Smears, A Murder Contract & Bullying

A little over a year ago I was the target of a smear campaign and murder contract by an ex-boyfriend, Andrew Roffman, who had become a prostitute and drug addict with shady connections.  It's a rather complicated situation because some people with whom I worked in the plaintiffs class action bar purportedly were involved, and Milberg Weiss, the law firm for whom I was working at the time, where the smears were perpetrated now is under a federal racketeering indictment for unrelated reasons.  Moreover, I since have been repeatedly told to shut up over these events with threats, intimidation and harassment.

I.  Smears and a Murder Contract

In March through July 2005 I was working on a document review project at Milberg Weiss for the class action securities litigation against Tyco, and several temporary attorneys with whom I was working viciously began calling me a child molester (see section VII below for the specific details).  During this time I thought the source of this harassment simply was either (1) the product of a particularly homophobic few, and/or (2) retaliation due to my questioning of billing practices and work habits of some of the attorneys involved on the project.  Regardless of the motivation for this smearing, I immediately complained to Kirk Chapman, the firm partner responsible for managing these temporary attorneys on the document review; however, rather than the problem abating after my complaint, it escalated in frequency and intensity.

Finally, in July 2005, I opted to quit the project, and filed a formal complaint over the incidents with both the firm's management committee and my temporary agency, Peak Counsel, that placed me on the project, and specifically advised them that I was not seeking any financial compensation from them for what I endured but simply wanted the culpable individuals referred to the disciplinary committee of the state bar and, if warranted, to law enforcement.  They together performed a perfunctory investigation which turned out to be nothing more than a white washing -- if not an outright cover-up -- of the events.  In August 2005 Milberg Weiss and Peak Counsel both concluded that my complaint was without basis simply because the involved temporary attorneys denied making the statements with which I charged them.  In an email dated August 17, 2005, Arnold G. Schlanger, the President of Peal Counsel, advised me:  "As you know, Peak Counsel was involved in assisting Milberg Weiss in the investigation. While reasonable people may disagree, I personally believe that it was properly conducted and, at this point, is complete."  Mr. Schlanger further advised me by email dated August 18, 2005 with respect to the role of Peak Counsel in the investigation that:

We had several meetings and telephone conversations with Milberg Weiss to detail Peak Counsel's non discrimination/harassment policy, plan the investigation and assure ourselves that it was conducted expeditiously and appropriately.

And yet within weeks of concluding that there was no harassment, Peak Counsel approved my unemployment claim on precisely the harassment of which I had complained.  Accordingly, Peak Counsel now was either admitting the truth of my allegations or committing unemployment insurance fraud.  Frankly, I doubt that Peak Counsel would be willing to engage in criminal fraud in order that I could obtain a few hundred dollars a week for six months in unemployment benefits, and obviously its approval of my claim was a frank admission of the ugly harassment that I endured.  Moreover, I'd be surprised -- although I do not know this for a fact -- if Peak Counsel did not first consult with Milberg Weiss with whom it jointly conducted the investigation of my complaint before deciding to approve my unemployment claim.

Moreover, on February 22, 2006, David Germaine, a plaintiffs' class action lawyer from Chicago with whom I was somewhat friendly and who sometimes worked through his firm on a few cases with Milberg Weiss, was in town on a project and we met for drinks and dinner, and I was floored by what he told me.  Mr. Germaine told me that Milberg Weiss, the law firm at which I suffered the harassment, wanted me to know that it was my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman responsible for the smear campaign, and that (1) he had paid Keith Anderson, a temporary attorney with whom I was working on the document review project, to spread the lies against me, and (2) two plaintiffs' class action lawyers, Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile, partners together in their own firm Sarraf Gentile, with whom I was friendly in New York had an involvement with my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman, and that because they had believed his slander against me the smear campaign gained traction at the law firm at which I was working.  Sarraf Gentile is a plaintiffs class action firm who shopped the CDSS securities litigation case in which I am a named plaintiff to Milberg Weiss.  David Germaine advised me that I'd be well-served to begin distancing myself -- as were others in the plaintiffs' class action bar -- from Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile who had some involvement with my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman.

And then over this dinner I mentioned to David Germaine that I recently had come across a photo of my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman over the internet which looked like a scan from a porn video in which he looked drugged out and roughed up -- including a bruiser of a shiner -- and that he did not deserve that notwithstanding what he had done to me.  David Germaine then asked me:  "would you feel the same way if you knew he was trying to get you killed?"  I asked Mr. Germaine about the particulars, and he told me that Mr. Roffman had some mob connections, and had arranged a contract on my life, and another individual whom I will not identify had intervened to stop the contract.

There was no doubt in my mind that Mr. Germaine was telling me the truth.  First, he had no dog in this hunt, and was a tad uncomfortable in sharing this information with me, and suggested that I should be quiet with it.  Indeed, when I confirmed to him the substance of Mr. Roffman's role in the murder contract against me, Mr. Germaine declined to respond and ceased contact with me.  In an email dated February 26, 2006 I stated:

I just thought since you were so interested in my "mobster boyfriend" on your visit I'd give you his name and number.  His name is ****** and his number is XXX-XXX-XXXX.  As I told you in my earlier email, he was hardly my boyfriend, but some guy from [a NYC gay bar] -- a mobster owned bar -- who seemed pretty desperate to get me into his car only to be annoyed when I rejected him and then a friend of his showed up later and together they scowled at me and told me I should "turn the volume down" -- whatever that meant -- at a time when this whole thing at Milberg Weiss was happening to me due to Andrew [Roffman] -- as you told me -- was paying off Keith Anderson to smear my name and otherwise get me killed.  Wherever Andrew Roffman is today -- his mafia connections notwithstanding -- I hope that the feds get him.  Frankly, I didn't know that mobsters slept with boys; apparently, they do.

Mr. Germaine was quite clear and specific with his representations to me over dinner on February 22, 2006, and there is nothing the matter with my hearing.  Moreover, other information -- none of which I intend on disclosing -- which I know about Mr. Roffman and the individual who purportedly arranged the cancellation of the murder contract against me lends credence to the truth of Mr. Germain's represenations to me.  Suffice it to say that the New York City gay nightlife and sexual underground world has been dominated by the mob for decades, and Mr. Roffman has been an employee within that world including working as a pre-op trans-sexual prostitute for a mob-controlled brothel.  Furthermore, in light of the enduring harassment that I suffered from Mr. Roffman since 2002 I accepted Mr. Germaine's representation that the harassment now had escalated to a murder contract.

After learning some answers from David Germaine on February 22, 2006 concerning what happened to me at Milberg Weiss -- and then some frightening particulars on a murder contract against me -- some past comments that had been made to me made more sense in this new-found context.

For example, one temporary attorney on the document project, Brian Fortunato, had asked me quite out of the blue if I knew what were the ethical standards for a lawyer to go to the police if his client represents an intent to kill someone.  I do not recall exactly how I responded other than generally that "I do not know, and why are you asking me this and why do I care?"  Mr. Fortunato then stated that under New York ethical rules a lawyer is not required to -- but may -- inform law enforcement that a client has represented a plan to kill a person.  At the time I gave the exchange no thought but in light of learning on February 22, 2006 that Andrew Roffman had arranged a murder contract against me, this conversation certainly gained some new meaning to me.  Indeed, I wonder if Keith Anderson, another temporary attorney on the project -- the one whom Andrew Roffman purportedly had paid to spread the smears against me -- represented my ex-boyfriend in criminal proceedings, and if that was the origination of their relationship.  After all, Keith Anderson, the temporary attorney who purportedly was paid by Andrew Roffman to spread the lies against me, in fact maintained a criminal defense practice.

Moreover, Ronald Knox, another temporary attorney on the same project, asked me if I had gotten "involved with some street gang," and how did I "get mixed up with these people?"  I looked at Mr. Knox with a bewildered look, and he changed the subject as if instantly regretting bringing it up but his curiosity simply had gotten the best of him.  Again, in light of subsequently learning that Andrew Roffman had placed a hit on my life, and in the context of the gay underworld lifestyle he otherwise was living, the question asked months ago now gained relevancy in my thinking.

Finally, in July 2005 -- right after quitting my job -- I was having dinner with Ronen Sarraf, one of the plaintiffs class action lawyers whom I had been advised by David Germaine on February 22, 2006 to begin distancing myself from because he and his partner Joseph Gentile had an involvement with my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman.  At this dinner I was incredulously asking Ronen Sarraf how these ugly allegations could have been made against me, and he quite simply said:  "your ex."  When I looked at him rather baffled, and asked "why would the firm protect him" he replied with a smile:  "maybe he had a baby with one of the partners."  The exchange just seemed so vague and absurd that I ignored it as inanity particularly since at that time I had no reason to believe that Ronen Sarraf would have any basis to know the source of the smear campaign.  Mr. Sarraf -- and at the time a purported friend -- then said I should take a long vacation out of the country or just move out of the state, like to Portland, Oregon, and he said it with such seriousness that I incredulously asked back:  "why, is my life in danger?"  And Ronen Sarraf shot back:   "quite possibly."  However, at that time I had no knowledge that (1) my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman had placed a murder contract against me, and that my life really was in danger, and (2) that Ronen Sarraf, together with his partner Joseph Gentile, actually had some involvement with Andrew Roffman the exact nature of which I still do not know.

II.  Subsequent Threats and Harassment

On February 23, 2006 I confronted both Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile about what I had been told the night before by David Germaine, and they denied their involvement with Andrew Roffman and the smear campaign against me, and yet subsequently Ronen Sarraf -- the one who originally had told me that "quite possibly" my life was in danger unless I left town back in July 2005 -- began making not-so-veiled threats against me until I finally just terminated the relationship.  Frankly, I should have ended my relationship earlier as recommended by David Germaine, but I wanted to see if I could glean further information and, quite candidly, I was afraid for my life or other retaliation, and did not want to ring too many alarms in connection with Ronen Sarraf who was threatening me.  These threats included the following:

On March 15, 2006 when I advised Ronen Sarraf that I intend to go to the police about the harassment that I have received from Andrew Roffman, including the smear campaign and murder contract, Mr. Sarraf ominously stated:  "The cops will think you're crazy and do nothing, and then if something really bad happened to you and you really got hurt and you really needed then, then the cops won't be there for you."

On March 19, 2006 Ronen Sarraf called me at my home, and notwithstanding that he otherwise would not have known of my whereabouts the previous night, correctly tells me:  "You were out late last night."  And the he added:  It's not good for your health.  And I don't mean your drinking."  And when I asked do you mean because I "blah blah blah" Mr. Sarraf responded "exactly."

On April 1, 2006 Ronen Sarraf told me not to sue Andrew Roffman because my life will be "at issue," and he will only make "more problems" for me in the future.

Moreover, on May 23, 2006, Skip Moore, another plaintiffs class action lawyer with whom I was friendly -- but who also dislikes Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile who purportedly had an involvement with Andrew Roffman -- tells me more out of concern than as a threat that if I sue Andrew Roffman, then Andrew Roffman and Ronen Sarraf will file a counterclaim against me, and when I protested that I had done nothing wrong Skip Moore stated:  "It doesn't matter, they will make something up."  In this same telephone conversation Mr. Moore also told me:  (1) "perhaps" Mr. Sarraf and Milberg Weiss are protecting Mr. Roffman because Mr. Roffman "may have a mark on their back," and when I asked Mr. Moore what he meant by that he responded that "he may have the goods on them"; and (2) that it was not a mobster with whom Andrew Roffman had contracted to kill me but a "wannabe" (frankly, the distinction is of little difference to me whether the contracted killer was a full-scale made guy or simply one of the thousands of wannabe associates who work for the mob). And then on May 24, 2006, Skip Moore in an email referring to my concerns about threats against me stated:

I have very few friends and I think I have chosen them wisely. My choice for you is to walk away from this, and I hope you stick to that path. We can discuss it further this evening.

Mr. Moore much later explained to me that he simply was acting as "a devil's advocate" on whether I should sue Milberg Weiss and the crew.

My fear in response to these threats is quite real.  After all, I already have been the target of a smear campaign, a murder contract and other harassment, and who knows what else Andrew Roffman, some plaintiffs class action lawyers and others who are involved are capable of.  Unfortunately, there are some quite powerful people with a lot at stake who have a vested interest in keeping me quiet.  Indeed, I have been told that there is a backdrop of organized crime in connection with some individuals, and there is little reason for me to doubt such representations based upon what Andrew Roffman, Ronen Sarraf and Joseph Gentile personally have told me.  Some friends have told me that they believe my telephone has been intermittently illegally tapped because when I've been speaking my voice is dropped, and they hear only clicking sounds and electronic beeps; although I personally have not heard this phenomena I have no reason to doubt them, and recently I have experienced a lot of otherwise coincidental problems with my DSL and phone lines.

Moreover, when I have shown up at different gay bars in town, on several occasions I have been accosted by people who have harassed me in connection with the troubles that I've experienced from Andrew Roffman and his friends which reasonably leads me to believe that my movements are being watched.  For example, on March 19, 2006, Ronen Sarraf, a plaintiffs class action lawyer from whom I previously had received ominous warnings, calls me at my home and, notwithstanding that he otherwise would not have known of my whereabouts the previous night, correctly tells me:  "You were out late last night.  It's not good for your health.  And I don't mean your drinking."  And when I ask you mean because I "blah blah blah" he responds "exactly."

III.  Luna the Mexican Tranny

On October 27, 2005, I was at Candle Bar on the Upper West Side gay bar where I met Luna for the first time, and I believe that the brandy she had me drink was drugged.  Shortly after drinking from her brandy I became disassociated from what I was seeing and hearing with everything appearing and sounding in a detached and dreamlike distance.  When I went to go home Luna and her friends told me that I was too drunk to go home by myself.  Instead, Luna took me to an apartment in the West 140s, and I hardly could keep myself upright or awake, and I remember collapsing to the hallway floor, and then waking up on the bathroom floor with her in what seemed to be 100-degree dry and suffocating heat.

Without describing the brief details, she was attempting to encourage me to have sex:  she was nearly naked, and I was fully clothed, including my leather jacket and hooded sweatshirt, but she had unbuttoned my jeans and her hand was down my crotch.  After several minutes and some clumsy fumbling I finally was able to come to a little bit, and although still cloudy and disassociated in my head knew from my gut that I had to leave.  I had taken off my jacket, sweatshirt and shirt during those minutes, and quickly pulled them back on and got up.  As I was leaving one of Luna’s friends who was with her at the Candle Bar inexplicably came out of a room beside the bathroom asking why I was leaving or if I was leaving, and I just ran out of the apartment to go home.

I told a friend about the incident the next day, and he told me it sounded like I was given a drug called GHB that is a liquid tranquilizer.  Luna and I had exchanged our telephone numbers in the bar, and she called me twice shortly after that evening; however, in light of my concerns I obviously did not return the calls. In all my years of drinking I always had been able to get home regardless of my state, and just knew that I had been given something.

Several months later, on Friday March 17, 2006, after having dinner with a friend, I went to XES, a Chelsea gay bar, and I met a guy there named Michael and bought him a few drinks.  A couple of the guys who worked at the bar told me I should check out Parking Garage, a new uptown bar that recently opened in my neighborhood, and they and Michael encouraged me to do so right then.  So Michael and I took a cab up to this way uptown bar, and on the way Michael said that he wanted to do coke to which I replied that I was not interested in either doing or buying any:  coke is one of those things I've done only a handful of times in my life, and I simply don't like it.  Michael then said that if I found someone to sleep with at bar he still was going to crash at my place.  I firmly answered no, and told him that I intended on going home alone.  He called me an asshole, and I’m thinking tough if you don’t like the boundaries that I’m setting with you as a stranger.

Anyhow, when we finally get to this uptown bar I immediately noticed Luna’s friend who had been at the apartment in the West 140s to which she had taken me, and he was at the bar chatting with a bartender from Candle Bar where I met Luna.  Emboldened by alcohol, and desperate for answers about so many things, I approached the two and asked if he was Luna’s friend and if he remembered me.  He said yes, in a rather friendly way.  And so I told him that a murder contract had been placed on me, and I was concerned that Luna that night was setting me up to get killed.  Luna’s friend told me in a non-plussed manner “that’s not a problem anymore,” and then turned to his bartender friend from Candle Bar and said something in a lowered voice that I could not hear.

The bartender from Candle Bar then said that he knew Luna, and that she frequently was there but that he was not sexually attracted to pre-op trannies.  Luna’s friend then bizarrely told me something like:  “If you like someone, just tell them and let them know. You’re an adult, not a five-year-old kid, who does not need to be told who you can like and what you can do.”  I disagreed with his assessment of me, and it was an odd statement since this guy never had any interaction with me other than my brief encounter with him back in late October.

I wanted to ask if I was drugged that night I met Luna but was a little afraid to ask and unsure how far to push my inquiry, and so I mentioned that back in the good old days how prevalent drugs were at Candle Bar, and my statement seemed to touch a nerve as Luna's friend and the bartender quickly looked at each other.  The bartender from Candle Bar -- who had been fidgeting with his MP3 player the entire time -- said with a nervous smile something like “oh yeah, there’s still drugs there.”  I mentioned that Luna was pretty, and asked some questions about her -- like if she had a boyfriend, how old is she, where does she work -- but didn’t get any specific answers.

Apparently I was not getting any further information, and I casually left them.  Our conversation had not been intense, and actually was rather chatty.  Although I did not get the sense that I was in any immediate danger, there was the tacit acknowledgment that I had been in danger at some point -- the murder contract “that’s not a problem anymore” -- and my concern was, and remains, whether it could be a problem again.

By the way, Michael ditched me at some point without saying goodbye after complaining that I would not look for or buy coke for him at Parking Garage.  So I ended up leaving the uptown bar, getting a couple of hotdogs from across the street, getting a cab to my apartment, crashing into bed, and waking up shortly to throw up.  And thinking:  God, I want to leave New York City.

On Saturday June 17, 2006 I returned to Candle Bar where I had met Luna -- still looking for answers once again emboldened by too much alcohol -- and before I even sat down on a stool a freshly opened cold bottle of beer was offered to me by an older gentleman. In light of my past experience there in which I drank from Luna's brandy I declined the beer.

And then I actually spotted Luna sitting in the back of the bar, and I walked over to her and asked:  "hi, do you remember me?"  She answered no, although I could tell she was lying, but we nevertheless chatted and I gave her a light disarming kiss. Funny enough, she again offered me her drink but this time I controlled holding it -- rather than allowing her to pour it into my mouth too much too fast as on the prior occasion -- and barely let the drink touch my lips as I took only the tiniest sip. I did not taste anything unusual but still declined to drink anything more from it in light of my past experience.  (A friend later told me that GHB is tasteless in alcohol anyhow, and that I was smart not to drink further.)

I brought up my concern that someone had been trying to get me killed, and she said without a blink that it was all in my mind.  Curious that she was so quick with that answer without asking the basis for my concern:  particularly when she purportedly did not even remember meeting me.  In any event, it was clear I was not going to get any information, and after briefly chatting some more I disengaged myself.

The next morning -- Sunday at 8:40 -- I received a call from Ronen Sarraf, the plaintiffs class action lawyer who previously had made ominous threats to me.  The call surprised me because I expressly had told him that I no longer wanted any contact with him:  people who threaten me are not my friends, and I had been told by another plaintiffs class action lawyer, David Germaine, on February 22, 2006 to break away from Ronen Sarraf and his law partner Joseph Gentile precisely because of their involvement in the smear campaign and murder contract against me.  I declined to answer the telephone call but did find it odd thought that he suddenly chose to ignore my instructions not to contact me -- so early in the morning at that -- the very night after I again had bumped into Luna.

IV.  Shouted Down on the Upper East Side

On Sunday evening, June 4, 2006, I was at O.W., an Upper East Side gay bar, with a friend of mine.  After he left, I stayed around for a few more cocktails.  The bar has a back patio for smoking, and while I was sitting on a bench against the wall running along the patio's width two guys came outside and sat near me.  We shortly began talking, and I began bitching about the recurring troubles I have been experiencing.

And as we're chatting these two other guys -- a 50-something guy with grey hair, a belly and a big round face, and a 20-something little waif-like twink -- come out to the patio about midnight or so; however, rather than sitting together, they sit opposite and diagonal to each other on benches against the opposing walls running the patio's length.  I noticed them rather quickly as the patio otherwise was empty, and rather than smoking, drinking or socializing -- the usual activities in a gay bar -- they simply sat there with quiet attention to my conversation and periodically looked at each other in a familiar rather than cruisy way.

Anyhow, after several minutes, the fifty-something guy bursts into my conversation, and loudly, obnoxiously and angrily tells me that no one cares about my personal problems and I should shut up.  I stand up and let loose a tirade of invective at the old fart -- although he manages to squeeze through that he's "rich," for whatever point that was worth -- and then the waif-like twink interrupts, apparently to defend his fifty-something man, and tells me that I should settle this outside with him.  Frankly, I was not sure what there was to settle since my conversation into which they injected themselves was none of their business, but anyhow I tell the twenty-something twink that we're already outside, and to come and get me if he wants unless he's just a pussy.

Well, sure enough the twenty-something waif-like boy gets up and walks over to me, and when we're belly to belly he slithers his forearm up my chest and reaches for the adam's apple on my throat:  with the tips of his fingers he firmly but still somehow gently squeezed it.  In response I took a swing at him but being a tad drunk, and accordingly in clumsy slow motion, he pulled away as my fist grazed by his jaw.  And then the fifty-something man tells his boy to get the bartender, and the bartender throws me out without willing to hear from me what happened. 

The event was absurdly surreal.  Why did this oddly-matched couple come out into the patio without a smoke or a drink only to aggressively shut me down from an independent conversation that I was having with another couple and of which they were not the subject?  Frankly, I'm convinced that it was related to the continuing harassment and intimidation that I had been receiving to keep quiet about the smear campaign and murder contract.  I mean, only recently I specifically had been told by Ronen Sarraf that "it's not good for my health" to go to the bars precisely because I talk too much about those events.  It was as if the older and younger men were acting on cue, and once the fifty-something guy stopped me from telling my story he became almost smug, and then remained suddenly quiet as the twenty-something one challenged me to a fight.  There was something rather calculated and deliberate behind the couple's coordinated behavior.

In any event, the two guys with whom I had been speaking before I was shut down by the other two had some good insights into the troubles I have been having over the last year.  For example, one of them said that the threats and other harassment may not be serious but designed only to drive me crazy enough to kill myself so they don't have to do it.  Somehow, that was not an insight -- while interesting -- that made me feel any more safe.  And he also said my ex-boyfriend probably was not whacked, as I had been told by some, but simply is hiding out, and that if someone does not want to be found it's rather easy because they just cancel their credit cards and go on a cash basis.

However, this guy still said some things with a sinister spin although perhaps not intentionally so.  For example, he said:  "give me a call when you find him" as if to say my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman never will be found.  However, I never said that I was looking for him; rather, I simply had expressed some concern that he had disappeared due to foul play in connection with the murder contract that he had initiated against me.  Moreover, when I was complaining about all the prank telephone calls that I had gotten from Andrew Roffman prior to their stoppage in December 2005, this guy says it was just a recovery "transition" from our earlier romantic relationship.  But we broke up in 2000!  Isn't nearly six years later an odd time for my ex-boyfriend suddenly to enter into some "transition" state with me?  And what about the smear campaign and the murder contract against me?  Surely those are not part of some delayed or otherwise ordinary "transition" process.  Right?

V.  The Best Western Presidential Hotel

On the weekend of July 14 -16, 2006, a friend of mine, WB, whom I briefly dated and had not seen in a year returned to New York City for a visit, and was staying at the Best Western Presidential on 48th and 8th Avenue in room 820.  I stayed with him there much of that weekend except for Saturday night.  On Sunday afternoon -- after we had returned from mass at St. Patrick's -- he left the hotel room at 2:45 to attend a voice lesson, and I stayed in his room on the bed watching tv.  WB told me that his voice lesson was scheduled for four o'clock, and that he would be back at six.

At about 3:10 somebody opened and closed the door, and I assumed it was WB returning to retrieve something that he may have forgotten although from my position on the bed I could not see around the wall into the entrance way.  The door then opened and closed again, and I thought the event was a little odd.  I got off the bed to check out who would be in the hallway, and when I checked no one was there but the door to room 818 was closing.

When WB returned at about 5 pm -- saying that he had taken the wrong train, canceled his voice lesson appointment and returned to the hotel early -- I told him about the incident. He said there was only one key card to the room which he had, and that it probably was just a maid who left upon hearing the tv in the room. That very well may be but I doubt it.  First, there was no knock, and maids usually knock. Second, the room already had been made up earlier in the day. Third, there was no maid's cart in the hallway.  Fourth, don't maids usually keep the doors open when they enter a room to clean it?  Fifth, if it were a maid, don't they usually just say "excuse me" and ask if the guest minds if she does whatever she needs to do?  And finally: after leaving my room and I opened the door, why did the purported maid skip 819 to go into 818 and close the door behind her?

The strangest part was that WB was insistent that I not go to the hotel's front desk or advise law enforcement over this incident.  Moreover, later that night when we are together, WB says that I should immediately should move out of New York within the next week to avoid the people who have been harassing and intimidating me, even if it means just throwing some clothes in a garbage bag.  I asked what's the point since these people obviously have a reach beyond the city, and he said my ex-boyfriend, Andrew Roffman, is being "protected" by the mob and Milberg Weiss, and even if it's not fair I have to leave town in order that the mob not pursue me.

WB left town for his home in South Carolina on Monday July 17, and I spoke with him over the phone on July 26 again telling him that I was becoming ever more suspicious that it was not some maid who walked in and out of the room.  WB actually got a bit angry with me, and said that there could be 1000 variables as to who entered and left the room.  For example, he said that earlier that weekend he saw some kid reading a book wandering the halls and checking the door handles to all the rooms. And my response was that what is the likelihood of (1) that happening twice, (2) happening within 25 minutes of WB leaving for his voice lesson, and (3) WB leaving the door not shut which otherwise locks automatically?  And again he was insistent that I not advise law enforcement over the incident.

WB called me on the morning of July 27, and tried to smooth over his defensiveness about my wish to report the hotel room incident to law enforcement and said he simply was upset over the long-term effects on me that the harassment against me has had.  And then, incredibly, he says that even if I did go to the police they would not be able to determine what happened because there was only a security camera in the lobby.  How the hell would he know that, and why would he bother to find out where the security cameras were located in the first instance?  And then when I told WB that the person had gone into room 818 after leaving room 820, and that investigators could simply check the hotel's registry, he quickly became quiet which is quite out of character for him.  He then changed the subject, and started defending Milberg Weiss at which I experienced my troubles by saying that at least it did tell me -- albeit through an intermediary -- what happened, and since it involved a temporary lawyer, Keith Anderson, whom my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman purportedly had paid to spread the lies against me I should not blame Milberg Weiss and at least my life had been spared from the murder contract.  Furthermore, WB then stated that "you don't know what they [Milberg Weiss] have on you," and suggested I would be wise to keep quiet.  I reminded WB that Milberg Weiss officially denied what happened notwithstanding its explanation through the intermediary, David Germaine, and refused to go to law enforcement with what it knew.  WB then lamely tried to bait out of me whether I had taped the conversation with David Germaine, and I told him he does not need to worry about that.

On July 29 I directly asked WB if he had anything to do with the incident in light of his odd insistence that it was just a coincidental fluke about which I should advise nobody, and his subsequent odd defense of Milberg Weiss.  He immediately became agitated and hostile, and rather than simply denying it or reassuring me asked how I could suggest such a thing to a friend.  I responded by telling him that in the last couple of years I have witnessed several friends betray me which I previously never would have suspected.  I in fact was once friends with the people who initiated the smear campaign, arranged the murder contract, and bullied me into silence with threats and intimidation.  WB abruptly said he was going to eat lunch and hung up.

WB called me back later in the afternoon, and denied any involvement.  And yet the facts -- beyond his insistence that I tell no one about the hotel room incident and his subsequent defense of the plaintiffs class action law firm -- seemed to suggest otherwise.  Prior to booking the hotel room at the Best Western Presidential hotel he actually had been booked at another, and when he made the change called me to make a pointed explanation for the change.  Moreover, prior to his arrival to New York, he pointedly told me that he would be attending a voice lesson from 3 to 6 on Sunday afternoon, and that I could nap there while I waited for him.  On Sunday evening July 16, after my exhausting and terrifying year -- and knowing how disturbed I was by that afternoon's events -- he exploits my emotional vulnerability to insist that I should tell no one about what happened and move out of town as quickly as possible to avoid the mob rather than providing me with some understanding and compassion.  And irony of all ironies, I did meet him in the fall of 2003 at the very same Upper West Side gay bar -- Candle Bar --with which my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman had a connection and at which I had troubles from Luna, the Mexican tranny.  Although my friend had been very supportive of me in the couple of months leading up to Sunday, July 16, this support actually had been relatively and unusually recent.  Finally, I had been receiving a lot of pranks calls, hangups and "wrong numbers" over the last couple of years, and WB promised in a conversation a week or two earlier that they would stop, and sure enough, they have since that day.  Mere coincidence?

WB concluded our July 29 afternoon conversation by saying that if I can't trust him, then maybe we should not be friends.  Maybe WB was giving me my answer in that ultimatum.  All I know is that I have been through descending levels of hell in the last couple of years, and whether WB thought the hotel room incident was coincidental or not, I was taken aback by the utter lack of sympathy he had for me over this disturbing event, and his responses belied his purported innocence.  And so I told him let's not talk again.

And yet he then called again on July 31, and told me he had nothing to do with the hotel room incident.  But only he and one other person knew that I would be there, and I know in my gut it was no coincidence about someone walking in and out of that room at the precise moment I was alone.  And then in this conversation WB tells me that he "can never be convicted of anything" because he's a "declared incompetent." 

The irony is that before this incident on Sunday afternoon I otherwise had a wonderful weekend with WB which was a nice change after the several troubling months I endured:  we saw Altar Boyz on Friday night, we did some shopping, went to St. Patrick's for Sunday mass, ate at our favorite restaurants, went to a couple of bars, and did a lot of walking.  And when I slept with him on Friday and Sunday nights I did feel safe, and for a great part of that weekend he did help me realize that not all people are bad and with him I was loved.  And then that Sunday everything snapped, and since then he had gone into a full reverse.  I am sick of drug-addicted gay men.

VI.  Emotional Aftermath

As a threshold matter, I think that probably the only crime that possibly could be greater than the act of child molesting (well except for something like murder, organized crime and terrorism) is to so falsely accuse someone for malicious purposes.   This is so because a false accusation not only has the effect of minimizing the seriousness of real instances of abuse -- much like people dilute the horrible tragedy of the holocaust by comparing it to less substantial (let alone false) events -- but it further has the effect of undermining true claims which must bear the burden of being sifted out from false accusations.  Any one who would make false allegations for their own ulterior motives really does not care about the suffering of children who experience real abuse.  And what I emotionally suffered in experiencing a smear campaign predicated on such allegations, and fighting against them over the last year, has put me on an emotional roller coaster from hell that has left me by turns depressed, afraid and angry:  only now do I feel that I have some distance from the events in order to begin addressing my feelings.

I have nothing but contempt for Milberg Weiss at which these events happened to me from March through July 2005.  The reason for my contempt against the law firm is three-fold.  First, it is a plaintiffs class action firm presumably concerned with rooting out fraud and wrongdoing.  And yet when the law firm had the opportunity under its own roof to expose the truth and provide justice it chose instead to engage in a white washing of events.  Indeed, when I attempted to point out the deficiencies of Milberg Weiss's and Peak Counsel's investigation into my complaint, I specifically was told by them that the matter is closed.  Second, Milberg Weiss has been federally indicted, and in the media touts itself -- at least for public relations purposes -- as representing the powerless victim against the powerful corporations.  And yet how quickly Milberg Weiss was willing to sell me out presumably to protect more powerful others.  Third, simply as a moral and ethical matter, it simply is outrageous that it was aware of horrible smears and harassment -- let alone threats -- against a human life, and instead chose to wash its hands of the matter.  All of the harassment and threats that I have endured since leaving Milberg Weiss in July 2005 could have been avoided if it had done the right thing by going to law enforcement with what it knows.

The smear campaign which I suffered by several temporary attorneys at this law firm was probably the most hellish experience that I have endured in my forty-five years of life.  When I heard the first couple of comments I simply shrugged them off.  After all, people sometimes just say weird things or drop comments to which no meaning can be attached:  that's a lesson one learns relatively quickly in New York City.  But the statements that were directed to me became more intense and more frequent over time.  Just imagine working in a large conference room with a dozen or so other people, and they all are looking at you with accusatory eyes, and alternatively providing the cold silent treatment and snidely baiting you with accusations of child molestation.  I was in the crucible; I was the subject of a witch hunt.

The experience was nothing short of a mind fuck that has left me -- particularly in light of the threats subsequent to the smear campaign, other incidents of which I will write about in future posts, and the purported organized crime back drop of which I  later learned -- literally afraid to leave my apartment.  In the beginning I simply could not understand why such accusations were being made against me, and I was rather baffled.  But as it continued I began questioning myself:  first I ran through in my head everyone with whom I ever had slept -- which really was not that difficult an exercise, particularly since in the last several years a date has been at best an annual event for me -- and the fact is that I knew everyone with whom I ever had been, and the allegations were absurd.  And then I ran through in my head everyone with whom I had ever even flirted with or kissed or squeezed in a bar.  Or chatted with on a street corner.  Or merely looked at from afar.  I was exhausting myself obsessively running through my mind what could be the conceivable basis on which such ugly accusations were being made:  what could they know that I did not know?  It came to the point that I was starting to feel guilty just by so many people proceeding as if I were guilty.

And then after I learned the purported truth on February 22, 2006 from David Germaine -- that the smear campaign had been a manufactured event paid for by an ex-boyfriend with shady connections who also was trying to get me killed -- and I further started getting ominous threats from Ronen Sarraf who with his law partner Joseph Gentile reportedly had an involvement with Andrew Roffman, I started to get both angry that Milberg Weiss had chosen to let these purported facts escape the attention of law enforcement, and afraid to leave my apartment.  Based upon what I was being told -- and as future posts will better illustrate -- I understood that my life was in a precarious state due to some connected people.

And even if killing me would be difficult for people to get away with -- after all, I have told a few people about my plight and predicament, and now the digital world -- then what if these people who tried to smear me decide to go the next step by trying to frame me?  I have one friend, Skip Moore, who distantly knows these shady people, and he expressly warned me -- more as friendly advice I assume rather than a dire warning -- that if I sue Andrew Roffman over this matter then he and Ronen Sarraf who has threatened me will counter-claim against me even if they have to "make something up."  And Mr. Moore further told me that he hopes I walk away from this and stick to that path.

Good God.  Why would I leave my apartment against this backdrop?  And so I try to stay as close to home as possible.  And when I do go out to a bar I'm suspicious of the motives of any stranger who approaches me.  And on the street I'm too paranoid even to look at a kid walking towards me, or stand next to one at a crosswalk waiting for the light to change.  My ability to trust and to enjoy the most ordinary human exchanges and encounters has been destroyed, and my security in navigating the world has been taken away.

And now I'm angry.  That is why I am telling my story.  I once heard that eventually the truth always will win.  Always.

I have known for many years from personal knowledge -- none of which I intend on disclosing -- that organized crime permeates gay nightlife in New York City.  Indeed, gay bars were a creation of the Mafia, and for 50 years constituted a criminal enterprise on which it had an exclusive monopoly.  Although legitimate businessmen -- some gay, some not -- began cautiously entering the industry in the 1970s, and more so in the 1980s and 1990s, surely no one really thinks the mob has gone gently into the good night.  And what about the gay sex clubs, porno stores, whore houses and prostitution rings?  To say that the Mafia has abandoned gay culture -- the culture it created and controlled -- is about as silly as J. Edgar Hoover saying that the Mafia does not exist.

I often think these days about the darkness of gay culture -- all the sex, all the drugs, all the coldness -- and conclude how could it not be dark when the rulers of our world include organized crime families and so many of the bar flies which inhabit that world are petty hustlers and drug addicts who, in their own right, sometimes go on to do quite horrible things?  It is the world of gay noir to which no one wants to admit for fear of giving any ammunition to those who seek to deny our rights.  And yet I wonder how much criminal wrongdoing must we continue to cover up for political expediency?

The fear under which I live has paralyzed me.  Several weeks ago I came home one night, and suspected that someone had been in my apartment.  Since then I have become afraid to leave -- not wanting to provide that person with the opportunity to return -- and remain a prisoner in my home.  I leave only for brief moments once or twice a day:  once in the late morning or early noon to get two cups of coffee, a pack of cigarettes and some cash from the ATM, and then perhaps once again in the late afternoon for another pack of cigarettes and a six-pack of beer.

To say that I am outside of my apartment each day for 15 minutes is an overstatement.  My meals are ordered from local restaurants that deliver to my door; my human contact is limited to courteous exchanges with the store clerk from whom I purchase my coffee and smokes each morning, and an every-other-day phone conversation with one of my few remaining friends.  I feel that I have become "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock":  "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."

I do not sleep at night -- although that's more of a function of my night owl inclinations than a result of my predicament -- and listen to George Noory and Art Bell on Coast to Coast radio from 1 to 5 in the morning:  the show is extended format, and they have in-depth interviews with highly intelligent people who have unconventional takes on the world.  I usually fall asleep at 5 just as Curtis Sliwa begins his morning show with the latest rant against John Gotti, Jr.

The mobster from the Gambino crime family currently is on trial for ordering the 1992 shooting of Mr. Sliwa, and the jury now is out with its deliberations.  This is Mr. Gotti's third trial on the charge because the first two ended up with hung juries.  The issue that hung up the first two juries was whether Mr. Gotti had left organized crime as he contends in 1999.  If Mr. Gotti withdrew at that time from the criminal conspiracy for which he now is being prosecuted, then the five-year statute of limitations expired prior to his indictment.  Frankly, how can there be any doubt that Mr. Gotti still is a member of the family?  There's an old saying:  there's only one way into the family, and only one way out of the family.  In other words, as long as Mr. Gotti still is alive, he still is a Gambino.

The reason I write this blog is to maintain at least a virtual connection with the world, and yet I feel that it is the last knot on my rope before I become lost to the sea.  Each night before I go to bed I pray to God that He saves me before I drown.  Unfortunately, I am more of a brainy man than a man of faith, and I know that often evil does prevail:  at least on this earth and in this world.

I admire Curtis Sliwa for his tenacious courage in not bowing to the goons who tried to shut him down.  One of the reasons why it took so long for law enforcement to prosecute Mr. Gotti is because the NYPD's 9th Precinct which covers the East Village in New York City where the shooting occurred refused to accept the possibility -- let alone investigate -- that the Gambino crime family had anything to do with the incident as Mr. Sliwa contended from day one.  Of course, the East Village -- including a gay bar or two -- long has been controlled by organized crime, and the 9th Precinct certainly has had its fair share of dirty cops.  But Mr. Sliwa persisted, and eventually one of those involved threw the other guilty parties under the bus which provided a basis for the federal indictment against Mr. Gotti.

I wish I had more of Mr. Sliwa's courage.  A few months prior to the shooting Mr. Sliwa also had been the victim of a baseball bat attack -- a "hospital beating" as it's referred to by mobsters -- from the Gambinos which, sure enough, put him into the hospital as intended.  How did Mr. Sliwa emotionally survive these incidents, and then for nearly a decade continue with his life knowing that he still was a marked man but not believed by law enforcement that the Mafia was behind it all?

Eventually I must escape from my terror-induced paralysis.  If for no other reason than because I am running out of money and must return to work.  Although I resigned from the bar -- having become thoroughly disgusted with the plaintiffs class action racket and the lawyers who further the scheme -- and no longer maintain my license to practice law, I must find the strength to go back into the world to earn a living however simple and humble it may be.  Indeed, at this point in my life, a job among the book stacks of a library at 10 bucks an hour with quiet discussions among brainy co-workers at lunch is quite appealing.  But more importantly:  I want to engage with life and people again.  I miss being touched and touching someone, having a boyfriend, and being loved and loving someone.  If only I had more faith and courage, and less doubt and fear.  I once heard years ago that it's okay to be afraid but one still must act regardless of the fear:  faith does not prevent the occurrence of evil but simply allows one to move forward in the face of evil. 

The reality is that even isolated in my apartment those who threatened me still could reach me if and when they want and decide.  My cocoon merely is an illusion.  After all, I still go out once or twice a day, and it only takes a moment to whack someone.  Just the other night when I was researching the history of the Mafia control of gay bars in Chicago, I learned about Al Capone's favorite method of setting up his murder victims:  "A typical Capone murder consisted of men renting an apartment across the street from the victim's residence and gunning him down when he stepped outside."

The irony to learning of Mr. Capone's set up method is that the apartment next door to me has been vacated for the last several weeks, and just this last week a string of people daily have been coming in and out of it throughout the day.  I presumed they were workers renovating the apartment, but I must confess the three twenty-something Mexicans I saw yesterday afternoon in the hallway going into the vacant apartment looked more like gang members than construction types, and none of them had the dust-covered paint-splattered look of tradesmen.  And they all gave me this smile that wasn't friendly in a casual way but warning in a knowing way.  The Mafia can get anybody into any place if it wants:  it's called organized crime for a reason, and its infrastructure has been in place for a century.  Of course, these days I am interpreting most events that are not part of routine or customary occurrence as sinister, and I accept nothing at face value anymore.

This is the state in which I have been left, and I feel there is no place where I am safe from harm.  There are times when I think how joyous and beautiful the world could be but for the insistence of man to foul it.  Isn't 99 percent of all the pain caused in our world a function of intentional human behavior rather than acts of God?  I can imagine what the Garden of Eden was like before Adam and Eve were expelled from the state of innocence for eating the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Sadly, we never have returned to the Garden of Eden but I don't believe it's because humanity is eternally condemned to that original sin; rather, I think most people simply enjoy rolling in the mud with the pigs because they lack the creative imagination and open hearts to conceive of any other existence.

10/07/06 Update:  As I explained above I'm petrified not only to leave my apartment except for a couple of brief times each day to get coffee, smokes and beer, but cannot even stand to be in the vicinity of kids in light of the child molesting lies that my ex-boyfriend Andrew Roffman dumped on me at Milberg Weiss.

Today was a classic example of what I'm talking about.  I left my apartment about 12:15 to get my morning coffee and smokes, and as I'm returning back to my building up the front walk this little kid comes running up behind me to the door waiting to be let in.  I stopped in my tracks and turned 180 degrees on the path, and went to do an errand at another store in the neighborhood.

Perhaps I'm being paranoid but I simply do not want to be seen next to a kid.  There's something about being called a child molester that makes one gun shy about being around them.  And I'm not so sure it's just being paranoid but fear of being set up and framed in any context in which I would find myself within 10 feet of a kid.  After all, I already was smeared once with these allegations, and there was a murder contract against my life which purportedly had the involvement of organized crime in its originations and subsequent cancellation.  Perhaps I am unusually sensitive today because the prank hang-up calls have been happening again in the past three days, and all the unusual renovating activity in the apartment next door to me with people constantly going in and out for the last few weeks has me suspicious.  How long does it take to paint an apartment, and why so many people to do it who never appear to have dust and paint on them?  In light of what I know and the threats that have been made against me to keep silent, I perpetually am in fear of what could happen to me.

And then today -- with my alternating fears over the last year between being killed or framed -- I read an article by J. J. Maloney, a former reporter for the Kansas City Star, who in the 1970s broke the story of mob corruption in the city.  He wrote that because of his investigation he always took his girlfriend with him where ever he thought there was a chance he could be set up or framed by the mob:

I frequently took her with me when I went anywhere there would be danger of the mob setting me up. I was far more worried about being framed than being shot.

Indeed, he took this precaution because of any earlier -- and rather complicated -- attempt he had learned about a set up against him:

A former Kansas City Times reporter called me to the Muehlebach Hotel and told me that some liquor agents were going to set me up on a drug bust. (The ex-reporter was then working as an organizer for the bartender's union.) He said they'd enlisted the aid of a waitress at a 12th Street bar I frequented (Mafia owned), and she was going to ask me to drive her home. Her boyfriend, a policeman, was going to pull me over and find a bag of grass on the floor of my car. At the time I was still on parole from a life sentence, so a bust would have meant my going back to prison. I called the night supervisor of liquor control, met him at another Mafia-connected bar near my home, and talked to him about it. He said, "You can't blame those guys (agents). They think you're following them around town, trying to get them fired."

After that I limited my watering holes to places owned by people I knew well. Then a relative of Joe Cammisano's called and said they had a state representative working to have my parole revoked. (I taped the conversation; when they learned I had taped it, there were no more conversations like it.)

I really identify with what Mr. Maloney went through.  I've been subject to one smear campaign already -- and what better way to justify it subsequently than with some frame job -- and already had one murder contract on my life.  Couple that with the string of threats over the last year, and I am quite simply nervous all the time.  Unlike Mr. Maloney, however, I do not have a witness to bring along with me for protection; rather, my response has been to hole up in my apartment.  I do not think that people understand the power of the mob:  it's not just the ability to gun someone down in the street; heck, anyone can do that.  Rather, the power of the Mafia is in its infrastructure by which someone could be framed -- as attempted with Mr. Maloney -- through a series of relationships involving state officials, a waitress, a mob owned bar, and a police officer.  Indeed, Mr. Maloney learned that his newspaper office had been broken into one night, and files stolen.  Just recently I felt my apartment had been entered while I was out one evening, and that was when I stopped leaving my place.

This is a horrible state of mind in which to live, and I have knocked on every law enforcement door complaining about what has happened to me for more than the last year, and I pray that I am being protected.  I wait each day 23 3/4 hours a day alone in my apartment praying for justice and waiting for relief.  Sometimes I wish that the murder contract against me never was cancelled, and my ex-boyfriend's mob connection just whacked me; death seems preferable to the hell in which I now live.  Mr. Maloney only was vindicated years later by FBI wire taps on the wrongdoers; I hope my wait is not that long.

VII.  The Smear and Harassment Campaign At Milberg Weiss

Since 1998 to the present I have worked as a so-called temporary or contract attorney on large document reviews principally for plaintiff class action firms in New York. I worked for Milberg Weiss through an agency from approximately June 1998 through June 2001, and then most recently from March 28, 2005 to July 19, 2005 which defines the time period during which the smear campaign against me was perpetrated (and during which I observed incidents of possible billing fraud.)  I also am a client of Milberg Weiss, and currently am named plaintiff in its federal securities lawsuit against Citadel Security Software, Inc., 05-CV-00203 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

I am gay man, and have been "out" -- for lack of a better word -- since my college days where I was president of the Gay/Straight Alliance which, under my direction in 1983, received extensive news coverage throughout the Northeast, including feature stories in The Boston Globe, Bay Windows, and Gay Community Newspaper, for our efforts in being one of the early organizations to raise the issue of the ban against homosexuals in the military. I have remained involved in gay politics to varying degrees over time, including as a freelance writer on gay political and cultural issues, and have been published several times in XY Magazine which is a nationally distributed lifestyle glossy for gay youth sold in bookstore chains such as Borders and Barnes & Noble.

Over my professional years I have experienced or otherwise witnessed numerous instances of homophobic attitudes if not outright discriminatory behavior. However, I never -- until my most recent tenure at Milberg Weiss -- have much complained against such instances due largely to the fact that I do not believe that people should be called to task for every ignorant comment they make, particularly if there is no malice. That being said, my experience at Milberg Weiss has been the single most vicious homophobic experience I ever have endured as a gay man, and I believe that the comments and behavior directed against me rises to the level of slander and harassment.

A. The Smear and Harassment Campaign

My start date at Milberg Weiss was March 28, 2005, and I was assigned to review documents in the federal securities fraud litigation against Tyco. I was hired by Milberg Weiss as a "temporary attorney" through the agency of Peak Counsel, and assigned to sit in a large room with several other "temporary attorneys" hired through various legal agencies based in Manhattan who also were reviewing Tyco documents.

In my first few days I immediately was subject to overt homophobia in the Tyco room through the comments of David Fein, Esq. Mr. Fein spent a great deal of his time during the day running through the roster of male Hollywood stars who he pronounced were gay. At one point -- perhaps during my second week on the job -- I asked Mr. Fein "why are you so obsessed with the sex lives of the celebrities," and he replied "I like to take celebrities down a notch because they're so arrogant." As if "outing" a celebrity is taking him "down a notch." Of course, from Mr. Fein's homophobic perspective, perhaps being gay is of an inferior caste. After all, a week or so following this exchange, Mr. Fein announced to the full Tyco room: "No parent wants a gay child. No parent wants their kid to be gay." Mr. Fein then proceeded to quiz several people in the room in an attempt to confirm his ignorance: "Don't you agree? Would you really want to have a gay kid?" Monique Karin LaPointe, Esq., another temporary attorney in the Tyco room, asked me: "Didn't you find David [Fein] to be homophobic." I quickly and succinctly replied: "yes." Milberg Weiss terminated David Fein in or around the last week of April 2005 because, upon information and belief, he was, among other things, downloading inappropriate material from the internet, playing computer games, and looking at celebrity and gossip web sites rather than performing his job.

Brian R. Fortunato, Esq., initiated the smear campaign by innuendo suggesting that I was a child molester. I sat directly beside Mr. Fortunato in the Tyco room, and during my third or fourth week on the project I told Mr. Fortunato that I had gone on a date the prior evening. He turned to me and derisively asked: "And so how old was he this time?" His comment certainly took me by surprise, and I must have given him a double-take. On no previous occasion had I ever discussed any of my prior dates -- really, a semi-annual event for me at this point in my life -- with Mr. Fortunato or anyone else in the room, and so his snide query of the particular age of my date was a little odd, if not off-putting, to me at the time.

However, subsequent statements by Mr. Fortunato made it more clear that he had a particular message he wanted to convey to me. For example, Mr. Fortunato stated to me perhaps a day or two later that there is a particular mathematic formula by which to determine the youngest age that is appropriate for an older individual to date. It was obvious that the "age appropriate" formula that Mr. Fortunato recited to me was for my benefit, and not his own use. First, only a day or two before, Mr. Fortunato snidely had asked me "how old was he this time" in reference to my date. Second, Mr. Fortunato is a 28-year-old male and -- presuming the girls he was dating were otherwise of legal consent age -- I failed to see on what conceivable basis he needed a formula by which to calculate how young his dates could be. In the next day or two Adria Lopez, Esq., another attorney on the Tyco document review project, sat down beside Mr. Fortunato, and explained to him the same "age appropriate" dating formula that he earlier had recited to me. Furthermore, one day Mr. Fortunato advised that he saw The Woodsman with Kevin Bacon. "It's about a pedophile" he tells me. "Yes, Brian. I know. Is there anything else?"

Within the next couple of days a few incidents occurred that began to define an uglier pattern among my professional colleagues involving more vicious comments against me by which the themes of homophobia and "age appropriate" dating were replaced with implications, innuendo and suggestions that gay men generally -- and me in particular -- are child molesters.

The shift in the tone and the viciousness of the remarks was initiated by Clayton Giles, Esq. Mr. Giles sat only two seats away from me to my right, and he exclaimed out loud in an otherwise quiet but full room one day: "Why is it that it's always men molesting little boys. You never hear about men molesting little girls. It's always little boys. Like the only two cases I know involve the Michael Jackson case and the Capturing the Friedman's case. They both involved men molesting little boys, not little girls. Why is that?" I had looked over to Mr. Giles as he delivered his statements, and he had his chair pulled back from the table at which he sat, was looking directly at me, and seemed to be waiting for a response from me.

The direct implications of Mr. Gile's statements were patently obvious. First, feeding into an old bigoted stereotype, Mr. Giles was stating that only gay men were child molesters: "it's only little boys, and not little girls, who get molested by men." (As detailed on the website of the People for the American Way "[t]he most incendiary element of . . . anti-gay efforts is falsely equating homosexuality with pedophilia.") Second, it was clear that Mr. Gile's comments necessarily were made with homophobic intent; after all, can he really state with any credibility that he's never heard of any cases involving men molesting little girls? Finally, in light of the more subtle suggestive comments earlier initiated by Mr. Fortunato, and coupled with the fact that Mr. Giles was looking directly at me with his statements, the implication that Mr. Giles thought homosexuals -- and me in particular -- were child molesters was clear.

Accordingly, that very day I reported Mr. Gile's statements to Kirk Chapman, Esq., a partner at Milberg Weiss. Mr. Chapman really did not want to hear my complaint. First, he stated that "a lot of people share the belief" that gay men are child molesters. Of course, simply because a comment may find wide support does not make it less homophobic. Second, Mr. Chapman stated that the comment may be appropriate because it was in the context of the pending Michael Jackson case, and a news story is a perfectly legitimate topic of work place discussion. However, regardless of whether a salacious story is appropriate to discuss in the work place, it certainly should not be used as a platform by employees at work to express offensive and misguided beliefs. In any event, Mr. Chapman stated that he did not find Mr. Giles to be of the homophobic sort, and -- although I had known Mr. Giles only peripherally for a matter of less than a month -- I agreed with Mr. Chapman. In all fairness, Mr. Chapman did invite me to submit a formal complaint if I desired but I declined, and instead chose to talk the matter over with Mr. Giles who apologized for the comments that he admitted could be understood as homophobic although that was not his intent. At that point I accepted Mr. Gile's apology at face value, although in retrospect it appears my graciousness in accepting his apology was misguided.

In the following days several references to homosexuals and child molesters were specifically directed at me, and it now was beyond doubt that several of the temporary attorneys in the Tyco document review room were engaged in a harassing campaign to smear me as a child molester.

For example, one afternoon as I was eating some candy at my work station, Adria Lopez -- mentioned earlier in connection with Mr. Fortunato -- walked by me and sang out the proverbial child molester pick-up line: "hey little boy, do you want some candy?" Several people in the room laughed, and Ms. Lopez acknowledged to the room : "you guys liked that one, huh?"

Another individual involved with the smear campaign against me is Keith Anderson, Esq. On one occasion Mr. Anderson, who sat directly across from me, looked up from his terminal and bellowed out at me: "you know Phil, a lot of people think that homosexuals are child molesters." Why Mr. Anderson felt compelled to so advise me is beyond me. Frankly, I submit that Mr. Anderson either was trying to express his own homophobic opinions under the cover of merely reporting others' beliefs, or he was attempting to suggest that I was a child molester. On what other conceivable basis could Mr. Anderson have been proceeding in making such a gratuitous statement specifically directed at me?

And on a subsequent occasion Mr. Anderson drew a cup of water from the cooler directly behind my work station, and as he drank it he told me about a priest in Boston who had sex with an entire family. "Is this a joke" I asked. "No, Phil. He slept with the entire family: the mother, the father, and the two boys." I politely told Mr. Anderson that the priest's behavior is between him and God, and that frankly I did not care, at which point Mr. Anderson in a booming raised voice emphasized: "They were underage boys." He stormed out of the Tyco document review room, and I was left wondering why unprompted stories of men molesting little boys specifically were being directed at me.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Anderson was terminated by Milberg Weiss on or about July 22, 2005 in response to an internal investigation it conducted upon my complaint concerning his behavior directed against me during Memorial Day weekend when I queried whether he was appropriately tracking his time for billing purposes. The events of that Memorial Day weekend are discussed separately below in section B.

Ronald Knox, Esq., is another temporary attorney who specifically directed unprompted stories of child molestation to me on two occasions.  On the first occasion Mr. Knox walked over to my work station, and he gratuitously announced to me that he never can forgive the Catholic Church for covering up its sexual abuse scandal. I looked up at him, somewhat dumb-founded how out of the blue the subject of child molestation once again was being thrown quite specifically into my face. However, this time I actually may have laughed, and told Mr. Knox : "try not to let your anger at the church turn to anger at God." And Mr. Knox defended that he did not hold it against God but merely wanted to emphasize how wrong it was for the priests to have molested the boys. "Well, Ron" I interrupted "I'm glad to know for the record that you are officially against child molestation." He walked away, appearing flustered and frustrated, but undeterred he returned a day or two later to my work station with another story of child molestation. On this second occasion Mr. Knox told me that a teacher he had in grade school had groped nearly every child in the class behind the desk -- with the notable exception of Mr. Knox -- and that child molestation was wrong. "Yes, Ron" I replied "child molestation is wrong." Mr. Knox continued standing speechless before me for a moment before once again walking away from my work station in apparent frustration.

Finally, Catia Lewin, Esq., another temporary lawyer on the Tyco document review, who also was appointed by Milberg Weiss as the "supervisor" of all the temporary attorneys reviewing Tyco documents, stood up in the middle of the room one morning to announce -- while looking at me -- that on her morning train ride she sat next to a women who was highlighting the words "child molester" in a article she was reading. She went on half a dozen times explaining how odd and weird that this woman was highlighting the words "child molester" in the article. And I'm thinking: "and the point to the story is?" Upon information and belief, Ms. Lewin is an attorney admitted to the New York bar.

Frankly, I never have been in an environment in my entire life in which there were so many people obsessed with child molestation, and the frequency with which this issue was specifically directed in conversation to me in such accusatory and hostile tones and in such a brief time frame (all of the preceding conduct occurred between March 28 to May 27) leads me to a pretty logical conclusion: either (1) my identified professional colleagues were reactionary homophobes, which is entirely possible; or (2) someone in that room got the notion that I was molesting little boys, and somehow convinced several others to make the environment uncomfortable for me. It is clear that these individuals were acting in concert, and there simply were too many sustained instances in such a short time frame in order to explain them away as innocent and meaningless coincidences. Indeed, to the contrary, these hostile comments were accusatory by their innuendo, implication and suggestiveness, and the malicious intent is evidenced both by the frequency with which these comments were made directly to me and the further fact that were spontaneously made "out of the blue" without any rational supporting context or logical conversational appropriateness to justify their utterance to me in the first instance.

B. Possible Inappropriate Billing: Memorial Day Weekend Events

Many of the individuals who participated in this smear campaign against me may have been involved in inappropriate billing against Milberg Weiss, and perhaps my questioning of billing practices may, in part, have been their motivation for harassing me with suggestions, implication and innuendo that I was a child molester.

I became suspicious of the work habits and billing practices of several of the temporary attorneys working on the Tyco document review at Milberg Weiss soon upon my arrival based upon all of the social conversation and internet surfing that I was witnessing. Needless to say, all workers must take some "down time" or "break time" throughout the day, and indeed, breaks are an integral part of the work day and lead to production efficiency. However, I witnessed, in my opinion, an overwhelming amount of unprofessional goofing off -- more so than I have witnessed on any other project on which I have worked -- that ran uninterrupted into spans of hours. And I hoped that such time was not being billed to Milberg Weiss. However, I specifically asked Brian Fortunato one day "how much billing fraud do you think is going on here," and he expressly replied "probably a lot." Indeed, to what extent Mr. Fortunato can address the basis for his conclusion only he can answer. However, my opinion is that his answer may, at the very least, reveal an admission concerning his own billing issues. I sat directly beside Mr. Fortunato from March 28 to May 27, 2005, and personally observed an inordinate amount of his time spent surfing the internet, making dates from match.com and playing interactive chess games on Yahoo. Moreover, on many occasions he would appear to stop working by late afternoon but continue to remain on the job site, socialize, get dinner and eat on premises, and then promptly leave. I have not seen his time sheets that he submitted to Milberg Weiss or his temporary agency, and accordingly, cannot state whether the extensive down time he enjoyed throughout the day was inappropriately billed.

Another attorney of whom I had suspicions concerning inappropriate billing was Keith Anderson. Mr. Anderson, in addition to performing document review in the Tyco room, also conducted parts of his private criminal defense practice out of the Tyco room. Moreover, in addition to working in the Tyco room, he also sometimes reviewed audit workpapers in connection with the Tyco litigation on another computer database in a separate room. During the times that he was not in the Tyco room my assumption was that he was in this other room reviewing the audit workpapers. However, Clayton Giles -- who also had the responsibility for reviewing these audit workpapers in the other room -- one day told me that Mr. Anderson often would "disappear" and not be working in either of his assigned workstations.

On Saturday May 28, I was attempting to do my work in the Tyco room but Mr. Anderson, Ms. Lopez and Derrick Diggs, Esq. were engaged in a lengthy social conversation that literally endured for hours. At one point I stood up, and politely requested that if they intended on continuing their conversation for much longer would they mind taking it outside or into a conference room in order that I could work. Mr. Diggs later that day advised me that he was "put off" by my comments, and that if I needed to work then I should go to a conference room or a private office. However, as I advised Mr. Diggs, Milberg Weiss office policy requires that I work only at my assigned work station, and since he and the others were not actively working it would be much easier for them to take it outside since conversation could be done anywhere but I could only work in the Tyco room. (Mr. Diggs works at Milberg Weiss on the Tyco document review only during the evenings and on the weekend as a part-time second job, and on one weekend day Mr. Diggs actually took a nap at his work station.)

The next day, Sunday May 29, the only four individuals again present in the Tyco room were Mr. Anderson, Ms. Lopez, Mr. Diggs and myself. At one point Messrs. Anderson and Mr. Diggs left the room -- as they often did -- and Ms. Lopez engaged in the following colloquy with me. She asked me if I knew why Kirk Chapman, Esq., the partner at Milberg Weiss under whom the temporary attorneys on the Tyco document review worked, did not make me an offer to be a permanent associate. I said no, and then Ms. Lopez stated: "It's not because you're a Republican . . . . It's not because you're gay . . . ." And then immediately as Ms. Lopez's voice trailed off, Messrs. Anderson and Diggs as if on cue entered the room and took their seats. Mr. Anderson -- the attorney with the private criminal practice -- picked up the desk phone at his station and, after apparently dialing a call, bellowed into the receiver in a loud voice as he looked directly at me: "No. I'm sorry that I cannot get your son into protective custody. Protective custody is only for notorious criminals. Like child molesters. Or open homosexuals." Mr. Anderson then rather quickly hung up, and I asked him how he tracked his time for work directed to his criminal practice because in all the numerous and lengthy conversations in which I observed him on such matters I never saw him making contemporaneous notes, and I wondered how he segregated his time between (1) his private criminal practice, and (2) his services to Milberg Weiss on the Tyco document review. Mr. Anderson in response became so enraged and bellicose that I feared for my safety and left the building.

I made a complaint to Milberg Weiss by email on Sunday May 29, 2005, immediately prior to leaving the building, relaying the weekend events. Milberg Weiss investigated my complaint and, on information and belief, terminated Mr. Anderson on or about July 22, 2005. Indeed, Carla Fredericks, Esq., a temporary attorney on the Tyco matter who recently was made a permanent associate at Milberg Weiss, told me that she had heard about my problem with Mr. Anderson over the Memorial Day weekend. Moreover, she advised me that she too had had problems with Mr. Anderson, and the reason that she stopped working weekends was due to concerns over her safety in his presence when there was no Milberg Weiss supervision. Furthermore, Ms. Fredericks stated to me that she had seen his time sheets for a recent week in which he billed 51 hours, and that in her opinion he was not at his work station nearly long enough to support that amount of billable time.

On May 31 I asked that Mr. Anderson be removed from the Tyco room because I did not feel safe around him and, when that request was declined, I asked to be removed from the Tyco room. My latter request was accommodated. On that day I was moved into another room where Ronald Knox, Esq., also sat. Mr. Knox was transferred out of the general Tyco room a few weeks earlier to this room. Accordingly, I had the opportunity to closely observe his daily work habits until July 19 -- my last day of work -- and I estimate that he spent a good part of his day on non-work matters. Mr. Knox repeatedly told me "don't rock the boat."

C. Subsequent Events: Milberg Weiss Investigation

By July 20, 2005, I had become increasingly frustrated by Milberg Weiss's failure to terminate Keith Anderson in light of the Memorial Day Weekend events. And as I further advised Kirk Chapman, Esq., a partner at Milberg Weiss, by email on July 20:

I have several questions that I hope you can clarify about some statements, comments, and innuendo that were directed against me by several people, including Keith. * * * I am rather upset by what has been happening and why I am being victimized by some, and would really like to determine the source and origins and clarification of what has been happening.

Mr. Chapman and I spoke over the phone on July 21, 2005, and he advised me that Keith Anderson would be terminated by the close of business July 22, and he told me that the firm waited so long before terminating him after my complaint because the firm needed to "collect evidence" to support the termination in the event Mr. Anderson brought legal action against Milberg Weiss. Mr. Chapman then asked me if I could let the matter go, and I replied that there still were several open questions concerning who actually originated the smear campaign against me, and whether there would be disciplinary action against the other temporary attorneys who were involved. Mr. Chapman again asked if I simply could let it go, and further stated that he "can't have Milberg employees suing each other." Clearly Mr. Chapman was aware what had happened against me in the Tyco room, and his statement appears to indicate both (1) that he is aware of the source of the slander against me, and (2) that perhaps the source is a Milberg Weiss employee.

In that July 21 2005 telephone conversation, Mr. Chapman further asked if I would accept a simple explanation for the smear campaign against me, and stated that the temporary attorneys in the Tyco room merely were "teasing" me because I had defended Michael Jackson. As I advised Mr. Chapman by email dated July 22, 2005:

With respect to the innuendo and baiting smear campaign that was conducted against me by several of the temps on the Tyco project as we discussed yesterday, I really do not believe that it had anything to do with my defense of Michael Jackson. Indeed, how could my defense of a man based on the evidence lead anyone to want to tease me about child molesting? Moreover, this campaign against me began before I ever said a word about my belief in the innocence of Michael Jackson, and the likelihood of his acquittal. For example, this all started when I mentioned to Brian Fortunato that I had a date the prior night, and he derisively asked me: "So how old was he this time?"

I again renewed my request "to know the source of how this smear campaign by innuendo and implication against me was started," and by Friday July 22 Ariana Tadler, Esq., a partner on the management committee of Milberg Weiss, called to advise me that the firm would launch a formal investigation into my complaint. I specifically have advised both Milberg Weiss and my temp agency Peak Counsel that I am not interested in money from Milberg Weiss; rather, as I advised Milberg Weiss on July 23, 2005:

I request that a full investigation be made into this matter, and that appropriate action be taken against the responsible individuals including referral to the district attorney's office and/or the bar authorities as necessary, and I would like to know the results of the investigation, including the identity of the source from which the slander originated.

I met with Ms. Tadler on July 26 and relayed to her most of the events outlined above, and then again on August 12, 2005 during which she disclosed the results of the Milberg Weiss investigation. The substance of the August 12 meeting is set forth in the following August 13, 2005 memorandum which I emailed to Ms. Tadler:

Thank you for meeting with me on Friday, August 12, 2005, concerning the results of your interviews with respect to my harassment complaint against several temporary attorneys on the Tyco project. I unequivocally stand by all the allegations that I made both in my memorandum dated July 23 and at our meeting on July 25.

In sum, it appears that the responses by the individuals fall largely into three categories: (1) a flat out denial by the individuals of the statements I attributed to them; (2) an admission that statements were made but with an alternative explanation for the context of the statement; and (3) an honest admission that the statements were made. From my recollection of our meeting only Clayton Giles admitted the truth of my allegations and, at the other end, Keith Anderson and Adria Lopez were in flat out denial, particularly with respect to my allegations concerning the events of Memorial Day weekend. It appears that most of the individuals involved opted to explain away my allegations. Without going through each one, I find these explanations uncorroborated, substantively untested and inherently incredible. Of course, as a threshold matter, the involved individuals have an obvious interest in denying or explaining away the allegations. An admission could, at best, cost them their jobs and, at worst, expose them to disciplinary action by the bar authorities.

For example, with respect to the statements that I attributed to Mr. Knox, I alleged the following in my July 23 memorandum:

Ronald Knox specifically walked over to my work station from seat in the Tyco room, and he gratuitously announced to me that he can never forgive the Catholic Church for covering up its sexual abuse scandal. I looked up at him, somewhat dumb-founded how out of the blue the subject of child molestation once again was being thrown quite specifically into my face. However, this time I actually may have laughed, and told Mr. Knox something like: "try not to let your anger at the church turn to anger at God." And Mr. Knox defended that he did not hold it against God but merely wanted to emphasize how wrong it was for the priests to have molested the boys. "Well, Ron" I interrupted "I'm glad to know for the record that you are officially against child molestation." On another occasion, perhaps even that day or shortly thereafter, Mr. Knox again approaches my work station with the story of how teacher he had groped nearly every child in the class behind the desk -- with the notable exception of himself -- and that child molestation was wrong. "Yes, Ron" I replied "child molestation is wrong."

According to you, Mr. Knox admits the first encounter in fact occurred with me, but he purportedly explains it away as motivated by an article he read concerning a class action settlement by the Catholic Church of its sex abuse scandal, and that he merely wanted to discuss the class action principles involved as an academic matter. I would like to know if Mr. Knox's version was tested. For example, what article in what paper did Mr. Knox read that suddenly prompted his desire to discuss the issue with me? Moreover, if we were discussing the class action principles involved what did I purportedly say to him? Indeed, what did he purportedly say to me? Finally, is Mr. Knox's version of this encounter corroborated by anyone?

Of course, Mr. Knox's credibility is highly suspect -- if not eviscerated -- by his complete lack of any explanation concerning my second encounter with him in which he told me the story of a childhood teacher who had groped nearly every student in his class. Mr. Knox admits that that the story of his childhood teacher is true but simply cannot recall discussing it with me. Obviously, if (1) he admits that the childhood story is true, and if (2) I am aware of that same story, then (3) he necessarily told me about it. I find it inherently incredible that he can recall this unfortunate childhood story from 40 odd years ago but he cannot recall bringing it to my attention. Did you ask him if he ever discussed this childhood story with anyone in the Tyco room? If he recalled the last time he related this childhood incident with the teacher to anyone? Did he have any idea how I otherwise would have learned of this story if not from him? Is there any particular reason why he would have felt compelled to share this childhood story with me? Indeed, is this childhood story that he felt compelled to share with me even true in the first instance?

Furthermore, I do not find the responses by any of the individuals in your interviews to carry any unique credibility -- as you contend -- merely because they were interviewed separately and not provided advance notice. In fact, the interviews did proceed over at least a couple of weeks, and it does not seem a stretch in logic to surmise that those who were interviewed earlier in the process advised the others that I had made a complaint concerning the harassment campaign involving their innuendo, implication and suggestion that I was a child molester. It seems that the involved individuals had ample time both to talk with each and develop a seemingly innocent explanation for the incidents at issue. Of course, the pattern of so many incidents -- regardless of after the fact explanations for tem -- in and of itself belies any innocent motivation for their perpetuation.

Indeed, as I previously advised you, Kirk Chapman was seemingly aware of the harassing smear campaign against me. As I advised Mr. Chapman by email dated July 20:

I have several questions that I hope you can clarify about some statements, comments, and innuendo that were directed against me by several people, including Keith. * * * I am rather upset by what has been happening and why I am being victimized by some, and would really like to determine the source and origins and clarification of what has been happening.

Mr. Chapman and I spoke over the phone on July 21, and he advised me that Keith Anderson would be terminated by the close of business July 22, and if I could let the matter go at that. I told Mr. Chapman that there still were several open questions concerning who actually originated the smear campaign against me, and whether there would be disciplinary action against the other temporary attorneys who were involved. Mr. Chapman again asked if I simply could let it go, and further stated that he "can't have Milberg employees suing each other." Mr. Chapman further asked if I would accept a simple explanation for the smear campaign against me, and stated that the temporary attorneys in the Tyco room merely were "teasing" me because I had defended Michael Jackson. Mr. Chapman was seemingly aware of and conversant with what had happened against me in the Tyco room, and his responses seems inconsistent with the explanations and denials offered by the involved temporary attorneys. Did Mr. Chapman provide an explanation for the substance of this July 21 conversation with me if none of the underlying events occurred -- according to the involved temporary lawyers -- as I allege?

Finally, the series of questions that you directed against me on August 13 are -- to be charitable -- inapposite and a distraction to the matter at hand. Did I once say after Fleet Week that I found men in uniform attractive? Yes. Did I once tell -- I believe it was Clayton Giles -- that I had an ex-boyfriend visit me who denied me sex? Yes. Did I make a crude gesture concerning what I thought of the merits of any opposition that the Tyco defendants could put forward in response to our class certification motion? Yes. How do these "incidents" reflect personal attacks directly upon any of my co-workers? And how does it show any ill will towards them? Were these complaints made in response only to my harassment complaint? Or were they pre-existing? Moreover, so the record is clear, I never gratuitously offered that Derrick Diggs would look good in leather pants. Adria Lopez was going on in her near-daily general tirade about how disgusting she thought Mr. Knox was, and she was relaying to me that he had several pairs of leather pants. She told me that the thought of him in leather pants was revolting. In contrast, Ms. Lopez then told me that Mr. Diggs was quite the specimen of a man, and did I think he would look good in leather pants. I replied "yes." As I am sure you are aware, there are extensive allegations between Mr. Lopez and Mr. Knox concerning sexual harassment issues.

In any event, thank you again for conducting your interviews of the individuals who are the subject of my harassment complaint. I hope that you carefully weigh the credibility between me and those individuals before deciding that there is no basis to my allegations. The mere fact that some deny the allegations and others explain them away hardly seems dispositive.

Can I have a copy of any notes or other documents reflecting the responses the individuals provided to you in the interviews?

In response to my above quoted August 13 memorandum concerning the deficiencies of the Milberg Weiss investigation, Ms. Tadler curtly replied by email to me dated Aug 15:

As we discussed in our meeting on Friday, August 12th, Milberg Weiss, in conjunction with Peak Counsel, conducted a thorough investigation into your concerns, including an interview of you as well as approximately 13 other persons. The investigation encompassed all of your allegations whether raised in your written memoranda or in our interview of you at the start of the investigation on July 25th. As we indicated, we did not uncover any evidence to support your contention that there was a "smear campaign" against you nor did we uncover evidence to support your allegations. As for the conduct by one of the other temporary employees, Clayton Giles, we learned that he apologized for any misunderstanding that may have occurred between you and him in connection with the discussion of the Michael Jackson trial thereby promptly resolving the situation. We also confirmed, and you further affirmed, that when this incident was brought to Mr. Chapman's attention at that time, he not only spoke to Mr. Giles about it but also reminded you that the firm had policies in place and inquired whether you wished to make a formal complaint, to which you responded in the negative. We also learned about certain conduct of concern by you which we relayed to you and which you acknowledged.

We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention so that we could investigate. As we have previously indicated, our investigation has concluded. As you will recall, in our meeting last week you acknowledged that the investigation was thorough and appreciated our prompt response to your concerns. Please be advised that although we decided to and did summarize the substance of the witness interviews to you last week, it is not our practice to distribute copies of our interview notes.

We wish you the best in your future endeavors.

I gathered from Ms. Tadler's above email to me that she would rather not hear from me again, and accordingly, on August 16, 2005 I sent an email to Arnold Schlanger at Peak Counsel, the agency that placed me at Milberg Weiss on the Tyco project, as follows:

With reference to Ms. Tadler's email . . . I wish to clarify that I did not make any affirmations at our August 12, 2005 meeting -- or at any other time -- concerning the "thoroughness" of Milberg Weiss's investigation into my allegations. Indeed, if I thought the investigation was as thorough as Ms. Tadler purports, then why the very next day did I submit my August 13 memorandum expressly identifying the deficiencies of that investigation? Although I certainly appreciated her efforts in looking into my complaint, and appropriately thanked her for those efforts that were taken, the investigation was -- and remains -- inadequate in several critical respects, some of which I detailed in my memorandum. In short, the alternative explanations offered by the involved individuals were not corroborated, were not probed or otherwise further investigated to determine their veracity, and the credibility of those individuals was not considered. Merely accepting someone's statement at "face value" is hardly a rigorous, thorough or adequate investigation. Furthermore, Ms. Tadler's effort to impugn my conduct on wholly unrelated -- and quite silly -- matters that were not relevant to the investigation, and raised only in response to my complaint, left a rather bad taste in my mouth. Frankly, the sudden defensiveness -- and offensiveness -- of Milberg Weiss on this matter makes me rather suspicious of the good faith that went into this so-called investigation. Frankly, I previously never believed that Milberg Weiss had any role or liability with respect to what happened to me in the Tyco room at the hands of several of the temporary lawyers; however, after August 12's meeting and Ms. Tadler's August 15 email, I am beginning to have my doubts. Ms. Tadler views this matter as closed, and from the tenor of her email to me would rather not hear from me again. Accordingly, I have written only to you in order to set the record straight.

Among other deficiencies in Milberg Weiss's investigation -- in addition to those identified above -- are the following. For example, Ms. Tadler advised me that Keith Anderson, Esq. flatly denied all of my allegations. However, Milberg Weiss terminated him on July 22 in connection with an earlier and separate investigation, and that he subsequently would not admit culpable behavior to Milberg Weiss -- or anyone else, for that matter -- hardly is surprising. Indeed, in light of his July 22 termination, it is surprising that he subsequently met with Milberg Weiss at all as Ms. Tadler purports was the case. Moreover, although Ms. Tadler advised me that she spoke with the involved individuals, she offered no representation as to whether as part of the investigation she examined the emails by and to the involved individuals that were sent, received or read on Milberg Weiss computers. In addition to Milberg Weiss assigning firm email accounts to each of the temporary attorneys, I observed on several occasions many people accessing their personal email accounts on Milberg Weiss computers, and accordingly, such information is available to Milberg Weiss if, in ensuring the thoroughness of its investigation, it chooses to examine this material.

Finally, I suggest that Milberg Weiss itself may have encouraged an intentional white washing of the incidents against me, and was motivated by self-interest to engage in a superficial and cursory internal investigation of my allegations. After all, if the involved temporary attorneys were engaged in billing fraud in accordance with my suspicions, then Milberg Weiss would be hard pressed to bill their time to the court in a fee application upon settlement of the Tyco Securities Litigation. Milberg Weiss currently is the subject of a Justice Department investigation in three separate federal districts concerning the alleged use of paid plaintiffs and paid expert witnesses, and further is the subject of an SEC investigation.

I am willing to submit to a polygraph examination by the best examiner in the country with respect to every statement that I have made in this post, and I wonder if the others against whom I complain would be equally as willing. I should bring a federal RICO action against the whole lot of them.