and your attorney) have received a document showing these statements.

When a Court discusses a Y.O. that means a Youthful Offender (the defendant/the accused) is 19 years of age or under. Youthful Offender Status (Adjudication) under New York State law, is for people who are 16 years old but less than 19 years old who are charged with a crime (misdemeanor or felony). They may be eligible for a "youthful offender adjudication." These are also called a Juvenile Offenders.

This is covered under Section 720.20 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law which sets forth the circumstances under which a court may make a finding that a person is classified as a youthful offender. For misdemeanor convictions, such as first time DWIs, CPL § 720.20 states:

Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must order a P.S.I. (pre-sentence

Investigation) of the defendant. After receipt of a written report of the investigation

(interview) and

at the time of pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the eligible

youth is a Y.O., youthful offender. Such determination shall be in accordance with the

following criteria:

Where the conviction is had in a local criminal court and the eligible youth had not prior

to commencement of trial or entry of a plea of guilty been convicted of a crime or found a

youthful offender, the court MUST find he is a youthful offender.

So in summary, no prior criminal convictions and no prior status as a Y.O.

CPL § 720.20(d) provides that when an individual is found to be a youthful offender, " the court must direct that the conviction be deemed vacated and replaced by a youthful offender finding; and the court must sentence the defendant pursuant to section 60.02 of the penal law."

It also means that the Court orders the records to be sealed to the public. Please note that public school officials will be notified (only the notice of adjudication). This notice is kept apart from all other school records and documents. Y.O. status also means that there is no conviction of a crime or any other offense.

Section 60.02(1) of the Penal Law limits the maximum sentence that may be imposed upon an individual adjudicated a youthful offender who otherwise would have been convicted of a misdemeanor to "a definite or intermittent sentence of imprisonment with a term of no more than six months…”

A weird benefit of being a YO for a DWI is that it is more beneficial to plead guilty to the criminal misdemeanor VTL 1192 (2) or (3) than to have a lower traffic violation of the DWAI VTL 1192 (1). This is true for a number of reasons:

1. The loss of license will be the same under 21 years of age, one year.

2. The government (the prosecutor) cannot use the DWI against you for future enhancements of DWI. So no use of the DWI as a predicate offense.

3. Sentencing guidelines for the DWI will be restricted by the YO status.

The only negative in my opinion for a YO DWI is the increased fines for a DWI than for a DWAI.

Toro! Ole! HireCounsel Deflates The Rate!

"HIRE COUNSEL SPANISH LANGUAGE PROJECT IN WESTFIELD, NJ

Hire Counsel is currently seeking candidates admitted in at least one US jurisdiction for a Spanish Language Project in Westfield, NJ. The project should interview next week and start shortly thereafter. It is a document review project which should run for 4 to 6 weeks, involve 40 hours per week (no overtime) and will pay $32.00 per hour. The rate is on the low end for foreign language work but our client is not requiring any prior document review experience, just fluency in Spanish and admission to at least one US Jurisdiction. For candidates seeking to obtain experience working on a document review project this may be a good opportunity to do so."

Frozen!

"TTT, I was just staffed on a project overseen by a cold blooded reptile. She would literally BLAST the AC like you wouldn't believe, and would constantly bitch to the maintenance men about how supposedly "warm" it was. Can anyone say early onset menopause? It's no fun standing at the bus stop in the sweltering early summer heat wrapped up like Nanook of the North in your winter coat. Thirty people are absolutely fucking miserable, but nobody has the courage to stand up and say anything. Market is so rotten, so-called professional admitted attorneys are afraid of rocking the boat and being blacklisted and frozen out of low rate $20 an hour temp gigs. We all rather spend our summer days hauled up in a windowless supply closet, cryogenically frozen like Walt Disney, praying that we don't come down with pneumonia lacking health insurance. We should all kill ourselves now."

People v Frederick - on the unspecified powers of the court and consecutive sentences after bench trials

People v Trevor Frederick, decided June 10th, is an odd set of facts. Defendant was found guilty of attempted murder as to his former girlfriend, but the jury hung on felony murder regarding the death of the man she was with. The prosecution obtained a new indictment adding Manslaughter in the first degree. On this basis, the original indictment was dismissed by the court. On motion of the defendant, the court dismissed the new indictment because Manslaughter first had been a joinable, uncharged offense to the first indictment, and therefore was improperly added to the superseding indictment. The court then un-dismissed the original indictment. The Court of Appeals said this was fine: “Although the Criminal Procedure Law does not expressly provide for reinstatement of an indictment under the circumstances presented in this case, it does not preclude what Supreme Court did either.” Curiously, there is nothing in the CPL which prohibits trial courts from performing open-heart surgery using obsidian knives either, and a great many other things. There is a trend of sorts at the Court of Appeals, granting powers to trial courts simply because the power in question is not explicitly prohibited (see e.g. People v Wrotten decided 12/15/09).

This case also stands for and additional proposition: after a bench trial, the trial judge has greater scope to impose consecutive time, because “this was a nonjury trial where the judge, as factfinder, would have known when he sentenced defendant what facts he had found. There is no uncertainty about whether the facts supported a consecutive sentence owing to a lack of specificity in the jury charge”. Facts under which concurrent time would have been mandatory, had there been a jury, will permit consecutive time after a bench trial, on the theory that the trial judge would only have imposed a consecutive sentence if the verdict was based on conclusions which would permit such a sentence. Twenty-five to life consecutive: another reason never to waive a jury trial without a very good justification.

Right to Counsel - need for a clear record of prior representation

In People v McClean, decided June 10th, the Court of Appeals held that, while right to counsel deprivations are normally reviewable even in the absence of an objection, the record must be clear that there was a deprivation, so a form of preservation requirement sneaks in through the back door.

Here, defendant had spoken to police - in the presence of counsel - about the homicide in question. Three years later, he spoke to them without counsel. The Court of Appeals questioned whether the prior counsel was really representing the defendant on the murder (in which he was a suspect), or merely on the robbery which prompted defendant to co-operate on the murder. The failure of the defendant to make clear at the Huntley hearing that the prior representation was on both matters rendered the question both unpreserved and unclear on the record because “we cannot say that no evidence the People might have presented would lead us to hold otherwise”. This is an interesting formulation, as we also cannot say that no evidence the People might have presented would lead a court to hold that two plus two is a fish stick dipped in custard. Three judges dissented, saying that the attorney who was talking to the police on behalf of the defendant about a homicide and a robbery was representing him on the homicide and on the robbery, and not acting as his lawyer on the robbery and as his personal masseuse and haberdasher on the homicide.

This case also stands for the proposition that if your client is a suspect in a murder, don’t take him to the police to talk about it.

Before Benefits Accrue, Staffing Agency Swiftly Kicks Your Butt To The Curb

"I have been a contract attorney in the SF Bay area for the past 4 years or so. In that time I have worked through approximately 6-7 staffing services. I have noticed that many of them tend to "lose my number" once I have been on project(s) for 4-5 months or so.

Most of these staffing services offer benefits like paid holidays and sick time, but only to workers who have worked over 1000 hours for them. (1000 hours is approximately 6 months of 40 hour weeks.) I have had agencies send me out on projects for a while, but once I get close to the 6 month mark, I suddenly become invisible and never find work through that agency again. Whether it's one longer project or cumulative shorter projects, once I get close to that 6 month mark, the agency never calls again and sends other workers out on projects. There is never any indication of trouble or dissatisfaction with the work I've done, the work just stops.

I don't doubt that staffing agencies would use workers for a pre-determined period of time (up to 4-5 months) and then find new workers to send out on projects so they don't get stuck paying pesky benefits to their workers just because they're legally obligated to do so. I'm just curious whether anybody else has had a similar experience in becoming invisible to staffing services once they approach the benefits date."

How the New Wealth Taxes Will Hit You

We will soon be paying a lot more taxes. According to the new health-care bill that Congress passed in March, new taxes will have to be paid: an extra .9% tax on wages for couples earning more than $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) and a new 3.8% tax on investment income.

What it means for us, ordinary people is that our earnings will be taxes more. For workers, the extra 0.9% levy puts a progressive element in what used to be a totally flat tax. The 3.8% tax on investment income also knocks down a longstanding wall by applying a "payroll" tax to unearned income. Until now, FICA taxes for Social Security and Medicare have applied only to wages, not investment income.

While many details remain unclear and the Internal Revenue Service hasn't issued any guidance, here are preliminary answers to the most important questions taxpayers are asking.

These taxes take effect in 2013, two elections away. Might they be repealed first?

Not likely. "Congress would have to undo the health reform, and budget constraints would still be there," says Clint Stretch of Deloitte Tax. "Even if Republicans take control of Congress, President Obama holds the veto pen until Jan. 20, 2013."

How does the 0.9% tax work?

If Mark and Victoria each earn $175,000, their total employment income is $350,000. Currently they owe 1.45%—$5,075—of regular Medicare tax, and their employers owe a matching amount. In 2013, the couple will owe an extra 0.9%—$900—on their wages above $250,000, which is $100,000. Their employers pay nothing extra.

What about the 3.8% tax on net investment income?

This levy is keyed to "modified adjusted gross income," with a threshold of $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for singles. (This is simply adjusted gross income for nearly everybody except expatriates, who must add back certain exclusions.) The tax is a flat 3.8% on investment income above the threshold.

How would this work?

Example 1: Mark and Victoria, a married couple, have $400,000 of AGI—$200,000 of wages plus $200,000 of investment income. Because they have $150,000 of investment income above the $250,000 threshold, they would owe an extra $5,700.

Example 2: Anne, a single filer, earns $40,000 but has an investment windfall of $190,000, for total income of $230,000. Because she has investment income of $30,000 above her $200,000 threshold, she would owe $1,140 of additional tax.

Example 3: Retirees Mary and Bill have no wages but they do have a taxable IRA payout of $90,000, plus investment income of $150,000, for a total of $240,000. They don't owe the new tax, because they have no investment income above the $250,000 threshold.

What is investment income?

Interest, except municipal-bond interest; dividends; rents; royalties; and capital gains on the sales of financial instruments like stocks and bonds. The taxable portion of insurance annuity payouts also counts, unless it is from a company pension. So do gains from financial trading, as well as passive income from rents and businesses you don't participate in. All are subject to the 3.8% tax on amounts above the $250,000 or $200,000 threshold, as described above.

Not taxed: Distributions from regular and Roth IRAs and other retirement accounts, including pensions and Social Security, and annuities that are part of a retirement plan. Life-insurance proceeds, muni-bond interest and veterans' benefits don't count, nor does income from a business you participate in, such as a Subchapter S or partnership.

Could the 3.8% tax apply to gains on the sale of a home?

Yes, if there is a taxable gain above the $500,000 ($250,000, single) exclusion for gains on the sale of your residence.

Example: John and Jill, who bought their home in a New York suburb for $50,000 in 1972, sell it in 2013 for $1 million. After subtracting the $50,000 cost and $500,000 exclusion, they have investment income of $450,000. If they also have a taxable IRA payout of $70,000 and a pension of $30,000, they would owe the tax of $11,400 on $300,000.

What happens if a taxpayer who owes the new tax on investments also has a large itemized deduction—say, medical expenses or a theft loss?

Even if taxable income is zero because of deductions, he or she could still owe the 3.8% tax. Example: Myra is a single filer with investment income of $100,000 and wages of $200,000. But during the same year she loses $300,000 in a Ponzi scheme. She pays no income tax, but she still owes the new Medicare tax of $3,800 on her net investment income, says Sharon Kreider, a tax expert in Sunnyvale, Calif.

Does the 3.8% tax affect trusts and estates?

Yes, and it can hit them hard. The tax is levied on investment income as low as $12,000 that isn't paid out to beneficiaries. Some believe the tax may also hit children's unearned income subject to the "kiddie tax" if the parents owe it themselves.

What steps would Law Office of Inna Fershteyn recommend to minimize these taxes, other than taking capital gains before 2013 or buying municipal bonds?

• Examine both your regular and investment income: the higher your regular AGI, the more likely that your investment income will be subject to the new tax. So while Social Security and pensions don't count as investment income, they raise AGI. This makes Roth IRA conversions even more attractive for many. "Roth withdrawals don't raise AGI and aren't investment income," says Vern Hoven, a tax expert in Gig Harbor, Wash.

• Reconsider a defined-benefit pension if you're eligible. Pension payouts don't count as investment income, and the older a taxpayer is, the more he can contribute.

• Taxpayers selling assets should consider installment sales,if spreading out the income would minimize the new tax.

• For some, life insurance may become more attractive. Because life-insurance proceeds at death aren't subject to this tax, a taxpayer could buy a policy, borrow from it and settle up at death, avoiding income tax on investment gains within the policy. But Mr. Nash cautions that the savings must outweigh the fees and other disadvantages such policies may have.

Premier NYC TTT Law School Jacks Up The Tuition!

46K a year to attend the Brooklyn Law School Dump and Document Review Training Facility? Is the Dean Joan Wexler freakin out of her mind? For years we have called out this scoundrel and her ilk in the press for their blatant misrepresentation of post-graduate career statistics, and yet they still have the audacity to jack up tuition three times faster than inflation in one of the worst job markets and deflationary environments since the Great Depression. Pure unbridled arrogance and greed!

Art Law class in NYC

Thinking of starting a For-Profit Arts Business? Don't miss this class tomorrow!

Space is still available.

Forming Your For-Profit Arts Business

When: Thursday, June 10th, 2010, 4 - 6 p.m.
Where: VLA, 1 East 53rd Street, NY, NY 10022 (Auditorium)

(There is an additional $10 late fee if you register day of the class. Please fax your registration form in by 2:00 PM on Thursday.)

This class provides valuable information about starting an arts-related business. Covered issues also include: For vs. Non-Profit incorporation, fiscal sponsorship, selecting and protecting business names; the legal and tax characteristics of LLCs an publication requirements, partnerships, and type C and S corporations; choice of jurisdiction; financing your business; employees and independent contracts; and insurance.

This class will be taught by Elena M. Paul, Esq., VLA's Executive Director.

To register and for more information, please see this registration form.
_____________________________________________________________________
Since 1969, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts has been the leading provider of pro bono legal services, mediation services, educational programs and publications, and advocacy to the arts community in New York. The first arts-related legal aid organization, VLA is the model for similar organizations around the world. For more information about Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, please see www.vlany.org.

Georgetown Law Grad Arrives At Simpson Thacher Covered In Defecation

A van with "Georgetown Admissions" painted on the side was apparently last seen riding around McPherson Square canvassing for homeless.

"We haven't had a continuation of the awful people you can meet on projects recently, so I figure I'd send this gem along. I finished a project about 2 weeks ago and I had overheard a story about one of the coders not more than a few feet from me. Apparently this gentlemen came in one day with shit on his pants and his shoes. When he realized the awful stench of feces was coming from his person, he went right on and continued coding as if nothing was wrong. He eventually "tried" to go clean himself up (after he was coaxed and almost mocked into doing so, even by the project manager), but for the rest of the day he stayed soiled. Can you believe that some people wouldn't even have the decency to go buy another pair of pants or, God forbid, go home for the day so as to not subject others to his lack of cleanliness?"

Lowenstein Sandler

TTT,

Forewarn your readers about this dump! The recruiters are fishing around to staff another project here and will lie to your face about how great it is. They claim it is a short commute from NYC, but when you get here you will find yourself in a dangerous ghetto in the outskirt bowels of New Jersey. The guy that runs the place is a major league class act asshole. He brags about taking MBA seminars to make the place more "efficient" which means that there is no talking, cell phones, or internet. If you can't stand the misery or nausea that you develop after working at this dump after a week and decide to jump ship, the agency will blacklist you FOREVER! STAY AWAY, STAY FAR AWAY!