JANUARY 25, 2002.

                                                                                                                    Amended  03/31/10.

ANATOMY OF A SWEETHEART DEAL

I N T R O D U C T I O N

For all members of the legal fraternity, and other interested parties tuning in. Behold a wondrous account of legal chicanery, a sweetheart deal, unfolding before your eyes. The events are somewhat dated, but I assure all it is not as if I've been resting comfortably on my butt all these years and, suddenly and belatedly, I realize after all this time I've been shafted by my own lawyers and finally decide to do something about it. Nothing of the kind, as you will see. There have been repeated and continuing efforts over a span exceeding 35 years to engage the services of counsel in New York to pursue due process on my behalf, without success thus far, and well documented. (See enclosure four for elaboration.) The case pertains to legal and judicial malpractice in a proceeding related to securities fraud, and collusion between opposing parties and the presiding Court in a fraudulent and tainted settlement, incontrovertibly all spelled out in what follows. So that there definitely are extenuating circumstances, should the statute of limitations come into play. I make reference to the fact that some years ago, a woman in San Diego was granted leave to press an action for civil damages against her former psychiatrist, even though ostensibly the statute of limitations had run out.

         [Reasons for going on the Web are threefold:      1) to present my case, 2) to explain developments over the years, outline the obstacles confronting me in the past, and account for the passage of time, 3) to deflate whatever defenses the opposition can come up with, and the only defense they can have is the elapsed time since the event occurred and the statute of limitations.  Which won’t hold, for reasons you will discern.  (Bear in mind that only after the mid 90s did the Internet begin to have a serious public impact.)  The printout is dated January 25, 2002.  The only happening of significance since then, to my knowledge, is the passing of the presiding federal judge, and that is covered in the addendum at the end.  To update to a more recent period would necessitate widespread and time consuming revisions, which would not add to the presentation.  But, where such are not required, some explanatory remarks and events of later times have been added, where feasible, to enhance viability.  There have been prior editions which improve with the passage of time.  This latest revision took place on March 31, 2010.  I can tell you if felt I was flogging a dead horse, I’d have dropped it a long time ago.  I can tell you also I would never have dreamed it possible that what has happened to me over the years would come to pass.  I won’t say I wouldn’t have missed it for the world, but life definitely would not have been as interesting otherwise.  Be informed.  Be entertained.  Be amused.  Be intrigued.  Be further educated.  It certainly has been a part of my continuing education over the years.]

Edward Farman, Columbia Law School 1964, and an AV rating no less, enters into the realm of the immortals. He becomes a leading spirit, a shining beacon, a living inspiration, for all shyster lawyers, unto all eternity.  A poster boy.  He also becomes a legend, the definitive reference guide, and provides a manual, the classic textbook case on how not to swindle a client, how not to perpetrate a sweetheart deal. And an object lesson. As I've pointed out to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and others, it is likely the only time in a lifespan where you will be able to actually look upon and literally see a sweetheart deal on paper, a most infrequent occurrence indeed, an improbable feat not expected to be equalled again in this lifetime. A startling sight at any time.

The sad saga begins. Exhibit one is the letter to Judge Marvin E. Frankel, dated March 17, 1981, which delineates it succinctly. Exhibit two is the letter from Morrison, Paul, Stillman and Beiley, the law firm in New York formerly representing me, in the person of Edward Farman, dated November 22, 1972, which tears it wide apart and opens up Pandora's box. It is explicit, solid, cold, hard evidence, unambiguous and irrefutable. That letter is without a doubt documentary proof, the smoking gun, in Watergate parlance of old. (Though caught a long time ago, they are now being exposed.) Exhibit three is the response from Judge Frankel. Other significant exhibits are not herewith included, nor are important omissions from the file brought up now; they would not contribute much at this time. And not wishing to overwhelm at this point, I do not provide the entire story at this juncture. (You may recall had not one of the Watergate burglars applied a piece of scotch tape for the second time over the lock of a door in the Watergate complex, the entire episode would never have become known. And John Dean would never have written "Blind Ambition." For that matter, Charles Colson never would have found Christ and become a born again Christian. That one really boggles the mind! Wonders never cease.  Miracles still do happen.)

There may be more than merely a fraud before the court. All indications point to that direction. There is every appearance of gross impropriety by several parties.  Perception does indeed become reality.  The doctrine of irresistible inference is, I believe, well established in U.S. jurisprudence. It gets better all the time, and worse for the three surviving and main cast of characters involved, 1) Judge Marvin E. Frankel, 2) Marvin Schwartz of Sullivan and Cromwell, 3) Edward Farman, ex-counsel, as we go along. The key players in actual fact. Bad faith, a deliberate fraud, up to and including Federal Court level. A shell game. Loaded dice, a stacked deck!   It is conduct unbecoming.  A co-ordinated conspiracy; it is legal and judicial corruption, pure and simple. There is no escaping it, try as one will. Criminal activity, entailing the integrity of the Court, is involved, by prominent parties.  There is professional misconduct of the highest order.  It is quite inexcusable.  Most unforgivable.  Most unacceptable.  With Judge Frankel being the icing on the cake. Marvin E. Frankel, a Columbia alumnus, was United States District Judge for the S.D.N.Y. from 1965 to 1978. He was Professor of Law at Columbia from 1962 to 1965. Edward Farman is Columbia 1964. He was also law clerk to a judge in early years. That judge may have been Marvin E. Frankel. A brief chronology is in order at this point. There were two postponements of the proceeding. Count them. Two. There followed a motion for summary judgment. Thereafter came four adjournments of the return date of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, of which the first two did not cross the desk of any judge. The latter two were so ordered, by Marvin E. Frankel. Count them. Four adjournments. All most unusual and highly irregular, I'm told. And then the case was dismissed, with prejudice, without costs, so ordered by Marvin E. Frankel. I choose my words carefully from here on in. I point out that the letter from Edward Farman, ex-counsel, exhibit two, is a crucial link in the evidentiary chain, and points to a pattern of misconduct implicating, in addition to opposing adversaries, Judge Frankel, now in private practice in Manhattan, and the Court itself, of being dishonest. Indicating conspiracy, collusion and criminal complicity between various parties in the disposition of a proceeding. Implicating all parties in a fraudulent and tainted so-called "settlement." Of which there is no record in the file. Imagine that. (Ask Scott Turow and John Grisham to tell you about disreputable judges and lawyers, of whom they have often written extensively.  Real life does indeed imitate art.) I say it again. No stipulation of the "settlement" was entered into the file. Nothing at all. Remarkable!  There is no defense in law.  The thing speaks for itself.

Absence of due diligence by Frankel? Asleep at the switch? Suckered by the other hotshots? Duped unwittingly? Merely negligent oversight? Possible, but highly unlikely.  Was he a law unto himself?  Did he perchance write the book on legal and judicial ethics?  A sorrowful performance by a Federal Judge. Rank irresponsibility, unprincipled conduct. An embarrassment to the bench. (Compare with enclosure 10, under heading "Settlement Approved in Prudential Case," and remarks by Judge Alfred M. Wolin.) Not only was there a fraud before U.S. Federal Court; that Court, in the person of Judge Marvin E. Frankel, was itself fraudulent! In effect, Judge Frankel approved and validated such resolution and disposition of the proceeding. He reviewed and ratified the "settlement." IT SUCKS. It is sweetheartgate. It became obvious, upon review of the file, that Morrison, Paul, Stillman and Beiley, in concert with opposing counsel, maneuvered to have the case brought before Judge Frankel, who should have smelled a rat. (Certainly he's no Stanley Sporkin.) Given the circumstances of the case, there emerges the strong conviction that Frankel was one of the rats. It appears to go well beyond mere tacit approval. In effect, we have a sweetheart deal, in which a U.S. Federal Court, in the person of Judge Marvin E. Frankel, acceded to, knowingly acquiesced, and fully participated in the perpetration and execution of such fraudulent and tainted settlement. There is every perception of such misconduct. Not to be condoned or minimized or trivialized.  That could be a first in U.S. judicial history. Certainly there have been corrupt judges at all levels, but this suggests willful and active complicity in the performance of a scam. Could be a landmark in American jurisprudence.  No statute of limitations here.

Dereliction of duty by Frankel? A high crime and misdemeanor? Corrosion and an undermining of the honesty of legal procedure and Code of Judicial Conduct? An attack at the very heart, intent and actual distortion of the course of justice and the judicial system?  A prevention and impeding of justice? A granting of legitimacy, an accomplice, assent and a party to a fraud, a swindle, alongside opposing counsel? A criminal conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, an assault on the very foundations, a threat to the continuing integrity of due process? Duplicity and subversion of the rule of law by a Federal Judge? Corruption of office and of the judicial process? Subornation of a felony? Disrespect for the dignity of the law and administration of justice? Judicial misconduct and perversion of an oath of office and the Canons of Judicial Ethics? A violation of and an erosion of confidence in the judicial process that is the backbone of the rule of law? Contamination of the sanctity of the law, a culpable violation of trust? Behavior in a manner subversive to the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of due process?  An arbitrary and capricious deed?  An act to pervert the course of justice?  A flagrant abuse of discretionary power?  THE FAIL SAFE SYSTEM THAT FAILED? No doubt about it. A finding of fact. It is clear and convincing proof.  A conclusion of law.  Staring everyone in the face! At point blank range. An overlooking not only of the spirit, but also a failure to uphold the letter of the law. Not trifling matters. Bodes ill for the longer term implications of the legal and judicial endeavor.  And for the social ramifications.  Not to overlook the wide sweeping and far reaching public interest repercussions and consequences on a national level. With which there can be no compromise. I say it again. A sorrowful performance by a Federal Judge. Irresponsible. Deliberate. Criminal. A flawed and tainted court, presided over by a flawed and tainted judge, leading to a flawed and tainted judgment.  The fix was in.

The jury may not be out much longer on Marvin E. Frankel. I should mention that shortly after my letter to Frankel, unknown parties entered into my basement locker in Toronto and removed a good portion of my documentation of the case, correspondence from some law firms and the Association of the Bar, along with furniture and personal effects. Mine was the only locker broken into, and to identify it, the boys had to go through the building superintendent. I am now 79 years of age; I stopped believing in coincidence a long time ago. Too much has taken place, and can't be ignored. That little episode with my locker set me back a considerable period of time, had me floundering for a long while, and almost blew the ballgame for me. Delaying further discovery on my part. There have been other close calls. More recently the opposition has branched into electronic warfare, on top of direct physical violence against my person previously perpetrated. They have indulged in cybervandalism. (Is that a criminal act? Coming under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986? Broad clauses. If so, penalty of as much as five years behind bars and a $250,000 fine.) My sites on the Web have been destroyed, interfered and tampered with, (which re-assures me considerably and further strengthens my resolve) and certainly not by my Webmasters, but I've been able to resuscitate under other names. Which revived and extended and much more complete edition you now read. (Would they be foolhardy and blatant enough to pull that same stunt again? For all to know about. They just might, given that their backs are now up against the wall. But then it was on disk. Has been from the beginning. They missed out on that one. Now it's on disks and cd’s, plural. Also on hard drives, plural. And the very latest, portable data storage devices. Which make it more difficult to extinguish. Websites #1 and #2 have been eliminated. Website #3 has been interfered with.  Website #4 is what you now have before you.)  Nasty business by sordid, revolting, tacky, repugnant, powerful, brutish, well heeled bullies and pseudo-elitists, out to muzzle and neutralize and immobilize me. To put a lid on it. To keep it all under wraps. As best they can. Will they again resort to physical violence to dissuade me?  Let's observe what backhanded depredations and preemptive strikes they orchestrate and try next, (which are bound to impact negatively and recoil on them again) to stifle and thwart me and attempt containment of the situation. To threaten and intimidate and harass me.  And knock me off balance.  More hardball?  An ongoing chess game through the years.  It continues to be a matching of wits and up to now they don’t come out too well.  There are times when I can read their minds and discern their intent; what they are really concerned about.  Great odds, which occasionally have proven quite stimulating and exhilarating, but also extremely worrisome and frightening at times. Adrenaline rushes and highs in profusion of another kind.  Very stressful.  It doesn’t end.  More recently the watchdogs or "guardian angels" again have gone active, to make life yet more interesting.  Big Brother once more keeps watch over me, but they can't cover all the bases.  (What are they afraid of?  What have they got to hide?  Don’t they want it under scrutiny and in the public domain?  Is it just the tip of the iceberg?  Does it open up the floodgates?  An avalanche waiting to engulf them?  We’ll soon all be finding out.)  It's their money to throw about; hasn't done much for them. Very poor return thus far. History repeats itself. Undoubtedly, the opposition parties will not be amused, nor will they derive much satisfaction and comfort as this exposition proceeds. It is "Straight Talk Express II." And like John McCain, I'm enjoying myself tremendously. Be assured the three principals and their coterie are not deriving any pleasure at all from this epistle.

Counsel for the defense was the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell (S.&C.) in the person of Marvin Schwartz, an AV and a senior partner, assisted by some lesser lights. (Though Schwartz is ostensibly retired, and for quite some time now, he remains still very much on the premises at S.&C. and, in fact, has been reincarnated as Senior Counsel.) Schwartz is recognized in S.&C. literature and other publications as being a securities law expert in his own right, as was the late Peter H. Morrison, Columbia Law 1958, the head of the firm formerly representing me. One Nancy Lisagor accumulated enough smoke and more over the years to write "A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm of Sullivan and Cromwell," published by Morrow in 1988, in which Marvin Schwartz appears quite prominently, not always favorably. (Nor always favorably in other publications dealing with law firms.) It is worth a quote from a Managing Partner of another major Wall Street law firm, with reference to Sullivan and Cromwell. "They know the rules, but sometimes they act as if the rules just don't apply to them." That well defines the culture that may generally prevail at Sullivan and Cromwell. If they can get away with it, why not? Indeed, "a law unto itself" may say it all. [The law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell has a much blemished reputation on several counts. As one example, it actively, repeat, actively facilitated the financing of the Nazi war effort during the Second World War, even after Pearl Harbor, even after America entered the War. To put it bluntly, Sullivan and Cromwell actually assisted in increasing the number of American and Allied casualties in that War.  (And contributed to implementation of the final solution.)  Not making this up; it's in the mid December 1998 issue of Newsweek International. Goes to show you, when it comes to money, there can be very little morality in the marketplace, more so by one so called "prestigious" Wall Street law firm. (Not meant to disparage or malign all other Wall Street law firms.) Witness also the conduct of French banks and financial institutions that maintained silence about assets of holocaust victims in their custody. After the end of that war. It appears Marvin Schwartz, a young kid fresh out of Penn Law School, didn't properly research S.&C. before joining up. Or didn't care. Whatever, doesn't say much for him. Knowing the history of Sullivan and Cromwell and something of his history, I am not surprised at the conduct of that man. A flawed and tainted lawyer.]

For an additional perspective, bear in mind that Prudential Securities (the successor company to Bache, by which I was victimized, then a merger to form Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, then Prudential-Bache) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Insurance Company of Newark, NJ. When you have 130,000 plus customers of Prudential Securities being fleeced by that company over a span of a dozen years or so, in fraudulent health care schemes, limited partnership real estate scams, and oil and gas swindles, to the tune of over $8.5 billion, you enter without doubt into the realm of institutionalized thievery and grand larceny. It is an endeavor of pervasive skullduggery; you have by any standard or definition a congregation of thieves licensed to defraud on a massive scale, an enterprise licensed to steal. Legally. For a time. I don't fault the troops, who couldn't be expected to know any better, and were merely following orders when told to flog dubious paper. I refer to The New York Times of February 28, 1994, which quotes a former broker of Prudential, speaking of the tactics of the defense. "They engineered a legal strategy to prevent people having any recourse." Some things just don't change over the years. A fine and veritable den of thieves. The master confidence men of old are still very much with us. All the PR hacks in the world haven't been able, won't ever be able, to put a fine spin on it. Somewhat later, The Wall Street Journal Europe of September 14, 1995, reports that Prudential Securities is accused by many of its former brokers of selectively amending employment and termination records of certain employees to give them unfavorable work histories, those disposed to assist former customers in battles to gain legal redress. Also to serve as a deterrent warning to others who may in future be similarly disposed to assist.  (They have a history of not hesitating to use strong arm stuff.)  Prudential just doesn't seem to learn. You would think some wisdom would accrue after all these years. Not so, apparently. At least some of the brokers have a conscience; can't say as much for the higher-ups. Total exposure of Prudential Securities thus far exceeds $2 billion, in fines, compensation, legal fees. And perhaps still counting.  Again, look at enclosure 10, under heading “S.E.C. Narrows Prudential Case.”  Both of the Prudentials now come under the blanket designation Prudential Financial as do all other divisions of the Prudential family.  Heavy advertising in the media in efforts to enhance their image, undergone sharp deterioration.  Millions of customers at both Prudential Insurance and Prudential Securities have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the not too distant past.  Now they promise to protect and have your money grow.  How about that?  Can you believe it?  Some might.  A lot of people have short memories and conveniently forget, and remain suckers for the advertising.  Many do not.

I come back to Peter H. Morrison, whom I met once briefly on a Saturday morning in NY in early November of 1972. I met once also on the same day with Edward Farman, the associate doing the work; that meeting lasted a longer interval. Farman saw fit  at that time to employ and introduce his wife and small children into the proceedings, to embellish the occasion, and inject an aura of respectability to the surroundings. Mr. Morrison, now deceased, was indeed a securities fraud lawyer, in more ways than one. A very impressive curriculum vitae, as impressive as that of George Herbert Walker Bush. See Martindale-Hubbell going back some 25 years. My favorite Bushism is “nobody ever said it was going to be easy, and nobody was right.”  Priceless! A real gem; there are others as well. G.H.W.B. is a man who, despite the “surreal quality and disjointedness of his thought,” often “perfectly impenetrable,” one who “lacks the gift of coherent speech” and is thereby given to “fatuous remarks,” a man to whom “the fates have otherwise been so generous,” somehow became President of the U.S., albeit and luckily for only four years. The résumé of son George W. is nowhere near to being as impressive, on paper, as that of his father. Come to think of it, nothing at all impressive about it.  Given the events of 9/11, I was sorely tempted to delete certain passages written before that day highly critical of W., the person and not, I stress, the office of President of the U.S.  Certain observations however, simply cannot be helped.  At a time of all out effort against terrorism and mass murder, patriotism and full support of the Administration are essential.  There is a blessing; fortunately W. knows enough to surround himself with experienced people, all more competent than him.  But I still cringe when I observe W. grasping for means of expression when answering questions or speaking extemporaneously at a press conference and not reading from a prepared text or a teleprompter.  Remarkably, W. entertains no self-doubts.  Thus we are informed.  He believes God has chosen him to lead the nation during this perilous time, certain that he is the right person for the moment.  (Reminiscent of others throughout history who believed they were similarly endowed by a prodigious sense of their own destiny.)  In his inimitable and unforgettable words, (three times) the terrorists had “misunderestimated” America and its leader.  Molly Ivins, a columnist based in Austin, sees W. as being “sort of adequate,” even though she “frankly doesn’t expect much from him.”  Perhaps he is.  That he is “not bad,” that “he’ll do.”  And perhaps he will.  Mind you, this was before 9/11.  But there comes a time when W. can no longer ride 9/11 and milk it for all it’s worth, just as his father could not carry the momentum of the Gulf War to success in the next election.  Other issues call for attention and begin to supersede.  Where we get the true measure of the man.  Which means that things are gradually returning to normal. And we find out what W. is all about.

If W., who has weakness etched out all over his face like that weak chinned Royal Wimp, Prince Charles, (and I don’t like Camilla either) could not distinguish between preservation and perseverance, which was the theme of the month at that grade school in NH before the primary, then he's a confused nincompoop, a dummy, a bumpkin, a mental light weight cast of similar mold as Ronald Reagan, considered by one of the press corps to be a "genially oblivious man who couldn't reach a conclusion without the help of a chauffeur and limo." W. is possessed of a fuzzy mind as widely befuddled and a brain as thoroughly mucked up as that of his daddy. Another inept, incompetent bush leaguer has come to the fore. If W. can be admitted to Yale despite poor grades and low SAT scores, and can graduate from that university, as did his father, then so can anyone. And a Harvard MBA! How in the name of heaven? A slack period perhaps? Apparently he floated on the backs of others, which explains it. Clearly W., inarticulate, mediocre in intellect and ability, "whose mind seems struggling, panting for coherence," who continues to fumble and grope and stumble for words to express himself, and very simply at that, and to mangle the grammar and syntax like Bush senior, suffers from "delusions of adequacy," like his old man. Sit back and listen to and count all the malapropisms and gaffes and puerile observations.  He never has anything of substance to say.  (Will he stand by his pal “Kenny Boy,” his biggest campaign contributor, and Enron in their time of need, and the accommodating friends at Arthur Andersen, given that Enron and Andersen were among the largest contributors to his war chest?)  Of W. it may normally be remarked he "is at his best when the going is good," as was said of the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII, another weakling, before, during his brief reign, and after his abdication. A more scathing epithet of anyone one can't possibly imagine. Difficult to understand how W., undoubtedly a witless dunce, could not know that Social Security is a federal program. (At least he knows that “Canada is our most important neighbor to the north.”)  How he could think Nigeria to be an "important continent." Incredible! Unbelievable! He reveals the range of his ignorance. Not a bright man at all. What else doesn't he know? Never a shortage of clowns who want to be President, writes John Grisham. Thankfully the American people were spared the prospect of another dud like Dan Quayle (who majored in golf while at university and is "sorry he didn’t learn Latin during high school days so that he could speak the language while touring Latin America") as running mate. The Republican hierarchy has a corner on the market and a talent for repeatedly picking dumb Presidential candidates. What is worse, when elected, they make stupid Presidents. It is a disservice to the American people who deserve far better than that. It will be "on-the-job training" without end  for W. We are looking at a steep learning curve.  Doesn't inspire confidence. He has demonstrably shown he can be a sore loser, unlike Al Gore, who can concede with grace. Notwithstanding and quite apart from spoiler Ralph Nader, who referred to W. as that "bumbler from Texas with a horrific record," the split decision and politically inspired ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, a ruling based on partisanship rather than principle, an abrogation of sworn duty and responsibility, that was instrumental in dragging that dullard across the finish line and granting him tenure and residency in The White House, causing harm and inflicting a wound on the body politic, it was a failure on the part of the media to adequately inform the American voting public that in W. they were once more getting substandard goods.  (And if Al Gore could not carry his own home state of Tennessee with eleven electoral college votes right there, which would have given him The White House, then perhaps he deserved to lose the presidency.) Latterly W. is seen by a reporter, formerly a supporter, as being “incurious to the point of cluelessness” about Iraq, overseeing a “war cabinet that is deeply dysfunctional,” during his second term. The media are having a field day with W., that numbskull, as are the columnists, comedians and cartoonists.  It is a bottomless arsenal of material.

You may refer also to the obituary for Peter H. Morrison from the Columbia Law School Alumni Association. Mr. Morrison died of colon cancer in late November of 1988, at age 53. Now that is real shrinkage; that is massive shrinkage by any usage of the term. Possibly that law of compensation is operable after all. There may also be a law of unintended and unforeseen consequences in play as well. Not to overlook the law of regretted decisions.  There are very definite constraints to my Christian compassion. I do not readily turn the other cheek. Not very good at it. Nor can I easily love my enemies, as I am enjoined, for reasons to be additionally revealed as this story unfolds. It is extremely difficult to forgive ex-counsel for they acted with malice aforethought, intentionally, deliberately, premeditatedly, without regrets or qualms of any kind. They knew full well what they were doing. Edward Farman was driven to pursue a not altogether unique interpretation of the American dream in the land of opportunity. Not the proper kind of dedication. Mr. Farman, that foul spawn of guile, who is deficient moral and high standards, doesn’t subscribe to much of an ideal, and is a pathetic man to boot, spun a web of deceit in performance of his treachery, coached by Morrison no doubt, pawned his soul, and sold his honor and integrity down the river for 30 pieces of silver. Or what he presumed would be many greenbacks. Don't think he did it for the wife and kids. For the money? Whatever, scarcely a fine exemplar of character, values, and proper role model for his offspring. No avatar of moral rectitude he. I suspect Farman, a more impressionable younger man then, was seduced by his mentor Morrison and others, into believing that putting the shaft on me would provide him with expedited entry into the fast track to the top of the legal profession, and quick honor and glory. Sad commentary on the law business, if that is sometimes the case. Didn't quite work out that way. [Is there a legal (and judicial) version of the Hippocratic oath? To do no evil? To commit no harm?  To be free from corruption?  Farman is the lowest of the low, a small worm, the crummiest of existence. It is the cardinal sin for any lawyer, to sell out, to abuse a trust, to welsh on and be in major violation of an obligation, to betray and rip off and defraud a client.  Farman proved unfaithful to a commitment, voluntarily entered into, which he was bound in honor to discharge.]  The script was pre-written; the game was rigged against me from the outset. It was a setup from the word go. Farman continues to learn and experience the impact of backlash and meaning of a pyrrhic victory, the consequences of deception, the risks inherent to swindling a client. His betrayal is a reflection of the man, what he believes, what he feels, what he is. How  he lives his life.  A lawyer who doesn’t hesitate to exploit and swindle clients, more so when he thinks he can get away with it.  (And much the same can be said for the character of the other three principals appearing in this little drama.)  It was a phony triumph. I herewith inform him I did not fight the good fight to be lied to and misled by my own lawyer at the end. I didn't look forward to nor did I relish or enjoy being the patsy and fall guy. It wasn't a good scam.  And Farman actually tried to convince me I had won a “great victory.”

I'm just a man who got swindled firstly by his broker, and then to compound it further, by his own lawyers, and became annoyed and angry enough to fight back and seek restoration of justice rather than do nothing about it and take it lying down.  (JFK used to say, “don’t get angry, get even.”  I’ve indulged myself the triple luxury of getting angry, remaining angry, more so given the cumulative and collective stupidities of the opposition, and now getting even.)  And the more I probe and dig, the more does it stretch the limits of belief, given not only collusion between opposing counsel but above all, the active participation of the presiding federal judge. I recall Farman telling me, just before we parted in his office, that “it was the kind of a case they liked.” They being Peter H. Morrison, presumably the other partners of the firm, and Edward Farman. I didn't quite grasp the implications of that one at the time. I have to tell him now that it is also the kind of a case I like. Very much present tense. And that the smile of triumph he exchanged with Morrison at the end was premature. No longer need he look quizzically at me. I can almost begin to feel sorry for Farman but won't succumb to that temptation. He has a daughter who became a lawyer. Followed in his footsteps. Law degree from Columbia, undergraduate degree from Penn. Like her father. How does that little nonentity of a twerp Farman rationalize and justify this scam of a client to his daughter? To his family? Does he look them in the eye and deny and lie about it? How can he possibly? His daughter cannot remain proud and respectful of her father for long. She has found out what kind of a man he is. What kind of a father it is who spawned her.  That he is every inch a charlatan.  Can't be too pleased about it.  One has to ask, what happened to the rest of the money, Edward Farman?  Where did it go?  What was the split?  And much the same can be asked of the other two "blue-ribbon" principals, Judge Marvin E. Frankel and Marvin Schwartz, who along with Farman are a personification of insidious evil; they embody wickedness.  How do they explain to their families? That's one scenario those big-time charlies, those immature and disgusting moral slackers, never stopped to think about. Never dreamt about it. Never even crossed their minds. Forgot all about Murphy's Law. Never considered repercussions. It is the personal price to be paid, the final punishment, the greatest betrayal of all, the harm inflicted firstly on themselves and then on their families, who are the most hurt by their failure.  They have degraded and diminished themselves and their names.  They have demeaned their families.  That's the constant rebuke all of them have to live with. Their self-image crumbles. They have together violated their integrity. They have smeared themselves with decay. They need to re-examine their relevance. Without their honor and self-respect they are nothing. Their pride fully deflates.  How do they live with themselves? More unintended consequences. Their parents and schools were remiss; can't say the offspring were properly tutored while youngsters growing up. Perhaps they will come up with a novel defense that everyone does it, like the Salt Lake City Olympic Bid Committee.

Pity Morrison and Farman and Frankel couldn't turn out to be genuine articles. Alas Farman, low man on the totem pole, remains small fry and peanuts, inconsequential.  Never got close to the majors.  A two-bit con man really, a lightweight. A flim-flam man. And a prize bungler to boot. A sloppy fraud artist. Doesn't even begin to compare with, not at all of the same caliber as Martin Frankel. Small potatoes, small time. Strictly bush league, third rate, a piker, lackluster, an amateur. He didn't make partner at Sullivan and Cromwell, nor at Morrison, Paul, Stillman and Beiley, now defunct, nor at Stillman and Friedman.  (I recall also Farman telling me that “in this business,” i.e., the legal profession, “you make it while you’re still young.”)  To the consternation of others, Mr. Farman has let down the side; the boys have yet to grant him absolution. They remain relentlessly unforgiving of such a blooper and carelessness on the part of Farman, who may well have had to buy his way into Schindel, Cooper AND Farman (now Schindel, Farman and Lipsius). Who's that again? Farman has become a pariah, is a marked man, and is forever branded, to the end of his days, and beyond. So also are Marvin Schwartz and Judge Marvin E. Frankel, more so the latter, similarly dishonored and indelibly tarnished beyond recall. Enshrined forever for posterity. It is a fitting culmination, the crowning achievement, the pinnacle and summit of their “illustrious” careers. Try as they will, there is no exculpation. They have shown their state of mind. These are deficiently flawed people beset with character shortcomings, lacking ethical convictions and a basic reference point, with a laser light now shining upon them. Additional unintended consequences. It is low road behavior by that cabal. Clearly there is a paucity of inner values. These are morally defective and bankrupt people.  They are not getting away with this one. Not this time. They are in meltdown mode and will implode. The respect evaporates; it is the ultimate humiliation and disgrace. The final ignominy. There goes their standing in society. It is the ideal unfulfilled, the dream that failed. There is irreparable damage to their reputations. For ever and ever. The condemnation is complete. Fitting and lasting memorials. Not inspiring legacies, which are in tatters. Their deeds describe them. They have chosen the values that define them.  They have made their statement. I invite public commentary and/or rebuttal from any or all of the three principals here. These "pillars" of the community. I'm calling them on it. I herewith grant them right of reply. I put them to the test. I challenge them. To step up to the plate. To be counted for whatever they may be worth. So everyone can see what kind of stuff they are made of.  (Those websites up to how have a limited circulation; that won’t last much longer.  Will Morrison, Farman and Frankel, not to overlook Schwartz, who have shown their lives to be a lie, a fraud, a farce, a charade, a sham, soon be acquiring media celebrity status?  Much to their chagrin.)

They are not clever people.  Not very sharp.  Not at all astute.  Not practical.  Not at all savvy. Lacking in judgment. Dumb and dumber.  No insights. No smarts, street or otherwise.  Certainly not at all pragmatic.  They continue to miscalculate and do everything wrong, to make every mistake in the book, and thereby raise the ante immeasurably.  Not at all circumspect.  Wisdom for them comes a shade too late, after the event.  They are slow on the uptake.  They do not learn quickly. They fail to anticipate. They likely have forgotten that had William Jefferson Clinton, or "Split Willie," since he seems to survive by splitting hairs and has more lives than nine cats put together, until not too long ago the incumbent in residence at The White House, (also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and America's best known draft dodger who finally made it to Vietnam a quarter century plus later, long after the war was over, and a born again Christian who walked down the aisle of that church and consecrated his life to Jesus at age seven but which obviously didn't hold) reached a quiet accommodation with Paula Jones some years ago, he would not have been forever and thoroughly disgraced, would not have been impeached by the House and faced trial before the Senate, would not have faced criminal charges and disbarment after leaving office. It ought to have happened.  He is a man who was able to put the country through one of its most lurid sex scandals ever, and then had the effrontery to argue with a straight face that he had saved the Constitution by fighting impeachment through lying about it.  He should have been called on the carpet to face trial for his unlawful offenses. Not a matter for partisan politics; it went far beyond that. Truly a sorry spectacle.  Not ever to be minimized or trivialized. You never condone, readily dismiss and overlook perjury, obstruction of justice and subornation to perjury by the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. If you do, you may as well pack it in. (From Time Europe, April 22, 2000. "No person is above the law, not even the President of the United States." -Robert Ray, Independent Counsel, on the possibility of indicting Bill Clinton after he leaves office.) It "is the most vivid example of the virus of lost standards." It distresses me that "Split Willie," on a personal level a disgusting and despicable human being, who does put up a good front however despite it all, scarcely a sterling example of moral behavior for the people and youth of America, an abysmally foolish and reckless man who allowed himself to fall for and take advantage of a young thong (did he think she would keep her mouth shut?) being flung at him for a brief dalliance, (and I have no use for Hillary) whose only sorrow was that he got caught up in his lies, could no longer perpetuate his deceptions on the American people and the world at large, whose public penance and crocodile tears and mea culpas and remorse and apologies and regrets and pastoral counseling (from Jesse Jackson?  what a laugh!) were as phony as a three dollar bill, as the man himself, has been able with the help of his spinmeisters, to dupe and pull a fast one on so many members of his own party, and on such a large number of the American public whom he regards as being gullible and for whom he obviously has little respect.  (I remain curious about those cigars.  They still fascinate me.  They continue to intrigue me.  That’s one thing I haven’t gotten around to trying out.  I may have to ask for volunteers.  I wonder if they would actually taste and smoke better?)  Equally as clear is that the man, a sometime Professor of Constitutional Law, didn't take seriously and think very highly of his oath of office when he raised his right hand during that swearing in ceremony. Or happily forgot all about it. All in all, a sickening and deplorable performance by the CEO. (Shouldn't every man have a wife like Hillary, who has been very busy looking the other way all these years? Even before the marriage apparently.  She forgives the biblical seventy times seven, with no ending to it.)

          In his last day in office, “Split Willie” cut a deal with the Independent Counsel and got off easy with mild slaps on the wrist.  Small censures from the Arkansas Bar Association.  Finally got disbarred from arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court.  It did take long enough.  What do you make of it all?

Scum like Farman make it extremely difficult for me to be a believer and remain idealistic in this world, to keep the faith. I've written him he is a putrid man, a vile, wretched, little creep, a moral misfit, and since he is short in stature, a small weasel and moral pygmy as well. (Obviously Morrison, Farman, and Frankel for that matter, were not listening too well when taught courses in legal ethics at Columbia.  And the same can be said for Schwartz while at Penn.  And Frankel did not much refer to his judge’s manual or handbook.  Certainly cannot be counted on as gurus to provide strong moral guidance to law students, absent the honesty and integrity, not their strong suit, with which they pursue their work and lead their lives.  Their standard of behavior is apparent.  One wonders how they ever hoped to achieve job fulfillment and accomplishment in their professional endeavors and means by which they earn their livelihood.) I carry it further. Farman is a slimy, stinking, contemptible, despicable piece of living excrement.  A sleazy, double crossing louse.  A real, active, repulsive human turd.  There are definitely no merits, no alleviating or mitigating circumstances at all. No extenuation, no redeeming features whatever for Edward Farman. Actions were reprehensible, completely indefensible. The man is vermin, the dreg of the legal profession. A pitiful being, a miserable, poor specimen and caricature of humanity is Farman, who couldn't live up to expectations of himself and his family. If ever he were called upon to explain shrinkage, among other matters, in the context herewith depicted, during pre-trial deposition or under oath in a court of law, he would not be able to do so, not in a thousand years. He would be going counter to the statutes, to established precedents, and case law.  It is another finding of fact.  Very obvious.  More clear and convincing proof.  Another conclusion of law. Another flawed and tainted lawyer. The others won't have an easy time of it either, when their turn comes to testify. All the casuistry in the world won't save the day. Or their skins. Most assuredly they won't smell of roses. Well, they can always take the fifth if they have to. All is not lost. When it's over, Farman for one can always open up a Mom-and-Pop store at Woodmere Station on the L.I.R.R. He certainly won't get a license to sell insurance, or real estate, or securities. Farman can also write a mea culpa, "Misguided Ambition." May even make some money out of it. (Doubt there would be any movie or TV rights.) There are special places in hell reserved for Peter H. Morrison and Edward Farman, both detestable, obscene individuals, and others of similar ilk. Definitely Morrison and Farman did not agonize, nor were they facing any ethical dilemmas or moral quandaries or crises when they decided, obviously with premeditation, over an extended period of time in 1972, to break faith with and pull a swindle on their client, to betray him, to renege on their duty and obligation. Not at all becoming. Very, very naughty. By any measure, an unconscionable act. Absence of informed consent, and hence, of legality? It is established and settled law that where consent is obtained by deception, with absence of informed consent, there is no recognition in law, no legality.  I should mention my attorneys were operating on a fee, and not on a contingency basis. (The law firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer and Weinstein may soon consider it expedient and prudent to drop the name of Morrison from its masthead. Not only could it prove a continuing liability, but highly embarrassing as well. And a negative influence on the bottom line. )

Since Peter H. Morrison cannot defend himself posthumously, I invite all his advocates and proponents to come forward and do so, publicly. I invite also all the champions and apologists to similarly come forth on behalf of Prudential Securities and its luminaries, Marvin Schwartz and his cohorts at Sullivan and Cromwell, Judge Marvin E. Frankel, Edward Farman, Robert Paul, Charles A. Stillman, Stanley A. Beiley (the latter three being partners of the eight-man law firm that shafted me; Stillman is recognized by legal peers as presently being among the top one hundred lawyers in NY; don't think he's going to become a whistle-blower at this late stage) and others of lesser import involved in the scam they may elect to publicly defend. They will all have a difficult time of it. They may even end up with egg on their faces. While most of the notables are Columbia alumni, it is no reflection on that law school, known to be among the best in the U.S. I've no doubt that Stanford, Michigan and Penn, among others, have turned out their fair share of rogue and renegade lawyers and judges, as have McGill and Laval in Canada, among other law schools in that country.

But my greatest contempt is reserved for Kenneth S. Howard, (whose name appears in exhibit two) another AV rating, a retired senior partner of the law firm Ogilvy Renault of Montreal. Howard is ostensibly retired as well, but also very much on the premises at O-R (was until recently; his name no longer appears on the roster). I heap complete scorn on that man. Mr. Howard is a high caste Brahmin of sorts, an eminent blue-blood, of patrician stock and lineage, a proper WASP, for whatever all that may be worth, an impeccable elitist of what remains of the Anglo establishment in Montreal, which has long seen its glory days gone forever. He is a scion of a man not elected, but appointed to the Canadian Senate, who was one of the robber barons of bygone days. Mr. Howard is a life-long resident of Quebec Province, and can barely say yes and no in the French language. Howard was instrumental in steering me toward a firm of shyster lawyers in NY, and when the fact was pointed out to him in late November of 1972, turned his back on me. I told Howard (who bilked me of $500 then, just for making some phone calls and passing my material on to NY) I had every reason to believe I had incurred harm from his referral, and needed his assistance to find other counsel in NY to pursue proceedings anew. Mr. Howard distinguished himself by replying, with some hostility and disdain, and in rather contemptuous and cavalier manner, that the NY telephone directory was full of lawyers. It was not his finest hour. Definitely not one of McGill Law School's nobler products. I was in touch with Howard once more, during May 1996, to test his mettle and determine his stance. Also to remove any lingering element of doubt. He ran true to form and didn't measure up. Again he defined himself and failed a further test of character and propriety. I pointed out to Howard that given the reverse situation, and he was to present me with supporting documentation and inform me I had succeeded in leading him toward a bunch of scum lawyers in NY, I would in turn be indignant, then furious, then livid with rage. I would not hesitate at all. I would pull out all the stops, and do everything in my power to help him effect restitution. I would make use of all my resources, and the entire resources of my firm if need be, to find suitable counsel to help bring about such restitution. To do less or otherwise would clearly call into question and be a reflection on my honor and integrity, and that of my firm. Alas, Mr. Howard did not see it that way. He saw fit to employ a surrogate and proxy to respond on his behalf, in a letter notable for its brevity, indicating once more neither he nor his firm were inclined to assist. Again, abetting what transpired. Like Edmund Morris, “I marvel at the aesthetic perversity of well born WASPS.” (Comforting to know not all WASPS are of similar stripe as Howard.) As before, Mr. Howard was informed and did nothing. A shoddy performance all around, by a shabby man. May he live in interesting times. A sorrowful human being, a despicable man is Howard. Singularly lacking in perspicacity and foresight, utterly bereft of the "vision thing." Inopportune to disavow and repudiate now; too late for second thoughts at this point. Not a prudent course to adopt, as he is finding out. It is a fine epitaph for the accomplishments of his lifespan. Mr. Howard was informed and did nothing. A fitting capstone to his career, the summa of his existence. They can carve it on his tombstone. Very apropos and something to be proud of. Inevitably there are reverberations and repercussions, implying complicity, for Howard and his firm. There may not be much to bequeath to successors. The years of building up to a so called fine record and reputation, such as it is, could soon all be washed down the drain as a waste of effort.

Howard's position is understandable, in a way. But it doesn't exonerate him. Ogilvy Renault was, possibly still is, counsel for the Montreal Stock Exchange. [Civil proceeding against the Montreal Stock Exchange could be undertaken on the basis that they knew what was going on, yet failed to act. See exhibit one.] It had, possibly still has, a correspondent relationship with Sullivan and Cromwell. (But solidarity can have its drawbacks and prove disastrous.) Ogilvy Renault also has a fine write-up in Martindale-Hubbell. Unhappily they don't live up to their press clippings. [I've become rather wary of fine write-ups and AV ratings in Martindale-Hubbell, to be taken skeptically.] Ogilvy Renault took Brian Mulroney back on the payroll as senior partner, and that speaks volumes. It tells it all, and sums it up for that firm. For those who may not know, Brian Mulroney, a Laval law graduate, basks and luxuriates in the enviable distinction of being duly recognized and acclaimed as being one of the most corrupt, if not the most corrupt, Prime Minister in Canadian political history. This is not fiction. I mention "On the Take," all of 512 pages, a book by Stevie Cameron, published by Macfarlane, Walter and Ross, which refers to Mulroney and his party, and chronicles the Mulroney years in Canadian government, as a "dismal picture of greed, cronyism and corruption." The essence of the book, says The Toronto Star, is that for nine years Canadians were "governed from out of the political back rooms." That's right, nine years! (Must be a longevity record for a democratic nation.) The account by Cameron, relates The Ottawa Citizen, is a "directory to the villains and villainies of the Mulroney era." The Prime Minister, writes Cameron, "oversaw a government that put the country's treasury at the disposal of himself and his supporters." You get the picture. It was common knowledge. And yet. Ogilvy Renault welcomed him back into the fold with open arms, as senior partner. To add luster to their ranks, no doubt. That surely deserves a grand prize of some kind. (A top rainmaker possibly?) Collectively those partners at O-R have to rank as a bunch of dimwits. I carry it further. Obviously Mulroney didn't acquire the proclivity to become bent shortly after going into politics and presto, upon suddenly becoming Prime Minister of Canada. That facet of his character was an inherent part of his make-up long before, and must have been known to all others at Ogilvy Renault. Which means that the partners at that firm turned a blind eye to it all. They had a magnificent opportunity to distance themselves from the activities of Mulroney, and passed it up. Those partners aren't merely a bunch of dimwits. They have to rank as a bunch of prime assholes as well for taking Mulroney back on the roster. If ever a glaring example of collective group think gone astray is needed, this is it.

Mulroney was unable to understand, or someone neglected to inform him, that the media in Canada are free and democratic, and every inch as vigilant and aggressive as are its counterparts in the U.S. Does anyone seriously believe the Quebec Bar Association undertook, or will ever undertake, an investigation into the fitness of character of Mulroney, to remain a member in good standing of the Quebec Bar? Not a chance. Don't hold your breath. Or bet on it. Mulroney would probably have to set the building on fire, and be caught at it.  Incidentally Mulroney as leader presided over the complete disintegration and near obliteration and extinction of the Progressive Conservatives as a parliamentary party and political force in Canada, going from a very strong majority of seats held in Parliament while in power, to a mere three in the following election, an accomplishment as yet unparalleled by anyone else.  If Mulroney didn't set standards as Prime Minister of Canada and exercise decisive moral leadership then, he certainly isn't going to do so now at Ogilvy Renault. And that also may be an indication of the culture generally prevailing at that firm. In any event, not an inspiring legacy for Mulroney and O-R to crow about and pass on. What I said previously about PR hacks applies here as well. And again, any champions and apologists on behalf of Ogilvy Renault and Ken Howard (who in effect became accessories by being technically guilty of abetting, of condoning and being party to a swindle) are cordially invited to come forward and publicly declare themselves.

I would much have preferred to keep it all very quiet, but considering Howard's refusal to assist, then in 1972, and again later on, and in view of certain events over the years, on which I elaborate further on, I have no other option than to go online and public on the closest approximation to a legal internet bulletin board. (Since no such site existed at the time, one to adequately cover my requirements, decided to create my own page on the Web. Widest possible dissemination of my material among plaintiffs’ attorneys in NY City.) And the idea for doing so came from a special supplement to Time Europe, which I receive in Greece, dealing with the world of cyberspace.

For my part, it has been an unlovely and uneven, a long, solitary struggle against overwhelming odds and powerful interests for more than 35 years, an unwinnable fight to date against evil doers. All efforts to gain access to the courts, to observe due process and follow the rule of law, have gotten me nowhere thus far and come to naught. It has been akin to battering one’s head against a wall. There are stories within stories, one aspect being the complete invasion of privacy over the years, replete with nasty tricks and foul play. It has been on/off, at varying intervals. The opposition does not fight clean. They do not observe Queensberry rules. They do not play fair. They do not shoot square. Of that I can fully attest, in abundance. These are squalid, noxious, scurrilous, ugly, vicious, ruthless, repulsive, venal, malevolent scum and abominations, short on moral character and ethical integrity in their work. Nothing at all gracious about them.  They are mean spirited people.  No noblesse oblige on their part. No finesse. No éclat. No brio. Coarse, boorish, grubby, loathsome men with little of refinement. No probity.  No icons they. No panache. Not well performed. No charisma. Nothing of nobility about them. No civility. No professional pride or pride of craft. Not distinguished members of the bar and judiciary. Not the brightest stars in the firmament. Predatory sharks and intrinsically evil. Unscrupulous and dishonorable men who haven't been able to shape up. I know whereof I speak. Desperation measures to salvage their professional skins and “sterling” reputations which are on the line. More rough stuff and strong arm tactics? It's that kind of a world out there which they don't tell us about while we're still at university. The surveillance has been extensive and all encompassing, to the nth degree, with much rough and dirty pool. Not very cricket.  Not well played.  A maximum effort at times over the years. Unremitting, relentless, unnerving, round-the-clock, 24 hour close watch, almost overwhelming. I've been subjected not only to various and overt forms of intimidation and harassment, to not so subtle and insidious, more refined kinds of aggression and violence, but recipient of physical violence as well, one such incident from some goon occurring on the street, in broad daylight, before passers-by, at the Broadway entrance to College Walk of Columbia University during spring of 1994, 22 years after “settlement” of the case in 1972, while I was in NY.  (Are they terrorists of another kind?)  All of which serve to provide added confirmation to my endeavors. Evidently my activities while in NY became known, and were making waves and causing concern in some quarters. Is it a strong message? Threats? Intimidation? A warning to cease and desist? Am I supposed to run scared?  And vanish from the scene?  Should I fear for my physical safety?  To hell with them.  I herewith give them the finger.  I'm not given to paranoia, but I put myself in their shoes. There are quite a few of them, and just one of me, and they have immense resources and muscle at their disposal. And I do not. (One person, i.e., yours truly, does not a conspiracy make.) I've been under the looking glass, and have been forcibly and convincingly reminded this is the age of sub-miniaturization and advanced electronics. About the only thing the opposition cannot do is hack into my mind and hear me think, unless I do so out loud. (Not yet, in any event. The latest technology doesn't permit of that.) Nor can they readily anticipate my next moves to take preemptive action. Just about everything else is possible through the hired help, with their attendant use of latest listening paraphernalia and state-of-the-art, high tech surveillance devices. And they have a long reach, as I've learned. No matter however, how adept or proficient the hired help may be, (and quite often they are anything but) invariably they will blow it by making some stupid mistakes somewhere along, to tip their hand. It's happened frequently enough in past years, in different cities. Very inept. A bunch of clumsy, ham-fisted oafs. Not very deft. Not very professional. Perhaps the opposition should ask the hired help for return of all monies thus far expended. It has certainly cost them a good piece of change to now with no results to show for it all. It's quite permissible to follow me about on the streets, videotape me from long range, and build up a file on me, but they have crossed lines into different illegalities on numerous occasions. And the lines aren't at all blurred.

It's all going to come out in the wash and become public knowledge. In good time I will subpoena records of all the activities of the hired gumshoes. All the surveillance, photographic and otherwise. (Over the years I've developed a set of antennae as finely tuned as any respecting surveillance, a finely honed sixth sense. After a while I can even get vibrations.)  And the break-ins of my homes in different cities, and all the information gathered therefrom. All the internal documents pertinent to the case. All the dirty tricks and illegalities over the years. All the phone taps and recordings of such conversations.  As well as the interceptions of mail, incoming and outgoing. All the tampering of any and all communications.   And all the violence, physical and otherwise, against my person.  It has been aggravated harassment and assault.  As well as the interference with, changes to and erasures of websites (Will they do it again?).  All enquiries into my personal and financial affairs.  All the information and data about me on file, including psychological profiles and other evaluations.  All the invasions of privacy.  All other indignities inflicted on me. And the identities of all those perpetrating such clandestine activities.  I hope they haven’t destroyed or lost their records.  I hope they withhold information and suppress evidence.  (In case they’ve forgotten, it is fraud to retain possession of a document relevant to a court case.  And there is no statute of limitations on such fraud.  And that a felony is committed if evidence is altered or destroyed.)  I hope they commit perjury. If they concoct lies they will surely miss the obvious and fail to foresee. They will be so consumed with fiction they likely will overlook a fact or two. A lie may fool for a while but it reveals a truth to all, and that is the weakness implicit in the lie. As John Grisham writes, liars invariably blow it and eventually get caught.  (They can always throw themselves on the mercy of the court when found out.)  All efforts to retrieve exhibit two have been to no avail, for a start. Won't elaborate further here for reason of space. Again, look at enclosure four. For all the aforementioned reasons, I also respectfully and earnestly solicit the active support and sustained and continuing assistance of consumer watchdog/advocate/activist organizations in NY such as Common Cause. Is there a legal watchdog organization in NY? A legal ombudsman? Support and active assistance also from the ACLU perhaps? Can it be argued that denial of due process, guaranteed by the Constitution, and inability to follow the rule of law all these years constitutes an infringement of my civil liberties? A violation of constitutional rights? It has been much too one-sided for too long.  It remains very much a tilted contest, which must be addressed.  The playing field needs to be levelled, the balance to be redressed.

And I don't want any of them to die on me like Peter H. Morrison or lapse into senility or come down with Alzheimer's. Or to be found medically unfit to stand trial and face criminal prosecutions like Pinochet in Europe. (In Chile it's a see-saw at the Supreme Court level.) I want them all to find and recover their moral bearings and regain some self-esteem, to finally discern the difference between right and wrong, to remove this burden weighing heavily on them, to overcome their angst and ethos of wrong doing, to have their house in order before they depart from this scene and pass on to the beyond. To show some remorse.  Up to now they reveal a too limited grasp of conscience. I want them to repent and be transformed, to undergo a spiritual renewal and regeneration.  To reflect on their lives, to try to understand how they went off track, to do some soul searching and become clean of heart. To go on a voyage of self-discovery.  To be so overwhelmed and consumed with guilt they feel a compulsion to assuage that guilt and exorcise their demons through atonement. So they may be purged and rehabilitated and redeemed, that they can purify themselves and overcome the moral corruption of their souls, and be rewarded by finding some meaning for their lives. To uncover a sense of purpose for their being, the most important ingredient of self-worth. To make a forthright act of contrition. Relief comes with purging but catharsis requires confession. To recant openly and humbly and undergo public self-criticism and become penitents after the manner of some in mainland China who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. To become authentic people once more as during childhood days. Innocence regained. To finally acquire some merit. While there is still time. In this life, not in some nebulous beyond. To meet that final accounting improperly is the last cowardice, the ultimate failure of life. Thus far they are abject failures and flunk the test.  Their journey through life is sadly deficient.  Not a plus on their scorecards. They haven't lived up to their promise, to their potential. The excellence that was possible has eluded them.  They are loaded down with what the law calls guilty knowledge. It is the burden of complicity. I want them to render their highest devotions, to find expression for their better selves and to give form to their best aspirations.  To reach for intimations of the finest in life.  To strive for, to endeavor to acquire and receive the gift of living grace.  To discover and gain that talent and genius for living.  I want them to learn the best and know it for the best.  To make the gift of life more precious and thus be more worthy of the gift.  I am ready and stand prepared to provide them with spiritual counsel of their choice. I'll help them undergo a conversion to cleanse themselves by wiping the slate clean and thereby become purified of their transgressions, so they may find redemption and finally acquire some validation, some definition and justification, for their entire existence.  And maybe, just maybe, they can then forgive themselves.  Until that happens, may they also live in interesting times. And may they get what they fully deserve.

Judge Marvin E. Frankel will be 82 in year 2002, Marvin Schwartz will be 80, Edward Farman remains junior at 62.  I remind the two Marvins they have reached their twilight years; their biological clock is ticking more rapidly. They are in their sunset days and shouldn't be wasting opportunities and taking any more chances. Time is running out; there may not be too many moments to spare. Without honest confession and acknowledgement of sins they do not reach paradise. There can be no cleansing, no deliverance, no absolution; there is permanent exclusion. (Mea culpas and breast beatings by the two Marvins as well? Wouldn't that be lovely?) Farman has more breathing space unless he suddenly comes down with something terminal like his mentor. Nor do I want any of them to commit suicide. Especially Judge Frankel. I say it again, he is the frosting, the icing on the cake. I remind him and the others that truth is the bedrock of the legal system, that it has no foundation, that it cannot endure based on immoral behavior. There is much to clarify. Frankel has some tall questions to answer to before his Maker beckons.  He is honor bound to explain.  (Marvin E. Frankel shouldn’t despair too much.  Another federal judge, while still on the bench, was impeached, and lo and behold, subsequently he was rejuvenated and rehabilitated by being elected a member of Congress.  How about that!)  The query inevitably arises, what can one make of such activity on the part of Judge Marvin E. Frankel? Indicative of a wider pattern of systemic and serial misconduct by a federal judge while on the bench?  A man become known in some circles to be susceptible and amenable to certain entreaties? Vulnerable to certain influences? Can the same be said for Marvin Schwartz and Peter H. Morrison and his protégé Edward Farman in their practice of law? (Are Martin Frankel and Judge Marvin E. Frankel related to each other? Wouldn't that be delightful?) Indeed I want all three alive and kicking and in full possession of their faculties during the civil phase, when they are called upon to provide testimony and offer explanations of their conduct during pre-trial discovery. Which is their DEFINING moment, THE MOMENT OF TRUTH when details of the conspiracy become very apparent and it all falls apart on those sharpies. When they'll be singing their swan song. When they see that writing on the wall. Their last hurrah. When the floodgates burst. When they can kiss it all goodbye. And to be equally alive and kicking when they occupy that chair of honor and take that oath on the witness stand during the trial itself.  When everyone can see them squirm.  (Hot off the press! A justice of the NY State Supreme Court is accused of soliciting a bribe and accepting a thick envelope stuffed with $100 bills to the tune of over $100,000, to approve a settlement in favor of certain parties who stood thereby to make a bundle.  Very much current.  See Friday, January 25, 2002 issue of The NY Times, Section B, page 3, under heading “Indictment of a Brooklyn Judge Provides Details of Seemingly Routine Corruption,” for details.  It is stated the practice could be indicative of a wider pattern of corruption prevailing among the judiciary in Brooklyn.)

The thought crosses my mind that the major opposition, i.e., Prudential Fianacial, and Sullivan and Cromwell (whom I lump together as being not too bright) just might be obtuse and idiotic enough as was that other collective, the French Secret Service, in Auckland Harbor back in 1985.  They can change the rules of engagement at will.  (Up to now they haven’t employed deadly force or committed a capital crime, but who knows?)  They wouldn't sully their hands directly, but undoubtedly they know someone who knows someone who knows...who could precipitate a fatal accident, or induce a stroke, or cardiac arrest, and the like. Or whatever other obscenities their fertile little minds might dream up.  (Like instigating a foot infection?)  That would not be productive. I've a clean bill of health, having had a recent overall check-up. A good forensic pathologist and toxicologist will be able to see through it all very fast. In any event, should calamity or incapacity of any kind or anything abnormal occur, I've assigned all my rights to legal proceedings in the U.S., and all funds accruing therefrom, to my three universities in Canada. They carry considerable contra-clout, and wield a far bigger club than I as a lone individual. Most definitely they won't be easy targets or pushovers. And I herewith inform the opposition whom I have learned through hard experience not to underestimate, in case it hasn't dawned on them yet, that certain fail-safe and back-up procedures and systems are in place. Contingency plans are in force. I leave nothing to chance. Not any more. The traditional insurance policies have been taken out. Copies of documentation and disks abound, in various locations, with different people, in Montreal, Toronto, NY, and Greece. But not in Quebec City, where I was born and grew up. Nor in Chicago, where I lived for a time, and where the hired help also penetrated my home. I anticipated and was expecting it. Even left a message for them. I let out some trial balloons. The opposition took the bait. The hired help left some tell-tale signs, to give it away. Those break-in and entry boys will never get a job with the CIA or FBI covert entry team. So, not in Quebec City or Chicago. That narrows down the field somewhat, for the hired help. My home in Greece has been broken into twice, during July and November of 1996, 24 years after “settlement” in 1972, likely the result of the mailing to Howard earlier.  (It was immediately apparent upon return of documents that copies had been made in Montreal and likely passed on to NY.  I quickly informed I was on to them.)  I live alone. I'm quite precise and meticulous in certain of my habits. Some mistakes I just do not make. I can tell when I've been gone over. Very upsetting at first. Annoying and irritating. But also what the opposition did not expect and count on. Most encouraging.  And still they press on, using subterfuge to learn exact living locations in NY so they can conduct more searches, which I invite to give them additional discovery, and to see what they’ll do next, and latest website addresses, not all of which I provide.  (And then there are the "sleeper" websites.)  Some searches occurred during late summer of 2004, while I was living in an apartment share in the Fordham area of The Bronx. Followed a year later by that which took place during early summer of 2005 while I was on the Upper West Side. Again, it is further encouraging.

And more later twists involve parties pilfering my garbage at 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning to sift through it to see what else they can learn, while I was temporarily apartment sitting in The Bronx. Which I didn’t become aware of, quite accidentally, until late June 2006. Imagine that. Certainly wasn’t looking for it. Definitely not the NYPD or the Fibbies. I’m not dealing drugs or laundering money. Accompanied by an additional break-in and enter to conduct a search of premises. And the breaking of locks on closet doors. These events happening 32, 33, and 34 years after “settlement”. Strongly suggests they do not set much store to the statute of limitations. It is even more re-assuring. As a courtesy, which they don’t deserve, I now let them know the authorities have instituted hidden visual surveillance in that area, on top of the usual. The can govern themselves accordingly.

Following the last aforementioned of 2006, I deemed it proper to send some sharp letters, accompanied by printouts from the latest edition of a website, to the Chairman, H.Rodgin Cohen, Harvard Law 1968,  and Vice Chairman, Joseph Shenker, Columbia Law 1980, of Sullivan and Cromwell, counsel for the defense of that firm during 1972, that person being one of the partners, and my ex-counsel, pointing out the obvious. Once again they are beset by the burden of complicity. And of having guilty knowledge. Being accessories? Aiding and abetting? And being a party to? Their culpabilities stem from encouragement of a crime. And by doing nothing does that make them guilty of abetting a crime? Of condoning, endorsing and rewarding a felony? Of being silent accomplices? They can no longer plead ignorance. No moral ambiguities whatever, none at all. Silence is become tacit approval and latent complicity. Obviously they promote such behavior since they do nothing to address the issue and thereby dig an even bigger hole for themselves. Seemingly, their integrity is not vital to them. Those walls continue to contract. Some ten days after delivery of these letters, two purported FBI agents came to The Bronx asking for me. Checking with the NY field office of the FBI at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan. I was informed no person at the FBI wished to see me. Which means those “agents” were bogus, imposters. I came close to being abducted and taken for a ride. Short or long? Not to be seen again? Perhaps the intent was merely to instill fear and intimidate. Perhaps it was more ominous. I’ll never know. Such activities bear only a faint resemblance to the rules of civilized behavior. And indicate they are a very worried group of people. On top of being a squalid and sordid bunch. Well, I suppose there exist other means of containing me, apart from the obvious, which they have not yet implemented. Hardball and strong arm stuff of another kind? Why am I no longer surprised at what they might do next? (Since those shenanigans of 2006 the opposition have seen fit to adopt a lower profile, as certain nonsense soon becomes public record and reverberates unfavorably on them. Am not aware of anything blatant or flagrant during 2007 or 2008 while I was in NY. But, my home in Greece was entered into, undoubtedly to conduct a search for documents, during early March 2008. Small signs, perhaps inadvertently, were left behind, and so I knew about it. I am not astonished. They get even more discovery and learn what they will soon be facing. To follow up, there have been three entries into my home between mid December and the end of 2008. And two during the first ten days of 2009. That I know about. I deliberately leaked certain items of information over the phone during a long distance call. But not everything. Again, they took the bait. And still it carries over into 2010, but to a somewhat lesser extent in Sparta. I can now safely assume they are with me all the time while I’m in NY, predictably so. To eliminate any doubt, they leave certain indications from time to time to let me know such is the case.)

Should I be wrong about any of this, I'll be only too glad to publicly apologize, as did General Motors to Ralph Nader, albeit reluctantly. Thinking of GM, I'm half hoping the opposition send some enticing and glamorous ladies around to entertain me, as GM did with Ralph. They had better be on expense account. Now that would be very funny. More than that, hilarious. Not to bother sending any men or young kiddies. I don't lean in such directions. Nor anything too kinky or way out. My perversions are very healthy, very normal. No whips, no ropes, no masks, no spike or stiletto heels.  No restraints whatever.  No handcuffs, no studded collars, no leather bindings, no sadomasochistic stuff.  No rough play.  No sundry forms of discipline.  [I’m partial to models from Victoria’s Secret, more so long-stemmed, high heeled lingerie lovelies.  (Which would yield far better results for them.  As I keep reminding my adversaries, those lame brains, but they just don’t get it at all. They continue assigning motley bimbos and nondescripts, some of them physically sick and/or mentally unstable with a few loose screws, who have been turned into double agents, unknowingly, to sow disinformation among my enemies.)  Dangling garter belts and bra-less plunging necklines with deep cleavage lines or better still, topless, and bikini thongs and G-strings, the briefer the better, and see through baby doll pyjamas and negligees and harem pants, and bare midriffs and belly buttons, no diamonds please, are my big weakness.]  And I have no further need of those bungling puppeteers engaging and sending more bumbling misfits, a few who just don’t belong, or add up, or fit in at certain places, real meatheads, agents in place, male and female alike, (some of whose identities are known, who can therefore expect to be served subpoenas to appear during legal proceedings as witnesses on my behalf, and who will never succeed in undercover work or covert operations) to the scene, snoops sent to eavesdrop on conversations or approach me surreptitiously and under guise at different locations to ferret out my latest plans and websites and next moves.  Inadequately trained and poorly briefed, and not too bright to begin with, they commit many blunders.  With silly, inane cover stories and legends. They very quickly reveal themselves.  It soon becomes obvious. Also quite sad, really.  What a bunch of rubes!  Gross incompetence.  Sheer stupidity.  Once more they get the finger.  Additional lapses in judgment.  And again they still try.  They keep on botching it, and like Prudential, just don’t seem to learn. 

They do improve but very slowly.  An agent in place of some time back was a 3L law student at Columbia, and a moot court finalist at that. There was progress but not by much.  She was suspect as a plant from the start.  I gave her enough leeway.  Equally as significant as the things she said and did were the things she did not say and do.  She fell for the bait, failed the test, and blew it.  As have others in the past.  There were some outright lies.  I used her to provide additional discovery.  I let her know at the end I was on to her, and wished her a life of interesting times as she accepted an assignment which, if successful, would succeed in causing me harm and damage.  Which most certainly she knew about.  Her name also has been added to my witness list. A later agent in place, which was not long ago operating in my very own backyard in Greece, the second Greek-American lady recruited for such a purpose, hailing from Phoenix and having close family ties in Sparta, followed the first Greek-American lady operating in a MTA bus on Central Park West some years ago. Both have proven to be complete duds, making repeated, stupid mistakes to give it away. I’ve got to hand it to them, however. They must have an extensive data base. I have a thought for the opposition: they desist from employing more agents in place.  A few have been entire disasters, live turkeys. (Like that inept bungler, undoubtedly an undercover who tried to gain my confidence over time so that I would sing like a canary, and who turned out to be a prize putz, a real Turkish klutz.)  What that has done thus far, with website tampering, is to serve possibly as a delaying action in some cases.  And that doesn’t serve their cause at all.  I inform them as well that I also have agents in place and make use of them when needed.  All that must merit a top award of some sort.  They merely add to my ammunition.  And set my juices flowing more copiously.  I remind them once again, publicly this time, as they’ve been reminded by letter in the past,  that any tampering with websites is counterproductive and self-defeating, more so at this stage of the proceedings.  It is ridiculous, soon asinine and becomes accomplished foolishness. Such action would have hindered me for a while some time ago.  But not for long.  And most definitely does not do so now.  Tampering is also a federal offense.  It is a criminal act.  As is obstruction and the withholding of information and evidence. As are mail intercepts. Wiretapping carries five years, federal. I remind further that breaking and entering is a felony crime everywhere, at any time.  It all indicates more than ever the extent and range of their concerns.  And of the lengths they will go to.

The surveillance is now become a maximum effort, especially so while I’m in New York. And some of it has bordered on the ludicrous. Is it their distinct brand of psychological warfare? Out to spook me? If they don’t behave and shape up, I may commence picket duty again. And I can guarantee posting on blogs and maximum exposure and publicity this time. Students in business ethics and legal ethics classes at various business schools and law schools across the U.S. will have a field day with this one. (Kindly disseminate the news nationwide. I was born 65 years too soon. Which means I’m a computer illiterate. Keep the pot boiling.) Of the ethics and morality found in the commercial/legal/judicial marketplace. Of the corruption therein. And the implications thereof for the public interest and society at large. They can philosophize and expound and keep on tossing it around almost indefinitely. That's just for openers. There would be quotable quotes from me in profusion. It has been considered and intentional misconduct and criminal obstruction of justice of the highest magnitude, of the worst possible kind, by knowledgeable professionals who know better.  I foresee massive fines payable to U.S. Justice Department. And for the indictment, arrest, trial, conviction, incarceration of select parties. Not to forget disbarment of the lawyers in the picture. And not to overlook collateral consequences, on top of direct, for all concerned, and their loved ones. Eric Holder, the current  Attorney General in the Obama administration, has gone on record and publicly declared his intention to actively pursue and prosecute white collar criminals.

They need be reminded that the crooked partners in Grisham’s “The Firm” got their downfall through mail fraud, consisting of the multiple billing scam. And 2005 issues of the Financial Times report that lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell “bill the hardest,” having the highest average gross billings per lawyer of any major Wall Street law firm, that being an amount of $1.3 million per annum. And that they average the highest  profits per partner of ₤2.33 million. That was for 2004. We are now in year 2010. For more info on working conditions, not at all good, that generally prevail at Sullivan and Cromwell, see March 5, 2007 issue of New York magazine. (I hope they lie to the Feds.  And the Feds don’t like being deceived and lied to.  They go after you with a vengeance.  You do not get spared.  Witness what happened to Martha Stewart.  There was perjury, obstruction of justice, insider trading, securities fraud.  Were there additional charges?  And she did not get off easy, as did Diana Brooks of Sotheby’s who underwent home incarceration for a brief period.  It was longer residency in the federal hotel.  And, as Grisham writes, "if the government is going to provide you with guest accommodation at no charge, free room and board in effect, much better it be federal than state."  She was looking at a potential of several years.  Consider also what has happened to her business and personal life.  All for the sake of $51,000 which was a mere pittance for her.)  Perjury also is a criminal act.  And perjury is a very bad rap.  I would just love to see them lie about it under oath.  (There may well be limits to the patience and mercy of the court.)  And I’d like to have them try to rig the jury.  And they just may attempt it.  [Concerning the latter, John Grisham’s “The Runaway Jury” is excellent reading.  Fiction presumably, seemingly a bit far-fetched at times, but very plausible.  Litigation against Big Tobacco.  Apparently it’s based on real events.  (Just the sort of hanky panky my opponents might pull, if they think it will succeed and work for them.  If they believe they can get away with it.)  A legal thriller.  Much recommended for all.]  I ask you, how can anyone have any respect for them?  It is apropos to paraphrase here from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former senior U.S. Senator from NY. "Not for nothing is wit a double edged word. It is the basic tool of the truth teller, and this is a tale of truth telling."

There is a caveat and moral emerging from all this, for all lawyers and judges, indeed for anyone holding a position of authority and responsibility. The message and the warning word is don't! You had better be scrupulous in your accounting, and live up to your ethical obligations and moral imperatives. You had better be squeaky clean. More so if you aspire to honor and prestige. Or else. Should you fail and fall short, you may unexpectedly be brought to account publicly somewhere down the line, and be called upon in various ways to pay a price, psychological and social, of some kind, even posthumously. Mistake it not. There is always a cost of some sort to be borne, emotionally and otherwise, and you may unwittingly, even subconsciously, pursue that propensity to be your own worst adversary. Don't ever, ever, not even indirectly, be a party to questionable proceedings. Stand up and be counted for whatever you're worth. It's your moment of truth. Once only may be enough to ruin your name, smear and destroy your reputation, haunt you, turn your into an outcast, shred and demolish your public image forever. Just once may be all it takes, as some people are now finding out, much to their dismay. And an impressive pedigree will count for naught and won't save you; the fall from grace becomes that much harder. And at the end of the day, every one of them has to face his conscience, whatever it may be, in the privacy of his thoughts. One's own conscience is the only enemy one cannot defeat. They have begun serving not just a life sentence; it's a perpetual sentence onto all eternity.

I do what is possible.  I continue to fight and march against ancient enemies; there will always be ancient enemies to battle and oppose. It is a ceaseless fight.  It is Operation Clean-up.  It is nonviolent resistance on my part to the evils personified by those stumblebums. And a struggle making full use of the Net. They want to wage war? They've got one. More than they bargained for. I respond and retaliate with cyberwarfare, very legal, which cannot be said of many of their activities. And the Net may well be the great equalizer.  (I remind again that it was only after 1995 that the Internet began to exert a strong influence on our lives.)  I have my own interpretation of The Golden Rule.  I give as good as I get.  And then some. Turnabout is always fair play in my lexicon. (Let's see what kind of warfare they will now indulge in. Whether it can be civilized. I remind them that when they cheat, they've taken the honor and fun out of winning. Ultimately they've cheated and betrayed themselves out of the finest pleasure in life, beating the other guy by observing the rules of the game.) It's my activism, and militancy, and contribution to help the legal profession and judiciary, which I still hold to be comprised for the most part of decent and honorable people, rid itself of some of its afflictions and malignancies, of some of its rotten apples, its perennial scoundrels and scumbags. Of several of its corrupt, prominent, arrogant, self-inflated, high profile people who have overstepped the limits, gone wrong, and become thieves in effect, who steal, high powered sleaze artists and slimeballs. Who don't go by the book. Who operate and live by their own rules and bend them to their convenience. Who remain unencumbered by the lawful constraints of immoral behavior and limits of conventional morality. Who give only lip service to the finest tenets and ideals and traditions of the legal and judicial profession. Whose conduct indicates a shallow respect and thoughtless disdain of acceptable values, a callous disregard for the meaning of the law, and who pervert it without fear of sanctions to suit themselves.  (Whoever is casual about swindling is an enemy of society, casual about trust and responsibility has not learned the meaning of human society, casual about convictions, goals and aspirations of human life, cannot penetrate the depth or reach the height of human potential.) For whom the fates have been kind and to whom so much has been given. Who manage to blow it despite being privileged elitists and having every advantage going for them.  Who couldn’t measure up to accepted standards of morality and decency.  For whom the Code of Professional Ethics and Responsibility is just words.

For the legal establishment in the City of NY to do nothing would signify knowledgeable acceptance and support, confer some veneer of legitimacy, constitute endorsement and could be construed as reward of a felony and a granting of licensed criminal status. Which is never to be tolerated of privileged attorneys and judges who are quite casual about it all. Especially by the mandarins of the legal establishment and a jury of peers. Otherwise there ensues and remains gross negligence and flagrant irresponsibility. And a complete abdication and noticeable denial of the obligation to crack down and expunge and repudiate the corrosion in the ranks, to maintain the highest of standards which have undergone sharp deterioration in this instance. To renew and revive a standard of candor and excellence. Not to overlook firm and decisive action required to serve as an effective warning to others tempted to indulge in similar pursuits. Failure to act convincingly is tantamount to being negligent in their duty, to becoming accessories after the fact, and is all pretense, makes a farce, a sham and mockery of self-regulation in disciplinary proceedings, identical to the self-regulation practiced by Insiders at Lloyd's of London. Who empower themselves to determine precisely what is meant by the notion of self-regulation, unilaterally making all rules and decisions governing their investigations, without answering to any outside authority. And we all know how effective and what protection that has afforded not so privileged Names (investors).

Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar in the City of New York has been superseded by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 61 Broadway, New York, NY, 10006. Chief Counsel is now Alan W. Friedberg, successor to Thomas Cahill.  If the legal establishment, which all too frequently in the past has adopted the ostrich approach and remained blissfully oblivious, complacent and indifferent, is incapable of, or reluctant and unwilling to take the initiative, apply sanctions, and clean up its house when certain shenanigans are brought to its attention, then someone else will surely do so for them. If they shirk this issue and maintain a wall of secrecy or conspiracy and culture of silence. If they can't measure up to the task and moral responsibility facing them. To eradicate this damage and pervasive affront, to restore the honor and integrity of the legal profession and judiciary. To eliminate this blot and stigma in the ranks. To excise this scourge and pestilence which if not arrested at every opportunity becomes a contagion, this still thriving cancer in their midst which spreads and feeds on itself. Should peer review prove incapable of doing the job and removing this festering scab, this  infection and stain and open sore. If they are committed not to cleansing but only to concealing.  Permitling the rot to remain saps respect. To convene open hearings becomes a necessity. It becomes the wake-up call.  The stakes of ignoring get higher all the time and may well be a ticking time bomb leading to an enormous shakeout. Should they remain out of touch and fail to review and revamp procedures, to bring about a reformation of legal and judicial governance.  I do still believe in the system despite its flaws, imperfections and deficiencies. That it can work. That it still works. No longer may it be politic for them to stonewall and waffle, to tolerate improprieties, to be apprised and to refrain from acting, to attempt to sweep it all under the carpet, to continue to be party to a cover-up. To turn a deaf ear.  To be informed and to do nothing.  To continue to look the other way.  Else it becomes the beginning of the end. No window dressing please. No prevarications. No placebos. No charades. No sugar coating. No foot dragging. No mild slaps on the wrist. No cop-outs. No more sitting on the fence. We know what JFK thought about the triumph of evil when good men stand still and remain complacent and quiet and do nothing about it, and about which he felt quite strongly. (And I still believe in the basic integrity of the legal process, and continue to look upon the U.S. judicial and justice system with high esteem. I still believe that the judiciary is for the most part honest and independent, and basically upright.)

Since the import and significance of it all may conveniently escape the reflections of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department, they may need reminding that most thinking people agree the sanctity of the law should be preserved and safeguarded, that any practice which perverts, corrupts, affects the stability and integrity of the legal process, undermines and subverts the law, threatens or destroys public confidence in the administration of justice, ought be severely deplored and condemned, and VIGOROUSLY dealt with, to discourage further emulation, for faith in the justice system remains the pulse beat of our everyday life. We rely on the legal framework, and on our legal institutions, whose quality depends on their integrity. I quote from Justice Tom Clark of the U.S. Supreme Court. “Justice is everybody's business. It passes on every man's property, his reputation, his liberty, his life. We must therefore build our courts on solid ground, for if the judicial power fails, good government is at an end.” It must be asked, is the American legal system sufficiently mature and up to the challenge now confronting it? The system has broken down. It’s high time for a renewal of the social contract with the people. [I remind the Departmental Disciplinary Committee that public opinion of the legal profession is not the highest; further, that Richard Milhous Nixon, or “Tricky Dick” (who escaped a prison sentence because of a presidential pardon received from that imbecile, Gerald Ford, who did not know, was too dense and not bright enough to grasp that the countries of Eastern Europe were at one time satellite states under domination by the Soviet Union) was disbarred by the State of California Bar; to my knowledge, he was never indicted, never convicted.]

We are looking at a morality play. I should not have to further remind the legal establishment in NY that what holds our western civilization together, what keeps the fabric of our society from tearing apart, indeed what keeps any civilization or social structure from disintegrating, is that most people observe and abide by agreed upon codes of conduct, and go by the rules. Otherwise there would be anarchy and complete chaos, and it would all be torn asunder. The lawyers and judges especially, sworn as they are to uphold the law, have to be in the forefront of the endeavor to prevent any of it taking place. The legal profession and judiciary particularly, who should be held to a higher standard of conduct, must epitomize and remain a symbol of trust. At issue here is continuing confidence in the integrity of the legal process and justice system.  And of the administration of justice and rule of law.  I suggest to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee therefore, it is incumbent that firm disciplinary action be brought forth against those attorneys heretofore depicted (and other individuals, acolytes and lesser lights not mentioned) who have not measured up, and failed to adhere to the high standards required and expected of members of their profession. Like it or not, the spotlight shines upon them, and they face a moral litmus test, for all to see. Let there be no illusions on the matter. Failure to act would not inspire, indeed would further erode public confidence. Even the U.S. Senate cleans up its ranks from time to time. The old boy network has no place in this proceeding. Let there not be a double standard. No politics here. Let there be no whitewash or efforts to minimize. No stonewalling or evasions.  No easy or cozy accommodation.  For that would be too pathetically and patently obvious. The U.S. is not some Middle Eastern or African autocracy. It is still a nation of law. Indeed, it may even be said the law and justice system itself are on trial here.  And thus far there remains a failure of the legal structure to deal adequately with this situation.  So there be no evasion about it, or mistaking it, I stress and repeat once more to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee that their credibility and moral authority is on the line. Their action or inaction, the manner in which they proceed, becomes public knowledge. Let them not further dignify wrongdoing. Let there be no failure of taste, nor of nerve. I herewith file formal complaint and charges of professional misconduct against those members of the NY City Bar previously indicated, and other disciples and minions enmeshed in the scam to lesser extent but not mentioned, whose names can be supplied on request. Appropriate measures are incumbent and become a prime requisite. I expect that formal proceedings and public deliberations will be instituted in the very near term, that severe sanctions, exemplary and deterrent punishments, will be meted out. I repeat once more. It’s time for the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department, and for the U.S. Justice Department for that matter, to renew the social contract with its constituency.  To face up to it.  The rule of law still prevails in this nation.  It is now time to re-assert and vindicate it.  The buck has to stop somewhere.  The interests of justice demand prompt determinations.  No dilatory dithering please.

The wheels of justice can grind slowly. The tide does turn. The climate and environment can undergo gradual change. But justice is only as good as its servants. I've no doubt the lawyers, quite apart from those herein mentioned, believe what I disclose. They know quite well what goes on in their world. I'll be a very believable and convincing witness before a jury. There won't be any reasonable doubt or jury nullification then. The preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming. More than likely, that solid middle aged and middle class jury will see fit to send a powerful message to those obnoxious powers-that-be. I'm looking for a team of responsible plaintiffs’ attorneys in NY to go after them. A consortium that can afford to take on the case, that can pool resources to carry a case of this magnitude to completion if need be. Just in case. (Since once the actions are filed, not only may they conceivably go down the wire, but the full nine innings as well. And beyond.  To go the full distance.  Right to the end. May not happen however. May not be necessary. They may finally and belatedly start thinking seriously of damage control and minimal exposure. They’ll be quickly aware they are faced with an untenable situation and can’t sit on it any more. The stakes become too high. It’s got too big and the exposure will become too great. With what they’ve got facing them, they may realize they’re on the ropes, trim to the reality, cry uncle, cave in, throw in the towel, gather up their tents, fold like an accordion, and slither away quietly.  They may bite the bullet and not want to open up that deep can of worms.  But then again, they have been slow off the mark. Up to now they haven’t shown any brilliance and acquitted themselves well. They don’t get high marks.) No weak knees, faint hearts, or cold feet need apply. No incompetents. No grandstand players. Persons of honor and integrity please. (I'm an equal opportunity employer.) No predators or double-dealers on the take. No shysters. I've had enough of those in the past. No pathetically weak, insecure egocentrics.  Never before, and for so long, have I been compelled by the combination of events to pursue a case so relentlessly and with such tenacity and resolve, but there is a benefit resulting from this far more inclusive and comprehensive, latest effort. Never before have I been able to press my case so forcibly. The lawyers now have it spelled out before them point blank. The evidence is direct and conclusive. There can be no doubts or misgivings on that score. It's high time to bring some of the wrong-doers to book and have them get their comeuppance. Too long overdue. And the opposition and then presiding federal judge are getting discovery, as is everyone else, at the same time. They can't escape the stigma of being implicated, with my former attorneys, in a conspiracy and complicity up to their eyeballs.  It is appalling judgment!  The stench becomes widespread.  It has been white collar and fool proof crime at high levels, but not quite, not entirely.  Risk free, almost.

Prime candidates asking to be dissected by behavioral scientists, psychologists, criminologists and psychiatrists? Or major matter for a case study or thesis or basis for a doctoral dissertation? Very much high profile, a good human interest story and great material, possibly in the Pulitzer class, (which could serve as a springboard for a series of articles on the inequities and iniquities that prevail in the overall justice system, and how needed reforms may be effected) for an able investigative reporter working for a reputable publication as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, or a nationally syndicated columnist of renown, preferably one with legal training, asking probing and penetrating questions of the three principals firstly, these “stalwart” custodians of the rule of law, and then certain parties, including the Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the U.S. Attorney for the S.D.N.Y., certain units at Justice in Washington, a) the Office of Special Investigations, b) the Public Interest Integrity Unit or the Center for Public Integrity, c) the White Collar Crimes Section of the FBI, d) the Securities Fraud Unit of the SEC and, if need be, the Attorney General in that city.  (Not to overlook questions of sitting federal judges for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York especially, concerning the conduct of the presiding federal judge, Marvin E. Frankel, and his disposition of a proceeding.  And also to invite comment and amicus briefs from legal scholars at various law schools in New York City, such as Fordham and NYU.  Such an undertaking by a sharp investigative reporter would constitute an exposé and public service in the best meaning and finest tradition of the term.  See Pulitzer’s Vision, enclosure 9.)  I say it again; the buck has to stop somewhere. Salutary and remedial action, so essential to a civil society, is called for to deal promptly with this long standing and unsuitable situation. These are not uncharted waters. Let’s see if the authorities can be assertive and rise to the occasion. Let’s test the commitment to law enforcement of the Bush Administration. A recent Attorney General was supposedly “a man of deep conviction” dedicated to the “impartial administration of justice.” Professed to be very critical of “disreputable federal judges.” We slowly found out they were only words. Not only do those miscreants, those four luminaries especially, thoroughly discredit themselves for all time; they reveal for everyone to see they really are a group of low life, seedy, unsavory reprobates; tawdry, disgusting, consummate vulgarians, gross profligates, crude subversives, an amoral despicable lot really, not only in the U.S., but in Canada as well, the spillover in the latter country being not as pronounced. (It is fitting to quote a few lines from Amy’s View, a hit play in London and New York during 1997-99, referring to the scandal and travails of the “gentlemen” Insiders at Lloyd’s of London, now before the courts in the U.K. where the civil judgment is under appeal, in the U.S. where federal government prosecutors have launched criminal proceedings on top of civil lawsuits by aggrieved parties, and in Australia and Canada. “These people are crooks. They have posh manners but at bottom they’re just common criminals.” Enjoying and taking full advantage of a “facade of respectability.” See February 21, 2000 issue of Time Europe for extensive background coverage. And for an exposé of extreme measures, including disappearance of key people never to be seen or heard from again, undertaken presumably by socially prominent Insiders to insulate themselves and eliminate evidence against them.  The mess at Lloyd’s is referred to as symptomatic of a “broader deterioration of standards in culture and society.” Which applies equally to the conduct of the four principals depicted in this play.) 

Like Richard Milhous Nixon, who incidentally professed to be very strong on law and order, and his buddies, we are dealing here with cheaters bereft of scruples and a moral compass, persons without principles, without any sense or shred of honor and decency in action, who flout the conventions with impunity and have no regrets whatever at what they do. Vile people with a cavalier disregard and disdain for the rules, who certainly don't give a second thought to their deeds, or ever expect to be caught or exposed.  Who believe they enjoy carte blanche to operate as they see fit, mindsets that think the only disgrace in any swindle lies in being revealed. Who adhere to the maxim, thou shalt not be found out. On occasion some of them do get careless; hence all the scurrying and activities heretofore referred to. To no avail. Now it all becomes public record. This time they don't get away with it scot-free; they face a few boomerangs and the clout of retribution. Let them be on the receiving end for a change, and learn something of the upheaval of downsizing. It’s become their turn to undergo some shrinkage.  It is high time they were brought to justice.

They’ve been caught red-handed with their pants down.  Transparent and evident.  Quite clearcut.  Very blatant and in plain view.  The cat is out of the bag.  Very palpable.  A disgrace to lawyers and judges everywhere. For all to see. They stand naked, morally and otherwise. Which says every thing about them. And have made themselves appear twits. Ignoble behavior. No accolades for them. Can’t very well call them virtuosos or venerable. Inadequate, low grade, tarnished, shady, unworthy men.  Nothing of honor or high standards or excellence about them. Not thoroughbreds they. Not fine practitioners. By no stretch can they be termed first class material. Or honorable.  No style, no taste, no refinement, no breeding, no rectitude.  It’s not a class act.  Their heads are on the block. The party is over. No ifs, buts, or maybes.  As sure as there are little green apples. The foundations of their temple crumble. The house of cards falls apart and comes tumbling down. The dirty laundry is being hung out to dry.  They stand exposed and diminished. For all time.

As with Lloyd’s Houdini-like, they have thus far escaped all substantial accountability. For me, without question an offensive and galling experience. An indignity and injustice I do not savor well.  There is righteous indignation on my part.  No longer will they be able to dodge the tough questions. It’s time for them to face the music.  To be punished for their corporate and legal sins.  That day of reckoning is at hand. It is Armageddon, Apocalypse Now. (Like the “gentlemen” Insiders at Lloyd’s, top-tier, we are “dealing with people of extremely good intelligence and social standing,” possessed of a certain cachet, none-the-less dummies, much like the hierarchy at Sotheby’s and Christie’s in New York, one of whom, among the former, ended up in the federal slammer as guest of the taxpayer.  Another was sentenced to house arrest. Both attempted to stonewall. The latter have seen fit to co-operate with the authorities; thus they escaped the same fate.  There has to be a lesson here for someone.) Not simple or minor misdemeanors; rather premeditated criminal conduct and felonies of major import. Corporate, legal and judicial malfeasance to the nth degree, by corrupt, presumptuous, supposedly high status people who exceed the boundaries, legal and ethical. Judge Marvin E. Frankel, Marvin Schwartz, and Edward Farman, are not left with anything to be proud of. No small achievement. They have displayed a sinister and cynical disrespect and contempt for the law and its institutions, and face massive fallout. I’m disappointed and much ashamed of that offensive and impudent brood.  They should be embarrassed and very much ashamed of, and completely disappointed with themselves. I’m waiting to see what proclamations, what high spin they are going to spout and damage control they will undertake to rationalize and justify their conduct. To cover their tracks. To put a best face on it. What kind of disingenuous and fatuous fabrications and semantic doublespeak they are going to come up with. What nonsensical revisionisms, what ineffectual legerdemain and litany of obfuscations, what convoluted reasoning and far-fetched confabulations they can contrive and put forth to appear non-culpable and solid citizens, free of taint and wrongdoing, above suspicion and beyond reproach. What insipid charade they will maintain. And for how long. What other maladroit and counterproductive moves they make. Will they shoot themselves in the foot? The gang that can’t shoot straight?  (Will they attempt another preemptive strike as occurred during spring of 1999, which backfired on them completely, much to their detriment?  As they will be finding out.)  They were forged by deprivation and adversity, were unwanted and unloved children? They suffered and were molded by a “troubled childhood?” They were psychologically “scarred by abuse” during their formative years? Like Hillary says of “Split Willie.” Utter and absolute rubbish. It will be a fiasco, whatever creative innovations they can dream up.  It won’t wash.  Nothing will wash.  Or fly.  Or play.  It will be theater of the absurd. Some of their sins do come home to roost and catch up with them eventually. Matter of fact, they don’t escape with much in this world.

Let's see what we have on the table, for plaintiffs’ attorneys of stalwart soul who may be disposed to represent me, and not at all apprehensive about taking on some much entrenched but very vulnerable pseudo-respectable bogus merchants. Bear in mind also that the powerful are typically, bundles of insecurity, habitually fearful of taking a fall. They cower from lack of courage. Also to be remembered is that corruption is usually a progressive disease. I say it again; the evidence of collusion, criminal conspiracy and complicity, plus, is solid, unmistakable, explicit, incontrovertible, indisputable, irrefutable, irreversible, unshakable. Not a gray area; it’s all black and white.  Not at all doubtful.  Not at all marginal.  Not at all circumstantial.  No question about it.  Or of any ethical and legal impropriety.  It’s very clear and convincing, overwhelming.  More finding of fact.  It’s another conclusion of law.  At long last, vindication and compensation may be near. Justice may finally be served. Bear in mind also that we are dealing from a position of strength. And I believe the statute of limitations as a primary defense will not hold, given the background of the case, my sustained and continuing efforts over a period now exceeding 35 years to secure suitable representation on my behalf, and events that have transpired through the years. Well documented. Which you now read about.

There is one scenario that may be counted on. They’ve got chutzpah and might attempt to brazen it out with procedural delays and postponements as long as possible. They could connive, preen and posture to attempt a gaining of respectability.  They may adopt a bunker mentality, hunker and batten down the hatches, dissemble, evade, stall, draw out, and try to delay proceedings. There could be frivolous pleadings and filings of appeals and harebrained motions, asking for continuances. They may split hairs and try every legal trick in the book to contain it. By doing so, they lull and back themselves into a corner and enter a state of myopic idiocy.  Whatever the attempt, it won’t pass muster.  The opposition is going to yelp like a bunch of stuck pigs initially and cry passage of time and statute of limitations until the cows come home. It won’t be much of a defense, given the circumstances now coming fully to light. It won’t hold. To quote from John Grisham, “with every area of the law there are exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions.”

There are precedents galore. I remind all that former American POWs seeking compensation have brought suit against Japanese firms as Mitsubishi for making use of them as slave labor during the Second World War. Without any support, indeed with much opposition from the U.S. government. Many citizens of Eastern European countries have recently succeeded in proceedings against German firms like Siemens for the same reasons; the German government was held equally liable. A fund of $5 billion has been set up to pay those enlisted into Nazi era forced and slave labor. Additional funds have been allocated to provide restitution to victims whose property was seized by the Nazis. The Second World War on both fronts ended in 1945. A group in New York (was it The Bee Gees or The Teenagers?) finally started receiving royalties for a hit song they wrote and composed more than 45 years earlier. A young lawyer’s persistent and relentless efforts in Washington eventually gained compensation for a holocaust survivor more than 50 years later. A former head of the Stasi, the East German Secret Police, was arrested and sentenced to an indefinite jail term for the murder of two policemen during a street brawl in pre-Nazi Germany in the early thirties, after a lapse of over 60 years. Other holocaust survivors, previously having gone after Swiss banks successfully for missing funds not too far back, are now pursuing civil prosecutions aggressively against the Vatican Bank to recover assets looted from them by the Nazis and deposited with that institution for safekeeping. And laundered by that Bank, which thus far proclaims innocence despite mounting proof against it.  Of note, from Time Europe, April 10, 2000. “$324 million: Damages ordered by a U.S. federal judge to be paid to journalist Terry Anderson by the Government of Iran for his imprisonment in Lebanon in the 1980s.” Also to be recalled  is that a well known Wall Street law firm reportedly paid a fine of $500 million to Justice Department in Washington some years back for advising Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Trust how to knowingly skirt reporting regulations. Was subject also to civil penalties.  Was that firm Sullivan and Cromwell perchance? Wouldn’t that be beautiful?  Not to forget that Salomon Brothers incurred an extremely heavy penalty of approximately $900 million some 20 years ago for attempting to corner the market for U.S. treasury securities for their advantage, to the detriment of American investors, through willful and repeated manipulation of prices by rigging bids.  And that a half dozen plus major brokerage firms agreed to and paid hefty fines amounting to some $1.4 billion to settle matters and avoid further investigations into their stock recommendation practices reflecting conflicts of interest. Accounting firms have also faced heavy penalties for advising clients on how to evade reporting requirements.  Arthur Andersen for example, one of the big five, has paid a fine of about $500 million for flawed audits in the not distant past, for what has charitably been called carelessness, negligence, omission, inadvertence, in its examination of accounts of several companies.  Was also looking at civil penalties.  No such luck with Enron now.  They have intentionally and deliberately destroyed records.  As have key people at that company.  Thousands of documents and e-mail messages have been shredded.  There had to have been collusion.  The fines coming up should be a real dilly.  More than likely parties at both Andersen and Enron will be imprisoned. (Didn’t happen; many got off because of a legal technicality.)  And Arthur Andersen as an entity has disappeared from the map and into history. 

Add some more choice tidbits. Prudential Financial admitted to wrongdoing by one of its units and agreed to pay a fine of  $600 million to U.S Justice Department during summer 2006, to avoid prosecution for past criminal activity entailing unlawful practices in mutual fund trading, causing extensive harm and damage to investors. Surpassed only by the Bank of America which paid a fine of $675 million a few months earlier for identical criminal wrongdoing. And in early autumn of that same year, Bank of America conceded in a settlement that lax operations allowed South American money launderers to illegally move $3 billion through a midtown Manhattan branch, the money likely going to fund terrorist activities in the U.S. It’s all in The NY Times. Bank of America had an advertising slogan, “higher standards.” Now it's become “the bank of opportunity.” Don’t you love it? It’s all very interesting, isn’t it?

Additional precedents and guidelines, some even more noteworthy, exist by the bucketful, and are not mentioned further for reason of space. As do extenuating circumstances concerning the passage of time. As I’ve pointed out at the beginning and as you are seeing throughout this exegesis, it’s not as if I’ve been sitting on my rump all this time doing nothing about it. Foremost to be kept in mind is the knowing and full acquiescence of the presiding federal judge, Marvin E. Frankel, certifiably, in perpetration of the scam, which he actively endorsed, and to which he was an accomplice.  Which revelation, after all else, came to me very late with complete astonishment and disbelief initially. It is one place in the judicial system where the perks that come with power are almost absolute, where authority can be abused with virtual impunity. Additional delayed discovery. No doubt whatever here about contributory to. Or proof of intent. Or state of mind.  Another finding of fact.  Clear and convincing.  Another conclusion of law.  I repeat once more; Frankel is the pièce de résistance, the icing on the cake.

Again, another unconscionable act. A very frustrating, almost an overwhelming feeling. (Lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act which permits individuals to hold the government accountable for negligent acts by its agents, in this instance Judge Marvin E. Frankel? More so when willful? Application of the RICO statute, enacted in 1970, securities fraud and racketeering, against all of them? Organized crime of another stripe?) Also to be remembered is that apart from a few isolated instances, I have not received any practical or tangible hands-on assistance in this matter from anyone over the years, and that I have no legal training to speak of, having been left to grope my way gradually and rely entirely on my own resiliencies and resources. And that I’ve never been a resident of New York City, having to commute periodically from Canada at first, and Greece latterly, at personal expense, in pursuit of the case. Not the easiest of endeavors. It is a marked disadvantage.  Also, this presentation wasn’t as well put together previously as now, where all the pieces are more fully in place. And has been laboriously and painstakingly built up over the years. It is a story of trial and error, of gradual progression, of handicaps, of small steps forward despite obstacles and of slow progress. And thus far I’ve been stymied at every turn; it is still very much an impasse and a closed shop.  It is a triumph for the opposition by default.  They remain the bad guys.  And they win forever if nothing can be done about it.  Recovery continues to be elusive.  I am still deprived of my rights to petition for relief and redress of grievances against the perpetrators for wrongs and personal injuries inflicted on me. An appalling state of affairs.

They may deny wrongdoing till doomsday. Let them. Sheer tunnel vision. Not at all prescient. It will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Denial here will be the last refuge, since it will fly in the face of all the evidence. Criminal intent is obvious and cannot be masked. (Something akin to the Microsoft defense in Washington. And as porous. Bad strategy and tactics. Lousy performance.) Truth will soon out. That genie is fast escaping from the bottle.  The walls are closing in.  The sky will fall in on them. And that’s just for starters. Force majeure.  Let’s observe a pack morality at work, how they react and what they are emboldened to do, now that the glare of exposure and publicity is on them. What syndrome they will now display. What kind of a front they put up, and for how long. And note what brand of topsy-turvy and upside down logic they will employ. What Orwellian inversions of the truth they will perform.  Is it Alice in Wonderland? What specious circumlocutions and sophistry they will draw on in futile efforts to burnish their image. What smokescreens they send out, what posturing and devious ploys they will now mount in their defense.  What repertoire of legal and cheap parlor tricks they will display.  What other revealing blunders and miscalculations they make. What amusing antics the PR hacks undertake in spin on behalf of their clients. Foot-in-mouth disease? Whatever they attempt, it will be without merit; credibility will be sorely lacking. They can’t fool everyone forever. These are inflated egos become their own worst enemies, won’t be garnering much sympathy or support, and may yet self-destruct. As did the Soviet Union and Communist ideology. Just about everyone loves an underdog, which they definitely are not in this scenario. Their pretensions and conceit and impudence are beyond belief. These are the thugs and hoodlums, the long standing bandits and outlaws of the corporate and legal world.  They are an affront to the dignity of the law, a travesty, an insult to the integrity of the legal and judicial profession.  They remain primitives, Neanderthals at large, smug and insufferable, given to a level of audacity and sense of entitlement unheard of. They are not the fount of pristine innocence. There is monumental vanity on their part. They have become a breed unto themselves. They fully merit crashing to earth. It is hubris, the sin of overweening pride, the unbridled arrogance of crass men who consider themselves invulnerable and become too big for their boots and britches. The consequence of hubris is that the high and mighty are always brought low. Nemesis inevitably follows, bringing retribution and unavoidable penalties for misdeeds. Calling upon them to shoulder the cost and suffer payback, to render their dues. To pay the bill in full. Always just deserts.

Also, I suggest to the opposition, just in case they decide to play more hardball again, they had better double-check the legal definitions of libel and slander. And defamation of character. Among other matters. Else they will look a complete bunch of dum-dums and utter idiots. That would be an even greater backlash. At which point they appear even more ridiculous, become a laughing stock and really demolish themselves with hoots of derision, an inspiration for sly mockery.  When you come right down to it, they really do shape up as moral defectives. Like all bullies, they are basically cowards, short on character. Color them yellow. Gutless. Spineless. They reveal themselves further to be a bunch of dimwitted dolts. A compelling saga. Observe the finale of the script. Stay tuned.

A review of actions to be pursued:

a) vacate “settlement,” overturn ruling and restoration of case to calendar for actual trial; dual area of re-opening of matters and securities law;

b) multiple civil proceedings against various firms and individuals; there may be criminal prosecutions as well;

[presumably like 1) “Split Willie,” a man who like “Tricky Dick,” looked the American people squarely in the eye and lied repeatedly regarding criminal behavior, which assures both of them of their proper place in history, both of whom were clearly unworthy of the high honor of being President of the U.S., an office I regard highly and for which I hold the utmost respect, 2) former Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, 3) a disgraced Ezer Weizman, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, former President and former Prime Ministers respectively, 4) former President Wahid of Indonesia, at one time facing impeachment, later removed from office for incompetence, former President Suharto facing corruption charges despite a serious heart condition and suffering three strokes, 5) former President Estrada of the Philippines who has been impeached by the House and is now imprisoned and facing trial for bribery, graft, corruption, and betrayal of the public trust before the Senate, forced to resign the presidency, 6) President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who wins elections through violence and by rigging the vote, facing impeachment in good time for gross mismanagement of the economy of his country, 7) former President Fujimori of Peru, the absentee who tried to quit his post from afar but whose resignation was rejected by Congress, which found him morally unfit and ousted him from his office because of criminal investigations involving corruption and murder charges and crimes against humanity, now resident in Japan and facing an international arrest warrant, 8) former President Pinochet of Chile referred to previously, 9) former President Milosevic of Yugoslavia, the architect of ethnic cleansing, facing war crimes charges for atrocities, 10) former President Carlos Menem of Argentina, under house arrest for suspected illegal arms sales and whose funds in Swiss bank accounts have been seized, 11) former President Jacques Chirac of France, granted broad, executive protection by the high court and shielded from prosecution, but not when out of office, they do not enjoy extrajudicial prerogatives and immunity from criminal investigations and proceedings when called for, nor are they sacred cows and untouchables, exceptions to legal prosecutions, off limits, above and beyond the reach of the law; there can be no leniency and only zero tolerance for skullduggery of this kind and magnitude by such a favored breed, who shouldn’t look forward to presidential pardons like Marc Rich, and who richly deserve to face heavy fines and find themselves in the dock and be incarcerated];

c) compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, the latter measured relative to the net worth of the corporation/partnership/individual;

d) lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act;

e) application of the RICO statute;

f) likely application of other federal statutes;

g) class action suit on behalf of Canadian customers;

h) proceedings before the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, First Judicial Department.

Contact: JIM PERGANTES

After November 15, 2010

Mr. J. P. Pergantes

Evagellistrias  93

231 00 Sparta                   

Greece.                             Phone: Overseas code 011, then 30-27310-23745

                                                                              (no answering  machine)

 [For the latest update on Judge Marvin E. Frankel, see addendum at end.]

EXHIBIT 1

    309 The Kingsway, Apt.205

Islington, Ontario

    M9A 3V3

    Canada

    March 17, 1981

Judge Marvin E. Frankel

300 Park Avenue

New York, NY

10022

Dear Judge Frankel:

I am informed you have resigned your position as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, and are now in private practice.  I bring to your attention preliminary details of a suit which was pending before a hearing over which you would have presided, and which was "settled out of court," prior to the case proceeding on the docket for trial.  I submit you will see before you, as the details unfold, prima facie evidence of a fraud perpetrated before the Court.

I enclose a copy of correspondence from ex-counsel with reference to the situation.  I was plaintiff in legal proceedings in 1972 against Bache and Co. Inc. (now Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc.), which was represented by the firm of Sullivan and Cromwell.  After proceedings were underway, suddenly and without any prior indication of what was to come, I was very strongly pressured and persuaded by counsel to "accept" an out of court settlement, involving a substantial loss, on several grounds, the main argument being that I would have a much lesser amount, net, left over to me, were I to insist on pressing for judgment in the litigation.

The action was unique in several respects.  It was the first instance of a Canadian citizen and resident bringing suit against a broker in U.S. Federal Court for violation of U.S. securities legislation, involving the application of far less stringent Montreal Stock Exchange margin regulations (I was resident of Quebec Province at the time) to the purchase of a registered U.S. security in New York, through employment of the medium or subterfuge of a "Canadian" instead of a U.S. dollar account, to circumvent U.S. law.  It appears the practice as a device for generating substantially greater volume and revenues was rather widespread among many brokers in Canada, and what is significant is that a judgment in this situation (with its attendant, broad dissemination of publicity) would have established a far and wide sweeping precedent, which would in effect have conferred broad rescission rights to Canadian customers. (At the time, American brokerage firms alone operated 55 branch offices across Canada.)

A brief rundown of transactions as took place, was as follows:

1)  Period March 25-26, 1970.  Purchase of 304 convertible bonds (listed on bond section of American Stock Exchange).  Of this volume, 25% was acquired with prohibited credit, as per U.S. securities law.  Note also that, per such law at the time, the account was in default five trading days after the period, i.e., five trading days after March 25-26, 1970.

2)  Period April 20-23, 1970.  Purchase additionally of 336 convertible bonds (same corporation as previously), all with extension of prohibited credit.  Thus, of the total acquisition of 640 bonds, 65% of the aggregate (or 413 bonds) was undertaken with unlawful extension of credit by the broker, as per U.S. securities law applicable, Regulation T of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board.  Put another way, had the provisions of Regulation T been observed, permissible purchases on a margin basis would not have amounted to more than 35% of the total volume that did in fact take place.

3)  Sale of bonds by the broker, at substantially lower levels, during a period of declining prices, did not begin until three weeks after all purchases had taken place, i.e., 3 weeks after April 20-23, 1970.  Virtually all the equity in the account was wiped out.

    Clearly, what was pending before the Court was not a minor, inadvertent, or trivial violation of U.S. securities law and regulations; motive by the broker was obvious.  The transactions and contract were void, pursuant to Section 29(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and as stated by ex-counsel in the complaint, and in the motion and summary papers. Now I am not ordinarily disposed to question on the intent, motive, or integrity of professional counsel, on whom I need bestow trust and rely on for competent advice in difficult periods.  (One just does not, as a rule, expect deceit from such a quarter, but rather, normally and naturally, assumes that counsel will strive to the utmost on behalf of a client.)  After a short passage of time, however, upon reviewing the case at my leisure, I became aware that something indeed was amiss, and proceeded to pursue some investigation on my own. By a fortuitous, lucky combination of circumstances, ex-counsel suffered a lapse, and was indeed  inadvertently and momentarily careless, in response to certain queries for elaboration, and while it is not on tape like Watergate, it certainly is on paper. The copy of that letter from ex-counsel tears it wide apart. 

Note the several anomalies, contradictions, and multiple inconsistencies apparent upon examination of different parts of that letter.  Further, and in direct contradiction to what ex-counsel writes, the margin provisions of Regulation T apply to an account as a whole on a daily basis rather than to individual transactions, as I am informed by officers of both the Federal Reserve and the SEC.  (As stated previously, the account was in default five trading days after the first series of purchases, i.e., the March 25-26, 1970 period.)  Also, neither the Federal Reserve nor the SEC is aware of past cases or judgments applying "shrinkage" (as the term is defined by ex-counsel), in the context of my proceeding, all the more so given the nature, extent, and magnitude of the violation, and the means whereby the intent to evade and break U.S. securities law was undertaken.  What we see before us, in that letter from ex-counsel, are fresh new "precedents" being established in U.S. securities law without benefit of U.S. Federal Court ruling, and as we have it staring us in the face, it becomes a wonder of wonders, not notable for frequency!  In effect, we have legal malpractice, entailing not carelessness, or negligence, or omission, or incompetence, on the part of ex-counsel, but breach of trust, premeditated fraud, and willful misrepresentation.  I stress that ex-counsel were not a bunch of duds; they had full knowledge and experience of U.S. securities legislation and litigation, and knew full well what they were doing.  (Should you have any doubts respecting the professional qualifications and competence of ex-counsel, may I respectfully suggest you look up the biographies of Edward Farman and especially Peter H. Morrison, the head of the firm, in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory.)  I venture to carry it even further.  The doctrine of irresistible inference is, I believe, well established in U.S. jurisprudence. I submit what we have before us represents wide collusion, conspiracy, and criminal complicity, between ex-counsel on the one hand, and opposing adversaries, Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc., people in high places therein, and their counsel, Sullivan and Cromwell, to obstruct, undermine, and subvert the judicial process and the course of justice, and this, I submit further, constitutes a fraud before the Court.  There are other irregularities inherent also, on which I will not expound in this letter for reason of space.

It would appear there are sufficient grounds to vacate the settlement of the action previously undertaken, and to have the case restored to the calendar for actual trial, not to overlook exemplary and punitive damages, and other additional claims for relief against the different parties. (I am informed the statute of limitations is not applicable in instances where there is a case representing fraud before the Court.) I assume a man of your legal stature, position, and background, would be the ideal person to operate in the dual area of re-opening of matters and securities law, bring ex-counsel before the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association, and further, would not have any qualms, hesitations, fears, or apprehensions, about taking on some rather big guns in the financial and legal community. (I am aware also the climate has changed considerably in the last few years, and that the legal fraternity no longer looks unfavorably, or casts discredit or attaches any stigma, upon fellow members of the Bar who take on legal malpractice cases.)

I look forward to hearing from you in the near term.  I may be reached by correspondence at the above address, or by direct dial at (416) 233-1883, during early morning, or in the evening hours.

I remain,                                  Yours truly,

enc.                                         James P. Pergantes

EXHIBIT 2

Reference: 72 Civ. 731 (S.D.N.Y.)

LAW OFFICES OF

MORRISON, PAUL, STILLMAN & BEILEY

110 EAST 59TH STREET.NEW YORK 10022

AREA CODE 212-593-0100.CABLE.MORRPAUL

PETER H. MORRISON                              MIAMI OFFICE

ROBERT PAUL                             PAUL, LANDY, BEILEY & BARTEL

BURTON A. LANDY*                        341 PAN AMERICAN BANK BUILDING

CHARLES A. STILLMAN                              MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131

STANLEY A. BEILEY                             (305) 377-0201

EDWARD FARMAN

BENJAMIN ZELERMYER

JULIAN W. FRIEDMAN

*Admitted in Florida only

                                          November 22, 1972

Mr. James Pergantes

1444 Dunkirk Road

Montreal 305, P.Q., Canada

Dear Jim:

By this time you should have received both your check and your documents. Please let me know if I have left anything out.

I regret your continuing doubts about the settlement. I would have hoped that by now you would be "living happily ever after." Two points may aid in your understanding of the matter. First, in calculating your initial purchase buying power, we used the loan value of your American securities only. On this basis you could have purchased 227 bonds. The "shrinkage" calculation applies only to those bonds which you could not have paid for at all, the remaining 413 bonds. Secondly, the Pearlstein decision, which was decided well after our original opinion to Ken Howard, indicates that each confirmation must be treated separately. In other words, we did not lump the purchases into a "first round" and a "second round." The "shrinkage" is determined by subtracting the settlement date price from the trade date price shown on each confirmation for the last 413 bonds confirmed. Under Pearlstein, the loss on each confirmed transaction between the trade date and the settlement date is not "proximately caused" by the violation.

I hope that I have clarified the matter. Again, I would repeat that the final settlement figure was not necessarily related to any actual damage calculation but was the most that we could get from Bache in settlement and which would result in the most money net to you even after litigation.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

   Edward Farman

 EF/js

Note: Contract was void, pursuant to Section 29(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, undergone gradual amendments over time, but whose substance has remained essentially the same.

Section 29(b) now reads as follows:- Every contract made in violation of any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation there under, and every contract heretofore or hereafter made the performance of which involves the violation of, or the continuance of any relationship or practice in violation of, any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation there under, shall be void as regards the rights of any person who, in violation of any such provision, rule, or regulation, shall have made or engaged in the performance of any such contract.

Quotations from relevant passages:

1.  "….In Pearlstein v. Scudder & German, 429 F. 2d 1136 (2d.Cir.1970), cert. den., 401  

U.S. 1013 (1971), the defendant broker purchased convertible bonds for plaintiff's       account without receiving the amount required by Regulation T."

-The transactions in the above case were held by the Court to be void ab initio, as informed by Robert S. Feigen, Securities Counsel.  Further, the Pearlstein case is even cited as a precedent, in the motion and summary papers!

2.  ".... The 1934 Act (i.e., Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) specifically provides, in  

29(b), 15 U.S.C. 78 cc(b), that contracts made in violation of the Act or any rules or   regulations there under are void as against the violating party. Section 29(b) was held to permit an action by a customer for rescission of a purchase of securities made in violation of Regulation T in Warshow v. Hentz  Co., 199 F. Supp. 581, 582 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)."

-Both 1 and 2 above from motion and summary papers of the case, by ex-counsel.

3.   ".... Pursuant to section 29(b) of the 1934 Act (15 U.S.C. 78 cc(b)), the transactions ... of

      this complaint are void."

-From complaint prepared by ex-counsel.

Note:

a) Notice inherent discrepancies between intermediate and latter parts of letter from ex-

    counsel.

b) Concerning references to "shrinkage," Feigen declared that he was learning something

"new" about U.S. securities law every day! Ex-counsel does indeed have innovative and creative flair in performance of his swindles.

c) Oddly enough, in my letter to ex-counsel requesting clarification on some points, written 

 after my return to Montreal (copy of which is not herewith enclosed), no mention    

 whatever was made of the Pearlstein case, though reference was made to other cases and  

 precedents cited.

d) Though the material is not herewith included, there is also documentation implicating

     and linking John E. Leslie, Chairman and CEO of Bache Halsey Stuart, in all this, from

     the very beginning.

Notes:-

1) Observe that "shrinkage" was applied, according to ex-counsel, to the majority (65%) of purchases, those undertaken with extension of prohibited or illegal credit advanced by the broker. Why so, considering that the transactions and contract are void, and that the injured or aggrieved party has the right to rescind and annul the entire contract, even for a minor violation of Regulation T, pursuant to Section 29(b)? Indeed, given the nature and extent of the violations of U.S. securities law, why should there be any penalty or "shrinkage" at all, even on that portion of purchases "lawfully" undertaken, those with permissible margin (to which ex-counsel curiously does not refer to at all), given other cases and precedents handed down, which I will not refer to at this time for reason of space? Why indeed, when rights of rescission exist on the entire contract?

2) Mr. Farman is associated with the firm of Schindel, Cooper and Farman, located at 225 West 34th Street, also 14 Penn Plaza, in mid Manhattan (now Schindel, Farman and Lipsius). He was also law clerk to a judge in earlier years.

3) Bache has undergone several intermediate mergers with other firms to become Prudential Securities, at which point it was acquired by and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Insurance Company of Newark, NJ.

4) Should there be any questions regarding the statute of limitations, there are extenuating circumstances, and well documented. I won't go into too much detail at this point, but I've been pursuing the matter on and off, at recurring intervals, since shortly after "settlement" of the case in late 1972, and have been running into continuing obstacles, walls, and barriers, since that time. Some time ago, The Toronto Star reported a woman in San Diego was granted leave to press a civil action for damages against her former psychiatrist, even though the statute of limitations had run out. In the situation depicted here, we are dealing with both civil and criminal matters. It has been a closed shop all this time, for all of 35 years plus, since late 1972. And a catch-22 situation, if ever there was one, with the deck still stacked against me. Thus far a no-win situation.

EXHIBIT 3

PROSKAUER ROSE GOETZ & MENDELSOHN

300 PARK AVENUE

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022

-----

CABLE: ROPUT

TELEX: ITT 421178

WU 125352

-----

TELEPHONE (212) 593-9000

-----

TELECOPIER: (212) 593-9587

-----

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER

March 24, 1981

Mr. James P. Pergantes

309 The Kingsway, Apt. 205

Islington, Ontarlo

M9A 3V3

Canada

Dear Mr. Pergantes:

This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1981.  Under our ethical rules, a lawyer who is a former judge is forbidden to handle any matters with which he was connected while on the bench.  I have stopped, therefore, at the threshold of the things you relate because it is clear that I cannot be of any use to you.

Very truly yours,

Marvin E. Frankel

Judge Frankel is now a partner associated with the law firm of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis and Frankel, located at 919 Third Avenue...(J.P.)

ENCLOSURE 4

Ancillary and Background Information

                                               Evagellistrias 93

                                               231 00 Sparta

                                               Greece.

                                               March 26, 1987

Mr. Donald Hewitt

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

CBS, Columbia Broadcasting System

51 West 52nd Street

New York, N.Y. 10019

Dear Mr. Hewitt:

I bring to your attention serious miscarriages of law pursuant to the execution of justice, blatant abuse of the lawyer-client relationship, and of the adversary procedure, in a most virulent form, particularly in this instance, where the client is left helpless, without recourse. It points to an insidious and subtle evil, a malignant practice which demeans and casts aspersions on the legal system, constitutes perversion of the law and legal procedure, strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice, and has, thereby, wide-sweeping and far reaching public interest implications and consequences on a national level. Since the crux of the entire legal structure, of the lawyer-client relationship and adversary practice, is founded on honor and trust, what unfolds poses as serious a threat to the credibility and integrity of the justice system as any other practice known and uncovered, and is, I am informed, far more prevalent and widespread than commonly believed, although most difficult to establish in the ordinary course of events. It has been said the vilest act is the deliberate deceit of those who have reason to believe or have faith in you; it is axiomatic all clients are vulnerable, since they must have confidence in and rely on their counsel to extensive degree. What you will see is an attack on the entire basis of trust, and honest adversarial procedure, which of necessity must continue to predominate in the legal world.

I enclose copies of correspondence pertinent to the matter at hand. The copy of the letter to former Judge Frankel spells it out in succinct manner. [Bear in mind that when framing that letter, and in providing the written notes accompanying the enclosed material, I was attempting to induce the man to accept a case.] The communication from Edward Farman, former counsel, constitutes cold, hard, evidence, presents us with the smoking gun, in Watergate parlance of old, and opens up Pandora's box. There is no ambiguity whatever in this evidence; the thing speaks for itself and admits of no defense. The letter in effect serves to condemn ex-counsel, indicates premeditated fraud, and points to collusion with opposing parties and counsel in "settlement" of a case. It spells out flagrant breach of faith and actual malice aforethought with undisguised clarity. There is direct proof of intent and obstruction of justice, and of deliberate conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. The response from Judge Frankel delineates his stance regarding the matter, and is, I submit, curious in several respects. Indeed, the propriety of his conduct is open to debate. Grant, if you will, he could not intervene directly on my behalf, several disturbing questions are raised. As a former Federal Judge and now a practicing attorney in the State of New York, and an officer of the court thereby, sworn to uphold the law, was he not obligated, was it not incumbent on him, on receipt of my letter and accompanying material, to inform the responsible or competent authorities he had been presented with prima facie proof, that he had written, first hand knowledge of and demonstrable, clear evidence of intent, of deliberate fraud, of criminal complicity and wide collusion by opposing adversaries, in the disposition of a proceeding? Was he not derelict in his duty, and irresponsible, by failing to report a criminal act had been committed? Is he party to concealment? Can Judge Frankel's failure to act upon enlightenment signify willing toleration, support, acquiescence, or be construed as being knowledgeable acceptance and approval of, and thus justification of the behavior of various parties? Since he was informed and did nothing, is he technically guilty of condoning or rewarding a felony, of allowing it to exist and thrive, or of being accessory after the fact? By keeping silent, has he actively aided and abetted what transpired, and endorsed the actions and practices of rogue and corrupt corporate officers and lawyers? Is there implied assent to continuation of such behavior by dishonest parties? Has Judge Frankel indirectly contributed to and enhanced the dry rot of corporate and legal corruption by his non-action? Since such an ostensibly eminent and respectable firm as Sullivan and Cromwell, one of its senior partners, and others within the firm, are by inference criminally implicated in a tainted, flawed  settlement, is it another instance of legal self-protection going into effect, of the legal establishment closing ranks against outsiders? Other ancillary questions are raised. When a proposed settlement is reached out of court, is there any hearing into the agreement? Is the presiding federal judge required to review the premises and terms of the proposed settlement reached by opposing counsel? Is he required to approve and ratify the settlement? Is there any judicial review at all? You will note also from the additional copies of correspondence that even the attorneys who take on legal malpractice cases are reluctant to represent me, largely, I suspect, because of a real fear of retribution. They are by and large a pragmatic lot. Undoubtedly the person or firm accepting such a case would be hard put to withstand all the tremendous pressures and clout emanating from immensely strong adversaries and the large battery of opposition. Even consumer ombudsmen and public interest advocates and organizations are unable to assist; the combined resistance would simply be too much for them. The wrongdoers are exposed, but scarcely brought to book.

Almost 15 years have elapsed since settlement of my action in late 1972. The years have neither diminished nor blunted my feeling. It has been an unlovely and uneven, a long, solitary struggle against overwhelming odds and powerful interests, an unwinnable fight against evil-doers. The money is academic at this point. I do not have an obsession about the case, but return to review it on and off at periodic intervals, and shake my head sadly. It disturbs me deeply that the central cast of characters is very much around, and still running loose. Every effort to follow the rule of law and observe due process, to gain access to the courts, has gotten me nowhere and come to naught; it has been akin to battering one's head against a wall. I can attest the legal system has proven to be woefully ineffectual as a forum to apply sanctions, in which to seek redress for the wrongdoing herein portrayed. It is very much a closed shop. The power of the legal establishment remains firmly entrenched and not easily assailed; we really are at the mercies of the legal profession, and the lawlessness of some members within that community, of despicable lawyers gone bad, who consider themselves immune, adopt a cavalier attitude and have disrespect and contempt for the law, retain no sense of honor and decency in action, are unencumbered by the scruples of conventional morality, make a mockery of judicial procedure and the justice system, and give only lip service to the finer tenets and traditions of their profession. Not only do the charlatans succeed in beating the system; the system itself has serious flaws, and is structured so that nothing at all can be accomplished from a legal point of view. Purely and simply, it is a triumph of evil, by amoral men.

As for the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar, their proceeding approaches farce and sham. Generally, they adopt the ostrich approach and respond in legal double-speak. They do an excellent job of looking after their own, more so when a prominent roster of names is involved. Self-regulation among the legal fraternity is, I submit, primarily a public relations gesture, a con game, constituting a spectacle and charade for the most part. I am not an important person or public figure, but over the years I have been subjected to more refined kinds of violence in various forms, to insidious and subtle types of intimidation and harassment, recipient of nasty tricks and certain sorts of rough and dirty pool, and being a lone, single individual with limited resources, I have scarcely been in a position to counter such actions effectively. Most convincingly have the opposition tipped their hand. I have been photographed, followed, investigated and kept under surveillance, my phone has been tapped and conversations likely recorded, my homes have been broken into and thoroughly searched, a safe containing various family records has been opened and looked into, my mail, both incoming and outgoing, has been intercepted and tampered with, my basement locker has been entered into and pilfered, supposedly trusted third parties have been engaged to approach me and side track my efforts, for the most part without attempt at secrecy or discretion. [Unlike General Motors, they did not prevail on some professional ladies to approach and entertain me, as was the case with Ralph Nader.] And, of course, there has been the implied threat of more overt forms of violence, since there hasen't been much endeavor at subtlety or finesse regarding the foregoing by the hired help, and their use of attendant devices. Possibly the aim may have been to instill real fear within, to pressure me to desist. Much of what I relate occurred after settlement of the case, after I began efforts to seek redress and started to cause ripples. I know it hardly seems credible that such goings on take place in our society, and even I, who have been on the receiving end, have found it difficult to fathom on occasion. I can assure you, however, such events as related actually do take place, and it is a harrowing experience for the recipient, knowing that his privacy is being invaded, that he is under the looking glass, and that nothing can be done about it.

Like Richard Nixon, who incidentally professed to be very strong on law and order, and his cohorts, the opposition have no regrets at all about what they do; they certainly don't give a second thought to their deeds. They are cheaters, in the business and legal world alike, who circumvent, overlook, ignore, and break the rules of the game, and get away with it scot-free. Their only concern is that they don't get found out, for it is a distinct type of group-think and group morality at work here, that believes the only disgrace in any swindle lies in being exposed. Most assuredly they never expect to get caught, for what you will see is fool proof crime almost, but not quite, not entirely. Occasionally one of them does get careless, at which point there arises a strong instinct for self-preservation, to prevent disclosure; hence the activities heretofore referred to. The lawyers more especially are without esteem for the law they serve and presumably uphold, and from which they derive their livelihood. Lest anyone be disposed to believe a prestigious name and blue-chip firm as Sullivan and Cromwell would not be found criminally culpable, party to, and incriminated in a spurious settlement, to proceedings herein described, and is beyond suspicion and reproach, like Caesar's wife, it is to be known and remembered another blue-chip firm as E.F. Hutton and Company pleaded guilty in May 1985 to generating huge sums of money in interest free loans among many banks, through the expedient of overdrafts, and paid a two million dollar fine. I am reminded that General Dynamics, General Electric, and other prime defense contractors have been found guilty of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Defense Department of millions of dollars in contracts involving dubious accounting practices. Additional instances of illegal offenses and questionable procedures by senior partners and officers of other supposedly reputable firms, legal and non legal alike, have been similarly documented, and amply so. More recently, major investment banking firms in New York have been implicated in turning a blind eye, failing to act, in actively enriching their coffers by knowingly accruing tremendous amounts of money illegally in criminal profits, through the efforts of some senior partners or principals within, involved in arbitrage activities and insider trading, in their mergers and acquisitions departments, and likely face a rash of civil lawsuits from aggrieved investors, and other more severe, punitive measures from the authorities. It appears the U.S. justice system is too lenient in the area of white collar crime, as not enough gold plated hoods and pseudo-respectable crooks and bogus merchants have been indicted and found guilty of such offenses. Not enough miscreants are granted guest privileges and involuntary residence for extended periods in less agreeable jails, so that there is, I believe, insufficient dissuasion and warning for others with similar inclinations, no real incentive to desist. For certain people, crime does indeed pay, and most abundantly. In my case, I was victimized and shafted twice over, firstly by a supposedly responsible major investment firm, and secondly, by ex-counsel acting in concert with presumed adversaries. The dice were loaded against me from the very start. In the second round, I was a hapless client, and though represented by professionally adept, competent counsel, I never stood much of a chance. There are no mitigating or extenuating circumstances whatever; actions of former counsel were unconscionable, reprehensible and completely indefensible. There are no merits, no redeeming features at all; ex-counsel knew full well what they were doing. I can tell you that if Peter Morrison and Edward Farman, my former attorneys, were called upon to testify under oath in a court of law, or during pre-trial deposition, they would not be able to explain "shrinkage," among other matters, in the situation herein recounted or described, not in a thousand years, not even if their lives depended on it. They would be going counter to the statutes, to established precedents, and case law. I can tell you also it is a bleak and grim moment when one grasps, belatedly and most reluctantly, that one has been fleeced by one's own counsel. One doesn't want to accept it at first, much less understand it, for we all want to be believers. Gradually and inescapably, however, no other conclusion could be arrived at. It was my misfortune to become immersed in a milieu of venal, coarse, rapacious robber barons, a world of high-class racketeers, so that it became a no-win situation from the outset.

All advanced civilization is based on agreed rules, codes of conduct, and symbols of mutual trust, and betrayal of that trust by professional, well educated elitists, who occupy positions of power and privilege, ignore and flout the code with impunity, act by their own principles and violate the spirit of the ideal, have no conception of the need to protect the stature of their labor and profession, bodes ill and poses grave dangers for all, for such people consider themselves above the law, and believe they enjoy carte-blanche to operate outside the pale of traditional ethics and behavior. The central concept of morality in our civil society, that which preserves our values, is the impartiality of the law, and the integrity of the courts and legal process; these are the mainstay of our western culture and civilization. The law constitutes the most fragile of underpinnings, yet it is the main bedrock of our freedoms, the cornerstone of rights and democratic traditions. It preserves the very slim thread of all democracies. History in some of its blacker moments has most vividly shown the precarious, fragile thread of every democracy, the thin veneer of any civilization. There is only one support that serves to guard, buttress and protect the law, and that is the serious oath of its practitioners, who have solemnly sworn to uphold it. Violations by such people are therefore all the more significant, ominous, and foreboding, as they strike at the very being of our social order. Most thinking people would agree the sanctity of the law should be preserved and safeguarded, that any practice which perverts, corrupts, affects the stability and integrity of the legal process, undermines and subverts the law, threatens or destroys public confidence in the administration of justice, ought be severely deplored and condemned, and vigorously dealt with, to discourage further emulation, for faith in the justice system remains the pulse beat of our everyday life. We rely on the legal framework, and on our legal institutions, whose quality depends on their integrity. It is worth quoting Justice Tom Clark. "Justice is everybody's business. It passes on every man's property, his reputation, his liberty, his life. We must therefore build our courts on solid ground, for if the judicial power fails, good government is at an end." Should sufficient, unsavory practices permeate and affect the legal process, should a significant number of people begin to lose faith in the justice system, an unhealthy skepticism is slowly engendered; the system itself starts to be in doubt, and we commence to abdicate the hard won freedoms gained through unremitting and relentless struggles over the years, which would shake the foundations of our society. The cumulative, compounding effects ought not be overlooked. Should trust and confidence in the legal system be repeatedly violated, if justice is not to be served, should increasing cynicism about law enforcement not be dispelled, we begin to acquire an unhealthy view of everyone involved in the administration of justice, from lawyers to judges alike. The legal/judicial process truly is the strongest bastion of every democracy. It is to be recalled the sanctity and integrity of the courts, of the legal and judicial systems, were the first to be compromised, premeditatedly, with the ascendancy to power of totalitarian regimes, both of the right and left, in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union respectively. The gradual corruption of lawyers and the courts, and destruction of the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, were the beginning of the end of democratic liberty in those countries. We were shown with very convincing illumination what can happen when the rules of the civilized world vanish. Indeed, tyrants have grasped, at the outset, individually or collectively, intuitively it seems, that if any totalitarianism is to hold sway and flourish, autocratic control and repression of practitioners of the law, of the judiciary and the courts, become a prerequisite to ensure continuity.

I consider myself a reasonably resourceful and intelligent person. I am a graduate of three universities in Canada, with five degrees behind me. I have pursued graduate studies in the U.S. In years past I have corresponded extensively, and pounded the pavements of Manhattan repeatedly in search of counsel. One could almost think the term conspiracy to prevent pursuit of due process; the Legal Referral Service of the Association of the Bar flatly refused to assist, after pumping me for additional data, information and detail as to what it was all about. It is really inconceivable and astounding, a staggering reality, that in the last quarter of the twentieth century, all avenues of legal redress have proven effectively closed, and that, I submit, must merit a certain amount of thought and silent reflection. Truly! Absolutely nothing can be done in the way of due process; I consider that appalling and a travesty. It is an outrage, by any definition of the term! If I, with such a background, find myself stymied at every turn, consider the plight of an average citizen confronted with a similar predicament; that person doesn't stand a ghost of a chance. The legal system really is rigged and loaded in favor of its practitioners, contrived against the individual, and there is no effective way to fight back. If major affronts and assaults to the dignity of the law are ignored, and multiply, if a sustained advocacy of the survival of truth in law is not observed and pursued, if a person within the system such as a former Federal Judge deems it more expedient to remain complacent and silent about such matters as are brought to his attention, then we have real grounds and cause for despair. If we remain indifferent, if the might of the legal profession continues unchecked, if the profession itself can fully enjoy free reign unimpeded, with no real checks and desired, effective deterrents whatever, if we can't pursue the rule of law and due process is denied and fails us, if there are multiple standards of law enforcement varying with power and influence, if the law cannot be an objective instrument for all, and is subject to abuse by privileged people, we begin to live under anarchy, where the law of the jungle prevails, and might becomes right, in a world bereft and void of moral order, as in less fortunate countries with despotic governments. I have learned the hard way the law is no equitable instrument, but serves principally and in partisan fashion to enhance the prerogatives of select parties, who are able to manipulate it to serve their interests and, to a lesser extent, maintain the status quo. By no means do I consider myself in the anti-establishment camp, per se, but begin to comprehend how people may be moved to violence in conditions where no other viable options appear to present themselves for alleviation of grievances.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly. I may be reached by correspondence at the above address. Alternately, [though I am informed all overseas phone calls are automatically recorded and spot-monitored, and not by the Red Cross] should you wish to contact me by phone, I may be reached by direct dial in Sparta, Greece, telephone 23745. On occasion, I may be absent for brief or longer periods, during which interval I may be contacted in Athens, Greece, telephone 6834-360, the home of my half-sister in a suburb of that city.

I remain,

                                            Yours truly,

                                        James P. Pergantes.

The reply from "60 Minutes" was to the effect that while they could sympathize with my situation, what I was presenting them with did not readily lend itself to the format of a "60 Minutes" show. (J.P.)

ENCLOSURE 5

LIPSIG, SULLIVAN & LIAPAKIS, P.C.

100 CHURCH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007

TELEPHONE (212) 732-9000  TWX 710-581-5779 LIPSIG-NYK

May 13, 1981

Mr. James Pergantes

309 The Kingsway, Apt. 205

Islington, Ontario  M9A 3V3

Dear Mr. Pergantes:

Thank you for contacting our law firm with regard to re-opening your case against Bache & Co. and bringing a legal malpractice action against your former attorneys. Ms. Liapakis has asked me to express her thanks for your interest in this office.

After giving your case the most careful consideration, however, we have regretfully concluded that your situation does not form the basis of any cause of action which this law firm would wish to undertake. If you wish to pursue this matter, we strongly urge you to contact another attorney as soon as possible. Although your letter expresses the view that your proposed action would not be barred by statutes of limitations, an attorney who accepts your case may not share that opinion. We therefore urge you not to delay in retaining other counsel. Again, thank you for your interest.  We are sorry that we cannot be of help to you in this matter.

   Very truly yours,

   LIPSIG, SULLIVAN & LIAPAKIS, P.C.

   By: THEODORE KERIN

TK/leg

Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested

ENCLOSURE 6

             LAW OFFICES

McDONOUGH MARCUS COHN & TRETTER, P.C.

                                                 600 THIRD AVENUE

                                              NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

                                                 (212) 557-7990

                                                FAX (212) 557-6732

                                           April 22, 1994

Mr. James P. Pergantes

549 Riverside Drive

Apartment 2L

New York, New York 10027

Dear Mr. Pergantes:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated April 18, 1994 with enclosures. After reviewing the documentation you have furnished us, we have concluded that this law firm does not wish to represent you in this matter.  Primarily, we believe that there are some significant defenses to your lawsuit which would be difficult to overcome.

    As you have been advised by prior attorneys, the statute of limitations, being a primary defense, should be addressed immediately if you intend to commence an action. I am sorry we could not have been of service to you, but thank you for considering our law firm.

Very truly yours,

   Eli S. Cohn

ESC/mer

Encs.

ENCLOSURE 7

LEVI & LUBARSKY

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

40TH FLOOR

500 FIFTH AVENUE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10110

HOWARD B. LEVI                                                  TEL (212) 719-4822

RICHARD F. LUBARSKY                                             FAX (212) 730-2965

STEVEN B. FEIGENBAUM

  ---------------

LAURA GILBERT

SHERRIE F. NACHMAN

ABIGAIL SLOANE

WALTER E. SWEARINGEN

                                                May 21, 1996

CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

James P. Pergantes

540 West 122nd Street, Apt.34

New York, New York 10027

Dear Mr. Pergantes:

I am returning to you the original letter and materials that you sent me on May 16, which I received in the mail yesterday. (I have not retained any copies.)

After reviewing these materials, my firm has concluded that we are not able to represent you in this matter.

As you have been advised by prior attorneys, if you intend to pursue this matter with other counsel or on your own, you should do so immediately, since it appears that the statute of limitations may be a defense to your claims.

I appreciate your interest in my firm and I regret that we cannot handle this case for you.

Very truly yours,

RFL:mck                                     

Enclosures                                   Richard F. Lubarsky

ENCLOSURE 8

                 FEDERAL RECORDS CENTER - N.Y.

           BUILDING 22 MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL BAYONNE N.J. 07002-5388

                                PROCEDURES FOR

                          REVIEWING COURT RECORDS AT

                     THE FEDERAL RECORDS CENTER - NEW YORK

        The Federal Records Center (FRC), stores approximately one million

 boxes of inactive and semi-active records from Federal agencies   

 and Federal Courts in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the   

 U.S. Virgin Islands. However, only the records of the U.S. Courts   

 are available for research by the public. To review Court records  

 at our facility, you MUST follow the steps below.

STEP 1: OBTAIN lNFORMATION

        Obtain the following information from the proper court for each

        case in which you are interested. Without ALL of the information

        listed below the FRC staff can not locate your record(s).

        THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

        DOCKET NUMBER AND CASE TITLE:   72 CV.731  

         ACCESSION NUMBER: 021-75A-176   ACCESSION NUMBER:021-_____-_____

         AGENCY BOX NUMBER: 15-A         AGENCY BOX NUMBER:_____________

         FRC LOCATION: BO 180622         FRC LOCATION:__________________

STEP 2: CALL FOR AN APPOINTMENT

        Telephone the FRC at (201) 823-7242, and tell the receptionist

        you wish to review a U.S. Court record. Give the receptionist:

            A: The information you obtained in STEP 1.

            B: Your name and a telephone number at which you may be

               reached between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM.

        Our research room is open to visitors with appointments, Monday

 through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, except Federal Holidays. The  

 FRC will  schedule  a  maximum  of  six morning  and  six 

 afternoon appointments per day between 8:00 AM - 12 Noon and 1:00 

 PM - 4:00 PM. There is a limit of 3 cases per visit. Records must 

 be returned 10 minutes prior to closing. If the records you need 

 are not at the FRC, or the numbers provided are incorrect, you 

 will be advised to contact the court of record for additional 

 information. However you may wish to call before leaving to visit 

 the FRC to confirm the availability of the file you need.

STEP 3: REVIEWING THE RECORDS

        Once you are at the FRC, YOU must review the file and identify the

        pages you wish to have photocopied by FRC staff. The FRC staff are

        not trained court clerks and cannot accept responsibility for

        identifying the specific documents you require, nor do they give

        technical information regarding file content or court actions.

        Regulations for the public use of records in or held by the

        National Archives and Records Administration are contained in 36

        CFR Ch. XII.

REPRODUCTION FEES

PHOTOCOPIE8: $.50/page               CERTIFICATON: $5.00/document

                                     (note FRC's are not permitted

                                         to certify copies of

                                       NATURALIZATION PETITIONS.)

MINIMUM MAIL ORDER: $5.00          

 We accept cash, money orders, or preprinted personal checks. 

 Checks must be made payable to National Archives Trust Fund.

        If you wish to have a copy made of an ENTIRE PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY

        CASE, you need not visit our facility. You must complete STEP 1.

        In STEP 2 you must specify that you wish to have the entire case

 copied, certified if necessary, and mailed. You will be informed 

 of the copying cost. Once payment is received, the case will be 

 copied and mailed. You must assume the cost for any express mail 

 service and must make arrangement for this service.

RE: 72 CIV. 731 (S.D.N.Y)

(Provided in case there should be a need for independent verification.) 

NOTE: Court files for the Southern District of New York, formerly at the Federal Records Center in Bayonne, NJ, are now located at

               National Archives and Records Administration

               Central Plains Region

               200 Space Center Drive

               Lee’s Summit, Missouri 64084

Accession Number: 021-75A-176

Nara Location Numbers: Row B11  Unit 02  Shelf 135

Agency Box Number: 15A

Case File Number: 72 CV. 731   Case File Name:    JAMES PERGANTES, Plaintiff,

                                                  against

                                                 BACHE & CO. INCORPORATED,

                                                 Defendant.

City and State where Court is located:  SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,

      NEW YORK, NY.

Enclosure 9

Pulitzer's Vision

There are many political reformers among the clergy, but the pulpit as an institution is concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven, not with the Republic of America. There are many public-spirited lawyers, but the bar as a profession works for its retainers, and no law-defying trust ever came to grief from a dearth of legal talent to serve it. Physicians work for their patients and architects for their patrons. The press alone makes the public interests its own. "What is everybody's business is nobody's business" -- except the journalist's; it is his by adoption. But for his care almost every reform would fall stillborn. He holds officials to their duty. He exposes secret schemes of plunder.... He brings all classes, all professions together, and teaches them to act in concert on the basis of their common citizenship.

The Greeks thought that no republic could be successfully governed if it were too large for all the citizens to come together in one place. The Athenian democracy could all meet in the popular assembly. There public opinion was made, and accordingly as the people listened to a Pericles or to a Cleon the state flourished or declined. The orator that reaches the American democracy is the newspaper. It alone makes it possible to keep the political blood in healthful circulation in the veins of a continental republic.... Virtue, said Montesquieu, is the principle of a republic, and therefore a republic...is the hardest of all to preserve. For there is nothing more subject to decay than virtue.

Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.

-Joseph Pulitzer

From: "The College of Journalism," May 1904, North American Review.

-Copied from Columbia Journalism Review, January/February 1992. Same issue deals extensively with commentaries on Michael Milken.  Dershowitz gets unfavorable mention.

ENCLOSURE 10

FINANCIAL TIMES

MONDAY MARCH 10 1997

Lloyd's faces US setback        By John Authers in New York

Appeals court allows Names to sue

Lloyd's of London faces an embarrassing setback to its campaign to repair its reputation after a Californian appeals court ruled that US Names can sue the insurance market under securities fraud and racketeering legislation.

The American Names Association, which brought the case on behalf of up to 574 Names - the wealthy individuals whose capital underpins the market - said total damages payable could be as much as $1 billion.

Lloyd's said it would appeal against the ruling which makes no judgments on the facts. It said last year's settlement in which it transferred the bulk of its losses to a new giant reinsurer named Equitas would not be affected, and that many Names who originally brought the lawsuit had since decided to settle with Lloyd's.

The judges also used their ruling to criticize the legal redress available to the Names in England, saying "major gaps" existed in English law on securities fraud. They said: "The available remedies in England are not adequate substitutes for the firm shields and finely honed swords provided by American securities law."

Mr. William Pitt, who represents Lloyd's in the US, said: "We think the decision is erroneous and we plan to take steps to have it reversed." He said lawyers for Lloyd's were likely to ask the appeals court to reconsider its decision, which contradicts several US legal rulings that Names can seek redress only in English courts. The incident comes just as Lloyd's has started a publicity campaign in the US to repair its reputation and to recruit new corporate members.

The ruling, made in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco by judges Mr. Charles Wiggins and Mr. John Noonan, says clauses in contracts signed by Names agreeing that complaints should be handled by English courts should be voided because they violate US securities laws passed in 1933 and 1934.

Describing Lloyd's as "a business corporation so powerful that it has obtained from the British legislature substantial immunities," the judges said: "A plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the wrongs alleged by the plaintiffs is not shown to exist in Britain." They reversed a southern Californian district court's decision in April 1995 to dismiss the Names' securities fraud and racketeering charges, and remanded the case to a district court in San Diego.

A third judge, Mr. Alfred Goodwin, published a strongly worded dissent. He said the same reasoning could provide protection for Americans who lost money betting on chicken fights in Mexico, and that English law provided an "adequate remedy."

The Names allege they were defrauded by being placed on syndicates which reinsured asbestos and toxic waste claims, or had a heavy concentration of risk due to reinsurance. They say Lloyd's knew the syndicates carried big liabilities but did not disclose them.

Mr. Jeffrey Peterson, executive director of the association, said the ruling recognized that "when a foreign enterprise engages in widespread sales activities in the US, Congress prohibits that enterprise forcing the investors to waive their rights under the federal securities laws."

(For an extensive exposition and write-up of the difficulties facing Lloyd’s of London, see the February 21, 2000 issue of Time Europe.)

Settlement Approved in Prudential Case

By Bloomberg News

NEWARK, March 10 - A Federal judge today approved a settlement between the Prudential Insurance Company of America and the millions of customers it misled over a 13 year period ending in 1995.

Following the ruling, Prudential will begin to repay an estimated $2 billion to customers who bought new life insurance unnecessarily, convinced by agents intent on bolstering their own commissions. The practice is known as churning.

The judge, Alfred M. Wolin, said that "after a careful review and consideration," the United States District Court in Newark had found that the settlement met standards of "fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" for the 10.7 million policyholders involved.

The settlement helps set to rest a case that had dragged on since last July, when Prudential, the nation's largest insurer, agreed to pay $35 million in fines to regulators from 30 states and to set up a restitution program.

Prudential's chairman, Arthur F. Ryan, welcomed the ruling in a statement. "We look forward to implementing the settlement and resolving the concerns of all affected policy owners," he said.

Source: NY Times Mar. 11/97

Note:- From 1996 Prudential Annual Report: "The owners of approximately 23,000 policies have taken steps to exclude themselves from the class action and are not bound by the settlement."

The hands of the parent company aren't too clean either. Their wings do get clipped! Even the mighty take a fall. (J.P.)

_____________________________________________

S.E.C. Narrows Prudential Case

WASHINGTON, MAY 28 (Dow Jones) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission said today that it had closed investigations into the activities of at least six former employees of Prudential Securities Inc. because of a statute of limitations established by a court decision last year.

The investigations, by S.E.C. offices in Atlanta and Fort Worth, focused on serious supervisory lapses and fraudulent sales practices at Prudential's Dallas and Atlanta branch offices in the 1980's and early 1990's, people familiar with the matter said.

Details of the practices formed part of a huge S.E.C. settlement with Prudential in October 1993. So far, the settlement has cost the company, a unit of the Prudential Insurance Company of America, close to $2 billion, including legal costs, according to a Prudential spokesman.

The S.E.C. continues to investigate a handful of former employees at Prudential's head office in New York over their role in those sales, sources said.

Source: NY Times May 29/97

SOUNDBITE

"Tell the truth and run - that's what we do, and much of the time that's correct. But it's my thesis that that's a pretty uncomfortable position. You have to be ready individually, personally, to look in the face of every person you do a story on and say, ‘I know who you are. I know what kind of a person you are. I know what you have accomplished. And I'm going to hurt you because this story is worth it.’ But most of the time we don't make that judgment at all. We tell the truth and we run. I think it's about time that some of these seminars started talking about the moral responsibility for what we report."

Terry Anderson, speaking at the IRE conference, June 14, about Admiral Jeremy Boorda's suicide. Reporters had recently approached Boorda with questions about his combat decorations.

From: Columbia Journalism Review, Sept./Oct. 1996

_________________________________

Quote from Terry Anderson:

"I have strong ideas about journalism. I think it's important work. I am quite passionate about its high purpose, its role in the maintenance of a free society. I believe in those things very deeply, and I think those are good things to teach to aspiring journalists."

-From: 21st C - The World of Research at Columbia University       (Winter 1997 edition)

March 7, 2002

ADDENDUM