If Grinberg is his friend, you would expect Grinberg to verify these DiBlasi's statements. If DiBlasi actually made the statements.

What relevance does this alleged Nazi stuff have to Charney's case? Why does Charney mention it a dozen times? Could it be because he's on a mission to harm S&C's reputation?

If Grinberg confirmed it under oath, say in Court or in a depoisiton, that would be good enough for me.

totally off topic, but has anyone seen this interesting website on the federal judiciary.

http://courthouseforum.com/index.php

they have a "vote for the worst judge" section.

I think S&C has done its reputation in quite nicely on its own.

What relevance? HELLO... the whole thing is about how S&C opened a door to Charney's state of mind and let's face it, this Nazi stuff and all the rest is now totally relevant.

Can I get credit for being the only person with the wisdom to recommend an amicable settlement, before the shit hits the fan?

"I was terrified . . . I was terrified." Oh, give me a break.

Charney now seems unstable and paranoid. S&C now seems unhinged, and not to have particularly good judgment.

Maybe this was an easier route than, say, filing a motion to dismiss and a strongly worded press release about the firm's commitment to equality and improving its work environment. This seems to be the story of two players willing to wreck themselves in order to have the last word. I don't see how this helps the firm strategically or PR-wise. It's as if they lost it, all Charney-like, when his complaint came out and are now willing to destroy the village in order to save it.

"I was so terrified I uncontrollably defacated, which caused me more emotional distress because it reminded me of Krautheimer's poop comments" *breaks out crying*

I personally love the question-- "That's why you took them?" Those sly devils. Wouldn't it have been great if Charney replied, "Yes, because I hated S&C and wanted to defame them--oh, rats, you got me." I agree mostly with 10:32. Couldn't S&C have behaved in a more mature fashion? Sure, private plaintiffs act that way, but big law firms? The way they have handled this case comports completely with the Gestapo asshole firm motif that Charney is trying to portray. They should have just turned up their noses at his drivel; their reaction convinces me of a certain degree of truth, drivel or no, though whether that is anti-gay bias or just that they are all self-important pinheads, I'm not sure. Of course, as has been noted in prior posts, what do their M&A clients care as long as S&C continues to make them money?

Any mention of a job opening in the deposition?

10:47 - You're assuming everything Charney said is true. All S&C has done is claim Charney is on a smear campaign.

I agree with 10:47. The firm is just fighting too darn gard. The other thing is, it makes no sense about them being so concerned about what was on Charney's harddrive UNLESS they have some serious shite they are terrified of ever becoming public.

ooops. too darn ard. the firm is fighting too hard. they "protest too much"

10:51 - Client information needs to be kept confidential, whether it's serious shite or not. Charney on the other hand, had no reason to worry about his personal stuff, unless said stuff was "serious shite" as you put it. What exactly did Charney have on his S&C computer, that he would rather destroy it than return it to S&C?

I mean, god damn, why wasn't the approach, "We're S&C. We're the best firm ever. Our commitment to equality speaks for itself -- as does the quality of our work and our unimpeachable integrity. This case is a minor nuisance and we'll treat it as such. Aaron is a talented but, as has sadly become clear, troubled young man. We believe that we satisfactorily looked into his concerns and that they are baseless. [Cite history of support and promotion for gay attorneys here.] We consider it regrettable that he elected to commence this litigation. This will not distract us from providing quality service to our clients and an excellent work environment for our associates." This would have been easier and more dignified than "OMG man the barricades and crush him at all costs!", with all the embarrassing dirt that comes with it.

Sounds like it was never Charney's idea to destory the computer. Sounds to me like DiBlasi and the boys were the ones who wanted that to happen.

10:50, this is 10:47. I'm thinking of the whole counterlawsuit in particular, which did not seem very meritorious in my mind, nor is the motion to dismiss very meritorious either, especially because it did not assert any real employment law defenses (for example, I don't see any actual connection of the "shit" comment and others with an actual anti-gay animus--this would at least have been worth raising). Instead, S&C wanted to attack Charney where it hurts most for a lawyer (as he did them), with the forsaking of the duty to the client and impugning his integrity as an attorney, and making it even harder for him ever to find work again.

It all smacks of the "we will crush you with our iron jackbooted heel" mentality, don't you think?

Hey 10:54... tell that to the S&C partner(s) who used their client's docs for their own purposes then.

When exactly did S&C say "man the barricades and crush him at all costs?" I don't recall that press release.

I do recall them filing a lawsuit to get back their hard drive, and to get an injunction stopping Charney from smearing them.

10:54: I vote porn. Us gays can't get enough of it.

And then their own head guy told the press he couldn't control everyone at the firm from doing lousy things and that his firm wasn't any worse than other firms. Puhlease. That made them look pretty bad in my book.

So here's the thing right.... the trains are just bever on time in this town. Do think if maybe Gandolfo "Il Dice" DiBlasi was to go to work for the MTA that the trains would run on time?

"Sounds like it was never Charney's idea to destory the computer. Sounds to me like DiBlasi and the boys were the ones who wanted that to happen."

If you take Charney's word for it. The question is, has even his friend Grinberg verified any of this? Grinberg was at the meeting too.

Grinberg works for S&C still, right? Should be interesting when that guy testifies under oath.

This may just be the Duke case all over again. Didn't she claim the alleged "rapists" said racist things too?

10:55 - you are right on the money

10:58 - it wasn't their hard drive, it was Charney's hard drive presumably filled with porn as well as information about his own suit against S&C

11:06, it was S&C's computer.

This is nothing like the Duke case. Learn to make a decent analogy at least.

It was Charney's computer. Can't you people even read the pleadings? ALSO, he was pro se at the time and probably was using it in his case.

Wasn't the Duke case about a person who made false and public allegations in hopes of cashing in?

Oh 11:11. You are just too much of a dolt.

11:11. Let me guess, you think race isn't an issue anymore in America and your fervent dislike for the woman is question has nothing to do with the fact that she is an impverished black woman daring to allege that a group of 40 drunk privileged assh@les roughed her up. They were entitled to, weren't they?

Even though I hate reading your crap, there is one good thing about people like you: you remind me how many losers, bigots, sexists, and racists still exist in our country.

Gallion OUT.

Regardless of what you believe, you should support Charney as an associate. I'm pretty sure the supporters of S&C here are a buncha partners who are scared of the consequences of Charney winning the suit.

Is gandolfo related to mussolini?

Jus wondering.

11:33 - we'll only know when he makes the trains run on time. Otherwise, Italian name aside... he's more like Waffen SS.

Good point. 11:11 is probably Field Marshal DiBlasi himself. Next he'll be saying "see, it's just like the Duke rape case -- you can't trust a jewish gay guy anymore than you can trust a poor black woman." Gott und himmel!

Krautheimer will probably show up soon as 'Anon' with a post that says "hey come on guys, saying 'bend over and take it, i'm sure you like that' isn't ILLEGAL, just a minor error in judgment. Charney is making it all up anyway."

SINKING SHIP GUYS. I don't care how much of a loser Charney may be, there is NO WAY IN HELL he would have put himself through this (because all of this is what anyone who has worked at BigLaw would of course expect would happen) if there wasn't merit to it.

The S&C Reich is falling.

Gallion OUT!

Lat - Why you a tool for Charney?

11:36 -- good one. ha.

Gallion, of course, OUT

How come no one is focusing on this creepy part about Grinberg being deported. Does that mean if Grinberg didn't work at S&C, he'd have to leave? Anyone know the law on that? Does that mean the firm might have been strong-arming him too? If so, it really does make one think that these people are emulating the Nazis.

Dear 11:40 - we already decided that Lat was just a tool and not anyone's tool in particular.

If Grinberg is on H1-B or the equivalent, if he gets fired and finds no other job, he has to leave the country in, I think 30 or 60 days.

If Grinberg is on H1-B or the equivalent, if he gets fired and finds no other job, he has to leave the country in, I think 30 or 60 days.

The most curious thing about the AC depo is his reliance on the Grinberg notes to establish his claims. AC's two most significant claims about what transpired at the Penn Club are (1) he was told to destroy the hard drive (which goes to his state of mind when he did destroy it), and (2) that someone from S&C made a comment that the firm is so powerful that it could represent Nazis and not face any backlash (also may help establish state of mind - fear of S&C; also portrays S&C in very negative light).

It seems a little convenient that AC can only point to the Grinberg notes to support his claim that these two important statements were made at that meeting. Even more convenient is that the notes no longer exist, so we cannot know for certain whether these comments were reflected in the notes. But most curious is AC's claim that he actually saw these two comments in the notes, because there were written on the first page (of a 7x10 page), which he was able to steal a glance at. So really, this all comes down to AC's credibility. Everything that he claims happened, he has only his word to support him. And when he claims that other evidence would support him, so far he only has his own word that such other evidence would support him.

Grinberg will not be deported, dear friends. We are merely going to "evacuate" him to the Eastern Front. There are rooms available in several of our "offices" in rural Poland.

I wonder if the S&C deal partners like to reminisce about old Nazi deals. Korry: "Hey Krautheimer, did you every hear about this really innovative securitization of surplus Xyklon-B stock we did for Himmler in '43?" Krautheimer: "It can't be better than that merger of "Final Solutions, Inc." and "Master Race LLC" we pulled off in '42 -- and we did that while fending off a hostile takeover by those bastards at "Bolshevik Gulag Operations Co."
All partners: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA". diBlasi: "Those were the days, eh Rodg?" H. Rodgin Cohen" "They sure were."

My plan is almost complete.

11:55:

the funny (ironic) thing about your post is that 3 of the 4 people mentioned are Jewish

I know 11:55. But then again.... Torquemada was Jewish too back in 1492 (and I am not talking about Columbus sailing the Ocean Blue).

I know 11:57. But then again.... Torquemada was Jewish too back in 1492 (and I am not talking about Columbus sailing the Ocean Blue).

I know 11:57. But then again.... Torquemada was Jewish too back in 1492 (and I am not talking about Columbus sailing the Ocean Blue).

I know 11:57. But then again.... Torquemada was Jewish too back in 1492 (and I am not talking about Columbus sailing the Ocean Blue).

11:57 -- oh I am very well aware of that my jewish friend. That's the point. A firm full of jews who get off on representing Nazis in all their tough deal work!!!! Can you think of a worse group of people and the face of the earth (aside from the Nazis themselves)????
Thanks, S&C, for confirming the horrendous opinion most people have of lawyers.

Seriously, if the person commenting every few minutes under the name "Gallion" and a few others really needs to get another hobby. Your obsessive defense of Charney and use of the same tropes over and over again seem the signs of some sort of psychological disorder. Dude, the kid had an extremely weak case, decided to augment it by taunting the bull and now he is getting the horns. And making light of false rape allegations that ruined a bunch of guys' lives because jocks deserve it isn't exactly establishing your truth and justice bona fides.

Gallion,

what Duke victim? Do you mean the men who were falsely accused of a serious crime and had there names smeared by a lying stripper and a dishonest , publicity hungry prosecutor.

The charges have all been dropped asshole. The woman should be charged with falsely reporting a rape that did not occur. Why should she get away with a crime just because she is black and leftist assholes like you think whites are evil and all blacks are victims.

If Charney is telling the truth, then why doesn't his friend Grinberg verify the statements?

I think Gallion's posts are great. They are funny at least. Your post was Zzzzz 12:01. Go eat lunch or something and go away.

So now is S&C using the Duke Rape case defense!? It's getting to a point where the firm's UBoat won't be able to sink to anymore new lows!

I also thought Gallion was great, until he started going off on the mis-accused Duke players. Now I think Gallion is one of the ultra-liberal retards in my Criminal Law class.

Dude, what evidence is there that they were assholes (more than an group of jocks)? The prosecutor who may very well be disbarred, or the "victim" whose story is contradicted even by her own friend?

Enough with Duke. It is exactly what S&C's PR machine wants.... to muddy the issues.

I also thought Gallion was great, until he started going off on the mis-accused Duke players. Now I think Gallion is one of the ultra-liberal retards in my Criminal Law class.

Dude, what evidence is there that they were assholes (more than an group of jocks)? The prosecutor who may very well be disbarred, or the "victim" whose story is contradicted even by her own friend?

11:50 - what else is he supposed to point to to support his claims about what was said at the meeting? No one took notes or recorded anything. Of course he looked at the pad when he left, because he knew it was the only record, and he wanted to assure himself that the important stuff was written down.

DiBlasi and Grinberg and someone else are going to be deposed about it, so the truth will out somehow.

I don't know why certain people are so suspicious of his credibility - it's not like the claims in his suit are so incredible. If he were going to fabricate sexual orientation discrimination claims, he could come up with much better acts than what he pleaded. (And it's not the egregiousness of the acts that is necessarily what matters - it's whether he can show that the firm retaliated against him for making a complaint about what he thought was discriminatory conduct.)

I could be wrong, and he certainly has shown some mistakes of judgment, but I think his story--including about the settlement discussion--must be largely true. Whether it is a valid discrimination claim, and whether he should get to bring it, notwithstanding his unsavory and possibly unethical anti-S&C campaign, is a different issue. What is clear is that S&C handled nearly every aspect of the situation extremely poorly.

12:08 -- classic, the firm's U-boat.

And, for the record, the Duke prosecutor is a complete idiot and should be fired and censured. I am not an idiot apologist. I just hate barely hidden racism combined with alleged legal knowledge.

Gallion OUT

12:12

I don't know who you are, but if you read Gallion's posts, he certainly seems to take it for granted that the Duke players were in the wrong both in terms of the rape and in terms of being elitist WASP racist assholes. In light of what has happened in that case SO FAR, this is a pretty stupid liberal law student type approach to the Duke allegations. That I think is where everyone's venom is coming from.

The barrister partnership of Gallion & Spielvogel is extremely concerned about the recent criticisms leveled at our esteemed and prestigious colleague Gallion. As you know, Gallion is world renowned for his evidence spoliation practice. In addition, without Gallion's fantastic expertise, we would never have been able to found the American Association of National Law Networks, which now brings together 7 extremely prestigious Nassau County solo practitioners in a holy legel union blessed by God himself. Please respect Gallion for his many, many, many prestigious accomplishments.

Thank you,
Spielvogel*

*Not admitted to the bar, practicing under the supervision of the partnership of Sullivan & Cramwell LLP

It seems to me that Gallion is saying what most people think but are of course afraid to say. And then we've got 2 or 3 Fox news devotees on here trotting out the comany line. We need more Gallions and less dumbass trolls!!!!

wooo-hooooooo

Yeah, you must be right 12:19. Totally without foundation. Because when was the last time a group of rich white people mistreated a less fortunate black person? hmmmm. See, e.g., the years 1600-2007.

Oh wait, didn't racism in the country arbitrarily end a few years ago? Sure it did.

It seems to me that Gallion is saying what most people think but are of course afraid to say. And then we've got 2 or 3 Fox news devotees on here trotting out the comany line.

Most people who feel as he does are actually pretty loud about their opinions. It is usually the people on th eother side who are afraid to say anything for fear of being called racist.

Can't we focus on the fact that the S&C partners are apparently a bunch of Nazi-loving cretins???

BTW, Gallion's 11:55 post was classic. I can totally see it. He/she is actually pretty sharp.

I would lay out good money that if you deleted everything posted by the person who sometimes calls himself Gallion, there would only be 5 or six comments in this thread.

So would this all make a facist regime of S&C the Fourth Reich?

Enuff said

12:36,

Facism is wrong in all it's forms, whether it's failing to account for a hot body or refusing to listen to Rod Stewart's solo work. I think that's one thing rational people and Gallion/Legion can agree on.

I love hotties.

Yes, can we have some sort of elaboration on this S&C Nazi connection, in a separate post, perihaps? I'm very intrigued.

After its bonus hike, can we please start referring to Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as "Fity-Cent S&C"?

You guys, you guys.

Lay off the poor widdle rich white man-children and their Duke banner.

I mean, with all the instances of oppression against us women and minorities, things were getting unfair and unbalanced. The white man-children have nothing to complain about; we get ALL the cool instances of abuse, injustice, and harassment. And as all of us lawyers know, life sucks when there's nothing to complain about.

You guys have to let them milk this for all it's worth. It's all they've got!!!

I am the new Loyola 2L!

You dolts will eat my dust!

Let me get this straight - someone now anonymously mailed ABC stolen firm documents. OK. That's believable. It's slightly better than, "the documents just magically downloaded themselves onto my computer"

Who mailed him the docs? It must have been a partner. Maybe his buddy Kotran?

2:38 -- the real Gallion would never use the word "dolt". That's a dumb word.

Gallion OUT!

Lawyers rulz! Isn't one of the bases of justice the rule that you can't answer for the crimes of others of your skin tone?

What does the mistreatment of the ancestors of skin color X by the ancestors of skin color Y have to do with the allegations of rape by skin color X against skin color Y?

Gallion and his ilk seem to believe that prior bad acts of people of skin color Y brands all skin color Y types presumptively guilty of any claim by skin color X, regardless of overwhelming evidence (or lack thereof) to the contrary.

Maybe I'm just being soooo tier 2 about this, but clue me in as to why an alleged victim, whose every utterance is in fantastic nonconformance with the facts, should be so heatedly defended to the point of vituperation ("dolts!" "racists!" "bigots!")??

I wonder if there was any depo follow up to the stork delivery of the documents.

Does anyone know of a link to the full transcript of Charney's deposition? If not, can ATL please try to obtain and post it?

To 4:58. Charney's lawyers filed papers yesterday replying to S&C's response to Charney's motion to dismiss the complaint in S&C v. Charney. They attached photocopies of a few pages of the Charney deposition transcript as an exhibit to their reply memorandum. The full text of the depo was not filed with the court, and there is no reason for it to have been filed, unless it had something relevant to a point that the lawyers wanted to make in their arguments.

5:42, I understand all that, and read those papers and excerpts. But I'm most curious to read the full dep transcript (as I'm sure many others here are!), and figured that someone might have been, or could be, able to obtain it -- e.g., from one of the parties, from the transcription service, etc.

responding to last statement of Jo Blo at 5:25 --

"because [you] have half a brain." well said; we all couldn't have described you more accurately than you just did yourself.

Well said, Jo Blo.

Also, 4:49 -- getting wrapped up in "blame" is immature. The issue isn't about blaming anyone for having any skin color. That you see things so black and white (no pun intended) just shows you're an entitled racist.

The problem is that something unjust probably happened to this woman, and she's being discredited unfairly because of 1) her race and 2) her gender. How that has anything to do with YOU just because you're white is inconceivable. What stereotypical privileged bullsh!t. We're talking about real injustices faced by others -- and all you can say is what about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE??????

Grow up and get over yourself.

why do all the people who support the duke accuser also support ABC.

7:08 - I think I am in love.

Yeah 7:30!!!! How could anyone in their right mind possibly support ABC??!!!??? Sullivan and Cramwell represented the NAZIS baby, and we say he is lying!!!! So of course he MUST be lying!!!! Our partnership, a bunch of despicable, truly abusive and totally unsympathetic aggro deal blowhards say he is lying, so OF COURSE HE MUST BE LYING!!!!

We have never been wrong, and we will destroy anyone who accuses us of doing anything wrong!!! Remember Poland! Remember Czechoslokia? The same thing will happen to you!!! ABC IS A LYING BASTARD!!! Remember that and we will let you live!

Please comply with all instructions and you will not be harmed.

Jo Blo and 7:08, is it possible for you to express any opinion without, um, name-calling? Do you think it helps your cause any that you believe those who do not toe your line are bigots, stupid, and too white to know better? It is entirely conceivable that I'm neither white nor male.

Since when did law schools teach their students that argumentum ad hominem counted as evidence or reasoning? is it true among liberal circles that anger and petulant lashing-out count as arguments? Not one person holding your position, that a rape/sexual assault occured on the night in question, on this thread has offered anything other than race-based guilt, childish pejoratives, or cliches about all society is against them and so the black victim must be right. Not counting that "Nice at 8:42" with her unthinking me-too-ism.

7:08, "and all you can say is what about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE??????" --uh, what on earth are you talking about?

straight out:

(1) is there any proof whatsoever that anything anywhere near rape was committed, i.e., anything that justifies your rage here? I mean 3, 4, 5 or 20 guys (her story changes) in a small bathroom, baby batter flying hither and yon, and no DNA evidence pointing towards any of the accused?

(2) as a lawyer, would you put the alleged victim on the stand, i.e., would you put a witness on the stand considering her credibility issues in front of anything other than a Bronx jury?

The beauty of this case is the incredible hubris of the S&C partners. They never acknowledge when they are wrong. I now have five examples to show you.

The first act: Kraut made his nasty comments and Korry spread her homophobic rumors. Charney complained to the partners. No one said sorry. No one amended their ways. Instead, S&C commenced the retaliation campaign.

The second act -- S&C's retaliation campaign: the false evaluation, the exclusion from the summer associate committee, etc. Charney's further complaints went unanswered, except that his evaluation was amended, but even in that case, he was later faulted for having a copy of both the original and the amended evaluation of his own work.

The third act: the threats at the settlement conference. DiBlasi got carried away: he thought he was in his office and he was beating down on Charney in the way he's been used to. No apologies here, either. Instead, at S&C's instruction, the counsel retained and paid by it has destroyed the only written evidence to that effect. But when Charney destroys the hard drive as requested (and compelled) by S&C, he is accused of spoiliation evidence and violating criminal law (note the citations to Penal Law by S&C).

The fourth act: S&C used its client's Goldman Sach's document for S&C's own purposes and without Goldman's permission. When Charney brought that fact to the public's attention via the Wall Street Journal, he is accused by S&C of stealing this document.

The fifth act: Suing Charney in their own right and accusing him of breaching client confidences, citing the New York Disciplinary Rules on Attorney Conduct. Yet it is the destruction of Grinberg's notes by S&C's retained and paid attorney that is the subject of the disciplinary investigation.

How can you all be seriously criticizing who Sullivan represented more than 50 years ago when that law firm is actually representing Islamist terrorists in Guantanamo today!! If they are able to get away with this disgustingly anti-American (and far, far left-wing) agenda, they sure can get away with anything.

I fully agree that S&C is a morally despictable institution for all sorts of reason, but surely not for the reasons that are emphasized by Gallion and the other atheists who lurk around here.

Of course the most die-hard socialists on this site (Gallion and his ilk come to mind here) would probably say not only that representing terrorists is not outrageous, but that it is an objectively good thing.

I doubt that Gallion really is the left-wing lunatic that he is pretending to be. If I had to guess, I would say that he a politically moderate or perhaps even conservative lawyer posing as an absurdly anti-American, anti-capitalist moonbat to make fun of leftists, just as he is making fun of the real Barrister Gallion by posing under his name. I find his comments entertaining and hope he sticks around for a while.

I am pleased to announce that Vince DiBlasi, Andrew Gerlach, Tracy Richelle High, Jessica Klein, Keith Pagnani, Melissa Sawyer, Karen Seymour, and Fred Rich, as Chair, have agreed to serve on a new working group focusing on the recruiting process and the associate experience.  The group has been charged with looking at all aspects of our recruiting strategy and process, and, in conjunction with the Associate Development Committee, our approach to associate career development and every aspect of the associate experience at the firm.   We have no higher priority than continuing to attract the most promising law students, and then to provide them, and all our current lawyers, with training, professional opportunities and an overall experience that is second to none.   I would be grateful if each of you would share your own ideas and suggestions with any member of this group.

Rodgin Cohen

Some ideas and suggestions Rodg: CLEAN HOUSE.... and that includes your lame self.

How come that gay parney Braff, who came shouting out to the world that S&C is the greatest place ever for a gay man to work.... who was part of that whole LEGAL farce, and who was AT the DiBlasi SS interrogation and apprently did ZIP.... manages to avoid scrutiny in all this. Anyone who has looked the pleadings can see that not only is this Braff guy doing all these things but he signed pleadings too.

Even if all ABC says is true--and it's unlikely that it all is true--the next step in the analysis is whether it was reasonable for him to respond by destroying the hard drive. I really don't think so. ABC is an opportunist.

His whole case is based on an off color comment or two he decided to cash in on. He saw an opportunity to destroy evidence and took it. He now claims to be have been very scared. Doubtful. The invocation of the nazis and the 1st amendment is hardly going to engender fear in someone who already took the big gusty step of suing his own firm. (And if his skin is thinner than that, he paints a picture of why he ended up suing his firm.)

ABC stop the charade.

Charney is clearly lying about what happened at the settlement conference.

He did not attend because he was scared: go back and read Lat's postings on
Jan 31, the day of the settlement conference, wherein he set up a poll asking how much money Charney was going to get. Charney went to the conference because he thought S&C was going to cave and pay him and was stunned when instead they told him that they knew he had stolen documents and that they were going after him for stealing the documents. That's when he got scared, went home and destroyed his computer (Feb 1). Sometime in the next couple weeks, he (and likely his lawyers) came up with the defense that he destroyed the hard drive (in direct contravention of a judge's order) because S&C told him in that conference that he had to destroy and send them an affidavit in order for S&C to agree to settle. But he also acknowledges that S&C whole-heartedly did not agree to settle and instead threatened to crush him. So he claims he destroyed the hard drive to further along a settlement that he simultaneously acknowledges S&C was not offering. And then didn't get around to drafting the affidavit until Feb 13.

The kid has completely cracked.

umm.. i know this might be tough for some of the partisans on this board to get, but for diblasi's alleged boast to make any sense, he has to be saying that nazis were very bad.

of course that is accepting that charney is telling the truth. frankly, the guy sounds incredibly unstable (and more than a little weird). who the hell thinks that boiling, then hammering, and then boiling again a hard drive is the proper way to erase it?

"Instead, at S&C's instruction, the counsel retained and paid by it has destroyed the only written evidence to that effect."

Wrong. Did you even read the deposition? The lawyer who destroyed the notes from the meeting was Ginsberg's lawyer not S&C.

and from what we are seeing, there was some dubious stuff going on btwn. Grinberg's lawyer and S&C. SO 11:44 you are not really grasping the real reality much here.

The deposition doesn't say Ginsberg's lawyer destroyed the notes. He put them in a pocket and somehow now they are destroyed. Maybe DiBlasi and Braff strngarmed the guy into handing them over and they destroyed them. Maybe they are not even really gone but S&C is hiding them somewhere. Ginsberg works for S&C don't forget. Maybe they were all setting Charney up.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Grinberg is a schmuck if he let himself get bullied into getting Charney attend the meeting. Clearly Charney's account that Grinberg was worried he was going to be deported is more Charney reading into something than anything, but really, if you are a guy's buddy and he's locked in a dispute, being the errand boy for S&C isn't probably going to remove the stain that is probably already on your career there. Wonder how long after that meeting he got put on paid vacation.

2. I find it amusing that the single page of Grinberg's notes that Charney saw, the very first page, had the reference to Nazis, destruction of the hard drive and "affadavit." Did Diblasi even bother saying hello before he launched into his discussion of S&C's history and demands to destroy computer hardware?

3. I'm glad guys like Diblasi are out there. If he said that stuff, I find it refreshing and hilarious, if only because it plays into some nice stereotypes about lawyers that I didn't think were true.

Since I believe everything Charney says and he has absolutely no motivation to lie and he's proven to be a savory charachter so far - (cough)

let's get to the bottom of the big question: what mysterious person, corporation, conglomorate, or oligopoly really stole the S&C's documents and mailed them Charney, never to reveal themselves:

My guesses are kim jung ill, wal-mart, or isiah washington.

There is always so much rumor about infighting at S&C btwn. the power players there. So many also have way too much time on their hands. I totally believe that documents could have been anonymously sent to Charney. A Junta and Coup scenario is 100% believable.

"There is always so much rumor about infighting at S&C btwn. the power players there. There is always so much rumor about infighting at S&C btwn. the power players there. So many also have way too much time on their hands. I totally believe that documents could have been anonymously sent to Charney. A Junta and Coup scenario is 100% believable."

An example of the use of fantasy in the service of cognitive dissonance. Our hero is saved!

Whoever believes that mysterious strangers stole the powerpoint and mailed it to ABC cannot be for real.

Look, that never happened. You're telling me the same guy who was willing to put ANY AND ALL docs in his complaint somehow has a tooth fairy at S&C willing to destroy his or her CAREER?

This tooth fairy would have to have STOLEN a propritary doc from a CLIENT ( a doc that has absolutely no connection to ABC's claims), and been willing to MAIL it to ABC's HOME, and coincidentally had access to the exact same filing cabinets as ABC--remember it was stolen from a partner on his floor.

Whoever thinks S&C's strategy isn't BRILLIANT on this case is clueless. They've already trapped him in two HUMONGOUS whoppers under OATH-- the "I boiled my hard drive cause I was SKURRED, everybody!" lie and the "Mysterious helper elves stole that Goldman doc and MAILED it to me, I swear!!"

This is excellent for PR purposes. It's not "he said, he said" anymore. It's "this plaintiff is willing to bend truth and lie to serve his purposes."

Even if what ABC is saying IS somehow true, a reasonable person will not believe it. He will look like a lunatic at the SJ stage.

Does anyone know what it would take for Charney to be disbarred at this point? Basically, would S&C need to be the party filing a complaint in order to get him disbarred (did they already?) or could others who know about Charney's actions take steps to get him disbarred?

maybe god stole the documents and sent them to ABC. Since I'm a Charney supporter and believe everything he says, you have to convince me that god *didn't* steal those client documents and sent them to ABC.

Is the full deposition available on-line in PDF or otherwise?

Nope. Only the portions that are relevant to the parties' moving papers have been made public.