Steinbrenner Lawyer Calls for Investigation : Baseball: Vincent said to be running out of patience with challenges to his authority.

Claiming that Baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent’s conduct has constituted a “mockery of justice,” an attorney for George Steinbrenner has formally called on major league baseball’s executive council for an impartial investigation of Vincent’s handling of Steinbrenner’s removal from baseball, according to documents obtained Thursday by The Times.

In the 135-page petition and 450 additional pages of documents sent to each council member, attorney Paul Curran claims that Vincent overstepped his bounds by wielding his power “corruptly,” during the course of the investigation, hearing and resolution of Steinbrenner’s involvement with known-gambler Howard Spira.

In a strongly worded letter marked “confidential” and sent out Tuesday to baseball’s 11-member executive council, Steinbrenner’s attorney charged Vincent with “serious and oppressive conduct . . . which calls for extraordinary action by the Executive Council.”

But the council--made up of Vincent, eight major league club owners, and the presidents of the National and American League--is basically an advisory group. It has no jurisdiction over the actions of the commissioner, who has enjoyed an autonomous role since the position was created in 1921. The commissioner’s term lasts five years, and there is no provision for an interim performance review. Vincent’s term ends April, 1994.

However, this latest move by Steinbrenner seemingly did little more than further rankle the commissioner’s office, where patience with Steinbrenner’s challenges to Vincent’s authority is growing thin.

“The time is rapidly approaching at which patience with this campaign to undermine the integrity of the commissioner and of major league baseball will end,” Stephen D. Greenberg, baseball’s deputy commissioner, said Thursday in a statement from New York. “Mr. Steinbrenner and his advisers must recognize this and be prepared to accept the consequences of their behavior.”

Greenberg dismissed Steinbrenner’s petition as a further attempt to “circumvent established procedures within baseball and to avoid the consequences” of the July 30 agreement Steinbrenner entered into with Vincent. The agreement was the result of a ruling that Steinbrenner did not act in the best interest of baseball in his dealings with Spira, whom Steinbrenner allegedly paid $40,000 in return for information on former Yankee Dave Winfield and Winfield’s charitable foundation.

In that agreement, Steinbrenner accepted Vincent’s decision to step down permanently as managing partner of the day-to-day operations of the Yankees. In return, Steinbrenner is allowed to retain up to 49% of the team’s ownership and to have input on specific major financial decisions, excluding player transactions. Steinbrenner also agreed not to “litigate or challenge” the decision or the sanctions imposed by Vincent.

According to the agreement, Steinbrenner’s continual challenges to Vincent’s decision could result in further disciplinary action that could include his total removal from the Yankees and baseball. Since Steinbrenner was forced to resign as managing general partner of the Yankees on Aug. 20, he and his advisers have raised objections and questions to the methods employed in the investigation undertaken by Vincent and baseball’s special prosecutor, John Dowd.

Vincent, who was en route from Oakland to New York, could not be reached for comment. Curran, reached in New York, did not wish to comment on the petition.

Last week, Steinbrenner filed a $1.56-million suit in Manhattan against a court stenographer and his company for allegedly tampering with sworn statements made by Steinbrenner and other Yankee officials during Vincent’s investigation. Steinbrenner contends the testimony was changed on orders from Dowd to make him look bad.

Among the new material detailed in the petition, Curran charged that Vincent and Dowd violated basic rights under attorney-client privilege by coercing them to produce notes for the investigation that were taken by Steinbrenner’s attorneys during confidential communications.

The petition states that Vincent and Dowd forced Steinbrenner to turn over the notes by the “bald and direct threat that if Steinbrenner persisted in asserting those privileges, such would be deemed conduct ‘not in the best interests of baseball’ and Steinbrenner would be suspended immediately.”

Curran also asserts that the Pete Rose case was handled entirely different in this regard. “Dowd specifically recognized the attorney-client privilege and, in fact, hid behind it in refusing to review evidence presented by Rose’s attorneys,” the petition said.

Some of the charges, previously reported, were detailed in the petition. They include:

--Suppressing critical evidence exonerating Steinbrenner; fabricating negative evidence and secretly tampering with deposition testimony given by Steinbrenner and other Yankee personnel during the four-month investigation.

--Not providing Steinbrenner with the Dowd Report, which contains the alleged evidence upon which Vincent’s charges were predicated, denying him fair notice of the charges against him.

--Denying Steinbrenner the right to a fair trial because he did not allow the Yankee owner to present testimony from any witness other than himself or to cross-examine any witness, despite a previous agreement with Vincent that he would be able to do so.

--That Dowd arranged for the services of an attorney to defend Spira, at no cost, during Dowd’s investigation.

--That Vincent breached the July 30 agreement by feeding the public selected information to encourage anti-Steinbrenner sentiment. It also claims that Vincent made efforts to cover up his “numerous improprieties.”

It is not clear if the executive council will address the petition. Dodger owner Peter O’Malley, a council member, would not comment on the petition. Other council members did not return phone calls.