Archives
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
The following letter was delivered to Justice Herman Cahn July 22, 2008
after media reports of his interest in an explanation of the previous
letter to the Court warning of the dangers of hasty approval of Mel
Weiss' request for his cut of legal fees from Milberg LLC cases.
Hon. Herman Cahn
New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street, Room 615
New York, NY 10007
Re Motion re legal fees by Melvyn Weiss No. 601929/2008
Your Honor:
I read the New York Law Journal account of the July 15 hearing
regarding Mel Weiss' fee agreement with Milberg LLP. I will be happy to
provide an explanation of my concerns relating to his agreement with
Milberg LLP. Naturally I will make myself available for any personal
appearance you desire but there are several additional elements of this
dubious arrangement which I want to make sure are part of your
deliberative process.
The negotiation of this plea deal was obviously not the result of arms
length negotiations between splitting partners. This was Mel Weiss
holding a gun to the head of his former firm and extracting an up front
cash payout prior to heading off to jail. Consider the position of those
"negotiating" for Milberg LLP. Mel Weiss was cutting a deal with
prosecutors because if he lost at trial he would likely die in jail.
Prosecutors had both witnesses and proof. If he decided to start talking
about current Milberg partners the deferred prosecution agreement and
supervised practice charade were not going to occur. Milberg partners
had to agree to anything he wanted or else Mel could put them out of
business and reduce his sentence even further. Payment of fees by this
firm to this admitted felon should be carefully scrutinized before any
judicial approval is granted.
Of course the lawyers representing both Milberg and Weiss tell you that
prosecutors were fully aware of the arrangement to give Mel Weiss
everything he wanted. Prosecutors with strong proof that are willing to
plead away a winning RICO case in this fashion may well have
authorized this payday for their defendant. They even found a reason to
keep this firm in existence rather than proceeding to trial so anything is
possible. Rather than accepting the word of interested parties and
those representing them you should make these prosecutors come into
your Court and confirm this story. Keep in mind these same
prosecutors went into Judge Walters Court and described Bill Lerach as
a volunteer for justice to convince him to approve the short sentence for
Lerach. This deal provided criminal immunity for former Milberg Weiss
partners. This was done despite seven years of denial and obstruction
by the defendant. The conduct of prosecutors and the outcome of the
cases raise serious questions. You should not proceed without
answers from those ultimately responsible for this suspect result.
You may also be concerned about my questioning the integrity of the
judicial selection process. I have had experiences with Mel Weiss and
his associates which indicate their unnatural influence on the selection
process in several arenas. Please do not confuse my suspicions about
the process as any attack against you personally. If you have a strong
record of upholding partnership agreements or deferring to the
judgment of the parties during business breakups that would be
sufficient reason for them to arrange your selection. There are a million
ways racketeers influence events. The firm and the lawyer asking for
your approval appear to have used at least one very unorthodox
business venture to obtain the means to exercise such influence. While
the partner directly involved in this venture became of counsel before
disappearing altogether as this deal was struck the story is both highly
relevant and rather astonishing.
The ground floor and basement of the partners residence was used as a
commercial sex establishment for years. The ownership of this
property is really not the issue. This illegal business was rather well
known. It is highly unlikely that someone with as many New York
contacts and ears to the ground as Mel Weiss would be unaware of this
situation. Access to and control of the premises of this sort is a
traditional organized crime activity. In addition to any profits generated
there is extraordinary blackmail material created. Simple video and
audio surveillance from a sex club creates leverage with those involved
and those who want to protect those involved from exposure.
This is the only plausible explanation of a cash generating racket such
as Milberg Weiss tolerating such illegal activity by a partner. Blackmail
allows them to influence someone not corruptible by other means.
While at this point this is clearly speculation, it is entirely valid
speculation and provides the most reasonable explanation of this home
business. The fact that Paul D. Young disappeared from the Milberg LLP
website at just this time provides another indication that his departure
and Mel's deal may somehow be related to tying up this end of their
nefarious business. The real unanswered question is who has their
treasure trove of blackmail material and who will exercise this improper
power going forward.
I have filed attorney grievances with the first department but Mel Weiss
and his surviving associates appear to have that under control. I will be
filing a federal case regarding the Attorney grievance process due to a
totally non responsive reply. When I do so I will be confronted with Shira
A. Scheindlin, the same judge that has worked on an unusually high
number of Milberg Weiss cases over the last 10 years. Judge
Scheindlin has consistently protected Mel Weiss and his associates
from my efforts to defend the interests of absent class members in the
IPO Securities Litigation. When her assignment to these consolidated
grievance cases is combined with her having overseen a
disproportionate number of Milberg Weiss cases it seems likely that the
random selection process has been altered for some reason.
While I would appreciate to opportunity to come to Court and make a
complete presentation I understand that you have a full docket and are
very busy. I will continue to research this matter and prepare to provide
further explanation if you have any interest. Despite the government
rollover these lawyers are crooks, even those continuing to practice.
Whatever legal fiction we are going with here we all know that
experienced counsel knew or should have known what was going on
with Milberg Weiss. You should proceed with caution and at the very
least let the prosecutors responsible for this travesty publicly accept
responsibility for allowing crime to pay so well for Mel.
Respectfully,
Theodore A. Bechtold, Esq.
xxx
The following letter was sent to Justice Herman Cahn before the July
15, 2008 regarding Mel Weiss' request for Court approval of his cut of
legal fees from Milberg LLC cases.
Hon. Herman Cahn
New York County Courthouse
60 Centre Street, Room 615
New York, NY 10007
re Motion re legal fees by Melvyn Weiss No. 601929/2008
Your Honor:
You have been asked to approve payment of legal fees to Mel Weiss
pursuant to his fee splitting agreement with Milberg LLC. The history of
the indicted firm and the admitted use of numerous corrupted plaintiffs
are a matter of public record. Mel Weiss still denies any effect on the
conduct of cases. Like most convicts he is still lying about his crimes. I
will provide two recent representative Milberg Weiss cases which
demonstrate that the corruption and improper activities go far beyond
those identified by federal prosecutors. There are many other suspect
Milberg Weiss cases but these two provide more than enough
justification for judicial review prior to approval of the payment of legal
fees to an admitted felon.
The first representative Milberg Weiss case not covered in the federal
indictment is In Re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. File #C-04-2297 SC
(JCS). The first and most obvious problem is the fact that Steven
Schulman signed the original complaint filed by Milberg Weiss for his
client Paul Lee Associates LLC. In this case 43% of shareholder
recovery ultimately went to Milberg Weiss. There are serious questions
regarding the oversight likely to have been provided by these these lead
plaintiffs. Consider the procedural history of the case and the nature of
representative plaintiffs used by MIlberg Weiss.
Largest loss in the case was initially claimed by Liao Group which was
represented by Schiffrin & Barroway. In their August 9, 2004 Notice of
Motion to appoint the Liao group lead plaintiff filed they declared
themselves the best choice to represent Class members for many
reasons. The group claimed $595,000 in losses. They were also the first
case filed but for some reason counsel withdrew their motion just two
days prior to the scheduled September 24, 2004 hearing. The Liao
group stated that they were still willing to participate in a leadership role
but nonetheless withdrew their motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.
This left Milberg Weiss and their group of lead plaintiffs in charge.
Milberg Weiss was appointed lead counsel on September 24, 2004
representing a group including Ken Churchill as trustee for Churchill
Family Trust, Michael J. Hannan on behalf of Coyote Growth
Management LLC, Anthony P. Broccoli, Gerald A. Madore and Rocco
Peters. They are each listed on the amended complaints filed November
23, 2004 and May 20, 2005 as part of the “Churchill group”.
Coyote Growth Management LLC is referenced in the final settlement
materials as a lead plaintiff. It appears they are better suited to the role
of respondent and defendant that acting as a lead plaintiff. The failure of
Milberg Weiss to inform the Court of the status of this plaintiff and
remove him from the record is easily explained by the nature of their
business and the obvious relevance to the activities confirmed by the
Bershad plea agreement. Rather than be candid with the Court about
their plaintiff they reverted to form and misled the Court.
Action was taken by the State of Arizona against Coyote Growth
Management LLC on August 28, 2006 . The firm was an unregistered
investment advisor operating in violation of Arizona Law since 2003.
Coyote Growth Management LLC was run by Michael Joseph Hannan
a/k/a “MICHAEL HANNAN,” “MIKE HANNAN” and “MICHAEL J. HANNAN, II"
and his wife “Jane Doe” Hannan. They were required to cease and
desist by State authorities. There is a subsequent request by counsel
for the Arizona Corporation Commission Michael Dailey to appoint a
receiver for The 12 Percent Fund, I LLC and Coyote Growth Management,
LLC (Case number: CV07-10539). Coyote was an unregistered
investment company selling unregistered securities while Hannan was
barred by the SEC from association with any broker, dealer or
investment advisor. Hannan promoted the fund guaranteeing
participants a 12% return on their investment. Hannan’s history of
securities violations included securities fraud, misappropriation of client
funds and use of those funds to manipulate markets in OTC stocks.
This is who Milberg Weiss used as a representative plaintiff.
Another plaintiff, Anthony Broccoli, was officially recognized as a lost
plaintiff on December 2, 2005. See Letter attached to the Declaration of
Rick Barreca of Seeger & Weiss dated July 27, 2006. He describes his
longstanding inability to obtain documentation or any response from the
plaintiff prior to sending the letter explaining his pending removal as
lead plaintiff. Despite this ongoing difficulty even contacting Mr. Broccoli
he was included as part of the “Churchill group” used to gain control of
the case. Eight months later the Court was informed of the lost plaintiff
when counsel finally asked to remove him from the record.
Mr. Barreca’s declaration regarding Mr. Broccoli reflects numerous
writings, contacts and information passing to Mr. Broccoli but makes
only one unclear reference to actual conversational communication with
his client. Ms. Williams of Milberg Weiss states that she “instructed him
directly” to produce documents and that Mr. Broccoli gave her a fax
number but makes no specific representation of actually speaking to
the man. Even the proof of service is only proof of mailing to an
address. No attempts at personal service were made. It is entirely
reasonable to ask if Mr. Broccoli ever even existed. What
documentation did the MIlberg Weiss have in its possession when
representing to the Court that this person was a valid representative
plaintiff? What documentation does it have now? Did this mysterious
figure and his “losses” make a difference in the appointment of Milberg
Weiss as lead counsel in the case. Was this simply a ruse to enable
Seeger and Weiss to justify a larger payout from Milberg Weiss when
the fee was divided among the participating firms? When a
racketeering enterprise is involved anything is possible. Why was such
an undocumented, unresponsive plaintiff presented to the Court in the
first place and then kept in place for months after officially
disappearing? Now that the firm and its partners have admitted that
they engaged in illegal plaintiff activities the Court cannot ignore the
implications of approving payout of related legal fees to Mel Weiss
without a review of each case.
The second representative Milberg Weiss case is in re Genta Securities
Litigation No. 04 CV 2123 (JAG). Milberg Weiss proposed settlement
within 5 days of the firm and its partners being indicted. There are
several notice and disclosure issues that were ignored by the Court,
including the failure to provide shareholders reasonable notice of the
related derivative settlement. There are doubts about the
representative nature of the plaintiffs used by Milberg Weiss in the case.
There are concerns of possible incomplete disclosure to the Court
regarding Milberg Weiss partners’ ownership of GENTA Stock.
Mel Weiss was an early investor in Genta and has a business
relationship with its promoters. The time submitted by the firm on the
case provides a perfect example of the problems inherent in allowing
indicted racketeers to operate as lawyers and run legal cases. There is
certainly a difference between “being familiar with details of the
litigation and settlement of the case” and actually acting as lead
counsel. This would seem to require at least some level of participation
in strategic discussions at some point in the case. Despite
representations to the Court in re Genta was undoubtedly Mel Weiss'
case. The time says the lead lawyer had no role whatsoever in strategy
of the case. Zero hours for strategy were billed by the "lead counsel".
The case was not run by the lawyer fronting for Mel Weiss it was run by
Mel Weiss. Neil Fraser of MIlberg Weiss was kind enough to provide a
"courtesy" copy of the time Milberg Weiss submitted to the Court in the
case. Every representation Neil Fraser made regarding the major
decisions affecting this case must by definition rely on the word of an
admitted felon. Weiss, Bershad and Schulman directed the case while
Neil Fraser followed orders. The time allows for no other interpretation.
The indictment was unsealed and the settlement was underway.
I note that Genta had a case before your Court as late as May of this
year. For some reason this matter was suddenly withdrawn. Now you
are selected to hear the fee approval matter for Mel Weiss. A review of
the record in my various legal activities involving Mel Weiss and Milberg
Weiss indicate that your selection is likely the product of the improper
influence of these lawyers. They are just too lucky for chance. Rather
than providing official sanction for payments to criminal lawyers in
suspect cases please consider taking a stand and looking beneath the
surface of this simple contract matter.
Corruption of lawyers conducting cases on behalf of the American
public is serious business. If a traditional crime boss was asking for
judicial approval for payments from elements of his racketeering
universe that were not specifically mentioned in a plea agreement would
you consider a blank check or would some formal review be advisable?
Mel Weiss scheduling difficulties are no reason to approve payouts
without carefully evaluating all relevant facts and circumstances. I
hope you will decide that you cannot turn a blind eye to the public policy
considerations created by judicial approval of the payment of legal fees
to admitted felon lawyers seeking their cut. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
Theodore A. Bechtold, Esq.
xxx
The following letter was sent to the Hon John F. Walker before the
sentencing hearing to be held on June 2, 2008 in Los Angeles, CA.
May 30, 2008
Hon. John Walter
United States District Courthouse
312 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Your Honor:
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Theodore A. Bechtold and I
have been working for three years to protect my clients and all absent
class members in the IPO Securities Litigation from the effects of the
improper conduct of the case by Mel Weiss and his associates. I have
followed the proceedings in your Court to date with great interest. I have
read the letters supporting Mel Weiss bid for compassion. The choice
of the wonderful man defense requires that I reveal what I know about
Milberg Weiss far reaching criminal enterprise. This will make your
acceptance or rejection of the 33 month sentence and $10 million fine
for the crimes committed by Melvyn I. Weiss the first fully informed
decision in the case. I will share my personal knowledge of these
matters with your Court and the American public. These disclosures
will demonstrate that the 150 cases identified by the government are
only the tip of the toxic Milberg Weiss iceberg.
Your decision on Mel Weiss' sentence will leave the fate of Milberg LLC
as the only remaining issue. The firms continued operation as a going
concern is contrary to the interests of millions of absent class members
still subject to this legal travesty. Everything will now be put on the table
in an attempt to start the process of correcting the institutional
breakdown that has become apparent. Criminal investigation and
prosecution of lawyers engaged in illegal activities and the self
regulatory process which is supposed to address wrongdoing in the
legal profession are both completely incapacitated. Hopefully your Court
will be part of the solution to this monumental problem starting with
rejection of the prosecutor’s absurdly generous offer to this defendant.
The American public is entitled to know what has become of courts of
law in New York and the Second Circuit. These criminal attorneys and
their associates have achieved sufficient control of the legal process
that they have been able to avoid accountability for many years. Their
control was demonstrated by the curious disposal of my personal case
against Milberg Weiss and their associates. The subsequent
assignment of Judge Shira A. Scheindlin to the historic consolidated
cases arising from alleged corruption of the New York lawyer
disciplinary apparatus completes the circle. These crooked lawyers
are just too lucky to attribute everything to the luck of the draw.
Everywhere I turn in New York the fix is in. Since these courts are the
nexus of both national and international commercial litigation their
occupation by such criminal elements is totally unacceptable and must
be ended.
If the crimes of Mel Weiss are actually considered serious how can
such minimal jail time and small financial penalties be justified. No
amount of marvelous pro bono work or acts of personal and
professional generosity can mitigate the effects of his criminal
enterprise. He was in fact the head racketeer that directed 30 years of
fraud. His imitators are everywhere. What largess could possibly justify
departing from severe penalties and allowing lawyers guilty of such
activities to keep their fortunes? If Mel Weiss broke into a safe to get
this money there would be no chance compassion would be used to
justify a short jail term and retention of the crime proceeds. Here he is
offered both supposedly because he is really an old, sick prince being
force to trade in his $3000 silk suit for an orange jumpsuit for a couple
of years. If he was really sorry for what he did he would provide
information about the other crooked lawyers. Instead the maid's kid
writes a touching letter describing a nice man. Allowing the architect of
this monstrosity to walk out of jail in 3 years with all of his wealth intact
would be a brutal miscarriage of justice.
If plaintiff kickbacks were really about the race to the courthouse the
industry wide practice would have stopped after the law changed in
1995. Plaintiff kickbacks are about total control of the case and nobody
having the power to question lead counsel. This is what makes paying
off plaintiffs worthwhile to crooked lawyers. Take a good look at the
record of the IPO Securities Litigation. No matter what Mel Weiss was
doing in the court of Shira A. Scheindlin he was beyond reach. The
special master assigned by Judge Scheindlin agreed with Mel Weiss'
expert witness opinion. He said that the judge in securities class action
cases is limited to accepting or rejecting the proposed settlement. The
judge is not to interfere in lead counsel's conduct of the case. Mel
Weiss is in charge at all times.
I have read the excerpts from the 250 testimonial letters from people
every conceivable relationship to Mel Weiss describing his wonderful,
helpful side. These stories are all very nice but my experience with Mel
Weiss is somewhat different. In an attempt to balance the warm and
fuzzy feelings generated by this pathetic "compassion" pitch I will be
providing the Court with a brief self written victim impact statement
which will allow you to see how one of my clients has been affected by
the failure of Milberg Weiss to pursue her interests. I did not want to
summarize this client’s expression because they are both insightful and
genuine. This is what his victim goes through as her case goes
nowhere because of lawyers that operate without accountability.
I will also provide a personal statement which will describe the
consequences visited upon one lawyer actually acting to protect the
interests of class members from Mel Weiss' IPO Securities Litigation
settlement scheme. They proposed a no recovery issuer settlement for
half of the largest class action case in history. Several clients have told
me they expect to die waiting for any recovery obtained by Milberg
Weiss or any lawyers that have gone along with their plans. I cannot
offer any comfort, I just apologize for my inability to fight through a
system that finds a way to protect the indicted firm to this day.
Little weight should be given to the fact that Mel Weiss might really be a
great guy and did much exceptional charity work and helped the poor
and the sick and the financially challenged. Great weight should be
given to millions of class members whose interests were "protected"
by Seymour Lazar, Howard Vogel and Steven Cooperman. Keep in mind
that the representative plaintiff is the only one in a position to supervise
the lawyers and protect the interests of absent class members.
Kickbacks left Mel Weiss alone with the money. Think about how many
victims surely would have gotten greater recovery if there was at least
some possibility that Mel Weiss would have to answer to anyone for his
settlement.
Consider the impact his activities have had on the retirement plans of
one class member in the IPO Securities Litigation. He and his wife were
set up for retirement and invested their nest egg. He retired with honor
after serving the US Military for a lifetime. He and his wife were put into
IPO stocks which evaporated to zero. Now they have a small, rundown
house, no boat, no RV and not much of a retirement at all. They counted
on the money being invested in safe stocks as they were told. The man
feels like he let down his family because he listened to his stockbroker.
Then he spends 7 years relying on the legal system to obtain
satisfaction. He assures his wife the lawyers are on the case. He
watches a famous lawyer run his case but never gets a dime. He gets a
letter telling him Mel Weiss has agreed to settle half of his case but he
will get no money. The letter tells him to wait some more. Then he
hears nothing for 3 years. He feels like an idiot that was fooled twice
and it is killing his wife to watch him. She said she misses his cheery
disposition more than the material things. He is already as old as Mel
Weiss and still years away from getting anything. Mel Weiss is not the
only old army man involved here, he is just the only old army man who
stole so much from so many for so long. Who should be shown
compassion here seems obvious.
Now picture Mel Weiss' retirement / get out of jail party in 2010. He will
be 75 years old. His sons have completely taken over the family
business. He will be tanned rested and ready to play defendant after
spending a few difficult years eating from a tray and sleeping on a cot.
He checks out his beloved art masterpieces, cracks a bottle of Grey
Goose and plans how he will rehabilitate his image with more charity
work and well publicized donations. My clients and every Milberg Weiss
victim should not have to see Mel Weiss again until he comes out of jail
a small, frail, very old man. This is about punishing criminals according
to the law, not feeling bad because this old crook might die in jail. Let
him go to trial if he feels lucky. If I recall correctly Mel Weiss rarely did
trials in his professional life, just too much risk. He did the crime now let
him do the time in a real jail. He is clearly no threat but he should
provide an example of what happens when an attorney sells out the
client for so long.
I was very disappointed that you decided to accept the prosecutor’s
recommendation of minimal jail time and fractional restitution from Bill
Lerach. I was most surprised that you approved the deal in light of
published reports that one prosecutor actually came into your Court and
explained that Bill Lerach's plea agreement somehow turned him into a
"volunteer" for justice. This bizarre fantasy demonstrates an unnatural
need to close this case up and avoid any further proceedings. For
whatever misguided reasons they have decided that crooked lawyers
who betray their clients and disregard their oath deserve only minimal
punishment. Rather than holding the prosecutors accountable for
providing such a preposterous justification for departing from
sentencing guidelines you let it go and deferred to their judgment. Given
the timely partnership offer to the original prosecutor in the Milberg
Weiss this may not have been advisable. You never know with these
guys. Nothing is off the table.
The final result worked out by these prosecutors for this group of
criminal lawyers is most unusual. The two major partners that invented
the scheme and ran the West Coast and East Coast branch of the
operation get 2 or 3 years in jail. More junior partners that flipped first
were forced to accept up to 5 years in jail. Sentencing guidelines meant
that all four were faced with the distinct possibility of dying in prison.
Now all are released at a normal retirement age and are allowed to keep
the vast majority of their ill gotten gains. Unlike Weiss and Lerach,
Steve Schulman and Dave Bershad were also required to cooperate and
presumably testify against their former partners and firm at trial. In this
case sentences go down as we go up the food chain.
There is no interest in having Bill Lerach provide information about the
industry wide illegality repeatedly described in his own sentencing
documents. Cooperation is not needed for what is clearly an illusory
investigation. Following the evidence, including payments by other
lawyers to John Torkelson, is of no interest to whoever is directing the
prosecutors. The whitewash of this monumental ongoing legal fraud is
nearly complete.
Closing the investigation is the only thing that explains the government
granting immunity to two unindicted lawyers that were at Milberg Weiss
and were involved in these kickback schemes. As far as the
prosecutors are concerned it all stops with 4 partners at one firm. John
Torkelson worked for many firms but those illegal fees are simply
forgotten or attributed to parties that have received government
immunity. I realize that you have no say as to what investigations these
prosecutors pursue or ignore. You do however have total control of the
destiny of the man that invented the Milberg Weiss "business model"
and left behind the cancerous remains of his 30 year criminal racket.
There is much more to consider when sentencing Melvyn I. Weiss than
the four corners of the indictment the plea agreements and all those
nice letters.
Even the punishment of the loss of a law license by these defendants is
an illusion. The good news is that Mel, Bill, Steve and Dave are unlikely
to ever again be listed anywhere as counsel to anyone. Unfortunately
prosecutors have demonstrated no more interest in taking away the
remaining $220 million of crime proceeds from the guilty partners then
they have in securing appropriate jail time for officers of the court that
have admitted to stealing so much for so long. Despite their involuntarily
retirement from legal practice there will be years of civil proceedings
where all of the skills and experience these defendants developed as a
crooked lawyers will continue to frustrate the public interest. They will
monitor every proceeding in each related case through video
conference and direct their counsel via text messages. The only thing
that changes is they will now practice law as a defendant for their own
account. This is really no punishment at all.
The minimal restitution required by prosecutors for these serious
crimes will result in their being able to live in great luxury for the rest of
their lives. Each will protect their remaining share of the loot just like
the corporate defendants they pretended to pursue for so long. Milberg
LLC is reported to have asked you to reduce their anticipated financial
penalty to account for the expenses they incurred while stealing the
$250 million in fees under false pretenses. I cannot locate a single legal
theory or ethical canon which would authorize these
crooked lawyers to keep money taken from client settlement funds
under these circumstances. Failure to provide honest legal services is
a concept they still appear to have a hard time understanding. This was
an absurd request by desperate lawyers trying anything to avoid even
financial accountability for years of participation in criminal activity.
You stated your concerns with the serious nature of the crimes
committed yet you approved a deal with broad immunity for as yet
unindicted lawyers at the behest of a non cooperating defendant.
Prosecutors seeking immunity for third parties implicated in the
charged wrongdoing without any cooperation is inexplicable. These
fortunate lawyers had direct involvement in at least one case that
included kickbacks to a plaintiff but were given a free pass because Bill
Lerach said so. Considering the available evidence of the payoffs and
the testimony of partners and plaintiffs involved in the cases it is a
complete mystery what leverage Bill Lerach used to obtain such a
favorable deal for both himself and his associates. Mel Weiss has
apparently received similar consideration for himself.
In the IPO Securities Litigation all attempts to remove Milberg Weiss and
the other lawyers joining Mel Weiss' racket have been denied or ignored
by Judge Scheindlin. Stanley Bernstein of Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz
was designated Mel Weiss replacement as head of the IPO Securities
Litigation Executive Committee. As you will see this is really no solution
to my client’s problem. It is natural that Stan Bernstein would write a
letter supporting Mel Weiss. His firm Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz has the
same plaintiff problems as Milberg Weiss except they appear to have
avoided paying their plaintiffs directly by check. The similarity of these
firms business model is obvious. Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz repeated
failure to disclose in Court filings the various relationships with and even
ownership of their plaintiffs in multiple cases is astounding. Even more
astounding is the apparent official acceptance of the "mistaken filing"
excuse. These improper plaintiffs were used to obtain control of the IPO
Securities Litigation but the Court does not care. Rather than looking at
Mel Weiss excellent record for pro bono work or other charitable
activity consider that the industry wide practices used by Bernstein
Liebhard Lifshitz and other Milberg Weiss copycat firms are the real
legacy that Mel Weiss leaves the legal profession.
Allow me to provide some context to the letters I sent to Judge
Scheindlin. These 309 cases were being prepared for cheap
settlement. I realized that Mel Weiss was so intent on this planned
settlement that building up a strong case through discovery would get in
the way. The conduct of the case was a charade. In addition to
numerous substantive allegations against Milberg Weiss and their
associates everyone involved in the improper disposal of these
legitimate objections by counsel should be subject to an official inquiry.
Judge Scheindlin assigned Special Master Dan Capra to look into my
allegations despite his having received an intentionally misleading letter
sent by Milberg Weiss partner Peter Safirstein. Safirstein, who was
sanctioned in 2006 for lying to a Federal District Court, wrote the letter in
an attempt to misdirect the Court about the true status of discovery
issues after I contacted Judge Scheindlin the first time. Fire the
attorney, let those involved complete an official "review" and seal the
whole matter away forever. This was the first of several instances
where the level of protection Judge Scheindlin has afforded these now
admitted felons is as unparalleled as it is offensive.
My first complaint to the New York Attorney grievance department
regarding Mel Weiss was rejected. They actually suggested that I
contact the judge in the case. A second complaint including all those
involved in my termination and disposal of my wrongful termination case
was ignored. Given allegations against the first department disciplinary
committee relating to disposal of complaints against "certain attorneys”
this outcome is not surprising. My total lack of faith in this process is
reflected in the contemporaneous public dissemination of every
disclosure I will be making. After experiencing secret justice where
improperly disposed matters are sealed by a Federal District Court
Judge I know that the disinfectant of sunlight is needed more than ever.
I have attached copies of my 2 letters to Judge Scheindlin. I am told the
letters are a difficult read but please leave those 250 letters behind and
visit the reality of Mel Weiss actual business practices before deciding if
you think 33 months for this man is appropriate. I will also attach my
personal victim impact statement for your consideration. I appreciate
the natural tendency to feel human sympathy when someone crashes to
the ground from such great heights but there are no mitigating factors
on earth which should turn up to 40 years in jail and we want all the dirty
money into 33 months soft time and keep your fortune. The concepts
of punishment and deterrence require a real jail sentence for the last
man standing.
If prosecutors believe Mel Weiss ran this enormous criminal racket why
is he going home so soon and so rich. Mel Weiss should be happy to
receive less than 10 years so he can avoid medium security prison and
those scary medium security prisoners. Please make an example of
Mel Weiss to deter similar conduct by other lawyers. My experience
demonstrates that the Milberg Weiss business model is in fact the
biggest problem Mel Weiss leaves behind. You can only deter future
illegal conduct by other lawyers through punishment of this sad old man,
not compassion for his horrifying personal and professional demise. He
is only reaching your Court as a begging old man because he hid the
evidence and lied to investigators as an arrogant younger man. Many
serve more than 33 months just for doing just that. You should extend
no sympathy to this particular devil.
Respectfully,
Theodore A. Bechtold, Esq.
The following attorney grievance was submitted to the New York State
Disciplinary Committee for the First Department February 8, 2008.
There has been no response to date.
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Department
61 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10006
Greetings:
I worked as an attorney on the IPO Securities Litigation 21 MC 92(SAS)
from August 2003 until September 2005. I was fired for contacting
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin regarding Milberg Weiss improper conduct of
the case. I have since asked the Court to remove Milberg Weiss and its
IPO Executive Committee on behalf of my clients in the case. My
request was denied. Milberg Weiss and its IPO Executive Committee
have conducted the case in a manner designed to induce defendants to
settle through minimizing the damages to be recovered by Class
members. Despite the overwhelming strength of the case and
numerous deep pocketed defendants Milberg Weiss and its IPO
Executive Committee are not interested in increasing the recovery of
their clients. Many defendants have a relevant history of document and
data production failures, including regulatory findings and penalties but
using this leverage is not of interest to these lawyers. They have only
one goal, assuring payment of the legal fee by any means necessecary.
There is no consideration given to building a strong case and even
pretending to be preparing for a trial. It is nothing more than a long, slow
jog to the pay window. They are happy to accept whatever the
defendants will pay since it will inevitably generate a huge fee. Defense
counsel bills its hourly rate and if the clients cannot escape liability
altogether they will be happy to pay damages of pennies on the Dollar for
their hugely profitable market manipulation scheme. Many hedge funds
and other participants in the scheme earned huge profits knowingly
trading in a rigged market but Milberg Weiss makes sure they have no
liability at all. Everybody wins but the twice victimized clients.
These firms were willing to pursue a partial settlement with the issuers
that would have provided no money for Class members. Mel Weiss
decided early on that the issuers were somehow less culpable for their
participation in the scheme than the underwriters. He determined that
they were worthy of an absurdly generous settlement long before any
discovery was conducted. This settlement would have paid the related
legal expenses of the issuer defendants, reduced the exposure of the
liability insurers by $1 Billion and covered legal fees and expenses for
Milberg Weiss and its IPO Executive Committee. This deal was the
product of "plaintiff’s lawyers" that were working for someone other
than their clients. Your prior determination that my complaint was not
your concern directed me back to Judge Scheindlin. This has proven
completely unsatisfactory in light of several recent developments.
As a result of the new disclosures and litigation regarding the improper
disposition of First Department Attorney Grievance matters for certain
attorneys I have decided to submit an expanded grievance filing. After
several years of futile resistance to the improper conduct of the IPO
Securities Litigation in Federal and State Court I have reached the
conclusion that my clients and seven million absent Class members
require a public forum. The actions of everyone involved in the IPO
Securities Litigation have made clear that the Courthouse door is closed
for now. The only parties being protected in Court are these lawyers
and those that facilitate this ongoing fraud. Judge Scheindlin's recent
decision to restrict my public statements demonstrates that further
activity in Court is pointless until the entire situation is exposed to the
disinfectant of sunlight.
New York State legal authorities and those responsible for operation of
its Attorney Grievance process are going have to make a public
determination about the character and fitness of all attorneys
participating in this judicially sanctioned legal charade. The
"management" of this case by the IPO Securities Litigation Executive
Committee and their systematic obstruction of my efforts to pursue
legitimate, unconflicted representation for my clients and seven million
absent Class members violate several standards of Attorney conduct.
They disregard their client’s recovery and place their personal financial
interests ahead of anything else. When confronted they manipulated the
legal and judicial process by nefarious means to avoid accountability for
their actions. Racketeering is precisely the right word to describe their
common enterprise.
After I was fired Judge Scheindlin gave Special Master Daniel J. Capra
total latitude to dispose of serious allegations against Milberg Weiss.
That is exactly what he did. There was no need to even speak to the one
lawyer willing to challenge the still unindicted superlawyers for their
brazen disregard of their clients’ financial interests. The Special Master
conducted an "interview" almost a year after this matter was
“resolved” by the Court. I was informed that everything was deemed a
discovery dispute. Mel Weiss' expert witness said that lead counsel’s
conduct of the case could not be questioned in any way, the special
master concurred and everything was safely sealed away by the Judge.
My later effort to have the Court address the multiple conflicts created
by the expanding federal investigation into Milberg Weiss improper
payments to their expert witness John Torkelsen was unsuccessful.
The potential criminal implications and multitude of conflicts created by
government demands for production of documents by other IPO
Executive Committee firms relating to payments to the cooperating
witness were ignored by Judge Scheindlin. Even after the indictment of
Milberg Weiss, the exposure of multiple Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz lead
plaintiffs and five wasted years without class certification these firms
are deemed by Judge Scheindlin to provide fair and adequate
representation.
In a curious attempt to protect the public I was required by Judge
Scheindlin to clear any IPO related public statements with the Court.
The stated concern was my disclosure of attorney work product or
other privileged information. I recently asked the Court about unsealing
these matters for public dissemination and requested approval of a
limited, factually accurate public statement to solicit the assistance of
expert counsel. I wanted to get help defeating bogus claims of attorney
client and work product privilege which will undoubtedly be made by
these firms to prevent disclosure of the truth. I was amazed at the
response. Judge Scheindlin omitted any reference to my contacting her
about Milberg Weiss activities. No explanation at all is provided
regarding the cause of my termination. I am supposed to tell the world
that I was terminated by my employer and also that I was terminated for
cause. Any explanation of the actual "cause" such as going to a Federal
Judge with allegations of misconduct against the now indicted firm is
nowhere to be found.
Judge Scheindlin stated in her reply to my request that including this
information makes the statement inaccurate and misleading. This is
curious since I have never learned of another reason for my
termination. Perhaps there is another answer. There has been at least
the one secret proceeding described above relating to the official
disposal of my allegations. I have never been allowed to see a
transcript. This proceeding appears to have been orchestrated by Mel
Weiss for the benefit of Special Master Capra so anything is possible.
Given the nature of my adversaries and the official support they have
received for years absolutely nothing would surprise me. Secret justice
and sealed proceedings involving lawyers that are indicted racketeers,
confirmed liars or their unindicted co conspirators have no place in
American Courts, the decisions by Judge Scheindlin and her Special
Master notwithstanding.
If I am correct this is a massive legal fraud. If I am wrong these
activities are technically legal and comport to the disciplinary rules and
ethical standards required of lawyers in New York. Either way there is a
serious problem. I cannot comprehend Judge Scheindlin's continued
protection of Milberg Weiss and their IPO Executive Committee in this
case. I cannot explain the failure of Federal or State authorities to
prosecute any of the other firms or attorneys involved in the hundreds of
Milberg Weiss cases where there has been confirmation of fraud. I can
say that any judge that looks at a below guideline sentencing
recommendation and comparatively small fine for non-cooperating
unremorseful defendants like Bill Lerach should carefully consider both
the financial impact of thirty years of fraud on the recovery of victimized
Class members as well as the cesspool of legal malfeasance these
criminal lawyers have left behind. Granting this defendant a sweetheart
plea bargain for industrial scale legal fraud will not deter the conduct it
will generate a sign up list. The risk for criminal lawyers willing to
corrupt the legal process in this manner for thirty years in hundreds of
cases must include serious jail time and return of all proceeds of the
fraud. This deal provides neither and Lerach is not even required to
cooperate in the ongoing investigation or trial of his partner and former
firm. Prosecutors should be told to try again.
Apparently the American public is expected to believe that thirty years of
this illegal and hugely profitable activity is limited to four unscrupulous
lawyers at one rogue firm. Nobody else knew a thing. They never
noticed the name Lazar, Cooperman or Vogel on thirty years of Milberg
Weiss complaints. None of these smart lawyers copied the most
profitable business model in litigation history. My professional
experience with these firms includes many years working on the IPO
Securities Litigation and several other effected cases. I know the truth
from first hand experience. The cases listed below are just the tip of the
iceberg.
I am deeply troubled by the absence of any public discussion regarding
the need for lawyers that worked in the hundreds of identified fraudulent
Milberg Weiss cases to return the fees taken from each client's
settlement. I cannot provide any legitimate reason why the political
contributions from all those involved in these illegal activities are not
returned. I can provide numerous reasons why the legal profession
must enforce higher standards than mere politicians. In addition to
demanding formal disciplinary proceedings against those involved in the
IPO Securities Litigation fraud I request that New York State exercise its
legal authority and pursue the return of all fraudulently obtained legal
fees and expenses from lawyers admitted to practice in the State of
New York.
Class members in each confirmed case of Milberg Weiss fraud can
easily be identified from existing records. Fee applications usually detail
where every penny of the legal fees were directed. Those with official
responsibility for attorney regulation should expedite this avenue of
financial recovery for the real victims of a monumental fraud committed
by New York lawyers. If the general public faces prosecution for
keeping cash wrongfully dispensed from an ATM why are these Officers
of the Court keeping the illicit proceeds of these rigged cases? Illegal
plaintiff payoffs have been documented in Court records. Several
Milberg Weiss partners and plaintiffs participating in the fraud have
admitted their guilt and agreed to cooperate. There is no justification for
continued official inaction regarding return of this money to the victims
of Milberg Weiss fraud.
The following represents a short summary of my general allegations
against the individuals involved in the IPO Securities Litigation fraud, my
termination from the case for contacting Judge Scheindlin and the
subsequent events related to my termination. These activities violate
several Disciplinary rules including DR 1-102 and DR 7-101.
Each of the additional examples certainly merit investigation of any New
York lawyers involved. These cases also provide supporting evidence
demonstrating a pattern of similar misconduct and disregard for the
interests of the clients. These firms have a long history of improper
collusion which violates the rules of attorney conduct and works to
defraud all absent Class members. Even if the government does not feel
they have sufficient proof for criminal charges those responsible for the
regulation of the legal profession should see to it that lawyers that
repeatedly engage in these practices are driven out of the business.
After 30 years of doubt it is now safe to say that collusion among these
lawyers and their chosen plaintiffs is more likely than not the reason
these cases always settle for pennies on a Dollar. Even in cases where
multiple criminal convictions and related regulatory findings provide
conclusive proof of massive fraud they sell out their clients to lock up
the legal fee.
Milberg Weiss
Mel Weiss was IPO Securities Litigation Lead Counsel and is surely still
running the case through his still loyal partners, notwithstanding his
being forced to move behind the curtain after the latest superseding
RICO indictment. Mel Weiss invented this racket and is the mastermind
of the IPO Securities Litigation rush to settlement. The case is so strong
that fully developing the proof would have interfered with his planned
cheap settlement. These calculated failures are demonstrated by the
"inability" of these resourceful firms to initially find even one plaintiff in
over 500 additional IPO's known to be effected by the underwriter’s
manipulation scheme. It was described by the defendants themselves
as an industry wide practice yet no plaintiffs were identified for so many
identical cases.
In each of the 309 cases they did file Milberg Weiss and its IPO
Securities Litigation Executive Committee failed to charge many
underwriters listed in the prospectus. Some underwriters escaped
liability for their role in the scheme entirely. Despite producing several
amended complaints they never managed to capture so many easily
identified participating underwriters and principle investors as
defendants. A test case was orchestrated in an unsuccessful effort to
undervalue the case. The one sided issuer settlement was pursued
long after it became clear it was no longer in the client’s interest. This
systematic effort to minimize the case from its inception totally betrays
the client. Mel Weiss is also responsible for the wrongful termination
and subsequent events.
Peter Safirstein is Milberg Weiss primary IPO fraud operative, made
misrepresentations to the special master and is responsible for the
wrongful termination and subsequent events.
Safirstein provided day to day management of the case at the IPO
Executive Committee’s dedicated office space at 380 Madison Ave.
After my first attempt to contact the Court was disclosed to the IPO
Executive Committee. Safirstein sent a misleading letter to the special
master dated September 6, 2005 regarding discovery issues with
certain defendants. Safirstein made specific representations regarding
the status of discovery which were clearly misleading and did not reflect
the true state of the "process" of discovery with at least one defendant.
The fact that Safirstein was misleading the special master cannot be
considered surprising since he has been sanctioned for lying to the
Court in another case Morris v. Wachovia Securities 3:02-cv-00797-
REP. This demonstrates his willingness to lie to the Court when it suits
his or his indicted partners purposes. My contacting Judge Scheindlin
and exposing Milberg Weiss activities created more than adequate
reason for him to do so again. The September 6, 2005 letter was a
transparent attempt to misdirect the special master by attacking a
defendant in the only area where they had been cooperating. Months of
my E Mail to Safirstein, Jules Brody and others running the case
describe the serious ongoing production issues as well as one
particular area where progress was slowly being made in great detail.
Safirstein set up a strawman in a foolish attempt to cover for the failure
of the IPO Executive Committee to properly pursue the discovery they
were entitled to get from the defendants. This recidivist offender
should be dealt with very harshly as a deterrent to other lawyers
inclined to repeatedly lie to the Court.
Other examples of Milberg Weiss misconduct in Class action cases
Ex 1 In re WRT Energy Securities Litigation, 96 Civ. 3610
Milberg Weiss managed to have their client destroy their own records
and evidence that were needed to prove the case. As a result major
investment bank defendants were able to successfully claim plaintiff
document destruction. The client will have to recover from the indicted
firms professional liability policies. This is another example of a
carefully crafted legal fraud working to the advantage of the very same
underwriter defendants that benefit from Milberg Weiss improper
conduct of the IPO Securities Litigation.
Ex 2 In Re Computer Associates Securities Litigation Master File No. 98-
cv-4839 (TCP) (EDNY 2003) - Mel Weiss settlement of the case ignored a
much larger fraud exposed during discovery. The deposition of a
Computer Associates employee uncovered the fraud through analysis of
accounting spreadsheets produced for the litigation. The witness
explained that the spreadsheets we were provided excluded many
hidden columns which were subsequently produced by the defendants.
Analysis of these expanded accounting records began to reveal the true
extent of the fraud at the Company which ultimately resulted in multiple
criminal convictions and guilty pleas. Mel Weiss ignored any evidence
of the larger fraud and rushed to settle the case. The larger fraud
should have resulted in far greater shareholder recovery as claimed by
Sam Wily in his ongoing legal battle against this settlement. Whatever
the correct legal decision is regarding the various procedural issues
involved Mel Weiss knowingly ignored his client’s interests to get paid.
See attached documents from the Wily lawsuit for additional
background.
Ex 3 In Re GENTA Securities Litigation 2:04-cv-02123 (JAG)(MCA)
Milberg Weiss proposed settlement of this case within 5 days of being
indicted. There are notice and disclosure issues including the failure to
provide shareholders reasonable notice of the related derivative
settlement and the doubts about the representative nature of the
plaintiffs used by Milberg Weiss in the case. There are concerns of
possible incomplete disclosure to the Court regarding Milberg Weiss
partners’ ownership of GENTA Stock. Investigation is required to assure
Milberg Weiss fully disclosed to the Court the true nature of the financial
relationship and business dealings of Milberg Weiss partners with the
actual parties of interest in GENTA. The settlement hearing in GENTA is
scheduled for March 3, 2008 and should provide an excellent example of
the improper connections between hedge fund fraud and Milberg Weiss.
At least one other IPO Executive Committee firm has longstanding ties
to similar suspect financial entities and individuals. Profits can be
generated for the lawyers involved by allowing them to be an early buyer
and timely seller in suspect securities deals. The lawyers can
reciprocate by running a legal case against a related Company to
recover the full value of the company’s liability policies. This avoids the
risk of exposure of any other dirty company business or payment of any
damages beyond liability policy limits. This appears to be the pattern in
the GENTA case.
The Committee must also take official notice of the situation with the El
Mirage club and the blackmail issue. What we now know to be a
racketeering enterprise had a partner with an illegal commercial sex
establishment in his place of residence for many years. Milberg Weiss
must have known about this ongoing public operation. The blackmail
value of routine El Mirage security surveillance video could only be
exceeded by the value of video from hidden cameras at such an
establishment. The owner of the building would have unlimited access
to the premises. Organized crime has traditionally exploited ownership
of such establishments to facilitate blackmail and extortion of
unknowing patrons. Multiple plea agreements confirm that Milberg
Weiss operation clearly qualifies as highly organized criminal activity.
There is really no other plausible reason why ownership of such an
illegal establishment would be tolerated by a well concealed criminal
enterprise producing such huge payouts for so long. The value of such
information to these criminal lawyers is beyond question and may
explain some of the curious developments in my own case against
them. The possibility that Milberg Weiss blackmail activities were used
to affect the attorney grievance process must also be considered.
Racketeers influence and corrupt their targets through many
instrumentalities, including the ability to expose secret lives.
Particularly in light of the allegations relating to improper influence
effecting the disposition of Attorney grievance matters official
investigation of this disturbing situation is required to assure the
integrity of the process.
Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz - Stan Bernstein IPO Co chair
Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz gained control of the 309 cases in the IPO
Securities Litigation using improper plaintiffs including a self owned
"charitable trust" Colbert Birnet (owned by Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz
partner Mel Lifshitz, Eli Levitan and Ezra Birnbaum) and Pond Equities.
Pond Equities and Birnbaum SEC records reflect his firm engaging in
market manipulation through illegal short selling. This was done to
facilitate a fraudulent bond conversion ratio for a client. After being
appointed co lead counsel Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz executed Milberg
Weiss IPO Plan and is responsible for the wrongful termination and
subsequent events.
Affiliates and relatives of these improper IPO plaintiffs have served as
representative plaintiffs for Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz in many other
cases. Some have done so multiple times. Even my limited research
with limited resources show that some of these entities and parties are
involved in very suspect financial enterprises. These include companies
such as SulphCo and the recently exposed Optionable. At Optionable
convicted felons were actually placed in complete control of a Public
Company. This was a big surprise to its primary customer and victim,
the Bank of Montreal which incurred “valuation errors” costing almost
One Billion Dollars to date.
The official investigation into these matters is ongoing. In light of the
recently stated priority on keeping New York competitive the State
should exercise its jurisdiction over these New York lawyers and
conduct an independent examination of this critical nexus of financial
and legal fraud in the state. The financial industry is far too important to
the economy of New York State to allow these small bands of crooked
plaintiffs lawyers, shady stock promoters and their associates to
continue enriching themselves by defrauding the investing public.
Many years of financial, professional, charitable and personal
involvement of the principles of Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz with these
individuals and entities raises many serious issues. The nature of every
entity (charitable and otherwise) presented as a representative plaintiff
by these New York lawyers require investigation because of these
connections. Any failure by Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz to completely
disclose close, longstanding relationships with these parties, spouses
and other affiliates is improper. The oversight of counsel provided by
the representative lead plaintiff is a key safeguard for absent Class
members. Repeated use of these affiliated plaintiffs eliminates that
oversight. It is doubtful that the true nature and extent of these
relationships and the repeated use of certain plaintiffs was fully
disclosed to the Court in each of these cases. As is often the case the
failure to properly disclose such matters exponentially multiplies the
legitimate concern regarding the relationships themselves. If everything
is proper why hide the details from the Court? In addition to
investigating the historical plaintiff activities of Bernstein Liebhard
Lifshitz the State of New York should take strong action to show it will
not tolerate lawyers owning their own plaintiff, profiting from it and then
lying about it to avoid accountability.
Stull Stull and Brody
Jules Brody IPO co conspirator, wrongful termination and subsequent
events
Aaron Brody IPO co conspirator, stolen confidential mail, wrongful
termination and subsequent events
Tzivia Brody IPO co conspirator, stolen confidential mail, wrongful
termination and subsequent events
Stull Stull and Brody executed Milberg Weiss IPO Plan and are
responsible for the wrongful termination and subsequent events. Aaron
and Tzivia Brody intercepted the August 26, 2005 letter returned by
Judge Scheindlin. It was clearly addressed to me and labeled personal
and confidential. They blame the secretary for opening the letter but
they clearly had read it. I assume that they are responsible for
disclosing these matters to the IPO Executive Committee. It is curious
that the Judge sent my letter back to the Stull Stull and Brody offices
under these circumstances especially when my personal address was
on the letter.
Ex 1 The Brody's choice of C. Daniel Chill as their lawyer and how he
proceeded in my case demonstrates exactly who and what we are
dealing with. Chill managed to execute the long delay of my claim for
unemployment insurance and the ultimate assignment of the claim to a
cooperative jurist. First there were conveniently misplaced files for the
initial hearing with the first scheduled ALJ. The next ALJ actually
commented about the case that "it was patently obvious what went on
here". The second hearing was rescheduled for Chill to make an
appearance for Stull Stull and Brody in a Class action case where he
was supposedly indispensable. Given the nature of large class action
cases it is highly unlikely that a one hour unemployment hearing would
disrupt this case in any appreciable way. Chill was granted his request.
After six months Department of Labor rules indicate that I should have
received a check even if there had been no determination. Nine months
after my termination and no payments or hearings later Chill managed to
have the case scheduled for ALJ Wolfermann. He was finally ready to
proceed. Judge Wolfermann did just what he wanted. My subsequent
appeal was denied.
Next is the mystery of the assignment of my wrongful termination case
to Judge Marylin G. Diamond. For a year Chill and the Brody's had
blamed the IPO Securities Litigation Executive Committee for the
termination. After the assignment of the case to Judge Diamond Chill
mysteriously abandoned Brody's prior position regarding the IPO
Executive Committee’s responsibility for my termination. Chill was
circulating documents using this defense at the start of the wrongful
termination case. Then for some reason Chill was suddenly claiming
that he was unauthorized to make such representations. For some
reason there was no longer any need for the Brody's to have any
defense against my claim. The documents Chill circulated were simply
withdrawn. It appears that the "random" assignment of Judge Diamond
and the Brody's abandoned defense are related. Considering the
players involved and the totality of the circumstances it seems highly
likely that this result cannot be attributed to a random spin of the wheel.
Of critical importance in evaluating the character and fitness of those
involved in this matter is the description of another case C. Daniel Chill is
litigating. Chill is in the process of legally bilking his elderly client Alice
Lawrence with the express approval of the New York Court of Appeals.
Chill solicited and received over $7 million dollars in "gifts" from the
client several years ago for himself and other partners at Graubard
Miller. Chill went back months later and got the client to pay the taxes
owed on those "gifts". He later rewarded the clients’ generosity by
changing the firm’s hourly fee agreement with her. That agreement had
paid Graubard Miller $200 per hour for many years of work. This was
changed to a contingent fee arrangement just as the long running estate
case reached its conclusion. The result was a multi million Dollar
windfall for the firm. Chill went into Court and sued this client to recover
these fraudulently arranged and truly extraordinary legal fees. C. Daniel
Chill was once again successful. He has managed to have this historic
Trusts and Estates fraud returned to the depths of the New York
Surrogate Court courtesy of a truly inexplicable decision by the Court of
Appeals. See dissenting opinion by Judge Catterson for a
comprehensive legal and ethical analysis of Chill's business practices in
this case.
If this is how a wealthy well represented party is treated in New York
Surrogate Court and in the New York Court of Appeals how do the more
vulnerable or totally incompetent fare? How many victims provide large
gifts or revise fee agreements at the direction of their own lawyer but
their case never gets out of this dark hole? Exactly who is being
appointed to protect this captive audience from this sort of
unconscionable abuse? Considering the implications of this officially
sanctioned abuse of trust by C. Daniel Chill New Yorkers are entitled to
answers, not denial and equivocation. The fact that Chill is actually
willing to sue to enforce this agreement and prevails in New York's
highest Court provides more than enough justification for a
comprehensive investigation into his other cases. The public interest
requires a comprehensive investigation to ascertain whether such
practices are common in the New York Surrogate Courts. Based solely
on the face of what has been reported by the victimized client and
confirmed in Court filings C. Daniel Chill is morally and ethically unfit to
practice law and should be disbarred. With an unlimited budget and a
choice of any lawyer in the land this is who was selected to represent
the interests of Jules, Aaron and Tzivia Brody. The Brody's did not retain
an employment lawyer or trial lawyer to litigate the merits of the case
they utilized an operative to take care of things in their own way. This
speaks volumes about the character of these individuals, the true
nature of their legal practice and their moral and ethical unsuitability to
practice law in the State of New York.
Ex 2 The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund Inc., et al v.
Halliburton Company , et al (Master Docket No.3:02-CV-1152-M)
Stull Stull and Brody was a member of the HAL Executive Committee and
went along with Richard Schiffrin's attempted secret settlement of the
case. Stull Stull and Brody was ultimately removed from the case for
cause.
Ex 3 In Re Computer Associates Securities Litigation Master File No. 98-
cv-4839 (TCP) (EDNY 2003) - Stull Stull and Brody was co lead counsel
and went along with Mel Weiss improper settlement of the case. Stull
Stull and Brody plays this same role in the IPO securities litigation - co
counsel that goes along with anything Milberg Weiss wants to do.
C. Schiffrin and Barroway Richard Schiffrin IPO co conspirator,
wrongful termination and subsequent events
Ex 1 The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund Inc., et al v.
Halliburton Company , et al (Master Docket No.3:02-CV-1152-M)
Schiffrin and Barroway were lead counsel representing 4 lead plaintiffs
in the case. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund was one of
the four lead plaintiffs and objected to the proposed settlement by
Schiffrin and Barroway. The case has an estimated value of between $1
and $2 Billion. The proposed settlement provided only $3 Million for
Class member recovery. There were published reports of secret
meetings and powerful political considerations. The Fund was not
advised of the settlement and did not authorize it yet Schiffrin and
Barroway presented the settlement to the Court anyway. The
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund ultimately had Schiffrin and
Barroway removed for cause after this attempted secret settlement.
Ex 2 In Re Computer Associates Securities Litigation Master File No. 98-
cv-4839 (TCP) (EDNY 2003) - Schiffrin and Barroway went along with Mel
Weiss' improper settlement of the case.
Ex 3 In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc. 3:04-CV-02297-SC Schiffrin
and Barroway went along with Milberg Weiss' settlement of the case.
Milberg Weiss used one fraudulent hedge fund and other questionable
entities as lead plaintiffs. Earlier in the proceedings Schiffrin and
Barroway voluntarily withdrew a proposed lead Plaintiff despite that
Plaintiff's expressing interest in acting as lead plaintiff. This decision
assured Milberg Weiss would be able to run the case using these
dubious representative plaintiffs. No questions were asked after
Milberg Weiss and its partners were indicted and guilty pleas were
entered. No intervention was attempted after Milberg Weiss hedge fund
lead plaintiff was shut down by Arizona authorities because it was a
Ponzi scheme. Schiffrin and Barroway plays this same role in the IPO
securities litigation – co counsel that goes along with anything Milberg
Weiss wants to do.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Herz Fred Isquith IPO co conspirator,
wrongful termination and subsequent events
Ex 1 The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund Inc., et al v.
Halliburton Company , et al (Master Docket No.3:02-CV-1152-M)
Wolf Haldenstein was a member of the HAL Executive Committee and
went along with Richard Schiffrin's secret settlement of the case. Wolf
Haldenstein was ultimately removed from the case for cause.
Ex 2 In Re Computer Associates Securities Litigation Master File No. 98-
cv-4839 (TCP) (EDNY 2003) - Wolf Haldenstein went along with Mel
Weiss' improper settlement of the case.
Ex 3 Omnivision 3:04-CV-02297-SC Wolf Haldenstein went along with
Milberg Weiss' settlement of the case. Milberg Weiss used one
fraudulent hedge fund as described above. No questions were asked
after Milberg Weiss and its partners were indicted and guilty pleas were
entered. No intervention was attempted after Milberg Weiss hedge fund
lead plaintiff was shut down by Arizona authorities because it was a
Ponzi scheme. Wolf Haldenstein plays this same role in the IPO
securities litigation – co counsel that goes along with anything Milberg
Weiss wants to do.
Sirota and Sirota Howard Sirota co conspirator, wrongful termination
and subsequent events
For many years Howard Sirota has publicly and repeatedly spoken the
truth about Mel Weiss and his firm. He is even quoted in published
reports as calling the IPO securities Litigation Executive Committee a
"nest of snakes". Despite these unusually candid statements he signed
on to the Executive Committee's efforts to bury my objections to Milberg
Weiss conduct of the case. He continued to push the issuer settlement
after it was clearly not in the client’s interest. While his candor is
unusual the bottom line is that he too is willing to go along with whatever
the Milberg Weiss wants to get paid.
Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin – She has allowed seven million absent Class
members to remain captive of the indicted firm and its Executive
Committee. Perhaps this is a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion
or perhaps not. The judge’s revision of my proposed public statement
confirms my worst fears about this situation. After nearly three years of
secret proceedings, dismissed and sealed allegations, declarations of
the fairness and adequacy of this shameful representation and
protective orders for indicted felons complaining about truthful press
releases my clients require outside intervention. If I am not mistaken
Judge Scheindlin is admitted to practice in New York and subject to the
same rules as other lawyers. There is something very wrong when a
Judge provides this much cover for lawyers engaging in these
practices. An official determination is required.
Special Master Daniel J. Capra – Master Capra took serious allegations
of misconduct and assisted Mel Weiss in making them vanish. The
clients I was trying to protect were unimportant. He did not feel any
need to speak to me since my allegations were to be sealed away and
buried forever. Perhaps this is acceptable for an attorney to do or
perhaps not. If I am not mistaken Master Capra is admitted to practice
in New York and subject to the same rules as other lawyers. An official
determination is required.
I will provide supporting documentation to the Committee shortly,
although much of my work is based on publicly available information. I
intend to provide this letter to journalists and others immediately. I have
been fighting this battle with these felons alone in the dark for years. My
client’s cases continue to be held captive by indicted racketeers with
the ongoing assistance of a Federal Judge. The related criminal
prosecution appears to be ending with only four lawyers from one firm
being charged. The procedural history of the IPO Securities Litigation
and my related personal case compel me to take these dark forces out
into the sunlight. Confidential proceedings and sealed disposal of
serious allegations of misconduct provide more than sufficient
justification for this course of action. Their improper manipulation of the
system after their disposal of my allegations demonstrates that they
have no honor whatsoever. This is not surprising because they are
thieves. They are only masquerading as lawyers because they can steal
more this way. It is my belief that they must be publicly exposed and
eliminated from the profession. I apologize for any difficulties my public
disclosure causes but the process is completely broken and my clients
need more protection that I have been to obtain for them in Judge
Scheindlin’s Court. Either Mel Weiss and his business partners picked
the wrong business or I did. I look forward to your final determination.
Respectfully
Theodore A. Bechtold, Esq.
310 - 94th Street #319
Brooklyn, New York 11209
347 668-4218
tabechtold@hotmail.com