Wayne Simoes/Yonkers Police/Irma Marquez.

The Advocate

Richard Blassberg

What Were Those Jurors Thinking About?

Last Wednesday afternoon, May 27, the jury in the federal criminal trial of Wayne Simoes, Yonkers Police Officer, brought in a verdict declaring the 39-year old, nine-year veteran of the force, “Not Guilty”, within minutes of their self-imposed 4 pm deadline. Earlier, at 1 pm, they had sent out a note to Judge Karas asking, “To be willful, does the person need to have a bad or evil purpose?” After reading the note aloud in the presence of Defense attorneys and Government prosecutors, but out of the presence of the jurors, the Judge, almost spontaneously, responded, “Yes”.

There then ensued a long conversation between Karas, Defense Attorney Andrew Quinn, and Prosecutors, principally Assistant United States Attorney Torrance, assisted at one point by Cynthia Dunne, who significantly prefaced her remarks to the Judge with an apology for speaking despite having apparently promised she would not be throughout the trial. In sum and substance, Quinn would argue repeatedly that a simple “yes” answer would do just fine while Dunne kept insisting, through Torrance, that there was a need for qualification of the affirmative response. Quinn, at one point, declared, and the Judge agreed, “A bad or evil purpose is what separates this procedure from a 1983 [Civil Rights] suit, a criminal from a civil suit.”

Karas bolstered the comparison by saying, “That’s what distinguishes a 242 [federal criminal statute] from a 1983,” further stating, “An evil act isn’t necessarily a crime. Merely saying ‘yes’ is not helpful.” Quinn, however, came back, “Most respectfully, I believe a simple ‘yes’ is best.” The fact was the jury was stumbling over the notion that in order to find Wayne Simoes guilty, they would need to find that he intended the outcome, and this jury, this middle-class, sheltered jury, could not grapple with that conclusion. Never mind what horrible damage was done to Irma Marquez’ face, head and neck as she was deliberately swung like a rag doll, face-first, to the tile floor; this jury’s sympathies were with a rogue, mindless cop with an abundance of testosterone, and not with his victim.

Therein lies the significance of the very real role that Janet DiFiore played in the whole, horrible affair. By not only failing to prosecute the
rogue cop, the perpetrator, Wayne Simoes, as any honest, uncorrupted DA would have, but instead prosecuting his victim, Irma Marquez, on bogus, trumped-up charges of Disorderly Conduct and Obstructing Governmental Administration, Janet DiFiore insured the fact that Simoes would not be tried for Assault, or Reckless Endangerment, or any other offense which he would’ve been convicted of. As a result, once the
videotape repeatedly aired, the United States Attorney’s Office was virtually compelled to step in and charge Simoes with the federal charge of Denying Marquez Her Civil Rights By Use Of Excessive Force. That would require “proof of intent,” in order to obtain a conviction.

In reality, when the jurors sent out their request for clarification, they were signalling their difficulty in accepting their assignment. They were unwilling, for the most part, to acknowledge that a policeman, someone they wanted to believe was really motivated to protect them and even someone so unlike them, Irma Marquez, could possibly have purposely used such force, driving her face and head from more than seven feet in the air, to the hard tile floor, then, immediately jumping on her unconscious body to handcuff her without hesitating a second to examine
what damage had been done to her face and head.

So unwilling was this jury to think about a victim who had been out drinking in a bar in the poor side of the city, that they never stopped to ask, “If he didn’t intend to hurt her, why in Hell did he bodyslam her? And, if he didn’t intend to bodyslam her, why lift her two feet off the ground, putting her head seven feet in the air? Was he intending to slowly slide her back on her feet?”

Then there was the issue of the rogue cop’s ‘cheering squad’. Of course, his wife and parents and, perhaps, some of his buddies at work were to be legitimately expected to come to Court and support him. However, what began on the first day of trial, with about 12 Yonkers police officers, grew daily until, by Wednesday, some 37 officers, including PBA President Eddie Armour, a well-known henchman of, and apologist for, DA Janet DiFiore, filled not only the Defendant’s side of the spectator’s gallery, but much of the other side as well. These officers were clearly intimidating to the jurors. Their message went far beyond mere moral support. Theirs was a You v. Us mentality and, clearly, one of approval of what their pal had done.

There is a big difference between the kind of crowd that will come out for a wrongfully-prosecuted cop, and one that will support a rogue who got caught on tape. Simoes’ fan club was basically telling the world, “We would have done the same.” And, given the number of individuals that we are aware of, who have been subjected to Yonkers police brutality, scores and scores of them; men, women and children; witnessing some three dozen of them clapping their hands vigorously for a cop who bodyslammed a 120-lb, five-foot tall woman, and who got away with it, was no surprise at all!

The real issue now involves just what this acquittal means. There are many unanswered questions. Some enlightened observers are questioning whether the United States Attorney, in assigning two second-string prosecutors, Skotko and Torrance, to the trial, while keeping their female gladiator, Cynthia Dunne, confined to the role of advisor throughout the trial, was really serious about getting a conviction or just faking it. After all, here they had what should have been an easy conviction of someone who the world could plainly see intended to render
the little woman unconscious and helpless; someone who was damned guilty; so guilty that several police officers, including a captain, who is
now a deputy chief, committed perjury under oath at a state trial of the victim, and before Internal Affairs in their effort to cover him up.

Yet, that same United States Attorney’s Office has kept the same Cynthia Dunne working hard at harassing, trying, and wrongfully convicting an innocent former County Correction Officer, Paul Cote, in another bodyslam case where the videotape, and other Brady material, if not withheld by Dunne, would have proven Defendant Cote’s innocence and the guilt of John Mark Reimer, the Government’s key, lying, witness. Clearly, the Government’s sincerity is in question.

Along these same lines, how is it that the FBI, after years of investigating numerous documented cases of Yonkers police brutality, and the Justice Department for whom the information has been gathered, have so far failed to prosecute even a small fraction of them, and only stepped into the Simoes case because of its strong public exposure and the absurdity of DA DiFiore’s prosecution of such an obviously innocent and egregiously injured victim?

The sad reality is that the Federal Government, because of the unethical and wrongful social relationship between former United States Attorney Michael Garcia and DA DiFiore, has thus far let down the People of Westchester, particularly those in Yonkers; innocent men, women and children who have been, and continue to be, harassed and brutalized by a stubborn contingent of rogue cops whose activities we can only guess will now be stepped up and embrazoned by the outcome of the Simoes case.

In conclusion, Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes did not slip, nor accidentally drop Irma Marquez, as his Defense attorney, Andrew
Quinn, attempted to sell as alternate excuses for the outcome of his violent behavior. If that had been the case, what was he intending to do with her if he didn’t slip? He intended to do exactly what he started out to do when he grabbed her and elevated her to where her head came crashing down from some seven feet above the floor in an arc the force and velocity of which made her hair fly out as though she were sitting in an open convertible at 70 mph.

Defense counsel never offered any reasonable explanation of what Wayne Simoes was intending to do with Irma Marquez if he didn’t “slip” or she didn’t “fall”. Any pretense that Simoes hadn’t intended to bodyslam her was negated by his immediate occupation with handcuffing her upon her collision with the tile floor, that Deputy Chief Geiss testified, “sounded like the loudest slap he had ever heard, and at the same
time, like a bowling ball falling from the second floor.” No matter, this officer, who will claim for the rest of his life that he never meant to do what he did, never meant to hurt her, went right to the business of handcuffing her.

Truth be told, now that a police brutality as obvious and brazen as the one perpetrated against Irma Marquez has gone unpunished, the People of Yonkers can expect even more than they have already suffered with, so long as Janet DiFiore is the District Attorney.

In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.

Thursday, June 4, 2009



In Our Opinion...



Sotomayor: Is It Form Over Substance?


The nomination of Second Circuit Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court by President Barack Obama, though widely-expected, nevertheless, was an action that brought great delight and pride to the Latino community last week, particularly to the Puerto Rican community of New York. After all, she was the first Hispanic ever nominated to the High Court, and only the third woman, following Sandra Day
O’Connor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who she would join if confirmed.


We are very mindful of the historic moment that President Obama has brought to conception, as well as the altogether fitting and reinforcing significance of the unique nomination with respect to the inclusiveness promised by the new Chief Executive. And, while we applaud his bold and swift response to the early opportunity to diversify the nation’s highest tribunal in order to more closely reflect our present demographic, we would hope that gender and ethnicity were secondary considerations in the presence of judicial temperament and record.



It is not unrealistic to expect of a president of Mr. Obama’s mandate and intellect, a careful and comprehensive vetting of any offering for elevation to the Supreme Court. We contemplate no skeletons in Justice Sotomayor’s closet. At this early stage of the confirmation process, we are most concerned that her philosophy and her judicial record and temperament will be thoroughly scrutinized and reconciled. Her appointment, or her rejection, must not be determined by form, but rather by substance.


Neither should the popularity and persona of her designator compensate for an otherwise deficient or innapropriate designee. Justice Sotomayor must survive the process all who have gone before her have had to survive. In the final analysis, she will sink or float based upon the package she presents to the Senate of the United States, barring any as-yet unrevealed action or decision that might be deemed sufficiently egregious and unacceptable; enough to be a torpedo.


We have been both pleased and distressed by some of Justice Sotomayor’s judicial activities with respect to Westchester cases over recent years. Last year, she inspired our ire in what we described as her “misguided” surrender to pressure from then-United States Attorney Michael J. Garcia who, in a personal first, argued the Government’s appeal of United States District Court Judge Charles L. Brieant’s overturning of the conviction
of former Westchester County Correction Officer Paul Cote for an incident that resulted in an ultimately fatal injury to a belligerent inmate.


Judge Brieant, who had conducted both the pre-trial hearings, and the trial, in vacating Cote’s conviction and conferring a directed acquittal, in effect found that the jury had arrived at a verdict inconsistent with the evidence presented. He was in the courtroom, and fully in a position to evaluate the reliability and credibility of the witnesses.


He knew only too well what a dirty case the Government was putting on, and was completely aware of the political and criminal objectives woven into the unconvincing original State Court case seven years earlier under District Attorney Jeanine Pirro. He had told Assistant United States Attorney Cynthia Dunne, in our presence, in a pre-trial hearing, “If your case fails, I will not be sad.”


We were saddened when, a year later, Sotomayor and two other distaff judges yielded to, and fell into lockstep with, then-United States Attorney Michael Garcia, totally disrespecting, and trashing, that great jurist’s courageous act in defense of Justice. Mr. Garcia would later boast of his accomplishment, in another weekly publication. He had succeeded in knowingly restoring a totally bogus prosecution and conviction of an innocent public servant, Paul Cote, who had come to the aid of the fellow correction officer whose violent, reckless body slamming response to a belligerent inmate who had punched him in the face would result in the inmate’s death some 14 months later from head trauma. That individual, John Mark Reimer, who caused the death, of course, was elevated to sergeant and was the Government’s key witness.


On the other side of the ledger, with respect to Justice Sotomayor, in Feb. 2007, in the Anthony DiSimone case; a case that, for 15 years, continues to illustrate the worst in prosecutorial misconduct, We were present in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals when Judge Sotomayor, one member of a three-judge panel, fully grasping the essence of Double Jeopardy inherent in Janet DiFiore’s handling of DiSimone, said to Assistant DA Valerie Livingston of the Appeals Bureau, “You’re really not going to retry this case, are you? Isn’t that Double Jeopardy?”


When Livingston, who had been making several misrepresentations to the Court, responded that the District Attorney wanted to retry Mr. DiSimone “under the old law of Depraved Indifference Murder”, Sotomayor came right back with, “Your language is very sloppy. You are going to have to release the Defendant and then re-arrest him for something else.” DiSimone was then immediately released from prison by the panel on a writ of habeus corpus, without bail, and with a clean record.


Our Readers Respond....


Young Reader Expresses Her Feelings About Her Uncle Paul Cote


Dear Editor:




My name is Gabriella Wilkinson. A tragic thing happened when my uncle, Paul Cote, was taken away. Many years before this incident, my mother was stricken with cancer. This was very sad, too, because I was only five years old. My dad had to constantly take my mom to the hospital so my Uncle Paulie stepped up and took care of me. This was when I became close to the family.


I really did appreciate all of the help, even though I was only five. He did a lot for me, my mom and my dad. I truly love him dearly, and it breaks my heart to see my own uncle in jail for something everyone well knows he didn’t do.


I don’t think it was right or even legal. Telling the truth and being honest will get you far in life, and lying will just hurt you in the long run. So I was very happy to hear that his sentencing day is on June 1, his birthday. My mom is stating that this is like a new birth. I just know he’ll finally get out. I mean, how can he not?


I would stay up real late looking at and reading the paper with my dad. I’ve learned a lot about the case. Overall, the things I’ve learned, the most important thing I’ve noticed was that my Uncle Paulie didn’t do wrong and shouldn’t have to stay any longer.


So, in conclusion, I would like to see my uncle outside, at his own home again. So please let him out to live his life again, taking care of his family. He is not the animal the prosecutor portrayed him as. He is actually a teddy bear.


Gabriella Wilkinson




Mt. Vernon School Board Candidate Tells All


Dear Editor:




On Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at approximately 4:00am, two Mount Vernon School Board Candidates, myself and Mrs. Brenda Silvera-Milligan,
who are running mates, were out in the Fleetwood neighborhood distributing flyers for the upcoming School Board Trustee Campaign in Mount Vernon. While distributing these flyers on Fleetwood Avenue, Ms. Milligan noticed that someone was removing the flyers and posters we
had placed on the cars. She immediately notified me by cell phone to join her. We then followed the individual to attempt to identify who
it was. It was Ms. Carol Ben Reuben, an incumbent for position as School Board Trustee.


Mrs. Milligan and I followed Mrs. Ben Reuben and noted that she met up with another individual who was identified as Mrs. Lynne Frazer-
McBride, also an incumbent for position as School Board Trustee. Mrs. Milligan and myself approached the individuals and asked them why
they were removing the flyers. At first, they pretended that they did not hear me. I repeated the question but Mrs. McBride & Mrs. Ben Reuben
continued to remove flyers.


I then said to them again, “Why are you removing our flyers? You know we once voted for you.” Mrs. Ben Reuben replied, “Yeah and we once respected you!” I then asked, “What do you mean? What have I done or said to you?” Mrs. McBride said to me, “You’re prostituting your children! Ask your children, ask the people from Riverside. Even the white people say you are prostituting your children!” Once again, I asked,
“What do you mean? What does that mean I’m prostituting my children?”


I called the News 12 Breaking Hotline telephone number to report what had taken place. and also my husband, Mr. Herman R. Crump, Sr. who joined Mrs. Milligan and myself. I later witnessed Mrs. Ben Reuben & Mrs. McBride rip down one of our campaign flyers at the Longfellow Elementary School!


My husband shouted to them, “You better not rip down another one of my flyers again!” Mrs. Ben Rueben & Mrs. McBride jumped in their car and sped off!


Brenda Crump




Feiner On Red Light Cameras And Other things


Dear Editor:




In April of this year the New York State Legislature approved red light cameras to be installed at intersections in Yonkers, Nassau & Suffolk Counties. Cars that run red lights will receive tickets if caught on camera. Unfortunately, this new law only applies to a handful of communities in the state.


There is no reason why the state should be limiting these cameras to only a few cities in New York State. Poor motorist behavior in Greenburgh, New Rochelle, Mount Vernon or Bedford should be treated no differently than bad driving in Yonkers, NYC, Nassau & Suffolk Counties (cities that
can install red light cameras).




Every locality in New York State should be granted permission to install these red light safety cameras. Safety is important all over! Running red lights has caused 850 deaths and thousands of injuries each year. If red light cameras save one life it is worth it. I urge the New York State Legislature to adopt a law that will treat every locality in New York State the same when it comes down to public safety.


At Wednesday night’s new resident reception held at the Greenburgh Library, about a dozen residents stopped by at the Abbott House table and expressed interest in becoming mentors to foster care children. Town Clerk Judith Beville, Town Councilwoman Sonja Brown, Town Attorney
Tim Lewis and I have also expressed a desire to serve as foster care mentors. The requirement: only 2 hours a week of mentoring to a child. These two hours could make a world of a difference to a young person. If you are interested in signing up please contact Jack Toone, mentor and volunteer coordinator at jtoone@abbotthouse.net or call 591 7300 x 3090. Town Clerk Judith Beville’s parents took in about a 100 foster care children during their lives.


The Town Board approved a new law that will enable the Chief of Police to impound vehicles against which three or more parking summonses
have been issued but not paid. A significant number of owners are persistent violators. Some have out of state registration of vehicles, transfer ownership and re-register vehicles and are able to evade existing enforcement measures. This new law will enable the police to enforce parking orders in the case of vehicle owners who fail to timely respond to summonses issued for violations. The police indicated that they will use this law against the more significant violators.



Paul Feiner, Greenburgh Town Supervisor


People Of Mount Vernon Must Know, Part 2


Dear Editor:


First and foremost, let me say thank you for printing my last letter in your April 30, 2009 edition. Your paper, by far, is the true meaning of the people’s paper, you bring the facts to the people. It is mind-boggling that day in and day out Commissioner Horton continues to steal from us all.



We, the taxpayers of Mount Vernon, ask where is “the” Inspector General? Why is this man (Mr. Harry Stokes) not investigating Mr. Horton
for all the illegal activities: 1. Doing work in his neighborhood with DPW workers on city time and city payroll, (blocks and blocks of sidewalks, streets, trees, and so on); 2. Shakedowns of city residents and business owners, even as far as Con Edison. Let’s ask them what Commissioner Horton does to them. Why doesn’t “the” Inspector General look into Mr. Horton carrying hand guns in city hall and all over the city? Gee, how
did this convicted felon get a gun permit to begin with? is man does not only have one gun but carries two guns at all times. Mr. Inspector General, ‘Mr. Independent Inspector General’, we want to know why you have not done anything about this? I am sure the F.B.I. would love to hear what is
going on here. We need HELP!!!


As I mentioned in my earlier letter, has Mr. Horton figured out what day of the week it is yet? This man is a danger to our city. Oh, yeah, I forgot for a minute he is Junior’s very good friend. After all, Mayor Young and Horton went to Italy together, even though Horton did not have enough time on the books to take two weeks off to travel with Junior. Add that to our tax bill. We need HELP!!!


Why doesn’t “the” Inspector General investigate Mayor Young, and his willingness to sell our city to cover up the incompetence, arrogance and ignorance of his chief of staff (Mayor Robinson). Mr. Inspector General, this is our money that is being thrown away, but what do you care, you do not pay taxes in Mount Vernon. Where do you live, Somers? Maybe if you went to work more often you would have the time to see what we are losing, but yet, again, you are in Junior’s pocket also. We need HELP!!!


People of Mount Vernon, wake up, you must know. Add all this corruption to our tax bill. “Mr. Independent Inspector General”, we want to know why is it that you are not doing anything about our Building Commissioner, Ralph Tedesco?


Why is he exempt from all city codes? Is it because he is the Building Commissioner or is he as corrupt as Junior? Why can he do what he pleases
on his property (Devonia Avenue), no questions asked? Why can he shake people down and no questions asked? We need HELP!!!


There is a lot more to follow but this is enough for now, for my fellow taxpaying citizens of Mount Vernon to digest and spread to everyone they
know! Please talk to anyone and everyone in our city; let them know what is happening to ALL of us.




Al Passino

The Court Report.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
Indicted In False Statements Case In District Of Columbia

LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that BERNARD KERIK, a former New York City Police Commissioner and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia on charges of making false statements to White House officials during his vetting for the position of Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. According to the Indictment: KERIK, in 1999 and 2000--when he was the New York City Commissioner of Corrections and then the City’s Police Commissioner--spoke to City regulators on behalf of contractors who were seeking one or more permits to do business in and with the City. The contractors then spent more than $255,000 renovating KERIK’s apartment in Riverdale, New York. Thereafter, in 2004, when KERIK was under consideration by the White House for the
position of Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, KERIK gave false and misleading answers to questions by White House officials about his relationship with the contractors.

In particular, and among other things, the Indictment alleges that KERIK falsely denied that there was any possible concern the President should have about KERIK’s relationship with the contractors, and that as a public official he had had any financial dealings with individuals seeking to do business with the City; and that KERIK sent an e-mail to a White House official containing false and misleading statements concerning the renovations to the apartment in Riverdale.

Charges similar to those in today’s indictment were initially brought as part of an indictment returned in the Southern District of New York in November 2007 but were dismissed from that indictment because the crimes are alleged to have occurred in the District of Columbia and not in the Southern District of New York.

If convicted, KERIK faces a maximum prison sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000 on each of the two false statement charges in the Indictment.

Mr. DASSIN praised the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service for their
efforts during the investigation, and thanked the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for its assistance in the transfer of this matter.

Assistant United States Attorneys ELLIOTT B. JACOBSON and MICHAEL S. BOSWORTH are in charge of the prosecution and have been designated as Special Assistant United States Attorneys in the District of Columbia for the purpose of prosecuting this Indictment.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Nothern Westchester

Paving Over Our County’s Heritage

Our region is currently celebrating the 400th anniversary of Henry Hudson’s discovery of the Hudson River. But for thousands of years before Hudson ever sailed into the New York Harbor, Native American tribes such as the Mohawks and Mohicans lived in the Hudson River Valley. Evidence of their villages and burial grounds dating between 1,000 and 6,000 years ago have been uncovered in Westchester County at Croton Point Park. Sadly, that evidence is being bulldozed and cemented over by the County construction crews as you read this.

The Guardian spoke at length to a group of concerned local residents about their battle with the County to preserve the Native Americans heritage at this site. One local expert on this issue, Bob (named changed to protect his identity) discussed the events leading up to the construction project Paving Over Our County’s Heritage at Croton Point. He said, “The current construction is for a sea wall. The initial plans for this project called for an inspection of the area which confirmed and documented the already-known pre-historic site. Previous development and construction work done at the park in the 1970’s had uncovered this site”.

When the historical significance of the Croton Point site was confirmed in 2005, a Phase II archeological investigation was recommended. Calling for this investigation meant the County was now obligated to inform the New York State Historical Preservation Office of the initial
findings and that the site would then be considered for placement on the state and national historical registers. That status would give the Croton Point settlement and burial grounds the protection and dignity they deserve. Any future development or construction at this park would then be subject to oversight by SHPO and all construction permits would have to be approved by their office to assure that the historical artifacts would not be affected.

Unfortunately for the Native Americans, the County did not pursue a Phase II review of Croton Point nor did they ever seek any historical preservation status for the settlement area and burial grounds. Instead, the County opted to circumvent proper channels for their current construction project and have proceeded without the proper authorizations and permits from the SHPO. The County is even ignoring proper
Federal construction reviews for this sea wall project.

According to a recent notice to the Westchester County Department of Parks Commissioner Joseph Stout from the Army Corps of Engineers, obtained by the Guardian, any “in-water construction activities located below the mean high tide line and associated discharge of
fill material into waters of the United States proposed at Croton Point Park as detailed in your DA permit application dated November 9, 2007, could be accomplished under the nationwide permit program, provided that the work was completed in accordance with the general and special conditions of the nationwide permit program.

It has been brought to the attention of this office that historic artifacts were discovered during the construction operations at Croton Point Park. It appears that your agency had previous knowledge, as indicated on the submitted New York State Coastal Zone Management Program form, that the proposed activity could reasonably be anticipated to affect or be located in, on, or adjacent to, historical resources listed on the national or
state Register of Historical Places. The continuation of work after the discovery of such cultural resources….. constitutes a violation of the
general conditions of the nationwide permit program, and thus non-compliance with the project’s authorization”.

The Army Corps of Engineers in this letter issued a “cease and desist” notice to Westchester County: “Therefore, the Westchester County
Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation is hereby directed to immediately cease from performing further work in the discovery area”. The Corps notified the County Parks Department that “failure to comply with the provisions of this directive will result in further enforcement action by this office, including the possibility of substantial civil and criminal penalties”. (all emphasis added). The original planners involved
with this project correctly followed up with the County on their recommendations.

According to the Guardian’s source, Dave DeLuca of the County Parks Department admitted that the Phase II request was never submitted to SHPO and that he “never read or ‘forgot’ the recommendations in the original Phase I report”. Cynthia Blakemore of SHPO confirmed that the
Phase II report was finally sent to the State in 2009 at the request of SHPO. This report recommends a “data recovery” at the site meaning
the area has to be examined for artifacts and other historical remains. According to Blakemore “the site needs to be examined to determine if it is of historical significance. In order for this site to be nominated to be placed on the State Registry of Historical Places, it first has to be determined ‘why is it significant’? And the owner has to be on board.” Since the owner here is Westchester County, the County has to agree that the site has historical significance. Given that the County is circumventing permit procedures to advance its construction plans at this site, it would appear that the County is placing development over historical significance. According to the Guardian’s sources, the state process would also provide an opportunity to identify the extent of the historical site, what the significance of the site is, and how to redesign any undertakings at the site
or recover the artifacts from the site if a redesign is not possible. Any visitor to Croton Point can see the historical significance for themselves.

Scattered along Teller’s Walk are artifacts from the early inhabitants such as shell remnants of a shell midden. Shell middens are a heap of clam, oyster, mussel or other shells used in campsites. These middens are found near coastlines and major rivers, and generally date to prehistoric
times. A preliminary investigation of the shell middens at Croton Point dates them as being between 1,000 and 6,000 years old. According to local investigators, there is also evidence of a campsite at Croton Point, a village, and even a fort. Local and state archeologists are eager to investigate
this site thoroughly to determine its archeological and historical significance. As one local resident asked “why can’t we have a preservation
site for cultures”?

Other Native American sites in New York have fared far better than Croton Point. In 1998, Native American human remains were found during on a construction site of the American Rock Salt Company’s mine project in Groveland, Livingston County. The Commissioner of Parks at that time, Bernadette Castro, noted, “Representatives from American Rock Salt have properly notified both DEC and State Parks and with these findings, work at the site where the remains were found has been halted and the area protected.”

According to their press release issued upon the notice of these findings “the State parks provided the oversight for the archeological investigation and worked with the mine company to ensure proper treatment of the findings”. Castro assured that the parks department along with the DEC
would determine the appropriate treatment of the remains in consultation with Native American leaders. Castor vowed, “We are committed to working with representatives of the Native American community and the other parties involved to sensitively address the issues raised by this discovery”. Even though the initial discovery appeared to be an isolated find, the mine restricted its construction to other areas of the mine and
established a monitoring protocol to ensure that any future unanticipated discoveries were adequately addressed as construction proceeded.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a permit for the American Rock Salt mine in Livingston County which contained “extensive conditions to protect archeological, historic and cultural resources. These conditions include avoidance of construction at the
southern end of the project, establishment of set-aside areas along Route 63 and requirements for archeological resource investigations t the mine site under professional oversight of the Rochester Museum and Science Center. The permit requires the use of State Parks protocols to notify Native American representatives in the event human remains are identified on the mine property. American Rock Salt is in full compliance
with these permit conditions.”

The NYS DEC did issue permits to Westchester County to proceed with this construction, but if these permits circumvented the historical preservation reviews, those permits would now be invalid. Local residents protesting the ongoing work at this site have been shown the DEC permits as so-called proof of the County’s authority to proceed with the construction. Local residents involved with this issue were not able to confirm that the DEC permits were ever forwarded to SHPO, or if the DEC contacted the representatives of local Native American tribes as mandated by Federal preservation laws.

In its submitted $7.3 million budget for the sea wall project [Croton Point Sea Walls Restoration Project #RCP09] to the County Board of Legislators, the County Parks Department promised, “An in-depth archeological study will be a part of the initial study work preceding design,” thus acknowledging the archeological significance of this site. Yet, only an initial study was performed. The in-depth follow-up that was recommended was never done.

So why did the County even acknowledge that Croton Point had archeological significance if they had no intention of following up on the recommendations of their requested report? According to the County budget for this project, it was to be funded entirely by issuing bonds. Could it be that the County knew if they applied for Federal grants for this project, they would be subject to the guidelines of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act? According to the federal guidelines, in any undertaking that affects an historic site, any plans should involve the public
and any other interested parties; in this case, representatives from the Mohawk Tribal Council.

Local residents investigating Croton Point have found evidence of burial areas at the bluff by the entrance to the park. Some burial remains were recovered during previous construction at this park and those remains were initially forwarded to the Museum of Natural History. The Museum turned the remains over to representatives of local Native American tribes for reburial. While those remains were at least correctly identified it
raises the question as to why those individuals could not be left undisturbed in their ancestral lands?

Why did we have to dig up someone’s ancestor just because County residents wanted a ball field? If the County of Westchester does not honor the remains of the dead, how can we expect to be treated by future generations? Imagine having your remains dug up and transferred to a foreign location far away from your loved ones and the area that you loved just because a future generation wants a parking lot? Is this the respect the true
founding families of our area deserve?

Calls to the County Commissioner of Parks, Joseph Stout, on this issue went unanswered by press time. Contacting the descendents of those original tribes proved to be a daunting task. There are no local tribal councils for the Mohawk or Mohican nations. The closest representatives
for the Mohican and Oneida tribes are in Wisconsin which is where they were located to during the government’s early 19th century’s ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans. New York State also abolished their office of Native Americans; there are no representatives for Native Americans at the state or federal government levels. In contrast, Canada has a National Aboriginal Branch in their Federal government and even acknowledges a National Aboriginal Day, June 21, the day of native summer solstice celebrations, in honor of their native peoples.

Despite the Army Corps of Engineers’ “cease and desist” order, the work at Croton Point is not only proceeding but workers at the site confirmed to several local residents that they have sped up the project to be completed in time for the Clearwater Festival at the park in June. However, Thomas Staudter, the Communications Director for the Clearwater Organization, told the Guardian, “We have not asked the County to speed
up any construction work on our behalf. All we need is a safe environment for our participants to enjoy the festival and we can work around whatever work the County may be doing at Croton Point”.

The sea wall project is not the only work planned by the County for Croton Point. In the County’s capital budget, several additional projects are identified:

• A $3.8 million picnic area planned for 2010;

• A $1.7 million RV and tent camping grounds planned for 2010 and 2011; and,

• $2.5 million of general projects is also planned for 2010 and 2011 including improvements to the wine cellars.

Do Westchester County residents really want more picnic tables, camp sites, and a wine cellar at the expense of our Native American cultures? The Guardian intends to follow up its coverage of the current construction at Croton Point and any future projects as well.

Jeff Deskovic.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Jeff Deskovic

A Glimpse Into The Suffering Of Families Of The Wrongfully Convicted

As with many walks of life, people who have similar interests or move in the same circles inevitably meet up with others who are interested
in the same topics, and also acquire much of the same information. Of course, I am heavily into the anti-wrongful conviction movement,
and, as such, have come across many exonerees and family members of exonerees. I would like to think of myself as a people person, and enjoy talking to new people. So throughout my journey during the two years and eight months that I have been free, I have learned much about the way that wrongful convictions affect family members on a level deeper than I realized when I myself was wrongfully incarcerated.

I understood some aspects, sure, but there were many things I wasn’t aware of; and, at times my own suffering was so great that although I
was aware of some of the ways that my family suffered, I was unable to focus on it. Then, of course, there were many things that I was shielded from. I suspect that my experience in this is not atypical.

However, by being freed I have learned much about this aspect, and the thrust of this article will be sharing some of what I have learned.
I will also draw from what I have learned from the experiences of my family and also from conversations with other exonerees and their family members. Because the conversations occurred while socializing and not while conducting an interview, I will respect everybody’s privacy and not reveal their names. At the same time, this article, while intended to shed light on an oft-misunderstood subject, This by no means an exhaustative treatment.

Come with me into a nightmare scenario, for purposes of better understanding the conditions in which you as a mother or father, have had
your innocent son convicted of a murder.

When your son is wrongfully convicted, the experience of seeing him remanded into custody is both emotional and traumatic. Thoughts
of what he might be thinking or experiencing, not just physically but also emotionally, fill your head. The inability to help or to do anything
about it, in the immediate here and now, causes a feeling of helplessness in you. Safety for your son is a primary concern. There are some
people incarcerated, a er all, who are both guilty and dangerous. What do you tell your other children when they ask for their brother?

Going to his sentencing hearing is a mixed bag. On the one hand, you want to show support for your loved one and also to know what sentence will be pronounced. On the other hand it will be traumatic to hear a long prison sentence pronounced. Thoughts of what life will be like during the next 15, 20, and 25 years without your son go through your head.

Throughout The Incarceration

While your son is incarcerated, his safety will constantly be on your mind. While you may at times get respite from this, the best that it gets is that the worries have simply gone to the back of your mind; it will never leave. You dread a phone call from the prison reporting something
having happened to him. Any news you see regarding the prison on television will immediately trigger concern as to whether he is okay.

Similarly, each time he is transferred will raise new safety concerns. His incarceration will impact upon your other children. They will
miss your son, and now have an awful secret to try to hide from their school friends. The other kids at school, if they find out, could wind
up saying cruel things, teasing, or even trying to physically harm him.

When making new friends, it can be a source of shame, and so you hide this from them and hope they never find out. It feels as though you are leading a double life.

On some weekends, when you are best able to make the long travel to visit him; because the Department of Corrections frequently houses
prisoners far away from home during the first part of their sentence, you may have to beg off various invitations for social outings in order
to make the trip. But you will have to lie about what your plans are for that weekend. Sometimes you wonder whether you have lost touch with reality, or whether this is really happening.

Once in a while, though you believe in him, a stray thought may lead you to wonder if he really is innocent, though globally you know he is. Accompanying that stray thought is the question,“Where did I go wrong in raising him”. Visiting him is an elaborate process in and of itself. Firstly, it will require a long drive, typically three hours and often more. Gassing up the car to make the trip back and forth will make things expensive. Rounding out costs is that fact that you know that the food in there is so bad, so you shop for him, and you also want to leave him money.

But at times you will get frustrated when you learn, that because of some mindless rule, he can’t have certain food items. At times, if the
trip is too far to make in one day or return the same day, you will have to pay for a hotel room.

Getting into the prison will sometimes require standing on lines which are deliberately made longer by processing visitors slowly. At other
times you will be subjected to being talked to roughly, and if you are a woman the guards may hit on you. If this is how they talk to you, you
wonder how they treat him. Sometimes you will have on a bra which has metal, which will cause the metal detector to go off, which, in turn,
will lengthen the process.

Once you are actually in the visiting room, it may take 45 minutes to several hours before your son enters the room. You ask, “What took
you so long”, and are told that they just now called him. Occasionally he arrives around the count time, and so for some mindless reason they
will not let him in the room until after the count clears. Why they can’t take a count of the prisoners in the visiting room after admitting him
escapes you.

Often your conversation will revolve around different things to be done in connection with legal appeals and attempts to regain freedom. Much of this is foreign to you, and seems to be beyond your understanding, yet you will try to learn about it. Since you are his main connection to the outside, you also become his secretary, having to make various phone calls, look things up, and perform various tasks. The
changes he undergoes inside of him go largely unnoticed, because of this focus on this dominating theme. Later, once he is released, you
will discover the ways in which he has changed, and in some ways how his personality has been changed as a result of different after effects of his traumatic experience.

When it is time to go, depending on which guard is working at the visiting desk, the last point at which a visitor may leave will vary. Sometimes you will be stuck on a long line that can be as much as an hour and a half. It will break your heart to leave and not be able to take him with you, yet you have to fight yourself so that you don’t show it. The issue of visitation is divisive as you become resentful that other extended family members don’t visit him, or that they visit rarely.

Month after month, you will see the same people in the visiting room. You watch as visitors and prisoners alike age, and sometimes acquire
health problems. When their visitors stop seeing them, suddenly you cease to see the familiar faces of other prisoners in the visiting room.
You will hear the hardship tales of others on the way out and in the parking lot, and you will learn about the others’ cases. You wonder if they are innocent also, or if they are guilty. Sometimes you cease seeing the familiar faces who you made pleasant small talk with because their relative has been transferred. But you have no way of knowing that. You just cease seeing them.

When your son calls collect, you discover that the calls are more expensive. Yet you don’t want to tell him not to call, especially when you
can’t get up there to see him, so you have no choice but to bear the cost. Sometimes the money you send gets there after the commissary sheets have been printed, so your son must shop for hygienic items, stationary related products, and a few food items with however much money he has after working for two weeks at varying pay grades of 16¢, 22¢, 25¢, 32¢, 38¢ an hour.

Over the years, you learn about many prison rules, such as how many photocopied pages he can have in a letter (five) and what colors he is not allowed to wear. You learn that in order to be able to call you or others he will have to first place you on a calling list. After obtaining his GED, you learn that there is no college in prison for him to continue to pursue his education, and that the vocational classes offer obsolete material with some of the instructors merely there for the paycheck.

As the years go by, you are aware of the many milestones and rites of passage that he is missing. He misses births, deaths, marriages, holidays, and family gatherings. Your missing him is amplified on such occasions. You wonder whether he will ever get out, and whether you will have any grandchildren by him. You are aware of how big a part of your world is beyond your control, instead in the grasp of the legal
system. You wonder why it is that the appeals process is not as expeditious as it can be. You place your hopes in the next appellate proceeding, and you tell your son to be optimistic, that things will turn out okay. The let-down that occurs when the appeal is rubber stamp denied, despite what you, in your limited understanding, perceive to be good issues, is very hard to take.

However, you can’t show its affect because you have to encourage your son to remain optimistic and to hold on; and, that can’t happen if you go to pieces. The process begins again, and repeats, over and over again, at least five times until his appeals run out. The next problem is
that once that has happened, he will no longer be provided with an attorney, and you have no money to hire one. You need an investigator as well, to try to find new evidence, but like the attorney, you need one to work for free. But you quickly learn that it is very hard to find anyone to take a case pro-bono. You are aware of his reaching out to different law firms, organizations, people and places, but nothing seems to avail. Year after year goes by.

He’s going to the Parole Board. You begin to hope again. Maybe he can regain his freedom that way. But the Parole Board doesn’t want
to let even meritorious applicants go if they have been convicted of a violent crime, especially when they maintain their innocence and don’t
express remorse and take responsibility. Despite staying out of trouble, he is turned down. You wonder how long you will remain in the grip of the system, and if it will ever end. You think about whether you will ever see him free. You may even wonder about your own mortality, and whether, if it does happen, you will ever live to see it. Who will be there for him if he is still imprisoned once you pass away?
Sadly, the story ends there for many people who are wrongfully convicted. But let’s assume that your son is one of the lucky ones.

Somehow, years later, he winds up with representation. New evidence is uncovered, and he is proven innocent. You are happy, and he is vindicated. In hindsight, many people now see all of the red flags regarding his conviction. You wonder why that didn’t carry the day way back when. Why did he have to lose all of those years?

He leaves prison a free man, and you discover that his personality has changed, and all the after-effects of the experience begin to manifest
themselves. There are many skills he must relearn, and many he must learn for the first time. He must get used to his freedom, having choices,
learning new technology. He has lost contact with many friends. He is released with nothing.

If he’s an exoneree, he can sue, and he does, but it is a long procedure. He doesn’t have anything, and still needs to be supported. He is frequently passed over for jobs he interviews for that would provide gainful employment. Who will give him his first break to get him started?

Why is nothing given to him by the state to help him get on his feet? There are some who are afraid of him, since he spent all of that time in
prison though he was innocent. That fact affects his ability to meet women and find a partner.

As the discovery process of the lawsuit progresses, you learn more and more. You realize that some foul play has been involved. How could
this ever happen? You wonder why laws are not changed to prevent others from undergoing the same experience.

At The Westchester Democratic Convention

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Democratic Party Insiders Stage
A Very Tightly Controlled
Un-Democratic Nominating Convention

Last Wednesday night the clique that tightly controls all that goes on in County government to the point where the County Legislature is
nothing more than a rubber stamp for the will and the whim of County Executive Andrew Spano, ran a totally choreographed, really un-Democratic Party nominating event.

Entering the arena at the County Center in White Plains, we were immediately struck by the predetermined nature of it all. Signs declaring
Andrew Spano, Janet DiFiore, and Tim Idoni, were strung up everywhere to the exclusion of all others as though the outcome, the very
purpose of the evening, had already been pre-determined.

A district leader from Mount Vernon was told, in no uncertain terms by Reginald LaFayette, that he could not put up a sign for Tony Castro,
candidate for District Attorney. And, in fact, when he then placed some 150 Tony Castro signs at a table next to the entrance where all delegates came in to the arena, and where there were three other stacks of signs, all for Spano, Idoni and DiFiore, those Castro signs were quickly removed, never to be seen again.

When Andrew Spano, the County Executive who first ran for the Office 12 years ago, telling everyone he was only seeking two terms, and who is now, at 74, seeking a fourth, took to the podium, it was difficult to determine just what he was thinking about when he uttered the following: “You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.” This reporter certainly had to agree that what has
been going on in County Government between the County Executive and the Board of Legislators doesn’t pass the smell test.

Spano then, apparently not quite through with the subject of waste matter, proceeded to tell the delegates a whopper of a lie, declaring that
he had “gotten the Mob out of the solid waste business in Westchester.”

This reporter was present, some four years ago, having been personally invited to attend a meeting of the County Legislature’s Solid Waste
Subcommittee, by its chair, Tom Abinanti, when then-Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz stood at the doorway to the conference room, and, one by one, called each of the several legislators present out of the room in order to twist their arms into approving an $87 million, five-year contract, with City Carting of Connecticut, a company the City of New York refused to do business with because of its known Mob connections, rather than exercise the County’s available option to renew with the then-current hauler for only $70 million for the next five years.

When asked by this reporter if the original hauler, at $70 million, had been doing a good job, then- Solid Waste Commissioner Landi, another Andy Spano crony, admitted that they were. When then asked, “Why, then, did you not renew the option with them for the next five years, at $17 million less than you will now be paying?”, Landi said, “We wanted to test the waters.” Landi knew then, as did each legislator in the room, that trash hauling was a very tightly-held and choreo-graphed industry, where prices only went up, just like County government over the last 12 years; just like the so-called nominating convention.

Curiously, when it came to nominating a candidate for District Attorney, Party Chairman Reginald LaFayette insisted that Tony Castro’s,
and Janet DiFiore’s, speeches could only be given after a voice vote was recorded declaring DiFiore the nominee. Apparently he was so insecure that, perhaps, if they each spoke before the balloting, perhaps Castro might have inspired too many of even the tightly-controlled, rather unenthusiastic, crowd.

Truth be told, Spano never really supported Tony Castro in either of his prior attempts to become District Attorney. Andrew Spano has far too many skeletons in his closet, both as County Clerk and as County Executive, to ever risk having a competent, experienced law-abiding prosecutor, the likes of Tony Castro, in the District Attorney’s Office. Spano and his cronies needed, and still need, people like Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, who will sacrifice the interests of decent, innocent individuals, police officers and civilians alike, while covering up crimes and malfeasance, outright corruption in office. Hence, the all-out effort to put Janet DiFiore, a horrible, self-serving Republican DA, across as a Democrat.

Spano expects the real Democrats, the families who are not Fat Cat Insiders, but who, instead, are struggling with the highest taxes in the nation, to accept DiFiore as one of their own, despite her well-known, ruthless handling of innocent victims, and her vindictive crushing of honest, hard-working police officers. He expects her acceptance from rank and file Democrats, just as he expected them to accept the $5,000 raises he wanted to gift to his crony commissioners already getting $155,000 salaries last Fall. In short, he wants Democratic families to drink the Kool-Aid and accept Janet DiFiore despite the fact that a News 12 poll, taken several weeks ago, with a hefty 999 viewer response that indicated voters for District Attorney favored Tony Castro by an overwhelming 55 percent, Dan Schorr, the Republican, with 27 percent,
and incumbent Janet DiFiore, a distant third, with only 18 percent.

We are confident that, in the certain primary between Castro and DiFiore, Westchester’s Democratic families will not be fooled into Drinking
The Kool-Aid for DiFiore.

“You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.”

Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano

The Westchester Democratic Convention

Democratic Committeeman Maurio M. Sax’s
Nominating Speech For Tony Castro

Chairman LaFayette, fellow Delegates, eight years ago I had the privilege to stand before you and place in nomination Tony Castro for Westchester County District Attorney. At that time you enthusiastically, and overwhelmingly, made him our nominee for that Office. Four years later, again, you gave him your unconditional endorsement and, in the election that followed, he received more votes on the Democratic line than his Republican opponent, Janet DiFiore did, on the Republican line. Unfortunately, he lost because of minor Party endorsements held by his opponent.

This evening, we have a complex issue before us, as Tony Castro, once again, seeks the Democratic nomination for DA. He is being challenged by the present Republican incumbent who seeks the Democratic nomination for her re-election to that Office. Let’s be clear. There is a real distinction between these two candidates.

Tony Castro is the incumbent Democratic nominee, seeking to be the Democratic nominee to run as our Democratic candidate for DA. Ms. DiFiore is the incumbent Republican District Attorney who seeks the Democratic nomination for her re-election.

One must question why the Republican incumbent, who campaigned against our Party’s candidate, is now seeking our Party’s nomination.
When asked, at a Committee meeting, why she is defecting the Republican Party, she responded, “I like the Democratic Party’s values.” And, when asked which of those values she liked, the response was, “I am against the Iraq War.”

The question must be asked, what, in fact, being a Democratic District Attorney, would permit you to do that you can’t do as the present Republican in that office? Is there a Democratic or a Republican method of enforcing our laws and protecting the public interest? Will you be more competent and serve the public interest better now that you are a Democrat? This Office requires a person who is independent from political demands; someone who possesses fair social ideals and humanitarian principles which relate to law and justice.

Or, is the real reason that the incumbent Republican candidate cannot win re-election against a strong Democratic challenger. If it is, it is an admittance of weakness in your ability to serve that Office. We should not allow our Party to be used for political opportunism and self-preservation. Let’s not be enablers to those who seek to entrench themselves in public office. If this is the trend, there will be a public backlash against this. Both political parties must maintain the sanctity of the two-party system which is basic to our democratic values.

The facts are, when News Channel 12 ran a poll as to who should be Westchester District Attorney, Tony Castro received 55 percent. Dan Schorr received 27 percent. And Janet DiFiore received 18 percent. From this poll, and his two campaigns, we know that there is strong public support
for Tony’s candidacy.

Most of us in this room know Tony Castro. We have seen him and supported him through two elections. He is the prime example of the American Dream. He is the son of immigrant parents, who worked his way through Harvard University. His whole life has been one of public service, having served for 14 years, with distinction, as an Assistant District Attorney. He is committed to public service and will champion the cause of virtue over vice. Finally, allow me to say this. In over 100 years, a Democrat has never been elected to this office. With Tony Castro, we now have an opportunity to elect a life-long Democrat. Let this be an opportunity to elect a true Democrat to be our next DA, for he will enrich the Office with new, dynamic leadership that is so sorely needed.

It is with great pleasure that I place the name of Tony Castro as our Party’s nominee for the next District Attorney of this great County.

The Westchester Democratic Convention

Tony Castro’s Address Before The
Westchester Democratic Convention

Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice; and, when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” Two generations ago, New York Democrats were instrumental in waging and winning a battle for the soul of our Party as we embraced Dr. King’s non-violent crusade for justice as our own.

Just last November, New York Democrats proudly took part in an historic election of change, and promise, when we elected a President of the United States who is as much a son of Kenya as he is of Kansas. But the battle goes on. Today, here in Westchester County, victims of violence at the hands of a few law enforcement officials, are prosecuted by our District Attorney despite public and overwhelming evidence that they have done nothing wrong.

One man was held incommunicado and denied access to his attorney and family for four days. I know, because I was his attorney. In two recent cases, the United States Department of Justice has had to step in and prosecute because our District Attorney charged the victim instead of the offender.

I am a candidate for District Attorney this year, not out of any sense of entitlement as a former candidate. I run because, in this election, I am the better candidate, the better Democrat, and I will be the better District Attorney. Many of you know me as a life-long Democrat who fights the good fight and remains true to the values that define us as Democrats; an uncompromising, unwavering commitment to the civil liberties and rights of all, regardless of economic or social status.

That is the kind of District Attorney Westchester deserves, and that is the kind of District Attorney I will be. Our representations of justice show her blindfolded so that she may weigh, in the scales she holds, the fate of the accused before her, without regard to who that individual may be. In the United States, we are all equal before the law and, as District Attorney, I will make sure that is the practice here in Westchester County again.

Now, I know change is hard. It’s easier to embrace the status quo, to go with the conventional wisdom, to stick with the incumbent even when she just joined our Party. Senator Obama had a good gig going in Washington. It’s nice to be a United States Senator. It’s hard spending weeks in the frozen fields of Iowa convincing Iowa Democrats, sometimes one at a time, that you are the right instrument of the change that America needs.

So, tonight, in asking you to do the right thing for Westchester, and for our Party, I am asking you to do something hard. I am asking you to send a message to the power brokers who put this deal together, and to say “No”, a three-time Republican is not the future of the Democratic Party here in Westchester. And, “No”, we embrace a different vision of justice for our home towns.

It may well be easier to send this message in the privacy of a voting booth in September. But I ask you tonight to join my cause because it is the right thing, not the easy thing, to do. How important is this cause? Dr. King taught us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Westchester deserves a better administration of justice than it has. And, as the Majority Party, it is our obligation to see to it.

Fellow Democrats, I ask for your support, and with it, I promise to return law enforcement to its true purpose, the establishment of justice. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and God bless the United States of America, and our President.

In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

In Our Opinion...


This Memorial Day, Let Us Resolve To
Do Right By Our Returning Injured Veterans

This coming Monday will be Memorial Day, a day which, over the years, has historically been a solemn day of remembrance and tribute; a day when Americans traditionally visit the gravesites of fallen servicemen and women who made the ultimate sacrifice that we might live in freedom and peace. It is a day to reflect upon not only those lives that were laid down on foreign soil in defense of our democracy and democracies around the world against tyranny and dictatorship, but also, in a broader sense, those back here at home as well whose lives were dedicated to protecting our liberty, our very way of life.

With the end of the compulsory military draft, the composition and mentality of our military forces, those who have faced armed combat overseas, has changed significantly. For one thing, it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of those in the Armed Services are there because they have chosen to be. Having said that, we are not suggesting that those who enlisted are necessarily all very pleased to be facing combat, or even day-to-day existence in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The enemy is very often poorly defined, hidden, but armed and ready to strike, frequently by remote control using improvised explosive devices, killing and dismembering several military and civilian victims at a time. As a result, this Longest War In Our History has produced an extraordinary number of young men and women who have returned home with missing limbs and traumatic head injury, often involving vision and hearing loss as well.

Of course, actual physical trauma is but one side of the horrible equation; most often accompanied by psychological and emotional damage and complications sometimes undetected, lodged just beneath the surface, likely to rear themselves at any time back home. And, therein, too, lies the rub. Beginning sometime after the return of military personnel from World War II and the Korean conflict, the quality and availability of medical and psychiatric care and attention extended to our returning injured servicemen and women through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, has steadily declined, while, at the same time, the nature and severity of typical injuries has become more complex, but survivable.

Sadly, we often have not kept our promise, our solemn obligation to many who have come home in desperate need of aggressive after-care, rehabilitation, and guidance. Many await processing, approvals, and much-needed care and medication as regional VA offices, and local VA hospitals, either drag their feet or outright refuse to perform services.

This Memorial Day, let us take the time to consider the ways we might make a meaningful contribution to the care and comfort of someone who has come home from war with less than he or she left. Let us contact Congressman John Hall and other veterans’ advocates to make our feelings known, not only to federal officials but to state and county veterans’ offices as well. Let us make it abundantly clear that we want to keep our end of the bargain, despite the weakened economy, in order to provide our injured returning men and women with the finest care available.

Our Readers Respond...

Yonkers Legendary ‘Legal Eagle’ Makes Request


Dear Editor:

We thought this Memorial Day you could publish a photograph of the World War II Marine Memorial Window located
in Mt. Carmel Roman Catholic Church in Yonkers, New York which accompanies this letter.

The Window’s inspiration was a letter written by Marine Corporal Frank Gambino on the Marines’ beliefs and why
they sacrificed their lives for America during the Battle of Saipan on the loss of his squad leader, Corporal Joseph Romano.

The inscription on the Memorial plaque encompasses his lasting words. Corporal Gambino was killed in action in the Battle of
Iwo Jima and awarded the Silver Star. In any event, thank you for the opportunity.

John N. Romano, Yonkers


Editor’s Note:

We are only too happy to comply with the request of World War II Marine veteran, Mr. Romano’s, request.

Reader Reminds Us Corruption Continues In New Castle


Dear Editor:

I am writing to you to inform you of a very serious problem within one of our local government municipalities. This is not a story about the injustice against a single person. This story has nothing to do with whether one person is a Republican or a Democrat; this is a story about a human being and his God-given rights being violated. It is a story about an innocent, hard-working father and husband who was trying to do the right thing and provide for and protect his loving wife (Shari) and two kids (Matthew 11, Nicole 7). It is a story that hits at the heart of our community, and the basic human values and integrity that we have a right to expect from our community leaders.

I would encourage all who believe that public integrity and Equal Protection Under Law are necessary and fundamental to the lawful operation of local government to speak up and let those in power know your sentiments. I believe there is a troubling, pervasive, and disturbing problem in the Town of New Castle (Chappaqua), that is worthy of attention. Yes, I know this is the home Town for our Past President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but do not let that sway your opinion, please.

While I am not a writer, my problem is no less real, and I have to believe that I am not the sole victim. Over the past few years, there have been several articles printed in the local papers about the Police Administration and a Lt. John P. Vize as well as Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella in the Town of New Castle. These articles have told of the patterns of serious misconduct, Anti-Semitism, racism, retaliatory action, systemic governmental corruption and conduct unbecoming of several Administrators, employees and police officers within the town.

As it was revealed in one of the articles, then-New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, along with the New York State Comptroller’s
Office, found that there were serious egregious acts committed by these individuals. Anyone who does not believe this story to be true should look up the Verified Complaint filed against John P. Vize by the New York State Attorney General in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County index # 06-13794. This complaint against John P. Vize was received by the Westchester County Clerk on July 27, 2006.

It is amazing to see the depths that the New Castle Police Department Administration along with Town of New Castle Administrator Gennaro Faiella has sunk to, when Police Lieutenant John P. Vize is allowed to remain on the force despite allegations by the New York State Attorney General’s Office that Lt. Vize violated his fiduciary duties, falsified official records and defrauded the State of New York out of enormous sums of money. John P. Vize has allegedly damaged the pension system upon which many people depend. It has also been reported that Vize was making illegal and secret cash payments to other officers to help cover up the pension frauds he perpetrated.

Lt. Vize made these cash payments without reporting them to the Internal Revenue Service or the New York State Department of Taxation.
Did Lt. Vize commit Tax Fraud? When Lt. Vize was responsible for falsified records being sent to the United States Social Security Administration crediting Police officer Denis Mahoney for working as a Police Officer in New Castle when in actuality he was living and operating a business that he still owns in Carey, North Carolina. Did Lt. Vize also commit Social Security fraud?

Since Lt. Vize may have set up a criminal organization, shouldn’t the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York investigate these allegations? The fact that someone as reportedly as corrupt as John P. Vize is allowed to remain as a Police Administrator,
seriously damages the public trust in law enforcement. One would have to think it also damages the public’s confidence in the Town of New
Castle’s government, particularly that Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella along with Chief of Police James Baynes both of whom
knowingly and willingly condoned these actions doing absolutely nothing. These actions of keeping someone as reportedly as corrupt as John
P. Vize in his official capacity along with Chief Baynes and Gennaro Faiella together with Town Board Members that condoned these actions
speaks volumes about the serious lack of integrity in the Town of New Castle’s administration as well as other governmental agencies who choose not see that justice was brought to these people.

As reported by one newspaper (Westchester Guardian) an article read as follows: “State of New York, by Attorney General’s Office vs. Dennis Mahoney & John P. Vize, Index # 06-13794, has focused a tremendous amount of attention on the Town of New Castle’s 40-member Police Department, a matter that has churned since 1999 involving a top law enforcement officer who is still on duty, Lieutenant John P. Vize, accused of keeping fraudulent payroll records for at least a year in order to help fellow officer Dennis Mahoney obtain his
20-year pension early when in fact he only worked 19 years, the last year Dennis Mahoney was running a business he owns and was living down in Carey, North Carolina.

According to twenty-year’s worth of documents seized from the New Castle Police Department in 2003 by the Public Integrity Section of the
Office of Westchester District Attorney Jeannine Pirro, Lt. John P. Vize was also involved in arranging shifts under Dennis Mahoney’s name, referred to by some of the Police Department members as ‘The Mahoney Days’. Approximately 25% of the department’s officers have been reported to have participated in the pension fraud scheme! What line of action was taken by the Chief of Police or the Town Administrator, or the Town Board after these findings were uncovered by the Attorney General’s office? They did nothing, and according to Town Administrator Faiella’s statement in The Journal News, they don’t plan to take any action. (Journal News articles dated: July 28 & 30, 2006).

Instead these individuals are promoted, rewarded, and carry on with their daily routines, unpunished.” Now, what is even more disturbing, is that, as of recently, the Journal News has been doing stories about local municipalities and their pay scale. What they found out was most troubling. As quoted by the writer of the article eganga@LoHud.com, April 14, 2009: “The overtime champion in 2008 was police Lt. John
Vize, who earned $34,784. Vize, who is being sued by the state Attorney General’s Office over accusations that he helped former Police Officer Dennis Mahoney defraud the pension system, was the third-highest paid town employee.”

Do you all find that just a little disturbing that the Town of New Castle Administrator Gennaro Faiella, along with the Town Board’s backing, has the audacity to keep this man who is being tried in our very courts to this day for pension frauds from our New York State Pension system which many hardworking men and women and some, if not all, of you contribute to is still allowed to remain on its payroll?
What does that say about the Administration and Legal system in New Castle?

As a member of the community and a major contributor to the New York State Pension System and the spouse and father of members of the
Jewish faith, and, worse yet, a victim, I find these actions are appalling and disgusting. I was employed by the Town of New Castle D.P.W. Highway Division for 14 1/2 years with an outstanding work record and evaluations.

I have received several certificates for years of dedicated service, Letters of Commendation, as well as letters from residents and people traveling through Chappaqua who I assisted. I have also been recognized, and received commendations from surrounding towns for my actions in evacuating a full bowling alley before a roof collapse on March 17, 2007.

In 2004, I filed a lawsuit against the Town and several employees for Harassment, Discrimination, Anti-Semitism, Retaliation and a Hostile
work environment. For years there were anti-Semitic remarks made towards me, such as “Jew Lover”; and I was told by one person “Hitler Had the Right Idea; the only thing Jews were good for was to skin them and Make Lamp Shades”. One of the Foremen (Mike Clifford) referred to the local Yeshiva as a “Jew Farm”.

There was also an instance involving the Foreman being advised of the name of an applicant for summer hire, whereupon he replied “That
Jew will never get a job here”. There is no excuse for those remarks, and they strike a deep chord within me as my wife and children are Jewish, and these comments were abhorrent. I brought my concerns over these Anti-Semitic remarks to the Chief of Police and the Town Administrator, and they took no action, essentially condoning the illegal acts, the same way they took no action with the complaints within their own department. I should not say they took no action because as you read on you will see just how corrupt the administration is there and what they have been covering up.

In 2002 The Town of New Castle went and hired an outside law firm to arbitrate an incident that took place on May 17, 2002 which involved Michael Molnar, one of the individuals named in my lawsuit. In a separate incident Molnar even tried to run over one of the foremen while yelling vulgar obscene comments out his driver’s side window. This is just one example of several that Molnar was involved in. Yet, to this day, Gennaro Faiella, Penelle Paderewski and the Town Board members, Robin Stout, John Buckley, Elise Kessler Mottel, and Michael Wolfensohn, all choose to ignore the fact that he is a potentially serious problem there. Instead they’ve promoted him and he is receiving an ample amount of overtime on a weekly basis.

Prior to filing my lawsuit, I suffered an on-the-job injury to my back. At that time, as well as currently, I was a volunteer with the Brewster Volunteer Fire Department. I informed the Fire Department that I would be out of service because of my on-the-job injury, as I’ve done any time I’ve had an on the- job injury. During my recovery, I was informed that the Town was investigating me for Worker’s Compensation
fraud based on an “eyewitness” account that I was flagging at a car accident on I-84. Through their investigation, the Town found no evidence to support the allegation, to be truthful. In reality, there was not even an accident on I-84 that Brewster responded to during that period of time. This malicious investigation was conducted with the intention of damaging my reputation and character, and was never officially cleared up.

After filing my lawsuit in 2004, I suddenly found myself getting written up for various “insubordination” charges, including, but not limited
to, my saying “aww, shucks.” In May of 2006, my lawsuit was amended to add the Town Administrator, Gennaro Faiella. Within weeks, I was further retaliated against with additional bogus charges, culminating in my being suspended for 30 days without pay, and my being required to appear for a Section 75 hearing. It is interesting to note that as I was being handed the letter suspending me, another employee was standing there repeating the ‘f ’ bomb over and over again in front of the Deputy Town Administrator, Penelle Paderewski who, at that time, was also Acting DPW Commissioner. And, interestingly enough, she was also this employee’s mother.

As an aside, the employee in question was not written up for his foul language while I, on the other hand, was written up for saying “aww shucks.” Just to be clear, I had never been written up prior to filing the lawsuit! Upon returning to work after my 30-day suspension I was relocated to another department, denied any overtime, and specifically instructed that I was not allowed to use any equipment or drive any vehicles, which essentially meant that I was only permitted to work as a laborer, not at my level of MEO. This is not unlike the Supreme
Court case, Burlington Northern Railroad v White Sheila that was ruled on June 22, 2006. (http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003256.php). If that weren’t enough, they also instructed me as to the specific facilities
I was permitted to use when I had to relieve myself.

Where is the justice? Those of us who have filed lawsuits against these individuals and the Town of New Castle have done nothing wrong.
All we have done is fight for our civil rights which were repeatedly violated, and protect the integrity of our families. In response, the Town
of New Castle and its administrators continually harassed and retaliated against us in every way possible.

An example would be that on one occasion my assistant foreman John O’Hearn approached me and made a verbal statement, “Do yourself
a favor and drop the grievances and drop all the other stuff (meaning the lawsuit) because you are on thin ice with the Town.”

They have used us as examples of what will happen if you stand up for what is right, and as their method of intimidation to other employees.
I specifically know that men I was friends with were told to keep their distance from me if they knew what was good for them. This created an environment of fear of retaliation, fear of losing their jobs, fear of losing overtime, fear of further financial repercussions, etc.

Finally, and most disturbingly, is the fact that while I was out of work due to an on-the-job injury, they terminated my employment. Even worse, as a result of this injury, I’m not currently able to seek new employment. Most maliciously however, is the fact that from October 2006 through mid January 2007, they falsified my time sheets, using up my vacation time, personal time, sick time, and comp time. Thus, when they fired me, they wouldn’t have to immediately pay me for that time. There is a history in the Town of New Castle involving falsifying of time sheets, whether for personal gain as in the police department fraud case, or in the case of someone injured on the job.

The Town paid me while I was out on disability, and was reimbursed by Workman’s Compensation. Given that Workman’s Comp income is not taxable, the Town had the responsibility to amend the employee’s W2 form, indicating the correct amount of taxable income. This also did not happen, thus resulting in fraudulent tax records. To summarize, the Attorney General’s office filed a suit against a current police officer, and a retired police officer, but the Town took no disciplinary action. The police officer is currently still on the job, at the same level, with the same responsibilities. An individual (Mike Molnar) physically attacked the foreman of the DPW; no disciplinary action was
taken. This same individual tried to run over another supervisor, as well as another employee, in the DPW; again, no disciplinary action was taken.

Six individuals complained about a hostile work environment caused by this same individual; once again, no disciplinary action was taken.
An individual spray-painted town trucks; but received no disciplinary action. These actions as well as others are all documented. This
is a small example of the discrimination and retaliation that exists. I, however, was written up, suspended for a month without pay, and ultimately fired, for what were essentially bogus and false charges of “insubordination” that “coincidentally” started after my lawsuit Notice of Claim was filed.

Jeffrey S. Chiara, Carmel

In Loving Recognition
Of Memorial Day
And All That Our
Fathers, Mothers
And Families
Sacrificed That
We May Be Free

The inscription on this Memorial Declaration Plaque was from a letter written by Cpl. Frank Gambino, U.S. Marine Corps, 3Bn-COL-23 Regt. 4th Division, on the Battle of Saipan, June 15, 1944 where he describes the Battle - The Marines - Their Beliefs and the loss of his Squad Leader, Cpl. Joseph G. Romano.

Cpl. Frank Gambino’s life ended on February 23, 1944 where he was awarded the Silver Star. A copy of the letter is in the Church and Memorial Services have been held monthly.

“These are our dead and we, their comrades, are the living. Our task is to continue the struggle for which they gave their lives. They shall not have died in vain. Make us worthy of their memory.”

U.S. Marine Corps. Memorial
Mt. Carmel RC Church
70 Park Hill Avenue
Yonkers, New York

The Court Report.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky Returns
To Federal Court
United States District Court, White Plains
Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith Presiding

Last Tuesday morning, May 12, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, a podiatric surgeon whose medical practice was brought to an abrupt halt by a severe auto accident from which she is left with bouts of intolerable pain and the need to often wear a corrective collar, appeared in United States District Court, White Plains, before Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith. Bobrowsky, the Plaintiff, appearing pro se, had hauled the City of Yonkers represented by Assistant Corporate Counsel Neal E. Kumar, Judicial Title Company, represented by Attorney Angelo Delli Carpini, and Attorney Herbert N. Posner, not admitted to Federal Court, acting pro se, into Smith’s Court.

Judge Smith opened the session declaring, “Judge Robinson referred this case to this Court for either motion, trial, or settlement. There’s been
a Motion to Dismiss by the City of Yonkers; another Motion to Dismiss by Judicial; and the request by Mr. Posner for permission to make a Motion to Dismiss.”

Posner told the Court, “The complaint rambles; there is a complaint in State Court.” He went on to briefly review his role and representation
with respect to Lillian and Jacques Bobrowsky, the doctor’s mother and brother, respectively, currently residing in Florida, telling
the Judge that although they had discharged him, he still had an obligation to keep their address confidential.

Bobrowky began by telling Judge Smith, “The City of Yonkers has refused to send me my tax bills. This is my home that I was removed
from. This is a travesty of justice to not even get a copy of my tax bill.” She went on to tell Smith, “Mr. Posner’s notary license was revoked
for mortgage fraud. He was disbarred for fraud in 1987. The case in State Court is finished, because Mr. Posner failed to show up.”

Bobrowsky went on to inform the Court that the following day, last Wednesday, her house was scheduled to be sold by the City of Yonkers
at auction for back taxes, and that she desperately needed a stay of that tax sale. She began to lay out, in detail, the manner by which Attorney Posner, in concert with the Yonkers Police Department, the Tax Assessor’s Office, and Yonkers Corporate Counsel had conspired
over a three-year period to put her out of her home on Fanshaw Avenue, to isolate her from her mother and brother, and to cause her to be
vulnerable to loss of her rightfully-owned house.

Judge Smith, who at points seemed somewhat impatient with yet another pro se litigant, and, at the same time, appeared quite empathetic
to her plight, broke into an ‘echo’ of, “I do not have the power. I do not have the power. I do not have the power.” She went further, “You’ve made an application to Judge Robinson.”

Posner now said, “Alot of things have been said about me.” He went on to discuss his relationship with Dr. Bobrowsky’s mother and brother, and the obligation he believed he had to each of them to keep their address in Florida secret.

Analysis:


Of course, having been involved in the coverage of Dr. Bobrowsky’s struggles with the City of Yonkers as well as with Attorney Posner for a few years, and having been at various city, state, and federal courts in the presence of her mother Lillian and brother Jacques, accompanied by
Posner on numerous occasions, this reporter believes their personal vulnerability and their manipulation as portrayed by Plaintiff Bobrowsky to the Court, to be quite accurate and on-the-mark as opposed to the benevolent spin offered by Posner.

Magistrate Judge Smith, attempting to keep the proceedings on course and consistent with her assignment from District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson, told the parties, “The question is, what motions I should permit.”

Dr. Bobrowsky, under the imminent threat of wrongfully losing her home in a tax lien sale the next day, the home that was declared rightfully hers in State Supreme Court by Judge Richard Liebowitz many months earlier, now launched a counter-attack against the portrayal laid out by Attorney Posner.

She informed the Court of a “pattern of interference” in the conduct of her life, not only involving receipt of her mail, and continuation of her
disability insurance payments but, more importantly, her relationship with her mother and brother.

She spoke of the actions taken by the New York State Department of State in revoking the notary license of Attorney Posner for fraudulent
acts in connection with her home and property. She repeated a quote from Westchester County Clerk Tim Idoni about that County agency’s
dependence upon the honesty of filers of documents, intending to show the Court how little protection she, and others similarly situated, have from those who would fraudulently seize, or financially encumber, their homes and other property.

The doctor’s presentation was sufficiently effective that it motivated Assistant Corporate Counsel Kumar to offer to remove her home
from the tax sale. Again, Magistrate Smith was compelled to bring the proceedings back on course, back within the limited scope of her jurisdiction and assignment in the matter, despite the anguish and urgency being justifiably felt by Plaintiff Bobrowsky, and the emotional thread that ran through an otherwise well-stated pro se presentation. Smith declared, “I’m not the fact-finder. You’ve gotten the
immediate remedy that you wanted from the City of Yonkers.”

The Judge then set up a series of deadlines for receipt of motions and responses from the parties between mid-June and early August, with a
next conference scheduled before her to occur on October 2.

Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

The Coming Food Crisis:
Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

If you feel lately that your wallet is hurting at the supermarket, you’re not alone. According to the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), food prices in the United States rose 4% in 2007, compared with an average 2.5%, per year, for the previous 15 years. The USDA expected increases in 2008 to be far greater. The Consumer Price Index (CPI), issued in April 2008 showed expected increases in food prices for last year were another 4.8%.

The dramatic increases in food prices, globally, are creating food shortages and causing riots worldwide. The Guardian investigated what is behind this mounting crisis. The reasons for these increases go far beyond global warming, changing weather patterns, and energy costs.

For the past 25 years, the United States Department of Agriculture encouraged conservation by farmers to limit production of certain crops to stabilize food prices. Under the Conservation Reserve Program, farmers could earn more by not planting certain crops, and the government
could keep the prices of those crops stable.

However, in recent years, the snack food and energy industries have been upsetting this delicate balance. A coalition of ethanol, baking, snack foods and other industry groups are now offering incentives to farmers to grow the desired crops for their industries. Crops such as soybeans, wheat, and corn are now in big demand for uses other than for domestic food consumption. These new markets have pushed up prices.

The USDA incentives cannot compete with the industry payments, overriding the federal government’s long-standing methods of controlling the costs of our nation’s food supply. In addition, the demand for corn, specifically, in recent years to produce ethanol has swayed farmers away from other staples, such as wheat and soybeans. Thus, the rising costs of these staple crops are having a domino effect across the farm
industry itself as higher soybean prices mean higher feed costs for farm animals. The demand for ethanol has increased the cost of corn, ironically increasing the cost of energy for the production and transportation of crops. And, the high wheat costs are affecting our local bakeries and even our pizza shops.

Michael DiNardo, owner of Silvio’s restaurant in Thornwood, told The Guardian that his food costs have increased an average of 50% in the last year alone. “That’s an average increase”, DiNardo stressed. “Some items, such as dairy and fowl, have increased by as much as 200% over last year’s prices. Our tomato distributors have already warned me to expect another increase, and our wheat distributors are warning me of continuing shortages come summer. at’s my livelihood – we can’t make pizza without flour,” DiNardo added.

Rising costs of ingredients are nothing new to the restaurant industry. DiNardo noted that he has usually been able to absorb temporary increases before. “Usually prices increase for a period, like the summer, but then come back down. We try to absorb a temporary increase where we can, but
this is looking like it’s here for the long-term.”

With a long-term problem, the increase cannot be absorbed by restaurants and have to be passed along to consumers. “I’ve already had to raise my prices and I did a major price increase a while ago,” DiNardo said. “When I raised my prices, I was very upset. I live in the community and I
see my customers every day.” The rising costs have also placed greater emphasis on items that were once an after-thought. “Mozzarella used to be the most expensive item I purchased,” DiNardo noted. “But wheat is almost as expensive. It used to only increase a penny or two at a time. But it’s been competing with mozzarella as the most expensive ingredient”.

Local supermarkets are also feeling the pinch of rising prices. Stew Leonard, Jr., President of Stew Leonard’s Supermarkets, spoke to The Guardian about how they are dealing with this issue. “We buy from local farmers so we speak to them on a constant basis. Our dairy farmer has over 3,000 cows on his farm. The cost to heat his barn for those cows has doubled. It now costs him more a day to feed a cow. Since we deal with small local farmers, if they tell me they have to increase their price to me, I don’t want to say no because that could but them out of business. But if we raise prices, sales drop. So we try to wait as long as we can while still being fair to our farmers. The idea for us is to respect our suppliers and to get the best quality for our customers. But our farmers can’t do that if they’re hurting financially. So we work with them to find solutions.”

Farm costs are not the only increases affecting our local supermarkets. Energy costs are taking a toll as well. According to Stew Leonard, rising energy costs are impacting the transportation of the products he is purchasing. It is also affecting non-farm products. Leonard told us, “I spoke to
our fishing boat and he told me that it cost him $500 to fill up his tank 3½ years ago, and that last year it cost him $1,000 to fill the same tank to go out”. Leonard’s solution is to work directly with his farmers, fishermen, and suppliers.

“We try to work with our suppliers and give everybody the best bang for their buck. In an economy like the one we have, you have to keep your prices sharp”. Leonard notes that not every item on their shelves is affected by the food shortages and energy costs. Some items are actually doing
well. Last year the high Euro made wines more expensive, but other countries, including the United States, looked at this as an opportunity to gain market share.

So they lowered their prices to compete. We saw the same trend with cheese. Plus, as food costs increased, and going out to dinner became more expensive, coupled with weak economy, people ate at home more. So supermarket sales actually increased. Leonard’s began getting more requests for recipes while seeing an increase in wine sales.

The rising cost of food is not only affecting our local restaurants and supermarkets, but it is also placing hundreds of thousands of county residents at risk. Christina Rohatynskyj, the Executive Director of Food Patch, told The Guardian that they were seeing the impact of rising food costs first-hand last year. “We purchased a lot of food for distribution, and we saw the changes in costs. Plus, many of our food pantries, and soup kitchens, and other organizations, were telling us that they were seeing more people come in for help. They told us if they had more resources, they could give out more food because the demand is there. As our economy grows worse, there are going to be more people who will need help to stretch their
food dollars.”

The number of county residents who are already hungry or at risk of being hungry is dramatic. Rohatynskyj estimates that “there are approximately 200,000 people in this county who are hungry or at risk of being hungry – that’s one out of every five residents! According
to the 2006 Census, the median income in Westchester County was about $71,800.

That means about 450,000 people, or half of our total population, fall below this income level. An average family of four or five cannot live in Westchester County on an income of $71,800, let alone less than that”. The statistics of who the hungry in our midst are is equally dramatic. “Thirty-six percent of those who are hungry in Westchester County are children under the age of 18” Rohatynskyj noted. “Almost 30% of our residents over the age of 50 fall into this risk area, along with 15% of our seniors over 65. Over 83% of the individuals who come to us for help are United States citizens and only 5% are homeless. Most of the individuals we serve, about 50%, are the working poor. They have a job, but cannot afford to feed their families. For many people in our area, they have to choose every day between paying rent, prescriptions or buying food”.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, increasing food prices, coupled with food shortages, are placing a strain on already impoverished nations around the world. The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, announced in mid-April 2008 that 33 nations were already at risk of social unrest because of the rising prices of food. In the United States, most households spent less than 16% of their budget on food. But in developing nations, that number was closer to 50% or even 75% (Nigeria) of their income. The World Bank has noted that the doubling of food prices in the past three years could push more than 100 million people into poverty. The United Nations attributes this increase to poor weather for crops in many countries, increased demand by growing populations, and a substitution of growing crops for food staples for the production of alternative fuels instead. Riots over the shortages of food in several impoverished countries last year had already led to deaths leading
former President Bush to release $200 million in emergency aid.

The demand for alternative fuels led to the production of ethanol which siphoned away the corn production in our country and globally. Ironically, the solution for one of our nation’s problems has resulted in the creation of a greater problem in our midst. One short-term solution to the food crisis would be to increase production locally. Dr. Susan Rubin, founder of the Better School Food organization (pro-filed by The Guardian in 2007),
advocated a return to backyard gardens. “Not only will the food be healthier, but gardening has therapeutic values – it helps relieve stress. Plus, it is a better environmental use of our land than drowning it in pesticides to keep our lawns weed-free,” Dr. Rubin notes.Westchester County Government even offered several workshops in April and May last year at the Hilltop Hanover Farm in Yorktown Heights to assist local residents in composting a backyard organic farm and other topics.

In the meantime, middle class residents, however, are still faced with paying for their weekly grocery shopping bills. Even limiting purchases to mere food basics, without adding cleaning supplies or toiletries or snacks, can mean a minimum weekly bill of around $150 or more for a family
of four. Now that soda is cheaper than milk, local families are already making unhealthy choices to keep their food costs down.

The immediate impact of rising food costs was already evident last year with food riots and sticker shock at our supermarkets. But the long-term impact could be even greater. The threat to our health and our national security has yet to be acknowledged.

Jeff Deskovic.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Jeff Deskovic.

Exposing The Death Penalty, Part 2

In my effort to raise awareness about the problem of wrongful convictions, as well as seeking legislative changes to make the criminal justice system more accurate, I have always included abolishing the death penalty amongst the reforms I advocate. My reasoning is simple: any system of justice that results in wrongful convictions will, if it has a death penalty as a sentencing option, inevitably execute innocent people. This past March 17 New Mexico legislatively abolished the death penalty citing, amongst other issues, that very real possibility. In this three-part series I will review likely wrongful executions, near-misses, ongoing cases of potential wrongful execution, systemic deficiencies, along with one case example wherein innocent people were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death before being cleared. And then, I will look at modern-day recognition that the death penalty risks the execution of innocent people.

Ongoing Cases Of Potential Wrongful Execution

There are several ongoing cases in which manifestly innocent defendants are locked up, fighting to establish their innocence, and hence regain their freedom and avoid being executed: Larry Swearingen and Troy Davis, whose case has been previously written about in The Guardian.

Larry Swearingen was convicted of murder in 2000 and sentenced to death. The Innocence Project has summed up his case in the following way: Swearingen was convicted largely based upon a second leg of torn panty hose that prosecutors said matched the half used to strangle the victim. The hose mysteriously surfaced at Swearingen’s trailer after it had been thoroughly searched twice by deputies.

Although Swearingen had maintained his innocence from the start, he didn’t help his defense. Early on, from jail, he concocted a ridiculous confession letter in Spanish, supposedly from the real killer. Swearingen’s Spanish was unintelligible. During the trial in 2000, he was caught lying on the witness stand about other things. The jury quickly convicted him and sentenced him to death despite DNA testing showing that blood found under the victims fingernails and a pubic hair found in a vaginal swab did not match him.

But since then Swearingen and his appellate attorneys have discovered glaring inaccuracies in the forensic evidence presented to the jury. From the beginning, prosecutors had based their case on the theory that the victim had been killed and dumped in the forest on the same day
she went missing, Dec. 8. That theory was supported by the testimony of a medical examiner who stated that the body could have been decomposing for a month.

Her testimony was vital to Swearingen’s conviction because he was arrested and jailed for traffic warrants just three days after the victim disappeared. The medical examiner has since changed her testimony in light of new examinations, saying it was not possible for the victim to have been killed and left in the forest any longer than two weeks before her body was discovered.

This would mean Swearingen was incarcerated at the time the crime occurred. In addition, according to The Texas Monthly, five different
physicians and scientists—forensic pathologists and entomologists— say there’s almost no way Swearingen could have done it. Dr. Glenn Larkin, a retired forensic pathologist in Charlotte, North Carolina, said, as reported by The Dallas Morning News: “As a forensic scientist
since 1973, I always kept an objective stance when called to testify; however, there comes a point when as a human, and as a Christian, there is a mandate to speak in the interest of justice. This is a moral issue now; no rational and intellectually honest person can look at the evidence and conclude Larry Swearingen is guilty of this horrible crime.” Besides that, there are efforts to get even further scientific evidence which could further prove his innocence: further DNA testing.

The Innocence Project is seeking to get additional DNA testing in his case on the panty hose, the victims clothing, and more blood scrapings.”
The Dallas Morning News reported that “despite the DNA not matching him, and the other evidence showing that he was in jail at the time that the crime happened, and despite trying to get even further DNA testing, Swearingen came within 1 day of execution before a federal appeals court granted him a last second stay of execution on Jan. 26, 2009, with one day to go before execution, so that his innocence issue may be looked at.”

Troy Davis


According to Wikipedia, Davis was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 for the August 19, 1989 murder of off-duty Savannah police
officer Mark MacPhail solely on the basis of now discredited eyewitness testimony. No physical evidence linked him to the murder, and the weapon used in the crime was never found. Throughout the trial and subsequent appeals, Davis steadfastly maintained his innocence, claiming he was wrongfully convicted of the murder, and has been wrongfully imprisoned for the past 20 years. Nine eyewitnesses recantations from all but two of the prosecution eyewitnesses, the testimony of another previously undiscovered eyewitness and others with information bearing on the crime—all strong evidence suggesting Davis was not the gunman and is, in fact, innocent of the crimes for which he was sentenced to death.

All the witnesses stated in their affidavits that their earlier statements implicating him had been coerced by strong arm police tactics. Davis argued that since seven of the nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony and voluntarily filed sworn affidavits stating they lied in the original trial, he is entitled to a retrial based on his actual innocence claim. In addition, five other witnesses have come forward to say that an alternative suspect confessed. Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck had this to say about the case, in a letter published in The
Huffington Post: “Seven of the nine key witnesses who testified against Davis now recant their trial testimony, claiming they were coerced to lie by Savannah police.”

The reliability of those witnesses was characterized by Amnesty International as “containing inconsistencies even at the time of the trial”. Scheck continues in his letter, “Despite the seriousness of these allegations and the sheer number of recantations, Georgia courts and state
officials have not only been unwilling to stay his execution, but they have even refused to hold a hearing with live, sworn testimony to assess the credibility of the recanting witnesses. What most people don’t know is why Davis can’t get a full hearing on the new evidence and just
how ridiculously far four judges of the Georgia Supreme Court have gone; there were three dissenters; to avoid reviewing post-conviction evidence of innocence.

The recantation of a witness alone does not and should not automatically result in a conviction being vacated. Recantation evidence is treated with caution by courts because, after all, the witness is saying he or she once lied under oath, so how can one be so sure they are not just
lying again?

Nonetheless, many wrongful convictions have been overturned because a recanting witness, testifying in person and under oath before a judge, is found to be credible and the reason for the recantation, often a claim that the original trial testimony was coerced is found to be persuasive. But in Georgia the recanting witnesses don’t get to testify because the state’s courts have created an extraordinary Catch-22 rule, the ‘purest fabrication’
doctrine, that arbitrarily denies evidentiary hearings even when extremely persuasive recantation affidavits have been submitted. The ‘purest fabrication’ doctrine means that post-conviction hearings don’t have to be held to evaluate the credibility of recanting witnesses unless the defendant can show, by extrinsic proof before the hearing is held, that the original testimony was absolutely false.”

Many prominent people and groups recognize the injustice involved in Davis’ case. Amnesty International has strongly condemned the refusal of U.S. courts to examine the innocence evidence, and has organized rallies and letter-writing campaigns to persuade the Georgia and Federal courts to grant Davis a new trial or an evidentiary hearing. Many prominent politicians and leaders, according to Wikipedia, including: former President
Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former Presidential candidate Bob Barr, and former FBI Director and Judge William Sessions have expressed their shock at Georgia authorities’ plan to execute Davis without a proper, judicial examination of the innocence evidence, and have called upon the courts to grant Davis a new trial or evidentiary hearing.

Only a last-minute emergency stay, issued by the United States Supreme Court less than two hours before he was scheduled to be put to death, prevented his execution. Modern Day Recognition There is a general recognition that the death penalty risks executing innocent, but wrongfully convicted, defendants. As mentioned above, out of the 235 DNA proven wrongful convictions, 17 of them had been sentenced to death. According to the Death Penalty Information Center database, the total number of people who have been cleared from death row, whether by DNA or
non-DNA means, is 130. The criteria that they used is that they must have been convicted and sentenced to death, and subsequently either their conviction was overturned and 1) they were acquitted at re-trial, or 2) all charges were dropped, or 3) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence.

In addition to the general systemic deficiencies having the ability to lead to a wrongful conviction and execution, there is also, within the death penalty system itself, a mechanism which makes a wrongful conviction and execution likely: the process of death qualifying a jury. The article Pretend Justice: Defense Representation In Tennessee Death Penalty Cases states that death qualification of jurors is “a process that essentially erodes the defendant’s opportunity for a fair trial by an unbiased trier of fact. Required in death penalty cases, unlike other criminal cases, this process results in a jury whose members are notoriously prosecution prone, that is, jurors who are receptive to prosecutors and their witnesses, and biased against defendants, defense counsel, and their witnesses, not only on the issue of life or death, but also on the issue of guilt or innocence.”

The imposition of the death penalty adds the following obstacles to a wrongfully convicted defendant seeking to establish his or her innocence: 1) It puts a defendant, who typically has scant financial resources, in a time pressure situation to hurry up and uncover evidence of innocence; 2) It limits the amount of time in which innocence can be proven by circumstances outside of conscious efforts made either by the defendant or
his attorney, such as eyewitness’s coming forward to say that they misidentified him; a real perpetrator confessing; and evidence of innocence coming forward as a result of governmental agencies and/or law enforcement investigating other cases.

One example of this phenomenon, Jeffrey Scott Hornoff was a police officer in Rhode Island who had been wrongfully convicted of murdering a woman that he had an affair with. The actual perpetrator, Todd Barry, as a result of his conscience bothering him, came forward and confessed to his guilt and Hornoff’s innocence. Another example involved that of chemist Fred Zain. According to The Los Angeles Times, it was discovered
that Zain was in the habit of committing perjury, faking lab test results, and evidence tampering. As result of discovering Zain’s actions, in West Virginia one man was freed and three others received new trials. Sixty seven other cases are under review in West Virginia. Hundreds of cases that he worked on in Texas are also under review.

The author of the book “Capital Punishment: A Balanced Examination”, Evan Mandery, speaks about the increased impact of being wrongfully
convicted in a capital case as opposed to a non-capital case: “The death penalty affects the plight of the innocent-convicted in three ways: 1) it shortens the amount of time during which a mistake can be discovered and corrected 2) in instances where mistakes are caught after execution, the mistakes cannot be corrected in any meaningful way and 3) in instances where mistakes are not corrected, the innocent are killed rather than spend the remainder of their lives on death row.” As long as a person is alive, the chance, as mentioned above, is that a miracle could occur and innocence
could be proven. Once the person is executed, the defendant can no longer seek help to clear his name, and attorney’s only rarely continue to work
on the case.

The Innocence Project has made the following public statements about the danger that the death penalty poses by creating the possibility of executing innocent people: “Our work has proven that innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit, and these exonerations illustrate the causes of wrongful convictions that must be remedied. These DNA exonerations are a window into the criminal justice system’s flaws: While DNA testing is an option in just a fraction of all criminal cases, the factors proven to cause wrongful convictions exist regardless of whether the case involves DNA.

Specific to the death penalty, our work has shown that innocent people are sentenced to die. Of the 223 people exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing, more than 25% were convicted of murder. Seventeen were sentenced to die; others were charged with capital murder
but narrowly escaped the death penalty, and still others would likely have been charged with capital crimes if the death penalty had been in place at the time of their trials.

We have also worked on cases of people who were executed before DNA testing could be conducted to confirm guilt or prove innocence, and we are aware of several non-DNA cases where evidence of innocence surfaced after people were executed.”

In recognition of the danger that the death penalty poses to executing innocent people, the governors of Illinois, New Jersey, and New Mexico have all taken steps. After pardoning 4 people who were on death row on the grounds of innocence, Gov. Ryan proceeded to commute the death sentences of all of the death row inmates. In explaining his decision, Gov. Ryan made repeated references to the possibility of executing innocent
people. [Excerpt taken from the website Salon.com].

“Soon after taking office, I watched in surprise and amazement as the freed death row inmate Anthony Porter was released from jail. Anthony Porter was 48 hours away from being wheeled into the execution chamber where the state would kill him. It would be so antiseptic that most of us wouldn’t have even paused for a second, except that Anthony Porter was innocent. He was innocent for the double murder for which he had been condemned by the State of Illinois to die.

Over the next few months three more exonerated men were freed because their sentences hinged on a jailhouse informant or some new DNA technology proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were innocent. We then had the dubious distinction of exonerating more men than we
had executed. Thirteen men found innocent, 12 executed.

As I reported yesterday, there is not a doubt in my mind that the number of innocent men freed from our death row stands at 17, with the pardons of Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley, Stanley Howard and Leroy Orange. That is an absolute embarrassment. Seventeen exonerated death row inmates is nothing short of a catastrophic failure. But the 13, now 17, men is just the beginning of our sad arithmetic in prosecuting murder cases. During the time we have had capital punishment in Illinois, there were at least 33 other people wrongly convicted on murder charges and exonerated. … Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error, error in determining guilt… To say it plainly one more time -- the Illinois capital punishment system is broken. It has taken innocent men to a hair’s-breadth escape from their unjust execution.”

Jeff Deskovic/Janet Difiore.

Jeff Deskovic.

An Open Letter To Chief Judge Lippman

On Sunday, May 3, I discovered that The Journal News published a lead editorial entitled Another Turn At Justice. Let me quote the opening
paragraphs: “New Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals is quickly moving to address the kind of mind-numbing legal travesty that cost Peekskill’s Jeffrey Deskovic much of his youth and liberty, and gave the criminal justice system in Westchester a black eye. Intervening where the slow-moving Legislature had been content to slumber, Lippman is forming a permanent task force to examine wrongful convictions and recommend ways to minimize them.

The initiative is a long overdue reply to a steady string of exoneration cases in New York, most often brought to light by the do-gooder lawyers group the Innocence Project. Aided by ever-improving DNA technology, the New York City-based group played a critical role in securing the 2006 exoneration of Deskovic, who served more than 15 years in prison for the 1989 rape and murder of Peekskill High classmate Angela Correa. DNA testing ultimately ordered by District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who entered office in 2006, led to the stunning revelation that someone else had killed Correa.”The article also contains a picture of me.

Before getting to my open letter to Judge Lippman, there are a few things that I want to clarify. As many people are aware, I served 16 years in prison for a murder and rape which I was innocent of. In the face of a negative DNA test which clearly showed that semen found in the victim did not match me, I was convicted based upon a coerced, false confession, prosecutorial misconduct, and forensic misconduct.

In addition, my public defender was not very good. All of my appeals had been exhausted by 2001. For approximately the next four and a half years I tried in vain to obtain the legal assistance needed to prove my innocence and regain my freedom. Try though I did, nobody would take my case pro bono, as I had no money. I, therefore, languished in prison while desperately trying to obtain assistance.

I was ultimately cleared because The Innocence Project agreed to represent me, and then approached Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore who agreed not to oppose further DNA Testing. Once the results matched an individual in the DNA database, who, in fact, had been imprisoned for another rape and murder of another Peekskill woman just three and a half years after my wrongful conviction, DiFiore then joined the defense motion to overturn my conviction and shortly thereafter, have the indictment dismissed on the grounds of actual innocence.

I appreciate her not opposing the testing and deciding to join the defense motions. But that is not to say that I was freed because my case was discovered in the course of a pro-active search of old cases by the DA’s Office, which is one way that The Journal News article
could be mistakenly interpreted. Further, I would like to add that although I was saved from having to litigate for the testing, and again I am grateful for that; if we had had to I haven’t any doubt that The Innocence Project would have won the right to the testing.

Life’s events seldom happen in a vacuum, and the election cycle for Westchester District Attorney is nearing. My photo in The Journal
News article at this time might suggest that I support Janet DiFiore in her re-election bid. I have nothing against her personally, and, as stated previously, I appreciate her doing the right thing in my case. However, I am concerned about more than simply my own case.

I am concerned with both preventing future wrongful convictions and seeing that ongoing cases of injustice are corrected. at is my life’s calling and mission and I cannot, ultimately, betray that mission or the people who support my anti-wrongful conviction advocacy by remaining silent.

I do not support District Attorney DiFiore in the upcoming race, for the following reasons:

A) The Anthony DiSimone case, in which the Westchester DA’s office, under DiFiore, fought up until the last minute before being forced to concede by the federal Court, and only then handing over exculpatory, previously withheld, evidence pointing to a third party suspect, yet continuing in their efforts to retry DiSimone;

B) The Richard DiGuglielmo case, involving DiFiore’s fighting the overturning of the verdict in which the Judge ruled that information had not been turned over to the defense, and then appealing the decision, not to mention the Prosecutor’s conduct, which I personally witnessed, and
that the Judge noted in his decision, that rather than being concerned with the truth the prosecutors were simply trying to win;

C) The Kian Khattibi case, in which the prosecutors first dissuaded the defendant’s brother from telling the truth in court that he committed
the stabbings by falsely threatening him with prosecution although the statute of limitations had run out, and then, once the brother wouldn’t
testify, arguing that the other family member’s testimony as to the confession they had heard was hearsay; when then-Judge DiFiore denied
Khattibi’s meritorious 440.10 Motion placing procedure above justice arguing that his petition contained inconsistent statements by witnesses, some of were on the record and others which were not;

D) Her failure to prosecute rogue Police Officer Wayne Simoes, who ultimately was arrested by the FBI for body slamming Irma Marquez
thereby breaking her jaw and causing multiple physical trauma, even though it was all on videotape; and, instead prosecuting Marquez;

E) Waiting 18 months before dropping her prosecution on false charges against Yonkers police brutality victim Rui Florim.

Dear Judge Lippman,


I have read that you have created a permanent task force in order to address the serious issue of wrongful convictions. As you know, wrongful convictions are much more prevalent than society previously realized. DNA has opened a window into the world of wrongful convictions allowing us to identify the systemic causes as well as common themes and patterns.

Since DNA material is only available in 10-12% of all serious felony cases, it is important that we prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. As it stands for the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no science that can definitively separate guilt from innocence. Additionally, as I can attest personally, the human toll of wrongful conviction on defendants and their families is incalculable.

I would hope that since you are seeking to make the New York State Court System more accurate, you will address issues that contribute to wrongful outcomes which I would respectfully like to point out.

1) More Frequent and Careful Review Is Needed. A common theme in many wrongful conviction cases, especially the 24 DNA-proven cases in New York, is that the Defendants have long since had their appeals exhausted. In many of those cases, including my own, the Court Of Appeals declined to grant permission to the Defendants to appeal to them.

In my case, for example, I was denied permission to appeal to the Court Of Appeals, with a ruling that stated there was “no merit in law to justify the reviewing.” Why is it that in so many of these wrongful conviction cases we can look back and see many red flags that should have been clear signs that something was not right? More cases need to be caught while they are still in the appellate process. Clearly,
what is needed is more review, not less. Therefore, cases that come before the Court should be given a closer look when deciding whether to review them or not. That scrutiny should be done in light of what is known about the causes of wrongful conviction.

Cases based on confessions should be looked at very carefully in terms of the circumstances under which they were procured. In identification-based cases, the quality of the ID and the procedures used to procure them should be closely looked at. Additionally, in many cases involving misidentification, courts have erroneously allowed convictions to stand despite victims having given clearly inaccurate descriptions with respect to height and weight. Cases involving allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel should be looked at carefully since it is known that without quality representation defendants may be wrongfully convicted despite being innocent. Such cases need to be heavily scrutinized and adjudicated on the merits rather than with deference to the defense attorney.

I am aware that such deference is accorded in order to uphold the sanctity of defense counsel and not by way of second guessing one’s strategy. However, either a challenged omission or commission constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel or not; no deference is needed. Instead, it must speak for itself.

If forensics furnishes part of the evidence, the Court must question whether it is based upon sound science, studies and data, or merely junk science. When a so-called science has been exposed as junk, every judge should be on the lookout for it in future cases, and even old cases should be re-examined to see if anything slipped past.


While I understand that the Court Of Appeals does not review cases on a factual basis but merely rules on issues pertaining to law, clearly where claims of actual innocence are present, particularly when DNA is involved, the Court should keep that in mind when deciding whether to accept a case in order to rule on the legal issues it presents.

2) In Confession Cases, Implement A Pre-Trial Hearing On The Issue Of Truthfulness. False confessions have been the cause of wrongful convictions in 25% of the 237 DNA-proven wrongful conviction cases, and in 10 of New York’s 24 cases. Yet, in none of those cases, despite clear warning signs that can be pointed to post exoneration, were the confessions suppressed. False confession literature shows that
once a confession has been entered into evidence there is an 80% conviction rate. Clearly, a pre-trial Huntley hearing where the sole issue considered is voluntariness is insufficient. Instead, a hearing in which the focus is the truthfulness of the confession is needed, akin to a Wade Hearing.

3) Ban Tactics Which Have Been Linked To False Confessions, such as prolonged interrogations, the misuse and abuse of the polygraph, lying to suspects, claiming to have non-existent evidence, and the interrogation of the mentally ill and/or retarded without an attorney present. Such practices, that are acknowledged to be psychologically coercive, lead to false confessions and therefore to wrongful convictions, and run
in the face of the spirit and intent of both New York State and federal Constitutional prohibitions against self incrimination.

4) Reverse Parole Board denials of parole applications as the result of applicants expressing innocence. There have been cases in which otherwise meritorious parole applications have been denied because they maintained innocence at the parole hearing. Such declarations are seen as “not taking responsibility” and “not showing remorse”. Colin Warner served 21 years in prison in New York prior to being proven
innocent. He was denied parole three times, in part because he refused to admit guilt at the Parole Board. Westchester Exoneree Kian Khattibi served nine and a half years before it was revealed that his brother committed the crime, and not he.

Prior to that, at his Parole Board Appearance, he maintained his innocence. The Parole Board denied him parole based upon that fact, saying “Your lack of remorse minimizing your involvement, notwithstanding your institutional adjustments, are a concern, and, when coupled with the violence in the instant offense make you an unacceptable risk for release at this time.”

Such a rigid approach doesn’t take into account the reality that wrongful convictions occur. I am unaware of any person so denied then successfully taking their case to court and obtaining relief. In fact, in many of the rare cases where a parole appeal based on any grounds at all is reversed, frequently the Court Of Appeals has stepped in and reversed the Appellate Division.

The problem of such a policy on the part of the Parole Board is obvious. It places the wrongfully convicted prisoner in the position of potentially sacrificing his or her freedom as the price for maintaining innocence, when in reality it doesn’t need to be done that way. Either an applicant can demonstrate by their record that they are likely to live and remain at liberty without breaking the law or not. The granting of parole need not be tied to a statement of responsibility.

An additional pitfall of such a guilt acknowledgement is that the wrongfully convicted defendant potentially creates additional evidence against himself in the event that his conviction is overturned, as part of the price of trying to meet the Parole Board requirements. An example of this is the John Duval case. He was convicted in 1973 of committing a murder in Rochester, New York, along with his co-defendant Betty Tyson. They were convicted based upon confessions which they stated were beaten out of them, and on the testimony of two teenage runaways.

After his appeals failed, in order to try to obtain his freedom, Duval twice admitted guilt in front of the Parole Board in 1995 and 1997 because he felt that was the only way he could regain his freedom because of the practice.

Later his conviction, along with that of his co-defendant Betty Tyson, was overturned because one of the witnesses recanted his testimony, saying he had lied previously. In addition, prosecutors then came up with a buried synopsis of a police interview with the other teen, in which he denied seeing Duval or Tyson, contrary to what the teen had testified in 1973. However, while the prosecutors dropped the charges
and Tyson was awarded money for her imprisonment, prosecutors retried Duval, using the statements that he had made in front of the Parole Board as evidence.

5) Reverse Prior Decisions Allowing The Department Of Corrections To Mandate Self Incrimination In Order To Continue To Participate In The Sex Offender Program. Prior court challenges of this practice by the Department Of Corrections have not yielded any relief, even when a defendant is still pursuing appeals. In order to have any chance at parole, defendants convicted of sex offenses must admit guilt, to staff and peers, in writing, and give details. To not do so is considered to be tantamount to refusing the program. This, too, forces prisoners to potentially sacrifice freedom as the price for maintaining innocence. This does not take into account wrongful convictions.

I will close by saying there is a great need for incarcerative and financial penalties for rogue prosecutors who intentionally commit Brady and Rosario violations, suborn perjury, fail to correct perjury, and who have patterns and practices established with coroners and other experts, whereby those experts work backwards to prove whatever a prosecutor is trying to prove. I would urge you to include these in your report. After all, what does an honest prosecutor have to lose? To me, prosecutorial misconduct is like any other crime. Don’t do the time if you can’t do the time.

I hope that your report will be hard hitting, critical, and proves to be an impetus by which urgently needed legislation is obtained. The cracks in the system which I have attempted to point out above are correctable judicially. Please do not ignore problems from within while only addressing those from without.

Best regards,


Jeffrey Deskovic, Criminal Justice Advocate and Exoneree

Janet Difiore.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

The Justice Department Needs
To Enforce The Law Of The Land
Collegial Deference Makes Them An Accomplice After The Fact

Simply put, those who would enforce the law must live by it. A front-page dispatch out of Washington, D.C. in last Wednesday’s New York Times stated, “An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush Administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations, but they should not be prosecuted according to government officials briefed on its findings.”

The report, which was prepared by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Ethics Unit within the Justice Department, indicated that the Feds might relegate their responsibility to identify and punish those attorneys who blatantly authorized and justified serious violations
of Constitutional guarantees, to state bar associations, and, would likely involve little more than reprimands, went a long way to con-
firm the two-tiered justice system most Americans believe we have been living under for some time.

The Obama Administration needs to push for a Justice Department that ordinary citizens will have reason to believe will dish out equal penalty and punishment for equal offense. After all, Constitutional guarantees are the bedrock of our democracy, the rules of the game. If the promise of change is what prompted the majority of Americans to install an African-American man with a Muslim-sounding name in the
White House, Constitutional violations and Executive Privilege, the like of which the Bush/ Cheney Administration thrived on for eight years, simply will not do.

We all quickly came to understand what the Right meant by “Law And Order.” It simply meant that those in power were above the law and would give the orders. And, make no mistake, the so-called trickle-down Republican philosophy was never more effective than in the realm of law enforcement. Here, in Westchester, we were exposed to the penultimate model.

Former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, one Michael J. Garcia, precisely three years ago, May 12, 2006, took the unprecedented measure of releasing the telephone number of a so-called “Corruption Hotline” 1-877-ENDGRAFT, as he put it, “through which members of the public can call and report potential abuses of the public trust by public officials.”

Judging by the extraordinarily low number of public integrity arrests and prosecutions in Westchester, as well as the five counties immediately north and west named in Garcia’s original announcement, one might logically conclude that we were as clean as a whistle, and that there were few calls, given that one can count on the fingers of one hand the number of public integrity cases indicted and convicted by
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the County of Westchester, “the suburbs north of New York City,” as then-President Bush had defined the geographic scope of his area of concern.

One would surely conclude that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, manning the hotline, were like the Maytag Man, waiting for the phone to ring. But, in fact, the opposite was true.

We learned from scores of readers who did phone in that they had been repeatedly told by FBI agents that they were “swamped with calls and couldn’t handle any more.”

So what happened? By comparison, Chris Christie, the United States Attorney, appointed by Bush in 2001 to deal with corruption in New
Jersey, had, by 2008, convicted or taken guilty pleas from more than 125 corrupt public officials; most of them going to prison. What was Mr. Garcia doing with the flood of information pouring into his hotline? We have no way to know for sure.

However, we do know that he attended the retirement party given for former Dobbs Ferry Police Chief George Longworth, the same corrupt
police chief who eyewitnesses in the Richard DiGuglielmo case, testified personally harassed them, together with all three of his detectives, and treated them like suspects until they broke down and changed their original accounts with respect to the self-defense shooting of
bat-wielding perpetrator Charles Campbell to accounts that conformed with what DA Jeanine Pirro wanted them to say.

We do know that on at least two separate occasions Garcia was entertained at the Hamptons Villa of Westchester DA Janet DiFiore, whose refusal to prosecute a rogue, violent Yonkers police officer, and another from Sleepy Hollow, has caused federal prosecutors to step in and do so. In the Yonkers incident, not only did DA DiFiore fail to prosecute the violent, abusive cop, but, in fact, proceeded instead to prosecute
Irma Marquez, the innocent, severely injured victim, even after viewing a videotape of the incident. She did the same in the Rui Florim
case, involving a near-fatal beating by six off-duty Yonkers cops, as well as in numerous, similar, documented cases without any reprimand or acknowledgement of wrongdoing, from Garcia’s Of-fice.

Call it collegial deference, selective prosecution, whatever lightweight term you wish. In plain language, it is injustice; a two-tiered system of enforcement; federal prosecutors protecting and covering up the misconduct of their state counterparts, and their cronies. Westchester is rife with corruption and serious issues of public integrity; and, yet, there has been in-finitesimally little production in that area of criminal activity from the United States Attorney’s Office.

Taxpayers are disillusioned; quick to believe “They’re all in bed together.” They cannot understand the lack of accountability from federal, state, and county government officials, and law enforcement agencies as, all the while, they are being bled dry with taxes to support the
corruption. The “Trickle-Down Effect”, the “Them v Us” reality at a time when families are losing their homes, and putting food on the table, has become harder and harder, is the more intolerable while many police officers are making $250,000 and more, and part-time County commissioners, such as Reggie LaFayette, are getting $155,000, plus all they can steal from one slush fund or another.

The Justice Department must enforce the law of the land, holding persons, particularly those in positions of power and authority, to account if this Nation is to come through this difficult period intact. The majority of hardworking reasonable individuals must not become convinced, as too many already have, that the ‘Promise of America’, a good life for one’s family, is merely a myth, no longer supported by
constitutional guarantees.

While many, particularly in New York, already acknowledge the corruption and greed that has clearly taken control of the State Court System; and, with it, much of state and municipal government, many still hold out hope that the federal government, the Department of
Justice, particularly under the Obama Administration, will fulfill its mandate and prosecute crime and malfeasance everywhere without malice or favor.

To do less would be to invite societal collapse. William Pitt said it quite bluntly; “Where Law Ends, Tyranny Begins.”

Janet Difiore.

Thursday, May 14, 2009


In Our Opinion...


Politicians Who Kiss Up To DiFiore Could Care Less About The Harm She Brings To Their Constituents

Two weeks ago, when Janet DiFiore, Darling of Westchester’s Political Fat Cats, made her official announcement outside of the County Courthouse that she was running for a second term as District Attorney, we made several observations with respect to the crowd she brought with her. For one thing, more than half of the roughly 200 individuals present were her recognizable assistant district attorneys, investigators, and support staff. No big surprise; Pirro used to stack her announcements that way too, with staff virtually compelled to show up.

What was very telling, however, was the noticeable lack of police personnel from the 43 Departments across the County. Of course, given her callous handling of decent, hard-working police officers, coupled with her mind-boggling protection of rogue, abusive cops, the unwillingness of the overwhelming majority of Westchester’s Finest to support DiFiore was certainly understandable.

After all, they are the ones who have been dealing with her for some three and a half years now, and they are the ones whose fellow officers have suffered under her heavy-handed vindictiveness, as was the case with Detective Sergeant Steven Bonura of the Pleasantville Police Department.

Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the Department, father of five children, had commented to a reporter from The Journal News how inappropriate he thought it was for DiFiore’s Office to be constantly plea-bargaining with a career criminal with 30 arrests, putting that offender quickly back on the street to commit more thefts, more burglaries, and offenses involving guns, supposedly in exchange for information on other criminals. DiFiore, unable to face constructive criticism, insisted on Detective Bonura’s “head on a silver platter”, which she received from the Village Board at the urging of Police Chief Anthony Chiarlitti.

Then there was Officer George Bubaris, of the Mount Kisco Police Department who DiFiore brought to trial without a stitch of evidence
connecting him to the death of homeless immigrant Rene Perez. We had said at the start of the trial, “DA Comes To Court With Tank On Empty.” Bubaris was acquitted, but not before losing his job and spending a fortune in legal fees. Police departments across Westchester have little use for Janet DiFiore; but, apparently, nobody tipped off Pat Lynch, President of the New York City Police Benevolent Association.

Lynch is a union guy. He’s no police officer. He’s just another politician, one who apparently could care less about DiFiore’s mistreatment of good cops, or prosecution of the innocent victims of police brutality, at the hands of bad ones. Like politician Chuck Lesnick, the Yonkers City Council President who never once publicly spoke out against the brutal beating of Rui Florim, or the body-slamming of Irma Marquez,
or the beatings of dozens of other individuals, all his constituents, including women and children, Lynch showed up to kiss up to Janet DiFiore, who, in fact, prosecuted those innocent victims.

Our Readers Respond....


One More Time, Fourth Amendment Alive And Well


Dear Editor:


Last Friday at 6 p.m. I was perched on a public road in sunny Chappaqua, New York awaiting a passing train or three on the Harlem Line. A patrolling New Castle PD cruiser happened upon me, standing trackside armed with my Nikon D100 digital camera. Before he exited his vehicle, he radioed for back-up. Within one minute, another two police cars come racing down this dead-end street at over 50 MPH.

Now that the whole posse was here the grilling began.

Q. “Why are you here? What are you doing?”


A. “Taking pictures of trains.”

Q. “Why are you taking pictures of trains? What are you going to do with pictures?”

A. “It’s my hobby.”

Q. “Let me see some I.D.”


After he ran my license, checked the tags on my car, and all comes back A-OK, he then explained to me that “All of this is necessary in the
name of post-9/11, transit systems being targeted, subway bombings in Spain and England, etc.”

I explained that I’m taking pictures from a public road, of public transportation, all within my rights. He said, “True, but we still have to make sure, you know?” Actually, I did not know why I needed to be checked out, but ok.

He then asked for permission to search my vehicle. At this point, I knew if I refused, things could get ugly. They could write me a ticket for
parking two feet from the curb, worn left tire, parking the wrong way on the left side of the road, etc. So, knowing that I had nothing to hide in my car I said “Sure, go ahead, search the vehicle.”

They asked me to step away from the car as they conducted their search. They went through my work bag, my laptop computer case, the
trunk, the glove box and everywhere in between.

And then one officer saw my Metro-North Railroad parking permit. He said “Hey, do you have Metro-North ID?” I said “Sure, here it is.” “Oh, you work for Metro-North?” they asked. I said “Yes.” At this point, they ended their search and the ordeal was over. The two
officers who arrived last left the scene. The remaining officer finished his notes, and upon leaving stated again that all of this is “Due to 9/11.”

He thanked me for co-operating and drove off into the sunset.

As you probably know, the MTA photo policy states that any John Q. Public can take a picture of any train, bus or subway car so long as you are not in a RESTRICTED area. So, why do these cops violate me when I am John Q. Public standing on a public road?

Answer - because they can.

Welcome to modern day Communism folks, right here in the U.S. of A. Please note, that I did not want to be “Let o- because I’m an MTA
employee.” But rather, I wanted to simply act within the letter of the law and exercise my rights as a free citizen living in the greatest state in the greatest country on earth. I should not have been violated by these guys like this. Obviously, that was too much to ask for...in New Castle anyway.

But maybe, that is what they do to “justify their jobs” - ya know? As in “extra protection” for the “Billary & Co.” mansion located a few
miles away. i.e. Stop any out-of-towner and give ‘em a good lashing! I am truly saddened by this unfortunate event.

W. Koch


Editor’s Note: Reader Koch would do well to read the “In Our Opinion” column in the May 7, 2009 edition of The Guardian in which we discuss the very recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, authored by Justice Stevens, with respect to police searches of vehicles incident to an occupant’s arrest. In overturning those automatic warrantless searches which dated back to 1981 Stevens declared, “A rule that gives police the power to conduct a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”


Machiavellian Maneuvers Of Lawyers, Judges And Defendant For Over 20 years

Dear Editor:


The 20 year span of over 20 Judges in one divorce action one would question Why?

Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Index No.90/1972, County of Putnam,
Honorable Andrew P. O’Rourke
Maria Gkanios, Plaintiff


-Against-


Frank A/K/A Fotios Gkanios, Defendant


Selective Prosecution


Why does a divorce take 20 years; Gkanios vs. Gkanios, the longest divorce case in Putnam County? Why was this defendant allowed to operate under a second Social Security number?


Why were charges not filed against this defendant for filing false net worth statements in this divorce action without the new Social Security Number?


Why would Judge Andrew O’ Rourke at one point knowing that the defendant Mr. Gkanios, is a convicted Pedophile having to decide Fault in the divorce. This is an insult. Fault should not have even been a question in this divorce. One would also question the qualifications of Judge Andrew O’ Rourke if he cannot recognize how the law requires him to deal with a convicted Pedophile in a matrimonial action.

How is he sitting on a matrimonial case, failing to follow the rule requirements in matrimonial including discovery, due process, notice, hearing etc…?

Why would Judge Andrew O’Rourke taint himself with the appearance of impropriety by further condoning and rewarding the actions of the defendant by having to think of having to decide fault. It was only after Plaintiff reminded this judge of the heinous acts by the defendant that fault was removed.


Bifurcation of a divorce is illegal in New York. Again Judge Andrew O’Rourke violated the law by bifurcating this divorce from the bench, NO written order, no discovery etc. There should be no question as to fault; the egregious conduct of the defendant being a convicted pedophile under egregious conduct clearly proven in the State of New York!

This divorce belongs under EGREGIOUS CONDUCT not Equitable Distribution. The plaintiff ’s marriage to this defendant from the inception was a lie. Egregious conduct is hard to prove but not in this case. Defendant was found guilty by a jury on December 11, 1991
in Putnam County and, on the same charges, in Westchester County plead guilty to the full indictment on April 14, 1992. In the State of New York under Egregious conduct plaintiff is entitled to all the marital assets, that is the very reason that the courts, the defendant, his attorneys sent plaintiff on a wild goose chase for years because of his crimes!


The question here why the sentence was concurrent and such a minimum sentence? He served a total of four years on such a heinous crime! If it was anyone else they would have served at least 25 years.

Why did Judge Andrew O’ Rourke turn a willful contempt hearing for failure to pay child support into a matrimonial trial, knowing that, to date, there has been no discovery; no note of issue can be filed.

Defendant was hiding in the State of Florida at 2585 South East 9th Street. Pompano Beach under the second Social Security number. Why was this defendant not picked up after reporting it to the DA’s office and the Carmel PD for help? On April 11, 2008 defendant was picked in the State of Florida on the Adam Walsh Law for failure to register as a sex offender. He left the State of New York illegally.

Defendant has lived an elegant life style in New York and in the State of Florida in a multi million dollar home in Pompano Beach. Claiming he works and makes 250.00 a week but testified that he pays 1,200.00 a month rent, what about the food, electric, insurance etc. Red Flag?

Why didn’t Judge Andrew O’ Rourke order the production of the defendants Past and Present Tax returns? Why didn’t Judge Andrew O’
Rourke demand a full accounting from this defendant?


How is it that this defendant continues to falsely claim financial hardship. If that were true than the proper action for the defendant would be to motion the court for Poor Persons relief under CPLR ARTICLE 11 Sec 1101, 1102, 1103, not show up in court with paid attorneys, appraisers, at the same time falsely and frivolously claiming to have no money to pay child support. Adding insult to injury giving the plaintiff two money orders of $25 each just two days before the court hearing for contempt and an additional two more money orders for
$25 each after the court hearing. This is an insult to plaintiff, the court and the laws governing Child Support including every father who has gone to jail for not paying child support arrears. Fathers who pay support and Fathers who have been jailed for non support Mike Kelly,
Doug Higbee, Domenick Lieto, Bret Evans, Allen Ortz, Thomas Butti, Edward Mancini, Tony Nocera and John McKeon the list goes on.

Why?


Why would Judge Andrew O’Rourke violate the law further to wipe out child support arrears totaling over $300,000. Notice of Entry of all orders, properly filed and served along with all the affidavits of service the time for the defendant to appeal has long been gone. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times! Has Judge Andrew O’Rourke now become an appellate judge and appointed himself?

“DRL Section 244, article; that the court NO LONGER has broad discretion in determining whether to grant applications for judgment. Where the arrears are the arrears in child support, the court must enter a money judgment for the amount of arrears, now arrears in child support must be awarded in full.” Judge Andrew O’ Rourke was not appointed by the AIS Part to hear this case why did he continue and appoint himself to this case?

Before Judge Andrew O’ Rourke, Attorney Victor Grossman opened the door on the production of tape recordings that the plaintiff was in possession of. Plaintiff produced the tape recording after court and counsel received the damaging evidence before the court against the defendant, the court has again through deceptive practice conspicuously and deliberately leaving this out of record. This clearly constitutes
continued fraud, and bias. WHY?

Tape one show’s how the plaintiff was fighting with the defendant because the defendant wanted to burn the tore down, a restaurant in Eastchester, and collect the insurance money and plan that it was the plaintiff. The second tape was the day before the second restaurant in Mt Vernon was taken. Defendant’s thugs came in and threatened that plaintiff better give the store to the defendant or they were going to send the boys up.

There were numerous and prejudicial statements directed at the plaintiff by Justice Andrew O’ Rourke. The remarks made were not proper and undermining of the public’s trust. I would think that the actions of the court are deliberate violations of the Cannons of Professional Responsibility and his oath of office.

That plaintiff pay for the transcripts and then the defendant will give plaintiff half. Judge O’ Rourke comments: “Call your rich relatives in California, let them give you the money” Plaintiff was granted Poor person in a divorce action years ago. Plaintiff cannot afford the transcript.


Plaintiff does not work. In the interests of justice plaintiff ’s poor person request is accepted and the transcripts produced without further violating plaintiff ’s due process rights and civil rights. There is not just one violation, there are numerous. This case has gone on for quite a number of years.

Compliance with the rules is essential to the integrity of the Judicial Process. In this case there has been no compliance ever!

The Child Support Judgements


1. Dated March 11, 1994 is from week December 18,1990 to February 13,1993 plus interest totaling $71,484, 00 defendant was served at the Correctional Facility along with his counsel.

2. Dated June 24,1994 is from week February 14,1993 to May 8, 1994 plus interest Totaling $36,090.14

3. Dated November 16,1995 is from week May 9, 1994 to June 4, 1995 plus interest Totaling $31,838,68

4. Dated June 16, 1996 is from week June 5, 1995 to November 12,1995 plus interest totaling $12,138.01

5. Dated October 13,1996 is from week November 13,1995 to September 1,1996 plus interest totaling $ 22,822.68

6. Dated October 15, 1999 is from week September 2,1996 to May 31,1999 plus Interest totaling $ 86,654.12


7. Dated March 12,1996 is from December 11,1990 to March 12,1996 plus interest totaling $ 24,671.60. This judgment is for the care of the defendants step-son Peter Cirino Defendant signed a Confession of Judgment.

Machiavellian maneuvers by the Courts, the defendant and Defendant’s counsel should no longer be tolerated by this or any other Court!

As Professor Siegel sets forth: “The present system is too tolerant of the deliberately evasive and dilatory litigant, increasing the expense of
litigation in money, time, trouble, and feeling, and tending as a consequence to undermine public confidence in the courts.” New York Practice, 2d. Ed., David D. Siegel, 367, p. 541 (.1991).

Lets Play Catch


Child Support takes precedence over any claims. Defendant’s former counsel Terrence Dwyer illegally obtained a confession of judgment from the defendant, just two days prior to his incarceration, against marital property in an attempt to defeat any and all my economic claims, and the minor children born of this marriage: in particular, those claims of child support CPLR 5234 (b). “Such executions for child support
shall have priority over any other assignment, levy or process”.

Dwyer violated the Court Orders by obtaining the confession of judgment after JUSTICE SWEENEY’s decision. Dwyer was not awarded attorney’s fees by this court or any other court for his representation of my husband in this matrimonial action or any other action.

The order entered in the Matrimonial matter of Judge Fred Dickenson dated 7/1/91 states: (Paragraph 3, The defendant’s, his agents, employees and representatives are restrained and enjoined, except in the regular course of business and subject to further order of the court, from concealing, dissipating, utilizing, assigning, transferring, or in any way disposing or encumbering the marital assets, unless the plaintiff, in writing consents to such action.) and Further: A second order of Justice Sweeney’s dated October 21, 1991, states:

“This court is most reluctant to award attorney’s fees where child support is outstanding. Therefore, the ‘court Sua Sponte vacates its award of attorney’s fees without prejudice to renew ‘if it is found, specifically in the Supreme Court Action, that Respondent, herein, was not in arrears.”


Upon reading the newspaper to my surprise I found that Dwyer was going to auction off my property through his confession of judgment. Dwyer is not a marital debtor; he cannot enforce judgment against a marital property without the written consent of the creditor. The marital estate is not liable for the debts incurred by husband after the separation.


Contrary to State and Federal statutes regarding child Support as well as prevailing case law authority; and his bad faith attempt to take possession and control of the marital property located in Putnam County through a Sheriff ’s Sale which was scheduled February 4,
1993 without disclosing it to me that there existed a Confession of Judgment secured by him against my husband and without notice to me “CPLR 5236(c) Requires Notice” that he intended to execute upon said judgment; violating NYCRR. 1200. 11[DR 2-106] The rules precluded Defendants Attorney Dwyer from a contingency fee agreement in a criminal matter. Dwyer proceeded knowingly to obtain marital
property although the rights to his property had not yet been determined; CPLR 5239.

Attorney Dwyer failed to provide plaintiff with any and all documents, correspondence, or agreements regarding the procurance of said judgment which he has levied against the property, my property. NYCRR 1200.11 [DR 2-106] prohibits Dwyer from obtaining an agreement upon security interest, Confession of Judgment or other lien without prior notice to the client in a signed retainer agreement which Dwyer has failed to produce to date. There is no privilege where notice has to be of an application for a security interest to the other spouse; A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect:

(1) A contigent fee for representing my husband in a criminal case; or


(2) Any fee in a Domestic relations matter to which Part 1400 of the joint rules of the Appellate Division is applicable,

(a) The payment or amount of which is Contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of maintenance, support, equitable distribution, or property settlement; or

(b) Unless a written retainer agreement is signed t the lawyer and the client setting forth in plain language the nature of the relationship and the details of the fee arrangement.

(c) Based upon a security, interest, Confession of Judgment or other lien without prior notice to the, client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from the Court after NOTICE to the Adversary.

Dwyer proceeded knowingly and unlawfully to obtain a security interest in the marital estate via Confession of Judgment without presenting to the lower court any documents which demonstrates that a fee agreement existed; and that I had been given notice, the adversary in this action; or that the court had granted approval for the “security interest,” after submission of an application for counsel fee [NYCRR
1400.5 a) (1).(2) and (3)].


(A) An attorney may obtain a confession of judgment or promissory note, take a lien on real property, or otherwise obtain a security interest to secure his or her fee only where:

(1) the retainer agreement provides that a security interest may be sought;

(2) Notice of an application for a security interest has been given to the other spouse;

(3) The court grants approval for the security interest after submission of an application for counsel fee

(B) Unless a written retainer agreement is signed by the lawyer and the client etting forth in plain language the ature of the relationship and the details o the fee arrangement.

(C) Based upon a security, interest, confession of Judgment or other lien ithout prior notice to the, client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from the Court after NOTICE to the Adversary


In addition to Defendant and, by his previous counsel, falsifying statements of net worth; dated 8/5/91 defendant and by his counsel failed to include the property in question that was owned by my husband and myself. DRL 236 Pt B, Subd. 1 c provides marital property is all property acquired by either or both parties during, the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement
of a matrimonial action. Defendants counsel executed upon the confession of judgment in Westchester County with full knowledge that said property was the subject to the equitable distribution laws of this state. Further defendants counsel was not a creditor of the marital estate
and his contempt of court orders dated July 3, 1991 and the Honorable Justice Sweeney Dated 10/21/91

Defendant’s former attorney Dwyer attempted to foreclose on me and from attaching any interest in this property his attempts violated my rights to deprive me of my property and to defeat Equitable Distribution. The support issues must be addressed and come before Dwyer’s action but what counsel tried to do was screw you. Courts, I am getting my money.

Foreclosure


Judge O’ Rourke continued to allow an appraisal for my children’s house and property when it was foreclosed on years ago when I continued to object to each and every time on any and all statements made. The defendant, as well as I are FOREVER BARRED.

Judge O’ Rourke is trying to collect half of what the house was worth at foreclosure knowing that the defendant and I were forever barred in an attempt to deduct that from the child support the defendant owes the plaintiff. One would question why there was a span of 20 years and over 30 Judges, in one divorce action.

Maria Gkanios, Mahopac

Citizens Need A Direct Vote On Critical Issues

Dear Editor:


The state produces nothing. It gets all of its money from the disorganized majority and gives it to the organized unions, non-profits, and large corporations. Other state-dependent, un-elected organizations are the public authorities, such as the MTA, the Empire State Development Corporation, and the Dormitory Authority, which sell billions of dollars of bonds without taxpayer approval even though the taxpayers have the responsibility to pay them back, with interest.

Every year when the state budget rip-off is being decided, the MTA’s highly-paid executives and their huge staffs distract the citizens by declaring transit, bus and train fares, and tolls, will face a dramatic increase, but when the budget process is completed, the MTA miraculously finds another billion dollars in its own budget. The distraction is successful, and the fare increases are minimal or postponed.
One difficult solution to the corruption and financial mess in Albany would be to allow citizens to collect the required number of signatures,
and then put critical issues on the ballot for voters to accept or reject (the initiative process), or to give voters the right to reject all
or parts of legislation passed by the politicians, by direct ballot after signatures have been collected (the referendum process).

Acceptable initiative and referendum legislation, introduced by Senator Ranzenhofer (S3525), is extremely difficult to pass because virtually every politician, union, non-profit, and corporation opposes it. Only taxpayer groups support the legislation. Politicians consider themselves upperclass royalty and despise the hardworking citizens since legislators get their power from special interest groups, not the voters. They are arrogant and corrupt as witnessed by indictments for DWI, sex with interns, assault, bribery and kickbacks, and misuse of funds.

Meanwhile, the teachers and health care unions and non-profits suck billions of dollars from these compliant politicians who jam
needles into the veins of taxpayers day after day to satisfy the needs of their blood-thirsty patrons.

Opponents of initiative and referendum legislation, and a state Constitutional amendment, claim it isn’t necessary in a democracy because citizens are represented by elected legislators. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a democratic government in Albany in many decades. The
State Legislature goes to the highest bidder, and the public be damned. Types of legislation that could be passed by the initiative process
include: term limits; court reform; public authority bond debt must be approved by the voters; corporations receiving tax subsidies must
guarantee worker employment and no plant closings/relocations; property tax reform; “sunlight” on all state union contracts, contractor
biddings/awards, and non-profit contracts; all contracts and audited financial reports of non-profits must be online within three months
after agreements are signed; right to cut health benefits for families of state workers; and right to cut the salaries, perks, travel, pensions,
staff, and health care for legislators.

Tell your state senator and assembly member to support the initiative and referendum bill S3525, and not any other useless, smokescreen
bills.

Charles Roda, Mount Vernon

Reader Endorses Candidate For New Rochelle School Board


Dear Editor:

I was glad to learn that Vincent Malfetano has become a candidate for the New Rochelle School Board. With the present School Board proposing a budget that approaches a quarter of a billion dollars, it is urgent that we elect some new people to the Board who have a more reasonable stance on school budgets.

As a parent, homeowner, lawyer and instructor, Mr. Malfetano is well-qualified to serve on the Board. He understands the need to
properly educate all of our children. But he also understands this must be done in a cost-conscious manner that will stop the constant
increases in taxes of double and triple the rate of inflation that is causing many home owners to flee the city.

In addition, Mr. Malfetano would bring a much needed balance to the Board. He is a resident of the South end of the city and would
give the parents of children attending Trinity, Jefferson, Columbus and Isaac E. Young schools a stronger voice on the Board that has too
often been dominated by North end residents.

Ines Candrea, New Rochelle

Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Hillary Fundraiser Pleads Guilty
In Investment Fraud Scheme
Faces Trial On Campaign Finance Fraud Charges

LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NORMAN HSU pleaded guilty to ten counts of mail and wire fraud stemming from his role in an investment fraud scheme that defrauded investors across the United States.

HSU, a resident of New York, New York, pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court to Counts One through Ten of the superseding Indictment in which he is charged before United States District Judge VICTOR MARRERO.

Four counts of the superseding Indictment, charging campaign finance fraud, remain pending against HSU. According to the superseding Indictment led in Manhattan federal court and statements made during HSU’s guilty plea proceedings:

HSU was the Managing Director of two companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd. HSU solicited investments in the companies by promising guaranteed short-term high returns.

The companies would supposedly generate funds to pay those attractive returns by providing short-term financing to other businesses. After receiving money from victim investors, HSU, for a time, paid interest and returned principal as promised. Believing HSU to be trustworthy and the companies to be legitimate and potentially pro table, victims often agreed to roll over their invested funds into new investments with HSU; invest more money with HSU; and recruit friends to invest with HSU. In reality, money returned to earlier investors was paid with money received from subsequent investors.

From 2000 through August 2007, HSU convinced victims to invest at least $60 million in his fraudulent scheme. In the end, after making
some payments intended to perpetuate the scheme, HSU swindled his victims out of at least $20 million.

HSU pleaded guilty to five counts of mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud in connection with the investment fraud scheme. Trial on the remaining campaign finance fraud counts is set to begin on May 11, 2009. As to those charges, HSU is presumed innocent unless and until he is found guilty.

Mr. DASSIN praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of this case. If you believe you are a victim of the Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd. investment fraud, including a victim entitled to restitution, and you wish to provide information to law enforcement and/or receive notice of future developments in the case or additional information, please contact Wendy
Olsen-Clancy, the Victim Witness Coordinator at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at (866)-874-
8900, or Wendy.Olsen@usdoj.gov.

For additional information, go to: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/victimwitness.html on the Internet. This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys KATHERINE A. LEMIRE, ALEXANDER J. WILLSCHER, and RUA M. KELLY are in charge of the prosecution.

Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

Managing Your Money If
You’ve Lost Your Job

In 2009, the unemployment rate in Westchester County almost doubled from an average of 3% to 4% in prior years to a high of 7.5% in February. Almost 36,000 of our neighbors are now out of work, twice the amount from the same period only two years ago. But that
statistic, from the New York State Department of Labor, only notes the actual number of individuals currently on unemployment. It does not show the number of family members affected by the loss of income, the number of workers who have “maxed out” of unemployment benefits, and the impact on local businesses who now have fewer customers. It is safe to assume, therefore, that more than 100,000 Westchester residents have been significantly affected in some manner by job losses in this recession.

Many local, state, and federal government agencies, as well as several private sector organizations, have stepped up to assist those facing job losses and cutbacks. One of these organizations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a non-government regulator, has distributed a publication through the New York Better Business Bureau with essential guidelines for anyone who has been laid off or is concerned about the security of their job.

FINRA offers a few initial steps to take when facing a job loss:

• Act quickly to reduce spending and resist the temptation to buy on credit.

• Assess your short-term situation and figure out how much cash you have readily available.

• Ask about employment services your employer may offer.

• Inquire about unemployment insurance.

• Avoid taking out loans or withdrawals against retirement savings.

• Get financial advice, especially when considering withdrawing any company stock bonus or profit-sharing plans, to determine how to use any lump sums and severance pay, and to calculate any tax consequences of withdrawals.

• Ask about how your employee benefits will be affected.

• Sign up for COBRA, if needed.

COBRA is the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, which established health care continuation when an employee loses employer-provided health coverage due to termination of employment.

The employer’s group health plan must offer continued health care coverage to the individual who may be required to pay the full cost for the coverage. The maximum COBRA period is 18 or 36 months.

• For those close to retirement age, inquire about qualifying for the company’s pension plan.

• Beware of fraud and con artists attracted to your company’s closing/layoffs.

Trimming spending means prioritizing your bills by separating them into essential expenses and non-essential.

The essential, necessary expenses include:

1. Shelter: Your primary home/rent bills or mortgage payments.

2. Utilities: Heat, electric, water and one phone line.

3. Food: basics only. Junk food is non-essential.

4. Work-related: Car/transportation costs, child/dependent care.


5. Child support, taxes, insurance, and other “must pays”.

Deferring loan payments is tempting but different types of loans have different consequences for late payments. Missing a COBRA health Insurance payment will result in the termination of this coverage; once terminated, it may not be reinstated. One missed mortgage payment usually will not cause you to lose your home but two payments could trigger foreclosure proceedings. Car loan issuers are even less forgiving – they can repossess your vehicle with the first late payment, although most lenders will wait 60 days to act.

Student loans and credit cards allow for more flexibility with payments; most will wait several months before taking action but may impose
higher interest rates on the outstanding balances. Student loans can be deferred for six months or a year as needed.

Consequences of late tax payments vary by collector but most individuals can negotiate a payment schedule with the Internal Revenue Service, New York State and most municipalities to avoid wage garnishments or property seizures.

The consequences of delaying child support can be wage garnishment or even jail time but, of course, the immediate consequence is to the
children for whom the support is needed. So, while delaying support may seem an economic necessity, it is rarely a feasible or justifiable alternative. Assessing your short-term situation is the next critical step. How long can you survive even just paying the essential bills? What other steps might you need to take to survive? If you do not have a lot of non-retirement savings, a prolonged unemployment period will ultimately mean changing your lifestyle.

Younger workers may have to consider moving back in with mom and dad, older workers may have to consider taking lower paying jobs. Unemployment also increases certain expenses that have to be factored into the household’s new budget: COBRA payments, after the federal
economic recovery subsidy is exhausted, will usually be for the actual cost of the health insurance, not the subsidized rates a worker may have had under the company’s benefit plan; and health insurance plans can charge 150% of the premium cost for extended COBRA coverage
past the initial 18 months allowed. Family health coverage alone can cost $20,000 a year. Vision, dental, and prescription coverage could be
extra. Payments for insurance previously provided by employers such as long-term disability, life, and long-term care; Retirement loans and 401K must be paid back in full within 90 days of leaving the company to avoid income taxes and a hefty 10 percent penalty tax on the loan amount, possibly affecting the borrower on two fronts, e.g., a parent who borrowed significant amounts against these accounts for college may not now be able to get a mortgage to cover this loan since they no longer have a job.

Unless you are 55 or older, 401K and retirement loans are no longer available once you are terminated from a job meaning any future costs these loans were expected to cover, such as tuition, will have to be funded elsewhere Getting income is the next important step. While a new job may take time to acquire, unemployment insurance can, and should, be applied for immediately. A claim for unemployment insurance ideally should be filed in the first week that you have been laid off or partially unemployed. The first week is an unpaid waiting week and unemployment benefits are not retroactive so any delay will cost you money.

Many individuals do not apply for unemployment because they believe they do not qualify or that filing will somehow be held against them.
These fears are unfounded. Unemployment benefits do not affect your credit rating nor is it only for lower income individuals.

Companies pay unemployment taxes for every employee so this is an insurance program designed to assist workers when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. However, unemployment benefits will not replace your full salary. The maximum unemployment insurance benefit in New York State is only $405 a week.

The New York State Department of Labor recommends that you should gather certain critical pieces of information before you file your
claim to ensure receipt of your benefits promptly:

• Your social security number.

• Your New York State driver’s license or Motor vehicle ID card.

• Your full mailing address including zip code.

• A daytime contact telephone number.

• Your alien registration card number for non-citizens.

• The names and addresses for all your employers within the past 18 months.

• The employer registration number or Federal employer identification number of your most recent employer. This
will be on your W-2 year-end tax forms.

• Your copies of the SF8 and SF50 forms if you received Federal unemployment within the past 18 months.

• Your copy of the DD214 form if you are an ex-service member.

• A blank check from your checking account for the bank’s routing and checking account numbers if you choose to have your payments directly deposited to your account.

• Pen and paper to write down important information.

There are several ways for local residents to file a claim: Online at www.ui.labor.state.ny.us between the hours of 7:30 am to 7:30 pm
Monday through Thursday, Eastern Time; Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm, all day Saturday, and Sunday until 7:00pm. Calling the Telephone Claims Center at 1-888-209-8124 for New York State residents, or 1-877-358-5306 for out of state residents, between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. You may file in English, Spanish, Russian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Creole, or “all other languages”; translation services will be provided. If you have never filed a claim for benefits in New York State, you will be asked to create a Personal Identification Number (PIN).

Hearing-impaired individuals, who have a Telephone Device for the Deaf (TTY/TDD) equipment, may file a claim by calling a relay operator
at 1-800-662-1220 and requesting the operator to call 1-888-783-1370. Unemployment benefits have recently been increased to assist those
affected by the recession. Workers may now collect 33 weeks of benefits, up from 26 in prior years. The federal government is also offering an additional $25 weekly payment, known as Federal Additional Compensation (FAC), to unemployment recipients.

The economic stimulus package signed by President Obama earlier this year, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), will also subsidize 65 percent of the cost of COBRA coverage for unemployed workers. The subsidy is available to assist individuals who were involuntarily terminated by their employers between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

ARRA will provide the subsidy for nine months or until the beneficiary is eligible for other health insurance coverage. This benefit, however,
is not available to terminated employees who earn more than $145,000 in the year the subsidy is to be paid. Making sure you are covered for
other potential life events is the next step. Health insurance coverage may be continued through COBRA. Unemployed workers have 60 days to sign up for this benefit. Individuals may have to pay the full cost of this insurance plus an additional two percent administrative fee.

According to the United States Department of Labor who oversees this benefit: “Employers or health plan administrators must provide an initial general notice if you are entitled to COBRA benefits. You probably received the initial notice about COBRA coverage when you were hired. When you are no longer eligible for Health coverage, your employer has to provide you with a specific notice regarding your rights to COBRA continuation benefits. Employers must notify their plan administrators within 30 days after an employee’s termination or after a reduction in hours that causes an employee to lose health benefits.

The plan administrator must provide notice to individual employees of their right to elect COBRA coverage within 14 days after the administrator has received notice from the employer. You must respond to this notice and elect COBRA coverage by the 60th day after the written notice is sent or the day health care coverage ceased, whichever is later. Otherwise, you will lose all rights to COBRA benefits.”

In addition to health coverage, workers should also assure that they are fully insured in other areas. Many workers neglect to replace the
life and disability insurance coverage they had under their previous employers, leaving them and their loved ones exposed. Costs for these
policies can be reduced by purchasing all of these policies through one company and increasing the deductibles on all policies, including automobile and homeowners insurance.

Unemployed workers should be aware of scams and pitfalls. According to FINRA “The announcement of your company’s merger, closing,
or mass layoff may have received national or local press coverage. If all of a sudden you find that you are receiving unsolicited offers for an incredible start-up opportunity, or the investment of a lifetime, beware”. FINRA also advises about the treatment of lump sum or severance
payments that may tempt you to buy something you desperately want. According to FINRA “Do yourself a favor and wait. If you face a long unemployment period, these may be the only funds you will have to make ends meet.” FINRA also advises not to tap into retirement funds to make ends meet unless you have no other options; and, to be aware of the tax consequences if you must withdraw from these accounts.

Even those local workers who still have their jobs would do well to heed FINRA’s warnings. Car manufacturers are preying on workers’ fears of losing their jobs by offering special breaks and refunds if a customer loses his job. According to Microsoft’s “Money Central” web site “Hyundai launched its “Assurance” program, which lets customers return any new vehicles if they lose their jobs and absolves them of any remaining car payments up to $7,500”.

Other companies are following suit. JetBlue is offering full-fare refunds to customers who get laid off before their trips; Jos. A. Bank
will give rebates to customers who get laid off after buying suits. Some rental companies are offering several months free rent; Au Pair in
America will refund program fees, and Norwegian Cruise Line will reimburse the full fare of a cruise to unemployed individuals.

While these programs are spiking sales for these companies, the programs come with catches: To qualify for the rental companies’ offers of
free rent, the individual had to have been a paying tenant for a specified amount of time. Therefore, in these uncertain economic times, workers should follow the same sensible purchasing habits as always and not be lulled by offers that seem “too good to be true”. As FINRA notes in its pamphlets for those already suffering from a job loss “if it sounds too good to be true, you know it probably is.”

As for getting that new job, the best approach is to treat your job search as a job in itself! Set a daily schedule, tell everyone you’re “in the
market”, and don’t assume that handing out lots of resumes will land you a job. It won’t. In this tough market, many employers who are hiring are doing so quietly since any job offerings are met with a landslide of applications.

Job seekers need to develop a network of individuals who can provide information about when a company is hiring; joining a professional
organization, volunteering, or taking a professional seminar, are good ways to meet workers in your field. Joining a local support group will keep your spirits up. But there is some good news on the horizon. After months of reporting job losses and closings in Westchester County, the New York State Department of Labor announced several store and restaurant openings in Mount Kisco and Yonkers for this summer. As CNN recently reported, “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while 2.5 million people were laid off in January, 4.4 million new workers were hired.” One of those new hires next month could be you.

The Westchester Tea Party.

Some 2,500 Taxpayers Come Out For Westchester Tea Party In Blistering Heat

A week ago this past Saturday, on April 25, the long-awaited Westchester Tea Party got underway around noon, with a bright, sun-filled sky and temperature around 90 degrees. Still, despite News 12’s blatant misreporting, more than 2500 homeowners, busi-nesspeople and taxpayers, some with an occasional infant on their shoulders, came out in the heat to protest the fact that Westchester is the most heavily taxed county in the nation.

Assisted by a dozen canvassers, 2,261 attendees took the time and trouble to fill out contact sheets, four persons to a sheet, for purposes of notification in order to attend and help out at future events. Despite the reality of those numbers, News 12, as has been its modus operandi, bogusly under-reported the attendance by more than two-thirds.

As it turned out, the White Plains Police prevailed upon the demonstration organizers to move the function one block west, down Martine Avenue, to the corner of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, a location that provided no shade from the merciless rays of the sun, unlike the protective shadow provided by the nine-story County Office Building, at the original site.

Tea Party demonstrators were treated to live music and some spirited rhetoric from nearly a dozen speakers, including longtime Greenburgh Supervisor and advocate for the abolishment of County Government, Paul Feiner, Dave Spano, son of the County Executive, and party organizer and underwriter, Publisher Sam Zherka.

Zherka told the crowd, “My father used to tell me how do you know when a politician is lying? He’s lying when his lips are moving.”

Nick DiTomas, of the Cable Access Channel, told the protesters, “The trouble with government is that they attempt to solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them.”

Sam Zherka came back with, “We need to instill fear in those overtaxing, corrupt politicians.” He reminded everyone, “Every person here owns stock in Westchester County. Every person here is the Board of Directors.”

Dr. Guilio Cavallo reminded everybody, “There are 450,000 Independence Party voters in New York State.”

Introduced by Zherka as, “a true public servant,” Supervisor Paul Feiner declared, “We need a referendum initiative. It is catching on now. People realize that we need to reorganize the way government is run.”

A reporter for News12 collared Dave Spano, asking him about the tea bag pinned to his shirt, “What does that tea bag mean to
you?” Spano snapped right back, “It means we’re taxed enough already!”

Janet Difiore.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg


DiFiore Announcement Fiasco Underscores Her
Unfitness To Be Westchester’s District Attorney

DA Staff Member Cautions Guardian Publisher To Be
Careful Of Frame-Up, Or Other Dirty Tricks

Last Thursday at noon was clearly a defining moment for the People of Westchester, and particularly for those who are genuine Democrats.
What they witnessed was a charade, an attempt by the Fat Cats of the Democratic Party, Andy Spano, Reggie LaFayette, Tim Idoni, and all
those greedy hacks, Bill Ryan included, to shove their unfit candidate, their Counterfeit Democrat, down everybody’s throat. Their problem
was, the People weren’t biting.


The charade, put on by some 200 individuals, more than half of whom were Assistant DAs, investigators, and support staff compelled to be
there; and, the rest mostly the same $155,000-a-year politicos who tried to grab outrageous pay raises from taxpayers last Fall, could not have been more defining with respect to why Janet DiFiore is not, and never has been, the District Attorney of the decent, hard-working citizens of Westchester. The event clearly demonstrated why the recent News12 poll of 999 viewers came back:

• Tony Castro ...............55%
• Dan Schorr ................27%
• Janet DiFiore .............18%

Janet, and her politically connected crowd, weren’t fooling anybody. The People know her for who she really is; a mean-spirited, vindictive
opportunist, who for years used the people and the financial resources of the Republican Party in race after race against the choice of rank
and file Democrats, only to throw her old supporters under the bus and suddenly declare herself a Democrat.


But the People of Westchester, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, and Working Families, were not fooled for even
a minute. They know her for the counterfeit she truly is; counterfeit Democrat, counterfeit DA.

The People know that no self-respecting Democrat, and surely no District Attorney worthy of the Office, would ever conduct herself as
Janet DiFiore has for the past three years. They have witnessed her prosecuting the innocent victims of rogue police brutality; Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, and scores of others in Yonkers. And, they haven’t forgotten the three young boys beaten and mauled in Mount Vernon, nor the victims of excessive force in Sleepy Hollow. Each time she covered up the rogue cops involved, compelling the federal government, the Justice Department, to step in and protect the safety and rights of Westchester citizens.

Several individuals who have been wrongfully handled by her, or whose family have been, showed up carrying signs, calling for her firing,
showing photos of Irma Marquez in an effort to speak Truth to Power.

During the event, a staff person from the DA’s Office, attempting not to be noticed by others from the Office, approached Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, standing at the event, and warned him, in a caring tone, to be both cautious and on the lookout for dirty tricks from DiFiore operatives rumored about in the Office. If, in fact, that possibility should materialize, it would simply be one of several vindictive
and retaliatory acts already carried out by Janet DiFiore in fulfillment of threats she made two years ago.

Perhaps the most defining moment came when Party Boss, and part-time $155,000-a-year Election Commissioner, Reggie LaFayette,
rattled by sign-carrying protesters, declared, “This isn’t about these people; it’s about Janet DiFiore.” He was so right; for Janet, it’s never been about the People at all.

Janet’s only comfort to be drawn from the fiasco was the fact that News 12 was the only television coverage that she got. All of the major
networks stayed away, apparently deciding she was a low-level priority.

In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

In Our Opinion...

Fourth Amendment: Alive And Well Once More

“The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Such is the guarantee embodied in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution for those who choose to live in these United States.

Unfortunately, for many years, prior to two weeks ago, the Constitutional promise held out by the Fourth Amendment had been eroded, particularly in the context of automobile operation, to the point where routine traffic stops, with, or without, infraction, or justification had become an automatic “pretext” for warrantless searches, as far back as 1981, when the United States Supreme Court found: “When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.”

That ruling, which grew out of a case that involved the discovery of a quantity of cocaine in a jacket pocket, would ultimately impact Fourth Amendment guarantees far beyond anything intended by the High Court whose concerns ran to the limited issue of protecting the safety of arresting officers from possible weapons within reach of arrested vehicle occupants, and/or hidden evidence of a crime.

However, as a practical matter, in the nearly three decades since the Court’s ruling, arrested suspects have invariably been handcuffed and/or locked up prior to such vehicular scrutiny. In short, the overwhelming number of vehicle searches had been conducted without connection to their Constitutional justification.

Under the revised rules, as of two weeks ago, “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” Of course, a search may still be conducted if police are looking for evidence of the crime that led to the arrest.

The opinion, authored by Justice Stevens, for the 5-4 majority, declared, “A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”

Justice Anton Scalia pleasantly surprised many when, in his concurring opinion, he labeled so-called routine car searches “plainly Unconstitutional”, referring to the Court’s prior safety concerns for arresting officers as a “charade”, noting that police can always restrain arrestees.

We are particularly pleased with the High Court’s apparent turn-around on the vital issues of privacy and personal security, and while it represents a restoration of rights with respect to one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, still it is a very fundamental package of guarantees, and would seem to suggest possible further restorations of freedoms wrongfully curtailed under

Our Readers Respond..

Unionized County Employee Chastises Union Heads


Dear Editor:

T.J. Mallon and McKillop, both Union Presidents, were called by District Attorney Janet DiFiore to attend the rally on April 30; they both attended. Yet, on April 28, when the Courthouse was unsafe and unhealthy for all employees and the public because of the heat, both President T.J. Mallon, Court Employees Association and McKillop, President of Court Officers Union, said they could not help their court
employees. They didn’t have the time, yet they both found the time today, April 30, to assist Janet DiFiore in front of the
Courthouse.

We thought it was against Court rules to campaign in the Westchester County Courthouse, yet several union members represented by T.J. Mallon’s union were seen with Janet DiFiore signs right after the rally.

Concerned Union Member

Reader Expresses Urgent Need To Audit Federal Reserve

Dear Editor:


We need your assistance in getting the word out to the public, your readers, that we need to audit the federal reserve. What they may not know is that in addition to our $11 trillion national debt Congress, the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve have put us on the hook for almost $10 trillion in bailouts and loans.

Despite the demand for transparency, the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, recently flat-out said NO to Congress when asked to name which financial institutions have received trillions of dollars in these loans from the Fed.

The Federal Reserve, the unelected central bank of the United States, refused to fully disclose its operations and agreements to Congress, including its deals with foreign central banks and governments.

To end this secrecy and deliver answers to the American people, my hero Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has introduced HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. HR 1207 will: Require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to perform a complete audit of the fed by the end of 2010; Reveal the details of agreements the Fed has made with foreign central banks and governments; Show which banks and Wall Street firms have received our money from the Fed.

Congressman Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill will bring transparency and accountability to an institution that has reduced the value of our dollar by 95 percent since its creation in 1913.

We count on your unique publication to raise important and very often uncomfortable issues and to bring facts to your readership which will allow them to be armed with the tools to make important decisions and take appropriate action to preserve their civil rights, their livelihoods,
their savings and their legacy to future generations.

Irene Ferrara, Armonk

The Taxpayers’ Stimulus Plan (Main Street Takes Control)

Dear Editor:


The current movement to eliminate County Government is a long overdue and a natural response from taxpayers seeking to cut down on government waste and mismanagement. This movement is not personal, but rather an effort to bring to the attention of our elected leaders to act more honestly in their fiduciary responsibilities and stewardship of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.

The elimination of redundant government agencies is one way to help stimulate the economy. Just a casual review of basic economics will make manifest how politicians waste taxpayers’ dollars by maintaining redundant inefficient agencies and governments.

The marginal benefits the taxpayers receive from the County Government are far less the marginal costs collected via taxes collected. In simple terms the costs paid for these services is far less than the benefits received.

The dollars saved by the elimination of the County Government would result in lower taxes and/or using these tax dollars to cover budget shortfalls currently experienced by a number of Westchester County municipalities.

White Plains is a good example; with its massive shortfall in its budget, the City will need to cut back on services and jobs. This is not the way to stimulate the economy. With the County Government eliminated, the savings can be passed on to the local governments to maintain their current level of services and not having to place a hold on hiring or eliminating positions.

Also, from the perspective of basic economics, for every tax dollar collected by government, the taxpayer has one less dollar to spend. This is not the way to promote a healthy local economy. Economically speaking, this concept is referred to as the production possibility curve. In layman’s terms, guns or butter? In this case of the need for a County Government, it simply means taxes or personal spending/savings.

When taxpayers are forced to finance an excessive tax burden they have less income available for consumer spending; which is one of the reasons we are in this current recession.

If one has doubts about the marginal benefits of maintaining a county government, one must simply look across the border to the State of Connecticut which has eliminated county governments years ago.

Dr. Richard Cirulli,
White Plains


Re: Paul Cote

Dear Editor:


I have been following the case of Paul Cote and I find it a very troubling case. Mr. Cote, a veteran corrections officer coming to the aid of his colleague, was indicted and convicted of severely injuring a prisoner both officers were trying to subdue. Though there were two officers involved, it is strange that only Mr. Cote was indicted and convicted.

After serving a prison sentence, losing his job, benefits and pension, Mr. Cote is indicted and convicted again in Federal Court, but an experienced and respected judge, the late Charles L. Brieant, granted Mr. Cote a Judgment of Acquittal.

Now I read Mr. Cote is convicted a third time for the same case and was remanded to prison awaiting sentencing in May. After reading the articles and letters about this case, I know that the truth will eventually come out and Mr. Cote will be vindicated.

Truth and justice always prevail. I hope it will be sooner, rather than later, for Paul Cote and his family.

Larry Bibb, Mount Vernon


Re: Paul Cote

Dear Editor:


I have been keeping up with the letters about the correction officer (Paul Cote) who was put behind bars for a situation that happened while going to the aid of a fellow employee. It is a very interesting yet sad story, and your coverage has been very informative.

Thank you for it.

I have a friend whose husband was wrongly convicted some years ago and served time for a crime he did not commit. When DNA came into play, he was proven innocent. The conviction ruined his life, his career, caused serious emotional issues for his son and as a result split up
his family. I am not sure, from all that I have read, that the prosecutor in this case, investigated this to the fullest. If this was investigated
to the fullest, the judge who recently passed away would not have made the decision to strike out the jury conviction.

I read that Cote will be sentenced sometime in May. I hope this new judge Cote will be standing before does the right thing. I
don’t know this man, like some of the others who have written, but I know he deserves to be protected by the law with a full investigation
of the situation. I don’t believe this was done, since I don’t think it was proven that Cote caused the inmate’s death. Like my friend, I believe
this was a political conviction. Very sad!

I might add that I was quite touched by the post sent in by the Catholic priest. I hope to read something positive for Cote when you
cover the sentencing.

Frank Campanille,
White Plains


We Need Initiative And Referendum Legislation

Dear Editor:

Citizens need a direct vote on critical issues if they are to deal with the problems of State finances, corruption, special interest groups, and the public authorities that control the politicians. One solution offered is Initiative and Legislation Referendum legislation often spoken about by Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner, along with some types of ballot proposals that could be decided by the voters.

I have been writing about Initiative and Referendum legislation for 31 years; but now I believe people might just be angry enough to fight for it. I’m about to read a book on tax protests during the Depression, which failed because of no political organization and New Deal propaganda.

I got the 2007 Annual Report for Friends of Westchester Parks. However, it doesn’t mention that the Executive Director is Deputy Parks Commissioner Kathleen O’Connor, and that her secretary is a County employee too. Playland is listed as a subsidiary of Friends of Westchester Parks, not owned by the County and taxpayers. Seventeen board members are listed but not their corporate, law firm, or
contractor connections.

I have asked the Charities Bureau Chief to investigate my complaints. The Deputy Comptroller For Municipalities should do an audit; but he has claimed that the Charities Bureau has the authority, and so nothing will change.The 2008 report won’t be out until mid-October or after the elections.

After reading Catherine Wilson’s article on Dimentia, I thought she might be interested in knowing that I suggested the CareTrak System in Putnam County to Commissioner D’Aliso, and he wrote back, on January 31, 2003, expressing interest in it for seniors and Alzheimer’s patients. I guess Spano probably forgot to invite me to the press conference when it was introduced.

I read a quote by Voltaire, last week, that could be your motto: “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

Have a good day.

Charles Roda, Mount Vernon

The Court Report/Janet Difiore.

Thursday, May 7,2009

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

District Attorney Who Repeatedly Prosecutes
Victims Of Police Brutality Recognizes
National Crime Victims’ Rights Week

Last week, motivated by the fact that it was National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, DA Janet DiFiore placed a table and poster, with literature, in the lobby of the Westchester County Courthouse, ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information to Westchester victims of crime.

Having gone to court on Thursday to cover ongoing developments in a 15-year-old murder case, this reporter spotted the table upon leaving, and wished to photograph and publicize its existence.

We were informed by court officers that we would need to obtain explicit permission from the Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai, in order to take any photographs within the courthouse. We went looking for Judge Nicolai, who was in the midst of dealing with calendar issues, with a long line of attorneys and judges awaiting his attention.

However, to his credit, when he emerged from a conference with one of those judges, he graciously took a moment to listen to our request, and granted permission within ten minutes, notifying us of his decision and informing the court officers
in control of the lobby floor through his assistant, Joe Ranieri. We were pleased with the Judge’s promptness and courtesy.

We were particularly anxious to photograph the DA’s display in light of her appalling record, over the last three years, actually prosecuting several innocent victims of police brutality such as Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Sherry Bobrowsky, Tina and Mary Bostwick, and, literally, dozens of other similarly abused victims who have come forward in Yonkers since The Guardian first began exposing cases of police brutality in that city back in September of 2006.

Jeff Deskovic.

Jeff Deskovic

Exposing The Death Penalty, Part 1

In my effort to raise awareness about the problem of wrongful convictions, as well as seeking legislative changes to make the criminal justice
system more accurate, I have always included abolishing the death penalty amongst the reforms I advocate. My reasoning is simple: any system of justice that results in wrongful convictions will, if it has a death penalty as a sentencing option, inevitably execute innocent people.

This past March 17 New Mexico legislatively abolished the death penalty citing, amongst other issues, that very real possibility. In this threepart series I will review likely wrongful executions, near-misses, ongoing cases of potential wrongful execution, systemic deficiencies, along with one case example wherein innocent people were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death before being cleared. And then, I will look at modern-day recognition that the death penalty risks the execution of innocent people.

Likely Wrongful Executions


There are a variety of cases wherein it is very likely that innocent people have been executed, as established by facts, circumstances, and statements from people involved, in one way or another, which can show a reasonable basis upon which to believe that the executed individual was likely innocent. These case summaries are taken from the Death Penalty Information Center.

Ruben Cantu

A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle casts serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case.

Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state’s case against Cantu, and Cantu’s co-defendant, have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man. Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured, and was afraid of the authorities.

Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer.

“The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that’s why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there,” Moreno told the Chronicle.

In addition, David Garza, Cantu’s co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn’t with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, “Part of me died when he died.

You’ve got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person.” Furthermore, Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu’s photo three separate times.

And, Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury’s decision was the best they could do based on the information
presented during the trial. She noted, “With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we’d have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that.”

Larry Griffin

A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the State of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer.

Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. “There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down,” stated University of Michigan law professor
Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin’s case.

Joseph O’Dell

New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O’Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices said they had doubts about O’Dell’s guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without
the blood evidence, there is little linking O’Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O’Dell’s claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O’Dell asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence but was refused.

David Spence

Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: “I do not think David Spence committed this crime.”

Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: “My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved.” No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return
for testimony.

Leo Jones


Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida, and was executed. Jones signed a confession after several hours of police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a fellow officer as an “enforcer” who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case.

Gary Graham


On June 23, 2000, Gary Graham was executed in Texas, despite claims that he was innocent. Graham was 17 when he was charged with the 1981 robbery and shooting of Bobby Lambert outside a Houston supermarket. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of one witness, Bernadine Skillern, who said she saw the killer’s face for a few seconds through her car windshield, from a distance of 30-40 feet away.

Two other witnesses, who both worked at the grocery store and said they got a good look at the assailant, said Graham was not the killer, but
were never interviewed by Graham’s court-appointed attorney, Ronald Mock, and were not called to testify at trial. Three of the jurors who voted to convict Graham signed affidavits saying they would have voted differently had all of the evidence been available.

Cameron Willingham


After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham’s case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago
Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances.

Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a
1991 house fire. Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, “There’s nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire.” Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, “[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation....

They executed this guy and they’ve just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set.” Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerant had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.

Some of the jurors who convicted Willingham were troubled when told of the new case review. Juror Dorinda Brokofsky asked, “Did anybody know
about this prior to his execution? Now I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. Maybe this man was innocent.” Prior to the execution, Willingham’s defense attorneys presented expert testimony regarding the new arson investigation to the state’s highest court, as well as to Texas Governor Rick Perry.

No relief was granted and Willingham was executed February 17, 2004. Coincidentally, less than a year after Willingham’s execution, arson evidence presented by some of the same experts who had appealed for relief in Willingham’s case helped free Ernest Willis from Texas’ death row. The experts noted that the evidence in the Willingham case was nearly identical to the evidence used to exonerate Willis.

Near Misses


There have been a variety of cases where innocent people have come frighteningly close to being executed. These cases also show, clearly, how
innocent people can be wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death and executed.

Kenneth Foster


Foster and several of his friends went on a crime spree in Texas in 1997. Eventually the crime spree ended, but Foster never parted company with one of his friends, Maurecio Brown. On the way home, Brown left the car to talk to a woman. An argument ensued that soon involved her boyfriend. Brown claimed that the victim reached into his jeans, which he interpreted as reaching for a gun. Brown pulled out his gun and killed
the victim some 100 yards in front of the car that Foster was in.

Foster had no idea that Brown would do this and the crime was not a part of their criminal conduct; he had simply made the mistake of not parting company with him. Nonetheless, he had been sentenced to death. Based upon a groundswell of grass roots support, extensive media coverage and editorials, national and international support, Foster’s death sentence was commuted on noon of the day that he was scheduled to be executed, August 30, 2007.

Ron Williamson


Ron Williamson was wrongfully convicted of murder in Oklahoma in 1998, along with his co-defendant Dennis Fritz. Williamson received the
death penalty, whereas Fritz received life in prison. The Innocence Project summarizes his case this way: An inmate that Fritz was paired with eventually came forward and stated that Fritz had confessed to the murder. This jailhouse snitch gave a two hour taped interview revealing what Fritz had allegedly confessed to him. This confession came one day before the prosecution would have been forced to drop the charges against
Fritz. Another informant testified that she had heard Williamson threaten to harm his mother as he had the victim.

Williamson was also seen at the bar the night of the murder, according to a witness named Glenn Gore. Additionally, police had statements from
Williamson regarding a dream he had about the crime.

Forensic testing was performed on various items of evidence. Seventeen hairs were recovered and were “matched” to both Fritz and Williamson.
The semen evidence suggested that the perpetrator(s) were non-secretors, as Fritz and Williamson are. Fritz could not remember his exact thereabouts during the day of the crime due to the amount of time, five years, that had passed. DNA testing revealed that neither Fritz nor Williamson deposited the spermatozoa found in the victim. Further testing proved that none of the many hairs that were labeled “matches”
belonged to them. The profile obtained from the semen evidence matched Glenn Gore. At one point, Williamson had come within 5 days of execution.

Earl Washington


Washington was arrested for murder and rape in Virginia. The Innocence Project summarizes his case this way: He had an IQ in the range of 69. Following questioning for two days, police claimed that he had confessed to five different crimes. The state dismissed the confessions of the first four because of the inconsistencies. They charged him with the fifth murder, however, despite not knowing the race of the victim, the address of the apartment where she was killed, or that he had raped her.

Washington also testified that Ms. Williams had been short when in fact she was 5’8”, that he had stabbed her two or three times when the victim showed thirty-eight stab wounds, and that there was no one else in the apartment when it was known that Ms. Williams’ two young children were with her in the apartment on the day of the crime.

Only on the fourth attempt at a rehearsed confession did authorities accept Washington’s statement and have it recorded in writing with Washington’s signature. He only picked out the scene of the crime after being taken there three times in one afternoon by the police, who in the end had to help him pick out Williams’ apartment. The confession proved to be the prosecution’s only evidence linking Washington to the crime.

Psychological analyses of Washington reported that, to compensate for his disability, Washington would politely defer to any authority figure
with whom he came into contact. Thus, when police officers asked Washington leading questions in order to obtain a confession, he complied and offered affirmative responses in order to gain their approval. At trial, only the State’s psychologist testified, claiming that Washington was competent when his statement was given.

The prosecution’s case hinged on Washington’s statements as well as his identification of a shirt given to the police by the victim’s family six weeks after the crime. A forensic analyst conducted serology testing on evidence from the crime scene and detected a rare plasma protein. Once Washington, who does not possess the rare protein, became a suspect, an amended forensic report was prepared (without additional testing being conducted) that said testing for the rare protein was “inconclusive.”

DNA testing in 1993 proved his innocence, but his death sentence was merely commuted in 1994. It took 6 more years before he was allowed to
have more sophisticated DNA testing, which ultimately resulted in his being pardoned based upon innocence. At one point, Washington came
within 9 days of execution.

Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

Should Our Courts Be
Creating Deadbeat Parents?

The current recession has affected many local residents severely. When faced with the loss of a job, clients or customers, or a cut in pay, workers must cut costs and live off of savings, if any, to survive. But for many workers, divorced parents who have child support obligations, cutting back is not an option. If child support payments are not met, those parents will face the loss of their driver’s license,
limiting their ability to work and pay the support even further. Parents who do not pay child support also face contempt of court charges
and fines.

On April 21st, the Westchester Women’s Bar Association’s Matrimonial, Families, Children and the Courts Committees hosted a program entitled “Substantive and Procedural Law Applicable to the Modification of Child Support and Maintenance.”The speakers at this event included Hon. Esther R. Furman, a Support Magistrate in the Family Court in White Plains, Hon. Linda S. Jamieson, a judge in the Westchester Supreme Court, and Hon. Josephine Trovini, a court Attorney and Special Referee in the Westchester Supreme Court.

The invitation for this event was only forwarded to members of the WWBA or anyone astute enough to access this on their website. Local
parents and Pro Se litigants, those unable to afford to be awarded attorneys, usually middle-class litigants, were not invited to get this critical
information direct from the judges’ and magistrates’ mouths.

No notices of this seminar were posted on the Pro Se website for the Westchester Courts or distributed to unrepresented litigants in matrimonial and support issues in Family and Supreme Court.

The Court’s standards for changing child support, called a “modification” by the courts, places the burden on the individual who applies
for the change. Child support may only be changed due to very limited circumstances. The support laws were not written by accountants or
economists, so they do not consider economic reality, e.g. the courts do not recognize inflation as a basis for increasing support, and therefore do not automatically increase child support each year for such increases.

To be able to petition the court for an increase in support due to higher expenses, a parent must submit evidence that their expenses increased. But the courts do recognize inflation as a legitimate basis for automatic increases in other areas.

Court employees, including magistrates and court attorneys, receive automatic cost-of-living increases each year to their taxpayer-subsidized
incomes, regardless of merit. Therefore, from the Court’s perspective, highly-paid court lawyers are automatically entitled to more money each year based on inflation, children are not.

There are other child support areas where our courts defy economic reality and other laws governing economic issues. New York State laws
continue to define emancipation for children as age 21, even though most students are still in college at that age and are not self-supporting.

The federal government is more realistic; the Internal Revenue Service recognizes that a child may still be a student until age 25 and allows
for a parent to claim that child as a dependent until such age; New York State laws, however, continue to contradict the federal laws.

The courts also do not recognize the increased expenses of a teenager as a basis for additional child support nor do they consider subsequent
care-giving responsibilities for other family members, which may limit a parent’s ability to work.

For example, a mother, who received initial child support for two young children possibly a decade ago, could find herself stuck with
living on that same level of support when those children are teenagers facing significant college prep and sports team’s travel expenses at a time when she may also be faced with downsizing to part-time work to care for aging parents.

Chances are that mother’s ex-husband has moved on and remarried, more than likely to a significantly “younger model”. Ex’s new wife, if still in her prime fertile years, will undoubtedly want a family of her own. The courts, in their “logic”, will actually grant the ex and his trophy wife a reduction in his child support payments to his first wife and two children, since additional children are recognized as a legal “change of circumstances”! So, in this not-so-hypothetical situation, not only does the first wife have more expenses for their older children, and less income thanks to caring for her parents, she now gets less child support because her ex can’t control his biological urges. And, consequently, her ex now has more money to spend on the woman who may have been the reason for the divorce to begin with! This common deadbeat dad scenario is all perfectly legal and actually sanctioned by our “justice” system.

Ironically, that same mother could also find her current child support based on her “ability” to earn, rather than on actual economic reality. The courts have consistently ruled that “earning capacity may be based on prior earnings, past employment experience, training, and education”.

So, if that mother used to be a highly-paid engineer, and she now works part-time as a consultant to care for a dying father, she will not qualify for an increase in child support due to her loss in income because the courts will rule that, as a trained engineer, she should be earning more money. She will actually be penalized by our legal system for “honoring her father and her mother”. Our courts clearly do not adhere to those ten basic laws, probably why they don’t hang them in the courthouse as reminders.

One of the attendees at the “Substantive and Procedural Law Applicable to the Modification of Child Support and Maintenance” program reported back to the Guardian on this event. Our source informed us that the above scenario was addressed by the judges and magistrates on this forum. Their attitude?

Esther Furman actually told the audience of lawyers, “If a man gets married again and has more children you have to look at that”, implying that she would grant these fathers a reduction in their child support obligations without noting that dad’s ability to sire additional progeny should not be used as a weapon against his existing children. Furman never noted why it was the responsibility of the children of the first marriage to subsidize the
children of a second relationship by having their child support reduced.

If mom/dad is capable of producing more children, shouldn’t they be equally responsible to work more hours/jobs to pay for those children? And why are the courts implying to the attorneys who appear before them that they support giving the first family “sloppy seconds”?

If parents were held fully responsible for their actions by our laws and our courts, including adultery and multiple child-producing relationships, perhaps our society might witness less of this behavior. None of the members of this forum noted the questionable ethics and inappropriateness of having judges and magistrates giving what amounted to a “head’s up” on their rulings to the attorneys who regularly appear before them.

The female members of the WWBA also never addressed the fact that most of the local parents who can afford lawyers are fathers. Those lawyers would have been in attendance at this program to garner the critical strategic insider information from the judicial officials on the forum.

But the local parents who are able to afford lawyers are usually stay-at-home mothers. Without a lawyer, or a direct invitation to, or knowledge of, this event, these mothers had no way to get access to this same insider information and would consequently be at an even greater disadvantage when facing their “lawyered up” ex-spouses in court. So this program was essentially discrimination against women. And sanctioned by the Women’s Bar Association.

To be a successful deadbeat parent, all you need to do in Westchester County is become a member of the local bar associations. If you can afford their annual fees, you will then obtain full access to their insider information and invitations to similar “meet and greet” events with the judges on your child support case. A “contribution” of $250 last week to the WWBA would have bought you an invite to Judge Sondra Miller’s home; Judge
Miller was the chair of the New York State Unified Court System’s powerful Matrimonial Commission and a Westchester Supreme Court and New York State Appellate Court judge.

Not to be outdone by the women, the Westchester County Bar Association offers many of their programs for free, subsidized by taxpayers. The WCB is announcing on their website that local lawyers may do a free “meet and greet” with the Surrogate’s Court, getting free refreshments and even continuing education credits to boot.

The Westchester County Surrogate’s Court and the WCBA’s Trusts & Estates Section will present an Advanced CLE Seminar on Wednesday, May 6, on Contested Probate Proceedings. This free seminar will take place at the Surrogate’s Courtroom, Room 1800, at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., 18th Floor, from 12 - 2pm. Attendees will receive 2 CLE credits. For more information or to RSVP, please contact Joseph M. Accetta, Esq. at (914) 824-5655. This reporter called Joseph Acceta to request admission to this seminar. Acceta informed us that “this was only for attorneys”. So, according to our courts, only lawyers may have direct access to the judges to hear how cases like theirs will be handled; Pro Se litigants and family members are not allowed to attend, denying them equal access to our courts.

Considering that this seminar is being held in a taxpayer-funded facility, during Court hours, no one may be denied access. If the court wants to limit this to lawyers only, then this seminar must be held off-site in a private facility. Otherwise, this must be open to all taxpayers since it is our
money that is paying for it! The courts have been guilty of this bad behavior in the past; the Guardian wrote of another free seminar offered to attorneys only last August, 2008. Clearly Surrogate’s Court ignored the Guardian’s criticisms of their misuse of taxpayers’ funds noted in that article.

So what does a parent with limited or no financial resources to do when faced with a moneyed parent who has direct access to judges, influencing the outcome of their child support cases? One source is Pace University’s Women’s Justice Center which notes it “sponsors and conducts lectures, seminars, trainings and free legal walk-in clinics on various issues, including domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking, divorce, custody, child support, VAWA immigration, teen dating violence, elder law, elder abuse, and other issues”. The Justice Center offers its programs to all, and may be reached at 914-422-4069 or at www.pace.edu.

Janet Difiore and Christopher Ridley Case.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Four Brave Witnesses Tell The Truth About
Murder Of Officer Christopher Ridley
DA DiFiore’s Deceitful Scheme Exposed

Last Wednesday morning, four courageous individuals came forward at a press conference called by Civil Rights Attorney Jonathan Lovett at the site on Court Street, in White Plains, where Mount Vernon Police Officer Christopher Ridley lost his life at the hands of brother officers some 15 months earlier, in an effort to reveal to the Westchester community what they had witnessed.

The tone and the content of the questions from News12 reporter Brian Conybeare and Journal News reporters Richard Liebson and Shawn Cohen were such that their pro-DiFiore bias could not have been more obvious. Conybeare insultingly asked Lovett if he had paid the witnesses to come forward.

One would have thought these three reporters were DiFiore’s legal defense team engaged in cross-examination. After all, why shouldn’t we believe her?

• This is the DA whose spouse tried to bribe Attorney Anthony DiCintio, the Right-To-Life candidate for DA to withdraw from
the race in 2005 because she was running as a Republican then, and theorized that most Right-To-Life voters would vote Republican
in the absence of their own candidate;

• This is the DA who lied and said she had prosecuted 2,000 cases as an Assistant DA when she ran for County Court against Les Adler. In truth, she had prosecuted only 12 cases, all misdemeanors;

• This is the DA who covered up rogue cop Wayne Simoes; instead prosecuting his innocent victim, Irma Marquez, who he had brutally body-slammed. She has done the same to Rui Florim, nearly beaten to death by six other rogue Yonkers cops, as well as to countless other victims of Yonkers police brutality. The United States Justice Department has stepped in to the Marquez case and is prosecuting violent Police Officer Simoes despite the DA’s attempt to cover up his criminal assault;

• This is the DA who continued to hide 376 pages, 52 boxes, and miles of secretly audio-taped conversations, all exculpatory to Anthony DiSimone until the federal courts demanded that she turn them over, and released Mr. DiSimone, who had served seven years in prison for a murder he was clearly innocent of, and to which the actual killer had confessed.

• This is the DA from whose Office 72 attorneys and investigators had resigned at last count. And, we are supposed to believe
she is telling the truth about the murder of heroic, young police officer, Christpher Ridley? We think not.

Stanley Ridley, Officer Ridley’s dad, has been very hurt by DiFiore’s cruel effort to discredit his son’s actions. Thanking
the four witnesses who unselfishly came forward to share the truth no matter what reprisal, what retaliation doing so might
bring, Mr. Ridley told them, “My son died taking care of people, and they are trying to make him look reckless. Nothing they put in my way will keep me from getting out the truth.”

One witness, John Fiumara, told reporters, “I told DiFiore shooting Officer Ridley in the head was uneccessary, and an execution; and, she told me ‘Don’t say that in Court.’” Obviously she did not want the grand jurors to know the truth.

Attorney Jonathan Lovett, who has filed federal lawsuits on behalf of Officer Ridley’s dad, Stanley Ridley, as well as on behalf of Efrem Burgos, the witness dubbed ‘The Good Samaritan’, for having gotten violent perpetrator Anthony Jacobs away from his elderly victim, told reporters, “The big lie will not stand. The truth is coming out. It was a polarizing event. A White cop shoots a Black cop.” He went on, “If the DA will release all of the footage from all of the cameras, we might see what really happened.” Each of the four eyewitnesses who came forward on Wednesday were put before a grand jury by Janet DiFiore, and, therefore, were deemed by her to be credible, trustworthy, and knowledgeable witnesses. She can not now attempt to discredit, or impeach what they are saying with respect to the manner in which Police Officer Christopher Ridley lost his life by an uneccessary shot to his head. She cannot erase what they each witnessed at close range just because when one of them, John Fiumara, told her to her face, “It was an uneccessary execution,” she told him, “Don’t say that in court.”

Neither can she brush off the fact that when asked by a grand juror directly, Efrem Burgos expressed the same opinion, that the shot to the head was uneccessary, but the Assistant DA controlling his appearance, declared, “Strike that.” Janet DiFiore cannot, now, avoid the inconvenient truth, the horrible, traumatic experience of witnessing the murder of a young man, a heroic police officer, at close range, and being compelled to keep that shocking experience bottled up for 15 months because someone who was sworn to search for the truth, used the power of her Office to keep it hidden for political and self-preserving reasons.

Each one of those four witnesses who spoke out publicly on Wednesday, David Boudreau, Kathy Allan, John Fiumara, and Efrem Burgos, expressed to this reporter their relief and their gratitude for the opportunity to publicly reveal what they, and others, have been forced to keep from the family of Officer Ridley and the Westchester community by the District Attorney and her agents.

It’s amazing what lengths certain media persons will go to in order to protect the sitting district attorney from exposure. The handling of the Ridley investigation is but one example. When you have a cable channel such as Cablevision’s News 12 that was not only granted their monopolistic franchise by the County Executive, but was also given a $22.5 million no-bid contract to their Lightpath subsidiary for a failed communication system in March 2000 by that same County Executive, you will do everything that you can, everything that Brian Conybeare and Janine Rose are now doing, to protect and promote the County Executive’s, Andy Spano’s, “partner in crime.” They did it for Jeanine Pirro, and now they’re doing it for Janet DiFiore.

Last Thursday, Conybeare spent hours on Court Street in White Plains searching for someone, anyone, who might contradict what four eyewitnesses to the murder of Police Officer Christopher Ridley revealed at a press conference the day before. They, News12, who had the images from four cameras out of nine that were in range, “exclusively” as they put it, were also in control of the particular clips from each that they showed. Of course they were; they were the only so-called news source that DiFiore knew she could trust to keep her secret.

As far as News 12’s witness, David Hess, is concerned, his claim that they did not see what happened, is totally wrong. Dave Boudreau was standing directly across the street at the time of the shooting. Kathy Allan had a clear view through the window of the van in which she was seated. John Fiumara was right there, behind Hess, outside the passenger side of the van, and Efrem Burgos, in fact, viewed the shooting by Officer Oliveri through the windows of the taxi.

Janet Difiore - #1.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

In Our Opinion...

DA DiFiore Is Playing Stud Poker With The Public

Weekend before last, Cablevision News12’s Brian Conybeare appeared in the usual weekend timeslots of the Newsmakers program with a special presentation specifically, and exclusively, pertaining to the federal lawsuit filed by Civil Rights Attorney Jonathan Lovett on behalf of his client, Stanley Ridley, father of the late Mount Vernon Police
Officer Christopher Ridley.

Interestingly, News12 went so far as to tell its viewers that Attorney Lovett had brought some 29 lawsuits against the County over a nine-year period, about three per year, as if he didn’t have the legal right to stand up for his clients against the offenses of County government.

Conybeare was showing a videotape that purportedly had been supplied by the Westchester County Police, but which had clearly been pieced together, quite possibly by Conybeare, from the production of either three or four of the nine surveillance cameras mounted on the north, south, and east sides of the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue in White Plains; an obvious and desperate attempt by District Attorney Janet DiFiore, with News 12’s assistance, to deflect some of the heat she was feeling for not releasing “the tapes.”

The simple truth is that the DA has released small segments of tape from only three or four surveillance cameras, and not the raw, full footage recorded by them and five or six other cameras mounted on the west side of Court Street as the incident was occurring from the
moment the mugging began, and Officer Ridley got out of his car, to the time he lay dead on the sidewalk immediately in front of 85 Court Street.

Those images, and the images from the cameras from which we are shown only selected pieces, the images the DA does not want seen, are the cards she continues to hold in her hand, turned face-down.

After all, we were told early on that there were some six cameras that must have recorded the incident, cameras mounted on the County Office Building. Each of those cameras obviously recorded every aspect of the incident, from start to finish, that was within its range of surveillance, each from a different angle.

For example, why is it that we are shown Officer Ridley emerging from his car only from images taken by the camera mounted on the northwest corner of the County Office Building?

Why not show us images from the camera mounted on the northeast corner of the building, a camera much closer to the car, a camera, in fact, facing the car head-on, and more likely to show what Officer Ridley removed from his car when he hesitated in order to retrieve something.

That camera was directly above the mugging of the elderly civilian by Anthony Jacobs which we only get to view from images from the northwest corner-mounted camera, and the camera mounted low on the Court Street-east face of the County Office Building.

We must immediately demand to see all of the videotaped images shot from each and every one of the cameras, those nine mounted on the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue, in addition to any private surveillance cameras mounted at, or near, Mulino’s Restaurant, or any other business or residential locations such as Macy’s, and/or other establishments at or near the intersection of Martine Avenue and Court Street, as well as south and north on Court Street, and east and west on Martine.

Most importantly, we must view unedited, unredacted full footage from each camera if we are to learn what actually occurred.

Our Readers Respond...

Not Only At Donut Shops

Dear Editor:

Hi. I live in Yonkers, and have read your articles when I can. I go tanning at Beach Bum Tanning on Central Avenue in Yonkers. I go on
Sundays around 9pm at night and, for at least the past four weeks, there have been two to four police cars parked in the parking lot.

Not only are they parked there but they are tanning while in uniform and doing so for free.

I find it hard to believe that they have so much free time.

Thank you for your time.

A Burned-Up Taxpayer

Keep The Faith

Dear Editor:

I try to pray often because this world is corrupted. I will try to keep you and your staffers in my prayers.

Don’t get discouraged; do your very best.

J.D., Bronx

People Of Mt. Vernon Must Know

Dear Editor:

The People of Mount Vernon must know what is happening in our City, enough is enough.

Let’s start with city cars; we are paying for gas, wear and tear, and insurance on cars for people who take these cars home every day outside of Mount Vernon. Every police captain takes a City car home; all but one does not live in our City. The police commissioner lives in White Plains, chief of staff lives in White Plains, planning commissioner lives in Yonkers, add that to our tax bill.

The Department of Public Works commissioner is another winner in Junior’s administration.

He can be found at his private office on 3rd Street at least three times a day, every day. We would like to know who is signing off on all of QFI’s projects (Mr. Horton’s private company); oh, yeah, his brother Steve must be seeing to all that.

Steve sits on our City Council, and I understand he is a part-owner of QFI, because we all know Terrance cannot figure out what day of the week it is without his brother.

No one is watching our City; it is time that all Mount Vernon citizens wake up. We must hold Junior (Mayor Young) accountable for our hard-earned money; we are all hurting, taxes are out of control. We need help!!!

Young’s god-daughter is a 26-year-old trying to run programs for seniors; what does she know about being old, she has no idea.

The City Tax Assessor is scary; this man walks around town like he is untouchable. How does he sit on the board at Mount Vernon Hospital
and access their taxes without a conflict? Who sets his tax rate on his house, we wonder. On any given day you can find Mr. DeBellis’
car parked in Bronxville, he is the part-time tax assessor in Bronxville, yet he takes a Mount Vernon car there.

This man not only drives a City car but he drives a foreign car when everyone in America, including our President, is trying to buy American, again with total disregard of OUR money.

We need help!!! Who is watching our money, taxes...?

Al Passino, Mount Vernon

Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Chappaqua Accountant Pleads Guilty To
Stealing Client Tax Refund Checks.

LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and RAFAEL PRIETO, the Resident Agent in Charge of the White Plains Office of the United States Secret Service, announced that RANDAL L. KASE pleaded guilty in White Plains Federal Court to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of his clients’ tax refund checks.

According to the Information to which KASE pled guilty, statements made in Court, and other documents publicly filed in the case: From approximately 1998 through February 2009, RANDAL L.KASE, a licensed certified public accountant in New York State, prepared tax returns for his clients. During this time, KASE diverted the tax refund checks of numerous clients to his address in Chappaqua, New York, without the knowledge or permission of these clients.

After the Internal Revenue Service mailed his clients’ tax refund checks to KASE, KASE forged his clients’ endorsements and falsely represented
that his clients had signed the refund checks over to him. KASE then deposited his clients’ tax refund checks into his own bank accounts or used the checks to pay off his credit card bills. In total, KASE misappropriated at least 60 tax refund checks from his clients, totaling more than $320,000.

KASE was arrested on February 2, 2009, and pleaded guilty to one count of forging endorsements on United States Treasury checks and one count of mail fraud before United States District Judge CATHY SEIBEL.

KASE faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison; a fine on the forgery count of $250,000 and on the mail fraud count of $1 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and the imposition of restitution.

KASE, 55, resides in Chappaqua, New York. Judge SEIBEL set sentencing for July 28, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. DASSIN praised the efforts of the Secret Service.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorney JASON P.W. HALPERIN is in charge of
this prosecution.

Westchester County Government.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Taxpayers Take Note: Last Thursday afternoon, at approximately 2 pm, four County workers whose combined wages were
paid by you, mounted this sign, also paid for by you, on the front door of the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue.
It is a self-promotional message installed by Andy Spano, at your expense, just 48 hours prior to the Westchester Tea Party held
at this very site. What taxpayers need from County Government is less propaganda and more performance.

Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

Low-Budget Fun In Westchester

Last week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced that the global economy was not expected to recover from the current recession until mid-2010. A local international corporation, International Business Machines (IBM) in Armonk, also announced last week that it would be laying off up to 5,000 employees, many of them in the Hudson Valley region.

Witnessing neighbors losing their jobs and their homes, most Westchester residents are reacting to the grim news by tightening their belts. With so much bad news, the last thing on most people’s minds is having a good time in the midst of it all. But a group of feisty Westchester residents reacted to the grim news of our economy last week by kicking up their heels, literally. The “Arts Westchester”, a local non-profit arts council,
hosted an “Irish House Party” at their facility in White Plains complete with professional Irish step dancers, fiddlers, and Irish cuisine.

For several hours, over 50 hardy residents forgot their economic woes and concentrated instead on learning the intricate steps of the group dances,
swinging their partners around the floor of the Arts Exchange, a restored neo-classical bank building on Mamaroneck Avenue.

Participants had been invited to the traditional Ceilidh to “witness the agility and passion” of these typical Irish social gatherings, a passion that was evident and contagious among those attending. According to Jim Ormond, Communications Manager of the Arts Westchester “Irish music is cheerful and lively, and the basic steps can be learned easily.”

The event was priced affordably for these difficult economic times. Tickets were only $15, $10 for students, seniors and Arts Council members; a complete Irish dinner of Shepherd’s pie and corned beef, cabbage, and potatoes, was only $5 more. Area restaurants and brewers offered their wares, promoting the local economy. Captain Lawrence Brewing Company of Pleasantville showcased their brews and Tighe’s Tavern of White Plains provided the food.

But it wasn’t just the cuisine that was on display. Several renowned Westchester musicians, among them fiddlers Brian Conway and John Whelan
and pianist Brendan Dolan, and several of their talented students, provided the evening’s entertainment.

According to Ormond the event was “an invitation to the Westchester community, regardless of heritage, to enjoy and participate in the house
party atmosphere with some of the finest performers living and working in the region”.

The Arts Westchester is the largest non-profit art council in all of New York State. The council provides arts programs and services, fund concerts, exhibitions and plays, and brings artists into area schools and community centers. Its dedicated purpose is to “weave the arts into the fabric of Westchester life, strengthen the county’s cultural institutions, and enrich the quality of life for all of Westchester’s residents”.

Among their partners is the Greenburgh School District which is working with Arts Westchester to incorporate arts into all elementary grade levels,
from kindergarten to eighth grade, to support the District’s International Baccalaureate curriculum.

According to the Greenburgh School District “the program brings artists into classrooms throughout the district”. Arts Westchester also provides
a “Summer Youth Photography Job Training Program”. The six-week program notes that it gives local students an “opportunity to learn the basics of photography and organize an exhibition of their work”.

Arts Westchester also offers grants for an array of cultural activities and exhibitions. A “Basic Program Support Grant” application is available on the Arts Westchester website, www.artswestchester.org. These grants give financial support to organizations that provide a full season of cultural events and activities.

Other grants offered are a JPMorgan Chase Capacity grant for small and mid-sized arts organizations operations, an Arts Partners grant for local arts-in education interdisciplinary and integrated studies of arts and arts subjects, and Arts Alive Artist and Project grants to
promote direct support to area artists and community cultural programs.

The Arts Westchester sponsors all types of arts events throughout the year. They followed up the Irish House Party with an Opera Concert on April 24th. Billed as “Viva La Musica Bella”, the night hosted “memorable and popular musical selections from opera and musical theater”.

The musical selections included works from Bizet’s Carmen, Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, Puccini’s La Boheme, Strauss’ Die Fledermaus, Bernstein’s Candide, Lee’s Man of LaMancha, and Verdi’s Rigoletto.

New Rochelle Opera’s Georgianna Pappas accompanied soprano Samantha Grenell-Zaidman, mezzo-soprano Malena Dayen, baritone Ross Benoliel from Career Bridges as well as fellow New Rochelle Opera performers soprano Roseanne Ackerley, tenor Jin Hwan Byun, and baritone Lawrence Harris.

On May 1st, the council will be showcasing contemporary works by new choreographers in their “New Dance Downtown” event. According to Ormond “Acclaimed Choreographer Peter Pucci will be presenting a new work performed by students of Manhattanville College”. Pucci
has received numerous awards for his works, among them the “Arts-Westchester 2009 Artist Award”, a Drama Desk nomination for Best Choreographer of the Year, and an Absolut Joffrey Award for Choreography.

Other choreographers will showcase their works as well on May 1st, Sidra Bell, the winner of the Bessie choreography award from the Dance Theater Workshop, Jessica DiMauro, a 2007 recipient of an Arts Alive grant from the Westchester Arts Council, and Mariah Steele, the winner of the 2009 Emerging Artist grant from Green Street Studios.

According to Ormond, each choreographer at this event will “present a piece in the style that best exemplifies the work that they do”. Young students are encouraged to attend this event; they will be admitted free with a paying adult.

Following that performance, the Arts Exchange will host what will easily be a most memorable event. On May 2nd, the Tribes Hill folk group will celebrate the 90th birthday ofTribes Hill member Pete Seeger.

The featured performers will be Anthony daCosta, Fred Gillen Jr., Matt Turk, Kathleen Pemble, KJ Denhert, and Steve Kirkman. According to the event’s announcement, “many of the musicians have long-term associations with this elder statesman of American folk music, having performed and collaborated with Seeger at concerts, festivals, and on various social justice projects.

The Tribes Hill musician’s collective has approximately 100 active musician members throughout the Hudson Valley. On the first Monday of every month, a group of the musicians gather at Hammond House in Valhalla, “to share a potluck dinner as well as each other’s songs”.

The “Tribe” evolved at this historic meeting place where George Washington was nearly captured during the American Revolution. The Arts Exchange will also be previewing the first ever Tribes Hill songbook for sale at this event, dedicated to Pete Seeger.

The council views this event as a “warm-up for Seeger’s 90th Birthday extravaganza the following following day, May 3rd, at Madison Square Garden”. The celebration at the Garden is expected to be a star-studded affair; in contrast, Westchester residents can attend an honorary event for Seeger at a far more convenient locale, and at far less expensive ticket prices!

Area residents, potential students, and just plain lovers of the arts can contact the Arts Westchester at www.artswestchester.org or 914-428-4220 for more information about upcoming events. Or just stop by their beautiful building at the corner of Mamaroneck Avenue and Martine Avenue, officially renamed “Arts Avenue” by the City of White Plains.

Jeffrey Deskovic.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Jeff Deskovic

Speaking At Harvard

Two weeks ago I had the privilege of teaching students on the subject of wrongful convictions at Harvard University Law School and several other Harvard schools. The events were the first ones put together by the student group Harvard Divinity School Innocence Project Engagement Group.

In February 2007 I was visiting The Innocence Project in New York City. After making the rounds to see familiar faces, I went to their second floor, which contains their Policy Department which focuses on legislative reform. At that time, I unexpectedly met Mike Klinger.

Klinger had just began working with the Innocence Project as a Coro Fellow in Public Affairs in New York City. He was drawn to the Intelligence Project’s criminal justice reform work, finding it in alignment with his vocational interests, intellectual passions, and spiritual curiosities.

Upon completion of his Coro experience, Klinger began working full-time in the Policy Department, and has been engaged with the work ever since. We hit it off, and he requested a meeting with me to discuss college education in prison.

From our initial meeting, Klinger and I became friends and periodically would get together to socialize. He attended several of my speaking events.

About eight months ago, he was admitted to the Harvard Divinity School to pursue a Masters Degree. Although this required him to move to Cambridge, Massachusetts, he continues to work for The Innocence Project as a Policy Consultant. His primary function involves supporting the administration of the Eyewitness Identification Reform Litigation Network, which consists of a group of attorneys working to:

1) reduce wrongful convictions by strengthening defense strategies focused on suppressing problematic identifications;

2) enacting Eyewitness Identification policy reforms nationwide through both litigation and legislative channels.

His current focus on this project is building infrastructure and capacity for the network through grassroots Speaking At Harvard
organizing and implementation of web technologies.

Despite the physical distance, Klinger and I have maintained our friendship by phone. One night I was outside on Mercy College campus. He called me and said that he wanted to form a student group for the purpose of raising awareness about the problem of
wrongful convictions.

He knew that various student organizations in the past at other schools had sponsored my events, and he told me he wanted to bring me to Harvard. About six months later, he contacted me and said that he was ready to go. On April 14, 2009 I arrived at Harvard to speak about wrongful convictions.

In order to further publicize the event, I accompanied Mike to a class that he was attending pertaining to community organizing, where the professor was nice enough to permit me to give a short two minute blurb about the upcoming event the next night.

Following that, we went to a function called “The Community Tea.” The Harvard website defines the tea as follows: “Each week during the fall and spring terms, the Office of Student Life hosts a community tea, a chance for students, faculty, and staff to engage in conversation over a cup of tea or punch. A table of goodies is spread with tea sandwiches, fruit, and sweets. It is a time to relax, refuel, and connect with friends.”

Following several announcements about various upcoming events, I again referenced the upcoming event the next night.

HDS Innocence Project

The HDS Innocence Project Engagement Group describes itself as “Offering students the opportunity to participate in the DNA-driven criminal justice reform movement through supportive political action and public education initiatives. Through a range of activities, students will have the opportunity to explore interrelated issues including, but not limited to: religious life in prison, capital punishment, prisoner reentry, forensic science, and peace and reconciliation processes. There will be several opportunities to meet with DNA exonerees so that we may bear witness to their suffering, and engage with them in dialogue to explore ways in which we as a community of diverse spiritual leaders of all faiths can perhaps assist in facilitating their healing.”

Contacted by The Guardian in connection with this article, Mike Klinger gave the following statement: “I founded the HDS Innocence Project Engagement Group with a vision of raising awareness amongst the spiritual leadership of tomorrow of the causes and consequences of wrongful convictions. My hope is to empower this leadership community with the awareness and advocacy skills required to help bring about a more just, accurate criminal justice system, which currently impacts every religious and spiritual community across the country.”

The first event was on Wednesday, April 15 at 8:20 AM at Harvard Law School, in the “Evidence” class taught by Prof. Bruce Hay. There were 80 students in the class. Prof. Hay had assisted in obtaining funding to cover the travel costs for the event. The class had been prepped on my case, and therefore I only spoke for about ten minutes.

I was a bit nervous starting out, but Prof. Hay asked me a few questions which helped me to relax, and then I got into a rhythm.

Following those ten minutes, however the rest of the period was spent with the students asking me questions regarding the legal aspects of my case, and also about wrongful convictions in general.

There were a few questions which required me to give information about a some other wrongful conviction cases as well. At times, Prof. Hay requested that I address different subjects.

The second event, out of all of the events that I participated in, was the main one since it was held in an auditorium and was open to students in all of the Harvard schools. This event began at 6pm and ran for about two hours at the Harvard Divinity School.

It was attended by students from Harvard Divinity School, Harvard Law School, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard’s School of Design, Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, and Harvard’s Extension School.

The HDS Innocence Project designed a poster to advertise the event. The poster’s headlines read “Innocence Project Engagement Group Presents… Jeff Deskovic: 16 Years of Wrongful Incarceration.”

In further elaboration of the event, the poster stated that I would speak about my wrongful conviction, time in prison, life post exoneration, and being involved in efforts to raise public awareness and bring about legislative changes.

I was introduced by Kerry Maloney. She spoke briefly about the importance of liberation. Then Mike Klinger was called to the podium. He thanked Maloney for her assistance, and then promptly
called me to the podium to speak.

Before launching into the presentation, I commented on how surreal it was to be at as a prestigious a school as Harvard whereas just a short two and a half years earlier I was in a prison cell with the weight of a life sentence on me.

I also reflected about how eight months ago Mike had called me and expressed interest in putting together some events at Harvard, and now it had come true. I then thanked him as well as all of the different people and groups that had helped but whose names were too numerous for me to remember, and then launched into the presentation.

I began by explaining how murders were rare in the small city of Peekskill, and how ultimately the police coerced a false confession out of me, and how I was convicted despite a negative DNA test, based upon prosecutor George Bolen’s concocting a baseless story that the 15 year old victim, who was an immigrant, had engaged in a consensual sexual encounter close enough to her murder and rape so as to exp lain away the negative DNA test, without ever attempting to prove that.

I spoke a little bit about my prison experience, including the violence in prison, disciplinary sanctions being imposed at various instances including in response to my defending myself which was thought of as “fighting”, including taking limited showers and being sent less food, including, at times, food that was old.

I spoke about trying to prevent the time in prison from being a total waste by earning an A.S. Degree and completing one year of further study towards a B.A. before Gov. Pataki eliminated funding for college education of prisoners.

I also having to choose between seeing my grandmother on her death bed, alive but comatose, or waiting till she passed away and then attending the religious service, as well as the mistreatment and humiliation I endured in the process.

Then I walked students through the appeals process and how then-Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro fought all seven of my appeals, including blocking me from getting more sophisticated DNA testing. I mentioned the letter writing campaign that I started, sending letters to individuals, and organizations, including churches and other faith-based organizations, big law firms, reporters, and not-for-profit
organizations that help clear wrongfully convicted prisoners but who don’t have enough resources to take all the meritorious cases that come their way.

I explained how when I ultimately obtained help from The Innocence Project, by which time Pirro was no longer in office, the Westchester District Attorney allowed further DNA testing, which matched the real perpetrator, one Steven Cunningham, who killed school teacher Pat Morrison three and a half years after he killed the victim for which I was incarcerated.

I then spoke about life post-release and it’s multi-faceted difficulties, including having to learn new technology, still having a hard time breaking in socially, and being released from prison with nothing and consequently struggling financially. I also mentioned becoming an advocate to make the criminal justice system more accurate and to raise awareness about the deficiencies in the system which make it possible for innocent
people to be wrongfully convicted, and that I engaged in these activities by speaking, writing, giving print, radio, and television interviews, lobbying, and testifying at legislative hearings.

I then provided the students with some ideas as to how they might get involved by learning more about the causes of wrongful convictions and the reforms needed and then sharing that information with friends and family, calling their representatives and encouraging them to pass laws implementing those reforms.

I said they could join Mike’s group. I then mentioned different ways that they could embark on careers that assisted the movement: becoming attorney’s who work on wrongful conviction cases, either working in the media department at organizations that work on wrongful conviction cases or being a reporter who writes articles, at least occasionally, on the subject; the mental health fields via counseling and social worker, paralegal, or simply going into law enforcement.

I made them understand that they could be that honest police officer who doesn’t cut corners nor tries to coerce suspects or allow it, being careful that innocent people are not arrested, and not participating in the blue wall of silence.

I said they could be a prosecutor who plays it by the book, doesn’t withhold exculpatory evidence, engage in prosecutorial misconduct or look the other way while it is happening.

Mike Klinger thanked Life Together, which is the Harvard Divinity’s School student body government, and the Office Of Student Life for providing funding for the event. Mike then thanked Kerry Maloney, HDS Director of Religious and Spiritual Life, Chris Scheller, President, HDS Zen Peacemaker Order, a student organization, Zachary Ugolnik, President of the HDS Prison Education Project, a student organization, and Marcus McCullough, President of the HDS Harambee, another student organization, who assisted him non-monetarily in bringing the event together.

He then mentioned my emerging from my ordeal to try to make a difference, preventing this from happening to others. He then invited the students to get involved in the HDS Innocence Project Engagement Group, which planned to get involved in battling
against wrongful convictions.

A question and answer session then began. Some of the more memorable questions which elicited responses from me pertained to the prison industrial complex, and how I would like to assist prison reform groups who seek more humane prison conditions.

I also fielded some questions that brought out information I had not been able to include during the lecture phase pertaining to the dilemma of needing to take the sex offender program to have any chance of making parole but how that would mean admitting guilt and giving details, and to do so verbally and in writing to the staff and to the other prisoners in the program.

After much soul-searching, I decided that I could not bring myself to say I committed something that I had not, even if it would cost me my freedom. I then segued off of that question to mention how the Parole Board denied me release even though it acknowledged that I had a good disciplinary record and had a good educational record, and, how it was in the habit of rubber stamp denying parole applications even to people who could demonstrate that if they were released they would not be arrested again.

After the presentation I was pleased to meet Gretchen Bennett, who was with the New England Innocence Project, and a paralegal who worked with her. I also did the usual ‘meet and greet’ with the audience members. At the same time, some of the students signed up to participate in the HDS Innocence Project Engagement Group. Then Mike and I headed to the third event.

The third event ran a little bit more than an hour at the Harvard Extension School, in a classroom that physically was in the Harvard Law School, called “Evidence, Law, and Reason.” This class was also taught by Prof. Hay. Some 75 students were in attendance.

As with the first event, I spoke for about 10 minutes, and then the class started asking me a lot of questions, with Prof.
Hay occasionally directing that different subjects be addressed.

One of the more meaningful exchanges included a student commenting how there seemed to be a lot of public apathy regarding wrongful convictions. He also noted how one pirate attack on the U.S. has prompted talk of war but how in contrast 235 wrongful convictions has not similarly gotten the public demanding that action be taken.

Another meaningful exchange occurred when the a student mentioned the need for compensation in every state, and how this could potentially serve as a deterrent to future prosecutorial misconduct.

I commented how wrongful convictions were still going on even in those states with compensation, and how instead incarcerative penalties were needed for rogue prosecutors, as well as the ability to sue them personally. Much of the audience was in agreement.

I enjoyed visiting Mike after not seeing him for 8 months. We caught up with what we had been doing, played some chess. I had a chance to see some of the town of Cambridge. In my quest to try new things, I sampled an exotically named tea which was described as being the “champagne of tea.”

The student campus seemed alive with many extra curricular events, and the students were very friendly. One of them joined Mike and me at a restaurant.

Speaking at Harvard was a great experience. There was a part of me that was happy to potentially touch many students. One clear issue in the struggle in Massachusetts is that there is currently no post-conviction DNA law on the books giving prisoners the right to DNA Testing.

I think that other schools should be having student groups revolving around the issue of wrongful convictions, as it would further raise awareness and enable young adults to take action.

I really enjoyed sitting in on the community organizing class, and I think that is the next natural step in my advocacy work. As an individual, we are largely powerless. As a whole, we have the collective power of many, the energy, abilities, and most importantly, the votes.

Christopher Ridley Case/Janet Difiore.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Stanley Ridley, Father Of Slain Heroic
Police Officer Christopher Ridley, Declares,
“My Son Didn’t Have To Die That Way”

Last Tuesday morning, April 14th, a press conference was held at the site of the tragic shooting of Police Officer Christopher Ridley on January 25, 2008. The purpose of the press conference was to officially announce the filing of a $90 million federal lawsuit by Officer Ridley’s father,
Stanley Ridley, in United States District Court, White Plains.

The suit, which names Janet DiFiore, District Attorney of Westchester, individually and in her capacity as District Attorney, as well as the four County police officers directly involved in the shooting, together with their commissioner, Thomas Belfiore, Chief Medical Examiner Millard Hyland, and County Executive Andrew Spano, also names the County of Westchester, New York; nine Defendants in all, and seeks $10 million from each.

Stanley Ridley, the Plaintiff, is primarily motivated to uncover the truth, the whole truth, regarding what actually happened outside 85 Court Street, White Plains just minutes before 5pm on January 25, 2008. He knows, logically and instinctively, that much of what the district attorney
and her cohorts would have him, and the rest of us, believe is neither truthful nor believable; and, what’s more, that there are witnesses who insist that from their vantage point, much of what came out of the grand jury was a whitewash.

Mostly, Stanley Ridley wants to clear his son’s name, something he shouldn’t have to do except for Janet DiFiore’s demeaning fabrications that Officer Ridley would embark upon a mission to confront and apprehend a brutally violent perpetrator, Anthony Jacobs, who had just assaulted
and battered a middle-aged man, breaking both of the man’s wrists, but would carry out an arrest carrying only his service weapon, but leaving his badge, his universally-recognized symbol of police authority, behind in his car.

DiFiore would have Mr. Ridley, and all of us in Westchester with sense enough to tie our own shoelaces, believe that Christopher would first go running into the security entry area of the County Office Building seeking to enlist police assistance, with a gun in his belt, but no badge.

Witnesses very close to the action are saying it didn’t happen that way. They’re saying he was holding a badge in his right hand and his service weapon in his left hand, arms fully extended from his sides, facing three of the four County police officers standing no more than 10 feet from him when they opened fire, though his gun wasn’t pointed at any of them. Those witnesses are saying that he then dropped his badge and his gun on the sidewalk, and was going down to his knees when a fourth officer, who had taken cover behind a tree at the curb, came out and placed his gun, at point-blank range, and shot Officer Ridley in the head above his left eyebrow.

Witnesses also report seeing the entry wound with powder burns around it as Christopher Ridley’s body lay on the sidewalk, uncovered for some time; and, that the badge which lay on the sidewalk near him was quickly removed, even before White Plains police arrived on the scene.When Plaintiff Stanley Ridley went to the Westchester County Medical Examiner’s Office to identify his son’s mortal remains, he was shown Christopher’s body with his head wrapped in white bandaging from his eyebrows up.

He told reporters, “We want the truth, we want the tapes, and I want all the people involved in this brought to justice. My son didn’t have to die that way.” Responding to questions from a large contingent of newspaper and broadcast reporters, attorney Jonathan Lovett declared, “I have plenty of witnesses, but now we will have a tidal wave.” He cited District Attorney Janet DiFiore’s “repeated refusal to release the unredacted video
tapes.” Asked why the grand jury found the killing was an accident, Lovett responded, “Grand juries do what they are asked to do by the DA.”

Damon Jones, a Westchester Corrections Officer and President of the Westchester Chapter of the National Black Police Association, told reporters, “The Westchester County justice system needs an enema because it’s full of crap!” He went on to say that there were “lots of witnesses who came forward to the Mount Vernon police,” but that they were all directed to White Plains.

Jones expressed his opinion with regard to the DA’s investigation saying, “This case is a poster child for the need for a special prosecutor.”

There were no fewer than four surveillance cameras mounted on the County Office Building, and elsewhere, that took videotapes of the tragic events leading up to the killing of heroic police officer Christopher Ridley, and the shooting itself. The fact that District Attorney Janet
DiFiore has repeatedly refused to show the public the unredacted, untampered-with tapes for more than 15 months now, speaks volumes about the integrity of her investigation and the product of her grand jury.

This is the same district attorney, after all, who covered up the violence of Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes, the rogue cop who bodyslammed Irma Marquez without justification; the same district attorney who then proceeded to prosecute Ms. Marquez on totally fictitious charges even after viewing the horrific videotape of Simoes’ unprovoked attack. Likewise, this is the same district attorney who prosecuted Rui Florim, who was brutalized by six off-duty Yonkers cops, and who prosecuted numerous other victims of Yonkers police brutality, including Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky.

Janet DiFiore is the same district attorney who, upon entering office, kept concealed, for 16 months, until compelled by the federal courts, to turn over 376 pages, 52 boxes, and miles of audio tape, all of which indicate Anthony DiSimone’s innocence in the stabbing death of Louis Balancio,
in Yonkers, 15 years ago, including a confession by the actual murderer, Nick Djonovic. How can Stanley Ridley, or any intelligent and reasonable
individual, trust anything as crucial as the investigation of the killing of their only child to such an individual?

Nevertheless, before and after the press conference, The Journal News made their bias very clear. On Tuesday, the day of the press conference,
Phil Reisman, who always drank the kool aid for Jeanine Pirro, willingly did the same for Janet DiFiore. For him, the Ridley tragedy and the failure of the DA’s Office to come clean, was merely about an effort to “take down the DA.”

The simple fact is DA DiFiore has refused to reveal the unredacted, unaltered videotapes taken by several surveillance cameras of the tragic incident. If those original images supported her version of the killing, she would have shown them to the public 15 months ago, would have
released the medical examiner’s report, and turned over articles of Christopher Ridley’s clothing to his family immediately.

Yonkers Police Commissioner Edmund Hartnett/Police Brutality in Yonkers.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

In Our Opinion...

Yonkers Police Commissioner Hartnett Continues To Ignore Police Brutality

In our April 16th issue, Damon K. Jones, Executive Director of the Westchester Chapter of the National Black Police Association declared, in a press release, “There is hypocrisy in Westchester politics. Why did the County Executive and County Legislators push a Shot Spotter System that
is neither preventative nor a true quality-of-life investment for the residents of Mount Vernon and Yonkers, while residents of Ardsley receive monies for school improvement, road maintenance, and wireless systems for their schools?”

Jones was essentially questioning whether the $3 million that the County had agreed to spend on the state-of-the-art technology to more promptly locate the scene of gunfire and probable violence on the streets of Yonkers and Mount Vernon might not have been spent more effectively on other, more fundamental, police department equipment such as computers and working car cams in squad cars. He further suggested that some of the funds might have been better allocated for preventative measures such as job placement, outreach and educational assistance in coordination
with Operation Protect. Officer Jones also expressed his views in The Journal News to which Yonkers Police Commissioner Edmund Hartnett saw fit to respond on Sunday, April 12th.

Responding to Jones’ position, Hartnett accurately indicated that Jones felt the taxpayer funds “would be better spent on long-term solutions to long-standing problems in both communities,” Mount Vernon and Yonkers. Then Hartnett gave Jones the benefit of the doubt declaring, “Although he is probably well-intended, Mr. Jones is missing the point.”

In Mount Vernon, how can Commissioner Chong have any realistic expectation of cooperation and assistance from law-abiding adults and seniors when their 12- and 13-year-old sons and grandsons are beaten and bitten up by squads of rogue cops bent on racial retaliation and punishment
reminiscent of the South of 50 years ago; missing only the high-pressure hoses?

And then there is the Yonkers Police Department, to whom the Mount Vernon Police turned when their own dog was otherwise occupied. For some two and a half years now, Edmund Hartnett, who authored the response to Officer Jones’ comments, has been heading that department as its commissioner.

Hartnett declares, “Gun violence is an immediate problem that requires using all resources and tools at our disposal,” and, We certainly agree. He goes on to say, “The People, especially the children of Yonkers, and Mount Vernon need our help and protection now.” Again, We couldn’t agree
more.

However, the People, especially the children, shouldn’t need our help and protection from violent rogue cops such as the squad of both Mount Vernon and Yonkers Police who beat up and mauled three young boys found loitering in the A.B. Davis Middle School one Saturday evening several
weeks ago.

Furthermore, perhaps if the cities of Yonkers and Mount Vernon had meaningful civilian complaint review boards, Irma Marquez would not have been brutally body-slammed by Officer Wayne Simoes as a half-dozen other Yonkers officers did nothing to stop or apprehend him; and, Rui Florim would not have been beaten, nearly to death, by six off-duty Yonkers cops in the Town of Greenburgh. Commissioner Hartnett, and the Mayor who hired him, see no need for a civilian complaint review board. Each of them have told The Guardian as much, publicly. They like things
just the way they are; and, so, apparently, does DA Janet DiFiore, who covers up the actions of rogue cops while prosecuting not only their civilian victims, but good cops as well.

Our Readers Respond....

Re: Paul Cote


Dear Editor:

I am writing regarding Paul Cote, the Westchester Correction Officer. I have known this man for a very long time. My sister (who lives in Mount
Vernon) is Paul’s aunt. When I heard of his involvement with the incident at the County Jail I could not believe this was the same Paul Cote I know.

I know Paul to be a family man who is respectful, soft-spoken, loving and kind. My understanding is he went to help his partner, another correction officer, who had a problem with an inmate. How come Paul is the only one charged and convicted? Are young people, familiar with this case, going to believe “it doesn’t pay to help a friend”?

Paul doesn’t deserve this injustice. He has suffered enough. Send him home to his children, his wife and his family.

Catherine Mascali,
Staten Island
.

Mount Vernon City Hall, Janet Difiore and Sam Zherka.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

DA Presents A Very Weak Case
Against Publisher Sam Zherka
Mount Vernon City Court
Judge Adam Seiden Presiding

Last Thursday, Guardian publisher Sam Zherka appeared in Mount Vernon City Court for a bench trial before Judge Adam Seiden, charged with Disorderly Conduct, a violation. The charge grew out of an incident outside the chambers of the City Council on
the second floor in City Hall October 31, 2008.

ADA Alexis Celestin told Judge Seiden, sitting as the trier of fact, “The People intend to prove that on Halloween, Friday, October 31st, the City of Mount Vernon conducted an auction of properties foreclosed for tax liens, and, that the Defendant got into an altercation with Police Officer Morris, and that he became loud and he became irate. He said, ‘I pay your salary, and you shouldn’t even be a cop’. Yolanda Robinson, Mount Vernon Chief of Staff, tried to calm the Defendant down, but he
paid no attention to her and went on yelling, screaming and cursing at Police Officer Morris. At the end of the trial, the Court will find that the Defendant is guilty of Disorderly
Conduct.”

Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Sam Zherka, declined to
make an opening statement.

The Prosecution’s first witness was Mount Vernon Police Officer
Morris, a woman who has spent two and a half years in the Patrol Division.

Asked what she was doing on the date in question, she told the
Court that she was working an 8 am - 4 pm tour of duty, and was called to City Hall to relieve Police Officer Pasqua.

Officer Morris claimed early in her testimony that she was instructed not to let anybody else into the auction before Sam Zherka, pre-registered, arrived a few minutes after the scheduled 11am starting time.

She claimed that she turned someone else away.

Morris said, “The Defendant said, ‘I pay your f---ing salary. You shouldn’t be a cop.’”

ADA Celestin asked, “What did you say?”

Police Officer Morris: “I told him to stop yelling at me and using bad language.”

ADA Celestin: “Did anyone approach you?”

Officer Morris: “Yolanda Robinson; she began to talk to the Defendant.”

ADA Celestin: “Do you recall what she said?”

Officer Morris: “No.”

ADA Celestin: “What happened with Officer Pasqua?”

Officer Morris: “We escorted the Defendant downstairs.”

Jonathan Lovett then cross-examined Officer Morris. He started
with, “On October 31, 2008, when were you told by Central what time you arrived earlier outside the doors at City Council Chambers at City Hall? What were you told?”

Morris answered, “Respond to City Hall Council Chambers.” Morris
said that PO Pasqua told her “We’re going to stand here to keep
order and peace.”

Responding to a statement by Morris on direct examination that
she had been told by Second Deputy Controller Valentine not to let anybody else into the auction, Lovett asked, “So before Mr. Zherka got there she told you nobody else was allowed to go in?
Did anyone else go in? Did anyone else go in or out?”

Morris: “I don’t remember.”

Lovett: “Didn’t you see John Boykin come out?”

Morris: “I don’t remember.”

Lovett: “What was the first thing the Defendant said to you?”

Morris: “He asked why he couldn’t go in.”

Lovett: “What did you say?”

Morris: “I told him he couldn’t go in.”

Lovett: “Did Mr. Zherka say anything about being registered to
attend the auction?”

Morris: “I don’t remember.”

Lovett: “How close were you to the door?”

Morris: “About a foot.”

Lovett: “What time did you call for backup?”

Morris: “I’m not sure.”

Lovett: “Do you remember Mr. Zherka pulling out a tape recorder?”

Morris: “I’m not sure.”

Lovett: “Do you remember Yolanda Robinson calling Mr. Zherka
a White mother f---er?”

Morris: “I don’t remember.”

At this point, ADA Celestin began a continuing overruled objection.

Lovett: “Did anyone come out of the auction to say what was going on in the hall was interrupting the auction?”

Lovett then asked if at any point after the incident Officer Morris told Mayor Young, “in words or substance,” that she wanted to apologize to Mr. Zherka; but, Morris denied it.

Morris claimed that she and Mr. Boykin, and Officer Pasqua, accompanied Mr. Zherka down to the first floor.

Lovett then asked Officer Morris a series of questions with regard to what happened when she got down to the first floor:

• If she told the sergeant on duty about Zherka;

• If she told the squad of cops who responded to her call, when
they arrived, and passed her as they ran upstairs;

• If she recalled being with Police Commissioner Chong just inside the front door to City Hall;

• If she checked to see if the auction was still going on on the second floor? All of which she responded to negatively.

Lovett followed up with, “Did John Boykin say anything in your
presence?”

Morris responded, “Yes,” without elaborating.

He then asked the same question with respect to Police Commissioner Chong, to which Officer Morris responded that Chong had said there would be a summons issued.

Lovett then asked, “Do you remember the Defendant’s holding
up his tape recorder and offering to play what had occurred for Commissioner Chong?” Morris denied remembering it.

He then asked, “Are you aware that the entire incident was recorded by Mr. Zherka?”

Morris responded, “No.”

Finally, Lovett asked Morris, “In light of that fact, are there any statements you made here, today, that you might wish to change?”

Morris again said, “No.”

ADA Celestin, at that point, made an application for Judge Seiden to listen to the tape. The Judge reserved decision.

The Prosecution then presented Mount Vernon Police Officer Vincent J. Pasqua, Thomas Rejalla, First Deputy Controller, Susan Valentine, Second Deputy Controller, and Rudy Persaud,
Public Works Supervisor, none of whom had anything particularly supportive of the charges against Mr. Zherka to say.

If anything, their recollection of events suggested that the incident occurring right outside the door to City Council Chambers was in no way audible inside and did not interrupt the auction going on in that room. Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud’s testimony was particularly exculpatory to Zherka in
that Attorney Lovett established, with his testimony, on cross-examination, that neither John Boykin nor Yolanda Robinson were spoken to offensively by Zherka in his presence.

As if to confirm the fact, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “When
you got to the top of the stairs, was Robinson with you?”

Persaud responded, “Yes,” and indicated that he remained for a few minutes outside Council chambers.

The sixth Prosecution witness was Yolanda Robinson, who took
the witness stand declaring, “I am Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff of the City of Mount Vernon.” Robinson, responding to ADA Celestin’s inquiry about her whereabouts at the time in question, said, “I was walking upstairs with Rudy Persaud.
When I reached the top of the stairs, I heard a commotion.”

Celestin asked, “Did you know who the Defendant was?”

Robinson said, “No.”

Asked what she did next, Robinson said, “I identified myself.”

Celestin then asked, “Did he pay attention to you?”

Robinson responded, “No, he didn’t.”

Prosecutor Celestin then asked, “Who was standing there?”

Robinson replied, “I saw Police Officer Morris, Mr. Zherka, and Rob DiBenedictis.”

ADA Celestin asked what Robinson said to Zherka, to which Robinson responded, “I said if you do not behave, you will be escorted out.”

Probed further by Celestin, she indicated, “A crowd had gathered
and I became alarmed for the people gathered.”

Celestin asked, “Did you accompany Mr. Zherka out?”

Robinson responded, affirmatively, following up with, “I saw
Commissioner Chong and identified myself.”

Attorney Jonathan Lovett then proceeded to cross-examine the witness.

Mr. Lovett asked, “Why did you leave your office?”

Robinson replied, “I went to see the auction,” and then said she
was having a Department of Public Works issue.

At that point, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “Do you have any
recollection of what you discussed with Mr. Persaud?” Robinson did not recall.

Lovett then asked, “From the point at which you approached the
Chamber door, until you left the area, how much time elapsed?”
Robinson responded, “About 20 to 25 minutes.”

Lovett then asked, “What did the Defendant yell at the officer?”

Robinson responded, “You are not fit to wear the uniform. I pay
your salary.”

Robinson had no recollection of her conversation about a key, a car, or New Jersey, all of which the previous witness, Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud, had explained to the Court were the reasons he was with her, looking for John Boykin, and accompanied her to the area outside City Council Chambers.

Lovett went on, “Do you recall telling John Boykin, ‘mind your own business?’” Robinson said she did not.

Lovett pursued the matter further, “Did you say to Mr. Boykin, ‘What kind of Black man allows a White man to talk to a Black woman like that?’”

Robinson did not recall having said that. However, she did admit to telling Boykin, “If you don’t stop interfering, you’re going down with him.”

Speaking further of Boykin, Robinson said, “I recall him trying
to interfere as the police officers were trying to remove him.” Lovett came back with, “Do you recall saying, ‘This White motherf---er f---ed with the wrong f---er.’”

ADA Celestin immediately objected, and was sustained. Lovett then asked, “How long was Mr. Zherka outside the chambers?”

Robinson responded, “Ten minutes.”

Judge Seiden then said, “What we are trying to get at here are the exact words that you used.”

To that, Robinson responded, “I told Commissioner Chong that I
told him [Zherka] who I was, and he kept doing what he was doing.”

Jeffrey Deskovic.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Jeff Deskovic.

Gideon Day

In previous issues I have written about the broken public defender system and called for reform. One of the problems is that each county has its own public defender system and thus there is no statewide oversight or means of quality control. In addition, there is a vastly uneven economic playing field between the District Attorney and public defenders’ offices. District attorneys have huge staffs and financial resources which permit them to hire experts to assist in reviewing evidence and preparing cases; whereas public defenders have much smaller staffs and often must resort to
asking judges to allocate discretionary funding in order to hire experts. Often such requests are denied by judges who feel pressure to keep the costs of trials down.

In addition, public defenders usually carry way too much caseload. In The Bronx, for example, it is not unusual for one public defender to simultaneously represent 120 defendants. With an overwhelming case load such as that, just how much attention can actually be paid to each case?

Because of the time constraints due to their excessive caseloads, public defenders frequently do not meet often enough, or long enough, with their clients, and thus enter court ill-prepared. Often during preliminary, though important, pretrial proceedings, attorneys can be seen outside of the courtroom, and sometimes even inside of the courtroom, quickly thumbing through a file five minutes before their case is before
a judge.

Beyond the pretrial implications, the inadequate time spent on cases and on meetings with clients amounts to inadequate investigation of the facts, evidence helpful to the Defense, and possible defenses. The end result is often that the best defense is not put forward on behalf of the Defendant; and, a harsher than necessary sentence may be imposed as a result of a court not having all of the facts in front of it that could have been brought forward by a competent attorney. Often Defendants plead guilty out of a realization that their court-appointed attorney is not that good, and/or well equipped to fight the case; and, often wrongful convictions result.

There is also a pay disparity between prosecutors and public defenders. As I see it, both sides should receive equal pay so that all the best legal talent
does not go to the prosecution side, or into private practice. The difference in the quality of defense that a poor person receives as compared with that of a wealthy and/or politically-connected person is like night and day.

In 2005, the Spangdenberg Group, at the behest of New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith Kaye, studied the quality of public defense in New York. They released a final report in June 2006 entitled “The State Of Indigent Defense In New York State.” In addition to noting the broken public defender system and its failings, one of the solutions proposed involved having one statewide system of public defense, one which would provide oversight and quality control, as well as promulgate standards.

As yet, no reform has occurred legislatively, and poor defendants often do not receive quality representation. This past March 18, however, a major effort was undertaken to both raise legislators’ awareness of this issue and the public’s support for reforms in this area, while raising public awareness.

The Campaign For An Independent Public Defense Commission

An organization called Campaign For An Independent Public Defense Commission [referred to hereafter as “The Campaign”] has been put together to improve the state of indigent defense. They have a website page on Facebook which states, “Money should not buy justice. We need a public defense system that works for everyone. It’s time to stand up and call for a commission to oversee defense services in New York as well as
a fully state-funded system. We cannot wait for the system to change itself. We want the Independent Public Defense Commission.”

Their concept is to have the state legislature fund the Independent Public Defense Commission, at a rate of three million dollars per year, for three years. The Commission would figure out how to implement the changes advocated by The Spangdenberg Group and to promulgate standards on
effective attorney representation. The money was already present; and The Legislative Gazette reported that the group said, “because funding was already set aside from the Indigent Legal Services Fund, under state finance law … to be used to improve the quality of public defense services.”The
funds went unspent. The organization is a coalition of over 220 organizations and scores of individuals. Members include faith-based organizations, bar associations, good-government and social justice groups, and many others.

In addition, individuals who have dealt first-hand with the tragedies created by the current deficient system, along with others committed to justice, are calling for public defense reform now and are in support of the Independent Public Defense Commission.

Gideon Day

Gideon Day was celebrated on March 18th, commemorating the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the immortal case Gideon v
Wainwright, which established that under the 6th Amendment of The United States Constitution, all states and the federal government have to provide to poor defendants an attorney, free of charge, if they cannot afford to hire their own.

The Campaign chose Gideon Day as the day in which a major push would be made to establish The Independent Public Defense Commission. In order to pave the way, there had been, of course, a lot of preparatory work. Outreach had successfully been made to all of those organizations and people described above.Many newspapers had written articles urging the implementation of public defense reform, including: the Post Standard of Syracuse, The New York Times, Newsday, Press Republican of Plattsburgh, Times Union of Albany, Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester.

Additionally, the following people had written op-ed pieces which appeared in newspapers: Senator Antoine Thompson, Assemblyman Darryl Towns, President-Elect of the Puerto Rican Bar Association Roberto Ramirez, Senator Schneiderman and Senator Ruth Hassell Thompson, former NY Court Of Appeals Judges Stewart F. Hancock, Jr., Joseph Bellacosa, and George Bundy Smith, as well as Ron Waterman, who is a Montana Attorney.

Concerned citizens from all parts of the state were bussed in for the purpose of laying peaceful siege to the Legislative Office Building. Their presence at the rotunda gathering was to demonstrate how high a priority this issue is for citizens. Additionally, lobbying visits had been scheduled between the citizens and their local elected officials.

More than 250 people came. Folders were given out which contained information regarding the Independent Public Defense Commission, the most
important piece of information being that the citizens were to ask their local official to write a letter to both the Senate and Assembly leadership asking them to write The Commission For An Independent Defense Commission into their budget itself.

There was also an informational packet which was to be left at the various Senate and Assembly offices upon the conclusion of the visit by the delegation’s coordinator.

All of the participants were asked to sign in as a means of tracking who came, and complimentary tee shirts were given out which read “Campaign
For An Independent Public Defense Commission.”

The Program

The event kicked off at approximately 9 AM. Many organizations which were in solidarity with the Campaign had tables set up at The Well, forming a kind of huge circle with plenty of sitting and walking room in the middle. There were various social justice organizations, including those which worked on prisoner re-entry issues and The Innocence Project. Jay Salpeter, the investigator who helped to clear Marty Tankleff, was present, as was Tankleff. They were seated at a table together, which had copies of the book A Criminal Injustice by Salpeter and Rick Firstman.

They also had a sign up in the front of the table regarding the organization which they formed together called “Fortress Innocence” which is designed to help others who are wrongfully convicted that cannot pay for their legal assistance. The manger of The Campaign, Jonathan Gradess, who is also the executive director of the New York State Defenders Association, addressed the gathering. He spoke of the broken public defender system and how The Independent Public Defense Commission would remedy much of the ills of the present system. He pointed out the link between ineffective representation and wrongful convictions. He referenced my case as well as that of Tankleff. He encouraged the audience to “speak truth to power”, and further encouraged them to ask their representatives to write the Senate and Assembly leadership.

Noted wrongful conviction expert and author Scott Christianson, whose works have been cited by the United States Supreme Court, and who is the
author of the book Innocent: Inside Wrongful Conviction Cases, was on hand for the event. His exhibit, which also goes by the name of “Innocent”, consisting of tall wooden frames which contain news stories of wrongful convictions, each one covering a different cause of wrongful convictions along with a case example, was displayed in The Well. The cases mentioned included that of Betty Tyson and her co-defendant John Duval, whose convictions were overturned because a buried report contradicting trial testimony of one of the two witnesses against them was unearthed, and the second witness stated that he had been coerced by the police to implicate them, along with the Pedro Morales and Reuben
Montalvo case, in which the real perpetrator confessed to a priest who then informed the court once the perpetrator died; and the still ongoing wrongful conviction of Frank Sterling, who was convicted after a false confession spanning several hours while a hypnotist was trying to hypnotize him. Six of the twelve cases Christianson had documented have, since the book came out, had their innocence established. Christianson spoke several different times at the podium, and was also available to answer questions as different people examined his art exhibit.

Starting between 10:30 AM and 11 AM lobbying visits began and the citizens moved out for their first two meetings. At 12 PM a press conference was held in the press room of the L.O.B. Press Conference Chairman Eric T. Schneiderman, D-Manhattan, said the right to representation is “the right that guards all other rights.” When people are denied adequate representation, he said, “the consequences are devastating: ruined communities,
ruined families.” “is absolutely clear that there are people going to prison for crimes they did not commit due to problems with indigent defense.”

Assembly Codes Committee Chairman, Joseph R. Lentol, D-Brooklyn, spoke on the plight of his fellow lawyers in the state, saying he hears stories in his community of “dedicated lawyers, counselors of law that are reduced to assembly-line representation of clients” because they are assigned too
many defendants at once. Assembly Corrections Committee Chairman Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, spoke from another angle, saying, “Lots of folks in my neighborhood contend that they are not able to receive the kind of defense that they deserve as citizens of this state,” and “it’s not a mistake” the “prison population is overwhelmingly black and brown” and poor. “If we were to create a system that provides adequate defense, we would see those numbers lessen,” Aubry said. Michael Whiteman, chairman of the Committee for an Independent Public Defense Commission, said the proposed commission would work to create new “standards on case loads, training and experiences,” giving more access to resources for investigators working for the defense and updating management systems “to make sure things don’t fall between the cracks.”

Whiteman also said the three years before a state takeover would allow the commission adequate planning time to identify other areas where savings and efficiencies can be found. The campaign is proposing the commission get its funding — $3 million a year over the next three years —
from the Indigent Legal Services Fund, a fund Jonathan Gradess, who manages the campaign, says “exists under state finance law … to be used to improve the quality of public defense services.”

My Role


Reservations had been made for me to meet with Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins. At the same time, another Westchester County resident, who refers
to remain anonymous, would meet with another Westchester Legislator. Following that, all of us would meet with Assemblyman Adam Bradley and,
then after lunch, we would meet with Assemblyman George Latimer. The resident stated that a relative of his had been wrongfully convicted of rape, and that it had emotionally devastated the entire family. That conviction, he said, was caused by ineffective representation by a private attorney who had never before tried a criminal case. He indicated that it was particularly hard for relatives to visit the convicted relative in prison
and then leave him behind at the conclusion of the visit knowing that he was innocent.

The citizen was nervous about his meeting, and so I quickly gave him tips on what to expect and how to utilize his personal story and then make the connection between ineffective representation that his relative received and the issue of seeking the implementation of an independent public defense commission. After the first two meetings, during the lunch period, I spoke for about fifteen minutes in the Rotunda, and then had the group meeting with Assemblyman Latimer. While still in the L.O.B. I was able to set up a number of unrelated lobbying visits on other wrongful conviction issues.

District Attorney DiFiore


On April 2, 2009, Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore published an op-ed piece in The Journal News regarding Gideon Day. In the article she stated that, as District Attorney, it was not just her duty to prosecute the guilty but to ensure that justice is done. She further stated that the Public Defender system was “under-funded, overburdened, and without uniform standards to measure and enforce quality representation.

Under the present system, the quality of counsel was determined by the happenstance of where one was tried. To correct this fractured system, the Kaye Commission called for the creation of an Independent Public Defense Commission (Defense Commission) to operate and finance the provision of defense counsel for the indigent uniformly throughout the state.

The Defense Commission would issue statewide standards for caseload limits, training and availability of investigatory resources.”

Commentary


There is indeed a great need for an Independent Public Defense Commission, and I am proud to add my voice in support to the movement. I salute the legislative leaders who supported and continue to support the initiative. The relationship between quality legal representation and justice is obvious. As the quote on one of the informational sheets that The Campaign handed out stated, paraphrased “Without an attorney, Gideon was convicted. With an attorney he was acquitted in an hour.”

Although The Commission was not written into the budget and it should have been, I do believe that a big impact was made and that there is a good
chance that legislation can be passed this year if enough concerned citizens reach out to their elected officials and prevail upon them. It is critical that efforts not cease now after this momentary setback; rather, there is a need to intensify our efforts because although a battle may have been lost, clearly the war can still be won this year.

I believe that we need more people in the movement who are employed in law enforcement, who do not simply pay lip service to the need for change, but whose actions in the discharging of their job responsibilities support it. In the recent case of Kian Khatibi, that was not what The Westchester County District Attorney’s Office did, nor was it what happened in other recent Westchester cases where wrongful convictions were ultimately overturned.

Instead, the Westchester DA took an unreasonable, win-at-all cost position in seeking to preserve those convictions which judges later determined
should, in fact, be overturned. Frankly, I believe that actions speak much louder than words, and what I see and hear are not the sounds of a real reformer who is truly interested in preventing and correcting wrongful convictions.

Catherine Wilson.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

Identifying And Dealing With Dementia

Last month, an elderly woman was found wandering in Yonkers. The Police Department identified where she lived and placed her in a cab to
be taken home. However, the police did not notify her next of kin or determine if she was capable of going home unescorted or if she even had
her house keys with her to get back into her home.

Fortunately the cab driver assigned to her handled the situation correctly, avoiding possible disaster. He did not drive off when he dropped
her at her destination; rather he waited to see if she was able to enter her home. She was not, since she had indeed forgotten her house keys.

The driver then went through the woman’s possessions, identified her next of kin, and informed her daughter of her mother’s dilemma. Given the thousands of elderly and dementia victims in Westchester, the ineffective response of the Yonkers Police Department is concernful. At
a minimum, this woman should only have been released to a relative; she should not have been allowed to go home alone. Ironically, a minimum-wage cab driver handled this situation more responsibly than highly-paid“trained” professionals.

According to Michele Muir, Communications Director for the Westchester Chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association, there are at least 22,000 known cases of Alzheimer’s and other dementias in Westchester County. “That statistic is probably extremely low,” Muir warns. “Many
individuals are undiagnosed so the actual number of victims could easily be twice that amount or more.” Muir also noted the high rates of dementia and Alzheimer’s among the elderly, far greater than heart disease and cancer rates. “Alzheimer’s strikes one out of every two individuals over the age of 85,” Muir said.

As the population ages and survives diseases such as cancer and heart attacks, the likelihood of a local resident being diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer’s in their lifetime is extremely high. For that reason, the Westchester Alzheimer’s Association has joined a statewide coalition to lobby for passage of the Omnibus Alzheimer Service Act of 2009 in Albany.

According to the Alzheimer’s coalition, the Omnibus Act would “create a statewide Silver Alert system; this is a prompt response and
notification program used by law enforcement to help locate cognitively impaired citizens who have been reported as missing. Among its other provisions this legislation would allow for the education and training of police officers with regard to individuals with Alzheimer’s’
disease or other dementias.

This legislation is necessary to implement statewide protocols aimed at returning individuals with Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias to their home as soon as possible. National statistics have shown that individuals suffering from these diseases, who are missing for over 24 hours, have a 60% chance of not being found alive.”

In addition, the Coalition has requested the following appropriations in the New York State 2009-2010 budget
for Alzheimer’s related programs:

• $351,000 for Alzheimer’s Disease Community Assistance Programs;

• $250,000 for education, support services, and early diagnosis related to Alzheimer’s;

• $250,000 for the services and expenses of the Alzheimer’s Association chapters;

• $225,000 for the Alzheimer’s Disease Coordinating Council.

In short, the Alzheimer’s statewide coalition is requesting only slightly over $1,000,000 for assistance with a disease that has the highest probability among all diseases of affecting any one of us as we age. This disease eventually robs its victims of all cognitive understanding
and the ability to perform bodily functions.

At the final stage, most Alzheimer’s victims lack any awareness of their surroundings and all memory of their lives, as if they never lived at all. But, despite the horrific consequences of this disease, the high probability of its occurrence, and the growing number of victims as the population ages, the coalition’s proposals in the Omnibus Act were vetoed by Governor Paterson late last year. In 2008, the members of both the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate passed legislation introduced by Senator DeFrancisco, the Omnibus
Alzheimer’s Services Act of 2008. This act was based on the following findings by the State legislature:

“The legislature hereby finds and declares that over 330,000 New York citizens are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, and that one in eight citizens over the age of 65, and half of those over the age of 85, are affected by these diseases.

The legislature further finds and declares that 70 percent of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia patients are cared for at home by family
members, in what are often extraordinary and moving acts of love and devotion during the progress of the disease, which on average lasts between five and fifteen years and is marked by progressive symptoms that, over time, make the patient completely dependent on their caregivers.

The legislature further finds that a common behavior of this disease that causes great concern for families and caregivers is wandering, and that there have been several recent incidents in which a New York State citizen diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or other form of dementia has engaged in wandering, and the locality was not equipped with the tools necessary to locate them in a timely manner, with the unfortunate result that these individuals never returned home to their families.

The legislature therefore finds and declares that it is imperative that New York State and its localities develop plans to ensure that, in the event an individual with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or other cognitive impairments is missing, the appropriate technology and infrastructure are available and can be easily and timely activated to protect the health and safety of these vulnerable citizens.”

Ms. Carolyn Keleher, the Communications Coordinator for Senator DeFrancisco, provided an outline of the provisions in this act to aid Alzheimer’s and dementia victims:

• Authorizes the Office of Aging to enter into contracts for training for law enforcement personnel on issues related to persons with cognitive impairments;

• Establishes the Silver Alert system for the location of missing persons with cognitive impairments;

• Requires the Coordinating Council for Services Related to Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementia to make recommendations on
certain technology to be used for the location of persons with cognitive impairments.

After success in the New York State Senate on June 19, 2008, the original Omnibus act then immediately passed the New York State Assembly on June 24, 2008 and was forwarded to Governor Paterson for his signature. However, just before the Thanksgiving holiday, on November 24, 2008, Paterson vetoed this bill with the following explanation:

• Because there are over 600 law enforcement entities in New York State, this bill could result in several hundred different locally-based "silver alert" programs, assuming that these local jurisdictions were willing to invest the resources necessary to support such a program. By contrast, DCJS (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services) already runs a statewide alert system for missing children, which allows it to send alerts to as many as 16,000 recipients, including law enforcement entities, media outlets, highway systems, and airline, train and bus terminals. With no additional resources, and within an hour of receiving legislative authority to do so, DCJS could modify
its system to include alerts for missing persons with cognitive impairments.


• The current DCJS Basic Course for Police Officers already includes lessons on persons with disabilities, including materials relating to persons with Alzheimer's disease. There is no need for the State Office for the Aging, at a potential cost of over $2 million annually, to develop a separate curriculum, or to administer a program in which "outside contractors" would provide such training.

• This bill would specifically require training on one particular type of locator technology, the MedicAlert+ system developed by the
Alzheimer's Association. I have been advised that there is other locator technology being used in this State, and it is conceivable that technological advances will lead to the creation of different types of systems in the future. It therefore seems prudent to allow DCJS to use its best judgment.

• Finally, the bill would require the Coordinating Council for Services Related to Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementia, which is co-chaired by DOH and SOFA, to review and make recommendations regarding the best use of locator technology. This legislative authority is unnecessary, because the Council may review that technology at any time without such a mandate. Moreover, this provision also would
mandate each State agency participating in the Council to post on its website information with respect to where to buy the technology, and the costs, benefits and disadvantages of each option.

Using public resources to promote and endorse products sold by profit-making entities could violate Article VII, Section 8 of the State Constitution, which prohibits money of the State to be used "in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking."
The Governor’s explanations above, however, ignore the following facts:

1. Since New York State already has an “Amber Alert” system in place to locate missing children, the State could easily adapt this system to include Alzheimer’s and dementia victims. Therefore, the governor could have negotiated for a drafted amendment to this legislation to do this, rather than vetoing the bill entirely;

2. The “Basic Training for Police Officers” offered by the State Division for Criminal Services is not mandatory. According to Janine Kava, a
spokesperson for the DCJS, “It is up to each police department to set their own training standards”. A review of the DCJS website revealed only one “Basic Training” course that was offered in the State within the last six months, and that was in Utica; a prior course was held in Niagara Falls;

3. Most families with dementia and Alzheimer’s victims turn to the Alzheimer’s Association for help. Consequently, these families use the
Association’s Medic Alert devices to track their loved ones. Any advances in technology could just as easily be adopted by the Alzheimer’s Association and not just DCJS. In addition, the Alzheimer’s Association, through its very existence, offers more expertise in determining the selection of appropriate devices to aid victims. The expertise of DCJS centers on law enforcement, not care-giving and medical diseases, rendering their judgment here less effective;

4. The State already uses public resources to “promote and endorse products sold by profit-making entities”: Westchester County’s Department of Seniors promotes the Medic-Alert company’s devices on its website and printed directory.

The Department of Seniors also sponsors “Project Lifesaver”, defined by the County as “A program that helps find missing seniors who suffer from Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia and are prone to wandering.

The initial cost for training and equipment is $54,440; the bracelets are free to the first 100 clients in this pilot program. Additional people who enter the program will pay an initial fee of $385, $300 for the bracelet and $85 for the first year of battery changes. Depending on the senior’s income, that fee would be waived or paid on a sliding-scale basis.” The devices are sold by the Project Lifesaver Foundation, a
non-profit organization.

The County notes that “the Westchester County Office for the Aging was designated by the New York State Office for the Aging as the Area Agency on Aging to serve all persons 60 years of age and older in Westchester”; ergo, State money is already being used by Westchester
County to promote products.

Side note to readers: Westchester County maintains a branch of the DCJS in Valhalla. A review of the offerings of this branch reveal that no
police training courses are to be held there at all in April; only two were offered in March; only one one-day course was offered for the entire month of February; and while two two-day courses were offered in January, one, the major crimes homicide course, was cancelled. Which begs the question, why are we paying tax dollars for a training facility and staff that are not being utilized to their maximum capabilities? Why not consolidate the multiple DCJS training centers in the Hudson Valley into one facility and use the money the State would save to protect our seniors by establishing the “Silver Alert” system?

In contrast to the lack of the “Basic Training” course for police officers which allegedly contains instructions on how to handle Alzheimer’s victims which could not be verified by the Guardian by press time, the DCJS routinely offers throughout the State a week-long course on “Crisis Intervention” on the specialized skills police officers need to “interact with individuals who are mentally ill or emotionally disturbed
in ways that are safe, appropriate, and effective.

Course topics include indicators of emotionally disturbed behavior, mental health issues that have special significance for juveniles and the elderly, key provisions of State Mental Hygiene Law, suicide, Kendra’s Law, actions that officers should take or avoid, selected types of mental illness, and the impact that certain types of medication can have on a person’s behavior.

There will be opportunities to practice or critique carefully constructed role plays, and students will return with a toolbox of resources that can help agencies take better advantage of community resources”. This training is available, at no charge, to police officers, parole officers, correction officers, and others who interact with people in crisis and the mentally ill in the criminal justice system only. But if DCJS can manage to offer such a comprehensive course on issues with the emotionally and mentally ill, why can’t they also offer specialized training for the proper handling of dementia victims?

The New York Legislature noticed this lack of training and attempted to address it with the Omnibus Act. Governor Paterson vetoed this legislation alleging that the DCJS State agency already handles this specialized training of police officers. But both recent incidents and the acknowledgement from DCJS that this training, if indeed offered, is “not mandatory”, indicates a lack of protection for our elderly neighbors from the very government departments obligated to protect them.

It therefore falls upon local residents, like the Yonkers cab driver, to look out for and protect possible dementia victims wandering in our neighborhoods. The Alzheimer’s Association offer guidelines and protective services for these victims. Michelle Muir noted that, “If you
encounter someone showing signs of Alzheimer’s disease, he or she may seem disoriented or confused. Because Alzheimer’s disease affects the part of the brain where memory is stored, the person may be unable to answer your questions” and offered some quick tips for helping a person with dementia during a crisis:

When you encounter a person with dementia:

• Identify yourself and explain why you’ve approached the person;

• Maintain good eye contact;

• Speak slowly and calmly; loudness can convey anger; do not assume the person is hearing-impaired;

• Use short, simple words;

• Ask “yes” and “no” questions;

• Ask one question at a time, allowing plenty of time for response;

• Maintain a calm environment;

• Instead of speaking, try non-verbal communication.

Muir also noted that, as in the Yonkers incident, family members often are not aware that their loved ones are at risk for wandering. Wandering can be dangerous, even life threatening, for the person,” Muir cautioned. “The stress can weigh heavily on caregivers and family”.
She advised that “People with dementia who wander often have a purpose or goal in mind. They may be searching for something that is lost or trying to fulfill a former job responsibility,” and offered the information available from the Alzheimer’s Association on what to look for to determine if your family member is at risk for wandering and the possible causes and prevention techniques for wandering problems:

A person may be at risk for wandering if he or she:

• Returns from a regular walk or drive later than usual;

• Tries to fulfill former obligations, such as going to work;

• Tries or wants to “go home” even when at home;

• Is restless, paces or makes repetitive movements;

• Has difficulty locating familiar places like the bathroom, bedroom or dining room;

• Checks the whereabouts of familiar people;

• Acts as if doing a hobby or chore, but nothing gets done;

• Appears lost in a new or changed environment.

Wandering can be caused by several factors, including:

• Medication side effects;


• Stress;

• Confusion related to time;


• Restlessness;

• Agitation;


• Anxiety;

• Inability to recognize familiar people, places and objects;

• Fear arising from the misinterpretation of sights and sounds;

• Desire to fulfill former obligations, such as going to work or looking after a child.

Tips to reduce wandering:

• Encourage movement and exercise to reduce anxiety, agitation and restlessness;

• Ensure all basic needs are met, i.e. toileting, nutrition, thirst;

• Involve the person in daily activities, such as folding laundry or preparing dinner;

• Place color-matching cloth over doorknobs to camouflage;

• Redirect pacing or restless behavior;


• Place a mirror near doorways. A reflection of their own face can stop them from exiting;

• Reassure the person if he or she feels lost, abandoned or disoriented. Tips to protect a loved one from wandering and getting lost:

• Enroll the person in MedicAlert + Safe Return;

• Inform your neighbors and local emergency responders of the person’s condition and keep a list of their names and telephone numbers;

• Keep your home safe and secure by installing deadbolt or slide-bolt locks on exterior doors and limiting access to potentially dangerous areas;

• Never lock the person with dementia in a home without supervision;

• Be aware the person may not only wander by foot but also by car or public transportation.

The Westchester Chapter of the Red Cross also provides services for dementia victims and elderly residents. Abigail Adams, Director of
Communications, spoke of several programs the agency has to assist family members in looking out for their loved ones. “We provide an ‘Early Watch’ alert,” Adams noted.

Local seniors can register with the post office and a special label is placed inside their mailbox, not visible to anyone else. If their mail is not
picked up regularly, the postal carrier will notify the Red Cross who, in turn, will contact specified family members. “We also provide weekly “check in” calls to local house-bound seniors as part of their “Call to Care” program”, Adams noted.

A dedicated group of volunteers of all ages helps run these critical programs and services for the local Red Cross Chapter. Anyone interested in these programs can contact the Red Cross directly at 914-946-6500.

For families who have loved ones suffering from dementia, or suspect that their loved ones may be in peril, can contact both the Westchester
County Department of Seniors at 914-813-6400 or the Westchester Chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association at 914-253-6860.

The Advocate/Tony Castro.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Tony Castro Speaks About Domestic Violence
At Fordham University School Of Law

Last Monday, April 6, Tony Castro, candidate for District Attorney of Westchester, appeared at Fordham University Law School in New York City for a panel discussion of domestic violence.

Castro was joined by Dr. Maria Munoz Kantha, family therapist, columnist and lecturer on issues of marriage and family, who organized the symposium, as well as Dr. Josie Diaz, youth and adolescent counselor and advisor, and Laura Cruz-Colon, domestic violence survivor,
broadcaster and lecturer.

Castro, who was an Assistant District Attorney, rising to Deputy Bureau Chief of Homicides and the Grand Jury over 14 years in The Bronx District Attorney’s Office, has been in private practice, engaged principally in criminal defense, for the past eight years. He shared, with some 50 law students in attendance, some of what he had learned on the Defense side in numerous domestic violence cases. He spoke of the importance of maintaining a fair and open-minded attitude, and, not necessarily seeking only short-term solutions to domestic violence
issues, but rather longterm, comprehensive agreements that will satisfy the needs of each partner and, more importantly, the children, if any, involved.

Castro stressed the importance of thorough investigation to determine the accuracy and veracity of all allegations and counter-claims in domestic violence cases. He pointed out the fact that people involved in alleged domestic violence “do not always have the courage to analyze the truth”. He stated, “An Order of Protection can create a false sense of security, but it does work in 90 percent of cases.”

Dr. Kantha spoke of “The cycle of power and control.” She stressed the need to understand the dynamics of the relationship in cases of domestic violence, and the need to approach such situations with empathy.

Kantha made a Powerpoint presentation displaying very graphic projected images of the severe facial and bodily injury inflicted by the domestic partner of Carolyn Thomas, a well-known Olympic athlete who lost most of her face to a gunshot by an enraged domestic partner who also killed her mother.

Dr. Josie Diaz told the aspiring lawyers, “Orders of Protection are a mixed bag.” She discussed acquaintance rape and violence between adolescents. She explained that often women “make up with a violent partner several times, essentially because they are afraid of them, and afraid of being
alone.” Dr. Diaz pointed out that we tend to raise boys and girls differently; rewarding boys for aggressive acts, but girls for being quiet. She cited instances of parents and other adult authority figures who frequently make calls to emergency mental health agencies when they discover boys playing with dolls.

Dr. Kantha reinforced the experiences revealed by Dr. Diaz, citing several instances from her own professional experience in family counseling and individual therapy, explaining the frequent tendency by misguided adults to overreact out of fears of homosexuality.

Laura Cruz-Colon, a domestic violence survivor, speaking about her former violent partner, told the students, “I didn’t want to hurt him,
I wanted to kill him,” as she detailed the emotions and thoughts that she lived with during an abusive relationship early in her adult life. She
detailed the fear and the guilt she experienced during 11 years of psychological and physical abuse.

She explained that the reality was she was, “no more abused than I allowed.” She told the students that she had to develop a plan of action which took three years to execute. Now happily married for more than 20 years, Cruz-Colon explained, “Abuse doesn’t stop on its own. It requires a re-framing of self.”

Tony Castro took the opportunity to detail the importance of cooperation between law enforcement, Police and the District Attorney’s
Office, together with community social service and health care agencies, in successfully dealing with cases of domestic violence, particularly where there are children involved. He cited a Yonkers case, the tragic outcome in the Dennis Alvarez-Hernandez/Patricia Torres relationship which ended in the death, by stabbing, of Torres and two of her four young children fathered by two other men, at the hands of Alvarez-
Hernandez during one of the couple’s many alcoholic binges.

Castro illustrated for the students how it was that two individuals, with numerous police reports of domestic violence, could nevertheless slip through the cracks, going unchecked and uncorrected, until it was too late. He said, “One organization will point a finger at another. And, then, the pendulum tends to swing the other way when you have such a notorious case.”

Castro stressed the importance of communication and cooperation between the District Attorney’s Office and all other agencies involved to prevent tragic outcomes in cases of domestic violence.

Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond/Westchester County Government.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

In Our Opinion...

Perhaps A D.O.J. We Can Feel Good About

We are particularly pleased with the signals now coming from the Justice Department with respect to that Department’s prior handling of
former United States Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, who lost his bid for re-election in a close race last November, had been convicted days earlier, Oct. 27, 2008, on seven felony counts, and to that point, had been the longest-serving Republican in Senate history.

Particularly significant and reassuring is the fact that Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. had become personally involved upon learning of the extensive prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of Brady material that had gone into Stevens’ conviction. Holder became involved upon learning of the actions of federal prosecutors from Alaska as well as those from the Public Integrity Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington.

The big question that remains primarily unanswered involves just how much of the concealment of exculpatory information from the Defense
resulted from procedural bungling and poor judgment, “cutting corners” under time constraints; and, how much resulted from deliberate, calculated Constitutional and ethics violations intended to improve the chances of achieving Stevens’ conviction.

We are not merely encouraged that Eric Holder acted swiftly and decisively to remedy the Unconstitutional injury to Stevens, but also, as importantly, that he has brought the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility into the case to determine what, if any, sanctions should be applied to those prosecutors involved. We have long argued for federal legislation that would impose both financial and incarcerative penalties on federal and state prosecutors who willfully and knowingly engage in misconduct.

Additionally, We understand that the Justice Department is examining whether supervisory staff overseeing those prosecutors involved in the case might have been too lax or somehow missed signals that should have tipped them off. The failure of upper-level staff to reign in and more tightly control their otherwise “highly-regarded” prosecutors, lawyers with significant experience in public integrity cases, particularly in light of the trial judge’s strong criticism of the Prosecution well into the trial.

Senator Stevens ironically was convicted on seven counts of failing to disclose nearly a quarter of a million dollars in goods and services received from special interest constituents. Nevertheless, the government in interviewing one such constituent, whom they had intended to be a chief prosecution witness, uncovered information that would have been very helpful to the Defense on at least two critical issues, but failed to turn it over to them.

That failure by Prosecutors to comply with their Constitutional obligation to Defendant Stevens only came to light in February, nearly four months after Stevens had been convicted. And, unlike other instances of prosecutorial misconduct, withholding of Brady, discovered in the course of the trial and dealt with by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, this discovery came too late for any remedy short of overturning the conviction.

Our Readers Respond...

A Westchester Taxpayer Speaks Up For Most)

Dear Editor:

My name is Kurt Colucci, a lifelong resident of New Rochelle, current homeowner and a fed-up Westchester resident. With all our political/economic systems failing, I feel truly angry that my home property taxes have risen to the astronomical levels they currently are and rising. The city/county offers no tax relief for individuals struggling. I need guidance from my elected officials, what do I do?

My tax cost is nearly $16,000 per year. I make $100k in salary (it seems like a lot, but trust me it’s not). I am not married, I take care of my mother and 90-year-old great uncle (nursing home is not an option, he deserves love and caring from those that he looked after).

I am 32, hard-working and a college graduate. I’ve even taught college for four years, so I am not foolish or lazy. Up until recently I couldn’t even afford my own health insurance or various other necessities, but never complain. I just work and pay the bills, no fancy living, just the essentials.

This winter I was forced to make a critical decision, pay my property taxes or pay for home heating oil. Since death and taxes are the only two guarantees in life, you can guess what check was cut, the quarter $4k to City of New Rochelle Tax Collector, as I always do.

I would like to ask other residents and our “politicians”, what would you do? Should I let my family freeze? Maybe I should take a chance and let my home pipes freeze.

I work nearly 70 hours a week as it is, should I work the graveyard shift at the North Avenue Mobil Station for an extra $125 a week to pay our over-inflated, useless County government salaries, or perhaps I should contribute to their retirement pensions? Oh, wait, I already do, in the form of County tax. God knows I don’t even have a retirement savings, nor does my poor mother who raised two kids on her own without additionally funded support. I’m sure I seem like a cranky, bitter person; I assure you, I am not.

I am scared to seek advice from my elected officials, whom I cast my vote for, however I’ve been left out in the bitter cold chasing my tail for answers. I’m tired and dizzy! Well, I have news for them, soon they will be dizzy, because come April 25th they won’t know what hit them, a hell of a lot of angry, over-taxed, hard-working Westchester residents will speak out against these insidious vipers!!

I don’t mind doing my part for the community, but this is asking way too much of a single individual given the current circumstances!

Kurt Colucci, New Rochelle

Reprinted with permission from the Idaho Observer:

“All the truth, nothing but the truth, so help us God” This was the motto of the paper I published in Middletown, New York. The name of the paper was The Wallkill Journal, and I, Anthony Russo, the publisher, spent years relentlessly exposing government officials and public servants for their treasons against “We the People.”

On many occasions over the years I was offered positions of prominence by the aforementioned traitors, always turning them down. Why would I want to be counted among the miscreants? I care too much for “the People” and too much for the truth. I had been threatened over the years and suffered greatly in my pursuit of the injustices and crimes against the people they were charged with protecting. In an effort
to deter me, I was motivated even more to bring out the truths. I have fought against the powers of darkness with all the resources of God,
and now I will tell you how they tried to silence me...

At 4 a.m. on December 24, 2004, I was returning from the corner store when I pulled into my driveway. I looked in the rearview mirror and
saw, parked diagonally behind me, a police car with its lights on. It is safe to say that I was very concerned for I had not broken any of the traffic laws that morning. I rolled down the window to see what the officer wanted and to my utter astonishment Officer Darrel Agarin of the Wallkill Police Department yelled at me, “Mr. Russo, give me the gun you have in the car now!” To say I was shocked would be the understatement of the year. I didn’t have a gun in the car. I realize now that was the set up.

As I was sitting in the car, my back was still facing the officer and suddenly, without provocation, my life was changed forever. Officer Algarin started shooting at my car. I felt a thud in the middle of my back; bullets were smashing all around me. I was terrified! I went into a state of total shock and turned into the gun- fire. I was shot a total of six times, twice in the shoulder, twice in the forearm, and once in the hand. This shooting was the long awaited assassination, the retaliation I was warned of. I realize now that had I not turned towards the gun fire, the two bullets that hit my shoulder would have hit my head! That’s about all I remember before it all went black...

What I am about to tell you I heard from concerned neighbors and officials that were at the scene. They all later testified at my trial. What they said is that Officer Algarin pulled me out of the car after shooting me. He then dragged me to the back of the car, which was facing the street. I now think he did this to make it look as though he shot me while I was outside the car, I don’t know. It was witnessed that he kicked me in the side and that is how my ribs were cracked. This was told specifically to me by Everett Moore, an eyewitness that Officer Algarin
regrets having there. Moore saw the whole thing. Algarin then bent down over me and declared, “He is dead; call the coroner!”

He then placed a black tarp over me, letting me expire. All of the gunfire drew more witnesses, one of which was Dan McDunne. Mc-Dunne is a paramedic by trade. He was one of the first response teams called to the Oklahoma City bombing because of his well-known expertise.
He also tried to attend to me after the shooting. His heroic efforts will never be forgotten. When he tried to come to my aid, Officer Algarin would not let him near me.

He told McDunne, “Step away from him! We are waiting for the coroner to get here.”

McDunne told me later that he heard Officer Algarin tell dispatch there was no need to send paramedics because I was already dead. Algarin’s ruse did not work. When the ambulance got there, they pushed their way over to me and shot something into me, and declared, “This man is not dead!” They put me on the gurney and proceeded to begin taking four of the six bullets that were most life threatening out of my body.

These .45-caliber bullets were fired at me from no more than 15 feet away. Then it was off to the hospital for another harrowing experience.
It seems that Officer Algarin had a strong ally in renegade New York County Judge Jeffrey Berry, who was against me from the start. Officer Algarin, Jan B. Golding of The New York State Police Department, and Judge Jeffrey Berry all conspired against me to cover-up the failed assassination of Publisher Anthony Russo. It was only a er being released from jail that I discovered these atrocities.

On my first face-to-face meeting with Judge Berry, my attorney, Mr. Hirsch, asked the judge to lower my bail from $300,000 to an attainable
amount. Judge Berry refused initially citing that it was “not the nature of the crime but the man.” The charges themselves were reduced from attempted murder to criminal possession of a weapon. The amped up original charge of attempted murder of a police officer, the grand jury
would not indict me on. When the attorney informed the judge, “Your Honor last week in the town of Deer Park a man charged with a similar
charge was given a bail of only $1,000, much less than the amount you are asking here.”

The Judge replied, “Its different ‘scopes’ for different folks.” Bail was reduced to $200,000, an amount just as ridiculous and showed Judge Berry’s prejudice and bias. At the trial, police officers testified on my behalf. The testimony of the police would have been enough to dismiss the entire case from the court but Judge Berry ignored the testimony. The nightmare has not ended. There is not enough space to
write all that I have endured.

For more information regarding this case, please contact me at Bare Hill Correctional Facility, my DIN #05A5228, Caller Box 20, 181 Brand
Road, Malone, New York 12953.

Anthony Russo

Note: Russo, 68, swears that the above “affidavit” is true and correct. For the “crime” of being an unarmed man shot by a cop, in his own driveway, without legitimate cause, in an apparently botched murder attempt, Russo was sentenced to 14 years in prison in October, 2005.
The earliest possible release date noted by the State of New York is October, 2009.

Re: Paul Cote


Dear Editor:

As a priest and family friend, I find it totally unconscionable that Paul Cote be incarcerated. As a priest I recognize that in my world it has to be less about justice and restitution and more about mercy and forgiveness. Nonetheless the decision the Court has taken in reference to this good man does nothing to dissipate the notion among many whom I serve as a priest that true justice is too o en sacrificed to technicalities, the preconceived notions of the judge, and the “artistry” of the prosecutor.

As a family friend I know the quality of character and integrity with which Paul was educated and which he imparts to his children. I pray that this good family will draw some consolation, even if little, from the conviction that truth will triumph in the end.

In the meantime I want to declare my condolences for this family, my belief in Paul Cote’s innocence, my solidarity with the many other
letters written in his defense, and my outrage at the conviction and sentencing of Paul Cote.

Rev. Timothy C. Ploch, SDB

Janet Difiore and Chris Ridley Case.

Thursday, April 16, 2009.

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Father Of Murdered Heroic Police Officer
Christopher Ridley Sues DA DiFiore In Fed Court
If Allegations Prove Correct, DiFiore Faces Prosecution

Stanley Ridley, father of the late Christopher Ridley, the Mount Vernon Police Officer who lost his life nearly 15 months ago to a bullet fired by a Westchester County cop, has brought a $10 million lawsuit in Federal Court charging Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore with organizing and perpetuating a fraudulent cover-up of a “self-evidently racist murder of an African-American Police Officer”, his son Christopher Ridley, 23, “by a Caucasian County Police Officer.”

The Summons and Complaint filed last Friday, April 10, in United States Federal District Court, White Plains, alleges that DiFiore “enlisted the cooperation of her co-Defendants