Don’t Hesitate to Call Us Now! New York: 212-652-2782 | Yonkers: 914-226-3400

NY Lawyer Eric Sanders Files $200 Mil Claim Against DOJ Alleging False Arrest, Imprisonment and Judicial Impropriety

Sanders Interview


Prominent New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders files a $200 Million Dollar Federal Tort Claim against the United States Department of Justice alleging false arrest, imprisonment and judicial impropriety

(New York, NY) November 10, 2015 – Prominent New York Civil Rights Lawyer Eric Sanders filed a $200 Million Dollar Federal Tort Claim against the United States Department of Justice alleging his reputation suffered irreparable damage when a bankruptcy judge ignored existing case law, ordered him arrested by United States Marshals and imprisoned to cover up her judicial impropriety, according to court documents.

Then United States Bankruptcy Judge Dorothy T. Eisenberg said in court documents that she conducted a hearing where she found Sanders in civil contempt of court. She ordered him arrested, held in the Metropolitan Detention in Brooklyn, for six days, where he was strip-searched several times and placed into the Special Housing Unit, an area designated for violent inmates.

Sanders alleges in court documents that Judge Eisenberg engaged in judicial impropriety, acting “Ultra Vires” not granting him an immediate impartial hearing to address her civil contempt charges, defend his civil rights and maintain his personal freedom.

The experts, in media reports, said it is unheard of for a pending civil bankruptcy case to become egregious enough to justify ordering a licensed member of the bar, officer of the court in good standing to spend a week in a federal prison without a public hearing.

Judge Eisenberg, acting outside of her judicial powers in ordering Sanders to be held in “a de facto ‘debtors prison’” to intimidate, scare and force him to forfeit more than $200,000 in personal funds under the threat of continued imprisonment against his will with violent criminals to satisfy a legally “VOID” lower court judgement. In essence, Sanders was forced to satisfy his former “employers” Jeffrey L. Goldberg, Esq., and Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C.’S legal obligations to former “employee” Attorney Mary B. Rocco, Esq.

The Federal Tort Claim further alleges that Judge Eisenberg engaged in judicial bias and impropriety by “conspiring with others” to ignore and render void the basic intent and obligation of bankruptcy court: to provide bankruptcy relief, fair and impartial justice; along with prompt and efficient resolution of civil disputes.

Sanders had no reason to be in bankruptcy court in the first place, court documents show but, did so to protect his former client Retired Assistant Chief Willie Dixon, Hempstead Police Department. According to court documents, Rocco’s attorney attempted to have Dixon arrested if he didn’t order Sanders to turn over monies earned in a settlement against the Incorporated Village of Hempstead.

The Sanders bankruptcy petition did not meet the litmus test for acceptance for a variety of basic reasons, including: Sanders had a perfect credit score; access to several million dollars in cash, assets and credit lines with zero consumer or business debt obligations. In addition, Sanders had documented business accounts with more than sufficient assets to potentially satisfy the disputed lower court judgment without tying up valuable court resources.

Judge Eisenberg’s egregious, judicial impropriety further harmed Sanders, according to legal documents, by generating inaccurate media reports and inquiries from the Eastern District Bar Association’s and First Department’s Grievance Committees harming Sanders’ public reputation, law practice and ability to make a honest living.

Judge Eisenberg abruptly retired shortly after Sanders outlined her strange, erratic, and improper rulings to both grievance committees.

Earlier this year, Sanders was cleared of wrongdoing by the Eastern District Bar Association’s Grievance Committee with one short sentence: “after reviewing the relevant documents, no action is warranted.”

The legal nightmare for Sanders began in 2006 when Rocco filed a pregnancy discrimination complaint against her “employer” Attorney Jeffrey L. Goldberg, Esq.

Sanders also worked as an attorney for Goldberg, the owner of Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C., where he was eventually promoted to managing attorney, a role he held for several years. He was also named in the Rocco’s complaint.

But Sanders said that New York State Division of Human Rights Administrative Law Judge Robert M. Vespoli should have dismissed him from the Rocco complaint because he was an “employee” at the Goldberg firm not an “employer.” He did he not have an “ownership interest” in Jeffrey L. Goldberg, P.C. According to the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations, Goldberg is the only listed principal of the corporation.

According to court documents, Rocco never asserted Sanders was her “employer.” In fact, in several transcripts produced of secret recordings made by Rocco, she specifically told a co-worker “Oh Jeff don’t even know about my pregnancy…” and referred to Sanders as her “colleague” not her “boss” or “employer.”

Sanders said that Judge Eisenberg “conspired with others” to deny him his Constitutional Rights by failing to “VOID” the Rocco judgment and address the lower court errors based on existing case law.

Sanders said in court papers that, it is well settled that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived, however, “a judgment is [VOID] if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction … of the parties. “R” Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio, 540 F.3d 115, 122 (2d Cir. 2008)(quoting In re Texlon Corp., 596 F.2d 1092, 1099 (2d Cir. 1979)).  Voidness can be collaterally attacked at any time. Crosby v. The Bradstreet Co., 312 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1963)(30 year old judgment vacated as VOID on First Amendment grounds).

Sanders further asserted that “the New York State Division of Human Rights only has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over “employers” and not “employees” unless it can be shown the “employee” have an “ownership interest” or “can do more than simply carry out orders of the ‘employer’” citing “Patrowich v. Chemical Bank, 63 N.Y.2d 541, 542, 483 N.Y.S.2d 659, 473 N.E.2d 11 (1984). Further citing, “corporate employees cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting Trovato v. Air Express Intl., 238 AD2d 333.” Monsanto v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, 141 A.D.2d 514, 529 N.Y.S.2d 512 (conspiracy claim cannot be permitted to stand on the theory that it links the individual defendant to the employment discrimination claims asserted against the corporate defendant under the Human Rights Law, Executive Law § 297); see also Foley v. Mobil Chemical Company, 170 Misc.2d1, 647 N.Y.S.2d 374 (excellent statutory analysis discussing “no individual liability” under Human Rights Law absent “ownership interest”).

“I am confident, the United States Department of Justice and the Court will ultimately do the right thing but, if not, I will not stop until the parties are held accountable for their dishonest conduct” says Sanders.

About The Sanders Firm, P.C.

The Sanders Firm, P.C. offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil rightscivil service rights, criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone’s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights.


Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Business Phone: 212-808-6515


Read Federal Tort Claim

This entry was posted in Blog, Civil Rights Law, News, Press Release and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.