New Castle Police Coverup Continues
Some states prosecute public employees for illegal practices to the full extent allowed by their laws. The ex- Governor of Illinois was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison for racketeering and fraud on September 6th. Some states will promptly investigate allegations of serious ethical lapses by law enforcement officials. For example, the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey resigned on August 15th due to a serious ethical violation occurring on May 26, 2006.
But everyone is still on the job in Chappaqua - without ever being subjected to any disciplinary actions, in a matter that has churning since 1999, involving another top law enforcement officer. In this case he is New Castle police Lieutenant John Vize,who is accused of keepingt fraudulent payroll records for at least a year in order to help a fellow officer, Dennis Mahoney, obtain a 20 year pension when the officer had in fact only worked 19 years.
According to twenty years’ worth of documents seized from the New Castle Police Department in 2003 by the Public Integrity Section of the office of Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Lt.Vize was also involved with arranging shifts under Mahoney’s name, referred to by some of the department’s members as “Mahoney days.” Approximately 25% of the Department’s officers have been reported to have participated in the scheme which was clearly reflected in the Department’s three month work schedules, constantly monitored by the entire staff, that were clearly posted in a glass encased bulletin board prominently displayed behind the Police Department’s front desk.
The State Comptrollers Office, which manages public employee pension funds, has also investigated these allegations. And the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a civil lawsuit on July 27th , 2006, under section 63-c of the New York Executive Law (the “Tweed L a w ” ) against the two New Castle police officers, seeking to recover damages of $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 and more than $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 in pension funds paid out by the state of New York since 2000, and salary and benefits paid to Vize by the Town during the period of breach of fiduciary duty from on or about August 1999 to on or about July 2000, as a result of a “paper trail more than a mile wide” according persons involved with the investigation.
Prosecuting matters of public corruption are increasingly rare in today’s environment. Two Westchester District Attorneys, Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, have thus far failed to prosecute anyone involved in this public integrity case despite having seized nearly 20 years of records three years ago. DiFiore spokesman, Lucien Chalfen, told this reporter on September 6th, “this is an open case that is active and I’m not able to comment further.”
A spokesman for the office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who asked to remain unnamed, when asked why the public integrity unit of Spitzer’s Criminal Division only filed a civil case and did not pursue any criminal charges in this fraud litigation, said, “ Two avenues were open, and while criminal charges could be brought, the office of the Attorney General determined that only a civil case would be prosecuted at this time.”
The police lieutenant accused in this matter, John Vize, reportedly has not been fired nor disciplined in this matter. In fact, he was the top ranking officer on duty at the end of August when Chief Robert Breen, who is still on the job, was away on vacation. Breen governs a department that has 40 fulltime members and eight other staff althoughthe community which encompasses Chappaqua and Millwood, is noted for its very low crime rate.
Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella is still on the job and has not issued any public reports regarding this matter. No public reports nor demands for any resignations have been made by the town’s supervisor or any members of the town board. As a result, the Town of New Castle has not filed any charges against the officers with the Offices of the Westchester District Attorney nor the New York State Attorney General.
Tension permeates the New Castle Town Hall as a result of this lawsuit and others that have been brought against the town. Their police officers have been working without a contract for 19 months. The New Castle police have conducted informational picketing in Chappaqua’s downtown business district as recently as Wednesday, September 6th in order to draw attention to what the say is the town’s refusal to negotiate in good faith. Lt. Vize, a union trustee, has been quoted as stating “This town is loaded. They know it, we know it.”
Steve Kaufman vs. Town of New Castle et al On June 24th, 2005, a lawsuit was filed in Supreme Court, Westchester County, entitled Steve Kaufman vs. Town of New Castle; New Castle Police Department; Gennaro Faiella; Robert Breen; James Baynes; John Vize; James Tully and Public Employee Risk Management Assn., Index No.05-10178.
Plaintiff Kaufman, who is Jewish, had been employed by New Castle as a Police Officer since August, 1983, receiving good reviews throughout his career. According to the lawsuit, the top five positions in the New Castle Police Department have been held by individuals of Irish national origin including Chief Breen, Lt. James Baynes, Lt. John Vize, Lt. Charles Ferry, Detective Sergeant James Carroll (Ret.), and Detective Sergeant Marc Simmons
Kaufman was the only Jewish police officer employed by the town until approximately 2004. His lawsuit alleges that the Town’s Police Department systematically excluded police officers of non-Irish national origin from top positions in the Department which has also created and perpetrated a hostile work environment against Kaufman because he is Jewish, and as for a second cause of action because Kaufman filed.worker compensation claims.
Kaufman’s suit states that “during the recent past and continuing to the present, plaintiff has been the subject of anti-Semitic remarks on numerous occasions. These anti-Semitic remarks have been made by other Irish police officers in the presence of individual defendants and have been made by the individual defendants. These remarks continued with the acquiescence of the defendant Department’s Administration, who did nothing to prevent them, but, instead, reward those who utter the anti-Semitic remarks.
Defendant Tully, on several occasions, usually at the police muster, made malicious anti-Semitic statements. Defendant Breen and the Administration, instead of disciplining defendant Tully, rewarded him with the title of Administrative Sergeant. Defendant Tully was then given other choice assignments by defendant Breen. Plaintiff was present on many of the occasions.
Police Officer Gary Beaumont, on numerous occasions, made comments about hating Jews. Again, although having knowledge of these comments, defendant Breen and the Department’s Administration rewarded Officer Beaumont by making him Traffic Enforcement Officer, where he would have further opportunity to target and profile Jews and other people he hates. The Department’s Administration also rewarded Officer Beaumont by appointing him as Field Training Officer.
There are two police officers named James Carroll. One was a Detective Sargeant, the other is now a Sergeant. One recent year, both were at the front desk of defendant Department. They had just returned from working at a Jewish Holiday service at Temple Beth El in Chappaqua. In plaintiff ’s presence, they uttered anti-Semite comments such as “Jew bastards” and “fucking Jews.” The also stated that “Jews have too much money.” Plaintiff had to tell both Officers Carroll that he, as a Jewish officer, was offended by their bigoted comments.
The two officers scoffed at plaintiff and laughed at him.
On a prior occasion, a similar incident took place in plaintiff’s presence. On that occasion, then Police Officer Carroll also made malicious, anti-Semitic statements.
The anti-Semitism displayed by both Officers Carroll are well-known to defendant Breen and Department’s Administration. However, defendant Breen, instead of disciplining these individuals, has promoted them and/or given them choice assignments at the expense of more qualified, non-Irish police officers. This favoritism promotes the complained of hostile work environment.
Plaintiff has also learned that, on another occasion, defendant Baynes referred to a civil rights organization named the Southern Poverty Law Center, as a bad organization run by a bunch of “fucking Jews.” Plaintiff has also been informed that defendant Vize has referred to him as “one stupid Jew.”
These types of anti-Semitic remarks have caused plaintiff a great deal of stress and mental anguish. It is not very pleasant going to work every day knowing how your supervisors feel about you because of your religion.”
New Castle’s Insurance Carrier Denies Coverage for Kaufman’s Lawsuit On July 14, 2005, the Town of New Castle’s insurance carrier for matters such as this litigation, informed the Town that they would not cover any expenses associated with matter as they are not covered under the terms of the policy.
New Castle would be well served to look nearby for methods of dealing with serious issues regarding police department management. The Knapp and Mollen Commissions were established to deal with police corruption in New York City. The Knapp Commission issued a report in 1972 and the Mollen Commission report in 1995 raised questions about the New York Police Department’s ability to police itself and recommended an independent panel with subpoena power in order to deal with a culture of corruption.
The latter commission has a $500,000 budget and a permanent staff of four lawyers. It audits and studies the department’s anticorruption strategies. It has been criticized as ineffectual because it has no power to compel the department to provide information. The six commissioners, all lawyers, are appointed by the mayor and serve without pay. The staff is paid by the city and serves at the pleasure of the mayor of New York City.
Prompt resolution of issues regarding police department governance will impact any attempts by New Castle to retain and/or renew its accreditation from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services according to a source familiar with the process.
Loss of this accreditation could impact the town’s insurance rates.
New Castle attempts to restrict access by residents to the Westchester Guardian newspaper
While the Town of New Castle hasn’t yet disciplined or fired any personnel as a result of the charges laid out in Attorney General Spitzer’s suit, they have nevertheless, been quite busy confiscating The Westchester Guardian’s newspaper’s distribution box that was positioned in downtown Chappaqua next to that of 4 other newspapersoutside of Starbuck’s. The box was released only after payment of a $74.95 ransom. Days later the boxes at the Chappaqua Train Station and near Rite Aid were ordered removed by a representative of New Castle town government.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Announces Three-Point Plan to Combat Voter Disenfranchisement in Sept. 12th Primary
Democrat Stewart-Cousins, Addressing Newly Relocated Polling Places, Calls on Board of Elections to Ensure
that Voters Know When, Where and How to Vote
Yonkers , NY — Democratic State Senate candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins today called on the Westchester Board of Elections to implement a three-point plan to ensure that every vote is counted in the September 12th primary election.
Stewart-Cousins stated: “In 2004, thousands of votes were thrown out due to voter confusion; that could have -- and should have -- been prevented. This Primary Day, we must do everything possible to make sure that voters understand when, where and how to vote. We must ensure that every vote is counted.”
In 2004, thousands of voters were disenfranchised due to a lack of “Street Finders” at polling locations -- books that tell voters the proper Election District in which to vote -- and a lack of staff directing people to the correct voting machines.
This year, the Westchester Board of Elections has moved several poll locations to allow for handicapped accessibility.
To ensure that the confusion that disenfranchised thousands of voters in 2004 does not occur on Primary Day, Stewart-Cousins introduced her Three-Point Plan:
1. Westchester Board of Elections should send out a follow-up mailing to all voters assigned to new poll locations, stating in large font that the location has changed, and providing the address of the new location.
2. Adequately staff all polling locations and assign individuals to help direct voters to the proper voting machines.
3. Ensure that Street Finders are placed at every polling location. The Stewart-Cousins Three-Point Plan will help eliminate confusion on Primary Day and represents a crucial first step in ensuring a fair and honest election
on November 7th.
Democrat Stewart-Cousins is running for State Senate in a rematch of a fiercely contested 2004 campaign against Republican State Senator Nick Spano. In 2004, Stewart-Cousins came within just 18 votes of defeating her Republican opponent, an 18-year incumbent, despite being dramatically outspent.
SPANO CHAIRED INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE PROBES UNDERAGE DRINKING EPIDEMIC
Investigations Committee Probe to Include Testimony on New York’s liquor laws and regulations, the State Liquor Authority’s role, efforts and effectiveness in enforcement, the use of optical scanning devices to check identification at ‘cabarets’, the use of Lottery terminals as a ID-checking mechanism, mandating training for holders of ‘on-premise’ licenses, training and licensing of servers, and training and licensing of all ‘bouncers’.
“From the activity that has been going on since I first announced that today’s hearing would be taking place, it appears that we have hit a nerve.” said Senator Nick Spano (Westchester), Chair of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations. “Not only has there been activity at the highest levels of the State Liquor Authority, but we have also seen The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association unveil a new plan to train bars, taverns and other establishments that hold liquor licenses.”
Continuing, Senator Spano stated “Obtaining some movement on this critically important issue in advance of our Public Hearing is a definitely a positive sign. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone knows the severity of the underage drinking problem --- whether it be in New York City, the suburbs or other regions of our State.
Now, using a combination of better licensing, up-to-date training and state-of-the-art technology, our job is to
convert this knowledge into a positive, concrete plan of action.”
“The State Liquor Authority needs to adhere more to community input and enforcing existing laws, like the 500 foot rule and they must accept more responsibility for their licensed facilities so that the nature and character of our neighborhoods are protected and preserved.”, stated Senator Frank Padavan (Queens).
Senator Marty Golden (Brooklyn) stated, “I commend my colleagues Senators Nick Spano and Frank Padavan, for addressing an issue that threatens the safety of all New Yorkers. As a former New York City Police Officer, I have witnessed first hand the harmful consequences of underage drinking, and other violations of State law. New York State’s Liquor laws must be enforced in order to allow for all of us to live in a society that is respectable and secure. I believe that communities throughout New York will be for the better because of these hearings and subsequent legislative action.”
The focus of the Senate Committee on Investigations & Government Operations Public Hearing is New York’s liquor laws and regulations, the State Liquor Authority’s role, efforts and effectiveness in enforcement, the use of optical scanning devices to check identification at ‘cabarets’, the use of Lottery terminals as a ID-checking mechanism, mandating training for holders of ‘on-premise’ licenses, training and licensing of servers, and training and licensing of all ‘bouncers’.
The following individuals are slated to speak at the Public Hearing:
Robert Bookman, General Counsel, New York Nightlife Assoc.
Daniel Boyle, Chairman, New York State Liquor Authority
Brian Conroy, Deputy Chief, Commander of Vice Unit, New York Police Dept.
Honorable Richard N. Gottfried, Member, New York State Assembly
Susan Howard, Lower East Side Alliance & Norfork Street Block Assoc.
E. Charles Hunt, Executive Vice Pres. NYS Restaurant Assoc. (NYC Office)
Honorable Christine Quinn, Speaker, New York City Council
Carol Sears, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) West. Cty.
Scott Wexler, Executive Director, NYS Restaurant & Tavern Assoc.
The Committee on Investigations and Government Operations’ Public Hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., September 7, 2006, at 250 Broadway, New York, in the 19th floor Senate Hearing Room.
Democrat Stewart-Cousins, Addressing Newly Relocated Polling Places, Calls on Board of Elections to Ensure
that Voters Know When, Where and How to Vote
Yonkers , NY — Democratic State Senate candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins today called on the Westchester Board of Elections to implement a three-point plan to ensure that every vote is counted in the September 12th primary election.
Stewart-Cousins stated: “In 2004, thousands of votes were thrown out due to voter confusion; that could have -- and should have -- been prevented. This Primary Day, we must do everything possible to make sure that voters understand when, where and how to vote. We must ensure that every vote is counted.”
In 2004, thousands of voters were disenfranchised due to a lack of “Street Finders” at polling locations -- books that tell voters the proper Election District in which to vote -- and a lack of staff directing people to the correct voting machines.
This year, the Westchester Board of Elections has moved several poll locations to allow for handicapped accessibility.
To ensure that the confusion that disenfranchised thousands of voters in 2004 does not occur on Primary Day, Stewart-Cousins introduced her Three-Point Plan:
1. Westchester Board of Elections should send out a follow-up mailing to all voters assigned to new poll locations, stating in large font that the location has changed, and providing the address of the new location.
2. Adequately staff all polling locations and assign individuals to help direct voters to the proper voting machines.
3. Ensure that Street Finders are placed at every polling location. The Stewart-Cousins Three-Point Plan will help eliminate confusion on Primary Day and represents a crucial first step in ensuring a fair and honest election
on November 7th.
Democrat Stewart-Cousins is running for State Senate in a rematch of a fiercely contested 2004 campaign against Republican State Senator Nick Spano. In 2004, Stewart-Cousins came within just 18 votes of defeating her Republican opponent, an 18-year incumbent, despite being dramatically outspent.
SPANO CHAIRED INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE PROBES UNDERAGE DRINKING EPIDEMIC
Investigations Committee Probe to Include Testimony on New York’s liquor laws and regulations, the State Liquor Authority’s role, efforts and effectiveness in enforcement, the use of optical scanning devices to check identification at ‘cabarets’, the use of Lottery terminals as a ID-checking mechanism, mandating training for holders of ‘on-premise’ licenses, training and licensing of servers, and training and licensing of all ‘bouncers’.
“From the activity that has been going on since I first announced that today’s hearing would be taking place, it appears that we have hit a nerve.” said Senator Nick Spano (Westchester), Chair of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations. “Not only has there been activity at the highest levels of the State Liquor Authority, but we have also seen The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association unveil a new plan to train bars, taverns and other establishments that hold liquor licenses.”
Continuing, Senator Spano stated “Obtaining some movement on this critically important issue in advance of our Public Hearing is a definitely a positive sign. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone knows the severity of the underage drinking problem --- whether it be in New York City, the suburbs or other regions of our State.
Now, using a combination of better licensing, up-to-date training and state-of-the-art technology, our job is to
convert this knowledge into a positive, concrete plan of action.”
“The State Liquor Authority needs to adhere more to community input and enforcing existing laws, like the 500 foot rule and they must accept more responsibility for their licensed facilities so that the nature and character of our neighborhoods are protected and preserved.”, stated Senator Frank Padavan (Queens).
Senator Marty Golden (Brooklyn) stated, “I commend my colleagues Senators Nick Spano and Frank Padavan, for addressing an issue that threatens the safety of all New Yorkers. As a former New York City Police Officer, I have witnessed first hand the harmful consequences of underage drinking, and other violations of State law. New York State’s Liquor laws must be enforced in order to allow for all of us to live in a society that is respectable and secure. I believe that communities throughout New York will be for the better because of these hearings and subsequent legislative action.”
The focus of the Senate Committee on Investigations & Government Operations Public Hearing is New York’s liquor laws and regulations, the State Liquor Authority’s role, efforts and effectiveness in enforcement, the use of optical scanning devices to check identification at ‘cabarets’, the use of Lottery terminals as a ID-checking mechanism, mandating training for holders of ‘on-premise’ licenses, training and licensing of servers, and training and licensing of all ‘bouncers’.
The following individuals are slated to speak at the Public Hearing:
Robert Bookman, General Counsel, New York Nightlife Assoc.
Daniel Boyle, Chairman, New York State Liquor Authority
Brian Conroy, Deputy Chief, Commander of Vice Unit, New York Police Dept.
Honorable Richard N. Gottfried, Member, New York State Assembly
Susan Howard, Lower East Side Alliance & Norfork Street Block Assoc.
E. Charles Hunt, Executive Vice Pres. NYS Restaurant Assoc. (NYC Office)
Honorable Christine Quinn, Speaker, New York City Council
Carol Sears, Chapter President, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) West. Cty.
Scott Wexler, Executive Director, NYS Restaurant & Tavern Assoc.
The Committee on Investigations and Government Operations’ Public Hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., September 7, 2006, at 250 Broadway, New York, in the 19th floor Senate Hearing Room.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
The Injustice Continues
Robert F. Wayburn, being an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
I am the attorney of record for Ling Mei Xing, maternal grandmother and intervener in the neglect dispositional hearing of Jing Kelly, Respondent Mother.
I submit this affirmation in support of the accompanying Notice of Motion jointly filed by Ling Mei Xing and by Jing Kelly.
I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case, including the record of the prior appeal and the ruling on the prior appeal, dated November 17, 2005. I have read both the briefs and attended oral argument in mid-May of this year of the second appeal which is still undecided but will determine whether the ruling by Your Honor allowing the paternal uncle, Douglas Kelly, to intervene in the respondent mother’s neglect dispositional hearing was proper.
By orders issued on June 21, 2006, Your Honor denied the motion by Respondent mother, Jing Kelly, to have Tristram evaluated by the Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) unit which had previously evaluated her and, accordingly, was fully familiar with the case. The report of Dr. Vazzana was completed and submitted on February 27, 2006. An appeal was taken from those orders and a stay application made to the Appellate Court pending this appeal.
A stay application was made to the Appellate Division on June 28, 2006 but was denied by Associate Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli. This ruling was premised on representations made by the ACS trial lawyer and the Legal Aid Society trial lawyer (law guardian) who appeared in the Appellate Division that date – that the evaluation
of Tristram by Dr. Conrad had already been commenced and that it was limited solely to visitation in its scope and that it would be completed within a few weeks.
Obviously, misrepresentations were made to Associate Justice Mazzarelli in the above regard. The completion of a report by Dr. Conrad on her evaluation of Tristram seems a long way off and it is now early September of 2006 – and more than two full months have elapsed since the above misrepresentations were made to the Appellate Court.
Associate Justice Mazzarelli voiced extreme concern over the fact that Tristram had been sent out of state by Gail Hiler (without prior notification to the Family Court and to the law guardian) and asked for an explanation and accounting of why this was done. Justice Mazzarelli voiced concern that visitation was not yet commenced for this mother and child despite the passage of so much time since the November 17, 2005 Appellate ruling. But Her Honor felt that by staying the evaluation of Tristram by Dr. Conrad might serve only to further delay the
commencement of visitation.
Clearly, Associate Justice Mazzarelli, in denying the stay application in late June of this year, relied upon the misrepresentations made to her that day, June 28, 2006, by both the ACS trial attorney and the law guardian trial attorney – that the evaluation of Tristram was already in progress and would soon be submitted to the Family
Court judge.
Had Associate Justice Mazzarelli known in late June that two full months would pass by without the evaluation being completed and without Tristram and his mother having contact during the summer months before school resumed – the stay application most probably would have been granted and MHS would have seen Tristram in the interim.
The full panel, when determining the above Appellate motion did not revisit the above interim ruling of Associate Justice Mazzarelli but did issue a mandamus against the Family Court, directing “the attention of the Family Court to the decision and order of this Court [Appellatet Division – First Department] entered on November 17, 2005 (Appeal Nos. 6962/6962A/6962B/6962C/6962D) with respect to the issue of visitation.” [See Exhibit “C”.]
I could not myself contact Dr. Conrad in this regard nor provide her with a copy of the above order and urge her to submit an immediate report concerning Tristram – because Your Honor has precluded all contact between all attorneys for the respective parties and Dr. Conrad except, apparently, for Mr. Schiff, the attorney for the out of state interveners. In point of fact, Mr. Schiff brought on an Order to Show Cause to hold Jing Kelly’s attorney, Nicholas R. Perrella, Esq., in contempt of court for his having inquired of Dr. Conrad in late June of 2006 as to
the status of her evaluation.
That contempt motion has been tabled for the moment but remains outstanding. It should have been summarily dismissed and it is respondent’s attorney, Mr. Perrella, who should be delegated to coordinate all matters with Dr. Conrad and not Mr. Schiff.
On the same day that the Appellate mandamus order was issued, that is, August 3, 2006, materials retrieved from a box held in Your Honor’s custody and purportedly containing the entirety of materials reviewed by Dr. Vazzana in preparing her February 27, 2006 MHS report (as to the respondent), were apparently forwarded
to Dr. Conrad in California by Mr. Schiff. His letter in this regard is contained in Exhibit “A” herein. [It is not certain that August 3, 2006 is the actual date the materials were forwarded, however, as there is no affirmation in this regard.]
When I went to Mr. Schiff ’s office to view those materials on Wednesday evening of August 2, 2006, he informed me that his client had told him that Tristram would be brought to see Dr. Conrad, for the first time, sometime that very week.
That means that Dr. Conrad could readily have submitted a preliminary visitation report, based on her first session with Tristram, early this past month. This would have been consistent with the Appellate Mandamus of August 3, 2006. But instead of directing prompt action in this regard, Your Honor issued a letter, dated August 7, 2006 [included in Exhibit “A”] stating, in essence, that nothing will be done in response to the Mandamus.
Your Honor seems to be far more concerned with whatever is being said to the Appellate Court as being the cause of the inordinate delay in getting the visitation inquiry completed than in simply accomplishing this task here and now.
Your Honor expressed this concern to Jing Kelly’s new attorney, Mr. Perrella, in this regard at his first court appearance on her behalf on May 31, 2006: THE COURT: Okay, I have not delayed this. We had an extensive discussion from the get-go about the timing of this. It was the Law Guardian’s position that we absolutely had to have this evaluation and I agreed with the Law Guardian that we needed an evaluation. Time was lost in the process of selecting an evaluator. I’m not going to lose any more time in rescheduling that. I’m going to go ahead with the evaluator that we already have and I will want that to be done very, very quickly. Mr. Schiff, will you make sure your clients get this scheduled very quickly, because being that they’re there, they will be in a better position to make those arrangements. Id., May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 25, lines 21-25 and page 26, lines 1-12.
[Copies of the above mentioned transcript pages are attached as Exhibit “F”]. Obviously, Mr. Schiff was in no hurry to make the arrangements. Indeed, he blamed Jing Kelly’s outgoing lawyers at Sanctuary For Families for not completing a draft order for the appointment of Dr. Conrad and Your Honor then requested the Law Guardian to get it drafted. The order appointing Dr. Conrad to evaluate Tristram was finally issued by Your Honor on June 21, 2006.
Mr. Perrella, incoming counsel to Jing Kelly, did request an adjournment of the continuation of the dispositional hearing on May 31, 2006 – but this request did not cause the prior delays in getting a visitation evaluation done for Tristram.
Indeed, it was only upon learning that Dr. Conrad had not yet commenced any work on the evaluation of Tristram, as of late June 2006, that Mr. Perrella brought on an application to have Tristram to instead be seen at the same Family Court mental health clinic (MHS) that had previously evaluated Jing Kelly.
Interestingly, Your Honor admonished Mr. Perrella, when granting his request for an adjournment, by stating “THE COURT: …I have no problem granting you an adjournment, Counselor, but I do have a problem with you standing at the Appellate Division and saying I am biased and am deliberately delaying this”
[May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 30, lines 1-6 included in Exhibit “F”].
Analysis:
The foregoing Affirmation In Support of Motion filed by Robert Wayburn, attorney for Jing Kelly and Ling Mei Xing, her mother, is presented in its entirety in order that readers may understand the lengths to which Gail Hiler, an attorney, her brother, Douglas Kelly, an attorney, and Mr. Schiff, the attorney representing them, aided and abetted by Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter, together with attorneys for New York City ACS, are willing to go in order to keep this loving mother and child separated for as long as possible. Readers should keep in mind that the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, First Department, on Nov. 17th of last year, ordered
Judge Schechter, “in the best interests of the child”, to “immediately commence visitation” between Jing and her now 6-year-old son Tristram. And again, more than a month ago, that same Appellate Court, now commanded Judge Schechter, in the form of a rare Mandamus, to do as they had previously instructed her to do, because they learned that she had stubbornly disobeyed their order.
At no time, either in the original criminal proceedings, in which Jing Kelly was overcharged with Felony Custodial Interference, and found guilty, at trial, merely of a misdemeanor, or in all of the Family Court proceedings prior to, or following, that trial, has any evidence been proffered or established that would indicate that Tristram Kelly,
barely two years old when kidnapped from Jing, was ever abused or neglected, by her.
What we are now witnessing are the extreme lengths to which the family of Jing’s deceased former husband, Craig Kelly, are willing to go, including perjury, having previously kidnapped Tristram only to reject, and shuttle him to North Carolina, and then to California, merely to keep him separated from his natural Chinese-American mother.
The Appellate Court, fully aware of all of the circumstances, having rendered a decision nearly a year ago, intended to re-unite this mother and child, appears impotent to enforce its edict. It is, therefore, obvious that Chief Judge Judith Kaye must immediately intervene, and both, remove and sanction Judge Sara P. Schechter for
her judicial malfeasance and extra-judicial activities clearly against the best interests of the child, Tristram Kelly, and furthermore, in violation of his, his mother’s, and his maternal grandparents’, Constitutional rights.
Furthermore, it is also obvious that the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer must immediately open an
investigation into the actions of former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro with regard to her malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, as well as her organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing’s son, Tristram.
By Richard Blassberg
The Injustice Continues
Robert F. Wayburn, being an attorney duly admitted to the practice of law, affirms the following under penalty of perjury:
I am the attorney of record for Ling Mei Xing, maternal grandmother and intervener in the neglect dispositional hearing of Jing Kelly, Respondent Mother.
I submit this affirmation in support of the accompanying Notice of Motion jointly filed by Ling Mei Xing and by Jing Kelly.
I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case, including the record of the prior appeal and the ruling on the prior appeal, dated November 17, 2005. I have read both the briefs and attended oral argument in mid-May of this year of the second appeal which is still undecided but will determine whether the ruling by Your Honor allowing the paternal uncle, Douglas Kelly, to intervene in the respondent mother’s neglect dispositional hearing was proper.
By orders issued on June 21, 2006, Your Honor denied the motion by Respondent mother, Jing Kelly, to have Tristram evaluated by the Family Court Mental Health Services (MHS) unit which had previously evaluated her and, accordingly, was fully familiar with the case. The report of Dr. Vazzana was completed and submitted on February 27, 2006. An appeal was taken from those orders and a stay application made to the Appellate Court pending this appeal.
A stay application was made to the Appellate Division on June 28, 2006 but was denied by Associate Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli. This ruling was premised on representations made by the ACS trial lawyer and the Legal Aid Society trial lawyer (law guardian) who appeared in the Appellate Division that date – that the evaluation
of Tristram by Dr. Conrad had already been commenced and that it was limited solely to visitation in its scope and that it would be completed within a few weeks.
Obviously, misrepresentations were made to Associate Justice Mazzarelli in the above regard. The completion of a report by Dr. Conrad on her evaluation of Tristram seems a long way off and it is now early September of 2006 – and more than two full months have elapsed since the above misrepresentations were made to the Appellate Court.
Associate Justice Mazzarelli voiced extreme concern over the fact that Tristram had been sent out of state by Gail Hiler (without prior notification to the Family Court and to the law guardian) and asked for an explanation and accounting of why this was done. Justice Mazzarelli voiced concern that visitation was not yet commenced for this mother and child despite the passage of so much time since the November 17, 2005 Appellate ruling. But Her Honor felt that by staying the evaluation of Tristram by Dr. Conrad might serve only to further delay the
commencement of visitation.
Clearly, Associate Justice Mazzarelli, in denying the stay application in late June of this year, relied upon the misrepresentations made to her that day, June 28, 2006, by both the ACS trial attorney and the law guardian trial attorney – that the evaluation of Tristram was already in progress and would soon be submitted to the Family
Court judge.
Had Associate Justice Mazzarelli known in late June that two full months would pass by without the evaluation being completed and without Tristram and his mother having contact during the summer months before school resumed – the stay application most probably would have been granted and MHS would have seen Tristram in the interim.
The full panel, when determining the above Appellate motion did not revisit the above interim ruling of Associate Justice Mazzarelli but did issue a mandamus against the Family Court, directing “the attention of the Family Court to the decision and order of this Court [Appellatet Division – First Department] entered on November 17, 2005 (Appeal Nos. 6962/6962A/6962B/6962C/6962D) with respect to the issue of visitation.” [See Exhibit “C”.]
I could not myself contact Dr. Conrad in this regard nor provide her with a copy of the above order and urge her to submit an immediate report concerning Tristram – because Your Honor has precluded all contact between all attorneys for the respective parties and Dr. Conrad except, apparently, for Mr. Schiff, the attorney for the out of state interveners. In point of fact, Mr. Schiff brought on an Order to Show Cause to hold Jing Kelly’s attorney, Nicholas R. Perrella, Esq., in contempt of court for his having inquired of Dr. Conrad in late June of 2006 as to
the status of her evaluation.
That contempt motion has been tabled for the moment but remains outstanding. It should have been summarily dismissed and it is respondent’s attorney, Mr. Perrella, who should be delegated to coordinate all matters with Dr. Conrad and not Mr. Schiff.
On the same day that the Appellate mandamus order was issued, that is, August 3, 2006, materials retrieved from a box held in Your Honor’s custody and purportedly containing the entirety of materials reviewed by Dr. Vazzana in preparing her February 27, 2006 MHS report (as to the respondent), were apparently forwarded
to Dr. Conrad in California by Mr. Schiff. His letter in this regard is contained in Exhibit “A” herein. [It is not certain that August 3, 2006 is the actual date the materials were forwarded, however, as there is no affirmation in this regard.]
When I went to Mr. Schiff ’s office to view those materials on Wednesday evening of August 2, 2006, he informed me that his client had told him that Tristram would be brought to see Dr. Conrad, for the first time, sometime that very week.
That means that Dr. Conrad could readily have submitted a preliminary visitation report, based on her first session with Tristram, early this past month. This would have been consistent with the Appellate Mandamus of August 3, 2006. But instead of directing prompt action in this regard, Your Honor issued a letter, dated August 7, 2006 [included in Exhibit “A”] stating, in essence, that nothing will be done in response to the Mandamus.
Your Honor seems to be far more concerned with whatever is being said to the Appellate Court as being the cause of the inordinate delay in getting the visitation inquiry completed than in simply accomplishing this task here and now.
Your Honor expressed this concern to Jing Kelly’s new attorney, Mr. Perrella, in this regard at his first court appearance on her behalf on May 31, 2006: THE COURT: Okay, I have not delayed this. We had an extensive discussion from the get-go about the timing of this. It was the Law Guardian’s position that we absolutely had to have this evaluation and I agreed with the Law Guardian that we needed an evaluation. Time was lost in the process of selecting an evaluator. I’m not going to lose any more time in rescheduling that. I’m going to go ahead with the evaluator that we already have and I will want that to be done very, very quickly. Mr. Schiff, will you make sure your clients get this scheduled very quickly, because being that they’re there, they will be in a better position to make those arrangements. Id., May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 25, lines 21-25 and page 26, lines 1-12.
[Copies of the above mentioned transcript pages are attached as Exhibit “F”]. Obviously, Mr. Schiff was in no hurry to make the arrangements. Indeed, he blamed Jing Kelly’s outgoing lawyers at Sanctuary For Families for not completing a draft order for the appointment of Dr. Conrad and Your Honor then requested the Law Guardian to get it drafted. The order appointing Dr. Conrad to evaluate Tristram was finally issued by Your Honor on June 21, 2006.
Mr. Perrella, incoming counsel to Jing Kelly, did request an adjournment of the continuation of the dispositional hearing on May 31, 2006 – but this request did not cause the prior delays in getting a visitation evaluation done for Tristram.
Indeed, it was only upon learning that Dr. Conrad had not yet commenced any work on the evaluation of Tristram, as of late June 2006, that Mr. Perrella brought on an application to have Tristram to instead be seen at the same Family Court mental health clinic (MHS) that had previously evaluated Jing Kelly.
Interestingly, Your Honor admonished Mr. Perrella, when granting his request for an adjournment, by stating “THE COURT: …I have no problem granting you an adjournment, Counselor, but I do have a problem with you standing at the Appellate Division and saying I am biased and am deliberately delaying this”
[May 31, 2006 Transcript at page 30, lines 1-6 included in Exhibit “F”].
Analysis:
The foregoing Affirmation In Support of Motion filed by Robert Wayburn, attorney for Jing Kelly and Ling Mei Xing, her mother, is presented in its entirety in order that readers may understand the lengths to which Gail Hiler, an attorney, her brother, Douglas Kelly, an attorney, and Mr. Schiff, the attorney representing them, aided and abetted by Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter, together with attorneys for New York City ACS, are willing to go in order to keep this loving mother and child separated for as long as possible. Readers should keep in mind that the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, First Department, on Nov. 17th of last year, ordered
Judge Schechter, “in the best interests of the child”, to “immediately commence visitation” between Jing and her now 6-year-old son Tristram. And again, more than a month ago, that same Appellate Court, now commanded Judge Schechter, in the form of a rare Mandamus, to do as they had previously instructed her to do, because they learned that she had stubbornly disobeyed their order.
At no time, either in the original criminal proceedings, in which Jing Kelly was overcharged with Felony Custodial Interference, and found guilty, at trial, merely of a misdemeanor, or in all of the Family Court proceedings prior to, or following, that trial, has any evidence been proffered or established that would indicate that Tristram Kelly,
barely two years old when kidnapped from Jing, was ever abused or neglected, by her.
What we are now witnessing are the extreme lengths to which the family of Jing’s deceased former husband, Craig Kelly, are willing to go, including perjury, having previously kidnapped Tristram only to reject, and shuttle him to North Carolina, and then to California, merely to keep him separated from his natural Chinese-American mother.
The Appellate Court, fully aware of all of the circumstances, having rendered a decision nearly a year ago, intended to re-unite this mother and child, appears impotent to enforce its edict. It is, therefore, obvious that Chief Judge Judith Kaye must immediately intervene, and both, remove and sanction Judge Sara P. Schechter for
her judicial malfeasance and extra-judicial activities clearly against the best interests of the child, Tristram Kelly, and furthermore, in violation of his, his mother’s, and his maternal grandparents’, Constitutional rights.
Furthermore, it is also obvious that the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer must immediately open an
investigation into the actions of former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro with regard to her malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, as well as her organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing’s son, Tristram.
New Castle Police Coverup Continues
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
by Maureen Keating Tsuchiya
Some states prosecute public employees for illegal practices to the full extent allowed by their laws. The ex-
Governor of Illinois was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison for racketeering and fraud on September 6th. Some states will promptly investigate allegations of serious ethical lapses by law enforcement officials. For example, the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey resigned on August 15th due to a serious ethical violation occurring on May 26, 2006.
But everyone is still on the job in Chappaqua - without ever being subjected to any disciplinary actions, in a
matter that has churning since 1999, involving another top law enforcement officer. In this case he is New Castle
police Lieutenant John Vize,who is accused of keepingt fraudulent payroll records for at least a year in order to
help a fellow officer, Dennis Mahoney, obtain a 20 year pension when the of-ficer had in fact only worked 19 years.
According to twenty years’ worth of documents seized from the New Castle Police Department in 2003 by
the Public Integrity Section of the of-fice of Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Lt.Vize was also involved with arranging shifts under Mahoney’s name, referred to by some of the department’s members as “Mahoney days.” Approximately 25% of the Department’s officers have been reported to have participated in the scheme which was clearly reflected in the Department’s three month work schedules, constantly monitored by the entire staff, that were clearly posted in a glass encased bulletin board prominently displayed behind the
Police Department’s front desk.
The State Comptrollers Office, which manages public employee pension funds, has also investigated these
allegations. And the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a civil lawsuit on July 27th , 2006, under section 63-c of the New York Executive Law (the “Tweed L a w ” ) against the two New Castle police officers,
s e e k i n g to recover damages of $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 and more t h a n $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 in pension funds paid out by the state of New York since 2000, and salary and benefits paid to Vize by the Town during the period of breach
of fiduciary duty from on or about August 1999 to on or about July 2000, as a result of a “paper trail more than a mile wide” according persons involved with the investigation.
Prosecuting matters of public corruption are increasingly rare in today’s environment. Two Westchester
District Attorneys, Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, have thus far failed to prosecute anyone involved in this
public integrity case despite having seized nearly 20 years of records three years ago. DiFiore spokesman,
Lucien Chalfen, told this reporter on September 6th, “this is an open case that is active and I’m not able to comment further.”
A spokesman for the office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who asked to remain unnamed, when
asked why the public integrity unit of Spitzer’s Criminal Division only filed a civil case and did not pursue any criminal charges in this fraud litigation, said, “Two avenues were open, and while criminal charges could be brought, the office of the Attorney General determined that only a civil case would be prosecuted at this time.”
The police lieutenant accused in this matter, John Vize, reportedly has not been fired nor disciplined in this
matter. In fact, he was the top ranking officer on duty at the end of August when Chief Robert Breen, who is still
on the job, was away on vacation. Breen governs a department that has 40 fulltime members and eight other staff although the community which encompasses Chappaqua and Millwood, is noted for its very low crime rate.
Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella is still on the job and has not issued any public reports regarding this matter.
No public reports nor demands for any resignations have been made by the town’s supervisor or any members of the town board. As a result, the Town of New Castle has not filed any charges against the officers with the Offices of the Westchester District Attorney nor the New York State Attorney General.
Tension permeates the New Castle the New Castle Town Hall as a result of this lawsuit and others that have been brought against the town. Their police officers have been working without a contract for 19 months. The New Castle police have conducted informational picketing in Chappaqua’s downtown business district as recently as Wednesday, September 6th in order to draw attention to what they say is the town’s refusal to negotiate in good faith. Lt. Vize, a union trustee, has been quoted as stating “This town is loaded. They know it, we know it.”
Steve Kaufman vs. Town of New Castle et al
On June 24th, 2005, a lawsuit was filed in Supreme Court, Westchester County, entitled Steve Kaufman vs.
Town of New Castle; New Castle Police Department; Gennaro Faiella; Robert Breen; James Baynes; John Vize; James Tully and Public Employee Risk Management Assn., Index No.05-10178.
Plaintiff Kaufman, who is Jewish, had been employed by New Castle as a Police Officer since August, 1983, receiving good reviews throughout his career. According to the lawsuit, the top five positions in the New Castle Police Department have been held by individuals of Irish national origin including Chief Breen, Lt. James Baynes,
Lt. John Vize, Lt. Charles Ferry, Detective Sergeant James Carroll (Ret.), and Detective Sergeant Marc Simmons.
Kaufman was the only Jewish police officer employed by the town until approximately 2004. His lawsuit alleges that the Town’s Police Department systematically excluded police officers of non-Irish national origin from top positions in the Department which has also created and perpetrated a hostile work environment against Kaufman because he is Jewish, and as for a second cause of action because Kaufman filed.worker compensation claims.
Kaufman’s suit states that “during the recent past and continuing to the present, plaintiff has been the subject of anti-Semitic remarks on numerous occasions. These anti-Semitic remarks have been made by other Irish police officers in the presence of individual defendants and have been made by the individual defendants.
These remarks continued with the acquiescence of the defendant Department’s Administration, who did nothing to prevent them, but, instead, reward those who utter the anti-Semitic remarks. Defendant Tully, on several occasions, usually at the police muster, made malicious anti-Semitic statements. Defendant Breen and the Administration, instead of disciplining defendant Tully, rewarded him with the title of Administrative Sergeant.
Defendant Tully was then given other choice assignments by defendant Breen. Plaintiff was present on many of the occasions. Police Officer Gary Beaumont, on numerous occasions, made comments about hating Jews. Again, although having knowledge of these comments, defendant Breen and the Department’s Administration rewarded Officer Beaumont by making him Traffic Enforcement Officer, where he would have further opportunity to target and profile Jews and other people he hates. The Department’s Administration also rewarded Officer Beaumont by appointing him as Field Training Officer.
There are two police officers named James Carroll. One was a Detective Sargeant, the other is now a Sergeant. One recent year, both were at the front desk of defendant Department. They had just returned from working at a Jewish Holiday service at Temple Beth El in Chappaqua. In plaintiff ’s presence, they uttered anti-Semite comments such as “Jew bastards” and “fucking Jews.” The also stated that “Jews have too much money.”
Plaintiff had to tell both Officers Carroll that he, as a Jewish officer, was offended by their bigoted comments. The two officers scoffed at plaintiff and laughed at him. On a prior occasion, a similar incident took place in plaintiff’s presence. On that occasion, then Police Officer Carroll also made malicious, anti-Semitic statements.
The anti-Semitism displayed by both Officers Carroll are well-known to defendant Breen and Department’s Administration. However, defendant Breen, instead of disciplining these individuals, has promoted them and/or given them choice assignments at the expense of more qualified, non-Irish police officers.
This favoritism promotes the complained of hostile work environment. Plaintiff has also learned that, on another occasion, defendant Baynes referred to a civil rights organization named the Southern Poverty Law Center, as a bad organization run by a bunch of “fucking Jews.” Plaintiff has also been informed that defendant Vize has referred to him as “one stupid Jew.”
These types of anti-Semitic remarks have caused plaintiff a great deal of stress and mental anguish. It is not very pleasant going to work every day knowing how your supervisors feel about you because of your religion.”
New Castle’s Insurance Carrier Denies Coverage for Kaufman’s Lawsuit On July 14, 2005, the Town of New Castle’s insurance carrier for matters such as this litigation, informed the Town that they would not cover any expenses associated with matter as they are not covered under the terms of the policy.
New Castle would be well served to look nearby for methods of dealing with serious issues regarding police department management. The Knapp and Mollen Commissions were established to deal with police corruption in New York City. The Knapp Commission issued a report in 1972 and the Mollen Commission report in 1995 raised questions about the New York Police Department’s ability to police itself and recommended an independent panel with subpoena power in order to deal with a culture of corruption.
The latter commission has a $500,000 budget and a permanent staff of four lawyers. It audits and studies the department’s anticorruption strategies. It has been criticized as ineffectual because it has no power to compel the department to provide information. The six commissioners, all lawyers, are appointed by the mayor and serve without pay. The staff is paid by the city and serves at the pleasure of the mayor of New York City.
Prompt resolution of issues regarding police department governance will impact any attempts by New Castle to retain and/or renew its accreditation from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services according to a source familiar with the process.
Loss of this accreditation could impact the town’s insurance rates. New Castle attempts to restrict access by residents to the Westchester Guardian newspaper While the Town of New Castle hasn’t yet disciplined or fired any personnel as a result of the charges laid out in Attorney General Spitzer’s suit, they have nevertheless,
been quite busy confiscating The Westchester Guardian’s newspaper’s distribution box that was positioned in downtown Chappaqua next to that of 4 other newspapers outside of Starbuck’s. The box was released only after payment of a $74.95 ransom. Days later the boxes at the Chappaqua Train Station and near Rite Aid were
ordered removed by a representative of New Castle town government.
Editor’s Note: Readers can still find The Westchester Guardian in New Castle at the following establishments who still feel comfortable in supporting our Country’s basic tenet of Freedom Of The Press: Lange’s Deli, Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, Station Pizza, Rocky’s Deli and Hero Pizzeria.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
by Maureen Keating Tsuchiya
Some states prosecute public employees for illegal practices to the full extent allowed by their laws. The ex-
Governor of Illinois was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison for racketeering and fraud on September 6th. Some states will promptly investigate allegations of serious ethical lapses by law enforcement officials. For example, the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey resigned on August 15th due to a serious ethical violation occurring on May 26, 2006.
But everyone is still on the job in Chappaqua - without ever being subjected to any disciplinary actions, in a
matter that has churning since 1999, involving another top law enforcement officer. In this case he is New Castle
police Lieutenant John Vize,who is accused of keepingt fraudulent payroll records for at least a year in order to
help a fellow officer, Dennis Mahoney, obtain a 20 year pension when the of-ficer had in fact only worked 19 years.
According to twenty years’ worth of documents seized from the New Castle Police Department in 2003 by
the Public Integrity Section of the of-fice of Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, Lt.Vize was also involved with arranging shifts under Mahoney’s name, referred to by some of the department’s members as “Mahoney days.” Approximately 25% of the Department’s officers have been reported to have participated in the scheme which was clearly reflected in the Department’s three month work schedules, constantly monitored by the entire staff, that were clearly posted in a glass encased bulletin board prominently displayed behind the
Police Department’s front desk.
The State Comptrollers Office, which manages public employee pension funds, has also investigated these
allegations. And the office of State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed a civil lawsuit on July 27th , 2006, under section 63-c of the New York Executive Law (the “Tweed L a w ” ) against the two New Castle police officers,
s e e k i n g to recover damages of $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 and more t h a n $ 1 8 0 , 0 0 0 in pension funds paid out by the state of New York since 2000, and salary and benefits paid to Vize by the Town during the period of breach
of fiduciary duty from on or about August 1999 to on or about July 2000, as a result of a “paper trail more than a mile wide” according persons involved with the investigation.
Prosecuting matters of public corruption are increasingly rare in today’s environment. Two Westchester
District Attorneys, Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, have thus far failed to prosecute anyone involved in this
public integrity case despite having seized nearly 20 years of records three years ago. DiFiore spokesman,
Lucien Chalfen, told this reporter on September 6th, “this is an open case that is active and I’m not able to comment further.”
A spokesman for the office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who asked to remain unnamed, when
asked why the public integrity unit of Spitzer’s Criminal Division only filed a civil case and did not pursue any criminal charges in this fraud litigation, said, “Two avenues were open, and while criminal charges could be brought, the office of the Attorney General determined that only a civil case would be prosecuted at this time.”
The police lieutenant accused in this matter, John Vize, reportedly has not been fired nor disciplined in this
matter. In fact, he was the top ranking officer on duty at the end of August when Chief Robert Breen, who is still
on the job, was away on vacation. Breen governs a department that has 40 fulltime members and eight other staff although the community which encompasses Chappaqua and Millwood, is noted for its very low crime rate.
Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella is still on the job and has not issued any public reports regarding this matter.
No public reports nor demands for any resignations have been made by the town’s supervisor or any members of the town board. As a result, the Town of New Castle has not filed any charges against the officers with the Offices of the Westchester District Attorney nor the New York State Attorney General.
Tension permeates the New Castle the New Castle Town Hall as a result of this lawsuit and others that have been brought against the town. Their police officers have been working without a contract for 19 months. The New Castle police have conducted informational picketing in Chappaqua’s downtown business district as recently as Wednesday, September 6th in order to draw attention to what they say is the town’s refusal to negotiate in good faith. Lt. Vize, a union trustee, has been quoted as stating “This town is loaded. They know it, we know it.”
Steve Kaufman vs. Town of New Castle et al
On June 24th, 2005, a lawsuit was filed in Supreme Court, Westchester County, entitled Steve Kaufman vs.
Town of New Castle; New Castle Police Department; Gennaro Faiella; Robert Breen; James Baynes; John Vize; James Tully and Public Employee Risk Management Assn., Index No.05-10178.
Plaintiff Kaufman, who is Jewish, had been employed by New Castle as a Police Officer since August, 1983, receiving good reviews throughout his career. According to the lawsuit, the top five positions in the New Castle Police Department have been held by individuals of Irish national origin including Chief Breen, Lt. James Baynes,
Lt. John Vize, Lt. Charles Ferry, Detective Sergeant James Carroll (Ret.), and Detective Sergeant Marc Simmons.
Kaufman was the only Jewish police officer employed by the town until approximately 2004. His lawsuit alleges that the Town’s Police Department systematically excluded police officers of non-Irish national origin from top positions in the Department which has also created and perpetrated a hostile work environment against Kaufman because he is Jewish, and as for a second cause of action because Kaufman filed.worker compensation claims.
Kaufman’s suit states that “during the recent past and continuing to the present, plaintiff has been the subject of anti-Semitic remarks on numerous occasions. These anti-Semitic remarks have been made by other Irish police officers in the presence of individual defendants and have been made by the individual defendants.
These remarks continued with the acquiescence of the defendant Department’s Administration, who did nothing to prevent them, but, instead, reward those who utter the anti-Semitic remarks. Defendant Tully, on several occasions, usually at the police muster, made malicious anti-Semitic statements. Defendant Breen and the Administration, instead of disciplining defendant Tully, rewarded him with the title of Administrative Sergeant.
Defendant Tully was then given other choice assignments by defendant Breen. Plaintiff was present on many of the occasions. Police Officer Gary Beaumont, on numerous occasions, made comments about hating Jews. Again, although having knowledge of these comments, defendant Breen and the Department’s Administration rewarded Officer Beaumont by making him Traffic Enforcement Officer, where he would have further opportunity to target and profile Jews and other people he hates. The Department’s Administration also rewarded Officer Beaumont by appointing him as Field Training Officer.
There are two police officers named James Carroll. One was a Detective Sargeant, the other is now a Sergeant. One recent year, both were at the front desk of defendant Department. They had just returned from working at a Jewish Holiday service at Temple Beth El in Chappaqua. In plaintiff ’s presence, they uttered anti-Semite comments such as “Jew bastards” and “fucking Jews.” The also stated that “Jews have too much money.”
Plaintiff had to tell both Officers Carroll that he, as a Jewish officer, was offended by their bigoted comments. The two officers scoffed at plaintiff and laughed at him. On a prior occasion, a similar incident took place in plaintiff’s presence. On that occasion, then Police Officer Carroll also made malicious, anti-Semitic statements.
The anti-Semitism displayed by both Officers Carroll are well-known to defendant Breen and Department’s Administration. However, defendant Breen, instead of disciplining these individuals, has promoted them and/or given them choice assignments at the expense of more qualified, non-Irish police officers.
This favoritism promotes the complained of hostile work environment. Plaintiff has also learned that, on another occasion, defendant Baynes referred to a civil rights organization named the Southern Poverty Law Center, as a bad organization run by a bunch of “fucking Jews.” Plaintiff has also been informed that defendant Vize has referred to him as “one stupid Jew.”
These types of anti-Semitic remarks have caused plaintiff a great deal of stress and mental anguish. It is not very pleasant going to work every day knowing how your supervisors feel about you because of your religion.”
New Castle’s Insurance Carrier Denies Coverage for Kaufman’s Lawsuit On July 14, 2005, the Town of New Castle’s insurance carrier for matters such as this litigation, informed the Town that they would not cover any expenses associated with matter as they are not covered under the terms of the policy.
New Castle would be well served to look nearby for methods of dealing with serious issues regarding police department management. The Knapp and Mollen Commissions were established to deal with police corruption in New York City. The Knapp Commission issued a report in 1972 and the Mollen Commission report in 1995 raised questions about the New York Police Department’s ability to police itself and recommended an independent panel with subpoena power in order to deal with a culture of corruption.
The latter commission has a $500,000 budget and a permanent staff of four lawyers. It audits and studies the department’s anticorruption strategies. It has been criticized as ineffectual because it has no power to compel the department to provide information. The six commissioners, all lawyers, are appointed by the mayor and serve without pay. The staff is paid by the city and serves at the pleasure of the mayor of New York City.
Prompt resolution of issues regarding police department governance will impact any attempts by New Castle to retain and/or renew its accreditation from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services according to a source familiar with the process.
Loss of this accreditation could impact the town’s insurance rates. New Castle attempts to restrict access by residents to the Westchester Guardian newspaper While the Town of New Castle hasn’t yet disciplined or fired any personnel as a result of the charges laid out in Attorney General Spitzer’s suit, they have nevertheless,
been quite busy confiscating The Westchester Guardian’s newspaper’s distribution box that was positioned in downtown Chappaqua next to that of 4 other newspapers outside of Starbuck’s. The box was released only after payment of a $74.95 ransom. Days later the boxes at the Chappaqua Train Station and near Rite Aid were
ordered removed by a representative of New Castle town government.
Editor’s Note: Readers can still find The Westchester Guardian in New Castle at the following establishments who still feel comfortable in supporting our Country’s basic tenet of Freedom Of The Press: Lange’s Deli, Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, Station Pizza, Rocky’s Deli and Hero Pizzeria.
In Our Opinion...
Ask any number of mature Westchester residents where the Fine Arts Theater is, and nearly all will tell you, “Central Avenue in Scarsdale.” Actually, it’s in Greenburgh, and soon it will be just a fond memory. The Fine Arts Theater, a Westchester institution, a Saturday night gathering place for seniors, better yet, for more mature
audiences, is falling victim to the ‘bottom line.’ Say it isn’t so.
Pass by the theater, any weekend evening and you will quickly realize it’s not for lack of business. Moviegoers, mostly gray-haired, and no-haired, line up, waiting to get in, before each showing. Standing in line, they greet familiar faces, couples they have seen there for years. The fact that, unlike nearly every other movie house in the county, the Fine Arts offers no senior citizen discount doesn’t deter a soul. Most are happy to pay full price to see a film that’s “a cut above” what they usually find in the multi-screen houses. And, that’s been the case for more than three decades.
Not only is it a single screen theater, it plays the same film for several weeks, often months at a time. Even those who are regulars are given to wonder. It’s as though the theater owners want to be sure that every loyal patron gets the chance to see their quality offering. And the care and concern is not limited to management.
The youngsters who sell the tickets and operate the refreshment counter are friendlier than at other theaters. They’ve been there a while, and they relate to each other like family. The whole feeling of the place is “small town,” despite the sophistication of their offerings, as often as not, foreign with titles.
Those who have enjoyed the atmosphere, the comfortableness, especially on wintry Saturday nights, will surely be saddened to show up in a few weeks and discover the darkened marquee, the empty parking lot. The feeling one gets when an old friend passes away will momentarily grip them, and they will move on.
The Fine Arts Theater has finally succumbed to a longstanding reality. The space it occupies is infinitely more valuable in today’s real estate market than the rent its owners could ever afford to pay if the house was packed every night of the week.
Truth be told, it would have closed years ago if one of the partners wasn’t also the landlord. In effect, management has been subsidizing its patrons’ entertainment, underwriting it, as it were. Just how important, after all, is the demise of one movie theater?
We believe, very important. It’s a sign of the times and the environment in which we now live. The Fine Arts, joins the local hardware store that couldn’t compete with Home Depot, the local grocery, and bakery that couldn’t compete with Super Stop n’ Shop, the daily newspapers that can’t compete for speed with on-line
news delivery.
Some might shrug their shoulders and say, “That’s progress.” We are not suggesting that the Wheel of Progress ought to be stilled, or even slowed. Rather, we believe one must recognize that something of quality, something of meaning in our lives, is often sacrificed, lost forever, in the name of progress and profit.
Ask any number of mature Westchester residents where the Fine Arts Theater is, and nearly all will tell you, “Central Avenue in Scarsdale.” Actually, it’s in Greenburgh, and soon it will be just a fond memory. The Fine Arts Theater, a Westchester institution, a Saturday night gathering place for seniors, better yet, for more mature
audiences, is falling victim to the ‘bottom line.’ Say it isn’t so.
Pass by the theater, any weekend evening and you will quickly realize it’s not for lack of business. Moviegoers, mostly gray-haired, and no-haired, line up, waiting to get in, before each showing. Standing in line, they greet familiar faces, couples they have seen there for years. The fact that, unlike nearly every other movie house in the county, the Fine Arts offers no senior citizen discount doesn’t deter a soul. Most are happy to pay full price to see a film that’s “a cut above” what they usually find in the multi-screen houses. And, that’s been the case for more than three decades.
Not only is it a single screen theater, it plays the same film for several weeks, often months at a time. Even those who are regulars are given to wonder. It’s as though the theater owners want to be sure that every loyal patron gets the chance to see their quality offering. And the care and concern is not limited to management.
The youngsters who sell the tickets and operate the refreshment counter are friendlier than at other theaters. They’ve been there a while, and they relate to each other like family. The whole feeling of the place is “small town,” despite the sophistication of their offerings, as often as not, foreign with titles.
Those who have enjoyed the atmosphere, the comfortableness, especially on wintry Saturday nights, will surely be saddened to show up in a few weeks and discover the darkened marquee, the empty parking lot. The feeling one gets when an old friend passes away will momentarily grip them, and they will move on.
The Fine Arts Theater has finally succumbed to a longstanding reality. The space it occupies is infinitely more valuable in today’s real estate market than the rent its owners could ever afford to pay if the house was packed every night of the week.
Truth be told, it would have closed years ago if one of the partners wasn’t also the landlord. In effect, management has been subsidizing its patrons’ entertainment, underwriting it, as it were. Just how important, after all, is the demise of one movie theater?
We believe, very important. It’s a sign of the times and the environment in which we now live. The Fine Arts, joins the local hardware store that couldn’t compete with Home Depot, the local grocery, and bakery that couldn’t compete with Super Stop n’ Shop, the daily newspapers that can’t compete for speed with on-line
news delivery.
Some might shrug their shoulders and say, “That’s progress.” We are not suggesting that the Wheel of Progress ought to be stilled, or even slowed. Rather, we believe one must recognize that something of quality, something of meaning in our lives, is often sacrificed, lost forever, in the name of progress and profit.
Our Readers Respond...
Dear Editor:
One of your reader’s letters (8/31/06) cited an article by Joseph Berger. This article, Just How High Should Progress Go? (New York Times, 8/6/06) expressed the sentiment of many New Rochelle residents that high rise towers are destroying our Queen City of the Sound which is rich in history. But another more serious aspect of
these skyscrapers is not being discussed.
The citizens of New Rochelle were promised retail that would lower our real estate taxes. Instead we have increased traffic, lack of parking, sewage back-ups and inadequate city services, especially sanitation, fire and police protection. Our air pollution has increased dramatically. How will all the additional children attend our overcrowded schools? We do not have the retail that was promised.
Our real estate taxes have continued to increase. The characterization of residents who opposed increasing our taxes with a separate library tax as “anti-library agitators” by Theresa Kump Leghorn, (New York Times letters, 8/13/06) whose husband is and was a Library Trustee, typifies the kind of distortion that has been used to browbeat the public.
It would be fairer and much more useful for an honest dialog to take place which would show that the quality of life in this historic suburb, New Rochelle, is being consistently destroyed, especially for the southern half of the city.
Ines Candrea
New Rochelle
Dear Editor:
The movement is again underway to save the New Rochelle Armory for public use, in tribute to the Veterans who gave unselfishly of themselves in service to their Country. As a waterfront jewel the New Rochelle Armory has historical significance and should be preserved with readaptive public use, as deeded by the State of New York, as part of the Echo Bay redevelopment project.
We are initiating a petition drive and have also launched our website, http://www.saveourarmory.org/, which will contain more and more information as our drive progresses.
Lorraine Pierce
New Rochelle
Dear Editor:
One of your reader’s letters (8/31/06) cited an article by Joseph Berger. This article, Just How High Should Progress Go? (New York Times, 8/6/06) expressed the sentiment of many New Rochelle residents that high rise towers are destroying our Queen City of the Sound which is rich in history. But another more serious aspect of
these skyscrapers is not being discussed.
The citizens of New Rochelle were promised retail that would lower our real estate taxes. Instead we have increased traffic, lack of parking, sewage back-ups and inadequate city services, especially sanitation, fire and police protection. Our air pollution has increased dramatically. How will all the additional children attend our overcrowded schools? We do not have the retail that was promised.
Our real estate taxes have continued to increase. The characterization of residents who opposed increasing our taxes with a separate library tax as “anti-library agitators” by Theresa Kump Leghorn, (New York Times letters, 8/13/06) whose husband is and was a Library Trustee, typifies the kind of distortion that has been used to browbeat the public.
It would be fairer and much more useful for an honest dialog to take place which would show that the quality of life in this historic suburb, New Rochelle, is being consistently destroyed, especially for the southern half of the city.
Ines Candrea
New Rochelle
Dear Editor:
The movement is again underway to save the New Rochelle Armory for public use, in tribute to the Veterans who gave unselfishly of themselves in service to their Country. As a waterfront jewel the New Rochelle Armory has historical significance and should be preserved with readaptive public use, as deeded by the State of New York, as part of the Echo Bay redevelopment project.
We are initiating a petition drive and have also launched our website, http://www.saveourarmory.org/, which will contain more and more information as our drive progresses.
Lorraine Pierce
New Rochelle
The Advocate Richard Blassberg
Charlie King Has The Right Idea
Several days ago Charlie King, one of four candidates running in the Democratic Primary for State Attorney General made the right move. Realizing that he was trailing the leaders Andrew Cuomo and Mark Green by an
insurmountable percentage he withdrew from the race and threw his support behind Cuomo. In doing so he called upon all Democrats, and Mark Green, in particular, to rally behind whomever emerges as the Democratic candidate as the result of the primary. Sean Patrick Maloney, a youthful lawyer with considerable state and federal governmental experience remains in the race, of late acting as more of a referee between Cuomo and Green at debates and other public forums. Maloney, would appear to have a bright political future, and has articulated many of the issues plaguing New York State, including the mantle of hundreds of public authorities that have for years been pork barrels for whatever party occupied the Governor’s Mansion.
Clearly the two major contenders from the beginning have been Cuomo and Green, each with ego enough for three, and perhaps, more baggage than they need. One could make an equally cogent argument for one over the other, Green having been the New York City Public Advocate, and probably having spent the last twenty-five years dealing with and litigating the kinds of issues the State Attorney General is likely to come up against.
Cuomo, on the other hand, has greater name recognition, and extensive experience not merely dealing with issues, likewise related to the concerns of a state attorney general, but also possessing management experience, having served as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development with hundreds of lawyers and support staff at his command. He also has the endorsement, and public support of many more prominent Democratic leaders and office holders, an important asset in the general election.
When Cuomo appeared several days ago in Westchester, for a press conference at Planned Parenthood in White Plains, numerous elected Democrats came out to speak in support of him, including Congresswoman, Nita Lowey, County Executive Andrew Spano, County Legislator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Yonkers City Council President Chuck Lesnick, and County Legislator Tom Abinanti,. The kind of support that brings influential
leaders and government officials to a candidate’s side, on a moments notice, will be particularly significant in the
upcoming general election should he be the Democratic candidate, because the Republican vying for the Attorney
Generals Office, Jeanine Pirro has been known to win elections with heavy reliance upon media imagery and
cross-over voting.
There is no doubt that either Mark Green or Andrew Cuomo is capable of becoming a competent and effective
People’s Lawyer. However, it is absolutely essential for the health and well-being of New York State, that Jeanine Pirro not become the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. As those of us with knowledge of her activities as
Westchester’s District Attorney, are only too well aware, Mrs. Pirro brings both personal and public criminal conduct to the table. Only recently have Federal and State Appellate Courts begun to expose her extreme prosecutorial misconduct over twelve years, that sent many innocent individuals to prison with altered evidence and perjured testimony, while at the same time covering up her own, her husband’s, and their political allies’ blatant criminal activities. In short, whoever emerges from the Democratic Primary as the party’s candidate for New York Attorney General must be given the full support of the losing primary candidates, as well as their supporters. Egos and personal ambitions must be laid aside for the good of the People of New York. Charlie King has the right idea.
Charlie King Has The Right Idea
Several days ago Charlie King, one of four candidates running in the Democratic Primary for State Attorney General made the right move. Realizing that he was trailing the leaders Andrew Cuomo and Mark Green by an
insurmountable percentage he withdrew from the race and threw his support behind Cuomo. In doing so he called upon all Democrats, and Mark Green, in particular, to rally behind whomever emerges as the Democratic candidate as the result of the primary. Sean Patrick Maloney, a youthful lawyer with considerable state and federal governmental experience remains in the race, of late acting as more of a referee between Cuomo and Green at debates and other public forums. Maloney, would appear to have a bright political future, and has articulated many of the issues plaguing New York State, including the mantle of hundreds of public authorities that have for years been pork barrels for whatever party occupied the Governor’s Mansion.
Clearly the two major contenders from the beginning have been Cuomo and Green, each with ego enough for three, and perhaps, more baggage than they need. One could make an equally cogent argument for one over the other, Green having been the New York City Public Advocate, and probably having spent the last twenty-five years dealing with and litigating the kinds of issues the State Attorney General is likely to come up against.
Cuomo, on the other hand, has greater name recognition, and extensive experience not merely dealing with issues, likewise related to the concerns of a state attorney general, but also possessing management experience, having served as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development with hundreds of lawyers and support staff at his command. He also has the endorsement, and public support of many more prominent Democratic leaders and office holders, an important asset in the general election.
When Cuomo appeared several days ago in Westchester, for a press conference at Planned Parenthood in White Plains, numerous elected Democrats came out to speak in support of him, including Congresswoman, Nita Lowey, County Executive Andrew Spano, County Legislator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Yonkers City Council President Chuck Lesnick, and County Legislator Tom Abinanti,. The kind of support that brings influential
leaders and government officials to a candidate’s side, on a moments notice, will be particularly significant in the
upcoming general election should he be the Democratic candidate, because the Republican vying for the Attorney
Generals Office, Jeanine Pirro has been known to win elections with heavy reliance upon media imagery and
cross-over voting.
There is no doubt that either Mark Green or Andrew Cuomo is capable of becoming a competent and effective
People’s Lawyer. However, it is absolutely essential for the health and well-being of New York State, that Jeanine Pirro not become the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. As those of us with knowledge of her activities as
Westchester’s District Attorney, are only too well aware, Mrs. Pirro brings both personal and public criminal conduct to the table. Only recently have Federal and State Appellate Courts begun to expose her extreme prosecutorial misconduct over twelve years, that sent many innocent individuals to prison with altered evidence and perjured testimony, while at the same time covering up her own, her husband’s, and their political allies’ blatant criminal activities. In short, whoever emerges from the Democratic Primary as the party’s candidate for New York Attorney General must be given the full support of the losing primary candidates, as well as their supporters. Egos and personal ambitions must be laid aside for the good of the People of New York. Charlie King has the right idea.
Shelley Mayer Speaks Out
Shelley Mayer, Democratic and Working Families Party Candidate for New York State Assembly in the 93rd AD (Yonkers), issued the following statement, in support of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity and Alliance for Quality Education’s press conference calling for state legislation to ensure predictable and adequate funding of Yonkers Public Schools.
Mayer said, “I believe it is an elected official’s primary responsibility to provide the children of our communities with a sound basic education, at a minimum. The state has failed to provide the Yonkers schools with the stable and predictable flow of funds necessary to guarantee that our children receive a decent education. That’s the number one reason why I am seeking election to the State Assembly – to deliver for the families and students of Yonkers. For the eleven plus years that Mike Spano served in the State Assembly, the families of Yonkers faced constant threats of layoffs of teachers and staff, cutbacks in critical programs like art and music, and schools that were literally falling apart. Today’s closing of Yonkers Middle/High School is an indication of the urgent need for capital funding for our schools. When elected, I will fight for a fair and predictable funding stream for Yonkers schools in the State Assembly. Yonkers families don’t deserve the uncertainty that comes with knowing budget cuts may be just around the corner.”
Shelley Mayer, Democratic and Working Families Party Candidate for New York State Assembly in the 93rd AD (Yonkers), issued the following statement, in support of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity and Alliance for Quality Education’s press conference calling for state legislation to ensure predictable and adequate funding of Yonkers Public Schools.
Mayer said, “I believe it is an elected official’s primary responsibility to provide the children of our communities with a sound basic education, at a minimum. The state has failed to provide the Yonkers schools with the stable and predictable flow of funds necessary to guarantee that our children receive a decent education. That’s the number one reason why I am seeking election to the State Assembly – to deliver for the families and students of Yonkers. For the eleven plus years that Mike Spano served in the State Assembly, the families of Yonkers faced constant threats of layoffs of teachers and staff, cutbacks in critical programs like art and music, and schools that were literally falling apart. Today’s closing of Yonkers Middle/High School is an indication of the urgent need for capital funding for our schools. When elected, I will fight for a fair and predictable funding stream for Yonkers schools in the State Assembly. Yonkers families don’t deserve the uncertainty that comes with knowing budget cuts may be just around the corner.”
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Five Years Ago...
If it was the intention of Saudi jackal Osama Bin Laden, and his band of Kool-Aid-imbibing gutter-snipes, to indelibly stain the fabric of our Nation’s history with the heelprint of radical Islamic violence on September 11, 2001, they surely succeeded. The series of incidents, involving four hijacked commercial airliners, instantly took the lives of more than three thousand innocent people, many from Westchester, at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, more lives than were lost at Pearl Harbor.
Those of us in New York, perhaps continue to experience the most profound sense of loss and despair. Yes, despair that 1,725 days after that Black Day there is still a huge cavity where the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center once stood for twenty-five years. That hole in the ground bears testament to a lack of leadership in federal, state, and city government unprecedented in recent American history. And, shame on all of us that we would tolerate, indeed, re-elect the likes of George Bush,
George Pataki, and Michael Bloomberg, not one of whom have shown the kind of courage, or moral fiber, that inspired this nation to greatness through our darkest moments. George Bush’s misguided priorities following 9/11 have not only cost as many American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq as were lost on that mournful day, but have sapped our economic strength as we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into countries that view us as “ unwelcome occupiers”, while showing little promise of ever being able to secure any democratic form of government, or peace amongst continually warring religious factions. Five years later what do the people of this nationhave to show for having followed Mr. Bush into his, and Dick Cheney’s, war? How many Americans, after all, hold stock in the Halliburton Corporation?
George Pataki, and Michael Bloomberg, not one of whom have shown the kind of courage, or moral fiber, that inspired this nation to greatness through our darkest moments. George Bush’s misguided priorities following 9/11 have not only cost as many American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq as were lost on that mournful day, but have sapped our economic strength as we pour hundreds of billions of dollars into countries that view us as “ unwelcome occupiers”, while showing little promise of ever being able to secure any democratic form of government, or peace amongst continually warring religious factions. Five years later what do the people of this nationhave to show for having followed Mr. Bush into his, and Dick Cheney’s, war? How many Americans, after all, hold stock in the Halliburton Corporation?
While we have continued to tolerate a huge crater, where the Towers once proudly stood, thousands of young American men and women have come home in body-bags, quietly without too much fuss. And, tens of thousandsmore have filled our under-funded VA hospitals, trying desperately to reclaim their lives minus arms, legs, and any sense that a grateful nation really values their contribution any more than it valued their father’s, or their grandfather’s, in Vietnam.
As with the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, few of us will ever forget where we were on 9/11 when those planes did the unimaginable. However personal our loss, however traumatized we remain, we must, on this fifth anniversary of our national tragedy, stop, and take stock of where we have been ever since. Clearly, we have not shown the national resolve, nor the compassion we, as Americans, have been admired for throughout history.
Instead, we have permitted greedy and misguided politicians to manipulate and control us in the name of “The Terrorist Threat.” In this regard our enormous economic sacrifices are surpassed only by the sacrifice of our Constitutionally- guaranteed freedoms. We will not win the war against an oppressive, tyrannical, and violent enemy by becoming more like him.
We must not permit our way of life, the very institutions and practices that have defined us as a nation of free peoplefor two hundred and thirty years, to become derailed by the so-called War On Terrorism. We must not allow ourselves to become fragmented as a nation, North versus South, East Coast versus West Coast. Remarks such as the mayor of New Orleans regrettably made about the World Trade Center site are symptomatic of the regional division and desperate scrambling for scarce resources the Bush Administration has caused by its ill-conceived agenda.
We must, once again, see ourselves as Americans, first and foremost. What happened on September 11th, five years ago, happened to us all, as did what happened in New Orleans a year ago. It’s time we rethink about what happened on that day we can never forget, and what has happened to our country in the five years since. Most importantly, we must decide if where we have been going is really where we want to be.
Senator Nick Spano Expands Public Hearing Scope on Liquor Laws, Regulations & Bars
Spano Chaired Investigations Committee to Take Testimony on Five Additional Areas of Interest and Concern
Public Hearing Scheduled for September 7, 2006
Senator Nick Spano (Westchester), Chair of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations, announced on August 28 that he has expanded the scope of testimony that will be heard at the September 7, 2006, Public Hearing.
In addition to probing New York’s liquor laws and regulations and the State Liquor Authority’s role, efforts and effectiveness in enforcement, testimony will also be taken on the use of optical scanning devices to check identifi-cation at ‘cabarets’, the use of New York State Lottery terminals as an ID-checking mechanism, mandating training for all holders of ‘on-premise’ licenses, training and licensing of servers, and training and licensing of
all ‘bouncers’.
Senator Nick Spano said, “After seeing firrsthand the condition of some Chelsea area club patrons at closing time, I am more determined than ever that New York has no time to lose in putting the brakes on liquor law violations that are evidently going on inside these clubs. However, before passing laws that may seem appropriate on their face but, for some reason, may not be feasible or workable, I have expanded the scope of testimony that will be accepted at the Committee’s September 7 Public Hearing.”
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Blasts Nick Spano For Misleading Attack Ad
Negative Ad Reveals Spano’s Confusion About Geography Of His District
Yonkers, NY – On Monday, August 28, Democratic State Senate candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins blasted Republican State Senator Nick Spano for reaching a “new low in dirty campaigning” by unleashing a new, misleading attack ad. The ad attempts to link Democratic Stewart-Cousins to pedophiles and sex offenders in “our backyard”, while showing pictures of children and suburban neighborhoods. The ad tries to justify the linkage by attacking her for failing to oppose the placement of a homeless shelter in Senator Spano’s district.
Stewart-Cousins, however, does not represent the district into which the shelter was moved and the Westchester County Legislature, where Stewart-Cousins serves, had no role in the decision to relocate the shelter.
“Republican Nick Spano is following the classic Karl Rove strategy of making misleading charges against his opponent to attempt to distract voters from his record of failure in Albany,” said Stewart-Cousins. “Apparently,
after 20 years in office, Sen. Spano still does not understand where his district is. His ad criticizes me for failing to oppose the placement of a shelter in his own district. I do not represent that district – he does. When I came within 18 votes of defeating him in 2004, he said that it was a ‘wake up call.” Well, he’s apparently hit the snooze button.”
Republican Sen. Spano’s ad refers to the movement of the Grasslands homeless shelter from the county airport to the town of Valhalla. Sen. Spano represents Valhalla. Stewart-Cousins does not.
Spano Chaired Investigations Committee to Take Testimony on Five Additional Areas of Interest and Concern
Public Hearing Scheduled for September 7, 2006
Senator Nick Spano (Westchester), Chair of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations, announced on August 28 that he has expanded the scope of testimony that will be heard at the September 7, 2006, Public Hearing.
In addition to probing New York’s liquor laws and regulations and the State Liquor Authority’s role, efforts and effectiveness in enforcement, testimony will also be taken on the use of optical scanning devices to check identifi-cation at ‘cabarets’, the use of New York State Lottery terminals as an ID-checking mechanism, mandating training for all holders of ‘on-premise’ licenses, training and licensing of servers, and training and licensing of
all ‘bouncers’.
Senator Nick Spano said, “After seeing firrsthand the condition of some Chelsea area club patrons at closing time, I am more determined than ever that New York has no time to lose in putting the brakes on liquor law violations that are evidently going on inside these clubs. However, before passing laws that may seem appropriate on their face but, for some reason, may not be feasible or workable, I have expanded the scope of testimony that will be accepted at the Committee’s September 7 Public Hearing.”
Andrea Stewart-Cousins Blasts Nick Spano For Misleading Attack Ad
Negative Ad Reveals Spano’s Confusion About Geography Of His District
Yonkers, NY – On Monday, August 28, Democratic State Senate candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins blasted Republican State Senator Nick Spano for reaching a “new low in dirty campaigning” by unleashing a new, misleading attack ad. The ad attempts to link Democratic Stewart-Cousins to pedophiles and sex offenders in “our backyard”, while showing pictures of children and suburban neighborhoods. The ad tries to justify the linkage by attacking her for failing to oppose the placement of a homeless shelter in Senator Spano’s district.
Stewart-Cousins, however, does not represent the district into which the shelter was moved and the Westchester County Legislature, where Stewart-Cousins serves, had no role in the decision to relocate the shelter.
“Republican Nick Spano is following the classic Karl Rove strategy of making misleading charges against his opponent to attempt to distract voters from his record of failure in Albany,” said Stewart-Cousins. “Apparently,
after 20 years in office, Sen. Spano still does not understand where his district is. His ad criticizes me for failing to oppose the placement of a shelter in his own district. I do not represent that district – he does. When I came within 18 votes of defeating him in 2004, he said that it was a ‘wake up call.” Well, he’s apparently hit the snooze button.”
Republican Sen. Spano’s ad refers to the movement of the Grasslands homeless shelter from the county airport to the town of Valhalla. Sen. Spano represents Valhalla. Stewart-Cousins does not.
The Advocate Richard Blassberg
Rory J. Bellantoni, Judicial Rising Star
Judge Bellantoni Embodies All of the Qualities
We Should Seek in a State Supreme Court Justice
Given all of the negative exposure New York’s judiciary has had recently, with political clubhouse nominations, and payoffs to party ‘wheeler-dealers,’ not to mention judges accepting bribes, one wonders at times about the individual in black robes he may need to appear before. And, while it’s fair to say that the majority of judges in the state court system are decent, well-meant, individuals, who toil at administering justice, some are more inspired than others. Unfortunately, for many, appointments, and nominations to run for judgeships have come by way of political cronyism, and payoff. Lord knows, Westchester has seen its share of those.
That is why it is particularly refreshing, and encouraging when one comes across a judge the likes of Rory Bellantoni. Having sat in his courtroom on numerous occasions, as a reporter, I have seen, first hand, the dedication, and striving, to bring about just and constructive outcomes, this young jurist brings to every case. His belief in the American advocacy system of justice is clear, to even the casual observer, as he repeatedly goes out of his way to provide each side with the full benefit of the Law in the search for truth.
Bellantoni, 37, is truly precocious in terms of his judicial temperament. Some might say he’s had a good example in his dad, State Supreme Court Justice Orazio R. Bellantoni. Whatever the source, that temperament is well
placed with a man who intends a lifetime career, in public service, as a judge.
Judge Bellantoni might be considered a ‘Fordham Man,’ having graduated from Fordham University, Suuma Cum Laude, and Phi Beta Kappa, in 1991, and from Fordham Law, on the Dean’s List, in 1995. His experiences in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and as Senior Assistant District Attorney in Rockland County, as well as Law Clerk, and Court Attorney to the Hon. Sam Walker, helped groom him for his desired career.
Presently a Westchester County Court Judge, dealing with criminal matters, he is the Presiding Judge of the newly instituted Sex Offender Court, and an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, assigned to various
civil cases. Additionally, he has served in the Westchester County Family Court, conducting hearings into matters of support, custody, and paternity. In short, he has had a well-rounded judicial experience in preparation for State Supreme Court Justice, the position he now seeks.
Some have suggested that Rory Bellantoni has taken on a tough challenge running as a Republican in the up-coming election. However, he has run as the “underdog” in both a primary, and general election, before, and won both times.
His popularity seems to cross over traditional party lines, and he has received broad support and endorsement from many labor unions and police agencies throughout the Ninth Judicial District.
Finally, Judge Bellantoni has been taking his campaign directly to the People of Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Putnam Counties, as well as his home county of Westchester, that together, comprise the Ninth Judicial District.
Literally, going door-to-door, his wife Amy, expecting their second child, and his mother, frequently accompany him on his “grass roots” campaign. Most comfortable meeting, and speaking with, individuals and families, he is eager to discuss and understand their concerns and their expectations.
Rory J. Bellantoni, Judicial Rising Star
Judge Bellantoni Embodies All of the Qualities
We Should Seek in a State Supreme Court Justice
Given all of the negative exposure New York’s judiciary has had recently, with political clubhouse nominations, and payoffs to party ‘wheeler-dealers,’ not to mention judges accepting bribes, one wonders at times about the individual in black robes he may need to appear before. And, while it’s fair to say that the majority of judges in the state court system are decent, well-meant, individuals, who toil at administering justice, some are more inspired than others. Unfortunately, for many, appointments, and nominations to run for judgeships have come by way of political cronyism, and payoff. Lord knows, Westchester has seen its share of those.
That is why it is particularly refreshing, and encouraging when one comes across a judge the likes of Rory Bellantoni. Having sat in his courtroom on numerous occasions, as a reporter, I have seen, first hand, the dedication, and striving, to bring about just and constructive outcomes, this young jurist brings to every case. His belief in the American advocacy system of justice is clear, to even the casual observer, as he repeatedly goes out of his way to provide each side with the full benefit of the Law in the search for truth.
Bellantoni, 37, is truly precocious in terms of his judicial temperament. Some might say he’s had a good example in his dad, State Supreme Court Justice Orazio R. Bellantoni. Whatever the source, that temperament is well
placed with a man who intends a lifetime career, in public service, as a judge.
Judge Bellantoni might be considered a ‘Fordham Man,’ having graduated from Fordham University, Suuma Cum Laude, and Phi Beta Kappa, in 1991, and from Fordham Law, on the Dean’s List, in 1995. His experiences in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and as Senior Assistant District Attorney in Rockland County, as well as Law Clerk, and Court Attorney to the Hon. Sam Walker, helped groom him for his desired career.
Presently a Westchester County Court Judge, dealing with criminal matters, he is the Presiding Judge of the newly instituted Sex Offender Court, and an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, assigned to various
civil cases. Additionally, he has served in the Westchester County Family Court, conducting hearings into matters of support, custody, and paternity. In short, he has had a well-rounded judicial experience in preparation for State Supreme Court Justice, the position he now seeks.
Some have suggested that Rory Bellantoni has taken on a tough challenge running as a Republican in the up-coming election. However, he has run as the “underdog” in both a primary, and general election, before, and won both times.
His popularity seems to cross over traditional party lines, and he has received broad support and endorsement from many labor unions and police agencies throughout the Ninth Judicial District.
Finally, Judge Bellantoni has been taking his campaign directly to the People of Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Putnam Counties, as well as his home county of Westchester, that together, comprise the Ninth Judicial District.
Literally, going door-to-door, his wife Amy, expecting their second child, and his mother, frequently accompany him on his “grass roots” campaign. Most comfortable meeting, and speaking with, individuals and families, he is eager to discuss and understand their concerns and their expectations.
Our Readers Respond...
Dear Editor:
I spoke to Jing this evening. She is remarkable. She is working full time now and coping with the stress of not knowing how much longer this litigation can go on and on without her being able to see her son’s eyes, smile, hair, face…hold him…hear his voice. Jing was walking on the street the other day to get a coffee with me after she signed her affidavit for the recusal motion and a cute little boy, maybe six or seven, about the same age as Tristram sort of hopped and skipped happily by, holding hands with his mom…Jing’s whole body shook with the heartache of not being with her own son, of not knowing how he is, of not seeing him happy and safe. Jing is very worried about Tristram.
She does not think the Hilers and Kellys are loving and caring people – they surely have strange ways of thinking in opposing her reunion with her son, concealing and secreting him out of state, and she is worried because some reports said Tristram had nightmares and “sleep terrors” while in Gail Hiler’s home and that he was observed in California as being “subdued”. Is her son lost and afraid and simply coping as best he can with inexplicable situations and family moves? What are the Kellys doing out there in California with Jing’s son in their home?
What are they telling him about the fact that his mother has been fighting to gain his return? What is Tristram thinking now he is being seen by a psychologist who is to inquire about his feelings about regaining visitation with his mom…all these thoughts flood through Jing’s mind. Jing says it is hard to see little children her son’s age and not think of Tristram instantly. Jing loves Tristram and wants what’s best for him always.
She hopes that press coverage of her plight will lead the courts to move more quickly than in the past.
Robert Wayburn, Esq.
Dear Editor:
Having read your cover story on ex-DA Pirro, I, too, am a victim of her ‘sex-Nazi’ administration and the hatred/retaliation towards men in Westchester. I have not seen my two children in eight-plus years now. Although accused and never indicted, Family Court Justice Tolbert found, I still don’t know why and can’t afford the attempt to find out, some reason for electing my participation in the supervised program at the White Plains YWCA in order to see my children. I now understand Judge Tolbert, and others, have been removed.
Have you any knowledge or insight as to where I can learn more about exactly why our Family Court has been ‘cleaned out’ and by whom? After eight (8) different attorneys, retainer’s fees, transcripts, etc., I have known nothing but injustice and abuse in our matrimonial and family systems. I have recently lost my business/career of 14 years due to the abuse of my ex-wife’s sister’s attorney and her reckless $2.5M suit against my employer, simply to hassle and harass as for years leading to my being “laid-off”.
Name Withheld by Editor
Dear Editor:
I spoke to Jing this evening. She is remarkable. She is working full time now and coping with the stress of not knowing how much longer this litigation can go on and on without her being able to see her son’s eyes, smile, hair, face…hold him…hear his voice. Jing was walking on the street the other day to get a coffee with me after she signed her affidavit for the recusal motion and a cute little boy, maybe six or seven, about the same age as Tristram sort of hopped and skipped happily by, holding hands with his mom…Jing’s whole body shook with the heartache of not being with her own son, of not knowing how he is, of not seeing him happy and safe. Jing is very worried about Tristram.
She does not think the Hilers and Kellys are loving and caring people – they surely have strange ways of thinking in opposing her reunion with her son, concealing and secreting him out of state, and she is worried because some reports said Tristram had nightmares and “sleep terrors” while in Gail Hiler’s home and that he was observed in California as being “subdued”. Is her son lost and afraid and simply coping as best he can with inexplicable situations and family moves? What are the Kellys doing out there in California with Jing’s son in their home?
What are they telling him about the fact that his mother has been fighting to gain his return? What is Tristram thinking now he is being seen by a psychologist who is to inquire about his feelings about regaining visitation with his mom…all these thoughts flood through Jing’s mind. Jing says it is hard to see little children her son’s age and not think of Tristram instantly. Jing loves Tristram and wants what’s best for him always.
She hopes that press coverage of her plight will lead the courts to move more quickly than in the past.
Robert Wayburn, Esq.
Dear Editor:
Having read your cover story on ex-DA Pirro, I, too, am a victim of her ‘sex-Nazi’ administration and the hatred/retaliation towards men in Westchester. I have not seen my two children in eight-plus years now. Although accused and never indicted, Family Court Justice Tolbert found, I still don’t know why and can’t afford the attempt to find out, some reason for electing my participation in the supervised program at the White Plains YWCA in order to see my children. I now understand Judge Tolbert, and others, have been removed.
Have you any knowledge or insight as to where I can learn more about exactly why our Family Court has been ‘cleaned out’ and by whom? After eight (8) different attorneys, retainer’s fees, transcripts, etc., I have known nothing but injustice and abuse in our matrimonial and family systems. I have recently lost my business/career of 14 years due to the abuse of my ex-wife’s sister’s attorney and her reckless $2.5M suit against my employer, simply to hassle and harass as for years leading to my being “laid-off”.
Name Withheld by Editor
In Our Opinion.....
Three weeks ago the Guardian’s front page headline read, “Court Orders Judge To Reunite Jing Kelly And Son.” The court referred to was the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,
which had taken the rare action of issuing a Mandamus, literally commanding New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to immediately arrange for visitation between Jing Kelly and her now six-year-old son.
The four-member panel who issued the order, had all been involved in the original decision back on November
17th of last year, when immediate visitation was called for Judge Schechter however, six weeks later, on December 29th continued to do everything in her power to keep Jing and Tristram Kelly apart.
Not only did she not set in motion the process of regular visitation, as specifically instructed to, but she also made certain that the child, who has been kept for at least two years in virtual false imprisonment in California in the home of Douglas Kelly, would remain there indefinitely to be evaluated by a psychologist. In calling for “immediate Visitation,” back in November, the Appellate Court declared that their reversal of Schechter’s denial of visitation to the mother, and maternal grandparents, was presumed to be in the best interests of the child.
The simple fact remains that this loving mother and her infant son have not seen each other, nor been permitted contact of any kind, since Gail Hiler, without any parole custody, without any legal authorization, however assisted by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, kidnapped two-year-old Tristram from Jing Kelly. The monstrous injustice that Mrs. Pirro set in motion, and perpetuated by Gail Hiler, and members of her family, in total conspiracy and collusion with Judge Schechter, must be brought down immediately.
Apparently none of the participants in this cruel scheme, though law school graduates, believe in the Rule of Law. It is our latest understanding that Judge Schechter will not even hold a hearing in this most urgent case until late September, and that it will be many months before the commandment of the Appellate Court will be complied with, if ever. Her conduct in this case can only be viewed as the most reprehensible, contempt, not only for the Law, but also for the Human Rights of Jing and Tristram Kelly.
Therefore, we now call upon Judith Kay, Chief Judge of the State of New York to open an investigation into the suitability of New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to continue sitting in that Court.
Furthermore, we are calling upon State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to open an immediate investigation in the actions of former Westchester District Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, in the malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, for Custodial Interference, as well as the organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing Kelly’s infant son, Tristram.
Three weeks ago the Guardian’s front page headline read, “Court Orders Judge To Reunite Jing Kelly And Son.” The court referred to was the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,
which had taken the rare action of issuing a Mandamus, literally commanding New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to immediately arrange for visitation between Jing Kelly and her now six-year-old son.
The four-member panel who issued the order, had all been involved in the original decision back on November
17th of last year, when immediate visitation was called for Judge Schechter however, six weeks later, on December 29th continued to do everything in her power to keep Jing and Tristram Kelly apart.
Not only did she not set in motion the process of regular visitation, as specifically instructed to, but she also made certain that the child, who has been kept for at least two years in virtual false imprisonment in California in the home of Douglas Kelly, would remain there indefinitely to be evaluated by a psychologist. In calling for “immediate Visitation,” back in November, the Appellate Court declared that their reversal of Schechter’s denial of visitation to the mother, and maternal grandparents, was presumed to be in the best interests of the child.
The simple fact remains that this loving mother and her infant son have not seen each other, nor been permitted contact of any kind, since Gail Hiler, without any parole custody, without any legal authorization, however assisted by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, kidnapped two-year-old Tristram from Jing Kelly. The monstrous injustice that Mrs. Pirro set in motion, and perpetuated by Gail Hiler, and members of her family, in total conspiracy and collusion with Judge Schechter, must be brought down immediately.
Apparently none of the participants in this cruel scheme, though law school graduates, believe in the Rule of Law. It is our latest understanding that Judge Schechter will not even hold a hearing in this most urgent case until late September, and that it will be many months before the commandment of the Appellate Court will be complied with, if ever. Her conduct in this case can only be viewed as the most reprehensible, contempt, not only for the Law, but also for the Human Rights of Jing and Tristram Kelly.
Therefore, we now call upon Judith Kay, Chief Judge of the State of New York to open an investigation into the suitability of New York County Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter to continue sitting in that Court.
Furthermore, we are calling upon State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to open an immediate investigation in the actions of former Westchester District Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, in the malicious prosecution of Jing Kelly, for Custodial Interference, as well as the organizing and arranging of the kidnapping of Jing Kelly’s infant son, Tristram.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Judge DiBella Unseals Murder Indictment
Westchester County Court, White Plains
Judge Robert DiBella Presiding
Wednesday morning August 30th Abraham Ghaly, 17, appeared before County Court Judge Robert DiBella for the unsealing of an eleven-count indictment, charging him with Second Degree Murder, and Second Degree
Manslaughter amongst a host of other charges. Several members of the Defendant’s family were present in the courtroom, as Ghaly, who is represented by Attorney Andrew Sayegh, of Yonkers, was led in by court officers.
The Defendant was arrested upon returning from North Carolina on August 5th, and had been held in the County Jail since that date. The charges against Ghaly and four other youths stem from an incident last year, in Yonkers, in which it is alleged he and the others stomped a Mexican immigrant, named Vega, to death. The Defendant’s Attorney, in his opening remarks to the Court, attempted to suggest that his client was, in fact, innocent of the more serious counts of Indictment #06-0863.
Upon unsealing the indictment Judge DiBella stated, “The Court has unsealed Indictment 0863 of 06. I believe there are a dozen copies. I am handing down all but one of them.” He went on, “Mr. Sayegh, you’ve had an opportunity to read the indictment?”
Attorney Sayegh responded, “Yes your Honor. I waive a reading of it, and plead not guilty.” DiBella then informed counsel, “The conference date for all the codefendants is September 22nd.” The Judge asked if that date would be okay with Sayegh.
Sayegh responded that the date was not a problem, and then went on to begin making a case for reasonable bail. He told DiBella, “This is an elevencount indictment, but my client is charged with only five counts, and not the top count.” He went on, “There is no evidence of any type tying my client to the murder, no weapon, no DNA, nothing.”
Sayegh now attempted to separate the Defendant in the Court’s mind from the four co-defendants involved in the killing. He told the Judge, “On August seventh the DA filed a Certificate of Indictment. I learned that two, or more, of the defendants were arraigned by Your Honor. My client has been in custody since August fifth. That’s twenty-five days. He did drop out of Gorton High School, but he achieved a G.E.D. and has been accepted
into a two-year college. I would ask Your Honor to consider one hundred thousand dollars bail.”
At this point Assistant DA Paula Branca-Santos spoke up, declaring, “This particular Defendant took an active role in the stomping death of the victim, a person of Mexican descent, a Mr. Vega. It was this Defendant who, after the first round of attacks, when the victim was trying to get up, pulled him down. There is a statement by a non-codefendant that the Defendant did that.”
She went further to undermine Sayegh’s assertions, “In November of 2005 the Defendant’s own family filed a Missing Persons Report with the Yonkers Police. The People request a remand of the Defendant, or, if Your
Honor is inclined to set bail, five hundred thousand dollars bail.”
Judge DiBella, having heard the arguments from each attorney, now told Sayegh, “He is charged with Second Degree Murder under the second count of the indictment, an A-Felony. He has been charged by a grand jury.
To say he is not involved is to negate the actions of the grand jury. The police went to his house, and his parents were either unable, or unwilling, to tell the police where he was. In light of all of these facts I do not believe one
hundred thousand dollars is adequate.”
DiBella having arrived at his decision, now announced, “At this time I believe five hundred thousand dollars bond or three hundred thousand cash is more appropriate. And, Mr. Sayegh, if bail is posted he is not to leave the State of New York at any time without my permission.”
DiBella turned to the Defendant, “Mr. Gahly do you understand what has happened here?” The Defendant responded, “Yes sir.” Defense Attorney Sayegh after informing the Court that his client had a medical condition which required attention while in jail, and receiving assurances from DiBella that the matter would be attended to, then proceeded to further attempt to separate the Defendant from his co-defendants.
Sayegh stated, “I understand there are nine confessions from four codefendants. We will be making a motion to sever my client from the other four co-defendants, because of these confessions. I have asked Mr. Scholar, (an ADA involved in the case) for a copy of those confessions on two occasions.”
ADA Branca-Santos jumped in, “The question is whether Mr. Sayegh is entitled to a copy of those statements at this time? It is my position that he is not.” Judge DiBella then advised, “Mr. Sayegh, I suggest you make a formal
demand for those statements.”
By Richard Blassberg
Judge DiBella Unseals Murder Indictment
Westchester County Court, White Plains
Judge Robert DiBella Presiding
Wednesday morning August 30th Abraham Ghaly, 17, appeared before County Court Judge Robert DiBella for the unsealing of an eleven-count indictment, charging him with Second Degree Murder, and Second Degree
Manslaughter amongst a host of other charges. Several members of the Defendant’s family were present in the courtroom, as Ghaly, who is represented by Attorney Andrew Sayegh, of Yonkers, was led in by court officers.
The Defendant was arrested upon returning from North Carolina on August 5th, and had been held in the County Jail since that date. The charges against Ghaly and four other youths stem from an incident last year, in Yonkers, in which it is alleged he and the others stomped a Mexican immigrant, named Vega, to death. The Defendant’s Attorney, in his opening remarks to the Court, attempted to suggest that his client was, in fact, innocent of the more serious counts of Indictment #06-0863.
Upon unsealing the indictment Judge DiBella stated, “The Court has unsealed Indictment 0863 of 06. I believe there are a dozen copies. I am handing down all but one of them.” He went on, “Mr. Sayegh, you’ve had an opportunity to read the indictment?”
Attorney Sayegh responded, “Yes your Honor. I waive a reading of it, and plead not guilty.” DiBella then informed counsel, “The conference date for all the codefendants is September 22nd.” The Judge asked if that date would be okay with Sayegh.
Sayegh responded that the date was not a problem, and then went on to begin making a case for reasonable bail. He told DiBella, “This is an elevencount indictment, but my client is charged with only five counts, and not the top count.” He went on, “There is no evidence of any type tying my client to the murder, no weapon, no DNA, nothing.”
Sayegh now attempted to separate the Defendant in the Court’s mind from the four co-defendants involved in the killing. He told the Judge, “On August seventh the DA filed a Certificate of Indictment. I learned that two, or more, of the defendants were arraigned by Your Honor. My client has been in custody since August fifth. That’s twenty-five days. He did drop out of Gorton High School, but he achieved a G.E.D. and has been accepted
into a two-year college. I would ask Your Honor to consider one hundred thousand dollars bail.”
At this point Assistant DA Paula Branca-Santos spoke up, declaring, “This particular Defendant took an active role in the stomping death of the victim, a person of Mexican descent, a Mr. Vega. It was this Defendant who, after the first round of attacks, when the victim was trying to get up, pulled him down. There is a statement by a non-codefendant that the Defendant did that.”
She went further to undermine Sayegh’s assertions, “In November of 2005 the Defendant’s own family filed a Missing Persons Report with the Yonkers Police. The People request a remand of the Defendant, or, if Your
Honor is inclined to set bail, five hundred thousand dollars bail.”
Judge DiBella, having heard the arguments from each attorney, now told Sayegh, “He is charged with Second Degree Murder under the second count of the indictment, an A-Felony. He has been charged by a grand jury.
To say he is not involved is to negate the actions of the grand jury. The police went to his house, and his parents were either unable, or unwilling, to tell the police where he was. In light of all of these facts I do not believe one
hundred thousand dollars is adequate.”
DiBella having arrived at his decision, now announced, “At this time I believe five hundred thousand dollars bond or three hundred thousand cash is more appropriate. And, Mr. Sayegh, if bail is posted he is not to leave the State of New York at any time without my permission.”
DiBella turned to the Defendant, “Mr. Gahly do you understand what has happened here?” The Defendant responded, “Yes sir.” Defense Attorney Sayegh after informing the Court that his client had a medical condition which required attention while in jail, and receiving assurances from DiBella that the matter would be attended to, then proceeded to further attempt to separate the Defendant from his co-defendants.
Sayegh stated, “I understand there are nine confessions from four codefendants. We will be making a motion to sever my client from the other four co-defendants, because of these confessions. I have asked Mr. Scholar, (an ADA involved in the case) for a copy of those confessions on two occasions.”
ADA Branca-Santos jumped in, “The question is whether Mr. Sayegh is entitled to a copy of those statements at this time? It is my position that he is not.” Judge DiBella then advised, “Mr. Sayegh, I suggest you make a formal
demand for those statements.”
New Castle Silence Deafening
by Maureen Keating Tsuchiya
The defendants, Dennis Mahoney, a retired police officer and, John Vize, a New Castle Police Department lieutenant, who is currently responsible for staff services and special events, are charged with misrepresenting
that the retired officer worked as a police officer for a full twenty years when, in fact, he worked only nineteen years under section 63-c of the New York Executive Law, to recover pension benefits paid by the State to Mahoney since on or about August 2000 for a total of $181,629 or $2751.95 per month; and, salary and benefits paid to Vize by the Town of New Castle during the period of his breach of duty on or about August 1999, to on or about July 2000, approximately $100,00 in salary and benefits.
Defendant Lt. John Vize serves as the Police Department’s records offi-cer—which the complaint described as “a position of confidence and trust. Vize owes the Department, the Town, and the Town’s citizens a fiduciary
duty. His fiduciary duty includes, “a duty to perform his services in good faith, a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty, and a duty to disclose to the Department, and the Town, any information material to transactions in
which he engaged on behalf of the Department.”
According to state rules, “to earn a year of creditable service, an employee must perform paid service for no less than six hours a day and thirty hours a week.” Furthermore, the law provides for increased retirement benefits
for police officers who work for a police department that has elected to participate in, and contribute to, this retirement plan, and who retire, “after the completion of twenty years of total creditable services.” The Town
of New Castle elected to participate in this plan, which entitles police of-ficers to receive a pension, together with an annuity, sufficient to provide the officer with a retirement allowance equal to one-half his or final average
salary.
According to the complaint, Mahoney, who now resides in Carey, North Carolina, did not perform any work for the Department, but continued to receive regular paychecks from the Town of New Castle during the time in
question. Lt. Vize, of Mohegan Lake, as the Department’s records officer was responsible for, among other things, scheduling and recording police officers’ shifts, and maintaining the Department’s payroll records for the
Town. With Lt. Vize’s knowledge, cooperation, and approval, other police officers worked many of the shifts that had been assigned to Mahoney.
Yet when Mahoney filed for retirement in 2000, he represented that he had completed 20 years of service, causing the state to pay Mahoney full pension benefits six years earlier than it would have done. According to a source at New Castle Town Hall, no one has yet resigned, been disciplined, or placed on leave, at anytime, as a result of this matter, including, but not limited to, Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella, or Police Chief Robert Breen. The Town has reportedly adopted a code of ethics for all town employees since this pattern of behavior came to light.
There is a lot of tension within the 40-member New Castle Police Department, which has worked without a contract for more than 19 months. During that time officers have repeatedly conducted informational picketing in downtown Chappaqua and at Town Board meetings, to draw attention to what has been referred to as “the town’s refusal to negotiate in good faith.” Lt. Vize, a union trustee, has been quoted as stating, “This town is loaded. They know it, we know it.”
The Police Department was accredited in 2005 by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. Accredited agencies must implement about 130 standards and procedures that contain a clear statement of their professional obligations and objectives. What is not clear is whether the Police Department will retain this state accreditation as a result of this litigation. Currently, no member of the New Castle Town Board has publicly called for any disciplinary actions, or resignations of members of the Department and their chain of command as result of this litigation, and other serious, unsolved, felonies.
Why hasn’t the Town of New Castle looked to other organizations for models of procedures to follow during investigations and prosecutions of ethics violations. For example, most large corporations have compliance groups that govern behavior in the conduct of business. Staff under scrutiny are often placed on leave, paid or unpaid, when circumstances warrant such removal, while independent third-party investigations are conducted.
Reports should have been issued publicly, and promptly, in order to assure taxpaying citizens that laws were being enforced, fairly and evenly, and that appropriate actions were being taken. Why has Town government failed to ful-fill its obligation to the residents of New Castle? What other skeletons does the Town have in its
closet?
by Maureen Keating Tsuchiya
The defendants, Dennis Mahoney, a retired police officer and, John Vize, a New Castle Police Department lieutenant, who is currently responsible for staff services and special events, are charged with misrepresenting
that the retired officer worked as a police officer for a full twenty years when, in fact, he worked only nineteen years under section 63-c of the New York Executive Law, to recover pension benefits paid by the State to Mahoney since on or about August 2000 for a total of $181,629 or $2751.95 per month; and, salary and benefits paid to Vize by the Town of New Castle during the period of his breach of duty on or about August 1999, to on or about July 2000, approximately $100,00 in salary and benefits.
Defendant Lt. John Vize serves as the Police Department’s records offi-cer—which the complaint described as “a position of confidence and trust. Vize owes the Department, the Town, and the Town’s citizens a fiduciary
duty. His fiduciary duty includes, “a duty to perform his services in good faith, a duty of undivided and undiluted loyalty, and a duty to disclose to the Department, and the Town, any information material to transactions in
which he engaged on behalf of the Department.”
According to state rules, “to earn a year of creditable service, an employee must perform paid service for no less than six hours a day and thirty hours a week.” Furthermore, the law provides for increased retirement benefits
for police officers who work for a police department that has elected to participate in, and contribute to, this retirement plan, and who retire, “after the completion of twenty years of total creditable services.” The Town
of New Castle elected to participate in this plan, which entitles police of-ficers to receive a pension, together with an annuity, sufficient to provide the officer with a retirement allowance equal to one-half his or final average
salary.
According to the complaint, Mahoney, who now resides in Carey, North Carolina, did not perform any work for the Department, but continued to receive regular paychecks from the Town of New Castle during the time in
question. Lt. Vize, of Mohegan Lake, as the Department’s records officer was responsible for, among other things, scheduling and recording police officers’ shifts, and maintaining the Department’s payroll records for the
Town. With Lt. Vize’s knowledge, cooperation, and approval, other police officers worked many of the shifts that had been assigned to Mahoney.
Yet when Mahoney filed for retirement in 2000, he represented that he had completed 20 years of service, causing the state to pay Mahoney full pension benefits six years earlier than it would have done. According to a source at New Castle Town Hall, no one has yet resigned, been disciplined, or placed on leave, at anytime, as a result of this matter, including, but not limited to, Town Administrator Gennaro Faiella, or Police Chief Robert Breen. The Town has reportedly adopted a code of ethics for all town employees since this pattern of behavior came to light.
There is a lot of tension within the 40-member New Castle Police Department, which has worked without a contract for more than 19 months. During that time officers have repeatedly conducted informational picketing in downtown Chappaqua and at Town Board meetings, to draw attention to what has been referred to as “the town’s refusal to negotiate in good faith.” Lt. Vize, a union trustee, has been quoted as stating, “This town is loaded. They know it, we know it.”
The Police Department was accredited in 2005 by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. Accredited agencies must implement about 130 standards and procedures that contain a clear statement of their professional obligations and objectives. What is not clear is whether the Police Department will retain this state accreditation as a result of this litigation. Currently, no member of the New Castle Town Board has publicly called for any disciplinary actions, or resignations of members of the Department and their chain of command as result of this litigation, and other serious, unsolved, felonies.
Why hasn’t the Town of New Castle looked to other organizations for models of procedures to follow during investigations and prosecutions of ethics violations. For example, most large corporations have compliance groups that govern behavior in the conduct of business. Staff under scrutiny are often placed on leave, paid or unpaid, when circumstances warrant such removal, while independent third-party investigations are conducted.
Reports should have been issued publicly, and promptly, in order to assure taxpaying citizens that laws were being enforced, fairly and evenly, and that appropriate actions were being taken. Why has Town government failed to ful-fill its obligation to the residents of New Castle? What other skeletons does the Town have in its
closet?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Federal Appeals Court Exposes Pirro’s Misconduct
“In twelve years on this Court I have never seen such a Brady violation.”
Last Tuesday, August 22nd, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed up a decision in the Anthony DiSimone case. The appeal was by Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore’s Office, as Cross-Appellee, in opposition to an earlier decision by Federal District Court Judge Charles Brieant, granting a writ of habeas corpus, on a challenge to sufficiency of evidence, which produced a conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder. The decision, which reversed the lower Court’s ruling, for “procedural insufficiency,” more importantly exposed the prosecutorial misconduct, and outright unlawful activities engaged in by former DA Jeanine Pirro, and now justified, and defended, by Janet DiFiore, her successor.
Specifically, although the main thrust of the original petition filed by DiSimone, with the Federal District Court, dealt with the sufficiency of evidence presented in connection with his conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder in the death of Louis Balancio, the real significance of the decision is its detailed exposure of the calculated, and unlawful activities engaged in by a malicious prosecutor bent on convicting an innocent Defendant, for her own purposes, at any cost. The case arises from a street brawl in front of the former Strike Zone Bar, on Central Avenue in Yonkers, in 1994, between some thirty local toughs that resulted in the death of the 21-year-old college student who suffered a total of thirteen stab wounds.
Defendant DiSimone, who continued to live in plain sight in the City of Yonkers, with his wife and infant son, became the target of one of DA Pirro’s more imaginative propaganda efforts. She would falsely claim that he had run off to Sicily, and that he was being pro tected by the Cosa Nostra. She would twice try to indict him, failing each time, while succeeding in indicting Darin Mazzarella, a known criminal charged in other homicides and present at the Strike Zone incident. Finally, only after empanelling a so-called “special grand jury” and offering immunity from prosecution, and placement into a witness protection program to Mazzarella, and his equally violent, and criminal brother Nick, in return for testimony against DiSimone,, was Mrs. Pirro able to secure an indictment against him.
The 29-page decision, authored by Justice Calabresi, the presiding judge of the three judge panel, who listened to the oral arguments offered by John R Bartels, Jr., attorney for Anthony Di-Simone, and Valerie A. Livingston, for DA Janet DiFiore, on June 21, disposes of the Defendant’s principle contention within the first half of the text concluding, “Because we find that DiSimone’s insufficiency claim was procedurally defaulted, we need not, and do not consider its merits:”
DiSimone, who was acquitted at trial of intentional murder, by a jury of his peers, was arguing that his conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder was not supported by the evidence produced at that trial, in accordance with a line of recent New York State Court of Appeals decisions in Gonzalez, Payne, and Policano, and several other cases over the past 2 ½ years. However, Sufficiency of the Evidence, although the basis of Judge Brieant’s habeas corpus grant, was not the only claim brought by DiSimone. There was the Brady violation claim, dealing with the obligation of the Prosecution to present to Defendants any, and all, information turned up by the Prosecution, which may be exculpatory to the Defendant, as well as the Confrontational Clause, the right of an Accused to confront his accusers as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Of these, the Federal Appeals tribunal was most interested in, and offended by, the particulars of DiSimone’s Brady claim. The Court, in its decision, summarized DiSimone’s Brady claim, stating, “DiSimone argues that the state violated its Brady obligation by failing to disclose, until near the close of the government’s case, information that a person other than DiSimone had asserted that he had stabbed the victim twice just before DiSimone allegedly stabbed the victim.”
This reporter was present on June 21st of this year for the oral arguments at the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, when Presiding Judge Calabresi made his impassioned declaration, “In twelve years on this Court I have never seen such a Brady violation.” That declaration not only set the direction the Court would be pursuing that day but, in a broader sense, it represented a harbinger of things to come, as federal and state appellate tribunals become increasingly aware of the egregious and morally bankrupt practices engaged in by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office for twelve years under the Pirro regime.
In fact, on February 10, 1994, just six days following the Balancio murder, Yonkers Police Detective Robert Molinaro had interviewed a 21-year-old Yonkers resident, Luvic Gjonaj, who provided a signed statement indicating that on February 6, 1994, his cousin, Nickoun Djonovic, had told him that he had been at the Strike Zone bar on the Thursday night of the incident, and had gotten involved in the fight, and had stabbed two people, one of whom was Louis Balancio, who he admitted stabbing twice, once in the chest. Furthermore detectives had obtained a search warrant for Djonovic’s apartment, found, and seized a bloody jacket, corroborating his confession.
However, Mrs. Pirro was not interested in this evidence because it did not fit the scheme and the profile she needed to project. Pirro saw the tragic events at the Strike Zone as an opportunity to help her shed her well-earned reputation as a prosecutor who didn’t prosecute Organized Crime. Her husband Al’s connection to it helped reinforce that reputation. She was determined to make this brawl between young street fighters into a Mafia thing. And, so naturally a murderer, even a confessed murderer, named Nickoun Djonmovic, somehow just wouldn’t fill the bill, the way someone with an Italian sounding name would.
The Court observed, “DiSimone made three separate requests for Brady material.” First in pre-trial motions in January 2000, then one week before the start of the trial, in a letter dated September 25, 2000, and finally, on October 2, 2000, just before jury selection. At no point did Mrs. Pirro’s Office turn over the Gjonaj statement, instead, moving to suppress its admission, stating, “It is the People’s position there is no link in the chain of evidence that connects Nick Djonovic to the commission of this homicide.”
Mrs. Pirro, anxious to convict someone she had maliciously and dishonestly portrayed as a member of Organized Crime, would now engage in the worst kind of prosecutorial misconduct, including subornation of perjury, to achieve her ends. And, she was not alone in her evil conspiracy. Judge James Cowhey, who, not so coincidently, dated her mother, Ester Ferris, was involved in the conspiracy to convict an innocent defendant, right up to his eyeballs, as Judge Calabresi indicates, “The trial court did not turn the statement over to the Defense until eleven days after it had received it from the Prosecution, shortly before the close of thestate’s case.”
Cowhey then refused to grant a motion by DiSimone’s attorney seeking a continuance, and time to put together a strategy, based on the new information which had been withheld. He then proceeded to reject three motions for mistrial that were based on the glaring Brady violations.
The Appeals Court decision leaves little doubt that the materials unlawfully withheld from DiSimone, “tended to support a potential Defense theory that, whatever DiSimone’as involvement in the fight, he was not the cause of Balancio’s death.” Justice Calabresi states, “Whatever else it may be, it is not murder to shoot a dead body. Man dies but once.”
He then gets tough with Janet DiFiore, who now appears to relish defending and justifying Jeanine Pirro’s outrageously unlawful prosecutorial misconduct, declaring, “ The government’s contentions to the contrary are wholly without merit.” He goes on, “In the first place, if there were questions about the reliability of the exculpatory information, it was the prerogative of the Defendant and his counsel, and not of the Prosecution, to exercise judgment in determining whether the Defendant should make use of it.”
The Court concludes that the information was favorable to the Defendant, and material, and that its late disclosure significantly influenced the outcome of the trial. The Court further notes the existence of one very small spot of blood supposedly connecting the Defendant, on a sweater that, interestingly was never proven to have belonged to DiSimone. The Court reminds that, “No witness testified to seeing the stabbing, and the murder weapon was not recovered.”
What the Court may not have known was that the Prosecution’s so-called Blood Splatter Expert was hired two days before the trial, and was paid more than $30,000 to make his assessments from photographs. Neither could the Court be aware of Mrs. Pirro’s antics. Appearing several times in the trial courtroom with the victim’s mother, and on television and in the press with her as well, all calculated to improperly persuade the jury.
Judge Calabresi declares, “We hold that there is a reasonable probability that had this material (the statement implicating Djonovic) been available the result in the case would have been quite different.”
Those who have observed the patterns and practices over twelve years in the Westchester District Attorney’s Office under Jeanine Pirro are only too well aware of the repeated outrageous prosecutorial misconduct, and outright criminal activity engaged in to achieve her despicable self-promotional agenda, The Anthony DiSimone case is but one of a long list of serious injustices perpetrated by Jeanine Pirro and a small number of misguided and selfishly motivated prosecutors whose criminal and reprehensible actions are just now slowly coming to light.
There are numerous innocent individuals, who, like Mr. DiSimone have been incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. They and their families have paid, and continue to pay, for the mistake the People of Westchester made three times when they entrusted Jeanine Pirro to be their chief law enforcement officer. Over Time, as the courts recognize the magnitude and the frequency of Mrs. Pirro’s evil, criminal deeds, underthe color of law, the taxpayers of Westchester will be burdened with the cost of compensating her victims.
The Depraved Indifference Murder Statute has been a “boondoggle,” abused and manipulated by prosecutors throughout New York State for 39 years, with the full knowledge and complicity of the state’s highest court. Not until March 2004, with the Gonzalez Decision, out of Rochester, did the Court of Appeals begin to seriously, if not wholeheartedly, come to grips with the injustices worked by ruthless prosecutors throughits nebulous and confusing language.
Some prosecutors more than others, those whose agendas were most self-promotional, such as Jeanine Pirro, and Charles Hynes, abused the statute to the level of criminality, frequently offering juries, and unwary judges, a smorgasbord selection of murder theories, Intentional, or Depraved Mind, counting on the notion that “juries love to compromise.”
Those of us who attended the oral arguments in the DiSimone case, emerged from the courthouse not quite sure of what we had witnessed, given that the principle claim involved Depraved Indifference Murder, and yet, the three justices had continued to dwell on, and ask questions, almost exclusively, about Brady violations. Later that day we got a glimpse of what was on their minds, when the Court posted information on the Policano case, and took the most unusual step, calling upon the New York State Court of Appeals for “certification” regarding the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, and whether the rules of interpretation under which that court has been recently operating constitute “old, or new, law.”
In reality, the Federal Court was saying to the state’s highest court, “You’ve permitted this situation that unjustly, and unfairly advantages prosecutors to go on for nearly forty years. And, now, suddenly two years ago, you began dealing with it. Well, some of the residue is landing on our steps, so please give us some guidance to help us clean up your mess.”
The Candidates Respond...
Editor’s note: The following statements from Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Nicholas Spano, candidates for
State Senate in the 35th State Senatorial District, are in response to our editorial in the August 17, 2006
edition of The Westchester Guardian.
Statement by Democratic State Senate Candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins
I would welcome the United States Department of Justice providing monitors for the upcoming State
Senate election. In Yonkers in 2004, just as in Florida in 2000, the Republican Party worked very hard to make sure that thousands of votes from registered Democrats were not counted, yet somehow, 23 voting machines in Yonkers were all misread in favor of Republican Nick Spano. Justice Department oversight is a much-needed step in ensuring fair elections, but it will take far more to clean up the mess in Albany left by Republicans Pataki and Spano.
Statement by Republican Incumbent State Senator Nicholas Spano
I welcome the monitoring of this year’s election. If this had occurred in the last election we would have
prevented many irregularities and fraud, that was conducted on Election Day by my opponent’s campaign.\
There were 8,000 paper ballots, 5,000 of which were thrown out.
In Our Opinion...
Two weeks ago we called upon the United States Department of Justice to “provide monitors and U.S. Marshals for the upcoming election for State Senate in the 35th Senatorial District, to ensure a fair and totally honest outcome.” We had contacted Mr. Herbert Hadad spokesperson for the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York, expressing our concerns that the upcoming rematch between Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Nick Spano might produce the kind of monumental dispute that was witnessed two years ago following their first contest.
Believing that each of the candidates would not wish to go through that kind of ordeal again, and that whomever would win would certainly not want to be viewed as having achieved anything less than an honest victory, we approached Mr. Spano and Ms. Stewart-Cousins seeking their individual endorsements of our proposal. Their responses appear opposite.
Having received the endorsement of each candidate, we intensified our enlistment activities with the Justice Department, this time going directly to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division in Washington D.C., where we were informed that there certainly was a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of the election process, and that they would definitely respond to voters’ concerns.
This is not a partisan issue. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives alike must all recognize the importance of a secure, uncorrupted election process, not merely in the 35th District, but everywhere throughout the Westchester community.
We are calling, once again, for monitors and enforcement personnel to closely observe and regulate the activities near, and at, polling places, as pertains to the casting of ballots, recording and reporting of results, on both the first, and second canvass, as well as the handling of voters, and issues that may arise.
The Justice Department, having assured us that they will be “sensitive, and responsive” to citizens’ concerns, we now call upon our readers to take the time to communicate your feelings on this issue to:
The United States Department of Justice
John Tanner, Chief of the Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20530
Our Readers Respond...
Dear Editor:
Your article on New Rochelle expounds on Mayor Noam Bramson’s views of the city’s high rise buildings. His characterization of New Rochelle’s dramatic “transformation” does not address the many quality of life issues which have been detailed in the recent Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) and sharply contrasts to other views expressed which criticize these high rise buildings as out of place and architecturally undistinguished. (“Just How High Should Progress Go” by Joseph Berger, New York Times, August 6, 2006, and “Is Westchester Missing an Opportunity?” by Cheryl Winter Lewy, The Sound Report, August 18, 2006).
In the DEIS for the LeCount Square proposal, taxpayers are told that more police officers, firefighters and officers and another part time ambulance is needed. The DEIS for the proposed Church/Division garage also cites the need for more city service workers, but adds to this mix that the Department of Public Works would require an additional two workers, a motor equipment operator, and a vehicle. The Fire Commissioner stated a taller ladder is needed for “vertical response.” Noise levels in the areas of both projects are already at unacceptable levels according to HUD guidelines and city ordinances. Our sewage processing plant is
operating above its permit level and backups have occurred in cellars, especially during heavy rain storms.
To add to all this mix, in the August 20, 2006 Journal News (“Changes May Come to North Avenue” by Ken Valenti) it is stated that New Rochelle is seeking a consultant who will be given directions to “consider allowing taller buildings” to six stories for the North Avenue corridor (mentioning from the train station and Iona College). Why is the city seeking a consultant? Intersections with unsatisfactory traffic conditions have been described
in these recent DEIS’s and North Avenue has always been consid-ered a bottleneck. So how can a consultant honestly recommend more density on this avenue, and why is a consultant even asked this question?
Instead, don’t the taxpayers of New Rochelle deserve some historic preservation of the city and a return to “Common Sense?”
Peggy Godfrey
New Rochelle
Dear Editor:
You recommendations for a twin to the Tappan Zee Bridge is mistaken. More traffic lanes will encourage more cars, which will increase pollution and greenhouse gasses. More traffic lanes (including access roads for the bridges) will mean paving over more land, and too much of our natural and architectural heritage has already been lost to pavement. In addition, taking property for traffic lanes will decrease property tax revenues and add to housing problems. Furthermore, building a new bridge will be at least as expensive as the alternate you scorn.
Instead, we should seek to increase river-crossing capacity without bringing in new vehicles. A good solution would be a light rail on the existing bridge. Two light rail tracks (one for each direction) can fit into the space of a single traffic lane. The light rail could run from Rockland County to Port Chester, eventually, but at least it should cross the bridge. The light rail can be built during rehabilitation of the existing bridge.
And if rehabilitating the existing bridge means temporarily reducing its capacity less than the end product will have, there can be ferries across the river with shuttle buses instead of massive parking lots to bring people to them. Some of the ferries can keep operating even after the bridge’s lanes are put back in service.
Jeanette Wolfberg
Mount Kisco
Editor’s note: The following statements from Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Nicholas Spano, candidates for
State Senate in the 35th State Senatorial District, are in response to our editorial in the August 17, 2006
edition of The Westchester Guardian.
Statement by Democratic State Senate Candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins
I would welcome the United States Department of Justice providing monitors for the upcoming State
Senate election. In Yonkers in 2004, just as in Florida in 2000, the Republican Party worked very hard to make sure that thousands of votes from registered Democrats were not counted, yet somehow, 23 voting machines in Yonkers were all misread in favor of Republican Nick Spano. Justice Department oversight is a much-needed step in ensuring fair elections, but it will take far more to clean up the mess in Albany left by Republicans Pataki and Spano.
Statement by Republican Incumbent State Senator Nicholas Spano
I welcome the monitoring of this year’s election. If this had occurred in the last election we would have
prevented many irregularities and fraud, that was conducted on Election Day by my opponent’s campaign.\
There were 8,000 paper ballots, 5,000 of which were thrown out.
In Our Opinion...
Two weeks ago we called upon the United States Department of Justice to “provide monitors and U.S. Marshals for the upcoming election for State Senate in the 35th Senatorial District, to ensure a fair and totally honest outcome.” We had contacted Mr. Herbert Hadad spokesperson for the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York, expressing our concerns that the upcoming rematch between Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Nick Spano might produce the kind of monumental dispute that was witnessed two years ago following their first contest.
Believing that each of the candidates would not wish to go through that kind of ordeal again, and that whomever would win would certainly not want to be viewed as having achieved anything less than an honest victory, we approached Mr. Spano and Ms. Stewart-Cousins seeking their individual endorsements of our proposal. Their responses appear opposite.
Having received the endorsement of each candidate, we intensified our enlistment activities with the Justice Department, this time going directly to the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division in Washington D.C., where we were informed that there certainly was a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of the election process, and that they would definitely respond to voters’ concerns.
This is not a partisan issue. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives alike must all recognize the importance of a secure, uncorrupted election process, not merely in the 35th District, but everywhere throughout the Westchester community.
We are calling, once again, for monitors and enforcement personnel to closely observe and regulate the activities near, and at, polling places, as pertains to the casting of ballots, recording and reporting of results, on both the first, and second canvass, as well as the handling of voters, and issues that may arise.
The Justice Department, having assured us that they will be “sensitive, and responsive” to citizens’ concerns, we now call upon our readers to take the time to communicate your feelings on this issue to:
The United States Department of Justice
John Tanner, Chief of the Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20530
Our Readers Respond...
Dear Editor:
Your article on New Rochelle expounds on Mayor Noam Bramson’s views of the city’s high rise buildings. His characterization of New Rochelle’s dramatic “transformation” does not address the many quality of life issues which have been detailed in the recent Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) and sharply contrasts to other views expressed which criticize these high rise buildings as out of place and architecturally undistinguished. (“Just How High Should Progress Go” by Joseph Berger, New York Times, August 6, 2006, and “Is Westchester Missing an Opportunity?” by Cheryl Winter Lewy, The Sound Report, August 18, 2006).
In the DEIS for the LeCount Square proposal, taxpayers are told that more police officers, firefighters and officers and another part time ambulance is needed. The DEIS for the proposed Church/Division garage also cites the need for more city service workers, but adds to this mix that the Department of Public Works would require an additional two workers, a motor equipment operator, and a vehicle. The Fire Commissioner stated a taller ladder is needed for “vertical response.” Noise levels in the areas of both projects are already at unacceptable levels according to HUD guidelines and city ordinances. Our sewage processing plant is
operating above its permit level and backups have occurred in cellars, especially during heavy rain storms.
To add to all this mix, in the August 20, 2006 Journal News (“Changes May Come to North Avenue” by Ken Valenti) it is stated that New Rochelle is seeking a consultant who will be given directions to “consider allowing taller buildings” to six stories for the North Avenue corridor (mentioning from the train station and Iona College). Why is the city seeking a consultant? Intersections with unsatisfactory traffic conditions have been described
in these recent DEIS’s and North Avenue has always been consid-ered a bottleneck. So how can a consultant honestly recommend more density on this avenue, and why is a consultant even asked this question?
Instead, don’t the taxpayers of New Rochelle deserve some historic preservation of the city and a return to “Common Sense?”
Peggy Godfrey
New Rochelle
Dear Editor:
You recommendations for a twin to the Tappan Zee Bridge is mistaken. More traffic lanes will encourage more cars, which will increase pollution and greenhouse gasses. More traffic lanes (including access roads for the bridges) will mean paving over more land, and too much of our natural and architectural heritage has already been lost to pavement. In addition, taking property for traffic lanes will decrease property tax revenues and add to housing problems. Furthermore, building a new bridge will be at least as expensive as the alternate you scorn.
Instead, we should seek to increase river-crossing capacity without bringing in new vehicles. A good solution would be a light rail on the existing bridge. Two light rail tracks (one for each direction) can fit into the space of a single traffic lane. The light rail could run from Rockland County to Port Chester, eventually, but at least it should cross the bridge. The light rail can be built during rehabilitation of the existing bridge.
And if rehabilitating the existing bridge means temporarily reducing its capacity less than the end product will have, there can be ferries across the river with shuttle buses instead of massive parking lots to bring people to them. Some of the ferries can keep operating even after the bridge’s lanes are put back in service.
Jeanette Wolfberg
Mount Kisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
