Monday, September 19, 2016

5 Million $ Lawsuit filed By A Judge Jacobson Who Was Dumped By Boss Seddeo,




Why is the Brooklyn Democratic Boss Seddio Hiring the Criminal Law Firm of Morvillo to Defend Himself in the Judge Jacobson Lawsuit?
LICH hospital that helped get Bill deBlasio elected when he got arrested as an election prop goes luxury condo in mayoral bait switch on dumbass voters. Affordable Housing nixed. Brooklyn Boss Seddio Made Money in Turning A Hospital Into Luxury Buildings  
Why is Seddio Still the Brooklyn Boss After He Helped Closed Down A Hospital to Build Luxury Housing?
In disappointing turn for de Blasio, Long Island College Hospital will not include affordable housing (PoliticoThe land owner, Fortis Property Group, said it will not seek permission to rezone the site of Long Island College Hospital in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. Without a rezoning, which requires several layers of city approval, Fortis is free to build market-rate condos without any price-controlled housing for lower-income residents. (Politico)
More on Closing Long Island College Hospital






Building As-of-Right Redevelopment is the Most Profitable for the Developer
Former hospital will be turned into luxury high-rise (NYP) A former Brooklyn hospital that Mayor de Blasio unsuccessfully fought to keep open and then suggested be converted to affordable housing is now going to be turned into a luxury high-rise — another policy black eye for Hizzoner.  Fortis Property Group, which owns the Long Island College Hospital site in Cobble Hill, announced Friday it will not seek a compromise rezoning — as de Blasio had hoped — so it can move forward with more profitable market-rate condos in 529,000 square feet of space. Longtime neighborhood activist Roy Sloane responded: “I consider this a catastrophe for the Cobble Hill Historic District.”

Besides Picking Judges Brooklyn Boss Seddio Now Picks Law Assistants With Banking Foreclose Backgrounds Why? Hint Judge Jacobson Law Firm
Courthouse Confidential: Brooklyn Dems’ Chief Boosted Lawyer for Court Job (WiseLawNY) According to knowledgeable sources, Kings County Democratic Leader Frank R. Seddio is referring job seekers for positions at the Supreme Court at 360 Adams Street in downtown Brooklyn. Information to that effect has leached out and become widely known within the courthouse in the case of a lawyer, who was recently appointed as a law assistant to a judge handling civil cases, including foreclosures. The lawyer, whom Seddio is said to have helped, was Alexis Riley, who had spent the last two years as a “court appearance attorney” handling foreclosure cases for one of the most active lender firms, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, according to her LinkedIn profile, and for a second real-estate firm, now known as Friedman & Bartolo. I am aware of at least two persons, who have spoken to Riley about the help that Seddio gave her.  

As recounted to me, Riley, who was accompanied by a court officer, had a chance encounter with Seddio at the courthouse earlier this year. Upon bumping into Seddio, the court officer introduced Riley and told Seddio that she would like to work for the courts. Seddio responded by asking whether she would like to work for Justice Kenneth Sherman and asked her to meet him at party offices soon afterwards.  According to Office of Court Administration (OCA) spokesman Lucien Chalfen, Riley was hired as an assistant law clerk to Justice Sherman for a one-year term in July. The term is renewable for a second year. Justice Sherman, Chalfen added, has discretion to hire an assistant law clerk, in lieu of a secretary, if the demands of his caseload require it.  Seddio declined to comment as did Riley.  Seddio’s role in the hiring of Riley was such an open secret, that Brooklyn Justice Laura Jacobson apparently referred to it in a federal lawsuit against the Brooklyn Democratic Party, claiming that the party manipulated its screening procedures to deny her a shot at a second term.  Though Jacobson’s  complaint in Jacobson v. Kings County Democratic County Committee, 16-cv-4809 189 (EDNY) did not identify Riley by name, it alleged “upon information and belief” that Seddio “has ‘appointed’ one, or more, attorneys who specialized in bringing foreclosure actions by banks and lenders to become ‘Law Clerk’ or ‘Law Secretary’ to Justices of the Supreme Court in Kings County Supreme Court dealing with foreclosure actions.”

Seddio Hires A Well Known Criminal Defense Lawyer Is He Worried About His Firms Role in Closing LICH or the Foreclosures?
MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P. C.   The firm is the first port of call for many corporations and individuals on their most sensitive and high-profile White Collar Defense, Securities Enforcement, Regulatory & Government Investigations, and Civil Litigation matters.

Update on Judge Jacobson's Lawsuit ORDER: Plaintiff's October 13, 2016 letter motion [15] on consent of Defendants to adjourn the pre-motion conference currently scheduled for November 8, 2016 is hereby GRANTED. The November 8, 2016 pre-motion conference is hereby ADJOURNED to December 14, 2016, at 4:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4H North. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 10/14/2016. (Zdanys, Joanna)



Million $ Lawsuit filed By A Judge Jacobson Who Was Dumped By Boss Seddeo, His Judicial Screening Panel For Trying to Keep Who Tried to Keep LICH Open, People in Their Homes, More . . .  

"To protect & defend the Constitution, Judicial Independence is necessary for the Third Branch to be co-equal with the two political co-branches in our Separation of Powers regime. This lawsuit honors, by deed, a lawyer's perpetual duty to protect and defend the noble judiciary and the Constitution - here, it is painful, as it seeks to prevent destructive overreach by persons one would easily have a friendly drink and break bread with." Ravi Batra













Motion to Dismiss Letter From Seddio's Attorney
 MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P. C.
Re: Laura Lee Jacobson v. Kings County Democratic County Committee, eta!. Docket No. 16-cv-04809 (LDH)(RML)
Dear Judge DeArcy Hall:
We represent Defendants Kings County Democratic County Committee ("KCDCC") and Frank Seddio ("Seddio"). We write pursuant to Section III (A)(3) of Your Honor's Individual Practices to request a pre-motion conference in anticipation of our filing a motion to dismiss. Specifically, we will seek to dismiss the complaint because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because this Court otherwise lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Laura Jacobson sought the endorsement ofthe Executive Committee ofKCDCC in her effort to win reelection as a Justice of the New York Supreme Court. According to its rules, the Executive Committee will only endorse judicial candidates found qualified by a Judicial Screening Committee drawn from diverse bar associations, legal service organizations and a law school. The Screening Committee did not recommend Plaintiff for reelection.
In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges the manner in which the Screening Committee operated violated her constitutional right to equal protection under law. The pleading also contends that those committee persons who voted other than in her favor had personal, vindictive motivations which served to deny her a finding of "qualified" by the Screening Committee.
As a threshold matter, the Court should be aware that following her rejection by the Screening Committee and an unsuccessful appeal, Plaintiff withdrew her candidacy for the New York Supreme Court "unequivocally and with prejudice." (A copy of Plaintiffs June 10, 2016
Case 1:16-cv-04809-LDH-RML   Document 11   Filed 09/30/16   Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 346
MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P. C. Honorable LaShann DeArcy Hall September 30, 2016 Page 2
letter is appended as Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs withdrawal of her candidacy, with prejudice, renders her federal claims moot as there is no "genuine need to resolve a real dispute." 13A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 3532.1 at 114 (1984); see also City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City ofWaukesha, 531 U.S. 278,283 (2001).
Moreover, by challenging the manner in which the Screening Committee considered her candidacy, and ultimately determined not to find her qualified, Plaintiff has recycled and recast arguments rejected by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008). In Lopez-Torres, plaintiffs/judicial candidates claimed the process for nominating judges for New York Supreme Court violated their First Amendment rights of association. As with the Plaintiffhere, the Lopez-Torres plaintiffs were unable to win the support of political leaders or delegates necessary to appear on the party line on the general election ballot. In dismissing the case, the Supreme Court reiterated that political parties have a First Amendment right to limit their membership as they wish, and to "choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform." !d. at 196.
As in Lopez-Torres, the Screening Committee's failure here to recommend Plaintiffs candidacy does not give rise to a constitutional violation. The requirements of the nominating process did not deny her ballot access. Plaintiff had alternate methods of obtaining a slot on the general election ballot which she chose not to pursue. Not having been found qualified by the Screening Committee merely means that the Executive Committee would not endorse Plaintiffs candidacy. However, as the Supreme Court observed in Lopez-Torres, "[n]o New York law compels election of the leadership's slate- or, for that matter, compels the delegates elected on the leadership's slate to vote the way the leadership desires. And no state law prohibits an unsupported candidate from attending the convention and seeking to persuade the delegates to support her. Our cases invalidating ballot-access requirements have focused on the requirements themselves, and not on the manner in which political actors function under those requirements." !d. at 205.
Additionally, the Supreme Court observed that New York has a second mechanism for a candidate to gain placement on the final election ballot. "One who seeks to be a justice of the New York Supreme Court may qualify by a petition process. The petition must be signed by the lesser of (1) 5 percent of the number of votes last cast for Governor in the judicial district or (2) either 3,500 or 4,000 voters (depending on the district). This requirement has not been shown to be an umeasonable one .... True, the candidate who gains ballot access by petition does not have a party designation; but the candidate is still considered by the voters." !d. at 210.
In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Breyer, observed that "[a] judicial election system presents the opportunity, indeed the civic obligation, for voters and the community as a whole to become engaged in the legal process. Judicial elections, if fair and open, could be an essential forum for society to discuss and define the attributes of judicial excellence and to find ways to discern those qualities in the candidates. The organized bar, the legal academy, public
Case 1:16-cv-04809-LDH-RML   Document 11   Filed 09/30/16   Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 347
MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P. C. Honorable LaShann DeArcy Hall September 30, 2016 Page 3
advocacy groups, a principled press, and all the other components of functioning democracy must engage in this process." ld. at 212. Plaintiffs pleading now assails the very organized bar, legal academy and public advocacy groups urged to engage in the process of discussing and defining the qualities of judicial candidates.
Furthermore, the complaint's allegations of wrongdoing against KCDCC and Seddio are entirely conclusory. Even if such conduct were properly alleged, Plaintiffs federal claims must nevertheless be dismissed because neither KCDCC nor Seddio are "state actors" for purposes of§ 1983. Plaintiff complains about the manner in which the members of the Screening Committee performed their duties, but deviations from the internal rules of the Screening Committee or KCDCC do not create a private cause of action. See Max v. Republican Comm. of Lancaster County, 587 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2009). Moreover, courts are hesitant to interfere with "internal affairs of political parties" because of the importance of a political party's First Amendment right to conduct its affairs as it wishes. See Max, 587 F.3d at 201; Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196. In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged she is part of any protected class and cannot claim disparate treatment from others similarly situated to substantiate a plausible "class of one" theory of recovery. Any other judges referenced by Plaintiff in her complaint are not "prima facie identical in all relevant aspects" and are thus not similarly situated to her. Tiraco v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 963 F. Supp. 2d 184 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); Leroy v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 793 F. Supp. 2d 533 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
Even if KCDCC and Seddio were state actors, and even if the complaint did allege wrongdoing by them, they would be entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts taken in the performance oftheir duties. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The privilege of qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 531 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818). As such, the complaint should also be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity.
Finally, because there is no federal question jurisdiction, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider Plaintiffs state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In any event, the state law claims are legally insufficient for a host of reasons, including that the complaint's allegations against KCDCC and Seddio are entirely conclusory and do not plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
cc: All parties by ECF
Respectfully yours, Is/ Edward M Spiro Edward M. Spiro

Motion Not to Dismiss From Judge Jacobson's Attorney
                                                                                                                                   
THE BATRA BUILDING                               RAVI@RAVIBATRALAW.COM
142 LEXINGTON AVE.                                       FAX: 212-545-0967
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016    
212-545-1993
October 7, 2016
Via EDNY ECF
Hon. LaShann DeArcy Hall
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: Jacobson v. Kings County Democratic County Committee, et. al.,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-04809 (LDH) (RML)
Dear Respected District Judge DeArcy Hall:
We represent plaintiff Laura Lee Jacobson and write pursuant to Your Honor’s Rule III(A)(5) in response and opposition to the contentions raised by counsel for defendants in their respective letter applications seeking a pre-motion to dismiss conference.
Plaintiff sues pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of her rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution. The defendants are a political committee, a judicial nominating committee, and members of those institutions directly involved in the deprivation of rights. New York does not have primary elections for elected Judgeships. Rather, under the New York State Election Law, political parties control ballot access. See, e.g., Election Law §§ 6-106, 6-124, 6-136(3). The Kings County Democratic County Committee (“KCDCC”) and its judicial nominating committee (“Edelman Committee”) were state actors because the judicial nominating committee only exists and its rules were devised  pursuant to the authority of the Election Law.
Given that a political party has been granted authority, under state law, to effectively control who can be listed on the ballot, its actions are state actions. Yassky v. Kings County Democratic County Comm., 259 F. Supp. 2d 210, 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (“despite the voluntary, private nature of the Democratic Party, the action of the KCDCC in enacting the Rule clearly constitutes state action making the defendants subject to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”). Indeed, as the Yassky
Court further held, “although political parties themselves have certain First Amendment
Page 1 of  3
Case 1:16-cv-04809-LDH-RML   Document 14   Filed 10/07/16   Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 357
associational rights, those rights do not allow the political parties to engage in conduct, directly related to ballot access, that would be unconstitutional if done by the State.” Id. citing, California Democratic Party v Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000). Just as a political party is deemed a state actor if it seeks to unlawfully discriminate in its membership for purposes of voting rights (see, e.g., Smith v Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944)), it is also acting under color of law when it controls who may appear on the ballot pursuant to state law.
The defendants paint an unbalanced picture of the allegations contained in plaintiff’s complaint. Critically, plaintiff does not seek to “recycle and recast” arguments raised in New York State Bd. of Elections v Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008). On the contrary, and in the best of faith, plaintiff specifically alerted the Court and the defendants to the late Justice Scalia’s opinion in Lopez Torres. (Doc. 1 ¶ 3). Plaintiff does not seek the Court’s intervention with respect to the defendants’ failure to re-nominate her for another term as a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court. Rather, plaintiffs’ federal claims are rooted in the defendants’ vindictive, markedly different treatment of her as compared to similarly situated people, to wit: other sitting Judges also seeking renomination - who are specifically identified in the complaint by name and basis of similar footing.
Plaintiff’s complaint thoroughly alleges that she was irrationally and vindictively treated differently than similarly situated sitting judges who were prospective candidates for renomination. The divergent treatment complained of is in the means and methods employed by the defendants with respect to the plaintiff’s application. The rules enacted by the defendants mandated absolute confidentiality of the process; however, they unilaterally violated those rules - only concerning the plaintiff, to her great prejudice. That the plaintiff withdrew her application (Doc. 11, Ex. A) actually bolsters this position because defendants’ rules also provide that a withdrawal of an application, on the exact terms that plaintiff observed, would strengthen the confidentiality, to wit: “[t]he candidate shall then be given an additional two business days to withdraw his/her candidacy unequivocally and with prejudice to avoid publication of the Committee's findings.” (Doc. 1, Ex. 8 at Rule 31(b); see also, Ex. 7 at Procedure 1). Here, in mitigation, plaintiff withdrew her application - and the breaches continued. This was the defendants, performing as state actors, in violation of their own rules, with no legitimate purpose. As the Supreme Court has firmly held, “[o]ur cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Vil. of Willowbrook v Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
The defendants’ prospective reliance on Engquist v Oregon Dept. of Agr., 553 U.S. 591
(2008) is misplaced. Firstly, Engquist  reiterates the principle that Equal Protection mandates a Case 1:16-cv-04809-LDH-RML   Document 14   Filed 10/07/16   Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 358
rational reason for differences in treatment between similarly situated people. Id. at 602. The caveat the defendants seek to force the facts at bar into is Engquist’s limitations on protections to public employees vis–à–vis discretionary actions taken by their state employers. Here, plaintiff was never employed by the defendants. Moreover, despite the defendants’ contentions to the contrary, plaintiff does not and has not claimed any “property interest” in a judgeship. That would be anathema to an independent judiciary - precisely what the defendants degrade and chill to harm separation of powers’ functioning.  The defendants did not have discretion to violate the very confidentiality that was at the heart of the nomination and screening process. The defendants, however, only breached these rules concerning one candidate: the plaintiff. This was no mistake. Rather, it was malice.
Nor are the principles set forth in Max v Republican Comm. of Lancaster County, 587 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2009) in any way applicable. In Max, the Third Circuit considered internal actions by a political party as relates to a first amendment claim. Here, contrary to defendants’ claims, plaintiff is not alleging violations of the first amendment, and the misconduct by the party relates directly to authority granted to it by state statute. Thus, acting under “color of law.”
The individual defendants’ proposed reliance on a qualified immunity defense as a grounds for dismissal also must fail. To the extent they are sued in their official capacities, they may not raise qualified immunity defenses. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991); Jackler v Byrne, 658 F.3d 225, 244 (2d Cir. 2011); Ying Jing Gan v City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 529 (2d Cir. 1993). In the individual defendants’ personal capacities, plaintiff “is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged, not only those that support his claim, but also those that defeat the immunity defense.” McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2004).“A defendant asserting a qualified immunity defense at the 12(b)(6) stage ... faces a formidable hurdle, because the evidence supporting a finding of qualified immunity is normally adduced during the discovery process and at trial, the defense of qualified immunity [usually] cannot support the grant of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Edmonds v. Cent. N.Y. Psychiatric Ctr.,  2011 WL 3809913, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also, Cohn v. New Paltz Cent. School Dist., 171 Fed. Appx. 877, 879 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, plaintiff’s version of the events, which must be accepted as true, makes clear that the defendants’ conduct, individually and collectively, was unreasonable.  The defendants inexplicably seek to have this Honorable Court conclude, without responsive pleadings and full and complete discovery, that, individually and collectively, they could not be expected to know that it was wrong to violate the very rules they enacted, particularly concerning confidentiality which they assured plaintiff, and all prospective nominees, would be maintained. Under these circumstances, this Honorable Court could not find, as a matter of law, that it is “beyond doubt” that “no reasonable jury” could find that the defendants’ conduct was unreasonable, mandating denial of any motion.  Husain v. Springer, 494 F.3d 108, 133 (2d Cir. 2007); Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 1999).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ravi Batra Ravi Batra
cc (Via ECF):
Edward Spiro, Esq.
George F. Carpinello, Esq.









Capalino Who Pushed to Close LICH Hospital Still Trying to Push Luxury High Rise Housing On A Community That Does Not Want It - As David Boies Law Firm Moves to Represent the Defendants in the Judge Jacobson Lawsuit
Closing Hospitals, HHC, LICH
UPDATE ON JUDGE JACOBSON LAWSUIT  
George Campinello, a lawyer for one or more of the Judicial Screener Defendants in the Jacobson lawsuit, filed an application to be admitted to the Eastern District, where the case is. He is with a firm headed by David Boies, one of the top litigators in the country. Boies argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the George Bush Florida voting count case and lost. All defendants in the Jacobsen case except Seddio and the Kings County Democratic Party have hired David Boies law firm and the lawyer in particular is George Carpinello.


Futureof LICH site uncertain as negotiations slow to a crawl (Real Deal) The future of the Long Island College Hospital site is uncertain as negotiations between city officials and Fortis Property Group remain at a standstill. Fortis TRData LogoTINY doesn’t need city approval to develop 529,000 square feet of market-rate housing at the Cobble Hill site, but there’s a potentially more lucrative option on the table. If the city were to rezone the site, an option backed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, the developer could build 900,000 square feet of housing, including affordable housing. But seven months after a meeting between city officials and the developer, Fortis is mulling whether or not it should try to convince City Councilman Brad Lander to support rezoning or if it should just move ahead with an as-of-right development, Politico reported. Talks are further complicated by recent reports that federal authorities are investigating the sale of the site. Last month, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara began probing the mayor’s role in the deal. He subpoenaed the State University of New York, seeking all communication between City Hall and the school about the sale dating back to when de Blasio first took office, the New York Daily News reported. The mayor had campaigned to keep the hospital open, but shortly after taking office, he made a deal with SUNY to keep healthcare services at the site, but not necessarily a full-fledged hospital. Fortis, which hired lobbyist James Capalino to engage with City Hall aides, bought the site in 2014 for $240 million. The developer plans to demolish two buildings on the site and either build a luxury condo development or a series of apartment towers that would include affordable housing. [Politico] * How are judges made in New York? Like sausage [in 5 steps](CrainsNY) If the best judge ever isn't known to party insiders, he or she won't move up to the Supreme Court


A City and State Media Ad for Capalino is Mixed In With Their News Coverage Which Ignores the Judge Jacobson Lawsuit
Capalino+Company is the #1 lobbying + strategic consulting firm in New York City specializing in helping companies, not-for-profits and institutions achieve long term, sustainable success in New York City. Our experienced team is proud of our 30+ year track record of working with the most globally recognized brands to achieve success on land use, legislation, community relations, MWBE compliance and the creation of impactful Corporate Social Responsibility programs. Let us know how we can help you.
More on Lobbyists Davidoff and Capalino


The Law Suit is Aimed At Brooklyn Boss Seddio Law Firm But the Daily News Says Lawyers Affiliated With the Screening Panel Leaves Out Predicate Facts His LICH Hospital Mortgage Closing Connections
Brooklyn Supreme Court judge suing borough’s Democratic party for dashing her re-election hopes (NYDN) A Brooklyn Supreme Court judge has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the Brooklyn Democratic party after she wasn’t approved for re-election by a screening committee   .Ravi Batra, a lawyer representing Justice Laura Jacobson, filed the bombshell suit Friday against the Kings County Democratic Committee alleging Jacobson’s “refusal to judicially act bending and bowing to the Brooklyn political machine” led to her losing the party’s backing. The suit claims that members of the committee, and its chairman Martin Edelman, damaged Jacobson’s reputation by leaking confidential information about the screening process to the fact-challenged New York Post.

Cover-Up Is the NYP An Arm of the Brooklyn Machine? Not Reporting on Jacobson Law Suit
The county Dems “violated their own rules concerning committee participation and confidentiality and deprived the plaintiff of equal protection and due process so as to vindictively harm the plaintiff personally and professionally,” according to the suit.  The suit claims Jacobson, who has 25 years of experience on the bench and is seeking re-election for a 14-year term, is being punished for rulings against lawyers affiliated with the Brooklyn Dems.  It also alleges that the screening board has been stacked by Frank Seddio, the chairman of the Kings County Democratic County Committee, even though it is meant to be independent. “Most members of this highly respected panel are chosen by various bar associations and this committee worked long hours and with great gravity before coming to its conclusion,” said Brooklyn Democratic County Committee spokesman George Artz, who is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. “This was only the second time in 14 years that a sitting judge was not recommended,” Artz added. “Other than that we are not going to comment on pending litigation.”* Questions about why Manhattan, Brooklyn party committees have withdrawn support from judges (Progress Queens)
12h12 hours ago
Fraud upon ought make NYP angry and free to disclose Source-Identity w/o need for subpoena.

Full Judge Jacobson Law Suit 



Where did the NYP Get the Information From?


Was not getting reappointed by the Brooklyn Bosses Screening puppet revenge for Jacobson Ruling to Keep LICH Hospital Open?


On Jacobson's Ruling to Keep LICH Open
166. Retaliatory, Vindictive and Malicious Deprivation of Judge Jacobson’s Right to “Equal Protection of Law” and “Due Process”!
Why Have the Media Reformers Given Up on Judicial Reform Sen Kennedy and Judge Jacobson Started?

154. On August 27, 2014, Judge Jacobson was assigned to hear emergency
applications, Orders to Show Cause and ex parte applications in Kings County Supreme Court.
Case 1:16-cv-04809   Document 1   Filed 08/26/16   Page 42 of 299 PageID #: 4243
155. One of the matters that was presented to Judge Jacobson was a proposed Order
to Show Cause brought by The New York State Nurses Association seeking to, inter alia,
enjoin the State University of New York (“SUNY”) from taking actions inconsistent with a
“Court-ordered Settlement Agreement entered on February 25, 2014.”
156. The underlying matter, captioned as The New York State Nurses Association,
et. al. v. New York State Department of Health, et. al., Index No. 5814/2013, involved, inter
alia, contests to the sale of Long Island College Hospital (“LICH”) and efforts to ensure
continued employment of nurses then employed at LICH and the continued provision of
emergency medicine services which were being provided by LICH.
157. Appearing for SUNY, in opposition to the relief sought, was Frank V. Carone,
Esq. of Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eiseman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP (“Abrams
Fensterman”).

Why Have the Reformers Given Up on Judicial Refrom and Judge Jacobson?
158. Mr. Carone was previously the law partner of defendant Seddio in the
Professional Service Limited Liability Company Seddio & Carone PLLC. Upon information
and belief, based upon the records of the New York State Department of State, Division of
Corporations, that law practice was formed on May 30, 2008 and functioned through its
dissolution on December 10, 2014. A true copy of a printout of publically accessible records
of the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations is appended hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit 12.
159. Both Mr. Carone and defendant Seddio reportedly took their practices and
joined them with partnerships at Abrams Fensterman.
Case 
160. Defendant Seddio stopped practicing law with Abrams Fensterman.
161. In addition to his partnership with Abrams Fensterman, Mr. Carone also
serves as Counsel to the County Chair of the Kings County Democratic County Committee.
162. Defendant Seddio is the County Chair of the Kings County Democratic County
Committee. Accordingly, Mr. Carone is defendant Seddio’s counsel.
163. Mr. Carone has also been, and may still be, the chairperson of the “Law
Committee” of defendant Kings County Democratic County Committee.
164. After vigorous oral argument before Judge Jacobson on August 27, 2014,
wherein Mr. Carone insited that Judge Jacobson not enjoin SUNY, Judge Jacobson issued an
Order With Temporary Restraining Order solely to preserve the status quo for the brief period
until September 12, 2014. A true copy of this Order, which Mr. Carone agreed to the form,
though not the result, is appended hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 13.
165. Subsequent to argument before Judge Jacobson, The New York State Nurses
Association apparently changed its position and sought relief not contemplated by the papers
considered by Judge Jacobson on August 27, 2014. Accordingly, on September 29, 2014, Hon.
Johnny Lee Baynes, the justice of the Supreme Court assigned to matter, issued an Interim
Order denying The New York State Nurses Association’s application procedurally and
substantively. A true copy of this Interim Order is also appended hereto and made a part hereof
as Ex. 13, supra. Also included as part of appended Ex. 13, and made a part hereof, are
electronic mail communications between Mr. Carone and counsel for The New York State
Case 1:16-cv-04809   Document 1   Filed 08/26/16   Page 44 of 299 PageID #: 44
45 Nurses Association, which are part of the filings maintained by the Clerk of the Kings CountySupreme Court.

Closing Hospitals, HHC, LICH


Did Arzt Plant These Stories Against Judge Jacobson in the NYP for His Boss Seddio Democratic Machine or His Law Clients?

City judge deemed incompetent in ‘unheard of’ move (NYP) This is a precedent no judge wants to set.  In a first-of-its-kind rebuke, a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge with 25 years experience on the bench has been found unqualified by a Democratic Party screening panel — a move that will likely doom her chances for re-election this fall.  “She’s not the brightest bulb in the courthouse to begin with,” said one party source, explaining the Brooklyn Democratic Party Judicial Screening Committee’s decision last month to find Justice Laura Jacobson unqualified to run on the party line. “They looked at her track rec­ord, and they found an abnormal percentage of cases were overturned by higher courts,” said the party source. “And when also factoring in she has a poor reputation, she was found unqualified.” Said another party official, who like the others asked not to be named, “As far as we know, this is the first time in Brooklyn’s history the committee did not reappoint a sitting Supreme Court judge — it’s unheard of.” *   Brooklyn judge blows off work amid being deemed 'unqualified' NYP)
Nurses’ court order throws wrench into NYU’s LICH plans in Brooklyn (Daily Eagle, 2014)  SUNY attorney Frank Carone told Justice Jacobson that SUNY “tried to meet with NYU yesterday, but were unsuccessful.” He assured the judge that SUNY was “committed to the content and objectives of the RFP,” and supports the “full employment of the nurses.” “I’m sure the nurses in the courtroom are very happy to hear that,” Justice Jacobson said.

166. Retaliatory, Vindictive and Malicious Deprivation of Judge Jacobson’s Right to “Equal Protection of Law” and “Due Process”!

In retribution for Judge Jacobson’s proper exercise of judicial discretion and independence which was inconsistent with the desires of Mr. Carone who is defendant Seddio’s counsel and was Seddio’s law partner, defendants Edelman and Decker abused their positions on the Edelman Committee and defendant Seddio abused his position as County Chair of the Kings County Democratic County Committee and aided, abetted and conspired with members of the Executive Committee of defendant Kings County Democratic County Committee, members of the Edelman Committee, defendant
Ajaiyeoba, defendants John and Jane Does and others not named as defendants, including Mr.
Carone, in an effort to deprive Judge Jacobson of “equal protection of the law” and “due
process,” in an effort to maliciously and vindictively inflict maximum personal and
professional harm to Judge Jacobson.
167. Because of Judge Jacobson’s proper exercise of judicial discretion and
independence, and refusal to judicially endorse Mr. Carone’s opposition to maintaining the
status quo of keeping a hospital emergency department open while keeping a discrete number
of nurses employed, defendants Seddio, Edelman, Finkelstein, Decker, Ajaiyeoba, John and
Jane Does, members of the Executive Committee  of defendant Kings County Democratic
County Committee, members of defendant Edelman Committee  and others not named as
Case 1:16-cv-04809   Document 1   Filed 08/26/16   Page 45 of 299 PageID #: 45
46  defendants agreed to maliciously and vindictively destroy Judge Jacobson personally and
professionally. This conspiracy was carried out by performance of overt acts including:
i. violating the rules of the Kings County Democratic County Committee;
ii. violating the Rules and procedures of the Edelman Committee; and,
iii. breaching the confidentiality of the judicial screening process
concerning Judge Jacobson.
168. Because of Judge Jacobson’s proper exercise of judicial discretion and
independence, and refusal to judicially endorse Mr. Carone’s opposition to maintaining the
status quo of keeping a hospital emergency department open while keeping a discrete number
of nurses employed, defendants Seddio, Edelman, Kings County Democratic County
Committee, the Edelman Committee, Finkelstein, Decker, Ajaiyeoba ,John and Jane Does and
others not named as defendants, including defendant KCDCC’s media consultant George Artz,
did violate the rules of the Kings County Democratic County Committee and the Edelman
Committee.
169. Because of Judge Jacobson’s proper exercise of judicial discretion and
independence, and refusal to judicially endorse Mr. Carone’s opposition to maintaining the
then status quo of keeping a hospital emergency department open while keeping a discrete
number of nurses employed, defendants Seddio, Edelman, Kings County Democratic County
Committee, the Edelman Committee, Finkelstein, Decker, Ajaiyeoba ,John and Jane Does and
others not named as defendants, including defendant KCDCC’s media consultant George Artz,
Case 1:16-cv-04809   Document 1   Filed 08/26/16   Page 46 of 299 PageID #: 46
47 did publically disseminate confidential information obtained from and about Judge Jacobson which information was obtained solely as a result of the judicial screening process.

Poor Door Lobbyists George Arzt



 

The Reformers and Progressives Have Abandoned the Judicial Reform Started by Robert Kennedy  The Jacobson Case Will Show How Much the Democratic Party Machine Controls the Courts 

In the 1966 Senator Robert Kennedy started a judicial reform movement when he went after the democratic machine control of the Manhattan Surrogate Court. Kennedy called the Surrogate Court is A Political Toll Booth Exacting Tribute from Widows and Orphans.  Kennedy and his candidate judge Samuel J. Silverman running on a platform to end patronage and cronyism in the awarding of lucrative assignments to serve as executors, guardians and estate trustees beat the machine.  After Kennedy death the reform movement fueled in membership by the anti-Viet Nam War Movement took up the senator’s mission to reform the machine ability to control the courts and elected dozens of reform judges against the machine.  In recent years the reformers or as they like to be called progressives have abandoned Kennedy’s mission to break the machines control of the courts.  The lawsuit of Judge Laura Jacobson will show just how deep the machines control of judgeship and the courts are in this city. "The reformers and progressives just don't care anymore about judicial reform" said judicial gadfly Alan Flacks. Flacks' continued "the reform screening panel system started in the 1960's by the Geller panels, in the 70's by the New Democratic Coalition and and incorporated into the NY Democratic Party in 1977 is dead." According to Flack's Manhattan county leader Wright has destroyed the Panels. The selection of judges in the 4 outer boroughs is totally controlled by the democratic party leaders. Nobody cares anymore about judicial reforms, "the new young leaders just don't care," said New York's one man judicial watchdog.


Judge Jacobson Lawyer Letter to Brooklyn Boss Seddio to Dismiss the Brooklyn Judicial Screening Committee



Hon. Frank Seddio
Democratic County Leader, Kings County
Re: Justice Laura Jacobson
Dear Frank,
I have the high honor and sacred duty to represent Justice Laura Jacobson, and to protect her judicial independence.
As I'm "old school," respect is due to a Leader. So, I called you first to remedy the wrong that your appointed Judicial Screening Committee has caused out of personal malice or reckless disregard of the truth. That they exacerbated their discretionary injury with violation of statutory confidentiality under color of law is inexcusable - as the reputational damage is total.
I respectfully request that you dismiss your Committee and institute a new committee which does not carry out contract-kills and/or pierce necessary confidentiality required for judicial screening; and then re-interview Justice Jacobson - as Judicial Independence is the alter upon which Lady Justice presides, something every Screener, aware of their "Officer of the Court" status, ought cherish.
Let me know if you will dismiss the Screening Committee for cause by Monday, August 15, 2016 4pm. The law is a many splendored thing and it can remedy many wrongs, including, what has been done to my client - Justice Jacobson. I include a copy of my September 9, 2004 Letter to Chairman Marty Edelman, when the late Justice Louis Marrero, fiercely independent and a republican, was a victim of Screener-misconduct.
Warm personal regards to Joy and yo
Ravi Batra
Sent from my iPhone - excuse typos
Follow on Twitter @ravibatra



Judge Jacobson Lawyer Letter to the NY Post

From: Ravi Batra <ravi@ravibatralaw.com>
Date: August 16, 2016 at 11:56:32
Subject: J. Jacobson

"I have the high honor and sacred duty to defend the judicial independence of Justice Laura Jacobson from those who have maligned her in excess of their First Amendment rights, motivated by pecuniary, retributive or political interests. Sadly, it appears that Kings County Democratic County Committee's Judicial Screening Committee has ignored its obligation to be independent and to honor its statutory obligation to keep its process and conclusions confidential - on threat of being charged civilly and criminally.

That this Committee found a distinguished hardworking judge anything but, may speak to some members of that Committee who had illegal and dishonorable motives.

That NY Post was given false information, is besides the point - as no information should have been disclosed because it's confidential by law.

That some engaged in an orgy of insult to destroy Justice Jacobson's hard earned reputation of judicial independence is beyond the pale and defamation per se - as the damage to her reputation is total.

Since the Honorable Frank Seddio did not honor my request to fire the County's Judicial Screeners for obvious cause, we will be filing suit in federal court and inter alia naming the Screening Committee for its misconduct, and asking for all relief and remedies to protect judicial independence and judicial reputation from ignoble attack.

The Kings County Judicial Screening Committee has a history of contract-kills - I know, as I've witnessed them and blocked them repeatedly - be they for petty retribution reasons, or worse, serving pecuniary interests or "doing as told." But this gross confidentiality breach is a new low that cries out for appropriate federal rebuke that stings well and long.

Any honorable member of this Judicial Screening Committee ought resign now - and any such resignation will inform the lawsuit that will be filed. Of course, the Committee could disclose the Leakers for direct legal targeted action.

Given its complexity, and effect on the Judicial Convention, we will work overtime to get it filed in court before end of next week.

Ravi Bahttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=495268678289935103#editor/target=post;postID=4884909970391311010;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=linktra
Sent from my iPhone - excuse typos
Follow on Twitter @ravibatra

Jacobson Lawyer Batra Letter to the Head of 

Seddio Screening Committee and Op-Ed On 

the Need for Judicial Reform




A Law Suit By A Brooklyn Judge Against the Brooklyn Party Screening Committee is Explosive
Judge ‘unqualified’ for re-election to file suit against party (NYP)  A veteran Brooklyn Supreme Court judge deemed “unqualified” for re-election by a Democratic Party screening committee plans to file a lawsuit claiming the label was politically motivated. Ravi Batra, a lawyer representing Justice Laura Jacobson, told The Post he is drafting a suit to file next week in Brooklyn federal court against the Brooklyn Democratic Party Judicial Screening Committee. He said the suit seeks to have the committee’s 24 members replaced, so new ones can give a second chance to Jacobson, who has 25 years of experience on the bench, to get on the ballot this year on the Democratic line. Committee approval is usually routine for sitting judges, he said. Martin Edelman, the screening committee’s chairman, called Batra’s remarks “defamatory” and unfounded, adding that the committee “will not be intimidated into rescinding its decision and will vigorously fight” any lawsuit filed. * 'Greedy' NYC lawyer, paralegal who bribed court employees sentenced to nine years behind bars (NYDN)
8h8 hours ago
Judge 'unqualified' for re-election to file suit against party - must not be killed.






Outrage in Manhattan to Party Turning on Sitting Judge Silence in Brooklyn About That Party Turing On Jacobson
Interesting the Post does a story about a judge dump on by the Manhattan machine but not the judge dump on by the Brooklyn Machine Which the Post work with to dump on

Democratic leader won’t overturn decision to re-elect ‘lazy’ judge(NYP)

Democratic base rails against party pols for barring ‘lazy’ judge(NYP) Manhattan Democratic leader Keith Wright is coming under intense pressure from key members of his Democratic base — gay leaders and tenant activists — to reverse the decision of a screening panel that found Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan not qualified for re-election.“I am outraged by the decision . . . I can assure you that this outrage is shared by the larger tenant community, tenant-advocacy community, legal services, Legal Aid and private tenant bar,” tenant leader Michael McKee told Wright in a letter.
McKee said Ling-Cohan is a champion of tenant rights and claimed the landlord lobby is out to get her. “It seems clear that Justice Ling-Cohan has made a lot of enemies among the landlord bar with her decisions, and somehow these enemies have been able to manipulate the screening panel in an attempt to end her career. I don’t know what Curtis Arluck and Louise Dankberg were smoking, but this decision is a travesty,” he said, referring to party officials overseeing judgeship selections.
“I urge you as Democratic county chair to intervene in this situation to correct this injustice.”
Lower East Side Councilwoman Rosie Mendez and other backers of Ling-Cohan are planning a press conference at City Hall Tuesday to demand the screening committee reverse itself. *Manhattan Dems Rejecting Justice Doris Ling-Cohan Sparks Outrage(Gay City News) *In manhattan, CL Wright is asking for re-hearing if screening rules not followed. In Bklyn, the County Committee Residency/Employment for Committee members not followed, and Screening Committee rules of Oral & Written Notice to Candidate of any issues not given + Screening Process Confidentiality breached with NYP's bad-sources saying knowingly false and defamatory statements with malice and reckless disregard of the truth.




Judge Jacobson and Ling-Cohen Hack by Bar Committees? - The schematic moves....to 2 different sub-plots

Questions about why Manhattan, Brooklyn party committees have withdrawn support from judges (Progress Queens)

On September 4, 2016 at 1:47 PM Ravi Batra &ravibatralaw@aol.com; wrote:

I have taken note of the fact that both Justice Jacobson and Justice Ling-Cohen are women, hardworking, well-respected, and have created legal precedent. 

1. 2 clubs: Central Brooklyn Independent Dems and LAMBDA are supportive of Justice Jacobson's long and distinguished record of being a Straight Arrow and ruling without Fear or Favor, the Bob Morgenthau gold standard of public service, to do the right thing: merit-based justice one case at a time. 

2. As I do not represent Justice Ling- Cohen, I am unaware of her facts. However, as to Justice Laura Jacobson, I am well aware of the documented history for her exemplary service on the bench. Indeed, the complaint filed in EDNY clearly alleges that J. Jacobson honored the strong public policy of the state of New York disincentivizing residential foreclosures while defendants Frank Seddio and Frank Carone have deep and wide ties and relationships with banking and lending - which is the root-support of real estate development. Of course, as the United States attorney Preet Bharara has repeatedly shown by securing convictions of the most powerful leaders, the sick and sordid self-benefiting corruptive influence of the real estate industry: the true Masters of the universe, as they actually own large swaths of most valuable parts of the earth. 

J. Jacobson's involvement in LICH is a mere tip of the festering sewer of misconduct, that lies below. Federal civil discovery, given the now-public record of SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's interest, will flush out the public-private partnership(s) that made that LICH-to-Condos plan proceed and the less-than-holy participants and their Kabuki Play to lull the public.  

But, at the heart of this case - which a federal jury will decide - is the ignoble, illegal and unconstitutional destruction of a great and fearless judge, a woman, who dared to honor her Oath, and that those who did the foul and malicious deeds did it all wrong and violated their own rules to do so. It's sorta like a gang that can't shoot straight or, as I have commented for almost two decades, that there is a peculiar political virus in Brooklyn: legal stupidity. 

Keep in mind that had the Edelman Committee approved her, as it must have with only those sitting and voting that were allowed to, and the County Committee played politics and knocked her out -  Justice Scalia in Lopez Torres said that was legal and constitutional. 

What is truly most troubling is the unconstitutional attempt to control the court and make a judge into a political puppet by destroying judicial independence - and it is judicial independence that make our cherished separation of powers to function. The attempt to destroy judicial independence is nothing short of the ultimate Un-American act, for it destroys the very thing that makes America exceptional in human history and as Ronald Reagan said, "that shining city on the hill."



Manhattan Judicial Panel Blinks Supports Ling-Cohan 
In an extraordinary reversal of a decision made by its own screening panel, the Manhattan Democratic Party will nominate Manhattan Judge Doris Ling-Cohan to be put on the ballot for re-election as a state Supreme Court justice this fall, the Post reports.
 did right by  v.  who profits from Bklyn Court & wrongs  & kills 
Judge wins re-election ballot battle after being barred  - Manhattan v Brooklyn: Ct is a Bank & JSC Tellers