Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Retaliatory Disciplinary Hearings Drag On
Against Detective Sergeant Steve Bonura
Pleasantville Village Board Continues Blindly On
Last Thursday evening, January 29, some 75 Village residents and retired and active police officers from around the County returned to the disciplinary hearings before the Pleasantville Village Board, sitting as police commissioners in judgment of charges, some 60 in all, that have been
lodged against Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura by Police Chief Anthony P. Chiarlitti, acting under pressure from District Attorney Janet DiFiore.
Chiarlitti is represented by attorney Terry O’Neil and, Detective Sergeat Bonura by Jonathan Lovett. Mayor Gordon called the hearing to order shortly after 7pm, announcing, “I’m joined here tonight by the other members of the Village Board. Once again, although this hearing is
open to the public, it is not a public hearing.” Gordon then said, “I notice that Mr. Bonura is not present tonight; Mr. Lovett, do you want to continue?”
Jonathan Lovett responded, “Oh, sure.”Attorney Terry O’Neil then spoke up, “The last time we were together there was talk about an injunction.
There has been none issued.” O’Neil then went on to discuss a hearing held two days earlier, Jan. 27, before State Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella, and then laid out the schedule of the next several days.
He told the Board, “I feel very uncomfortable going forward without the charged party being present. By next Friday, we believe Detective Sergeant Bonura can be brought before you.”
Then, moving in a different direction, O’Neil said, “There’s another tape in which Detective Sergeant Bonura mentions another informant.
We have videos we can play. The videos are in evidence and I believe Mr. Lovett has them.”
O’Neil told the Board, “The presen-tation of evidence in his [Bonura’s] absence is an extreme remedy. I have never proceeded under that circumstance, the first time the charged party failed to show up. Perhaps we can do the housekeeping things we need to do.”
O’Neil alluded to the possibility of a contempt proceeding that might be brought against Bonura if he failed, repeatedly, to show up.
Mr. Lovett responded, “If counsel didn’t want to appear tonight, he could’ve said that in four words.” Lovett then went on to point out O’Neil’s flawed service of process upon his client, declaring, “So there are three problems. I heard the judge say he would have a decision by next Friday. He didn’t say anything about a contempt proceeding.”
Mr. O’Neil went forward with, “We are here representing the Chief, and anything about a stay...”
Mayor Gordon spoke up, asking, “Mr. Lovett, do you know if Detective Sergeant Bonura was coming tonight?” Lovett responded, “I am not a witness, and I see no reason why I should respond to that question.”
The Mayor went further, “The Board is disappointed that Detective Sergeant Bonura is not here tonight.” Lovett snapped back with, “We’re
disappointed that you continue to withhold his pay.”
The Mayor then said, “We have scheduled these hearings at his request. We will continue tonight. Mr. O’Neil, please continue. The hearings
will continue Monday night.”
Actually, the Mayor’s statement was factually misleading. Bonura had certainly not called for discplinary hearings against himself. He had merely
insisted that whatever fact-finding procedure occurred, occur in public. Mr. O’Neil then explained that he would then be playing another audio
tape of Bonura being interrogated by Lieutenant Love, and that he also had videotapes.
Mr. Lovett responded, “We are in a new world here. We don’t need foundation. We don’t need any explanation.”
Mayor Gordon then jumped in with, “We’ll accept it subject to connection.” Mr. O’Neil then played a very scratchy, difficult to listen to, tape for nearly one hour, during which several Board members, and persons in the audience, appeared ready to fall asleep.
Upon completion of the first tape, O’Neil played still another, shorter one, after which he then launched into an extended session of exhibit identification, during which his associate brought out, for inspection by the Board, one exhibit after another. At one point they attempted to display Kahlil Gonzalez’ rap sheet to which Mayor Gordon responded, saying that he and the Board would rather not view it. At that point, Mr. Lovett observed “But you also have uncontroverted testimony that the rap sheet was generated by the Police Department.”
As O’Neil continued to bring out exhibit after exhibit, Lovett again cautioned the Board, saying: “I’d like to put on the record the Village just violated Mr. Gonzalez’ federal rights by revealing his social security number.
You can’t do that.” Moments later, he read off the Social Security number, and took the time to restate the fact that the Board “has no personal jurisdiction,” over his client because of their flawed service of process.
At that point, Mr. O’Neil broke in with, “We haven’t heard from Mr. Lovett, where his client is. Despite his position that he is not a witness he is
an attorney and has a responsibility”.
Climbing on O’Neil’s bandwagon, Mayor Gordon then said, “It seems like a reasonable request, Mr. Lovett. Do you know why he isn’t here tonight?” But Jonathan Lovett quickly shot back with, “Attorney-client privilege. Even if I knew, I can’t tell you.” The hearing adjourned at 9:35pm to be reconvened Monday night, February 2nd.
Showing posts with label Stephen Bonura. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Bonura. Show all posts
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Stephen Bonura/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Officer Bonura Confronted With A
Disgraceful Display Of Official Cowardice
Last Thursday evening, the Disciplinary Hearings against Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura resumed before the Pleasantville
Village Board/Police Commissioners. Mayor Gordon opened the hearing, announcing, “This is the continued hearing on disciplinary charges of Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura.” The Mayor then reiterated what he had said at the first session, many weeks earlier, “Although it is a hearing open to the public, it’s not a public hearing.”
Mr. Lovett, addressing the Board, stated, “At the end of the last meeting, you indicated that my client would continue without pay.” He
went further, advising the Village Board, “We’re in Federal Court tomorrow and, if I get what I want, I would suggest that you put my client
back on salary.”
Mr. Terry O’Neill, representing Complainant Police Chief Chiarlitti, then indicated that Bonura had been served with a subpoena intended to
compel his testimony.
Mr. Lovett told O’Neill, “Move to find him in contempt and I will add you to the lawsuit. He is not testifying.”
Lovett then repeated, “He is not testifying. I suggest it’s shenanigans because of the federal suit.” He went further, declaring, “You’re going
fast-forward. You think you’re going to put on a ‘dog and pony’ show here tonight to try and embarrass my client.”
Mr. O’Neill countered, “This is not federal court, and we have a witness who can shortcut the process.”
Mr. Lovett came back with, “In Federal Court, you will not be in control.” He then dared the Board, “Beat up my client a little more. Order him to testify. Find him in contempt.”
The Board then took a 25-minute break into executive session presumably to consider their position and to seek advice from their two
Board attorneys. Upon their return, Mayor Gordon spoke out, declaring, “Mr. Lovett, we have listened to your argument. Nothing we are doing here has anything to do with your federal case.”
Lovett shot back with, “The Chief of Police, in his infinite wisdom, has concocted the story that he has presented.” Mayor Gordon replied, “I’d like to call to everyone’s attention the Town has the power under Rules and Regulations of Article 22, but we can’t force him to testify.”
Attorney O’Neill, seeking direction from the Board, said, “We’re asking if the Board is directing Detective Sergeant Bonura to testify. We thought this would be an opportunity for the truth to set him free.” That comment drew laughter from the audience. O’Neill went on, “Detective Sergeant Bonura had a conversation with Shawn Cohen [newspaper reporter].
We have that tape here, a tape of Detective Sergeant Bonura’s interview.” Mr. Lovett, speaking of Attorney O’Neill, then told the Board, “He needs a foundation. If he’s got witnesses, let him call them.” Attorney O’Neill then snapped, “The witness who can testify is seated right here,” motioning to Detective Sergeant Bonura. He then indicated he was going to play several tape-recorded conversations.
Mr. Lovett then told O’Neill, “Then call him. He’s not your witness.” Lovett went on, “Why don’t you also play the recorded tape of the DA’s call into the Chief so the public can hear it. I’m sure that it was on a recorded line.” O’Neill then proceeded, as an offer of proof, to play a series of four tapes, the first of which was Detective Sergeant Bonura’s conversation with reporter Shawn Cohen. The tape played for approximately 20 minutes.
In the key conversation with Cohen, Detective Sergeant Bonura was heard saying of the District Attorney’s Office, “If they kept their
word, he’d be in jail right now.” For the next three hours O’Neill played a series of four tapes, mostly involving Lt. Wilson’s interrogation
of Bonura in an attempt to find justi-fication for the bogus charges Chief Chiarlitti had brought against him.
In the course of his discussion with reporter Cohen, Bonura indicated that Kahlil Gonzalez had a career in crime of 11 years since he was
16 years old, with some 30 arrests for a variety of crimes in places such as Briarcliff, New Castle, and Mount Pleasant, to name a few, besides the Village of Pleasantville.
At one point Bonura said to reporter Cohen, “Enough is enough. How much good can he possibly do to justify turning him loose? When do we draw the line on Kahlil Gonzalez?” There were some 95 people in the room, including Village residents and police officers, at the start of the tapes, more than 60 of whom stayed to hear it all despite the poor quality of the audio and the repititiousness of Lt. Wilson’s questions.
Throughout the four breaks taken by the Board between tapes, the comments of Village residents and police officers alike, basically questioned the need to be wasting taxpayers’ money on such a wrongful process by the Village Board. The playing of the tapes concluded at 9:15 pm.
At that point, Mr. Lovett said, “I think Lt. Wilson needs to be instructed in how to conduct an investigative interview.” He also questioned the legality of playing the tapes.
Lovett told Mayor Gordon that Attorney O’Neill, “without being sworn, presented the tapes subject to connection.”
O’Neill said, “We also have some videotapes,” about which Mayor Gordon asked, “How long are they?”
Attorney Lovett quipped, “With or without cartoons?”
Lovett then went on to declare to the Board, “I’d ask you to think this over.” Referring to the Board as ‘Elite Snobs’, Lovett then said, “The jury’s not going to like you very much. You prefer to hurt a 27-year veteran police officer. Try and show a little humanity.”
Next Day, Bonura In Federal Court
Friday morning, January 16th, some 12 hours after enduring a four-and-a-half-hour-long disciplinary hearing before the Pleasantville Village
Board/Police Commission, Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura found himself in the United States District Court, White Plains, before Judge Cathy Seibel, accompanied by his wife Lisa and civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett in an action entitled Stephen Bonura v Anthony Chiarlitti.
Prior to commencing the proceedings, Judge Seibel announced, “I am acquainted with one of the defendants, Ms. DiFiore.” To which
Attorney Lovett quickly responded, “That’s fine.”
The Judge then proceeded to ask, “Mr. Lovett, what is the status of your client?”
Lovett responded, “We attended another hearing last night. There are multiple hearings scheduled.” Lovett then went on to present an overview of the Kahlil Gonzalez affair. Speaking of his client, Detective Sergeant Bonura, Lovett told the Judge, “He expressed frustration with the fact that Gonzalez was arrested so many times and was still out.”
Seibel, referring to the report in The Journal News by Shawn Cohen, developed from his interview with Detective Sergeant Bonura, asked,
“Couldn’t someone reading the paper believe that he [Gonzalez] was a confidential informant?”
Lovett responded, by explaining the circumstances surrounding Police Chief Chiarlitti’s initial approval of Bonura’s remarks to the reporter,
as well as the First Amendment implications of the Chief ’s later response.
The Judge responded, “You’re not going to have a problem proving causation in this case, Mr. Lovett.” She then asked, “Couldn’t the Chief
have agreed with your client, but not with his making the statement?”
Lovett immediately replied, “No, Your Honor, he expressed approval of what he said.” Lovett then went on to inform the Judge of the
public’s response to the matter, and then repeated his assertion, “Stephen Bonura’s comment was Constitutionally-protected speech, and,
what Shawn Cohen wrote was also Constitutionally protected.
Judge Seibel then asked, “In terms of a police officer, don’t I have to balance First Amendment rights against whatever rights the employer has to control what his employee says?”
Lovett came back with, “The Chief admitted he agreed, and there was no disruption of the department. He merely expressed his frustration
with putting a career criminal back on the street.
At that point, the Judge asked, “What are you seeking?”
To which Lovett responded, “I am seeking a Temporary Injunction, a prohibitory injunction. He’s charged with ‘Expression Of His Opinion.’ To leave him twisting in the wind with a wife and five children, it’s been a sham from Day One.”
Attorney DeVita, an associate of Attorney Brian Sokoloff, also present and representing the Village of Pleasantville, two of six Defense
attorneys, told the Judge, “It’s the Village’s position that this case is frivolous.” He went on, “He tries to say to the Federal Court, ‘I have
a Constitutional right to violate the Constitutional rights of someone who is being investigated.’”
Following his associate’s comments, Attorney Sokoloff then cited Garcetti, a well-known case which deals with First Amendment rights in the law enforcement workplace.
Seibel responded that there was a distinction to be drawn in that he wasn’t giving his personal opinion, but was acting in his official capacity.
Sokoloff, however, took issue, arguing that Bonura was also acting in his official capacity, proceeding to read several passages from the transcript of Bonura’s telephone conversation with reporter Cohen.
The Judge shortened the reading, stating, “I gather that your position is that Detective Bonura was out of line.” She then remarked, “On
a Motion To Dismiss, I can still consider the transcript.”
Sokoloff persisted, “Mr. Lovett has jumped the gun. He cannot show a likelihood of success or irreparable harm. Just because he pulls out a
wild First Amendment claim, the Board Members have qualified immunity. It is a defense to what is happening here.”
With respect to references to District Attorney DiFiore’s role in Detective Sergeant Bonura’s situation, the Judge said, “It wouldn’t
surprise me if she was apoplectic or certainly disturbed.”
Attorney Lovett then attempted to address Defense allegations, stating, “They have totally ignored the fact that retaliatory actions were
taken against my client. They ignored everything but the conversation with reporter Cohen. He expressed his opinion on a matter of
public importance. There were four other speakers who the Defendants have completely ignored; unfavorable press, the Detectives’ Association, public sentiment at the original meeting, and the blogs.”
Lovett went on, “There will be testimony by an Assistant District Attorney that Lieutenant Love not only lied to him, but that he encouraged Defendant Gonzalez to sue the Village.”
At that point, Judge Seibel said, “Can I see counsel in sidebar, off the record, for a few minutes?”
Fourteen minutes later the Judge said, “We’re back on the record. At my suggestion, counsel is going to discuss whether there can be a resolution of issues. I am also going to ask if the disciplinary proceedings can be postponed in the meantime. I am not ordering it; it’s a practical suggestion.”
At that point, the proceedings were adjourned until Wednesday, February 4th at 9:15 am.
Questioned by this reporter as to his sentiments upon emerging from Federal Court, Attorney Lovett said, “The Judge’s suggestion is excellent, and hopefully, everybody will be flexible.”
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Officer Bonura Confronted With A
Disgraceful Display Of Official Cowardice
Last Thursday evening, the Disciplinary Hearings against Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura resumed before the Pleasantville
Village Board/Police Commissioners. Mayor Gordon opened the hearing, announcing, “This is the continued hearing on disciplinary charges of Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura.” The Mayor then reiterated what he had said at the first session, many weeks earlier, “Although it is a hearing open to the public, it’s not a public hearing.”
Mr. Lovett, addressing the Board, stated, “At the end of the last meeting, you indicated that my client would continue without pay.” He
went further, advising the Village Board, “We’re in Federal Court tomorrow and, if I get what I want, I would suggest that you put my client
back on salary.”
Mr. Terry O’Neill, representing Complainant Police Chief Chiarlitti, then indicated that Bonura had been served with a subpoena intended to
compel his testimony.
Mr. Lovett told O’Neill, “Move to find him in contempt and I will add you to the lawsuit. He is not testifying.”
Lovett then repeated, “He is not testifying. I suggest it’s shenanigans because of the federal suit.” He went further, declaring, “You’re going
fast-forward. You think you’re going to put on a ‘dog and pony’ show here tonight to try and embarrass my client.”
Mr. O’Neill countered, “This is not federal court, and we have a witness who can shortcut the process.”
Mr. Lovett came back with, “In Federal Court, you will not be in control.” He then dared the Board, “Beat up my client a little more. Order him to testify. Find him in contempt.”
The Board then took a 25-minute break into executive session presumably to consider their position and to seek advice from their two
Board attorneys. Upon their return, Mayor Gordon spoke out, declaring, “Mr. Lovett, we have listened to your argument. Nothing we are doing here has anything to do with your federal case.”
Lovett shot back with, “The Chief of Police, in his infinite wisdom, has concocted the story that he has presented.” Mayor Gordon replied, “I’d like to call to everyone’s attention the Town has the power under Rules and Regulations of Article 22, but we can’t force him to testify.”
Attorney O’Neill, seeking direction from the Board, said, “We’re asking if the Board is directing Detective Sergeant Bonura to testify. We thought this would be an opportunity for the truth to set him free.” That comment drew laughter from the audience. O’Neill went on, “Detective Sergeant Bonura had a conversation with Shawn Cohen [newspaper reporter].
We have that tape here, a tape of Detective Sergeant Bonura’s interview.” Mr. Lovett, speaking of Attorney O’Neill, then told the Board, “He needs a foundation. If he’s got witnesses, let him call them.” Attorney O’Neill then snapped, “The witness who can testify is seated right here,” motioning to Detective Sergeant Bonura. He then indicated he was going to play several tape-recorded conversations.
Mr. Lovett then told O’Neill, “Then call him. He’s not your witness.” Lovett went on, “Why don’t you also play the recorded tape of the DA’s call into the Chief so the public can hear it. I’m sure that it was on a recorded line.” O’Neill then proceeded, as an offer of proof, to play a series of four tapes, the first of which was Detective Sergeant Bonura’s conversation with reporter Shawn Cohen. The tape played for approximately 20 minutes.
In the key conversation with Cohen, Detective Sergeant Bonura was heard saying of the District Attorney’s Office, “If they kept their
word, he’d be in jail right now.” For the next three hours O’Neill played a series of four tapes, mostly involving Lt. Wilson’s interrogation
of Bonura in an attempt to find justi-fication for the bogus charges Chief Chiarlitti had brought against him.
In the course of his discussion with reporter Cohen, Bonura indicated that Kahlil Gonzalez had a career in crime of 11 years since he was
16 years old, with some 30 arrests for a variety of crimes in places such as Briarcliff, New Castle, and Mount Pleasant, to name a few, besides the Village of Pleasantville.
At one point Bonura said to reporter Cohen, “Enough is enough. How much good can he possibly do to justify turning him loose? When do we draw the line on Kahlil Gonzalez?” There were some 95 people in the room, including Village residents and police officers, at the start of the tapes, more than 60 of whom stayed to hear it all despite the poor quality of the audio and the repititiousness of Lt. Wilson’s questions.
Throughout the four breaks taken by the Board between tapes, the comments of Village residents and police officers alike, basically questioned the need to be wasting taxpayers’ money on such a wrongful process by the Village Board. The playing of the tapes concluded at 9:15 pm.
At that point, Mr. Lovett said, “I think Lt. Wilson needs to be instructed in how to conduct an investigative interview.” He also questioned the legality of playing the tapes.
Lovett told Mayor Gordon that Attorney O’Neill, “without being sworn, presented the tapes subject to connection.”
O’Neill said, “We also have some videotapes,” about which Mayor Gordon asked, “How long are they?”
Attorney Lovett quipped, “With or without cartoons?”
Lovett then went on to declare to the Board, “I’d ask you to think this over.” Referring to the Board as ‘Elite Snobs’, Lovett then said, “The jury’s not going to like you very much. You prefer to hurt a 27-year veteran police officer. Try and show a little humanity.”
Next Day, Bonura In Federal Court
Friday morning, January 16th, some 12 hours after enduring a four-and-a-half-hour-long disciplinary hearing before the Pleasantville Village
Board/Police Commission, Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura found himself in the United States District Court, White Plains, before Judge Cathy Seibel, accompanied by his wife Lisa and civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett in an action entitled Stephen Bonura v Anthony Chiarlitti.
Prior to commencing the proceedings, Judge Seibel announced, “I am acquainted with one of the defendants, Ms. DiFiore.” To which
Attorney Lovett quickly responded, “That’s fine.”
The Judge then proceeded to ask, “Mr. Lovett, what is the status of your client?”
Lovett responded, “We attended another hearing last night. There are multiple hearings scheduled.” Lovett then went on to present an overview of the Kahlil Gonzalez affair. Speaking of his client, Detective Sergeant Bonura, Lovett told the Judge, “He expressed frustration with the fact that Gonzalez was arrested so many times and was still out.”
Seibel, referring to the report in The Journal News by Shawn Cohen, developed from his interview with Detective Sergeant Bonura, asked,
“Couldn’t someone reading the paper believe that he [Gonzalez] was a confidential informant?”
Lovett responded, by explaining the circumstances surrounding Police Chief Chiarlitti’s initial approval of Bonura’s remarks to the reporter,
as well as the First Amendment implications of the Chief ’s later response.
The Judge responded, “You’re not going to have a problem proving causation in this case, Mr. Lovett.” She then asked, “Couldn’t the Chief
have agreed with your client, but not with his making the statement?”
Lovett immediately replied, “No, Your Honor, he expressed approval of what he said.” Lovett then went on to inform the Judge of the
public’s response to the matter, and then repeated his assertion, “Stephen Bonura’s comment was Constitutionally-protected speech, and,
what Shawn Cohen wrote was also Constitutionally protected.
Judge Seibel then asked, “In terms of a police officer, don’t I have to balance First Amendment rights against whatever rights the employer has to control what his employee says?”
Lovett came back with, “The Chief admitted he agreed, and there was no disruption of the department. He merely expressed his frustration
with putting a career criminal back on the street.
At that point, the Judge asked, “What are you seeking?”
To which Lovett responded, “I am seeking a Temporary Injunction, a prohibitory injunction. He’s charged with ‘Expression Of His Opinion.’ To leave him twisting in the wind with a wife and five children, it’s been a sham from Day One.”
Attorney DeVita, an associate of Attorney Brian Sokoloff, also present and representing the Village of Pleasantville, two of six Defense
attorneys, told the Judge, “It’s the Village’s position that this case is frivolous.” He went on, “He tries to say to the Federal Court, ‘I have
a Constitutional right to violate the Constitutional rights of someone who is being investigated.’”
Following his associate’s comments, Attorney Sokoloff then cited Garcetti, a well-known case which deals with First Amendment rights in the law enforcement workplace.
Seibel responded that there was a distinction to be drawn in that he wasn’t giving his personal opinion, but was acting in his official capacity.
Sokoloff, however, took issue, arguing that Bonura was also acting in his official capacity, proceeding to read several passages from the transcript of Bonura’s telephone conversation with reporter Cohen.
The Judge shortened the reading, stating, “I gather that your position is that Detective Bonura was out of line.” She then remarked, “On
a Motion To Dismiss, I can still consider the transcript.”
Sokoloff persisted, “Mr. Lovett has jumped the gun. He cannot show a likelihood of success or irreparable harm. Just because he pulls out a
wild First Amendment claim, the Board Members have qualified immunity. It is a defense to what is happening here.”
With respect to references to District Attorney DiFiore’s role in Detective Sergeant Bonura’s situation, the Judge said, “It wouldn’t
surprise me if she was apoplectic or certainly disturbed.”
Attorney Lovett then attempted to address Defense allegations, stating, “They have totally ignored the fact that retaliatory actions were
taken against my client. They ignored everything but the conversation with reporter Cohen. He expressed his opinion on a matter of
public importance. There were four other speakers who the Defendants have completely ignored; unfavorable press, the Detectives’ Association, public sentiment at the original meeting, and the blogs.”
Lovett went on, “There will be testimony by an Assistant District Attorney that Lieutenant Love not only lied to him, but that he encouraged Defendant Gonzalez to sue the Village.”
At that point, Judge Seibel said, “Can I see counsel in sidebar, off the record, for a few minutes?”
Fourteen minutes later the Judge said, “We’re back on the record. At my suggestion, counsel is going to discuss whether there can be a resolution of issues. I am also going to ask if the disciplinary proceedings can be postponed in the meantime. I am not ordering it; it’s a practical suggestion.”
At that point, the proceedings were adjourned until Wednesday, February 4th at 9:15 am.
Questioned by this reporter as to his sentiments upon emerging from Federal Court, Attorney Lovett said, “The Judge’s suggestion is excellent, and hopefully, everybody will be flexible.”
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Janet Difiore/Stephen Bonura/The Court Report.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Testimony Exposes DiFiore-Driven Sham
Police From All Over Westchester Express ‘No Confidence’ In The DA
Disciplinary Hearing Of Detective Sergeant
Stephen J. Bonura Before Pleasantville
Village Board Of Police Commissioners
Last Wednesday morning, December 17th, at around 10am, the long-awaited hearing into charges against 27-year veteran of the Pleasantville Police Department, Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, got underway in the courtroom of Village Hall. Mayor Bernard Gordon opened the proceedings, declaring before more than 100 family, friends including some 60 or so fellow police colleagues of Detective Bonura, “This is a disciplinary hearing dealing with charges against Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura by charging party Chief Anthony Chiarlitti.”
In an effort to avoid problems, Gordon advised the audience, “This hearing is open to the public, but it’s not a public hearing. No member of
the public will be allowed to speak.” He went on to explain, “It is the job of the Board of Village Trustees to determine if any of the charges have
any merit.”
Attorney Terry O’Neil, retained as counsel to Police Chief Chiarlitti, then alluded to what he referred to as “some typographical errors that had been corrected.” Following O’Neil’s opening remarks, Jonathan Lovett, Attorney for Detective Bonura, said to the Board, “We’re not talking about typographical errors here; we’re talking about date changes, substantive changes.” Showing his disgust with the irregularity, Lovett quipped, “Why not change to October 2009?”
Lovett told the Mayor, “I was surprised when you said that you were proceeding under the Westchester Police Act. Apparently you haven’t read the act. It applies to towns, not villages.” Lovett, obviously upset with the Board, said, “Prior to my arrival here, my client was coerced to sign certain stipulations. By being here, I am not implying or suggesting that this proceeding is legal.”Attorney O’Neil, in response to Lovett’s strong stance regarding the Board’s illegal position, and his having advised them, “I haven’t yet moved for an injunction in federal court,” cited a case in which a District Court had ruled against Lovett’s client.
Lovett immediately came back with, “The Second Circuit reversed the District Court that found against my client, and the school board paid my client $600,000. So put that in your due process pipe and smoke it.”
Not 20 minutes into the hearing, and Jonathan Lovett had so strongly admonished and cautioned the Board, that they called for a recess to go into executive session in order to consider their position and their response. The Board emerged from executive session having apparently and unlawfully voted, out of public view, on a number of issues; and, announced, through its chairman, Mayor Gordon, that they had accepted the amended changes, rejected Mr. Lovett’s request for discovery, and “deemed itself to be in compliance with the law.”
Lovett waited for the Mayor to announce the Board’s decisions, and then said, “The meeting you just had was in executive session, and a vote of the Board cannot occur out of public view.” Mayor Gordon asked if Bonura would be waiving a reading of the charges against him. Lovett responded strongly, “We are not going to waive anything. We want the Chief to read every word.”
Chief Chiarlitti began to read the charges at 10:55am, and was not finished until 12:35pm. On their face, the charges read by Chiarlitti were a reptitious list of by-the-book regulations that one uses when they are nitpicking to find fault with standard operating procedures, a point repeated more than a few times by Bonura’s attorney, Jonathan Lovett.
Mayor Gordon, upon the completion of the chief ’s reading of the charges, said to Bonura, “How do you plead?”
Attorney Lovett responded with, “We deny the charges and we are not waiving anything.” PBA President Erik Grutzner turned to this reporter’s inquiry regarding the proceedings, and said, “This is as expected.” A retired New York City police officer, seated near him, chimed in, “This hearing is a damned shame, and a disgrace; a waste of our tax money.”
An off-duty Pleasantville police officer added, “Why do we continue to be the victim of all this? How come the DA continues to do business with a career criminal with 30 arrests, letting him go? Why don’t they put him away?”
Following a break for lunch, Attorney O’Neil attempted to put the charges brought by Chief Chiarlitti into focus, declaring, “It certainly isn’t about DA DiFiore. It isn’t about her.”
He then proceeded to summarize all of the charges that had been leveled against Detective Bonura:
• Failure to make a timely arrest;
• Failure to properly handcuff;
• Failure to use a caged police car to transport;
• Conducting an “outrageous strip-search” of Gonzalez;
• Improper evidence-handling;
• Exposure of Gonzalez’ rap sheet;
• Exposure of Gonzalez as an informant.
Having detailed the categories, O’Neil told the Board he had, “Never heard of a police officer exposing a confidential informant, and that’s what triggered the investigation. We are focusing on how Mr. Gonzalez was treated.” He went on, “We are confident you will find Detective Bonura guilty on every charge.”
Jonathan Lovett responded, “Mr. O’Neil thinks he can trivialize the United States Constitution. It’s not going to work this way. The police
chief has gotten you to do what DA DiFiore has done to him.”
Lovett went further, telling the Board, “Lieutenant Love repeatedly lied to the Assistant DA in this case.” Going on, he declared, “Lieutenant Love reportedly wore pants with a hole in them, and no underwear, saying look at my chicken.”
Turning to another subject, Attorney Lovett announced, “Lieutenant Clouseau knows the truth, and so does the chief; my client wasn’t present for the rap sheet.” Pausing for a moment, Lovett then told the Board, “When we get through with this case, and the federal case, police officers will
know that they have the right to speak the truth.” He then remarked, “The revolving door is oiled daily by Janet of the Apes.”
Lovett then warned the Board, “If you lose in Federal Court, my client cleans your clock.” It should be noted Detective Bonura has filed a $32 million lawsuit in Federal Court. Lovett went on, “You will find that the only reason that my client is here is because he criticized the DA. The lawsuit that Lieutenant Love invited, presumably with the Chief ’s blessings, isn’t going anywhere.”
Lovett, changing gears, then remarked, “I said it’s a Kangaroo Court.” He then demanded, “What were you doing on September 4th when you coerced my client to sign a stipulation?” And, again he demanded, “How would you like to have five kids and a wife to support without an income?”
Lovett then informed the Board, “I purposely did not seek a preliminary injunction to allow you to stick yourselves in the position you’re in now. We’ve got cops out there putting their lives on the line and a DA cutting criminals get out of jail free cards. For reasons that escape me, a career criminal is being coddled, and a career police of-ficer is being prosecuted.”
He then asked the Board, “Have you ever heard of Freedom Of The Press, the First Amendment? Why are you siding with the career criminal? What is a police lieutenant doing, inviting a career criminal to sue you?”
Attorney O’Neil’s first witness was Pleasantville Police Sergeant Mark Cistero. On cross-examination by Attorney Lovett, Sgt. Cistero’s testimony virtually dismantled Chief Chiarlitti’s case. Mr. Lovett succeeded in establishing:
• Handcuffing in front is a routine practice in the Pleasantville Police Department;
• Use of uncaged police cars to transport persons in custody is common;
• Chief Chiarlitti, in Cistero’s presence, acknowledged and approved what Detective Bonura had told the newspaper reporter;
• It was Sgt. Cistero who had obtained Gonzalez’ rap sheet by going directly to the State BCI Unit, as is usually the case, without the necessity of a subpoena from Judge Murphy;
• Sgt. Cistero witnessed Lieutenant Love seated inside the holding cage at Pleasantville Police Headquarters with the door open, talking with Gonzalez and his girlfriend.
Dan Schorr, a former ADA under Jeanine Pirro, and an announced candidate for District Attorney, who was present at Wednesday’s hearing, shared the following with this reporter:
“I worked closely with Detective Sgt. Bonura on the attempted murder prosecution of Sheila Davalloo and came to know him as an excellent, skilled, hard-working law enforcement officer. In large part because of his outstanding work, the defendant was successfully convicted and sentenced to the maximum of 25 years in prison.
“Detective Sgt. Bonura is just one of many in the Westchester law enforcement community who have recently expressed frustration with the current leadership in the DA’s Office. I have spoken with many other law enforcement officers who cite the DA’s Office’s failure to adequately prosecute dangerous criminal defendants and its tendency to give probationary pleas to offenders who belong in prison. While others may not have spoken out as vocally as Detective Sgt. Stephen Bonura, the sentiments he expressed are shared by many other cops throughout the County who
work hard to arrest dangerous people, only to see them released by the DA’s Office.
“It is very important that the Westchester community supports this excellent law enforcement officer who has dedicated his life to fighting to protect our public safety. After witnessing the hearing I am convinced that Detective Sgt. Bonura is being unfairly targeted by people who are trying to ruin the career and reputation of a great man.
“Furthermore, part of the job of the District Attorney is to stand up for good members of law enforcement. Considering Detective Sgt. Bonura’s excellent history of service to this County, Janet DiFiore should have either spoken out on his behalf or sent someone from her Office to the hearing in order to show her support for him.”
Tony Castro, who ran against the present District Attorney in 2005, and who many people believe will be a candidate next year for that Office, told The Guardian:
“I trust that the Village of Pleasantville Board of Trustees will faithfully and thoroughly consider the evidence, as well as the lack thereof. In doing
so, I hope that they keep in mind Detective Sergeant Bonura’s decades of dedicated public service while never losing sight of the possible ulterior motives behind the charges against him.”
Analysis:
In three years in office, DA Janet DiFiore has managed to establish one very clear fact; she just can’t get it right when it comes to police officers. She has the terrible habit of protecting the bad cops, guys like Wayne Simoes, who nearly killed Irma Marquez with a totally unjustified body-slam while, at the same time, she attempts to punish good cops. The latest victim of her misguided vindictiveness is Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the force who dared to exercise his First Amendment right to honestly and constructively criticize her Office’s repeated wrongful handling of a career criminal.
However, it is just possible that her malicious, behind-the-scenes maneuverings may have finally caught her in the proverbial wringer. She is now lying in every media outlet she can intimidate into carrying her denial. Unfortunately for her, it has become crystal clear that Pleasantville Police Chief Chiarlitti, and through him, the Village Board, have been frightened into bringing bogus charges against one of the most highly regarded, dedicated public servants to ever wear a Pleasantville Police uniform.
The contortions that Chief Chiarlitti and the Village Board were willing to subject Detective Bonura, his loved ones, and the entire community, to, the trumped-up charges, the out-and-out fabrications and lies they have resorted to in their effort to satisfy DA DiFiore’s lust for retaliation, are reprehensible, and call for substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Right-thinking citizens have been expressing their outrage and indignation for months, as will voters across the County come next November.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Testimony Exposes DiFiore-Driven Sham
Police From All Over Westchester Express ‘No Confidence’ In The DA
Disciplinary Hearing Of Detective Sergeant
Stephen J. Bonura Before Pleasantville
Village Board Of Police Commissioners
Last Wednesday morning, December 17th, at around 10am, the long-awaited hearing into charges against 27-year veteran of the Pleasantville Police Department, Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, got underway in the courtroom of Village Hall. Mayor Bernard Gordon opened the proceedings, declaring before more than 100 family, friends including some 60 or so fellow police colleagues of Detective Bonura, “This is a disciplinary hearing dealing with charges against Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura by charging party Chief Anthony Chiarlitti.”
In an effort to avoid problems, Gordon advised the audience, “This hearing is open to the public, but it’s not a public hearing. No member of
the public will be allowed to speak.” He went on to explain, “It is the job of the Board of Village Trustees to determine if any of the charges have
any merit.”
Attorney Terry O’Neil, retained as counsel to Police Chief Chiarlitti, then alluded to what he referred to as “some typographical errors that had been corrected.” Following O’Neil’s opening remarks, Jonathan Lovett, Attorney for Detective Bonura, said to the Board, “We’re not talking about typographical errors here; we’re talking about date changes, substantive changes.” Showing his disgust with the irregularity, Lovett quipped, “Why not change to October 2009?”
Lovett told the Mayor, “I was surprised when you said that you were proceeding under the Westchester Police Act. Apparently you haven’t read the act. It applies to towns, not villages.” Lovett, obviously upset with the Board, said, “Prior to my arrival here, my client was coerced to sign certain stipulations. By being here, I am not implying or suggesting that this proceeding is legal.”Attorney O’Neil, in response to Lovett’s strong stance regarding the Board’s illegal position, and his having advised them, “I haven’t yet moved for an injunction in federal court,” cited a case in which a District Court had ruled against Lovett’s client.
Lovett immediately came back with, “The Second Circuit reversed the District Court that found against my client, and the school board paid my client $600,000. So put that in your due process pipe and smoke it.”
Not 20 minutes into the hearing, and Jonathan Lovett had so strongly admonished and cautioned the Board, that they called for a recess to go into executive session in order to consider their position and their response. The Board emerged from executive session having apparently and unlawfully voted, out of public view, on a number of issues; and, announced, through its chairman, Mayor Gordon, that they had accepted the amended changes, rejected Mr. Lovett’s request for discovery, and “deemed itself to be in compliance with the law.”
Lovett waited for the Mayor to announce the Board’s decisions, and then said, “The meeting you just had was in executive session, and a vote of the Board cannot occur out of public view.” Mayor Gordon asked if Bonura would be waiving a reading of the charges against him. Lovett responded strongly, “We are not going to waive anything. We want the Chief to read every word.”
Chief Chiarlitti began to read the charges at 10:55am, and was not finished until 12:35pm. On their face, the charges read by Chiarlitti were a reptitious list of by-the-book regulations that one uses when they are nitpicking to find fault with standard operating procedures, a point repeated more than a few times by Bonura’s attorney, Jonathan Lovett.
Mayor Gordon, upon the completion of the chief ’s reading of the charges, said to Bonura, “How do you plead?”
Attorney Lovett responded with, “We deny the charges and we are not waiving anything.” PBA President Erik Grutzner turned to this reporter’s inquiry regarding the proceedings, and said, “This is as expected.” A retired New York City police officer, seated near him, chimed in, “This hearing is a damned shame, and a disgrace; a waste of our tax money.”
An off-duty Pleasantville police officer added, “Why do we continue to be the victim of all this? How come the DA continues to do business with a career criminal with 30 arrests, letting him go? Why don’t they put him away?”
Following a break for lunch, Attorney O’Neil attempted to put the charges brought by Chief Chiarlitti into focus, declaring, “It certainly isn’t about DA DiFiore. It isn’t about her.”
He then proceeded to summarize all of the charges that had been leveled against Detective Bonura:
• Failure to make a timely arrest;
• Failure to properly handcuff;
• Failure to use a caged police car to transport;
• Conducting an “outrageous strip-search” of Gonzalez;
• Improper evidence-handling;
• Exposure of Gonzalez’ rap sheet;
• Exposure of Gonzalez as an informant.
Having detailed the categories, O’Neil told the Board he had, “Never heard of a police officer exposing a confidential informant, and that’s what triggered the investigation. We are focusing on how Mr. Gonzalez was treated.” He went on, “We are confident you will find Detective Bonura guilty on every charge.”
Jonathan Lovett responded, “Mr. O’Neil thinks he can trivialize the United States Constitution. It’s not going to work this way. The police
chief has gotten you to do what DA DiFiore has done to him.”
Lovett went further, telling the Board, “Lieutenant Love repeatedly lied to the Assistant DA in this case.” Going on, he declared, “Lieutenant Love reportedly wore pants with a hole in them, and no underwear, saying look at my chicken.”
Turning to another subject, Attorney Lovett announced, “Lieutenant Clouseau knows the truth, and so does the chief; my client wasn’t present for the rap sheet.” Pausing for a moment, Lovett then told the Board, “When we get through with this case, and the federal case, police officers will
know that they have the right to speak the truth.” He then remarked, “The revolving door is oiled daily by Janet of the Apes.”
Lovett then warned the Board, “If you lose in Federal Court, my client cleans your clock.” It should be noted Detective Bonura has filed a $32 million lawsuit in Federal Court. Lovett went on, “You will find that the only reason that my client is here is because he criticized the DA. The lawsuit that Lieutenant Love invited, presumably with the Chief ’s blessings, isn’t going anywhere.”
Lovett, changing gears, then remarked, “I said it’s a Kangaroo Court.” He then demanded, “What were you doing on September 4th when you coerced my client to sign a stipulation?” And, again he demanded, “How would you like to have five kids and a wife to support without an income?”
Lovett then informed the Board, “I purposely did not seek a preliminary injunction to allow you to stick yourselves in the position you’re in now. We’ve got cops out there putting their lives on the line and a DA cutting criminals get out of jail free cards. For reasons that escape me, a career criminal is being coddled, and a career police of-ficer is being prosecuted.”
He then asked the Board, “Have you ever heard of Freedom Of The Press, the First Amendment? Why are you siding with the career criminal? What is a police lieutenant doing, inviting a career criminal to sue you?”
Attorney O’Neil’s first witness was Pleasantville Police Sergeant Mark Cistero. On cross-examination by Attorney Lovett, Sgt. Cistero’s testimony virtually dismantled Chief Chiarlitti’s case. Mr. Lovett succeeded in establishing:
• Handcuffing in front is a routine practice in the Pleasantville Police Department;
• Use of uncaged police cars to transport persons in custody is common;
• Chief Chiarlitti, in Cistero’s presence, acknowledged and approved what Detective Bonura had told the newspaper reporter;
• It was Sgt. Cistero who had obtained Gonzalez’ rap sheet by going directly to the State BCI Unit, as is usually the case, without the necessity of a subpoena from Judge Murphy;
• Sgt. Cistero witnessed Lieutenant Love seated inside the holding cage at Pleasantville Police Headquarters with the door open, talking with Gonzalez and his girlfriend.
Dan Schorr, a former ADA under Jeanine Pirro, and an announced candidate for District Attorney, who was present at Wednesday’s hearing, shared the following with this reporter:
“I worked closely with Detective Sgt. Bonura on the attempted murder prosecution of Sheila Davalloo and came to know him as an excellent, skilled, hard-working law enforcement officer. In large part because of his outstanding work, the defendant was successfully convicted and sentenced to the maximum of 25 years in prison.
“Detective Sgt. Bonura is just one of many in the Westchester law enforcement community who have recently expressed frustration with the current leadership in the DA’s Office. I have spoken with many other law enforcement officers who cite the DA’s Office’s failure to adequately prosecute dangerous criminal defendants and its tendency to give probationary pleas to offenders who belong in prison. While others may not have spoken out as vocally as Detective Sgt. Stephen Bonura, the sentiments he expressed are shared by many other cops throughout the County who
work hard to arrest dangerous people, only to see them released by the DA’s Office.
“It is very important that the Westchester community supports this excellent law enforcement officer who has dedicated his life to fighting to protect our public safety. After witnessing the hearing I am convinced that Detective Sgt. Bonura is being unfairly targeted by people who are trying to ruin the career and reputation of a great man.
“Furthermore, part of the job of the District Attorney is to stand up for good members of law enforcement. Considering Detective Sgt. Bonura’s excellent history of service to this County, Janet DiFiore should have either spoken out on his behalf or sent someone from her Office to the hearing in order to show her support for him.”
Tony Castro, who ran against the present District Attorney in 2005, and who many people believe will be a candidate next year for that Office, told The Guardian:
“I trust that the Village of Pleasantville Board of Trustees will faithfully and thoroughly consider the evidence, as well as the lack thereof. In doing
so, I hope that they keep in mind Detective Sergeant Bonura’s decades of dedicated public service while never losing sight of the possible ulterior motives behind the charges against him.”
Analysis:
In three years in office, DA Janet DiFiore has managed to establish one very clear fact; she just can’t get it right when it comes to police officers. She has the terrible habit of protecting the bad cops, guys like Wayne Simoes, who nearly killed Irma Marquez with a totally unjustified body-slam while, at the same time, she attempts to punish good cops. The latest victim of her misguided vindictiveness is Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the force who dared to exercise his First Amendment right to honestly and constructively criticize her Office’s repeated wrongful handling of a career criminal.
However, it is just possible that her malicious, behind-the-scenes maneuverings may have finally caught her in the proverbial wringer. She is now lying in every media outlet she can intimidate into carrying her denial. Unfortunately for her, it has become crystal clear that Pleasantville Police Chief Chiarlitti, and through him, the Village Board, have been frightened into bringing bogus charges against one of the most highly regarded, dedicated public servants to ever wear a Pleasantville Police uniform.
The contortions that Chief Chiarlitti and the Village Board were willing to subject Detective Bonura, his loved ones, and the entire community, to, the trumped-up charges, the out-and-out fabrications and lies they have resorted to in their effort to satisfy DA DiFiore’s lust for retaliation, are reprehensible, and call for substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Right-thinking citizens have been expressing their outrage and indignation for months, as will voters across the County come next November.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Westchester Guardian Article/Janet Difiore/Stephen Bonura.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
DA DiFiore Orders 27-Year Veteran
Good Cop Fired For Voicing His Opinion
Last Friday, December 12th, Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, accompanied by PBA President, Police Officer Erik Grutzner, held a press conference at the offices of Bonura’s attorney, Jonathan Lovett, essentially to make clear to all those concerned that Bonura’s disciplinary hearing, before the Village Board on Wednesday, December 17th at 9:00 AM, will be open to the public.
Mr. Lovett opened the session explaining, “Our District Attorney has chosen a career criminal over a career police officer, a 27-year veteran with an impeccable record.”
Lovett went on, “He expressed his own opinion that the DA had chosen to leave a career criminal on the street, one that Steve had locked up numerous times; one who should have been in prison long ago, based on a promise by the DA to see that he was sent to prison for five to seven years. But, the DA makes it clear to all that if he gives them a little information, he can be right back on the street to commit more felonies against the community.”
PBA President Grutzner spoke up, telling reporters, “We are inviting all persons in the community who wish to come out to Steve’s hearing, to do so.”
Apparently the Village Clerk had initially been telling callers that the hearing would be closed to the public. Lovett declared, “My client made it clear that he wants it open to the public, and therefore it has to be open under state and federal law.” He then quipped, “The First Amendment has Pleasantville surrounded, and we intend to poke enough holes to get it in.”
Officer Bonura, commenting on the tape of his conversation on May 19th with a newspaper reporter, said, “It took them three months to listen to the tape, and two months to decide what to do.”
Back on October 6th, The Guardian was present when more than 60 Pleasantville residents came out to the Village Board to protest the suspension of Detective Sergeant Bonura, and the loss of his partner, Officer Michael De-Maio, to the Ossining Police Department, because of DA DiFiore.
DA DiFiore Orders 27-Year Veteran
Good Cop Fired For Voicing His Opinion
Last Friday, December 12th, Pleasantville Detective Sergeant Stephen J. Bonura, accompanied by PBA President, Police Officer Erik Grutzner, held a press conference at the offices of Bonura’s attorney, Jonathan Lovett, essentially to make clear to all those concerned that Bonura’s disciplinary hearing, before the Village Board on Wednesday, December 17th at 9:00 AM, will be open to the public.
Mr. Lovett opened the session explaining, “Our District Attorney has chosen a career criminal over a career police officer, a 27-year veteran with an impeccable record.”
Lovett went on, “He expressed his own opinion that the DA had chosen to leave a career criminal on the street, one that Steve had locked up numerous times; one who should have been in prison long ago, based on a promise by the DA to see that he was sent to prison for five to seven years. But, the DA makes it clear to all that if he gives them a little information, he can be right back on the street to commit more felonies against the community.”
PBA President Grutzner spoke up, telling reporters, “We are inviting all persons in the community who wish to come out to Steve’s hearing, to do so.”
Apparently the Village Clerk had initially been telling callers that the hearing would be closed to the public. Lovett declared, “My client made it clear that he wants it open to the public, and therefore it has to be open under state and federal law.” He then quipped, “The First Amendment has Pleasantville surrounded, and we intend to poke enough holes to get it in.”
Officer Bonura, commenting on the tape of his conversation on May 19th with a newspaper reporter, said, “It took them three months to listen to the tape, and two months to decide what to do.”
Back on October 6th, The Guardian was present when more than 60 Pleasantville residents came out to the Village Board to protest the suspension of Detective Sergeant Bonura, and the loss of his partner, Officer Michael De-Maio, to the Ossining Police Department, because of DA DiFiore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
