December 12, 2012 Departmental Disciplinary Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department 61 Broadway New York

, NY 1006 Re: Receiving the Responses of the Other Eight Attorneys. Docket No. 2012.1710. Dear Jorge Dopico, We are in receipt of Presiding Judge Angela M. Mazzarelli’s November 28, 2012 “unpublished order” granting the transfer of our joint complaint regarding the serious unethical and criminal conduct of Martin R. Gold, a Committee member appointed by the Court to the First Department, in Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. William Morris Agency. Pursuant to § 605.6(g), the process of transferring Gold’s complaint should have occurred as soon as our joint complaint was received by the DDC on July 19, 2012. In the five months that has elapsed without preserving the testimony of any of the nine attorneys complained of, a number of these unethical attorneys have continued to commit “fraud upon the Court” through their perjurious statements which have subsequently directly resulted in more unfavorable decisions against Leonard Rowe and myself in each of our respective cases. On November 14, 2012, we were told by Ms. Angela Christmas that a “de novo” review of our complaint would finally be made regarding the other eight attorneys complained of due to the numerous “human errors” that were made by the DDC and its staff during its initial review. On November 16, 2012, we received a letter from you confirming the gist of Ms. Christmas’ statements that an investigation was finally going to be made. On November 19, 2012, we responded to clarify your statement that “a different Committee Member than the one who initially reviewed [our] complaint [would] reconsider it now” since procedurally, you were incorrect. According to § 605.6(d), it states that “no discipline shall be recommended by the Office of the Chief Counsel until the Respondent shall have been afforded the opportunity to state the Respondent’s position with respect to the allegations.” Pursuant to this section, each Respondent has 20 days to file their response before any Committee member has the option to review our complaint. This means that no later than this Friday, December 14, 2012, their responses should be received by the DDC. As soon as their responses are received, we would like a copy of each response so we can be afforded the opportunity to submit a Reply before any recommendations by the Office of Chief Counsel regarding formal charges can be made, pursuant to § 605.6(e) and (f). If there are any discrepancies, please make them known at this time. Best, Leonard Rowe /s/ Marcus Isaiah Washington