Judge Makes Unfounded Accusation against Lawyers in Sater-Connected Case

Due to an  error on my part, a paragraph was dropped from the original version of this article,  which contained my disclosure that I am one of 13 amici, who have filed an amicus brief supporting the motion for disclosure of the Sater documents remaining under seal at the Second Circuit. I apologize for this oversight and have restored the omitted paragraph highlighted in GREEN  in this updated version of the story.

 

 

Eastern District U.S. Judge Pamela K. Chen made a very serious error in a report she prepared for the U.S. Court of Appeals in a case involving Felix Sater, a figure who stands at ground zero of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to undermine the 2016 Presidential election.

She erroneously accused two lawyers, who have been subject to gag orders issued by Eastern District Judge I. Leo Glasser in 2010 and the Second Circuit itself in 2012, of “knowing contravention” of a Second Circuit order requiring that any certiorari from the two lawyers to challenge the Second Circuit’s order “ be filed under seal.”

A review of the papers filed by the two lawyers with the Supreme Court and the Court’s docket in the matter reveals that accusation is incorrect.

The two lawyers are Frederick Oberlander, who disclosed sealed records from Sater’s criminal file in the Eastern District of New York and his lawyer, Richard Lerner, who is the son of former presiding justice of the Appellate Division, First Department, Alfred Lerner.

Oberlander drew the ire of Glasser and the Second Circuit when he used information from Sater’s sealed criminal file in a lawsuit brought in 2010 to accuse Sater of using the cover of his sealed record to perpetuate a fraud that dwarfed the one that led to his guilty plea and subsequent cooperation.

Sater’s 1998 guilty plea was to crimes arising from a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme. In his 2010 lawsuit, Oberlander accused Sater of involvement in a $400 million real-estate fraud in projects involving now President Donald Trump.

A review of the Supreme Court’s docket in connection with Oberlander’s cert petition reveals that on May 10, 2012 Oberlander filed a cert petition in tandem with a motion “for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record.”

Approximately six weeks later (on June 25), the Court granted their motion to file redacted copies of the brief for certiorari, with leave to do so within 30 days. In an entry dated July 13, 2012 the docket states, “Petitioners complied with the order of June 25.” Read the Oberlander cert petition.

To dispel any doubt about that sequence of events, the Supreme Court’s clerk’s office affixed a date stamp of May 10, 2012 in the upper right hand corner of the motion for certiorari and added in a legend in extra-large type across the top of the motion, advising that it had been “Redacted in Accordance with the June 25, 2012 order of the U.S. Supreme Court.” View cover page.

Judge Chen, who sits in the Eastern District of New York, was appointed by the Second Circuit as a special master to sort through claims filed by Forbes Magazine and its star investigative reporter, Richard Behar, asking for the release of any documents remaining under seal under the gag orders it had issued in 2012 barring Oberlander and Lerner from referring* to any of the materials they had obtained from Sater’s sealed file. Forbes’ motion was supported by a group of amici, including former New York Times reporter, David Cay Johnson, Michael Moore and BBC (I am also one of the amici).

*Correction made in the last paragraph reflecting that neither Forbes or amici had asked that the injunctions against Oberlander and Lerner be lifted

©DanielJWise2017

 

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Judge Makes Unfounded Accusation against Lawyers in Sater-Connected Case

  1. Rich Lerner

    Forbes’ and the amici’s motion was to unseal the Second Circuit’s 10-2905 docket, and the documents on the docket, not to lift injunctions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s