Thursday, May 14, 2009

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

No comments:

About Me