Opinion ID: 771991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: 55 Having failed to present any disputed factual issue requiring an evidentiary hearing or any legal issue concerning the constitutional sufficiency of the Southern District's disciplinary proceeding, respondent is hereby disbarred, and his name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys. 56 The Clerk is directed to furnish a filed copy of the within to all parties. Dated: Brooklyn, New York March 18, 2000 CHARLES P. SIFTON 57 Charles P. Sifton, Chief Judge and Chairman of the Committee on Grievances ARTHUR D. SPATT 58 Arthur D. Spatt, U.S.D.J. and Member of the Committee on Grievances DAVID G. TRAGER 59 David G. Trager, U.S.D.J. and Member of the Committee on Grievances FREDERIC BLOCK by CPS 60 Frederic Block, U.S.D.J. and Member of the Committee on Grievances NOTE: 1 Count One alleged that Feinman wrote a letter dated September 19, 1994 in which he refers to Judge Martin's crooked and corrupt decision in our case in violation of D.R. 1 102(a)(5), 1 102(a)(8), and 8 102(b). Count Four alleged that in a motion to recuse District Judge John S. Martin, Jr., in the matter of Groden v. Random House, Inc., et al., No. CV 94 1074, hereinafter, the Groden case, filed on September 1, 1994, Feinman stated that Judge Martin is or was related by blood to, and is or was the brother of Terrence Martin with whom counsel worked . . . [who] would be aware of unfavorable and conceivably pejorative facts relating to counsel for plaintiff. Since the statement was made without the qualification that it was based on information and belief, there was no investigation as to the veracity of the statement, and the statement is false, it is in violation of D.R. 8 102(b), 7 106(c)(1), 102(a)(5), and 102(a)(8). Count Five alleged that, in a letter dated January 11, 1995, to Judge Martin, Feinman referred to his adversary in the following manner: He either accompanies President Clinton to the Mideast as his token New York Jewboy, or takes vacation trips as he pleases, and then thinks that he can just waltz into his law school classmate's courtroom and have his every wish fulfilled. In making this statement, Feinman is charged with violating D.R. 7 102(A)(1), 7 106(c)(6), and 1 102(A)(8). The relevant portion of Count Six alleged that Mr. Feinman, referring to defendants' application to brief the issue of plaintiff's motion requesting the involuntary disqualification of Judge Martin, wrote a letter that stated: I have elected to treat the defendants' application to brief the §144 issue, and their submission, as ex parte. You two fellas can play with each other all you want. I've gone upstairs to speak with The Men. This statement was alleged to be in violation of D.R. 1 102(A)(8) and 7 106(C)(6). Count Seven alleged that Mr. Feinman stated in an affirmation dated October 14, 1994, that the court's opinions are more the product of ill will than of honest intellectual inquiry, in violation of D.R. 8 102(B), 7 106(C), 1 102(A)(5), and 1 102(A)(8). 2 The Southern District initially accepted the panel's Findings and Recommendations on November 4, 1996. However, on November 23, 1996, Feinman made a motion to vacate the court's order based on a claim that he never received notice of the panel's report. As a result, the order striking Feinman from the roll of members of the bar was vacated, and respondent was ordered to show cause on January 11, 1997, why discipline should not be imposed. Thereafter, on February 11, 1997, the Southern District ordered Feinman stricken from the roll of the members of the bar of that court. 3 Case Closed argues that President Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone. 4 It should be noted that the Southern District's disbarment has also been the basis of reciprocal discipline barring respondent from practicing before the courts of the State of New York. See In the Matter of Roger Bruce Feinman, 676 N.Y.S.2d 505 (App. Div. 1998).