|
|
OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
Chief Court Attorney James Garfein sent me an embarrassing response on your behalf. But his feeble effort proved my point better than anything else -- the New York State court system has been so manipulated by IBM that Mr. Garfein could not even identify the correct case. The IBM cancer and birth defect cases have been sealed, and then the Order sealing the sealing Order has been sealed. You've heard of double dealing and double dipping. Now you have double sealing !!!
The case involving the plagiarism of IBM's attorneys, Jones Day, and "opposing" attorneys Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, is the appeal of Bailey v. Union Carbide Index # 17951/2002 Westchester County (Second Department Appellate Division Docket # 2005-03440.)
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day Respondent brief. Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23. Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases. So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with.
IBM was so adept that even Chief Attorney Garfein could not find the file ! If that continues to be the case, I can send you a copy of the two briefs.
C' est la vie.
Someone needs to investigate and examine the process used in handling all of the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. IBM should not be able to silence the plaintiffs as it has. IBM should not be able to manipulate the court system as it has.
What say ye, Justice Kaye and Governor Spitzer ???
Carolyn Bailey
www.GrayHatsBeGone.comcc: Select Media
Select Concerned Individuals
OPEN LETTER TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
IBM has made a mockery of the New York State court system !
IBM's lawyers Jones Day and Levy Phillips & Konigsberg submitted plagiarized briefs and relied upon court seals to cover their collusion. (See details in the expose reprinted below.) And if that were not bad enough, Levy Phillips yielded to the lure of easy contingency $$$$$$$ and functioned as IBM's hatchetmen. As a result, 100's of New York State plaintiffs have been denied informed and fairly negotiated and aboveboard settlements in the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. And all that was done with Westchester County Supreme Court conSEALment and stamp of approval !!! So far IBM has pulled this off because the plaintiffs were unethically pressured by Levy Phillips to sign chump-change releases that included an unconscionable clause requiring them to repay 25% of their few coins unless they remained silent.
Governor Spitzer, will your clean sweep include a broom for IBM and others who manipulate the current court rules to deprive ordinary people of their just deserves ???
" ... and who knows whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this ?" Esther 4:14
* * * * * * * * * *
PART OF EXPOSE SERIES
IBM WROTE THE BOOK ON PLAGIARIZED BRIEFS
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day (IBM's legal representative) Respondent brief in Bailey v. Union Carbide et al (Docket # 2005-03440 Second Appellate Division New York State). Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23. Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases. So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with. So, if you want to read the plagiarized brief filed by IBM, you will have to wait until the hundreds of cases are unsealed.
m m m m
BELOW IS A LIST OF THE CASE NAMES AND FILE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE ACCUMULATED TO DATE. THESE ARE ALL HOUSED AT THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN WHITE PLAINS, NY.
SOME PLAINTIFFS ARE GROUPED UNDER ONE FILE NAME, FOR EXAMPLE "RUFFING".
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha
IT IS SOMEWHAT TEDIOUS, BUT A SEARCH OF "UNION CARBIDE" UNDER THE DEFENDANT LINK FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY ON THE ABOVE WEB SITE, WILL BRING UP ALL THE CASES, CURRENT AND CLOSED.
NOTE: THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IS USUALLY UNSEALED. THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE GENERALLY THE RECORDS THAT IBM AND THE CHEMICAL SUPPLIER DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD SEALED BY THE COURT, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION.
(UC=UNION CARBIDE)
1 KELLEY DALEY V UC INDEX 014308-1997; INDEX 018755-1997
KELLY DALEY V. UC (DALEY II) INDEX 014206-1997
2. ROBERT KELLEHER V UC INDEX 004048-1997
ROBERT KELLEHER V SHIPLEY COMPANY (KELLEHER II) INDEX 015665-1997
3. RITA BASS V. UC INDEX 018275-97; INDEX 002550-1999
***4. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V HOECHST (RUFFING II) INDEX 015664-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES CLOSE TO 100+ PLAINTIFFS.
5. CAROLYN BAILEY V UC INDEX 002465/1998
6. ALYCE BAILEY V. UC INDEX 017951/2002
THIS CASE IS GROUPED WITH A FEW OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
***7. RYAN BURGER V. UC INDEX 015612-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES ABOUT 20 PLAINTIFFS.
8. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V. UC INDEX 4049-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES A NUMBER OF OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
9. MARGARET ABIDI V UC INDEX 014712-2001
10. DONALD MELE V. UC INDEX 004047-1997
11. CYNTHIA MOKRITSKI V. UC INDEX 012838-1997
12. JOHN CATALDO V. UC INDEX 013561-1998
13. JOHN WILLIAM EVANS V. UC INDEX 002549-1999
14. MARY ALICE CASTALLANO V. UC INDEX 003045-2001
15. NATHAN SMITH V. UC INDEX 005643-2002
16. AMBER ANN KARDAS V. UC INDEX 009011-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES 12 OR MORE PLAINTIFFS.
17. HEATHER KELLY V. UC INDEX 012300-1999
18. BONNIE BENNETT V. UC INDEX 018426-2001
19. CHRISTINA CORDARO V. UC INDEX 002548-1999
20. JAMES ABBATICCHIO V. UC INDEX 02550-1999
21. DIANE PAOLICELLA V. CANDACE CURTIS INDEX 7884-2004
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT. BUT CANDACE CURTIS IS THE CASE IBM SETTLED FOR "AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT" ON MARCH 3, 2004, JUST AS THE JURY SELECTION WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN.
22. KELLY DALEY V. EKC TECHNOLOGY INDEX 000146-1998
23. ALYSSA PFLEGING V. IBM INDEX 019667-2001
24. DAVID FREER V. UC INDEX 004171-2003
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL CERTAINLY GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
INTERVIEWS OF THE VARIOUS NAMED NYS PLAINTIFFS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WILL VERIFY MY ACCOUNT OF THE DECEIT AND UNETHICAL PRESSURE EXERTED ON SICK PERSONS AND THIER FAMILIES TO BRING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS.
IS THERE A GIDEON TO TAKE ON IBM ???
Part of a series of exposes on IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
Gideon feared death.
Does the main stream media fear the loss of current or potential advertising revenue, diminishing personal investment portfolios, or facing the wrath of Zeus ?
It takes big bucks to intervene in a lawsuit involving IBM. And it takes a whole lot of heart. Only a few organizations have the financial and legal resources to wage war with IBM. Are there any that have the courage and resolve ???
IBM ducked a heart rending trial on the East Coast USA by settling the Curtis v Union Carbide/IBM suit for an "undisclosed sum". Plaintiff and widow Carolyn Bailey maintains that IBM sought to avoid hundreds of similar trials by:
1. Extensive and unnecessary sealing of court records, and
2. Nudging the "opposing" attorneys into doing IBM's dirty work.
The Westchester County Supreme court's application of New York's current law regarding the sealing of court records has made it easy for IBM, Union Carbide, and the court to conSEAL "messy" cases from public scrutiny. Take a look at California's enlightened version --
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 243.1(d) SEALED RECORDS
(d) [Express factual findings required to seal records] The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
News organizations did a masterful job of promoting the public's interest in the recent Brooke Astor case. Judge Stackhouse's August 29, 2006 ruling in Matter of Astor 2006 NY Slip Op 51677(U) has shown that public interest in court proceedings overrides the preference of private parties. That includes such big wigs as IBM and the chemical suppliers who prefer to do business on the hush-hush !!!
It is far past time to pull the rug from under the secret shenanigans of IBM, Union Carbide and more than a dozen other international corporations who have hid their dirty laundry under court seals.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
