Until now, state ethics rules said judges must disqualify themselves for owning any amount of stock, "however small," in businesses appearing before them.

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, who handed down the new rules, also ordered new computer software installed to let judges screen incoming cases for conflicts of interest. Each judge would have to maintain a database of his or her stock portfolio.

"We feel that the old rule was out of step with modern reality," Lippman said. "Large numbers of our citizens have stock holdings, as do judges."

"What we tried to do was create a rule with a more common-sense approach," Lippman said. "It puts the burden on the judge to comply.

"Now, there are no excuses," the chief judge said.

The new rules let a judge overlook a financial conflict if it is "an insignificant interest that could not raise reasonable questions as to a judge's impartiality." The judge is trusted to interpret what is "insignificant."

The change was prompted in large part by a Daily News report in February that revealed 16 Manhattan justices had ruled in civil lawsuits without disclosing conflicts of interest.

Robert Tembeckjian, staff director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which disciplines judges, said the panel would apply the new rules to cases under investigation.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman, who sold her stock after The News articles appeared, cheered the new rule. "It's consistent with the economy that we live in," she said. "People own very tiny amounts of stock in very large corporations."

NY Judges See Rules on Stock Ownership Eased

By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
September 10, 2004

The Office of Court Administration yesterday relaxed a rule that had required judges to disqualify themselves whenever they own stock in companies involved in cases before them, "no matter how small" the amount.

Instead, the amended rule, issued by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, requires judges to use their discretion and disqualify themselves if their stock interest is "more than de minimis."

Judge Lippman described the change as "a common sense approach designed to comport with the modern realities of stock ownership."

The new rule defines "de minimis" as "an insignificant interest that could not raise reasonable questions as to a judge's impartiality."

He announced that new voluntary procedures will be put in place in Manhattan Supreme Court, starting in October, which will allow judges to use a computer program to determine whether they have a potential conflict.

The amended rule, §§100.0(D) of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, uses the test for disqualification adopted in 1991 by the American Bar Association and by more than half the states since then. The federal courts have the stricter standard, requiring disqualification for any amount of stock.

The federal rule is tougher than either iteration of the New York rule because it does not permit the parties to consent to a judge's handling of a case despite stock ownership. Under both versions of New York's rule, a judge could continue to handle a lawsuit as long as the parties consented.

The old rule created problems for judges. The requirement of disclosure of even a single share of stock, coupled with the lack of an effective screening mechanism, led to lapses in required disclosures.

By Greg B. Smith and Bob Port
Daily News Staff Writers
February 11, 2004

A clean fight with a fair referee - that's what most citizens want when they go to civil court.

But in Manhattan's state court, the Daily News found, conflicts of interest can create the appearance that the game is rigged.

Dollar figures on public financial disclosures for New York judges are kept secret by law. The entanglements of lawyers remain mysterious. And no one automatically screens cases for conflicts of interest.

In previous articles this week, the Daily News reported that 16 of 47 Manhattan judges who hear commercial civil disputes had not disclosed a potential conflict.

The "Queen of Conflicts," Justice Marylin Diamond, has heard 19 civil cases since 2000 without disclosing that she or her husband owned stock in one of the parties before her. Diamond's former law partner also awarded her $1.1 million to co-manage a trust.

"It's just wrong that a judge has an interest in one of the parties and doesn't disclose it," said Jeffrey Sunshine, a Long Island lawyer. He didn't know, for example, that Manhattan Judge Karla Moskowitz owned stock in General Electric when he sued a GE subsidiary in 2001.

"I've always wished," Sunshine said, "someone could do something about it."

He and several attorneys said New York courts should do what federal courts do - scan each case before it is assigned to a judge to avoid obvious conflicts.

Unlike state courts, in federal court, the rough values of a judge's stock or other interests are public, so lawyers can easily check. And lawyers must catalogue business ties for clients with each case filed, so each judge can check.

Brooklyn Federal Court beefed up its computer system to snag potential conflicts.

Two years ago, the court installed software that compares judges' financial interests with cases they get by random assignment. A clerk enters stock and other information into the computer. If that company comes in as a party, the computer red-flags the case and sends it to another judge.

Douglas Palmer, the court's computer chief, said the electronic safety net did not work flawlessly at first. It missed one conflict because the company the judge owned stock in was entered differently from the way the company name appeared on the lawsuit.

"We didn't have a very good working system," Palmer said, making clear that now "in my opinion, it's working very well. They've adapted our system and it's being sent out nationwide."

Moskowitz has asked court administrators for computer help in screening conflicts of interest.

Officials began exploring the idea more than a year ago, but they have doubts about the software. The massive volume of cases - tens of thousands filed each month - makes data entry an expensive proposition.

"It's no panacea," said Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman.

Lippman considers conflict of interest a problem, but not the biggest problem facing courts. The dozens of conflicts The News found in court records represent less than one half of 1% of all cases filed, he said.

"It's such a small, tiny percentage," Lippman said.

And while Lippman and other legal experts said judges should err on the side of caution when a question of conflict arises, they said that many times the question is fuzzy.

The News found several Manhattan judges who did not know what their own ethics rules say.

According to those rules, "a judge shall disqualify himself or herself" when "the judge knows that he or she ... or the judge's spouse ... has an economic interest ... in a party" to a case.

"Shall means shall," said Bob Keating, a former Supreme Court justice and adviser to Mayor Ed Koch, now dean of the state's judge school in White Plains.

"There's not much room for interpretation."

Avoiding conflicts on the bench is critical, Keating said. "It's important as much for the perception of justice as for the reality - maybe more for just the perception."

State rules also say judges must disqualify themselves when a lawyer appearing before them acted as their lawyer or a family member's lawyer within the past two years - or when a lawyer was a colleague in a judge's old law firm.

A judge "shall keep informed" about his or her family, and "however small" the money at stake may be, conflict of interest still matters, the rules say.

A judge can hear a case, despite a conflict, by disclosing his or her interests to all sides. If the parties agree, the judge stays. That agreement, the rules say, "shall be incorporated in the record."

One problem The News found may defy any solution.

In three recent multimillion-dollar asbestos lawsuits, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Paula Omansky agreed to seal the cases in the interest of corporate confidentiality, despite her conflict of interest.

The judge owned shares of 3M and Pfizer, two defendants, and her husband owned shares of Allstate, another defendant. "I disclosed to all parties," Omansky said. "There were no motions for recusal."

                           She's the Queen of Conflicts

By Greg B. Smith and Bob Port
New York Daily News
February 10, 2004

Justice Marylin Diamond is hands down Manhattan Supreme Court's queen of courtroom conflicts.

Judges Keep Quiet about Conflicts

A dozen judges ruled in favor of companies in which    they, or their families, owned stock.                                The Supreme Court
                                                                                                                  Building in Manhattan

The News tracked down parties in 101 cases to confirm
that 16 out of 47 judges who hear commercial civil                Justice Herman Kahn
disputes had not disclosed a potential conflict.

 Told what The News had learned, state Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman said jurists are obligated to avoid anything that might cast doubt on their impartiality.

Informed that a judge's personal interest could have tainted
 their case, most lawyers shied away from denouncing the
judges involved. But a few were shocked.                            Justice Carla Moskowitz

Cahn maintained a Salomon Smith Barney margin loan while
ruling in three lawsuits involving their firm.
.                                                                                           Justice Helen Freedman
In a 2002 case, he rejected a suit filed by Solin on behalf
of a 60-year-old Manhattan woman, who charged Salomon
misled her into investing $75,000 in Worldcom just as its
value plummeted in an accounting scandal.

Their defense
 
Justice Paula Omansky
Case: Alexis Garraway vs. Verizon Wireless, 2002

Comment: "I must have missed it," Freedman said, explaining she did not notice Merck was a defendant. Months later, she sold all her stock. "It makes my life easier," she said.

Next: The Queen of Conflicts.

                       Judges Take Stock of Holdings - and Sell

No More Recuses: Suit Gets Day in Court

by Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
February 5, 2004

The seventh time may be the charm for Anthony DeRosa - a Manhattan judge has actually agreed to preside over his case.

DeRosa, who sparked investigations into conflict-of-interest allegations against the Manhattan judiciary, has had five judges take themselves off his foreclosure-related case six times in the past month.

DeRosa is being sued by a man who tried to buy his foreclosed apartment.

DeRosa had sued JPMorgan Chase to block the bank's attempt to foreclose on his apartment. Justice Marylin Diamond ruled in the bank's favor.

DeRosa found Diamond owns stock in and had other ties to the bank. The FBI is investigating his findings.

In the buyer's suit against him, DeRosa asked Justice Shirley Kornreich to recuse herself because she also has ties to the bank.

Kornreich refused, but changed her mind after The Post reported she was also being investigated. Since that time, Justices Richard Braun (twice), Sheila Abdus-Salaam, Harold Beeler and Marcy Friedman have all gotten DeRosa's case - and taken themselves off it. Justice Jane Solomon accepted it yesterday.

           Foreclosure Suit Becomes Hot Potato for City Judges

Tom Perrotta
New York Law Journal
February 4, 2004

Dozens of lawsuits are randomly assigned to Civil Court judges in Manhattan each day, but there seems to be one litigant that none of the jurists at 60 Centre Street want in their courtroom: Anthony DeRosa.

In the last three weeks, five Supreme Court justices have recused themselves from Mr. DeRosa's dispute over the foreclosure of his Upper West Side apartment three of them since last Friday. Four of the five have taken a pass on Mr. DeRosa without being asked to do so. Three have given reasons, two have not.

Attorneys who both represent and oppose Mr. DeRosa, however, point to an unspoken reason for this rare and fast-moving game of hot potato: the reputation Mr. DeRosa has built for himself in the last few years as a relentless litigant who is more than willing to make his case in the press.

When J.P. Morgan Chase foreclosed on his Upper West Side apartment and sold it at an auction in 2001, Mr. DeRosa sued to get it back, claiming he was never notified of the sale.

Supreme Court Justice Marilyn G. Diamond ruled against him, but Mr. DeRosa appealed, arguing that Justice Diamond should not have heard his case because she has investments in Chase, and that her husband also has a relationship with the bank. The allegations, as well as an investigation into Justice Diamond by the FBI, have been widely reported in the press. Mr. DeRosa said he is cooperating with the FBI investigation and his appeal is pending in the Appellate Division, First Department.

Justice Diamond's ruling was only the beginning, though. A subsequent action - filed by Semyon Pesochinsky, who bought Mr. DeRosa's apartment at auction- has bounced through the chambers of five judges, landing on the desk of a sixth one, Acting Justice Jane S. Solomon, yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Pesochinsky had sued to force Mr. DeRosa to pay maintenance on the co-op, in which Mr. DeRosa still resides. The case was first assigned to Acting Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich, but Mr. DeRosa asked to the judge to recuse herself from the case since she, too, owned stock in J.P. Morgan Chase. In court papers, he noted his previous case before Justice Diamond, as well as the FBI investigation and the press attention it received. Justice Kornreich stayed on the case and, in December, ruled in Mr. Pesochinsky's favor, ordering Mr. DeRosa to pay thousands of dollars in back maintenance.

In January, though, Justice Kornreich's name appeared in a New York Post article that reported on an alleged FBI investigation that had been broadened to include the judge. She then recused herself, citing a concern that she might appear to be biased against Mr. DeRosa as the case continued. Justice Kornreich stepped aside, on Jan. 13, and since then four judges have said no to Mr. DeRosa - all of their own volition. Justice Richard F. Braun declined to take the case because he lives in the same building as Jeffrey M. Eilender of Schlam Stone & Dolan, one of Mr. Pesochinsky's attorneys.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam held a hearing last week, saying she was "aware that there had been a lot of difficulties" surrounding the case, according to a transcript. She proceeded to discuss any disclosures either side expected her to make.

After a brief recess, though, Justice Abdus-Salaam said she was aware that the Daily News is planning a story on alleged conflicts of interest of Manhattan judges - a story that she said would likely focus on her, among others. Although the judge said "I believe whatever the Daily News is about to say about me is totally unfounded," she had decided to recuse herself. She suggested that Mr. DeRosa's lawyer,David B. Cohen of Scarsdale, move for a change of venue out of Manhattan.


On Monday, the case was assigned to Acting Justice Harold B. Beeler, who recused himself without reason. The court's random computer program spat out another name yesterday - Acting Justice Marcy S. Friedman - and she recused herself, without reason. Then, Justice Braun was randomly assigned again, but he had already recused himself. Justice Solomon was the last to receive the case yesterday, and she called for a hearing this morning.

While judges may explain their decision to recuse themselves, they are not required to do so, according to David Bookstaver, Office of Court Administration spokesman.

If there is one thing that both attorneys for Mr. DeRosa and Mr. Pesochinsky agree on, it is that few strong reasons - under the law - have been offered for therash of recusals.

"It think it's just become a political hot potato and they just don't want to touch it," said Mr. Cohen of the judges. "They think it is going rub off on them." Mr. Cohen argues that Mr. DeRosa can no longer receive a fair hearing in Manhattan, and he intends to move for a change of venue. He said he almost did so before Justice Abdus-Salaam was assigned the case, but he thought she was a fair jurist "who calls them like she sees them."

Different View

Mr. Eilender and his co-counsel, John McFerrin-Clancy, have a different view of the matter, and sum it up with the word "extortion."

"These judges saw what happened to Justice Diamond in the press, they saw [Mr.] DeRosa's threat against Justice Kornreich, which was carried out," Mr. McFerrin-Clancy said. "This is rank extortion depriving us of our day in court. Mr. Cohen and Mr. DeRosa run the courthouse now."

Mr. Eilender said he has filed a complaint against Mr. Cohen to the disciplinary committee; Mr. Cohen said sanctions are appropriate against Mr. Eilender, though he does not think he could win them.

Mr. DeRosa, for his part, said he just wants his apartment back, and that he can easily raise the money needed to pay off the mortgage. "What am I doing wrong?" he said. "I am trying to save my home."

Mark C. Zauderer, a partner at Piper Rudnick and the chair of a commission on jury reform,
said he had never seen anything like this in all his years of practice.

"Generally, for good policy reasons, judges should not recuse themselves from cases unless there is a reason to do so, because the obligation to sit on a case comes with the job," Mr. Zauderer said. "I cannot recall a situation like this where a case has gone through the dockets of this many judges. I don't presume to know the reason for it, but it is certainly unusual."

Justice Solomon's turn is next.

           State Court Probe Eyes Judge and 'Art of the Steal'

By Brad Hamilton
New York Post
January 18, 2004

The state court system is investigating charges that embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marylin Diamond lied about her relationship with an art heiress to loot the woman's trusts.

Vickie Ma, an attorney for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, met last week with David B. Cohen, a lawyer who represents heiress Natasha Gelman's only surviving relatives, and judicial activist Anthony DeRosa.

Ma asked Cohen about a 1998 letter that Diamond wrote to her boss, chief administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, seeking his permission to act as a co-trustee of the funds, according to a transcript obtained by The Post.

In the letter, Diamond claimed to be "like a daughter" to Gelman.

Lippman gave the OK, citing a "longstanding personal relationship" between Diamond and Gelman, who died in 1998 and left behind an estimated $400 million fortune.

But the appointment apparently doesn't take in to account a deposition Diamond gave in 2000 in which she could not recall ever having met Gelman's husband and couldn't provide details of any social meetings with the couple.

Ma asked Cohen about the deposition, and two letters that Cohen wrote to Lippman in September objecting to having Diamond serve as a trustee.

Cohen charged that "Natasha Gelman either did not know Diamond . . . or else was suffering from dementia." He also argued that Diamond's letter to Lippman left out key financial details of her deal with the trusts.

Diamond, the subject of an FBI probe into judicial corruption, could not be reached for comment.

                                     'Conflict' Judge Benches Self

by Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
January 16, 2004

A Manhattan judge who accused judicial activist Anthony DeRosa of threatening her with allegations of conflict of interest has now stepped down from his case.

State Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich recused herself from DeRosa's case two days after a Post report that said she was being eyed amid conflict allegations against another Manhattan judge, Marylin Diamond.

"She thought it was the right thing to do after the Post article," because DeRosa's complaints against the judge could lead to the appearance of a
KORNREICH                                        conflict, said David Bookstaver, a spokesman
Bank ties an issue.                        for the state Office of Court Administration.

The foreclosure over which Kornreich has been presiding has turned into a major headache for the judiciary. The main part of the case - where JPMorgan Chase Bank was trying to foreclose on DeRosa's West Side apartment - had been before Diamond, who ruled against DeRosa.

Afterward, DeRosa discovered Diamond owned stock in and had other ties to the bank, which she had never disclosed to him.

The case is being appealed, and DeRosa's research and complaints have resulted in ongoing investigations by the FBI and the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Kornreich was presiding over a related matter: a suit against DeRosa by Semyon Pesochinsky, who had planned to buy his foreclosed apartment.

DeRosa had argued Kornreich should step aside because she also had stock and other ties to Chase.

NY Judge Recuses Herself After
Learning She Is Target of FBI Probe

By Cerisse Anderson
New York Lawyer
January 15, 2004

Although last month Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich refused to recuse herself from a foreclosure case that prompted an FBI investigation of another judge, she recused herself Tuesday from the remainder of the case after reading an article in Sunday's New York Post alleging the FBI was now investigating her and two other Manhattan judges for favoring friends in their rulings.

Justice Kornreich said yesterday she acted on her own to step out of the case because questions could be raised about the fairness of her rulings in light of the allegations.

In her earlier ruling in Pesochinsky v. DeRosa (NYLJ, Dec. 12), the judge rejected Anthony DeRosa's contention that she had a conflict of interest in his case because she owned stock in J.P. Morgan/Chase, which holds the mortgage in the foreclosure matter but was not a party in the case, and because she is acquainted through her involvement with Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert with two Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partners who have sat on the J.P. Morgan/Chase board.

                                   FBI'S 'Bench' Press

By Brad Hamilton
New York Post
January 11, 2004

EXCLUSIVE - The FBI is probing powerful Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond and two colleagues on the bench - Justices Shirley Kornreich and Judith Gische - for allegedly doling out judicial favors to friends and associates, sources close to the case said.

Agents in the FBI's 14-member corruption unit are examining a series of complex ties that link the judges to various people and firms appearing before them in dozens of cases.

At least 30 litigants have been interviewed by FBI agents, who are seeking to determine whether undis-
HEAT'S ON: Feds have interviewed       closed personal interests motivated the judge's rulings. itigants in cases handled by Manhattan
Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond.
 Juan Gonzalez                                     The FBI has been joined in recent weeks by
investigators from Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' office, state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and the state court system's own disciplinary body, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, they said.

Among the cases that are being reviewed:

* A 1998 marital fight in which Diamond granted primary custody of two boys to the mother despite evidence that the woman had been treated for psychological problems and beat one of the kids on more than one occasion.

Documents show the mother works for Diamond as the listing broker of a ritzy Park Avenue residential property co-owned by the judge, but it's unclear when she began working for her.

The oldest boy, now 16, described the two women to The Post as friends and said they've had their nails done together.

* A $1 million settlement Kornreich awarded to the influential law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in a case over a disputed bill.

The judge did not reveal that she's the co-president of a breast-cancer charity whose board members include partners at Skadden, Arps, or that the charity holds its monthly meetings at the firm's Midtown offices.

* A personal-injury suit dismissed last year by Kornreich, who denied the claims of a 35-year-old deckhand allegedly sickened while working on a Hess petrochemical tanker.

Hess was represented by law firm Proskauer Rose - where Kornreich's husband, Edward, is a partner - in a separate suit the company brought against the deckhand's union and the captain of his ship.

Kornreich told The Post she didn't know of Proskauer's involvement and would have recused herself if she had.

* Lucrative appointments that Diamond and Gische have made over the years to a select group of outside experts, including law guardians, psychologists and financial evaluators.

FBI spokesman James Margolin declined to discuss or confirm the probe.

Diamond - the target of a yearlong FBI probe into alleged conflicts of interest after ruling in favor of firms in which she owned stock - and Gische are among a half-dozen matrimonial jurists who decide divorce and custody matters.

The judges' ties extend beyond the courtroom.

Kornreich and Gische are both involved in Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, which raises money for research and treatment of the disease.

Diamond and Kornreich are both stockholders in JP Morgan Chase, and Diamond presided over half a dozen cases involving the bank until recusing herself on them last year after The Post reported on the matter.

Last month, Kornreich ruled on one aspect of a foreclosure case brought by the bank against Anthony De Rosa, the Wall Street researcher whose private probe of Diamond sparked the FBI probe.

But Kornreich denied that her decision had anything to do with Chase or that any of her decisions were colored by outside interests.

Gische could not be reached for comment.

Said court spokesman David Bookstaver: "If there is such an investigation, to imply any wrongdoing whatsoever, pending its conclusion, is unfair and inappropriate."

Many of the allegations were brought to the FBI by the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of 200 litigants who feel their cases were tainted by judicial misconduct.

Group spokesman De Rosa, who complained about Kornreich this week at a meeting with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, said he was encouraged by the probe.

"I'm glad that the FBI is taking this incredibly seriously and planning to do something about the cesspool in Manhattan Supreme Court," he said.

Investigators Scoping out Manhattan-Brooklyn Link

By Brad Hamilton
New York Post
January 11, 2004

FBI and state investigators are looking into possible links between judicial corruption charges in Brooklyn and Manhattan, sources close to the cases said.

Federal agents are teaming up with the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office to compare evidence against cousin judges Gerald and Michael Garson in Kings County and allegations against judge Marylin Diamond and another jurist in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Probers are revisiting the case of Michael Garson, the Brooklyn Supreme Court judge who last month was ordered to repay $163,000 to his elderly aunt, Sarah Gershenoff, after draining the 91- year-old woman's account.

Gershenoff worked for 50 years as a secretary at KMZ Rosenman with high-profile divorce lawyer Bernard Clair, who's being investigated by the FBI after he gave Diamond a $777 campaign contribution and hired her law secretary while arguing a divorce case before her.

Investigators are also taking a closer look at Manhattan judge Judith Gische, whose sealing of the court records in the Michael Garson matter sparked an inquiry by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Gische later unsealed the records and was cleared of any wrongdoing by the CJC, according to court spokesman David Bookstaver.

Her handling of lucrative appointments to outside court experts is being reviewed by the FBI, sources said. Bribery charges against Gerald Garson may also have a Manhattan connection.

Gerald Garson's alleged go-between, lawyer Paul Siminovsky, is a former partner of Jacoby & Meyers co-founder Gail Koff, who got a favorable settlement from Diamond in her own divorce case.

The case was the same one in which Clair made the campaign contribution to Diamond.

In her ruling, Diamond determined that Jacoby & Meyers had no value and socked Koff's ex-husband, architect Ralph Brill, with millions in debt obligations.

Koff strongly denied that she's done anything wrong.

"These [charges] are just rumors and innuendo, and it's just really upsetting," Koff said. "There's no truth to it."

Diamond on Thin Ice with State

By Bill Hutchinson and
Michele McPhee
Daily News
January 9, 2004

The state Commission on Judicial Conduct is investigating possible ethical violations by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond, the Daily News has learned.

Attorneys for the commission began interviewing witnesses this week about Diamond's questionable conduct on and off the bench, sources said.

Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa confirmed last night that he met with lawyers for the commission Tuesday to talk about charges he has made against Diamond.

Robert Tembeckjian, director of the commission, declined to comment last night on the investigation.

DeRosa said he was questioned about a case involving JPMorganChase, which foreclosed on his upper West Side apartment when he failed to make his mortgage payments.

In a case before Diamond, DeRosa claimed the bank botched the foreclosure. But Diamond ruled in favor of the bank.

It was later learned that Diamond owned stock in the bank, which she had failed to disclose.

DeRosa said his lawyer, David Cohen, also was interviewed Tuesday by the commission lawyers.

Cohen also represents the family of the late Natasha Gelman, who was a wealthy upper East Side art collector.

Gelman's family alleges that Diamond took advantage of Natasha Gelman's dementia to appoint herself trustee of her $500 million estate. As trustee, Diamond was paid $1 million and receives yearly commissions.

Cohen was issued a subpoena yesterday by the commission to come back to testify under oath, sources said.

In April, the commission dismissed more than a dozen complaints against Diamond, even as the FBI launched an investigation into her conduct.

Last year, The News reported that the NYPD investigated Diamond for penning threats to herself, but she was never charged. The threats had led police and the state court officials to provide Diamond with around-the-clock security protection, which has since been dropped.

                                  Wall Streeter Cries Injustice

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
December 11, 2003

The Wall Street researcher whose allegations against Manhattan Judge Marylin Diamond led to a federal investigation yesterday accused a second judge - who ruled against him in a recent case - of trying to protect her embattled colleague.

Anthony DeRosa took aim at Shirley Werner Kornreich, who claims he threatened her with conflict-of-interest allegations.

DeRosa told The Post he never threatened Kornreich and said the timing of her decision against him - which also praised Diamond - is highly suspect.

"She's trying to look out for her fellow judge," DeRosa said.

After Diamond shot down DeRosa in his foreclosure fight with JPMorgan Chase Bank, he learned the judge owned stock in and had other ties to the bank, which she never disclosed to him - an apparent contravention of judicial rules. DeRosa's research into Diamond's finances has led to an ongoing FBI investigation.

DeRosa questioned Kornreich's timing because he's currently awaiting the outcome of an appeal of Diamond's decisions in a related case, where he argues all of her rulings should be tossed because of the undisclosed conflict.

Kornreich found DeRosa's claims had been "fully and fairly litigated before Justice Diamond."

DeRosa had also asked Kornreich to recuse herself from his case because she, like Diamond, has some ties to JPMorgan Chase. Kornreich acknowledged in her decision that she does have links to the bank, but said she wouldn't remove herself because it isn't directly involved in her aspect of the case.

"In declining to submit to Mr. DeRosa's threats, I note only that my ownership" of Chase securities "does not constitute a conflict of interest," she wrote.

                        Judge Blasts Colleague's Accuser

by Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
December 10, 2003

A Manhattan judge is offering a colleague who's the target of an FBI investigation some words of praise - and is accusing the man who blew the whistle on her fellow jurist of threatening her.

In a decision made public yesterday, state Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich said Anthony DeRosa had asked that she recuse herself from his case because of alleged conflicts of interest, but she was "declining to submit to his threats." DeRosa called the threat allegation "untrue" and "outrageous."

Kornreich made the comments in a decision in which she ruled against DeRosa in another case.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Dimond ruled against DeRosa's bid to stop JPMorgan Chase from foreclosing on his apartment. DeRosa appealed the ruling because Dimond owned JPMorgan Chase stock - and the FBI began a probe of the judge.

Kornreich, who's presiding over a suit brought against DeRosa by the man who planned to buy his foreclosed apartment, said the other case was "fairly litigated before Justice Dimond."

Kornreich also refused to recuse herself, acknowledging that while she also owns JPMorgan Chase stock, there is no conflict of interest because the bank isn't involved in the case before her. She said DeRosa's threat came in the form of his noting that the conflict charges against Dimond have caused her "considerable trouble."

           Judge Denies Defendant's Motion for Her Recusal

Cerisse Anderson
New York Law Journal
12-09-2003

Rejecting claims of conflicts of interest that prompted an FBI investigation of another jurist, a Manhattan judge has decline to recuse herself from a foreclosure case because she owns stock  in J.P. Morgan/Chase and is acquainted with lawyers on the bank's board. The decision will be published Friday.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich last week in Pesochinsky v. DeRosa, 126043/02, denied Anthony DeRosa's motion that she recuse herself from ruling in an action seeking to force him to pay maintenance on a co-op apartment he lost in a foreclosure sale but has refused to vacate.

Mr. DeRosa had said in his recusal motion that he also had raised allegations of actual or apparent conflicts of interest against another judge, Acting Justice Marylin G. Diamond, who had ruled against him last year in related litigation in which he sought to annul the foreclosure on his Manhattan apartment on West 89th Street.

"He warns that before the court issues a decision on the instant matter, it should take notice of all the media coverage pertaining to myself, [Justice Diamond], [and] the FBI investigation that his earlier complaints of conflict of interest' have produced," Justice Kornreich noted.

Mr. DeRosa argued on his appeal of Justice Diamond's ruling on the foreclosure that she had a conflict of interest because she failed to disclose that she owned stock in JP Morgan Chase. The ruling on the appeal by the Appellate Division, First Department, is pending.

Mr. DeRosa's allegations of Justice Kornreich's conflicts included the fact that she is president of Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, which holds some of its meetings in the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. She is acquainted with two Skadden partners, Sheila Birnbaum and Helene Kaplan, who have sat on J.P. Morgan/Chase's board of directors. And her 2002 financial disclosure forms indicate she owns stock in J.P. Morgan/Chase, the judge recounted in her ruling.

Justice Kornreich refused Mr. DeRosa's demand that she disclose other unlisted investments "so that he 'could be made fully aware of if there are any more conflicts of interest.'" And she concluded that her ownership of publicly traded securities of JP Morgan/Chase did not constitute a conflict of interest because it was not a party to the action before her.

"J.P. Morgan/Chase will not benefit from any ruling by this court, because J.P. Morgan/Chase will receive its money from [Semyon Pesochinsky, the investor who bought the apartment for $200,000 at public auction] regardless of whether or not DeRosa reimburses Pesochinsky for his maintenance payments," the judge said in denying the motion for recusal.

Mr. DeRosa yesterday rejected Justice Kornreich's ruling as "simply her protecting" another judge, and he said he intended to appeal.

Justice Kornreich granted Mr. Pesochinsky's motion for summary judgment on his unjust enrichment claim against Mr. DeRosa, and ordered Mr. DeRosa to pay $42,562, which represents maintenance payments on the apartment from July 2000 to December 2002, plus interest. She also declared that Mr. DeRosa owed Mr. Pesochinsky maintenance from December 2002 onward for as long as he remains in the apartment.

Mr. DeRosa had taken a $192,000 mortgage from Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. in 1998 to buy the co-op shares, but after about two years he stopped making the monthly mortgage payments to Chase and the maintenance payments to the co-op, prompting the foreclosure, the judge said.

Justice Kornreich dismissed Mr. DeRosa's affirmative defenses to Mr. Pesochinsky's claims, finding that they were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because they had been "thoroughly presented in the prior proceeding before Justice Diamond."

Mr. DeRosa was represented by David B. Cohen in Scarsdale. John McFerrin-Clancy, Jeffrey M. Eilender and Leah Campbell of Schlam Stone & Dolan appeared for Mr. Pesochinsky.

Feds Eye 'Conflict' Lawyer

By Brad Hamilton
New York Post
November 13, 2003

A high-powered divorce attorney is being investigated by the FBI and the state-court inspector general for alleged influence peddling after he gave campaign money to embattled Judge Marylin Diamond and hired her law clerk while arguing a case before her, The Post has learned.

The probe of Bernard Clair - who has represented the likes of Georgette Mosbacher, Carolyn Roehm and Jocelyn Wildenstein in marital matters - is part of the FBI's expanding investigation into possible conflicts of interest
MARYLIN DIAMOND         involving Manhattan Supreme Court Justice  Diamond,
Judge got $$ during case.         sources familiar with the probe said.

The investigation began after Ralph Brill, a Putnam County architect, lost his divorce case before Diamond in 2000, then discovered that his wife's lawyer had made a campaign contribution to the judge.

He complained to Jacqueline Silbermann, the state's chief matrimonial judge, about the cash and Clair's hiring of Diamond's former top legal clerk, Jad Greifer, during Brill's divorce.

Silbermann passed the complaint to inspector general Sherrill Spatz, who met with Brill. The architect also met with FBI probers.

Diamond granted a split to Brill's ex-wife, millionaire lawyer Gail Koff, who owns the Jacoby & Meyers law firm.

The judge ruled that Jacoby & Meyers - then fighting with the IRS over unpaid back taxes - had no value and socked Brill with 50 percent of what she concluded was the firm's $8 million in debt. She also froze his assets.

Clair contributed $777 to Diamond's 2000 re-election campaign, state election records show.

Clair also hired Greifer to work with him at his firm, KMZ Rosenman, while arguing the Koff case, documents show.

Brill objected to the hiring at the trial, but Diamond allowed it.

Brill filed an appeal of the decision with the state's Appellate Division, alleging that Diamond's rulings were biased.

His lawyer, Ronald Cohen, will argue the case before the judicial panel in Manhattan today.

"We want a whole new trial," said Brill, who is part of the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of litigants who claim they lost their cases before Diamond because of prejudice.

Asked to comment on Brill's charges, alliance spokesman Anthony DeRosa said, "It seems to be that it's not what you know in the legal profession, but who you know."

Probed Justice Still Trust-Worthy: Judge

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
October 20, 2003

EXCLUSIVE - What one of the state's top judges giveth, he won't taketh away.

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippmann has rejected a request to rescind the permission he gave embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond to run a $30 million trust, The Post has learned.

The FBI has been investigating conflict of interest charges MARYLIN DIAMOND                   involving Diamond, 62, since late last year. She's also
OK'd to run $30M trust               being looked at by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct and the inspector general of the state Office of Court Administration.

One focus of the FBI investigation is the judge's role in the estate of Natasha Gelman, who died in 1998 leaving behind an estimated $400 million fortune. Gelman's will named Diamond, who was her lawyer in the late 1980s, a co-trustee of the multimillion-dollar Jacques and Natasha Gelman Trust.

Gelman's surviving family members charge Gelman's will is a fraud carried out by Diamond and two other lawyers who took advantage of the Alzheimer saddled art heiress to get at her money.

The lawyer for Gelman's lone surviving relatives, the Jung family, wrote to Lippmann last month urging him to rescind his permission because Diamond had omitted "important and relevant information" from Lippmann.

                          Judge Diamond in the Rough

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
October 14, 2003

EXCLUSIVE - The state's top administrative judge is weighing a request to revoke the special permission he granted embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond allowing her to serve as a co-trustee for a multimillion-dollar charitable trust, The Post has learned.

If Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippmann grants the request, that could force Diamond to choose between keeping her judgeship and her potentially lucrative position as trustee of the Jacques and Natasha Gelman Trust.

Diamond was once a lawyer for the late Natasha Gelman, who left behind an estimated $400 million fortune when she died in 1998. As The Post first reported in 2000, Gelman named Diamond as co-trustee in a will the art heiress's family charges was made while she was mentally incompetent.

"Diamond's a trustee of a trust that shouldn't even exist," said Gelman's cousin, Jerry Jung, who's challenging the documents validity.

The case is under review by the FBI, which is also investigating conflict of interest charges against Diamond.

Because she's a sitting judge, Diamond, 62, had to seek approval from Lippmann to administer the trust when Gelman died. He granted it after Diamond wrote him saying she "was like a daughter" to Gelman, and that her work would "not interfere with my judicial duties in any way." Jung family lawyer David Cohen wrote Lippmann on Sept. 24 asking him to rescind his approval, arguing Diamond had omitted "important and relevant information" when she wrote to him, including not mentioning the size and details of the trust and the controversy over it.

Cohen called that "a calculated, deliberate, and successful attempt at deception."

State filings show the trust has $32 million in assets. While Diamond doesn't receive a salary from it, she does receive commissions - $46,000 in 2001, and $15,000 in 2000.

Lippmann's spokesman, David Bookstaver, refused to comment on the letter, but said his boss had received it "and I assume he will be responding in the near future."

Diamond's lawyer, Jane Parver, said there was no deceit on her client's part, and disputed Cohen's contention that Diamond stands to make millions from her position.

"It's a charitable trust," she said, adding that its size is not an issue for her client.

"It's my understanding it does not take time from Judge Diamond's schedule, apart from the nights and weekends," she said.

Parver noted that Jung's two previous attempts to get the will tossed in Lichtenstein and Manhattan - where a judge found Gelman was "in all respects competent" when she signed the will - were unsuccessful, and called their pending federal court lawsuit "a third bite from the apple."

Jung pointed to a taped 1994 phone conversation he had with Gelman where she says she doesn't know who Diamond is as proof the judge lied to Lippmann.

"She betrayed my aunt," he said. "This isn't just a fight for money. This is a fight for what's right."

No Order of Protection for Judge Diamond

By Michele Mcphee
Daily News Police Bureau Chief
October 8, 2003

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond thinks she needs protection against a former litigant - but a federal judge doesn't see it that way.

Diamond's bid yesterday for an order of protection against Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa was rejected by Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz.

Diamond's lawyer, Jane Parver, contended the judge needed the court's protection from unfair "sleuthing" into her personal finances by DeRosa, 37.

DeRosa, a forensic investigator, was one of the organizers of the Diamond Support Group, a coalition of litigants who say she ruled against them because of political alliances and personal vendettas.

His findings have prompted the FBI to investigate Diamond for possible conflicts of interest in her rulings.

Parver slammed the phone down when asked to comment on the proceedings.

In 2002, Diamond ruled against DeRosa in a case involving JPMorgan Chase, a decision that he has appealed because the judge failed to disclose that she owned stock in the bank.

"If Judge Diamond has not done anything wrong, what is she so afraid of? I'm flattered that she is intimidated by an average New York City guy who is exposing who she really is - a liar, a crook and a thief," DeRosa said yesterday.

DeRosa is working with attorney David Cohen, who filed a lawsuit against Diamond on behalf of the family of an elderly art tycoon, Natasha Gelman.

Gelman's family alleges that Diamond took advantage of her dementia to appoint herself trustee of the woman's multimillion-dollar estate. As trustee, Diamond was paid $1 million and receives yearly commissions.

Last year, the Daily News reported that the NYPD investigated Diamond for writing herself threats, but she was never charged. The threats had led police and the state court officials to provide Diamond with around-the-clock security protection.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/124761p-111962c.html

Judge Conflict Eyed in Perelman Divorce

by Brad Hamilton
New York Post
October 5, 2003

EXCLUSIVE --The FBI is investigating the Ronald Perelman-Patricia Duff divorce settlement after viewing documents that suggest one of the judges on the case may have had a conflict of interest, sources close to the probe said.

The divorce, and the custody battle for the couple's daughter, was one of the most bitterly contested in recent times, and the FBI's interest in the case is a new twist to the tangled saga.

It is not yet known whether it could lead to the case being
    Patricia Duff                 reopened.
    Peter Walden Sr.  
The FBI is looking at documents that name Manhattan Supreme Court judge Franklin Weissberg, who ordered billionaire Perelman to pay Duff $12,000 a month in child support - an amount considerably less than settlements for some other super-rich dads.

The documents show that Weissberg at the time of his ruling may have had financial ties to two companies whose board members included two of Perelman's most-trusted lieutenants, The Post has learned.

Investigators are also checking to see if there was any direct connection between Weissberg and Revlon, Perelman's cosmetics company.

The FBI interviewed Duff about the matter last week, sources said.

Weissberg is married to Judge Marylin Diamond, who bought Revlon corporate bonds in 1996, the year the Perelman-Duff divorce papers were filed. She held them until 1997, records show.

Diamond is under investigation by the FBI for possible conflicts of interest in six civil cases involving JPMorgan Chase after she failed to disclose her ownership of stock in the bank.

And the Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into an alleged insider-trading charge after Diamond and Weissberg bought stock in both sides of a $2 billion merger deal between Verizon and Price Communications in 2002.

The alleged links in both cases were uncovered by Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa, who lost a foreclosure case before Diamond.

DeRosa also found that in 1999, Weissberg and Diamond both owned stock in Loral Space & Communications, a satellite firm whose board of directors includes Perelman's right-hand man, Howard Gittis.

Weissberg told The Post that Gittis accompanied Perelman to court "from time to time" during the divorce proceedings. He said he was unaware of Gittis' role at Loral and denied knowledge of owning stock in the company.

"To say this is a conflict of interest is totally reprehensible," Weissberg said. "I had a discretionary account. I didn't choose to buy the stock and I didn't choose to sell it. And I had no idea who was on the board of directors."

Weissberg also insisted his wife never owned any Revlon bonds.

When told she once listed them on her financial disclosure forms, he said, "I had no idea."

DeRosa's research also focused on Weissberg's dealings with Bob Price, a multimillionaire media baron.

The judge and his wife - close friends with Price - have owned stock in several of Price's companies, including Price Communications.

One firm, Price Publishing Co., was sold in 1998 for $175 million to American Lawyer Media, whose director is Perelman's other top lieutenant, Donald G. Drapkin.

Weissberg said of Drapkin: "I never heard of the man."

Diamond did not preside over any of the Perelman-Duff proceedings. But she ordered parts of the record sealed in 2000, a court record shows.

Duff, reached at her home, said she was uncertain what the allegations might mean to her and her daughter, Caleigh, 8. Perelman got custody of the girl in 2001.

"I think Anthony [DeRosa] has found a lot of things that undermine the integrity of what this system claims is OK," Duff said. "I'm not sure what the court will say about his evidence."

Perelman spokesman Jim Conroy said of the conflict allegations: "The connections are nonexistent and the suggestion of anything improper is totally ridiculous."

New facet in Case vs. Diamond
 

by Helen Peterson
Daily News Staff Writer
Thursday, October 2nd, 2003

When a case involving JPMorganChase entered the Manhattan courtroom of Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond, she failed to disclose that she owned stock in the bank.

Just wanted to let you know our thoughts about how ridiculous and insulting Judge Marylin Diamonds, and her husbands former Judge Franklin Weissbergs comments to the media regarding how they did not know what stocks and bonds they own and owned were.

First Point - They make public comments about how the accounts are discretionary therefore they have no control in the decision making process is self contradictory. Discretionary account means that the CLIENT has full discretion. Given that fact it is self defeating. I should know this, I worked on Wall Street my entire life.

Second Point - In their portfolio they own their friends (Robert Price) company Price Communications. Did their accountant pick that security magically out of thin air?  Robert Price had check-signing privileges on the judge's 2000 re-election campaign and kicked in $7,500 from himself and two family members.

Third Point - There are millions of dollars in the discretionary accounts with hundreds of thousands of dollars in several of the individual securities. It is insulting that the Judges want us to believe that they have no control in the decisions of the investments.

Fourth Point - They themselves sign their financial disclosure forms yearly, which are recorded with the Office of Court Administrations Ethics Commission. Are they attempting to tell us that Judges don't read what they sign? Of course they read it, they themselves are required to verify the documents and disclosures.

Fifth Point and most importantly - The Laws and Rules of the Judiciary is VERY clear on this. Listed below is the code which clearly states that a Judge shall be kept informed and make an effort to know of their interests. Which ever way you look at it, the Judges, Diamond and her husband Judge Weissberg have broken the Laws and Rules of which they themselves are suppose to enforce and adjudicate over. Canon 3 [§100.3](E)(2)

Code Of Judicial Conduct
Adopted by the
New York State Bar Association
Effective April 13, 1996

Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 2: A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety
All of the Judge’s Activities

Canon 3: A Judge Shall Perform the Duties if Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently 19 Canon 4: A Judge Shall So Conduct the Judge’s Extra-Judicial Activities as to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations 33 Canon 5: A Judge or Candidate for Elective Judicial Office Shall Refrain from Inappropriate Political Activity 50 Application of the Rules of
Judicial Conduct 58

Canon 3 [§100.3]
    (E) Disqualification.
          (2) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and
fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed
about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse and minor
children residing in the judge's household.

                        Court May Toss Judge's Ruling

Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
October 2, 2003

-- A state appeals court indicated yesterday it might toss out all of an embattled Manhattan judge's rulings in a case that's led to a conflict-of-interest probe against her.

A five-judge panel of the state Appellate Division asked repeated questions that seemed to indicate that they agree all of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond's rulings in a case involving JPMorgan Chase should be reversed because she never disclosed she owned stock in the bank.

Diamond ruled in favor of Chase and against a Wall Street researcher named Anthony DeRosa in the case, which involved the bank's foreclosing on DeRosa's apartment.

Fraud Suit to Target Diamond

By Michele Mcphee
Daily News Staff Writer
September 16, 2003

It looks like more rough times ahead for embattled Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond.

The family of a wealthy art heiress plans to sue Diamond for fraud this week, the Daily News has learned.

It's not the first time relatives of the late Natasha Gelman, the multimillionaire collector and oft-painted muse for Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, have accused the judge of cheating her. But this time, a family attorney contends he's armed with new evidence.

Lawyer David Cohen said he is going into Manhattan Surrogate's Court seeking to vacate a previous judgment on grounds of "fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct." That ruling favored Diamond.

Gelman's cousin Jaroslav Jung has maintained for years that Diamond, 62, manipulated Gelman's estate, lining her pockets at the expense of the judge's one-time client and her heirs.

A previous suit by Jung was dismissed by Manhattan Surrogate's Court Judge Eve Preminger in 2000.

But The News has learned that Cohen will cite probes of Diamond by the FBI, the city's Conflicts of Interest Board and other law enforcement agencies.

Cohen said Diamond duped Gelman into changing her will while her former client was suffering from dementia.

"You have to be a really, really low form of life to steal from people who are feeble. There is a special circle in hell for people like Diamond, who made changes to a trust document belonging to a woman who had Alzheimer's disease," Cohen said.

Diamond's lawyer Jane Parver had no comment on the pending litigation yesterday.

Diamond, best known for presiding over the divorce of art mogul Alec Wildenstein, has said she had nothing to do with Gelman's legal matters after becoming a judge 1991.

Gelman died at age 86 in 1998, leaving behind an estate worth nearly a half-billion dollars, including a $300 million art collection donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In her will, she left Diamond $1 million and named the judge trustee of her estate and art foundation, the Gelman Trust. Diamond earns thousands more a year in commissions as the estate's trustee.

Diamond has also been dogged by accusations she wrote threatening letters to herself to justify an around-the-clock security detail.

Last year, The News reported NYPD investigators and a noted criminal profiler believed Diamond wrote more than 48 letters to herself over a three-year period.

Though she eventually lost her guards, Diamond denied writing the letters and was never charged with wrongdoing.

But the story sparked a group of former litigants who said Diamond fingered them as authors of the missives to form a support group. All were men who were on the losing side of Diamond's decisions.

Diamond only recently returned to her courtroom at 60 Centre St. after a three-month absence described by a court spokesman as "annual leave."

"All I will say is that she is back at work," said the spokesman, David Bookstaver.


Judge Is Benched

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
September 15, 2003

-- EXCLUSIVE - A controversial Manhattan judge who's being investigated by the FBI is no longer being assigned new cases, The Post has learned.

State Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond has been quietly moved from an "individual assignment section" part at 60 Centre St. to a "hybrid general trial" part - meaning she's no longer getting new court cases to preside over, court sources said.

Diamond, 62, has been the subject of an FBI investigation into conflict-of-interest allegations since CASE KISS-OFF: Justice Marylin        this past December, and she's also being probed by
Diamond, the subject of an FBI           the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, the panel
probe, has been reassigned to a           charged with disciplining judges. Both probes are
new post in which she will not             looking at the judge's stock holdings.
handle new cases.                          
-By Juan Gonzalez                              The Post reported earlier this year that Diamond was
presiding over cases involving JP Morgan Chase and Verizon, even though she never told the case participants that she owned stock in those two companies.

State judiciary law requires that a judge reveal "ownership of shares of stock or other securities of a corporate litigant." Lawyers concerned about any potential conflicts of interest could then ask the judge to step down from the case.

Altogether, Diamond has presided over dozens of cases involving firms she has a financial interest in. Her lawyer, Harold Tyler, has said the judge was unaware of what stock she owned until earlier this year. Nevertheless, David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration, insisted that Diamond's new assignment is procedural and not punitive.

"To characterize this as a punishment would be wrong," he said. "This is certainly not a punishment in any way, shape or form."

He added that the chief judge of Diamond's courthouse, Jacqueline Silbermann, reassigned Diamond around mid-summer "in the interest of keeping cases moving efficiently."

While she won't be getting new cases, Diamond will keep the more than 300 cases she still has pending before her, and will be available to preside over trials for other judges who have scheduling conflicts.

A courthouse source said the move was necessary because Diamond has recently started recusing herself from a large number of the cases she already had and a large number of new cases that were coming in to her because of her holdings.

Anthony DeRosa, who uncovered the judge's financial ties to Chase after losing a case before her against the bank, said the development makes him "feel validated."

"I'm incredibly satisfied that all my hard work is paying off," he said.

DeRosa - whose information sparked the FBI investigation - is appealing Diamond's ruling in his case, arguing all of her rulings should be declared "null and void" because she didn't disclose her stock interest.

Courting Disaster

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
August 11, 2003

A Manhattan man wants an appeals court to toss all of an embattled judge's rulings against him because of her alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest - the first in what could be a flood of such claims, The Post has learned.

Anthony DeRosa filed papers with the state Appellate Division arguing all of Justice Marylin Diamond's rulings in his case should be declared "null and void" because she didn't disclose that she owned stock in - and had other ties to - his opponent in the case, JPMorgan Chase Bank.

That omission violates judicial law, the appeal says.

If successful, DeRosa's appeal could open the door to numerous other litigants to look to vacate rulings in other cases Diamond has presided over involving companies she owns stock in.

"It could certainly have ramifications," said DeRosa's lawyer, Tom Shanahan. "Anytime there's even the potential for a conflict of interest, it has to be disclosed."

DeRosa, 37, brought suit against Chase in 2001 after the bank tried to foreclose on his apartment. The case was assigned to Diamond, who eventually ruled for the bank.

DeRosa says she ignored evidence of the bank having handled the foreclosure improperly.

DeRosa, a Wall Street researcher, turned his talents on the judge, and found her retired judge husband, Franklin Weissberg, was doing work for a law firm that did work for Chase.

He then looked at their state financial disclosure records, which showed both owned stock in the bank.

Those ties had never been disclosed to DeRosa, an apparent violation of state judiciary law, which requires a judge to reveal "ownership of shares of stock or other securities of a corporate litigant," the appeal says.

Monroe Freedman, a judicial ethics expert, said DeRosa should win his appeal.

"A judge should not have any financial interest in the matter," he said.

He added that if the judge failed to make disclosures in this and other cases, that could lead to disqualifications where "the judgment is vacated and the case starts all over again from scratch" before another judge, even if it's years old.

Diamond has presided over nine Chase cases since 2000, and five cases involving Verizon, another company she has a financial interest in. The Post reported last month that the lawyers in the Verizon cases were unaware of that interest.

Diamond recused herself from the Verizon cases a day after The Post story, and she's now recused herself from all Chase cases.

Lawyers for Diamond and JPMorgan Chase didn't return calls.

The FBI and state Commission on Judicial Conduct are investigating the conflict claims

'Conflict' Judge Faces New Hang-up over Stox Purchase

By Brad Hamilton
New York Post
July 13, 2003

The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking at stock purchases by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Diamond and her husband, The Post has learned.

Documents detailing how the couple separately bought into Verizon and Price Communications in 2002 - the same year the two companies merged in a $2 billion deal - were sent to the commission last week by Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa, who is privately investigating the judge.

DeRosa, who lost a foreclosure case before the judge in 2002, has been examining the holdings in his role as head of the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of litigants who feel they were victims of prejudice by Diamond and other judges.

"Something just doesn't seem right," said DeRosa.

DeRosa's research found that Price Communications is owned by Robert Price, a friend of Diamond's who had check-signing privileges on the judge's 2000 re-election campaign and kicked in $7,500 from himself and two family members.

It's unclear from 2002 state financial disclosure forms how much Verizon and Price stock is owned by Diamond and her husband, Franklin Weissberg, a former state judge, or if their purchases were made before the merger.

Following the merger last August, Price Communications stock jumped more than 30 percent to over $15 per share by January.

The SEC did not comment on DeRosa's allegations, but one source at the commission said of DeRosa, "We've communicated."

Diamond, who is under investigation by the FBI for alleged conflicts of interest, has been presiding over five court fights involving Verizon, but has not disclosed her or her husband's stakes in the merged company or recused herself from any of the cases, lawyers on those cases said.

"She never disclosed [her stock]. I had no idea," said Joseph Mullen Jr., a lawyer who worked on a suit against Verizon before Diamond.

Verizon attorney Robert L. Lewis said, "I don't think she's ever made mention of [her Verizon stock] one way or the other."

Under state court policy, a judge with "the appearance" of a financial tie to a party in a case isn't required to step aside, but only if the judge "divests himself or herself of the interest."

Harold Tyler, Diamond's lawyer, did not return calls seeking comment.

Rough on Diamond

by Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
July 2, 2003

A Manhattan judge who is the subject of a federal conflict-of-interest probe recently presided over a case where the plaintiff was the judge's own lawyer in a multimillion-dollar court fight, The Post has learned.

Seth Rubenstein successfully represented the judge, Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond, in her Surrogate Court battle over the $300 million-plus estate of art heiress Natasha Gelman.

Partially because of his success in that portion of the many-tentacled estate case, Diamond received $1.1 million from Gelman's estate and was named co-trustee of a $30 million trust Gelman had left behind.

Rubenstein was still in Diamond's employ when he was substituted in as the plaintiff in a real-

estate brokerage-fee case that was already before her, Helen Miller versus Jane Ardsley Frocks.

The elderly Miller died on Sept. 13, 2001, and Manhattan Surrogate Court Judge Renee Roth named Rubenstein the administrator of Miller's $300,000 estate.

Diamond signed an order naming him the new plaintiff in Miller's suit two months later.

His case remained before her until this past February, when the judge issued a one-sentence order recusing herself.

"The conflicts of interest seem endless in Marylin Diamond's courtroom," said Anthony DeRosa, spokesman for the Alliance for Judicial Justice, an organization comprised mostly of litigants who believe they were treated unfairly by Diamond.

DeRosa has been interviewed numerous times by the FBI about information he's provided them alleging the judge had an undisclosed conflict of interest in some bank cases over which she was presiding.

Law-enforcement sources have said the 6-month-old probe is also looking at the judge's role in the Gelman case.

Rubenstein's lawyer in the Frocks suit, Robert Sharon, said the judge's conduct was "totally aboveboard."

"She went out of her way on two occasions to say they were good friends," Sharon said, adding that the first time, his opposition in the case said he had no problem with her continuing to preside over it.

Sharon said that after the second disclosure, the Frocks lawyer said he wanted another judge on the case, so Diamond recused herself.

Diamond's current lawyer, Harold Tyler, was cryptic about what his client knew and when.

"What she did, she did," Tyler said.

He said Diamond was frustrated with the allegations. "She says no matter what I do, they'll say it's wrong," he said.

Rubenstein said he never went to court on the case, and was "surprised" to learn that Diamond had it: "I had no idea Judge Diamond was involved in any fashion."

When told she no longer had the case, he said, "I would think it's a good thing she recused herself" because of their relationship.

When told it took her 14 months to do so, he said "when she became aware of the fact I was in the case, I can't tell you. I don't know."

A spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration backed Sharon's version of events and also noted that Diamond ruled against Rubenstein in his portion of the case.

Judge Is Eyed In Conflict Of Invest

By Brad Hamilton and Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
June 6, 2003

A Manhattan Supreme Court justice, under investigation by the FBI for possible conflicts of interest, owns $40,000 of stock in J.P. Morgan Chase - yet has presided over civil cases involving the bank, The Post has learned.

Judge Marylin Diamond also owns corporate bonds with the bank, according to disclosure forms she filed with the court system's ethics commission.

And a state Board of Elections' disclosure in 2000 shows that Diamond's re-election campaign account was handled by Chase bank, a retail franchise within J.P. Morgan Chase. Diamond also has an IRA retirement account with J.P. Morgan Chase, the Board of Elections record shows.

Diamond has presided over at least six lawsuits that involved J.P. Morgan Chase since 2001, according to court records.

On May 5, Diamond recused herself in an ongoing case in which J.P. Morgan Chase is suing the owner of a Park Avenue building where it has a branch. At issue is the use of the building's elevators.

Prior to the recusal, Diamond had twice ruled in favor of the bank in the dispute - on Oct. 18, 2002, and on March 18 of this year, according to court records.

According to Diamond's attorney, Harold Tyler, Diamond recused herself after "recently" discovering her J.P. Morgan holdings.

``Diamond] and her law clerk were going over her accounts, and that's how she found out about" the holdings, Tyler said. "She has a discretionary portfolio with her accountant, which means he selects the stocks, she doesn't."

J.P. Morgan Chase is ranked in the top four biggest banking firms in the nation. The bank's spokeswoman, Kristin Lemkau, said she could not comment on any account holder or ongoing legal matters.

Tyler told The Post last week that the purchase price of Diamond's J.P. Morgan Chase stock was "about $40,000." He said he didn't know the stock's current value.

It's unclear when Diamond acquired the stock, but the bank is listed twice among 40 common stock entries on Diamond's disclosure forms for calendar year 2001.

The forms show that she's owned corporate bonds, issued through the bank's Chase Manhattan operation, since 1996. The value of the bonds is not listed.

The FBI probe into Diamond began in March after a group of disgruntled divorce litigants complained that Diamond's personal biases had swayed their cases.

One of those litigants, Anthony DeRosa, a researcher on Wall Street, provided federal agents with documents that he claims show conflict-of-interest violations by the judge.

DeRosa, who has acted as a spokesman for the group, was asked about Diamond's stock and bond holdings with the bank.

"We are not surprised by all the conflicts having to do with J.P. Morgan Chase," he said.

As The Post previously reported, Diamond is being sued for her role in handling the $400 million estate of Alzheimer's-stricken art heiress Natasha Gelman.

A cousin of Gelman claims in the suit that Diamond, and two other lawyers, used "undue influence" over the heiress to get control of the estate. Tyler previously denied any wrongdoing by Diamond in her work on the estate.

Judge Diamond in a Rough Spot

By John Lehmann and Dareh Gregorian
New York Post News
April 16, 2003

Relatives of art heiress Natasha Gelman ( husband Jacques, cousin-by-marriage Alice Jung and goddaughter Michelle Jung) say Marylin Diamond exercised "undue influence" to cut them from Natasha's will.

EXCLUSIVE

FBI investigators probing possible conflict-of-interest charges against a Manhattan Supreme Court justice are now reviewing the judge's role in a multimillion-dollar estate case, The Post has learned.

The new turn in the investigation has agents looking at Marylin Diamond's position as a trustee for the estate of Natasha Gelman, an art heiress who died in 1998 leaving behind a fortune estimated at well over $400 million and an ugly fight over the money, a source close to the case said.

Gelman's cousin, Jaroslav Jung, who's suing Diamond over the estate in Manhattan federal court, told The Post he met with two agents from the FBI's Corruption Squad for more than three hours on Friday.

"We met for many hours and it went very well," said Jung, 56. "They were
extremely interested in what we had to say." A law-enforcement source confirmed the meeting took place, but declined to elaborate.

The suit by Jung and his wife, Alice, charges that Diamond and two other lawyers used "undue influence" to take advantage of Gelman after the Alzheimer's-stricken heiress "was no longer of sound mind" for "the purpose of obtaining and consolidating [their] control over Mrs. Gelman's assets."

Two prior and related legal actions by the Jungs - one in Manhattan Surrogate's Court and one in arbitration in Lichtenstein - were unsuccessful, noted Diamond's lawyer, Paul Curran. He said he's moving to have the current action dismissed because the estate was left "the way Mrs. Gelman wanted it."

The FBI has been looking into Diamond since late last year because of information from "a dissatisfied litigant" charging she had an undisclosed conflict of interest in some bank cases over which she was presiding because her lawyer husband, retired state Supreme Court Justice Franklin Weissberg, now works for a law firm that did work for the bank, the source said.

Jung's meeting with the feds was arranged by Wall Street researcher Anthony DeRosa, who said he's spoken to investigators "several times" over the past few months and has given them numerous documents relating to the conflict-of-interest probe.

DeRosa is a member of the so-called "Diamond support group," a group of about 30 people, mostly men, who feel they've been treated unfairly by the judge.

DeRosa said he started looking into the judge's other cases because he felt she'd made several questionable rulings in his case, a civil action against JP Morgan Chase that he lost.

"I'm a big boy and I can handle losing, but her rulings made no sense to me at all. I do research and due diligence for a living, so instead of working on a company, I went to work on" the judge, DeRosa said.

Two other people told The Post they've been questioned by the FBI in the probe - DeRosa's lawyer, Tom Shanahan, and Gary Jacobs, a "Diamond support group" member who went through a bitter divorce proceeding before the judge.

Diamond's lawyer, retired federal court judge Harold Tyler, has denied there was any wrongdoing or conflict on the part of the judge or her husband. Asked about Jung's meeting with the investigators, he said, "I can't comment on the FBI. They don't let you know when they're doing these things."

Jung, who immigrated to the United States from Czechoslovakia in 1968, has been sparring with Diamond and her two colleagues since Gelman, the widow of art-collecting movie producer Jacques Gelman, died in 1998.

Diamond was Natasha Gelman's lawyer until Diamond was elected to a judgeship in 1991, and her law partner took over the representation. Jung's suit claims that, between 1991 and 1998, Diamond and the two other lawyers got Gelman to sign over control of her estate to them, and that they proceeded to cut the Jung family, Gelman's closest relatives, out of the will and estate planning.

Gelman, the suit says, was diagnosed with "progressive Alzheimer's disease" in 1995 but was obviously suffering from the effects of disease as early as 1991.

Nevertheless, in 1997, Gelman allegedly put together new bylaws for a trust she created in 1993, and named Diamond and her law partner co-trustees.

The suit says that before the trio of attorneys started taking "unlawful advantage" of the kindly octogenarian, the Jungs stood to inherit $21 million. In the end, they were left a total of $10,000, Jung said.  Jaroslav's daughter Michelle - the Gelmans' goddaughter - was cut out completely, Jung said.

Diamond, meanwhile, received $1.1 million, and gets an undisclosed amount
in fiduciary commissions, the suit says. The entire value of Gelman's estate is unclear. She left her $300 million art collection - including works by Bonnard, Matisse and Picasso - to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and her various trusts and foundations have been estimated to contain anywhere from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Diamond and the other lawyers are also being sued by the scientific Weizmann Institute, which was also cut out of Gelman's estate in the latter years of the widow's life. The institute claims it was cheated out of $11 million in a conspiracy, but it blames the other two lawyers for the "scheme to defraud," and not Diamond."No allegations of unlawful conduct herein are directed against Diamond,"that suit says.

Jung and his family had also challenged Gelman's 1993 will, charging she was suffering from Alzheimer's at the time it was put together, but Manhattan Surrogate Court Judge Eve Preminger dismissed that action in late 2001, finding Gelman "was in all respects competent to make a will, and not under restraint," and that Preminger was "satisfied of the genuineness of the will."

In that action, Diamond's law partner contended Gelman was "mentally fit" when she made the changes to her will, trust and foundation, and that the Jungs were the ones who were trying to take advantage of a woman who'd given them plenty of money during her lifetime.

Jaroslav Jung said the Gelmans did help support him and found him a job when he first arrived in the United States, and that they were very generous to him and his family over the years.

"They were always extremely kind to us," he said. "That's why I will never stop fighting for them."

                              Conduct unbecoming
                                    Judge Marylin Diamond

Daily News Editorial
April 4, 2003

Feds Probe NY Judge Diamond

The NY Judge Who Was Previously Accused
 Of Sending Herself Threatening Letters

New York Daily News 
Michele McPhee
New York Daily News 
March 28, 2003

The FBI has launched an investigation into Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond, focusing on possible conflict of interest from the bench, the Daily News has learned.

"I think she's quite corrupt, and I'm grateful something might be done about it," Snowdon said.

      Judge Accused Of Sending Herself Threatening Letters

6 Men Targeting Judge-Say She Ruined
Them Accused Them in Hate-mail Ruse

By Michele McPhee
Daily News Staff Writer
November 12, 2002

Judge Marylin Diamond.   A wealthy New York City contractor. A Park Ave. businessman. A high-profile investment banker. A former talent scout from California. A prominent New Jersey doctor. A Putnam County architect.

They call themselves the Diamond Support Group and have one objective: to get Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond thrown off the bench.

The six men say Diamond ruined them financially during their divorce cases - and then fingered them as possible stalkers who had sent a slew of threatening letters over three years.

The NYPD closed a two-year investigation into the alleged threats after a criminal profiler told cops he believed Diamond wrote the letters herself.

Now the six men, who have been cleared as suspects, want the state Commission on Judicial Conduct to investigate her. They say they're also considering filing a civil suit against Diamond - charging she slandered them.

"We want to band together and get her off the bench, so she doesn't do it to someone else," said Neil Eversole, a former talent scout who now lives in California. "It has been heartening to speak to these other men, because people just don't believe a judge could do what Diamond did - accuse me of a crime, send detectives to my house and then bankrupt me. This judge has so much power to affect your life, she can destroy you - and she will."

Diamond turned over a list of about 20 men to investigators shortly after the letters began arriving in 1999, saying the litigants were potential suspects with possible motives to write menacing phrases such as, "Die Bitch."

Eversol said detectives came to his Sutton Place apartment numerous times during his divorce from a Manhattan bank executive.

Architect Ralph Brill said he was photographed by detectives in Diamond's courtroom during his divorce case.

Park Ave. businessman Tom Snowdon was followed by NYPD detectives for weeks during his high-profile divorce from fashion designer Cathy Hardwick.

The others did not want their names used, fearing that going public could affect their appeals of Diamond's rulings.

"Now that I have talked to a number of other people she accused, it's mind-boggling how apparently crazy she has been on the bench, and how long she has gotten away with it," Snowdon said.

"We've all been terribly beaten up and abused by her," Brill said. "It's been high drama all the way through with her." They've written letters to Gerald Stern, the administrator of the commission, demanding an investigation into Diamond's actions.

Stern refused to comment about a possible probe when contacted by the Daily News.

Seeking others

Brill also has filed a Freedom of Information request to get the names of other people on Diamond's list - so he can reach out to them to join a possible civil suit.

Diamond was shadowed by security, primarily state court officers, for three years because of the series of threatening letters she reported receiving.

Detectives from the threat assessment unit, part of the NYPD's elite Intelligence Division, tried to determine who was writing the hate mail.

The leads turned up nothing, so investigators turned to Ray Pierce, an FBI profiler and retired NYPD detective. Last month, The News reported that Pierce had concluded the 61-year-old jurist was behind the threats.

'Pig in a poke'

Cops have no hard evidence linking Diamond to the letters, and she has denied writing the bizarre rants, said her lawyer, former federal Judge Harold Tyler.

Tyler also defended Diamond's list of suspects, dismissing the group's complaints and its threat of a civil suit as "a large pig in a poke."

"The police said to Judge Diamond they wanted to get names of litigants so they could perhaps corroborate whether someone was guilty of sending the notes," Tyler said. "It is still legal for citizens to cooperate with the police."

Tyler, who was hired by Diamond after The News' stories appeared, also scoffed at Pierce's findings.

"The police have been investigating this for over three years, and there is nothing to this charge that she is writing notes to herself," he said.

Tyler added that Diamond's security detail has ended.

But that's not enough for one Manhattan lawyer, who also was questioned by investigators and is considering joining the Diamond Support Group.

"She has destroyed lives," said the lawyer, who asked not to be named because he is embroiled in a custody battle in front of another Manhattan matrimonial judge. "Some of these guys will never make a comeback."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/34787p-32894c.html

                             Accused Judge Backed

By Greg Gittrich
Daily News
September 16, 2002

One of the state's top judicial officials rallied to the defense yesterday of a Manhattan judge accused of sending herself bogus death threats to get 24-hour security protection.

Supreme Court Justice Jacqueline Silbermann said a criminal profiler's contention that Acting Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond made up the threats was "preposterous."

"She is a terrific judge," said Silbermann, the state's chief administrative judge for matrimonial matters and the administrative judge of the civil division of Manhattan Supreme Court. "It's preposterous."

Several high-profile lawyers who have argued cases in front of Diamond agreed. But other prominent Manhattan lawyers questioned whether Diamond's security detail was necessary.

Diamond, who has presided over many bitter marital breakups, first reported receiving threatening letters three years ago.

When NYPD investigators were unable to find the culprits or even a possible motive, they asked Ray Pierce, a retired detective and founder of the department's criminal assessment and profiling unit, for help, sources said.

Pierce, now a private criminal profiler, reviewed 48 letters and told investigators he has "no doubt" Diamond wrote them herself, sources said.

Pierce pointed out that the threats would intensify when there was talk about canceling her security detail, sources said.

Gerald Stern, counsel for the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, would not say yesterday if Diamond would be investigated. "I just learned about it," he said. "It is premature."

'Irresponsible'

Diamond has vehemently denied being the source of the letters.

Lawyer Bernard Clair, who represented Jocelyne Wildenstein during her divorce from her billionaire husband, Alec, in Diamond's courtroom, called the profiler's accusations "irresponsible."

"There are a lot of cowardly husbands out there who are not used to a woman who stands up to them publicly and without hesitation," Clair said. "Any one of those idiots could be writing those notes."

Attorney Suzanne Bracker said one of her clients was investigated for sending the threats. "I can't imagine [Diamond] would do something like this," Bracker said.

But famed divorce lawyer Raoul Felder, who represented Alec Wildenstein and has had several run-ins with Diamond, questioned why she needed the armed security detail around the clock.

"She came to my office with security," Felder said, referring to a visit last year. "I was taken aback. ... No one in my office presented a danger to her."

Other lawyers, who asked not to be named, called Diamond insecure, unpredictable and egotistical.

But Silbermann, Diamond's immediate supervisor, said, "She is as mature and balanced as any person I've ever met."

Diamond's security detail was lifted the same day the Daily News contacted the NYPD and the state Office of Court Administration about the case.

Law enforcement sources said they can't prove Diamond concocted the threats. A handwriting analysis failed to link her to the letters, although sources said police are trying to bolster Pierce's theory.

               Jewess Judge Diamond Writes Anti-Semitic
           Threats To Herself the Judge's Mysterious Letters

By Michele Mcphee
New York Daily News
Daily News Police Bureau Chief
Saturday, September 14th, 2002

A criminal profiler who analyzed threatening letters sent to a Manhattan judge has concluded that the judge wrote them herself, the Daily News has learned. Since Acting Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond reported the first of the bizarre threats three years ago, she has been guarded virtually around-the-clock by NYPD detectives or Supreme Court officers, according to law enforcement sources.

They escorted Diamond from her upper East Side home to the courthouse in lower Manhattan and from there to her weekend home in Westport, Conn., the sources said.

They guarded her at hairdressing appointments, lunch dates, and social functions - until last week, when her armed security detail was lifted the same day the Daily News contacted the NYPD and the state Office of Court Administration about the case.

"She needed to justify her security detail, so she was writing the letters to herself," one law enforcement source told The News. "It's a crazy case. Detectives were trying to determine who was sending her the letters, and everything was coming back to her."

Reached Thursday at Manhattan Supreme Court, Diamond expressed shock when told of the profiler's findings, then declined further comment.

Later that day, she told the NYPD that two additional letters were sent to her chambers with 9/11-related threats, sources said.

On Friday, Diamond denied she was the source of the letters.

"To allege that I was the one making these threats is totally incorrect and grossly irresponsible," Diamond said in a statement released through David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration.

Husband a judge

The 61-year-old jurist, a graduate of New York University and St. John's Law School, is one of the city's few Republican judges. She was elected to New York City Civil Court in 1990 and appointed an acting state Supreme Court justice four years later.

There, she joined her husband, Franklin Weissberg, a longtime state judge who has since retired from the bench.
For years, Diamond handled divorces, many of them high-profile cases, including that of Jocelyne Wildenstein and her billionaire husband, art dealer Alec Wildenstein.

Last October, she was presiding over the bitter breakup of wealthy investment banker Theodore Ammon and his wife, Generosa, when Theodore Ammon was found beaten to death in his East Hampton, L.I., home.

According to law enforcement sources, when Diamond began receiving the letters in 1999, the case was assigned to the threat assessment unit, part of the NYPD's elite Intelligence Division. Detectives began poring through the judge's case files.

But when investigators became stumped about a possible motive for the letters, they called in Ray Pierce, a retired detective and founder of the NYPD's criminal assessment and profiling unit, the sources said.

Pierce, who was trained as a psychological profiler by the FBI, reviewed 48 letters, typed as well as handwritten. Most were mailed to Diamond at her chambers, though some were sent to her Manhattan home.

Anti-Semitic

In some of the letters, the writer called her a "pig," the sources said. Others were anti-Semitic. Some featured a roughly scrawled heart with a dagger drawn through it. All of them threatened her life.

One of the first letters to arrive in 1999 read: "You bitch. I see you every day on the train. I'm going to ... crucify you. Maybe I'll see you in hell."

Pierce told investigators he has "no doubt" Diamond was writing the letters herself, the sources said.

They said he reached that conclusion by considering a combination of factors: A barrage of letters would come when there was talk of her security detail ending, or during times of terror alerts. After last Sept. 11, for example, Diamond received a letter containing baby powder during the anthrax scare. Pierce also found the letters were written by an "insecure woman," according to sources.

"She has a serious problem. She thrives on attention. She had a security escort to her daughter's wedding, she's very impressed with that," Pierce told investigators, according to one source familiar with his findings.

"There was a vicious theme in all of the letters, but an obvious failure on the part of the person sending them to act. It became obvious after a while it was just a farce," Pierce concluded, according to the source.
Pierce himself declined to comment on the case.

Michael O'Looney, the NYPD's deputy commissioner of public information, also declined comment on the case.

'Credible threats'

Bookstaver defended Diamond's need for security, but would not discuss the cost to taxpayers for three years of 24-hour-a-day protection.

"We do not discuss judicial security. Discussing that may put someone's life in danger," Bookstaver said. "There were persistent, credible, serious threats made against her that were taken seriously, not only by the court system, but by the NYPD."

Diamond is not the only judge who has needed armed guards. For years, the NYPD and court officers have protected Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Leslie Crocker Snyder, who has been threatened by murderous drug gangs. Another state Supreme Court justice, Ira Gammerman, got a security detail when his name turned up on what he was told was a "hit list" allegedly compiled by parking garage magnate Abe Hirschfeld.

Nor is this Diamond's first brush with controversy. In the summer of 2000, the heirs of a wealthy Mexican art collector accused Diamond of using "undue influence" to gain control of the elderly woman's $21 million trust fund. Diamond said she was wrongly accused and a suit filed by the heirs was later thrown out of court.

Her judicial record contains a number of notable decisions, including those in the Wildenstein case and rulings that backed the city's efforts to close sex shops and keep the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association from taking contract disputes to arbitration.

No DNA evidence

For the moment, it seems unlikely Diamond, even if she is the author of the threatening letters, will face any criminal charges. Right now, law enforcement can't prove it, though sources say investigators are hard at work trying to bolster Pierce's theory.

There is no DNA evidence tying her to the missives, and a handwriting analysis also failed to link Diamond to the threats.