*-1*

o-q
{ . I
Cr,'tilnnS* JttnlcrArAccotrNTABri,rlr,nrc.
P. O. Box 69, GedneyStatian TeL (914)421-1200 E-Mail: judgewatch@olcom
llhitc Plains,New York 10605-0069 Fax (91a) 68,1-655,1 Web site: ww,judgewdch.org

BY FAX:212-269-5420
BY E)GRESSMAIL

July24,1997

FloydAbrams,Esq.
Cahill,Gordon,& Reindel
80 PineStreet
New York, New York 10005

RE: VindicatingthePublicInterestin the First Ambndment

DearMr. Abrams:

We write you becauseyou area memberof the New York Law Journal'sBoard of Editors-- and
amongthis nation'sforemostexpertson the First Amendment,championingthe media'srole in
preserving
theruleoflaw anddemocracy.On behalfof the publicinterest,we seekyour leadership.

Manyyearsago,TheNew York Timespublishedyour Letterto the Editor in whichyou quotedthe

wordsof JeremyBentham:
"Withoutpublicity,all otherchecksareinsufficient,in
comparisonof
publicityotherchecksareof smallaccount."

TheCenterfor JudicialAccountability, Inc. (CJA)is a non-partisan,

non-profitcitizensorganization
workingto depoliticizeourjudiciary. Overthepasteightyears,we havedocumented,time and again,
that essentialchecksdesignedto protectthe publicfrom unfit judges-- for whom the rule of law
meansnothing-- arenot only insufficient,but havebeencorruptedby politicalinfluence.

Becausethe mediahasfailedto fulfill its role to informthe publicaboutthe comrptionof these

checks,CJA hasshouldered the enormous expense of runningpaidads. On October26, 1994,we
ran a $16,770ad on the Op-Edpageof TheNew York Times,"Were Do YouGo WhenJudges
Break the l-aw?". We re-ranthat ad in the New York Law Journalon Novemberl, 1994at an
additional
costto usof $2,282.57(Exhibit"A-1"). OnNovember20,1996,theLaw Journalprinted
our ad,*A Callfor Concerted Action",whichcostus $1,648.36 (Exhibit'A-2").

Lastweelgwe paidthe Law Journalanother$2,356.20for an ad that was scheduled to run on July

17th (Exhibit"B"). Inspiredby the Perspective Column, *Liars Go Free in the Courtroom",by
Matthew Lifflander,also a memberof the Law Journal'sBoard of Editors, our ad was entitled
"Restraining'Liarsin theCourtroom'and on thePublicPayroll'. It
describedhow theNew York
StateAttorneyGeneralengages in litigationmisconduct,includingfraud,in defendingstateofficials
FloydAbrams,Esq. PageTwo Iuly 24, 1997

andagencies zuedfor comrptionandabuse- andthe complicityof stateandfederaljudges. Over

andoveragatn"our ademphasized thatthiswas"readilyverifiablefrom litigationfiles" -- two Article
78 proceedings anda $1983federalaction,whoseindexanddocketnumberswe supplied-- and,
further,thatAttorneyGeneralVaccohadbeennotified,in writing, of his staffs litigationmisconduci
andfraud,buthadfailedandrefusedtotakeanycorrectivesteps.

Like our November20, 1996ad @xhibit"A-2"), whichwas originallysubmittedto Law Journal

ExecutiveEditorRuthHochberger asa proposed Letterto the Editor,the July lTth ad (Exhibit-B)
hadbeensubmittedto her nearlytwo monthsearlierfor publicationaseithera Letter to the Editor
or a PerspectiveColumn. Our May 22ndtransmittalletterexpre.ss/y statedthat the information
presented by our submissionwasall documentedandthat we would be pleasedto provideto herthe
filesof thetwo Article78 proceedings andthe $1983federalaction. We described thesecasesas
"shockingbeyondwords".
We alsotransmitted a copyof our May l4th testimonybeforethe City
Bar, describedin our submission,includingthe May 5th letterrit incorporated,addressed to thos!
in leadership
positions,in andout of government, amongthem,the AttorneyGeneral(Exhibits..C"
and"D").

The high quality and meticulously-documented natureof CJA's work is well-knownto Ms.
Hochberger, who hasreceivedsubstantial materialsfrom us overthe pastmanyyears. However,in
the weeksfollowing our submission, Ms. Hochbergerneveraskedto seethe profferedfile proof,
ignoredourrepeatedtelephone inquiriesasto whetherour submission would bL published,and,on
Junel7th, hadthe Law Journalpublisha Letterto the Editor from an AssistantAttorneyGeneral,
whoseopeningsentence read:"AttorneyGeneralDennisVacco'sworst enemywould nbt rugg.ri
that he toleratesunprofessional or irresponsible
conductby his assistants after the fact."l-his,
notwithstandingthe subjectof our unpublished submission wasthe AttorneyGeneral'sknowledge
o{, andcomplicityin, his staffs litigationmisconduct, includingfraud,before,during,andaftertf,e
fact.

Yet, eventhe June17thpublishedLetter concludedwith the recognitionthat the practicesin the

AttorneyGeneral's officewere"a questionof fact, subjectto verification". This wCpointedout in
a JunelTth fil(ed letterto Ms. Hochberger,emphasizing that the specificcasefilesidentifiedin our
submissionconstituted veri$ingproofofthe AttorneyGeneral's extraordinarylitigationmisconduct2.

I Annexed to our May 5th letter @xhibit "D") is a copy of our Letter to the Editor,
which the Law Journal publishedon August 14,1995 under the title "CommissionAbandons
Investigative Mandate" .
2 During this period, Ms. Hochbergerhad reinforcing evidenceof the fully-
documentednature of CJA's work. We sent her a copy of our June2, 1997 letter to Governor
Pataki setting forth facts showing that his May appointmentof WestchesterSupremeCourt
JusticeNicholas Colabellato the Appellate Division, First Departmentwas improper and not the
product of any "thorough inquiry", as requiredby his ExecutiveOrders#10 and #l l Mor"olr"r.
 FloydAbrams,
Esq. PageThree Iuly 24, 1997

Ms' Hochbergerdid not responduntil afterwe wrote to Mr. Lifflander-

at whichpoint shewrote
us sayingthat the Law Journalwould not be ableto publishour submission
as eithera letter or
perspectivecolumn. Sheignoredour requestfor reasons.

we thenproceededwith arrangementsto run our submission

asa paidad. That thesearrangements
were extremelytime-consumingand costly for us had been previously
made known to Ms.
HochbergerandMr. Lifflanderin our communicationswith them.
At l0 a'm' on Monday, July l4th, we fored an initial lay-out
of our ad to the Law Journal.
Thereafter,
I receiveda callfromour AccountExecutive,PeterHano,from
whom I understoodthat
our ad was approved.on that basis,we spentadditionaltime ani
moneyto finalizethe lay-out.
Meanwhile,Mr. Hanotook our creditcardinformationandput through
the charges.At 9:00 a.m.
the nextmorning,July l5th, I telephonedMr, Hanoto let him know tlat our finalizedcopywould
behand-delivered to the Law.Journalby noonandto inquirewhetherwe shouldfax
it to him since
we hadmademinorchangesin the text. Mr. Hanotold meit wasnot
n..rr*..y. I faxedit to him
anyway-- just to ensuretherewouldbeno unexpected delays.
At 2:30 p'm., severalhoursafterwe hadhand-delivered the finalizedcopy,lvfr. Hano calledto tell
usthatour ad hadbeen"declined".He statedthat he did not know the riason
andconnectedus to
KevinVermeulen'theLaw Journal'sAdvertisingManager,who alsostated
that he did not know why
our ad had been"declined". I immediatelyrequest.d,.uronr, describing
for Mr. Vermeulen,at
lengt[ theenormous amountoftime,effort,andmoneywe hadinvestedin itre good-faithbelief
suchanad-- trueandcorr_ect that
in everyrespecton anissueof transcending publicfupo.t-.e -- would
b^epublished' I explessed our completewillingnessto resolveanyproblemin the ad andstated
ifthe Law Journalwishedto seethesubstantiating that
documentation, whichwe hadrepeatedlyoffered,
I world immediately bringit down. Mr. vermeuienpromisedto get backto us -- but never
did. At
4:50 p'm', I left a recordedmessage on Mr. Veimeulen'smachinereiteratingthat the ad was
completely accurate andthatI was"on call"to deliverall relevantdocumentation so that the ad could
appear,asscheduled, on July l7th.

By l2:45p'm.thenort day,ruly tith, afterseveralunreturnedphonemessages

for Mr. vermeulen,
reiteratingthat we were readyto come down with the documentation,
if that was the issue,I
telephonedMr. Finkelstein.I managedto speakwith him on my "second
1ry,,. It was by then
fProximately2:20p.m.. Mr. Finkelstein did not knowthe particuiars of our ui, but statedthathe
hadbeentold by counselthatit contained "no less
thanl5 libels".I immediately protestedto

becausethose Executive orders give the public the right to inspect

the screeningcommittee
reportsof the Governor'sappointees,we assertedthe public'siight,
to the."po'a, relatingto
JusticeColabella,as well as the Governor'sapproximately100 otherjudicial
appointees.our
coverletterto Ms- Hochbergerexpressedthe view that wihout media
p."rru.. the Governor
would not respectthe public's rights and imploredthe Law Journal"to
follow through,,. The
Law Journal has not -- and the Governor has completelyignored
our profoundly seriousletter.
 Floyd Abrams,Esq. PageFour July 24, 1997

Mr. Finkelsteinthat otr aduns lOOploaccurateandthatwe hadofferedsubstantiatingdocumentation

to backit up. I askedif his counselwasJamesGoodale.Mr. Finkelsteinstatedthat it wasandsaid
that he would haveno objectionto my speakingwith him directly. He told me to call Debevoise,
Plimpton.

I did soimmediately. Mr. Goodaledidnot takemy call - althoughI heardhisvoicewhenhe picked

up thereceiverasI wasleavingmy ftlmeon hisrecordedmessage systemaboutthe ad that hai been
scheduled to run in thenextday'sLaw Journal.ThreequarterJof an hourlater,havingreceivedno
return call, I againtelephonedMr. Goodale. This time, he took my call. Irir. Goodalewas not
interestedin specificallyidentifringthe "l5 libels". Only aftercoaxingdid he statethat
particularly
theallegedlibelsconsisted ofthe allegations
of"crimes"appearing in our ad - assumedly,comrption,
fraud,andperjury.

Mr' Goodale'sbriefconversation with us wasasif hewerecompletelyunfamiliarwith the purpose

behindtheprotections affordedthepressundertheFirstAmendment:to ensurethat debateon puUti"
issuesis "uninhibited,robust,andwide-open". ThisformerGeneralCounselto TheNew york Times
behaved asif hehadneverreadthe landmarkU.S. SupremeCourt caseof 7heNew york TimesCi
v. Sullivan' 376 U'S. 254(1964),concerninga paid advertisement anda libel actionbroughtby a
public official, in which the Court delineatedthe pertinentlibel standards:differentiatin!puUtic
officialsfromprivatepersons, differentiating advertisements
presentingissuesof publicconclrn, and
articulatinga heightened standard for libelin thosecircumstances:
it is not .nougirthat the published
matteris false,a publicofficiallibelplaintiffisrequiredto showthatthe defendant hasattedwith
"'actual malice'-- that
is, with knowledgethat it wasfalseor with recklessdisregardof whetherit
wasfalseor not".

None of these standardsmadea whit of differenceto Mr. Goodale. He did not carethat the
com-rption" fraud,andperjurydescribed by our adwerecommittedby publicofficials,actingin their
public capacity,that the issuespresented by the ad were -- and expresslystatedto be -- of
"transcending publicimportance",andthat the allegationsof officialmisconductwereidentifiedin
theaditselfasbeing"readilyverifiable"from specificcasefiles. The fact that our ad chronicledour
exhaustive effortsto bring suchfile evidenceto the attentionof thosein leadership,
particularlythe
file of our Article78proceeding againstthe Commission on JudicialConduct-- renecteO our gtod-
faithbeliefthatthesefilesdemonstrated preciselywhatwe saidthey did. Thiswasfurtherrein6rced
by the failureandrefusalof anyoneto sayotherwise,as our ad alsochronicled.Indeed,the only
"actual malice"
and "recklessdisregard"was by Mr. Goodale,who flatly refusedto review the
substantiating documentary proof we offeredhim so that the absolutetruth of our ad couldbe
demonstrated --
to him andour adpublished on schedule

We cannotrecallpreciselywhenMr. Goodalehungup on us, but it was shortlyafterour question

to himasto why our prior ads,"y'flhere
Do YouGo l4henJudgesBreaktheLai?,, and,,AboU
7*
ConcertedAcfion"@xhibits"A-1" and"A-2"), whicheachdescribed the sameor similarcomrption
andfraud'hadbeenpublished by theLaw Journal- with no denialsor lawsuitsby the accusedpublic
 FloydAbrams,Esq. PageFive Iuly 24,1997

officials- but not *Restraining'Liarsin the Courtroom'andon thePubticpsyroll,

@xhibit.ts).
You are,no doubt,a verybusyman. But, the publicinteresthereis wholly unprotected--
ixcept by
us -- and we needyour expertiseand leadership.Our ad is not about ,oup, bu, about
what is
happening to the rule of law, the paramountcheck. And what is left of theFirst Amendmentwhen
theLaw Journalrefuses, withoutreasons, to publishasa Perspective Columnspecificandobviously
verifiableinformationaboutthe destructionof essential legalsafeguards by pubticofficialsandthen
blocks its presentment as a paid ad by refusingto veri$, its truth? you,re the First Amendment
champion.Your nameheadsthe list of the taw Journal'sBoardof Editors. We find it
hardto
imaginethat you would agreewith Mr. Goodale'scavaliertreatmentof this matter,
deprivingthe
publicandthelegalprofession ofthe importantandcompletelytruthful informationpresented by our
ad.

This is not a situationwhere what the public doesn't know doesn't hurt it. This
is about
governmentalcomrption and misconductso profoundand far-reachingthat the
StateAttorney
Generalandjudgesin both stateandfederalcourt are obliteratingthe lJgalremediesdesigned
to
protectthe public.How is the publicto protectitselfif the presswon't evenallow paid-ad
a that
presentsthatinformation?As emphasized by our previousadi'A Catlfor ConcertedAciion, andby
"Restraining'Liars
in the Courtroom'and on thePublicPayroll',those in leadershipto whom wl
haveturnedto protectthepublichavekeptsilent.Thepublic,therefore,cannotcounton its
so-called
leaders,
but mustrelyon itself But howcanit do that whenit is kept in a stateof ignorance? Isn,t
the public'sright to know whatthe First Amendmentis supposedtobe all about?

We will gladlyprovideyou with the casefile proof. Becausethe AttorneyGeneral'smisconduct

is
soblatant-- andwasthe subjectof suchvigorousprotestby us, all ignoredby the court -- the
files
are neither difficult nor particularlytime-consumingto review. nnO ttt. issuesare major: the
constitutionalityof New York's attorneydisciplinarylaw, as written and as applied,
andthe
constitutionality,as written and applied, of the self-promulgatedrule of the New york State
Commissionon JudicialConduct,by which it convertedits statutoryduty to investigatefacially-
meritoriouscomplaintsinto a discretionary optionunbounded by any standard(Cf.-22NyCFG.
$7000.3 andJudiciary Law 944.1).

Because timeis ofthe essence,

we takethe libertyof enclosingcopiesof our lettersto the Attorney
Generalrelativeto eachof thesethreecases,noti$ing him of the misconductof his office,rising
to
a levelof fraud@xhibits"E" and"F")'. We will hoid offproviding you with copiesof the

3 Our September19, 1995 letter, addressedto Attorney GeneralVacco (Exhibit

"E'),
was hand-delivered,as confirmed by the stampreceipt. It transmittedcopies of
iwo letters,
one to the New York StateEthics Commissionand one to the Chairmanof the
Commissionon
Judicial Conduct -- and they are enclosed. Our January 14, IggT letter, addressed
to Attorney
GeneralVacco (Exhibit "F'), was faxed and sent certified mail, as confirmed by
the fax and return
mail receipts. Of its enclosures,we includea September29,l994letter, sent
tL Mr. Vacco, who
 FloydAbrams,Esq. Page Six July 24, 1997

voluminouscolTespondence with leadersin andout of government,asreferredto in our ad,which

areall immediatelyavailable,uponrequest.

Likewise,we will makeavailableto you our written correspondence with Ms. HochbergerandMr.
Lifflander so that you canverifr, for yoursel{,our gooa-raittreffortsto get the
Law Journalto
recognizeits duty to presentvital and fully-documented informationto Ih. t"gul ,ornr1unity-
without our havingto payfor it.

By copyofthis letterto Mr. Goodale,we.askthat-hefurnishyou, us, andMr. Finkelstein,

a copyof
our ad, circlingthe alleged"libels"whichformedthe basisof nir adviceto Mr. Finkelstein,
*ho i,
n* u l3Y.t thattheLaw Journalnot publishour ad. Thatway,we canall address
this mattermore
enecttvelv.

Bgforeformallypresentingthismatterto thefull BoardofEditorsof the Law Journal,we respectfully

solicityour opinion,assistance,
andguidance on behalfof the publicint.r.rr

Yoursfor a qualityjudiciary,

€Ce a-o.e"K"Sq-=qs tU!-

ELENA RUTH SASSOWER,Coordinator
Centerfor JudicialAccountability,Inc.

Enclosures

cc: JamesFinkelstein,Publisher,New york Law Journal

RuthHochberger,Editor-in-Chief,New york Law Journal
Kevin vermeulen,AdvertisingManager,New york Law Journal
PeterHano,AccountExecutive,New york Law Journal
JamesGoodale,Esq.

wasthena candidatefor the officeof AttorneyGeneral.The confirmatorycertifiedmail

return
receiptis alsoenclosed.
 r) -)

EftueSb0LtbaSus ;
lfl|[ilflilIil|il[il|tl
"JabW ":w
SHIPM€NTS ONLY

'[****o
!; fl
rratRagenverooe

[-9'-"*
/*/h p//,^*.J-1.*rytJ@
ilav/{:Ll*
uotof trcaraoncrca
*;,*
!*/JJ n- / fi""*,n
tr&il#; I(
u r Arma u@nfy Code

-------t^ /

1.1''::ah/" lf rI)
NoDerivery
5*"-"i-- 6**I]

METHOO
IIUo >U
expresr.aarccpgdr Ho
-
ffism'^iK=.--- 3ff,{ri$Hrffi:s#
EEKEND HOUDAY
FROM:rplElsrpnrNrr *o"up, 2.rt
. -1 fo:(plE^sEpnrNr) pHoNEZf iL lUl- SO_O.*S>
CET'JTERFOi{ T
L A C C 0 U N T n o I T Y I T ic
'_i 'o , J U D I C I A g
,PtJ COX 6
f,e; qd fi6ra ns Ss,o
- i{HITE PLAINS Y 1060 5-00 9
*6,'//,fbr*ra,* &r&?
So C, t Sd*Ay
L
J

4e.ftr-<f<-g/
/tt ffq.-..
-t/z_rf t)