Friday, November 25, 2005

The Eliot Spitzer Fraud

How Greenberg is Being Covered By A Mere Mock Prosecution
(The News of Greenberg’s Resignation)

Conveniently, Greenberg together with his contacts has been able to hoist a company lawyer into the position of criminal prosecutor. That fellow’s name is Eliot Spitzer, posing as a rabid guardian of the criminal code, but in reality doing nothing else than prosecuting serial killers for shoplifting and otherwise sitting on his hands to let the law rot. If these people hope that the truth will drop dead or go away they are mistaken. The truth is knocking loudly on their door and calling their name.

Eliot Spitzer’s prosecution against Greenberg and AIG is an ersatz prosecution – a sham intended as a diversion. The idea behind this is that if Spitzer appear aggressive enough and the media convey this image convincingly, any true and meaningful reporting of AIG’s and Greenberg’s terroristic and treasonable felonies can be avoided. In other words, Eliot Spitzer, a former partner of AIG’s corporate lawfirm Skadden Arps, who some say is a crooked operation, is doing everything to save a major client of his former lawfirm. Or in short: friends help friends. Eliot Spitzer has been provided with a Citizens’ Complaint about the criminal aspects of 9-11-1, including numerous details about the specific and tangible insurance fraud involving Silverstein, Blackstone Group, Greenberg, Kissinger together with a research DVD full of data. Spitzer is stubbornly refusing to act on the evidence and is trying to take refuge to a mere mockery of prosecution.

The press (the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times) has indicated that AIG is much too big to get the same treatment as Enron did. It is pointed out that criminal prosecution broke up the accountant firm of Enron, Arthur Andersen. It is pointed out that there can be no desire to break up AIG. The Christian Science Monitor, „A Top Insurance Company as the New Enron?“ (April 01, 2005), at

„Because AIG is so massive and important to the financial world, regulators will have to tread carefully. The company’s main business is providing reinsurance, that is, it insures insurance companies. This helps the industry to spread its risk among many large and financially sound companies so a single event does not become a financial disaster for one company.

Also, because of AIG’s huge size, lawyers don’t think the government will bring a criminal charge against the company as it did for Arthur Andersen, Enron’s accountant. The criminal charge was a death sentence for the accountant.“

Further, the Christian Science Monitor ventures to predict a bleak future for the insurance giant, AIG:

„Before its legal troubles, AIG had begun an advertising campaign to become more well-known to Americans. Its most recent logo is ‚We know money.’ And, it brags it is the financial organization to choose for your ‚great-great-great-great-great grandchild.’ Now, lawyers expect it is likely to be fighting class-action lawsuits and irate regulators as it battles to survive.

The apple of dischord is a deal between Greenberg/AIG and another grandee of the American insurance industry, Warren Buffett. Details are reported in the press. This and other deals amount to a $1.77 billion accounting fraud which actually has been admitted by AIG. As a consequence of this fraud and the insurance investigation of Eliot Spitzer, Maurice Greenberg resigned as the all-powerful CEO of AIG on March 15, 2005; and he resigned his position as non-executive AIG Chairman on April 3, 2005.

Until Greenberg’s resignation, the Greenberg family (Greenberg Sr. and his two sons Jeffrey and Evan) together with Warren Buffett control the better part of the U.S. insurance industry. Jeffrey Greenberg was CEO and chairman of the world’s second-largest insurance broker Marsh & McLennan (resigned in October 2004). Evan Greenberg is President and CEO of Ace Limited, a Bermuda-based insurer. Warren Buffett owns and controls General Reinsurance.

CNN writes about the investigation, Report: AIG CEO Steps Down (March 15, 2005),

„AIG was mentioned in the case brought against Marsh & McLennan by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, but was not charged. But four former AIG executives have entered guilty pleas to criminal charges stemming from the investigation, along with six others from Marsh & McLennan, Zurich American Insurance Co. and ACE.

Last November, AIG agreed to pay $126 million to settle allegations of securities fraud by the SEC and the Justice Department related to three 2001 transactions it made with PNC Financial Services Group Inc. that allegedly helped the Pittsburgh-based banking company artificially inflate its earnings.

Part of the settlement also went to resolve a similar case involving Brightpoint Inc., a Plainfield, Ind., cell phone distributor.

Under that settlement, an independent monitor is examining AIG's books to see if there are any other questionable deals.

AIG, without admitting or denying guilt, also settled civil-fraud charges with the SEC, paying a $10 million fine.

In the latest investigation, AIG has been the focus of a probe by Spitzer, federal prosecutors and the SEC into the use of so-called finite insurance, or financial reinsurance, which critics say could be used to manipulate earnings.

The transaction under investigation took place between AIG and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s General Reinsurance unit four years ago and apparently was intended to shore up AIG's reserves.“

Maurice Greenberg joined AIG in 1960 and became its President in 1967. He became its Chairman in 1989. With Greenberg at the helm, AIG grew from a small company into one of the world’s largest and most profitable financial-services company with a market capitalization of $168.5 billion. Greenberg Sr. owns nearly 2% but through offshore companies controls about another 12% of the stock of AIG.

The connection with Warren Buffett is all the more suspicious in light of the substantiated indication of CIA money laundering through a bank partly owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Wells Fargo Bank, and the strange ongoings at the Offutt Air Base on 9-11-1 where Buffett met with President George W. Bush.

According to reports in the New York Times, Eliot Spitzer has stated that the scandal will be settled under civil law without any criminal prosecution or investigation. The is an attempt to defuse a problem of criminal responsibility that to my mind cannot work. In my opinion it is dictated by an egregious conflict of interest of Spitzer and his old law firm of Skadden Arps who do not wish to eliminate a major client, AIG by disclosing the true facts.

The New York Times reports something extremely suspicious about Greenberg, „How a Titan of Insurance Ran Afoul of the Government“ (April 4, 2005),
namely Greenberg considering taking the Fifth Amendment:

„By the accounts of people who have spoken with him, Mr. Greenberg, who did not agree to an interview for this article, ranges over bewilderment, rage and selfpity from the turn of events. In recent weeks, he has told A.I.G. directors that his lawyer is advising him to take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify in a broad inquiry, people involved in the case said.“

If you read the dossier below, you might consider the following statements by Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times, „A.I.G.: Whiter Shade of Enron“ (April 3, 2005),
to be a nervous newspaper joke:

„Of that we can be sure. A.I.G., after all, is a real company with global operations, generating genuine profits from a variety of financial enterprises. As companies go, Enron was all smoke and mirrors; A.I.G. is substance.“

NO! Of one thing we can be sure: If AIG goes down the tubes then the inside terror cell behind 9-11-1 will thus be yanked out of its hiding in secrecy. At the same time those funny little green papers called the dollar will become cherished commodities for cooking and toilet paper.

Can Eliot Spitzer stem the tide? Is it all just mental? We think not...

Sihpol Verdict Deals a Blow To Spitzer

In Crucial Courtroom Test, Jury Spurns Prosecutors On Claims of Criminal Acts


Former Bank of America Corp. broker Theodore Sihpol was found not guilty of improperly trading mutual funds, in the first real courtroom test of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's campaign against financial fraud.After a five-week trial, a jury in state court in Manhattan found 37-year-old Mr. Sihpol not guilty of 29 counts of larceny, falsifying business records and other crimes. Justice James A. Yates declared a mistrial on four counts after the jury said it was unable to reach a unanimous conclusion.A spokesman for the attorney general's office said no decision had been made yet on whether to retry Mr. Sihpol on the four charges. His office vowed to "continue to vigorously defend the interests of investors," noting that the Sihpol case is one of eight involving mutual funds where criminal charges were brought. Prior to the Sihpol case, six other individuals have pleaded guilty to fraud and related charges and one additional case is pending.The acquittal is a high-profile setback for Mr. Spitzer, who has made a name for himself while largely avoiding the courtroom. He has extracted multimillion-dollar settlements from corporate defendants, forced executives to resign and launched sweeping changes of practices on Wall Street and in the mutual-fund and insurance industries. Buoyed by his victories and the cheers of supporters, Mr. Spitzer has announced plans to run for governor in 2006.But critics have complained that he uses tough and headline-grabbing tactics to damage businesses, charges he vigorously disputes. In the Sihpol case, some observers questioned whether Mr. Spitzer should have given key witnesses in the trial immunity from prosecution, a move that clearly troubled some jurors.Mr. Sihpol's acquittal also comes as recent events on the corporate-reform front have gone more in favor of business. The Supreme Court recently overturned an Enron Corp.-related criminal verdict against Arthur Andersen, the former accounting firm. Securities and Exchange Commission Chief William Donaldson, who irked some companies with his regulatory zeal, is being succeeded by Christopher Cox, a Congressional Republican considered more business-friendly. And politicians are debating whether or not the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley act has gone too far in terms of regulating companies.The way Mr. Spitzer operates is likely to come under greater scrutiny on the heels of the Sihpol decision. While companies usually prefer to settle regulatory claims, rather than fight them in court, the Sihpol acquittals may embolden some of Mr. Spitzer's corporate targets to take their cases to trial.Mr. Spitzer has extracted massive civil fines "in part because of the specter of criminal prosecution," said Kirby Behre, a former federal prosecutor who now works at Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington. "Now it appears that threat may not be as potent as it once was."Other individuals targeted by Mr. Spitzer -- notably Dick Grasso, former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange -- could take heart from the Sihpol decision. Mr. Spitzer is suing Mr. Grasso over his compensation, around $200 million over the course of his eight-year tenure as NYSE chairman. Mr. Grasso has vowed to vigorously fight the suit; he declined, through one of his lawyers, to comment on the Sihpol case.Another high-profile individual squaring off with Mr. Spitzer is Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman of American International Group Inc. Last month, Mr. Spitzer sued AIG, Mr. Greenberg and another former AIG executive, accusing them of improperly manipulating AIG's financial results through a variety of techniques. Mr. Spitzer's office also is investigating numerous cases of alleged misuse of nontraditional forms of reinsurance at various insurers.Mr. Greenberg's attorneys have said he will contest the allegations against him; he has told associates that he believes he did nothing wrong. A spokesman for his attorneys declined to comment on yesterday's verdict. An attorney for the other executive named in the lawsuit, former AIG Chief Financial Officer Howard I. Smith, has also said he will contest the charges.Ted Sihpol's attorney1, Evan Stewart comments on the not guilty verdicts for the former Bank of America broker.Mr. Spitzer's office has indicated it doesn't expect to bring criminal charges against AIG, but people familiar with the matter said prosecutors are presenting evidence to a grand jury weighing criminal charges against individuals.A former prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney's office, Mr. Spitzer first made his mark as the state's top lawyer by cracking down on conflicts of interest on Wall Street between investment banking and research groups. He tapped a 1921 New York State statute, the Martin Act, to give the state office a role in securities regulation. Mr. Spitzer raised the threat of criminal prosecution -- and made deft use of publicity, both critics and supporters say -- to wrestle settlements out of the investment banks and some individuals.Mr. Spitzer took the same tack in the mutual-fund-trading cases, threatening individuals with criminal charges that carried decades-long sentences. Mr. Sihpol faced as much as 30 years in prison if convicted.The attorney general's cases stemmed from his 2003 investigation into improper trading of mutual-fund shares. Acting on a tip, Mr. Spitzer uncovered what he said were widespread trading abuses that hurt ordinary investors in the $8 trillion mutual-fund industry.Mr. Sihpol was accused of late trading, which involved helping a large investor buy and sell mutual-fund shares after 4 p.m. Eastern time when trading closed, while still receiving same-day pricing.The Sihpol case was viewed by some as a slam dunk for the prosecution, in part because there were recorded telephone conversations between him and traders at a New Jersey hedge fund, Canary Capital Partners, that showed that Mr. Sihpol knew about the late trading. Canary's former head, Edward Stern, and Noah Lerner, another former Canary executive, under immunity from criminal prosecution, testified against Mr. Sihpol. In addition, Mr. Sihpol allegedly destroyed trading tickets, which prosecutors contended is illegal. Canary and Mr. Stern never faced criminal sanctions; they paid $40 million to settle civil charges without admitting or denying wrongdoing.Prosecutors had to prove that Mr. Sihpol intended to defraud investors in the mutual funds. Mr. Sihpol's lawyers argued that he didn't think the trading was improper and that his superiors at the bank knew about it.Get alerts for breaking news -- such as Fed moves, significant world events and big mergers -- delivered straight to your desktop. Alerts will appear in a small window on your screen, much like an instant-messaging window. See a sample and get more information.3Since Mr. Spitzer went after Mr. Sihpol, many of the nation's largest mutual-fund companies have settled allegations with the attorney general, the Securities and Exchange Commission and regulators from other states, most involving rapid trading. The firms paid a total of about $3 billion in fines, restitution and fee cuts that Mr. Spitzer insisted be a part of his settlements.But even with the Martin Act and hard evidence in the Sihpol case, the Spitzer team was unable to overcome the antipathy of some jurors to the Canary executives and their testimony. Barbara Penn, the foreperson of the jury, said she thought the prosecution tried to make Mr. Sihpol a "scapegoat" and "fall guy."Some observers saw a crucial error in the prosecution's granting of immunity to Canary employees who were engaged in late trading, according to regulators, and made millions on it. One of the jurors, retired bookkeeper Doris Bembury, said she didn't believe the testimony of the former Canary executives, Messrs. Stern and Lerner."I felt they were pinning everything on somebody when they should have been prosecuted themselves," Ms. Bembury said.But a spokesman for Mr. Spitzer said the attorney general "wouldn't have been able to expose the problems in the industry without Mr. Stern's cooperation."The decision to give some culpable people a clear pass could play out in the AIG matter, if Mr. Spitzer seeks to bring criminal charges against current or former executives. Mr. Spitzer's office recently granted immunity to Joseph Umansky, an AIG reinsurance executive, in exchange for his testimony before a state grand jury. A spokesman for AIG declined to comment.---- Tom Lauricella, Valerie Bauerlein, Theo Francis and Randall Smith contributed to this article.

Thursday, November 24, 2005


Dear Blog Readers,
As the holiday season is now upon us what better way for the whole family to enjoy a rewarding and entertaining experience than playing a good old fashioned parlor game such as this.

We invite you to enter and enjoy our stimulating 'Spot the Criminal' Photo Competition. This competition is only open to New York voters, democrat or republican, who think they can winkle out a criminal with their detective skills.

We've put together for you a small sample of mugshots from our File of Infamy and a more horrific crew you will not find within the boundary of New York State. Some or maybe all the persons depicted may have a criminal record, may be facing indictment for crimes or conspiring to commits crimes.

It's up to you the jury to peruse as your leisure and identify as many of the miscreants as you can. Good luck! And happy holidays!

Once you have made your choice put your answers either:

1.) On a postcard addressed to:

Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General
330 Madison Ave,
19th Floor,New York, NY 10017


2.) and mark your email 'Did Eliot Spoliate Bracci?'

NY Gubernatorial Candidate Removes Google Ad

Eliot Spitzer is starting to look like a man running for cover. After our own assualt on his Campaign 2006 website last week when he removed damning allegations we posted challenging New York's attorney general with conspiring to destroy evidence, Spitzer, a Democrat running for governor of New York has now pulled the Google ad that Danny blogged about yesterday. The keyword ad appeared when searching the name of an insurance company Spitzer is prosecuting as New York Attorney General.
From the Reuters article:
"It wasn't appropriate, and as soon as Mr. Spitzer found out about it, he had it removed it as soon as possible," Darren Dopp, a spokesman for the New York attorney general, told Reuters.

addingArthur Anderson, Barbara Bracci and Eliot Spitzer

In Business Week on October 6th 2003 criminal hypocrite, Eliot Spitzer, told how tough he was on criminalizing Wall Street businessmen who wilfully destroy evidence during ongoing criminal investigations. Well, Spitzer did exactly the same crime while New York Division of Human Rights ordered him not to destroy the log books, personnel files, audio and videotapes, etc. during the Bracci V NYSDOCS DHR case. But Eliot thinks he is above the law. Why should he worry? He's our prize gubernatorial candidate. He burned the lot and gave Human Rights and rape victim and mother of one, Bracci the finger! Way to go Eliot.

Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General
330 Madison Ave,
19th Floor,
New York, NY 10017

Dear Eliot,

Re: Bracci v NYSDOCS

I write with regard to my last letter indicating my serious concerns over your egregious policy of destruction of evidence pertaining to the above action that you have stubbornly (and criminally) defended for these past years. I must now draw your attention to your Office’s stated methodology when confronting such issues:

"You were not in favor of indicting the entire firm Arthur Andersen, which subsequently went out of business”.

Your answer:
"The consequence of indicting Arthur Andersen was we went from five major accounting firms to four, and 60,000 people were thrown out of work. The indictment was predicated on destruction-of-evidence charges. That destruction of evidence was criminal. However, there was no corporate-wide policy to destroy evidence. Therefore, I felt that if you're going to indict the entire company and destroy the company, do it for a policy that went to the core of its business.If you could prove that fundamentally Arthur Andersen was deceptive with its audit practices, then they deserved to be indicted. But because a small core of individuals destroyed some evidence, that did not speak to corruption throughout the entire company, and should not have been a sufficient predicate for destroying the entire company."
[Business Week October 6 2003]

For several long, painful years now your office (under your governance) has repeatedly attacked me (a victim of the brutal rapist you defend) and destroyed crucial evidence pertaining to the recorded confessions of my attacker; log books of the places, times and dates of these offences; shredded the personnel file of my attacker; erased videotaped evidence implicating others who abused me, etc. Your conduct is a contemptuous and wilful violation of the lawful subpoena of my attorney, Robert Harris, as well as the Order to preserve such evidence made upon you by New York State Division of Human Rights. Clearly, the honorable office of Attorney General must not be made to suffer for the nefarious acts of one or two corrupt officials who cynically employ the tactic of destroying crucial state's evidence. Moreover, only recently you have been attempting to unlawfully influence matters in my bankruptcy: a nauseating and cynical abuse of power. By applying your own rationale your conscience must agree with me that your position as Attorney General is now patently untenable. You deserve to be indicted. I understand it is feasible that the Division of Human Rights may wish to pursue a maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment on you and your co-conspirators.

I have just been notified that a conference between us will be convened at the regional offices of the State Division of Human Rights on January 23rd 2006. Administrative Law Judge, Christine Marbach Kellet to preside. A full Public Hearing has been assigned to the court calendar for 18-20th April 2006. I shall be inviting prominent media correspondents and interested political and legal observers to also attend to witness the extent of the corruption you have presided over during your tenure as Attorney General.

Finally, please be so kind as to take this opportunity to assure me that you will now withdraw your candidacy for the post of Governor of New York State so that I and all honest voters can be assured that spoliators do not prosper.
Barbara Bracci-O'Sullivan

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Why I Think Spitzer is a Criminal

Any one, not least, the most powerful attorney in New York, should not be using their position to unlawfully protect known rapists. Eliot Spiter is paid to protect citizens from crime and root out corruption wherever it may fester. Yet this hypocrite will not only let a known rapist walk free, he will conspire to destroy all evidence proving his guilt to such crimes. Such is the case when from his election as attorney general in 1998 up until today, Spiter has orchestrated a cover up of nauseating proportions in the sexual harassment suit of Bracci versus NYSDOCS.

Mr Spitzer is also no respector of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964.
ELIOT SPITZER has been in contempt of a court ruling and contrary to Subpoena by attorney, Robert Harris of 1998 so that Barbara Bracci-O'Sullivan's sexual harassment case cannot be perfected upon all the evidence known to be available. It the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant, SPITZER, has deliberately shown ‘bad faith’ in the concealment and spoliation of physical evidence he retains unjustly, namely, property of Ms Bracci, the 7 mini audio tapes given, in good faith to her employer when she first made her complaint to Inspector General Brian Malone in January 1996. She cited precise ‘on grounds’ locations with exact times and dates where sex acts where performed upon her by supervisor, William Peek, that were unwelcome. The fact that NYDOCS and ELIOT SPITZER have destroyed all such evidence in contempt of the rules of evidence and the attorny general applied the same principles he used in prosecuting Arthur Anderson, then certainly he must, too, face criminal charges for wilful evidence tampering and perverting justice.

In Bracci's long, arduous and costly ten-year battle with ELIOT SPITZER, the AG's defense submits the nonsense excuse that Bracci'sco-workers, fellow New York State Corrections Officers at Summit Shock Camp, were legally entitled to pass around at work for their own salacious pleasure, pornographic videotapes made of, and stolen from, mother of one, Barbara Bracci.
More than one of these officers used the word ‘floated’ when discussing the dissemination of the material during their court depositions in April and May 2005. A comparable case of similar sexual harassment was Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., D. N. J. 2 F.Supp. 2d 598, April 9, 1998. Blakey eventually prevailed and was eventually awarded $1.6 million by the U. S. District Court for New Jersey.

New York Division of Human Rights took the admission made by Captain Peek in deposition that his ‘lieutenants’ informed him that such malicious pornographic videotapes were being ‘floated’ amongst co-workers and that it had been viewed ‘on grounds’. [On page 29 of his evidence Officer O’BRIEN recalls about Nickels, “ He would show them the thing (in Nickels apartment room with co-workers). On line 22 of page 29, O’BRIEN stated, “ It was all over the jail.” SERESKY, in his Deposition (pages 11-17) recalled that Nickels, “ floated” the videotape as a reprisal against her for calling his wife. In PEEK’s deposition of March 2005 he makes reference to a conversation with Nickles (Page 35, line 3 onwards) in which Nickles referred to the original videotape made by Bracci with her husband:

PEEK: “ He just said in the past there had been a tape floating around.”
We know this was ‘on grounds’ as per Peek’s later clarification in his testimony, line 21:

HARRIS: “ Did he say the tape had been on the facility?”

PEEK: “ Yeah, previously. Yes.”

By his own admission, Captain PEEK admits the videotape was known to have been ‘floating around’ according to reports made to him by his lieutenant(s) when he first arrived at Camp Summit. On Page 28, line 11:

PEEK: “ There had been innuendos of a videotape prior to my being assigned to Summit, but nothing that would substantiate an episode of people just sitting there and talking about it….one of the lieutenants had made a reference to it.”]

Nickles had retained possession of the explicit pornographic imagery of Bracci for a period in excess of 15 years. The source of the original dissemination of the videotape(s) is clearly Tab Nickels. Bracci argued, and the preponderance of the evidence shows, animus existed between Nickles and Bracci. A reasonable juror might be persuaded that Tab Nickels was fuelled with a malicious intent towards her, they had a relationship that soured, and his precipitous unwelcome and hostile comments resulted in other such adverse affects upon her. Bracci was complaining about the videotapes on or around January 1996. We cite the handwritten evidence of notes taken by both Superintendent FILL ION and Bracci’s union representative, John SERESKY that specify as much at that time (in their own hand). It was beholden on the employer, once knowledge of such abuses was known for action to be taken to correct such abuses. Supervisors, Scrocky and O’Brien knew of the ‘floating’ of the videotapes and indeed, Malone had noted (see evidence, ‘Bill of Particulars’ of Gloria Arthur Esq. etc) the issue of the videotape(s) and should have investigated the full extent and circumstances of her co- workers viewing salacious and defamatory imagery detrimental to Bracci’s status and thus apply a remedy.

What is most offensive to Bracci was that SPITZER knew all this years ago and has fought against the tide of overwhelming proof that Bracci's claim was wholly valid.Her employer, NYSDOCS, also had a duty of care once such facts were known, to intercede on her behalf to uphold Article VII.
Employers have a total monopoly over what speech is allowed on the job and the government may protect captive audiences only in "public" places. But our society has moved away from the public/private distinction, in part because of the severe harm it inflicted on women. For centuries, men were permitted to beat their wives (sometimes even to death) without fear of criminal prosecution, because the home was regarded as a private sphere untouchable by the government. The Supreme Court has moved beyond this dividing line, and upheld restrictions on expression in areas like obscenity, defamation, and "fighting words" in both public and private contexts.
More than 30 years ago, Americans decided they didn't want to live in a society that tolerated these forms of discrimination, public or private. And we stopped it with the best weapon we had--enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which, among other things, created a legal framework for protection from workplace harassment).

SPITZER has failed to provide plaintiff counsel with copies of the ‘Dead Records’ Room’ at her former place of work to verify Bracci’s claim that sexual abuse acts occurred at specific times and locations ‘on grounds’ and committed by Captain Peek upon her in an ‘unwelcome’ manner. We have been instructed all such documents have been unlawfully destroyed. The defendant and the State of New York Division of Human Rights were on Notice, as well as subject to a Subpoena As the laws on spoliation clearly directs, all the parties knew or should have known the evidence was needed for a lawsuit. We shall ask the Court to instruct conclude that the destroyed evidence would have hurt the defendant. When the defendant spoliates, the court can give a rebuttable presumption jury instruction or direct a verdict for the plaintiff or issue a default judgment. NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS would thus be found clearly guilty of injurious and discriminatory practice as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 whereby proof of both quid pro quo and hostile environment is conclusively established. Quid pro quo harassment being the first type of sexual harassment recognized as actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”).


The 7 mini audiotapes made by Bracci for the express purpose of recording her conversations with Captain Peek in this matter and Bracci supplied this evidence to her employer to assist ELIOT SPITZER in investigating her complaint .Only very poor and partially inaudible ‘copies’ of these audiotapes have been made available to the plaintiff. We submit the copy tapes provided by NYDOCS are doctored and muffled so as to be useless .The conduct of the defendant in this matter is in contempt of the judicial process. SPITZER should present to Ms Bracci her original 7 mini audiotapes so that she may collate and properly present her proof to the trier of fact. Or ELIOT SPITZER should be indicted on charges of aiding a rapist and wilful destruction of court evidence contrary to Order made by New York State Division of Human Rights ( maximum penalty: one year incarceration).

My letter to Eliot Spitzer

Dear Eliot,
Re: Spoliation of Evidence in NYSDHR case of Bracci v NYSDOCS
There was a time when citizens could not sue the government for torts committed by government employees. The federal and state governments enjoyed complete immunity from tort lawsuits. Thankfully, this immunity has been partially waived. The circumstantial evidence available to us in the case of Bracci v NYSDOCS shows that a valid cause of action now exists against you as Attorney General of the State of New York by vicarious liability for personal injury caused by officers acting under your instructions. We believe that you personally committed act/acts of negligence and/or intentional misconduct. In addition you certainly are liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for an employee's torts, including intentional torts, if the employee was acting within the scope of employment. To establish that the employee's conduct was within the scope of employment: (1) the conduct must have occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized by the employment; (2) the employee must have been motivated, at least partially, by a purpose to serve the employer; and (3) the act must have been of a kind that the employee was hired to perform.

Between January 1995 and until your offices took over the case, either NYSDOCS officers (or perhaps AG officers) spoliated evidence before or after the subpoena of attorney, Robert Harris Esq and the equally compelling Order of the State Division of Human Rights. Thereafter you implicated yourself as an accessory to these crimes; or you conspired to suppress, destroy or misrepresent all such evidence once you became defendant’s attorney. Your conduct, nonetheless, will amount to an obstruction of justice whether you committed such spoliation yourself, or when, upon receiving the case file from NYSDOCS, you conspired to ignore such unlawful conduct with the sole intention of acting as an accomplice in the suppression of the crimes of rape that Captain William Peek brutally inflicted on my wife, Barbara during 1995 while employed at Summit Correctional Facility, NY. This was in concert with the hostile work environment she endured from other NYS Corrections Officers at that time.

It is made incumbent upon you as Attorney General to uncover wrongdoing, identify the criminals and prosecute all illegal acts to the benefit of honest citizens of New York State. My wife has membership of a protected class of persons that under law shall not suffer torture or inhumane treatment as enshrined by the Civil Rights Act. You pompously paid tribute to Rosa Parks in a sickeningly hypocritical contradiction of your own methodology. You knowingly and unlawfully opposed my wife’s rightful claim not to be abused by a serial rapist nor suffer adverse working conditions. You have patently turned your back on your duty. It may reasonably be inferred that your conduct over these past years has been self-serving; you have attempted to obfuscate the crimes of a state agency to further your own political agenda. This has been a corrupt abuse of your authority.

My wife, our daughter and me have suffered considerably in what you lawyers would term "non-economic damages" including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.

Eliot Spitzer, may be deemed, as the key perpetrator and to have been particularly careless, e.g., grossly, recklessly or wantonly careless or acted with intent and caused injury, then "punitive damages" might be awarded against you in addition to the compensatory damages if you were not so lucky to be under the privilege of tort immunity for that particular remedy.

However, based on the preponderance of the evidence still available we contend that the following criteria can be met in our action against you:
Societal Duty: there was a violation of a recognized societal duty upon you as Attorney General to act carefully (such duty enshrined in statute, other written rule and social custom);
Injury: there was a significant emotional injury to my wife, Barbara Bracci, the plaintiff; and,
Proximate Cause: Eliot Spitzer, the defendant, caused injury directly, indirectly or by a failure to take action where there was a recognized obligation to do so, thus allowing the injury to occur. This element is commonly understood to involve a determination over whether reasonable and prudent persons could have foreseen the injurious consequences of their act.
It may be proven that you as Attorney General committed a professional malpractice: where a professional, i.e. a lawyer, is careless about following law, regulations or practices recognized and accepted in your respective profession and thereby caused us unlawful injury. Notwithstanding any specific egregious harm you may be proven to have inflicted on Barbara you may also be guilty of the facilitation, participation or approval of the tortious conduct of another (Assistant Attorney General Goglia, Inspector General Brian Malone, Superintendent Gary Fill ion, CO Nickels, Captain William Peek et al.).
We seek just compensation. But because the courts cannot impose punitive damages on a state government body we feel compelled to avenge ourselves instead on the principle ringmaster of our misery, Eliot Spitzer. Of course, by discrediting you publicly we may not secure substantial monetary compensation but at least we will inflict upon you a measure of the suffering we ourselves have endured for so many years. We will take some measure of satisfaction in, exposing your egregious and hypocritical methodology, ruining your reputation and sparing other innocent victims in New York your brand of ‘justice.’
A conference will be convened at the regional offices of the State Division of Human Rights on January 23rd 2006 to analyse these disturbing issues. Administrative Law Judge, Christine Marbach Kellet to preside. A full Public Hearing has been assigned to the court calendar for 18-20th April 2006. Barbara Bracci will also invite prominent media correspondents and interested political and legal observers to attend to witness the extent of the corruption SPITZER has presided over during his tenure as Attorney General of New York State.
John and Barbara O’Sullivan, Delhi, New York, 13753

The Background: Bracci v NYSDOCS


During the year 1995 Corrections Officer Barbara Bracci is sexually harassed and coerced into giving sexual favors to her supervisor, Captain William Peek at Summit Correctional Facility. She is brutally raped several times; has batons forced into her vagina causing her internal bleeding and is locked in a room for a day while on duty. She is coerced into an unwelcome ‘threesome’ with another female and Peek. She is pressurised to have sex with Peek’s teenage son but refuses. She is compelled to perform sexual acts on videotape for the Captain. She is threatened with dismissal if she does not comply. She complains to Superintendent Gary Fillion but is ‘written up’ for making unsubstantiated complaints after a self-serving internal investigation. Her complaint also related to several incidents of hostile work environment as well as the quid pro quo acts of Peek. Finally, in desperation, she takes the advice of a friend and former attorney and makes numerous audiotapes of these unwelcome encounters with Cpt Peek. She also keeps a meticulous written record of events, times and dates of abuses that occurred at their place of work. In January 1996 she presents her evidence to Superintendent Gary Fillion who listens to the damning words of Peek. He takes two of the audiotapes off her. They are never seen again. A further self-serving investigation results in Peek’s transfer to Sing Sing and Bracci is fined $9,000 and constructively dismissed from her employment. Her attorney Robert E Harris Esq files charges with NYS Division of Human Rights. The DHR Administrative Judge retrieves enough of Peek’s damning confessions from remaining audiotapes to make a determination. New York State DHR finds a judgement of ‘Probable Cause’ in her favor in 1998. The case is referred to full trial and DHR and attorney Harris issue subpoenas on SPITZER so all the audiotapes and the records from Summit Facility he held could be used as key evidence.

ELIOT SPITZER’S ‘”good old boys” at the offices of Attorney General do all they can to stall and stymie this rape victim’s claim. But the case finally gets filed in Federal Court and in 2005 witness depositions of correctional co-workers proves that male officers, some her senior, were ‘floating’ sexually explicit videotapes of Bracci stolen from her by another co-worker. It is proven that such tapes were shown to numerous work colleagues unbeknown to her at her place of work and elsewhere. Such damning testimony proves that senior correctional staff had been implicated in a conspiracy to ‘bury’ her complaint throughout. Inspector General Brian Malone was proven to have deceitfully hidden evidence of these abuses. Moreover, two audiotapes have been ‘lost’ by the Assistant Attorney General Goglia under the supervision of ELIOT SPITZER. Goglia also refused to give back to Bracci’s attorney five other audiotapes that would have conclusively proven that there was a conspiracy by officers to destroy crucial evidence in the case; the written records from Summit Facility were also illegally destroyed despite the Attorney General, ELIOT SPITZER being served two subpoenas to preserve all such crucial evidence in the case. Indeed, during Corrections Officer Nickels’ Deposition it transpired that Nickels was allowed to take videotape and erase its contents with the full knowledge of ELIOT SPITZER. While in SPITZER’s possession somehow rapist, William Peek’s personnel file gets shredded. With so much key physical evidence ‘lost’ or spoliated over several years the office of Attorney General is now implicated in these unlawful conspiratorial acts. In November 2005 Bracci is made an unofficial ‘off the record’ offer of re-instatement and immediate pensioning off at a cost of at least $300,000 to make her complaint go away. There is no doubt this matter would bring considerable discredit on ELIOT SPITZER and fatally wound his reputation and candidacy as the next Governor of New York State.

A conference will be convened at the regional offices of the State Division of Human Rights on January 23rd 2006 to analyse these disturbing issues. Administrative Law Judge, Christine Marbach Kellet to preside. A full Public Hearing has been assigned to the court calendar for 18-20th April 2006. Barbara Bracci will also invite prominent media correspondents and interested political and legal observers to attend to witness the extent of the corruption SPITZER has presided over during his tenure as Attorney General of New York State.