James H. Brady v. Associated Press Telecom, et al.

This court expressly said in its landmark New York Times v. The United States Decision that the purpose and duty of the free press was to protect the governed from the governors. The opposite happened here. The Media Defendants in this case knew from the previous New York Post reporting on October 15, 2008 that the expert "The New York Post" consulted with attorney Stuart Saft who stated pursuant to his offering plan contract: "Brady has a right to at least some of the new development rights and as a result the co-op should have at the very least obtained a waiver and the language [in the second amendment] is so broad it would cover any kind of addition to the roof ". Despite their understanding of the truth, Media defendants concealed knowledge from the public that a State Court Judge in power unlawfully rewrote the contract to void the $70-90 million in development rights that were contractually appurtenant to Petitioners Manhattan commercial co-op apartment. The Press Defendants hid from the public their knowledge that the New York Appellate Court Justices, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Manhattan-District Attorney Cyrus Vance all did nothing and permitted the crime to happen for the benefit of those with money and power. In addition, the Press defendants hid from public scrutiny their knowledge that the same judge in power issued $500,000.00 in unconstitutional and unjust sanctions meant to destroy Petitioner and make him too weak to fight back. 1. Was it wrong and a direct conflict with this Court when the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court Decision that stated that News Agencies have a First Amendment right to hide the crimes of those