Zehy Jereis: Like Cavallo, A Nick Spano Operative and Poster-boy For Political Corruption.

What more does one need to say about the utter stench of politics in Westchester, particularly in it’s largest municipality, Yonkers, than to state that the Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Committee is Zehy Jereis, convicted drug dealer, and election fraudster?

The shear unmitigated gall of this individual, born on November 22, 1971, the eighth anniversary of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, to think that he could continue to get away with the unlawful and underhanded activities he has engaged in for years, all the while feeding off the public breast. The pattern is a nauseatingly repetitious one, involving former State Senator Nicholas Spano, a politician who enjoys surrounding himself with slimy offensive criminals, Anthony Mangone, James Surdoval,and Jereis, to name a few.
His arrogance, and air of immunity from the legal consequences of his anti-social behavior and criminal conduct were encouraged by Big Nick, and reinforced by Jeanine Pirro, and a corrupt judiciary all too willing to follow suit. He walks about as though he is “someone special.” He must be. After all, he’s only 35 years old, and he is the Chairman of The Yonkers Republican Committee. And, that after selling drugs at 23, and forging election ballots at 25.

By age 26 Nicky saw that he was rewarded with a job in the Westchester Department of Mental Health, quickly moving on to become, not just any assistant, but a Senior Assistant to former Republican County Executive Andrew O’Rourke, the man who thought he deserved to be a federal judge but had to settle for the New York Court of Claims. Who knows, perhaps Jereis’ forgery of Conservative Party ballots, a few months earlier, earned him that coveted position in O’Rourke’s Administration? Anyway, he managed to cop a plea to a mere misdemeanor, getting off with a “pocket-change” fine.

Of course, with the coming of a Democratic Administration to the County Executive’s Office in 1998, and their need to make room for their own criminal hacks, Jereis moved in with Senator Nick’s daddy, County Clerk Leonard Spano. After doing all the behind-the-scenes mischief he could do while there, he was finally duly rewarded for his Election Fraud activities and hired in 2000 as the Republican Administrator for the Westchester County Board of Elections.

Naturally, after obtaining all that experience working hard for several different County agencies, in 2003 Big Nick “hired” him as his Executive Assistant, and made him Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Committee. What an American success story: Drug Dealer-Election Fraudster, Becomes Chairman of Republican Committee, truly an inspiration to us all. And, his meteoric rise to power, wasn’t a moment too soon as Nicky would certainly need him to help with the theft of the 35th District State Senatorial Election from Andrea Stewart-Cousins, something Anthony Mangone could never accomplish for Nicky by himself in 2004. Zehy still had his sister Susan Salem working at the Board of Elections. How does the expression go? “Blood is thicker than water.”

Never a dull moment in the world of a corrupt political operative, Jereis was accused the following year, 2005, by a federal gangster/informant in an Organized Crime investigation, with having taken $5,000 from him to gather information from Al Pirro about a possible investigation ongoing in his wife, DA Jeanine Pirro’s Office.
Most recently he was subpoenaed by the FBI for copies of Financial Disclosure Forms he was supposed to have filed with the City of Yonkers, as Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Committee. Jereis is denying any knowledge of the need to make such filings. Denials are something he’s quite used to. Sadly, all the years he was getting away with breaking the law, protected by his mentor Nick Spano, and Spano’s ally, corrupt former District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, nobody ever told him he might be answerable to a higher authority, the United States Attorney’s Office.

By Jeffrey Deskovic

Incarceration, Exoneration.

As a newly-turned seventeen-year old, I found myself in prison having been found guilty of rape and murder despite being totally innocent. The jury had found me guilty based on a false, forced confession, despite a DNA Test showing semen found in the victim did not come from me, and that hairs found on the victim’s body also did not match mine. I was determined not to waste my time in prison as I fought for justice in the court system.
After all, I thought that this injustice would be corrected shortly, never dreaming that it would take 16 years.

I obtained my GED and went on to take college courses, obtaining an A.S. in Liberal Arts, and completing another year of college before Governor Pataki cut off the funding. Nevertheless, I learned how to type, got certificates in general business, painting, computer operation and repair, and plumbing. I also learned how to tutor adults and worked in the GED and Adult Basic Education programs. I was a manager in the food service area. I read a lot of non-fiction books and other materials from the general library. I read on a wide variety of
subjects, including politics and presidential history, self-help, and relationship books.

On November 2, 2006, I was formally exonerated. The Judge and the prosecutor both acknowledged that I had been innocent. Then they apologized to me. Soon thereafter I discovered the hard way that when a prisoner has been released from prison having been cleared, they are given no follow-up support in terms of housing, funds for cost-of-living expenses, mental health services, or education from the state. I was released from prison with nothing, just the clothes that I had on my back, a suit that The Innocence Project had purchased for me. I was released to start over, having been thrown into the financial ocean to sink or swim as I simultaneously wrestled with the psychological baggage of my ordeal, needing to get used to living in what appeared to be like a strange planet where I didn’t belong, with technology unfamiliar to me. I was frequently being overwhelmed by the sheer newness of both having choices and the availability of technology that I had never used before and, in some cases, never even seen.

As residuals of what I went through, being in situations that are not orderly or that involve things I do not fully understand tend to disorient or alarm me very easily. I get a feeling that somehow things will fall by the wayside or go wrong, as often happened in prison when I had to rely on the guards and other civilian employees who simply didn’t care nor treat me as a human being. For the most part, I have had to deal with these elements on
my own, since most of my family live far from me, upstate, where there is no opportunity for me to rebuild my life, unlike some exonerees who are fortunate to have family, spouses, and friends with whom they may resume their lives and receive help on a day-to-day basis.

When I was in prison, one of the things that used to frustrate me occurred when some individuals were cleared who, upon leaving prison, would forget about those whom they had left behind. I don’t mean in a literal sense, as in those whom they knew in prison, but in a figurative sense, as in those who remain incarcerated who are also innocent. As I saw it, they would get the initial blast of media attention, then would fade into obscurity, never
to be heard from again. I felt the thing to do would have been to utilize that initial coverage in order to draw attention to the fact that there were other innocent people in prison, and to advocate for changes in the system. I saw advocating for change as a moral obligation.

Having witnessed that, when I suddenly found myself freed, I enlisted myself. I told myself, “You used to criticize others, now it is your turn. Show them how it is done.” It has therefore become my mission in life, my way to try to take a negative and turn it into a positive, to not only call attention to the problem, but to try my hardest to prevent it from happening to others.

In an effort to achieve those ends, I give presentations at universities, colleges, high schools, churches, and wherever people will listen to me, with the idea of public education as the first step towards legislative changes. I write articles on not just what happened to me but upon the larger picture of how the system really is, and what needs to be done in order to reduce the risk of wrongful incarceration. I also give interviews as a further means of shining the light.

I have been to Albany to lobby some State Senators and Assembly members to both change and pass laws. And, I have plans to continue to do so until laws are changed and passed. I have begun assembling board members in order to form The Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation, which will be a not-for-profit organization
whose threefold purpose is public education/legislative changes, and exoneration of those wrongfully incarcerated.

The organization will also seek to provide assistance with re-integration into the community at large once people are cleared, and I continue to look for those who might be willing to provide the initial start-up costs.

Lastly, I have spoken out on behalf of Frank Sterling at both of my press conferences, when I was initially released and again when I was formally exonerated, as well as a few time after that. Frank is a man from Rochester, New York, whom I have known since 1994 who was wrongfully incarcerated based on a false confession produced by long hours of interrogation while subjected to hypnosis. Am I the only one who thinks this is bizarre? He remains in prison even though someone else admitted to the crime. Fortunately he is currently
represented by The Innocence Project.

Housing: I have not had stability with respect to housing. In the five months since emerging from prison I have bounced around from one place to another. Let me recount my odyssey: I first stayed for three days in Nanuet at my Aunt and Uncle’s house. However, they had to leave to attend to their house in upstate New York.

I then stayed for a couple of days with my mother, who lives in that same rural, underdeveloped town upstate, a town so rural that one had to travel for an hour and a half just to take a train. With few stores or places of business, the economy was quite different. Granted, goods were somewhat cheaper, but for the most part jobs are minimum wage. I quickly realized it was not a place where I could rebuild my life. I spent several days feeling frustrated and bored.

Then, I got a phone call from the mother of an old childhood friend, inviting me to spend a couple of days with her. I seized the opportunity to jump on the train and get out of where I was. I had hoped to visit with as many people as I could, looking for some way to stay in a more active area.

One thing led to another, and a a couple days visit stretched into two weeks. My friend’s mother helped me get
on public assistance. Despite having gone through the ordeal that I had, I discovered that I would be able to get only standard assistance, That was sixty eight dollars and fifty cents in cash every two weeks plus one hundred and fifty dollars in food stamps per month which meant I would somehow have to eat for less than forty dollars a week. I was informed that they would also provide $271 a month rent money which they would send directly to
my landlord.

The last seemed kind of comical to me since as even I knew that I couldn’t obtain even one room for that amount. Yet, after utilizing her connections and asking around, by talking to a friend, there suddenly appeared the opportunity for a place where they were willing to accept that amount. As luck would have it, that apartment was in Ossining, where I had never lived, and worst of all, faced Sing-Sing, the prison that I was last at, and one
could not help but see the prison wall, security towers, and all.

Of course, I was not happy with the location, but I had to take the place. It needed some repairs which were being made and needed a couple of days to complete. It was therefore agreed that I would stay a couple of
extra days with my friend’s mom, and then go out to Indiana see Martin, a childhood friend whom I had lost touch with but who had reached out to me upon learning of my release. He was so eager to see me that he
had volunteered to pay for my trip, knowing that I could not afford the ticket.

When it came time for me to move to Ossining, however, the room still was not ready, leaving me with a two-day gap. I spent the next two days frantically calling all of the people who I had met since I had been out, all of whom in addition to expressing sympathy to me had told me “If ever you need anything, just give me a call.”

I soon discovered that it was all just a bunch of bluster, for now that I was in a desperate situation needing a place to stay for just two short days, there were all kinds of reasons why nobody could let me stay with them.
While trying to solve my problem, I decided to meet with a Muslim who had called The Innocence Project a few days before, informing them that he wanted me to call him, and that he wanted to be of assistance to me. I called him, and we agreed to meet at the Peekskill library. I arrived early and while waiting, I was approached by a
Muslim girl who appeared to be around college age. She had recognized me from the newspaper. After confirming that I was in fact the person who had been in the paper, she offered to help me put together a resume.

I thanked her, and told her that prior to doing that I had to find a place to stay that night. She said she would talk to her family and they would call around for me. We exchanged numbers and she then left. I then met the Muslim fellow that I had been waiting for, and he gave me some money. By then it was 3:30pm and I knew I had to leave by five or six. In my desperation, lacking any other ideas, I privately considered going to Nanuet to my Uncle’s house.

Even though I knew that he was not there, I knew there was a park bench on the little strip of land there that I could sleep on, and, as the day got later and later, it was looking more and more as though I would have to do that. Fortunately, Martin had contacted his brother who agreed to let me stay with him for the next two days.

I reached the girl I had met at the library and she put me in touch with the Hudson Valley Islamic Center, who advised me that I could stay, along with a couple of other Muslims, at an apartment they were renting in Mohegan Lake for as long as I liked, at no charge.

I felt it was very nice of them to do that for me, a stranger to them, that they did not know from a can of paint, and I was very grateful. I had a room of my own, and the rest of the areas within the house were common areas. e room initially had a bed and a carpet and, as time went on, I was able to get a couple pieces of furniture here and there, some of them donated.

I was living amongst other people who were also struggling to make it as well, and who were working long hours. They would come in really late at night, leaving early in the morning. So even though they lived there, I was by myself for most of the time.

Though I was very grateful for the shelter the Islamic Center had freely provided, unfortunately the structure
was in need of much repair. there were leaks and problems with electrical service. And, after a few months, it became urgent to once again find housing. It was beginning to look that I would have no choice but to go to a homeless shelter.

However, I had received a scholarship from Mercy College, and there was a press conference scheduled for the purpose of announcing that. While speaking with a college staff person in preparation for the event, I informed him that in light of my impending homelessness I would have to make the focus of the conference the fact that I was homeless so that if anyone was so inclined they could come forward and offer help. The man immediately went into action and was able to get me a room in the school dorm, which had suddenly become available when somebody canceled. The offer of living at the dorm was extended to me only for one semester. That semester,
incidentally, will conclude in about a month and, therefore, I am once again facing yet another housing crisis.

When people speak to me, those I know and total strangers who recognize me from the media coverage that I have gotten, usually the second thing that they say to me, right after offering their condolences/empathy, is, “You are suing, right?”

The implication is I’m all right financially. Many people do not realize that although I am suing, it generally takes between two to seven years to actually receive compensation, and that the State will not voluntarily offer anything. The issue of whether I am entitled to any financial compensation for what happened to me will be
contested, with the government taking the position that I am deserving of nothing.

And that while this protracted legal process plays out, I will receive nothing. In fact, even after I win, it is will still not be over, because the State will file appeals as many times as they can, thus tying up whatever money is awarded. Is there anyone who truly believes that any of that legal process is morally right?

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I want to say that there is no amount of money, no matter how much, which is worth having gone through what I endured. If someone came up to me today and said that “We are going to give you a billion dollars, but you have to serve sixteen years and go through everything that you went through”, my
unhesitating answer would be “no.” There is no price tag on freedom or on human suffering and deprivation of the type that I went through as a result of being in prison for something that I did not do.

Trying to make ends meet (in the short term): While I wait for the legal drama to play out, and hopefully receive
something, I still must make it from this point to that. A big problem is that although I have an Associates Degree, I am ten classes short of a Bachelors, and am scheduled to graduate by December/January. A lot of my education is informal, and we are a society that likes to see things documented, as in diplomas and degrees. I don’t understand what the difference is myself; either a person knows how to do the job and is competent, or
they are not. How they know something is, to me, irrelevant. Yet employers, for the most part, haven’t seen it that way. Additionally, there is a 16-year gap in which I did not work. I think that both of these factors have been critical in terms of the job offers I have received. They have involved making seven, eight, perhaps ten
dollars an hour, doing such things as insect extermination, and pouring coffee at Dunkin Donuts, not enough money for me to dig myself out of the financial hole I find myself in, especially after one considers travel expenses and taxes.

In addition, those are dead-end jobs. I want something that is meaningful and fulfilling. After 16 years, I have had enough of forcing myself to do things that I dread. I want to do something that is meaningful and fulfilling, and the money has to make sense.

I am starting my life over, and I am in need of many things. I am trying to do it on my own because my family is neither here nor in any position to help me financially. Rent is expensive, as is food and other necessary living expenses. I am 33 years old; too old to be making the type of money I’ve been offered by the hour. Looking ahead, I need to make enough money not only to support myself, but ultimately get married, have a family, and actually enjoy life.

For now, I need a job flexible enough so that when I get an opportunity to travel to give a presentation that I can do so and still have a job to come back to Giving lectures at colleges, universities, high schools, churches, wherever people are willing to listen to me, is essential to who I am and to the mission that life has unfolded for me. When I speak, I am not only educating the public as a first step towards legislative changes, it is also
therapeutic and cathartic for me. And while it is true that I receive an honorarium for most presentations, I am, however, at the beginning of my career, and it takes a while to build a following.

I used to dream in prison of doing things that I had never done before, jet and waterskiing, going to amusement parks I had seen on television, sporting events, visiting people and seeing various parts of the country that I had never seen before. I have been able to do very little of anything that is pleasurable, because I simply don’t have
the money. What money I do have, I have to hold on to for emergencies. Additionly, I am often busy because I am preoccupied with my financial and housing concerns, and, of course, my school work.

Even if I had the funds to do some of the things I would like to, I don’t have anyone to do them with, having spent the last sixteen years in prison. It is not easy for me to initiate relationships, reaching out to people as a result of my experience because in prison, to start talking to someone you don’t know was to open the door to a lot of potential problems. It is easier on me when others reach out. Once they do I am able to feel comfortable and determine their character.

Unfortunately that does not happen often. There have been some individuals who have been friendly, to be sure, and who, I believe, have my best interests at heart, that I like talking to, but they are not my age and usually
not into the same things that I am.

When I look at my current situation, everything about it is the result of what was done to me, in one way or another. I say that, not wishing to characterize myself in the mold of “the victim”, but merely making a truthful and precise observation.

The system wrongfully imprisoned me for 16 years, half of my life. at is the reason that I am not in the position in life where I should be at age 33, and why I am experiencing such a hard time now.

I should have had all of my education completed and should have had five to seven solid years in career work
and be well on my way towards financial freedom. at is also the reason why I am not already married, with a family, and why, even if I wanted to get married, assuming I have found the right person, I couldn’t afford to do so. Additionally, prison is the reason I lack a naturally developed network of associates and close friends who I might feel safe with, and who I might share common interests and activities with.

Finally, prison is the reason, even now, though I am out, that I am still not happy. For there are still obstacles, frustrations, in my way, that so far I’ve been either unable to overcome on my own or even with help. All that I have revealed above while personal to me, Jeffrey Deskovic, is by no means unique to me. In many ways I am better off than many exonerees who have emerged before me and will follow me. My purpose in sharing the circumstances of the past several months is to make clear in the most revealing and personal terms possible, the
very real need for society and for state legislatures, in particular, to take heed and make provisions in law which may bring about substantial justice and remedy to those who have been unjustly and unlawfully imprisoned.

I ask rhetorically, in light of all of the above, are innocent individuals, emerging from prison, really free?

A Mother’s Love
Jing Kelly Implores the Court, In Her Own Words

Editor’s Note: Jing and Tristram Kelly remain 3,000 miles apart, a loving mother and
her only child, victimized by the inhumanity and injustice of the New York State Unified
Court System for more than five years now. And, while the scenario for much of that injustice
has been playing out in New York County (Manhattan) Family Court, in the darkness of
Judge Sara P. Schechter’s ‘Chamber of Horrors’, nevertheless it has deep roots here in Westchester,
where former DA Jeanine Pirro kept Jing locked in jail and out of contact with her
infant son for more than a year prior to trial, having first arranged for his kidnapping by Gail
Hiler, sister of Jing’s deceased, abusive husband.


Attorney Robert Wayburn, working on behalf of Jing’s parents, Tristam’s maternal
grandparents, has been involved with the case since its inception. The Guardian has been
present at many of Jing’s court appearances and Mr. Wayburn has kept our readers frequently
updated. We present his most recent update, accompanied by Jing Kelly’s recently-submitted
Pro Se summation, in order that readers may better understand the horrific situation as
expressed in Jing Kelly’s own words.

It is now more than sixteen months since the November 17, 2005 initial appeal ruling reversing the unlawful March 20, 2003 Family Court award of permanent custody to Tristram’s paternal aunt, Gail Hiler. Still, to this very point in time Jing has been allowed nocontact with her son, Tristram, not by phone, or e-mail, or regular mail, or in person. This protracted delay in implementing visitation between mother and son in this case is due, in large measure, to the determination of the trial judge to delay visitation until the completion of the neglect dispositional hearing. The Appellate Division sixteen months ago, however,directed that a visitation inquiry be held immediately and that the new dispositional hearing be expedited. A delay of sixteen months in completing this hearing (no decision yet) is inconsistent with the mandate of the appellate ruling. Indeed, a mandamus as to visitation was issued by the Appellate Division on August 3, 2006 but to no effect.

After the passage of sixteen months, it appears family therapy will finally be ordered to start for Tristram. Although Jing Kelly sent her check in the sum of $350 to the therapist in California (and ACS was directed to pay $800 but it is not likely that payment has been processed)-- still nothing has happened here. The court order is not yet signed and has not been forwarded to the agency by the Law Guardian. It is anticipated that Tristram will have five therapy sessions in California and then Jing will join him out there for five more sessions.Jing is anxious to see her son. She wants these therapy sessions for Tristram to be started immediately. It is unusual that a respondent mother would be asked to travel to California to visit her son out there (in a neglect case) where, as in this case, no court approved the child being sent to California in the first instance.

Jing suggests an appropriate dispositional order would be a FCA Section 1055 placement of Tristram, under ACS supervision, through the Interstate Compact so California child protective agencies can be requested to cooperate, for a period of four to six months,maximum, while Tristram is prepared for his return to New York City to reside full time with his mother here.

ACS suggests a FCA Section 1055 placement also, but does not set a time limit in their summation (the maximum period is one year) and ACS suggests Jing Kelly be put under their supervision under FCA Section 1057 and ACS opposes visitaton for the maternal grandparents. As noted previously, ACS objected when the court directed them to pay $800 towards the therapy costs for Tristram. They did not discuss this in their summation but presumably they should pay towards Jing’s travel costs to and from California and for additional therapy costs during the placement period.

As noted in Jing’s summation, a good deal of the problems that have arisen here are due to the erroneous rulings of the Family Court trial judge and the improper actions of the paternal relatives in overstepping their bounds as Tristram’s caretaker. ACS and the Law Guardian share some of the blame here too for not arguing to the Family Court that the lawbe properly applied at all times in Jing’s case.

One would think that ACS, the Law Guardian and the Family Court judge would be moving mountains to reunite
this mother and child (given the reversal on two separate appeals of myriad improper, unlawful, and erroneous dispositional orders, and the passage of time where the paternal relatives were enabled to wrongly isolate this mother from herchild). But, neither ACS nor the Law Guardian nor the Family Court trial judge are inclined to recognize these factors and seem to be in no hurry to facilitate the reunification process.

One can only wonder if a third appeal will be necessary to get this matter moving in the right direction. The maternal grandparents dearly want to see Tristram but are willing to wait until Tristram meets Jing in family therapy, and that that situation is going well. Thereis no standing issue as to their visitation entitlement as the initial appeal ruling directed thatvisitation for them be considered by the court.

This was ordered to be done sixteen months ago. In the interim a mandamus was ordered in this same regard. Why is Tristram not yet seeing his mother and maternal grandparents,then? It is a sad commentary on the Family Court that little seems to get done right there.

Bob Wayburn

More Than 200 Celebrate Tim Idoni’s Birthday.

The County Clerk declared, “I love what I’m doing. The job has got to be less about
paper and more about people.”

Last Wednesday evening, more than 200 friends, fellow County officials and staff cameout to wish Westchester County Clerk Tim Idoni a very happy birthday at the VIP Club in New Rochelle.

They were greeted by live entertainment, a wonderful buffet, and Idoni, himself, who shook hands with and thanked each and every guest who entered the main ballroom.

In addition to the many Democratic Party faithful and officeholders, there were several members of the Executive Board of the Integrity Committee of the Westchester Independence Party, including Nader Sayegh.

Also in attendance were members of the Working Families Party, including Patrick Welch. New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson, Idoni’s successor, standing in for Reggie LaFayette, who had another commitment,
introduced County Executive Andrew Spano who, in turn, presented Tim Idoni.

Our Readers Respond...

Another Desperate Victim of Westchester’s Matrimonial Courts

Dear Editor:

I have been reading in The Westchester Guardian, with great interest, about the injustices in the courts of Westchester County, specifically the Matrimonial Part of Supreme Court. As the mother of a three-and-half-year-old child, and as one who has also been put through the mill, I want to share with your readers
the information that I passed along to the F.B.I., several months ago, thus far without result, as follows:

“A civil case began in June 2004. I was married to a firefighter who was defrauding the Yonkers system by telling them he lived in Yonkers when he actually lived in the Bronx with my son and I. He has political connections in Yonkers.

The bottom line is that before he began this civil case heThe bottom line is that before he began this civil case he planned it for two months in advance. He did an ex parte action in Westchester County Supreme Court with a Judge Donovan based on no actual facts, just strong allegations. I am surprised that the courts would allow such strong allegations to be processed without some sort of verification other than an ex-spouse’s word.

And, after I was surprised and served with papers, I went to court without a lawyer and was told by Judge Dillon that it didn’t matter, and that they would continue. Once again and again I asked continuously for a lawyer. I hired an attorney by the name of Charlie Wood.

When I met with Charlie Wood for Court on June 8, 2004 he was scared and warned me and informed me that my ex husband’s family had called a political consort to call him and threaten him that if "he tried to move my case to the Bronx he would have trouble in Yonkers politics.

Doug is a good old boy from Yonkers and don’t try to move the case to the Bronx’.’ Charlie Wood also advised my mother and I that he was positive that a call had been placed to the judge. The judge who signed the ex parte order was Judge Donovan and the Judge who continued the case when I asked over and over for an attorney was Judge Dillon.

Upon my own personal investigation I came to find out that Zehy Jeries is the GOP Chairman of Yonkers and that my ex-husband had indeed been calling Mr. Jeries a month before and that Jereis returned his calls before my big ex parte surprise.

During my custody battle my ex-husband used everything in his power with the Yonkers Police and Fire Dept. to run me into the ground. In fact, I tried to make a report against Yonkers Policemen who were inappropriate to me, chased me, then did not arrest me, but yet told my ex I was driving under the influence, but yet I was not arrested. I was thrown to the ground and kicked and shoved. I went to the hospital for an injury report.

Interestingly enough, my tape recorder, the one I used to tape exchanges between my ex and myself, was gone. They towed the car and I walked home. I went to Internal Investigations but the corruptness once again failed me. It was turned against me and they made it seem like it was my fault and that I was drunk. I still have yet to see the DUI even though I was pulled over and fined for a traffic infraction. During my civil trial my ex-husband had a Temporary Order of Protection against me and of course he used it to his benefit by once again using his family as leverage.

He was able to get this TOP from Westchester Courts by making false police reports about me in the Bronx. I would tell the Bronx squad that I didn’t do the things he said but somehow he convinced them. I guess since he is a firefighter he is a pretty slick guy. You can melt butter in his mouth. In one report I wasn’t even at the house and he made stuff up and made another report. He had me arrested four times for contempt in which he ended up dropping all in the end but not before I realized that the Chief Judge in Yonkers, Mr. Doran, is his Dad’s best friend.

So, he held onto this case for an entire year so my ex could have the leverage. Another incident was in November of 2004 when I supposedly broke my order. My ex did not make a report on that exact day but two days later. When the Sergeant of that precinct told him he would not do what he wished because it did not seem like an emergency, my ex had his Yonkers undercover detective brother, John "Sean" Donaghy and his brother-in-law Gary Whisker who is also employed by the Yonkers PD call and threaten him to make Sgt. Halpin at the 2nd Precinct in Yonkers write this false report.

I can go on and on but the fact is that now, once again, I am facing Family Court again and once again I am facing corruption for the fact that Family Court Judge Klein is also a friend of my ex husband’s dad. The bottom Line is that Zehy Jereis went to bat for Douglas Donaghy and my three-year-old son is suffering because of this corrupt political system. Because of Jereis I could never stand a chance of getting my son when there is nothing wrong with me as a mother. I plan to take this to Federal Court, if possible. All this being said I am dealing with a corrupt Yonkers government and a family who is associated with it. I am scared for my life. I live by myself and my entire family lives in Texas.

Every day I live in fear that something fateful will happen to me. My family lives in this fear as well as my friends. Doug Donaghy was a correction officer at Rikers Island and he mentioned to me that he had befriended an intmate and accommodated this said inmate for an exchange of favors and that there would be no limits once he was out. Doug Donaghy mentioned to me that this inmate "could take care of anyone if I ever had a problem with him or her." After Family Court on Aug. 4th, Doug had me arrested once again. This time he was using his current girlfriend to have a TOP against me alleging that I called and threatened her, which will be proven to be false.

I had two strange men pull up to my house and bang on my door and, I am guessing, call my cell phone. The first day was Sunday Aug. 13th, 2006 at about 6:10pm. After they banged on my door they called my cell phone. I did not answer and they waited outside my home for ten minutes before driving away. They called my cell phone again on Aug. 16th at 3:33pm. I had a friend answer to advise them that this wasn’t my phone.

I am assuming that they were at my house but I was not there. On Aug 17th at 10 am these two men once again were banging on my door but did not call my cell phone this time. If they were cops coming after me for another situation regarding my ex, I would think that they would identify themselves on a voicemail or something to that effect. Not knowing who is at my door or calling my cell phone has put me very on edge.

I cannot sleep at night and it is impairing my everyday living. The stress from his family’s political connections has altered my life and has taken away my son. I do not know when it may be my last day nor do I know who will be waiting for me when I leave my home or arrive. This man, Douglas Donaghy, has three guns that were registered to him when he was a CO at Rikers and at Yonkers City Jail. He claims he doesn’t have them but I know that his brother was holding on to them for a while. I urge this agency (FBI) to please help me in whatever way possible.

I cannot live my life fighting the corrupt court system in Yonkers nor my chances of having my son back so I know that he will not grow up in this system and end up like the rest of the Donaghys. I am Latina and Doug has made it a point to put my maiden name on reports even though I do not use that name nor is it on my New York driver’s license. It is clearly a racial issue as well as one of corruption.

Celinda Donaghy

Editor’s Note: Ordinarily we encourage readers to limit their responses to approximately 300 words. However, we decided to make an exception in the case of Ms. Donaghy’s letter because of the urgency and relevance of her circumstances, not too unlike numerous other situations reported in these pages

In Our Opinion

Mount Vernon Mayoral Primary Would Be A Good Thing

We would welcome a primary for the Democratic nomination for Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon. In reality, given the City’s overwhelmingly Democratic registration, a primary would be the only opportunity for the voters to register their approval of, or dissatisfaction with, incumbent Ernie Davis’, and his administration’s, performance.

After all, Mayor Davis has been in power for 12 long years, plenty of time to have done his best work. Why not let the voters voice their opinion at the polls? To be sure, We are not endorsing anyone at this time, nor advocating the overthrow of Mr. Davis’ administration though, truth be told, We do have a bone or two to pick with him. We simply feel that Clinton Young, a County Legislator, and, anyone else who may desire to run for Mayor, ought to be given the chance to challenge Mayor Davis in a primary. A primary would insure the fact that major concerns such as violent crime, school security lapses, decent affordable housing, blighted areas, property taxes, the deteriorating Public Library, to name just a few, will get a good airing out. Perhaps some new ideas might surface. There’s always room for improvement. And, there is nothing quite like a good debate to stimulate the marketplace of new ideas and solutions.

We are a little disappointed with Democratic Chairwoman Serapher Conn- Halevi’s resistance to Legislator Young’s desire to challenge the status-quo. Frankly, her comments seem rather ingenuous, particularly her statement to The Journal News, "It seems like we should all stay together." And, referring to Mayor Davis, "He’s done a great job. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it." To Serapher We say, if the majority of Mount Vernon residents agree with your assessment, Mayor Davis has nothing to fear from a primary challenge. However, if he does not enjoy such broad support, then conducting a primary will be tantamount to a public referendum, and that would certainly be a good thing. Surely, we wouldn’t want to be taking our taxpayers for granted now, would we?

As for County Democratic Chairman, and County Democratic Election Commissioner Reginald LaFayette’s remarks, The Guardian is not at all surprised by his comment that Clinton Young’s primary challenge would be an "unfortunate development." Mr. LaFayette, who is seeking a $28,000 pay raise as Election Commissioner, and whose service in that position is clearly in conflict with his Chairmanship of the County Democratic Committee, long ago surrendered whatever modicum of integrity he brought to public service when he sold his soul to Larry Schwartz for so many pieces of silver.

Notwithstanding all those, like LaFayette and others whose survival is directly dependent upon maintaining the status-quo, irrespective of the public good, We believe a Democratic Primary for Mayor of Mount Vernon would be a very good thing. And, We would encourage perhaps more than one challenger to come forward, and thus really open the window to fresh air and fresh ideas.

Article:

Hundreds of CSEA members, some with babies in strollers, showed up Thursday night, March 22nd, outside the County Office Building in White Plains to walk the picket line and holler out their dissatisfaction with the Office of the County Executive’s failure to negotiate a contract in nearly 15 months covering some 4,000 Westchester County employees. is, at a time, when the Office was proposing the addition of 100 new employees, 77 of which Republican Legislator George Oros had declared were unnecessary.

Union members’ shouts could be clearly heard by those in attendance at Andrew Spano’s 10th State of the County Address being delivered, several doors above the picketers, before County dignitaries and elected officials. The "public action" of Unit 9200 was the first to be staged during the current contract dispute.

According to Jessica Ladlee, spokesperson for CSEA Southern Region, " The sticking points in negotiations right now are wages and health insurance." Unit President Jack McPhillips and a staff negotiator have met numerous times with County officials; however, Ladlee declared, " The meetings have not been productive thus far, so the negotiations are now at an impasse. Proposals from the County, to date, have been unacceptable to the negotiating team and the membership."

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg


Only The Legislature, Not The Courts, May Enact Law
“To convict a man for an act the law does not make criminal inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.”
Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974)

Surely, the New York State legislature had little inkling what an enigma they were creating forty years ago when they installed the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute into the State Criminal Code. Undoubtedly, neither did they realize what a device, what an unfair, and unconstitutional ‘leg up’ that piece of legislation would be turned into over the next four decades by devious, and unscrupulous, prosecutors.

Nevertheless, a statute intended to criminalize a reckless act, one so reckless as to be performed by someone without regard for who, if anyone, or whether anyone, might possibly be killed as a result of that act,___a rare circumstance in the realm of homicide___ would become the crime for which increasingly large numbers of individuals would be prosecuted and convicted.

Most disturbingly, with regard to such prosecutions, prosecutors throughout the state, some more frequently than most, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally abused, and took advantage of the nebulousness and poorly-defined elements of the crime, more often than not, charging defendants with both Intentional Murder, and, in the alternative, Depraved Indifference Murder, sometimes referred to as Depraved Mind
Murder. It’s use as a ‘fall-back’ position by self-serving district attorneys, with little patience for individual’s Constitutional Rights, prosecutors such as Jeanine Pirro, became a scandal before the New York Court of Appeals finally agreed to look at the matter more pragmatically, if not more selflessly, in Gonzalez, in 2004.

Gonzalez, authored by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, a case from the City of Rochester, involved a defendant, who, having fired 8 rounds
into the head and back of his victim, most as that victim lay facedown on the floor of a barbershop, was nevertheless acquitted of Intentional
Murder, but convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder, each, incidentally, Murder in the Second Degree, punishable by up to 25-Years-to-Life in Prison. In Gonzalez, the state’s highest court finally decided to grapple with, what had become such a conspicuous problem. They had little choice. However, it was never their intention to deal with the statute in a comprehensive fashion, but rather to handle each problem that arose from its misapplication over nearly forty years, one appeal at a time, one issue at a time. In Gonzalez, the state’s High Court, in finding for the Defendant, made it clear that a killing in which numerous rounds were fired into the body of a victim at point-blank range, left little doubt that the shooter intended to kill his victim, and, therefore, could not be prosecuted, nor convicted under a theory of Depraved Indifference, as plainly there was no indifference as to the highly probable deadly result. Having already been found innocent of Intentional
Murder at trial, the Court of Appeals decision was Mr. Gonzalez’ ‘walking papers.’

Naturally, Gonzalez spawned a line of cases, already into the appeals process, perhaps the most significant of which, within a year, or so, was Payne. Unlike Gonzalez, the fact-pattern in the Payne case, which stemmed from a killing on Long Island, although involving a shooting, involved only one shot, that shot fired by an irate neighbor using a shotgun, again, at point-blank range, aimed at the victim’s abdomen had also produced a conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder, the trier of fact having rejected an alternate Intentional Murder charge.

In the decision, written by Justice Rosenblatt of the Court of Appeals, despite the fact that the killing involved the firing of just one
round, the nature of the weapon, a shotgun, and the injury certain to occur given the proximity and nature of the point of entry, left little likelihood that the victim would not die, thus negating any reasonable notion of indifference on the part of the shooter as to the deadly outcome. Rosenblatt, who for many years had been pushing the Court to begin dealing with the mounting Depraved Mind conviction appeals, took the time and effort to didactically spell out the notion, declaring, “Moreover, it should be obvious that the more the defendant shoots (or stabs, or bludgeons) the victim, the more clearly intentional is the homicide.” The Court further stated, “A one-on-one shooting
or knifing (or similar killing) can almost never qualify as Depraved Indifference Murder.”

Here in Westchester, where Jeanine Pirro, for twelve long years, insisted upon charging as many defendants as possible with both Intentional, and Depraved Indifference Murder, offering a kind of ‘smorgasbord option’ to jurors who might not feel that the facts presented justified
conviction of Intentional, two defendants, in particular, one exonerated following appeal, the other currently on appeal, illustrate not only the connivance of a misguided District Attorney, but also the failure of the State’s highest court to fully and fairly deal with the consequences of
their own procrastination, having not righted the wrongful manipulation of juries for many years. Those two defendants are Anthony DiSimone, unlawfully convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder, in the stabbing death of Louis Balancio in 1994, now exonerated by a mountain of withheld exculpatory evidence, and freed by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Richard DiGuglielmo, a New York City Transit Police Officer who saved his father’s life from a bat-wielding attacker, with a long history of arrest for violent crime, Charles Campbell, killing him with “three shots to center mass,” as instructed in the Police Manual of Procedure.

Even if Officer DiGuglielmo was not under a sworn duty to deal with Mr. Campbell precisely as he did; even if he was a civilian, his killing of Campbell was a justifiable homicide under New York’s Statute of Self-defense, Defense of Others. Yet somehow, a jury that refused not only to convict him of Intentional Murder, but also Assault, was unlawfully instructed and tricked into convicting him of Depraved Indifference Murder. That conviction is presently on appeal in Westchester County Court on a 440.10 Motion not only claiming a failure
of the District Attorney’s Office to present sufficient evidence of Depraved Mind Murder, but also establishing both Brady and Rosario
violations by that Office, in their intentional concealment, once again, of exculpatory statements of witnesses.

The District Attorney’s Of-fice, smarting from the bloody nose they suffered with DiSimone, now, once again, confronted with evidence of similar indefensible prosecutorial misconduct, in a weak attempt to procedurally bar Mr. DiGuglielmo from availing himself of the State Court of Appeals’ recent decisions more precisely defining the elements of Depraved Indifference Murder, and grasping at the notion as expressed in Policano, a case out of Brooklyn, that decisions in Gonzalez and Payne do not apply retroactively, “as a matter of state law,” would like the reviewing Court to deny Mr. DiGuglielmo due process, by keeping him in prison for conduct that was not a crime under
the statute he was convicted of violating, in effect, punishing him for a crime the State Legislature never created.

Finally, despite the Westchester District Attorney’s Office’s position, and the reluctance of the New York State Court of Appeals to accept responsibility for permitting the injustices associated with Depraved Mind Murder to go on for nearly forty years, the simple truth remains that there is only one Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, enacted by the New York State Legislature, and put on the books in 1967. No matter how many interpretations and re-definings of that law the Court of Appeals may ultimately hand down, that Court, nor any other
court, can change or rewrite the Law. Only the Legislature may do that. It has to do with Separation Of Powers, a fundamental principle
of our Democracy.

Concerning Mr. DiGuglielmo and all other defendants currently, or in the future, appealing conviction under the Statute of Depraved Indifference Murder, the law is the law. Only the caselaw that has evolved over four decades may at one time be “good law” and over time, no longer be, depending upon the whim and disposition of the Court of Appeals. However, whatever the latest definition, and caselaw that
currently applies may happen to be, the benefit of that interpretation may not be denied those currently on appeal.

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

D.W.I. Charge Produces Hung Jury
Westchester County Court, White Plains
Judge Jeffrey Cohen Presiding

Last Tuesday evening Defendant Jeffrey McKinlay, charged with five Vehicle and Traffic Law offenses, the top charge of which was
Driving While Intoxicated, an E-Felony, received a mixed verdict from a jury of three men and nine women that had deliberated for more
than two full days. McKinlay, who was represented by Attorney Rocco D’Agostino, was acquitted of two counts, convicted of two, Speeding and Possession of an Open Container of an Alcoholic Beverage, and reached a hung jury, on the first count, D.W.I., had been anxiously awaiting the verdict.

McKinlay, who had been stopped last Fall by Village of Ossining Police Officer Donohue, who boasts more than one hundred D.W.I. arrests
a year, had been coming from a fair with his 21-year-old son and his son’s friend, in a customized truck that had been inspected and approved as conforming to street operational regulations. Officer Donohue claimed that he had followed the vehicle for some distance
traveling at more than fifty-miles-per-hour in a thirty-mile-per-hour zone.

Donohue, who first claimed that the video taping camera in his patrol car was not functioning, and did not record the stop and arrest,
testified that upon giving the Defendant one of a series of routine field sobriety tests which required McKinlay to raise one leg and stand for
several seconds with his arms over his head, had to practically catch the Defendant to keep him from falling over. However, the video machine, that was, in fact, working, produced a tape that showed no such scenario, and tended to contradict the arresting officer’s account.

Early in the trial, on Thursday the 15th, Attorney D’Agostino had torn into Officer Donohue on cross-examination, attempting to impeach his testimony elicited by Assistant District Attorney Christina Dushaj. Despite repeated efforts by D’Agostino to pry acknowledgement of prior conflicting testimony in pre-trial proceedings ADA Dushaj, who re-ceived mostly favorable rulings from Judge Cohen on numerous objections to Defense inquiries under cross-examination, succeeded in preventing serious impeachment of her witness.

The jury, which had heard testimony all day on Thursday and Friday of the previous week, including closing arguments and the jury charge
Friday afternoon, had been sent home for the weekend and not sequestered after less than two hours deliberation. Returning on Monday, the
19th, they went to lunch, having sent out six notes seeking instructions and read-backs, but failing to reach a unanimous verdict on all counts. Returning from lunch at 2:15pm, the jury sent out still another note.

Judge Cohen, having brought the jurors back in, announced, “I have received a seventh note. I know that there may be frustration that you haven’t reached a verdict.” He then proceeded to remind the jurors of their promise, and their responsibility to work hard to reach a verdict. By 4:50pm Cohen entered the courtroom to advise the parties, “We’re going to let them go for the evening.”

When the jurors entered, the Judge quipped, “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s the only time you haven’t sent out a note to me,” producing some
laughter. He then turned them loose for the evening with the usual admonishment not to discuss the case with anyone.

Tuesday March 20th, moments before they would have been sent home, the jury sent out a note indicating that they had reached a unanimous verdict on all of the counts except the top count, D.W.I., and that they were hopelessly deadlocked, and would not come to a unanimous verdict no matter how much longer they deliberated.

ADA Dushaj expressed her Office’s position that they would continue to prosecute Mr. McKinlay on the D.W.I. charge, seeking a new trial
as soon as one could be arranged. In the interim, he will be sentenced for the Speeding and Open Bottle convictions in April.

Andrea Stewart-Cousins Introduces Ground-Breaking Voter Protection Legislation

Albany – State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins has introduced four voter protection bills seeking to stamp out voter intimidation. Senator Stewart-Cousins drafted these measures in response to her experiences during her campaigns of 2004 and 2006 for the 35th District
State Senate seat. It is believed, by most observers of the effort in 2004, that Stewart-Cousins actually won the election by more than 300 votes despite numerous instances of voter suppression and intimidation.

In 2006, suppression and intimidation took on a new dimension with a blanket challenge to thousands of registered voters just days before the election by her opponent. Fellow Democratic State Senator Liz Krueger, who is co-sponsoring the four bills, declared, “Electoral crimes are nothing new. We have all heard stories of elections being manipulated, and we know these instances are not just a thing of the past, but continue to happen in places all around the country.” She added, “But, here and now, we have the opportunity to show that New York is better than that, and that we have a higher standard for ourselves and our elections.”

State Senator Stewart-Cousins’ bills would:

• Create a new electoral crime of voter suppression, punishable as a misdemeanor. Article 17 of the Election Law contains several statutes addressing the issues of voter coercion and intimidation, but there is no specific statute that deals with the actual suppression of voters;

• Increase the penalties for violations of the electoral franchise statutes contained in Article 17 of the Election Law, with a sentence of up to one year of imprisonment. In the rare instances when investigations or criminal charges are brought forth against people who have attempted to obstruct the will of the voters, the local district attorney is currently constrained by lax penalties;

• Make investigations of a voter’s qualifications, including residency, less intimidating and require those challenging the registration of voters to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the complaint is not frivolous;

• Ban “push-polling” unless said poll meets strict public reporting requirements and require that scripts used be led with election boards.
Senator Krueger declared, “The integrity of our electoral system has taken enough hits. If we don’t pass Senator Stewart-Cousins’ legislation, then you can bet that in the next round of elections, there will be voters who will show up to vote and are denied this legal right, or, worse yet, are afraid to show up to vote altogether.”

In 2004, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, challenging long-time incumbent Senator Nicholas Spano, became the victim of the longest post-election dispute in New York State history. Every conceivable voter suppression device, before, during, and certainly after Election Day, was employed to rob her of her hardfought, well-earned, victory. In the end, what appeared to be her win, by more than 300 votes, became a loss by 18. However, last year, under the watchful eyes of Federal monitors brought in by the United States Justice Department, and with more than 30 Democratic attorney/poll-watchers, in response to public demand, Andrea Stewart-Cousins defeated Mr. Spano by nearly 2,000 votes. The present legislative proposals are a direct outgrowth of her experiences in each of those election efforts.

$28,000 Raises? We Think Not! Westchester Taxpayers Have Had Enough.

In Our Opinion...

“It’s not a raise. In a sense we were underpaid.”

With those arrogant words, Democratic County Election Commissioner Reginald La- Fayette, who currently earns a total of $129,230, was quoted in The Journal News last week, attempting to justify a proposed $28,000 annual pay increase for himself and his Republican counterpart, Carolee Sunderland. Most taxpayers The Guardian spoke with expressed little sympathy for LaFayette’s position in light of the fact that Westchester homeowners are paying the highest property taxes in the nation.

We believe that there is something fundamentally unethical in the fact that LaFayette continues to occupy the office in the first place. There can be no denying that as Chairman of the Westchester County Democratic Committee, Mr. LaFayette’s continuance as a County Election Commissioner is a glaring conflict of interest. Clearly, one cannot reasonably be the advocate and the arbiter at the same time. That such a situation should continue unchallengedfor three years now, merely demonstrates the iron-fisted control Larry Schwartz exercises in County politics.

There have been Democratic candidates in Westchester who have definitely suffered under that circumstance, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, in the contest for the 35th District State Senate seat in 2004, most notable among them. That situation would have been bad enough if it had developed honestly and spontaneously.

However, most intelligent observers who have closely monitored elections in the County over the years, are well aware that the nomination process, and the conduct and outcome of many elections have been anything but honest and spontaneous. One need only examine the antics that surrounded three races in a row in that same 35th District to understand that there is nothing about the conduct of the Westchester County Board of Elections

under the present commissioners that recommends them for a $28,000 pay raise.

Consider, in 2000, Nick Spano was up against stiffer competition than he had previously faced, in the person of Tom Abinanti, County Legislator from the Town of Greenburgh. Abinanti, an independently-minded Democrat who has never been popular on the “Ninth Floor”, was certainly not Larry Schwartz’ choice. Nick’s campaign director, and legal ‘wunderkind’ Anthony Mangone, would forge 166 ballots in the Green Party Primary, and not only get away with it, but also would get immunity and a good position arranged by DA Jeanine Pirro for testifying against Democratic political operative Dennis Wedra, in a trial based on trumped-up charges. Did Democratic Commissioner LaFayette have one word to say about the unlawful activities of Nick Spano’s organization? Of course, not.

In 2002, when a Latino candidate named Ramos was challenged in the courts by Nick and tied up until two weeks before election, LaFayette was again unavailable. But the ultimate measure of Mr. LaFayette’s obedience to Larry Schwartz, and his corruption of the electoral process, would come two years later, in 2004, when County Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins opposed Big Nick. Andrea actually won that election by more than 300 votes. It would take three months to steal it from her, in what would become the longest disputed election outcome in New York State history, and Reginald LaFayette was an undeniable player, from the very beginning, in the conspiracy that ultimately involved Appellate Division Judge Robert Spolzino, DA Jeanine Pirro, Republican Nassau Supreme Court Judge Warshawsky, Joe Bruno, Anthony Mangone, the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, and a host of others invested in Nick Spano’s re-election.

We are mindful, also, of the countywide-fixed elections of 2001, in which LaFayette’s immediate boss, Larry Schwartz, together with Nick Spano, and David Hebert, Jeanine Pirro’s campaign director, conspired, and rigged, the outcome for County Executive, District Attorney and County Clerk. LaFayette was Larry’s puppet then, even as he is now. Carolee Sunderland, for her part, representing the party out of power, has been happy to go alongwith every scheme that has come down over many years.

No, there is nothing to recommend Westchester’s Election Commissioners’ receipt of a $28,000 annual increase, putting them $45,000 per year higher in salary than their counterparts in Nassau County, a jurisdiction of comparable population and complexity. More importantly, given the long history of the Office under the present occupants, The Westchester Guardian sees no justifiable reason to further burden our already overtaxed County residents by rewarding one of the more egregious components in the overall Machinery of Corruption, otherwise known as Westchester County Government, with a totally undeserved raise.

Never Again - Part 3

By Jeffrey Deskovic



Eyewitness Identification

Testimony Reform



Identification Procedures Must Be Improved To Increase their Reliability Misidentification has been the leading cause of wrongful convictions. We must improve the reliability of identifications.




‘Snitch Testimony’ Of those Who Have Been Offered Incentives To Testify Should Not Be Allowed One of the causes of wrongful convictions comes when people who are either facing prison, or, who are already in prison, for unrelated crimes, make deals to testify for the Prosecution against another person in order to either avoid prison, or to get time taken out of their sentences.


When lacking actual information, there have been many who have made up stories, or have gone along with Prosecutors’ stories, so they could make a deal. Nationwide, such lying snitches account for 15% of wrongful convictions. In 2005, Centurion Ministries, a legal group which works to free those wrongfully convicted, issued a report entitled, The Snitch System: How Incentivized Witnesses Put 38 Innocent
Americans On Death Row.


No witness who testifies should ever receive benefits in exchange for their testimony because the temptation for those who are in desperate circumstances, to lie is too great.


The case profile which the Innocence Project uses to illustrate this point is that of Larry Peterson, who served 17 years for a murder in New Jersey which DNA ultimately proved he was innocent of. After police officers threatened to prosecute three of Larry’s co-workers, in
order to avoid being charged, they falsely said, “he confessed to us on the way to work.” Work records showed that Peterson had not even been to work on the day in which the men claimed that he had confessed to them. Additionally, a man who was in jail with charges pending against him in three different counties also claimed that Larry had admitted guilt to him while in jail. A DNA test ultimately resulted in Larry being exonerated after 17 years. Importantly, the type of murder that Larry was convicted of was a capital murder. He was lucky that he had not been sentenced to death.


The Death Penalty Must Be Kept Out Of New York


The way that the statute is drawn, one aggravating circumstance that determines whether a murder is a capital case, or not, is a conviction for an underlying felony, often a rape. Therefore the type of crime I was wrongfully convicted of would have been death penalty-eligible. There was a lot of pretrial publicity, a lot of public fear, a lot of public pressure; it was a heinous crime. I would have received the death penalty.
My appeals ran out in 1999-2000. I was not cleared until 2006. Under the death penalty statute, there would have been no 2006 for Jeffrey Deskovic.



Death is final. There is no correcting errors once somebody is dead. At least with incarceration, the wrongfully convicted prisoner can be released to live out however much of his life remains. Not so once someone is dead. What would be the correction in that case? Posthumously
acknowledging that they were innocent, and apologize to the family? if the death penalty is reinstated, it is not a question of if innocent people will be executed, it is a question merely of how many.


Reforms Pertaining To the Parole Board


The Parole Board Must Consider, In Cases Where An Applicant Has a Colorable Claim Of Innocence, The Possibility that a Wrongful Conviction Has Occurred and Therefore Keep it in Mind, By Way Of Background, When Considering an Application Wrongful convictions occur, and not all of them are corrected. Parole Board considerations should reflect that reality, rather than their utter refusal to even consider the possibility.


In my case, when I went before the Parole Board, I tried repeatedly to raise the issue of my innocence based on the DNA, so that the Board could consider the possibility, just the possibility, that I was innocent, and then keep that fact in mind when considering the merits of my application for parole. Parole boards must consider matters that pertain to the background of a case under consideration rather than taking a cut-anddried position that an applicant is guilty.


In my case they utterly refused to do so despite several attempts on my part to raise the issue. On the other hand, I realized that they were definitely going to consider the crime for which I was convicted. There was an inherent injustice in that, and it did not bode well for me.


After praising me for my educational accomplishments, a good disciplinary record, some letters of support for my release, including a letter from the prison Islamic Chaplain, they then stated in their decision, “Despite all of this, you have been convicted of a brutal crime and we
are therefore declining to parole you.” An opportunity to remedy an injustice by at least ending my wrongful incarceration went by the boards because of their utter refusal to consider even the possibility that I had been innocent.


One year of my life could have been spared from imprisonment. There are others in addition to myself who had served additional years in prison unnecessarily because of the Parole Board’s refusal to consider innocence, cases where after DNA-proved innocence, in retrospect,
it should have been clear that misidentifications had occurred because of descriptions that did not match height, weight, and physical appearance despite conviction; cases where evidence showed innocence, and yet a conviction occurred; cases wherein the circumstances
in which a confession was obtained made its truthfulness highly questionable.



The Parole Board was in position to consider this when each applicant raised the issue in front of them, yet they refused and applications were denied, resulting in even more prison time having to be served. Mandating that the Board consider the possibility that a wrongful conviction has occurred in every case in which there is a basis to believe that is a possibility, is a common-sense remedy for this.


The Parole Board Should Not Be Allowed To Deny Applicants Based Upon the Nature Of the Crime



Denying applicants based on the nature of the crime is counterproductive in a variety of ways, and also is inconsistent with justice. Firstly, at the time that a prisoner is sentenced, the nature of the crime is already known. It will never change, no matter what a prisoner does. Therefore, to deny prisoners, based upon this element, is to discourage them from turning their lives around and becoming productive citizens. It is inherently unjust to those who have put in solid efforts by educating themselves and staying out of trouble, to, in effect, say to them, “Your efforts are in vain because we are not going to parole you because of the nature of your crime, despite the fact that it was known before you did your first day in prison.”



In addition to the inmates themselves, it wrecks families who are waiting for their fathers, brothers, spouses, friends, etc. to come home. With respect to the wrong done to the victims, that has already been taken into account in that those facts are why applicants were sentenced to prison in the first place. Additionally, it deprives society as a whole when this occurs because those who could add to society cannot do so,
but instead continue to be a tax burden. Other than those who are doing a life sentence, all who are in prison will eventually be released. Do we not want them to have educated themselves, turned their lives around so that they do not reoffend? Or, would we prefer them to have wasted their time in prison because they already know that no matter what they do they will not be paroled?

Lastly, there are innocent people in prison who will never get out by being cleared. Not every case has DNA in it to test, and not everyone will be able to get legal representation. The only way such people will be able to get out of prison will be through parole. Therefore, we need to remove the impediment of being denied based on the nature of the crime. Otherwise, much like trying to establish innocence without representation, it becomes virtually impossible in all but the most extremely rare and flukish circumstances.

Lest anyone think that this is an unfounded concern, consider that Colin Warner was denied parole three times before he got cleared. Remember that I was denied parole based on the nature of the crime despite the merits that I mentioned before. What would have happened had I not obtained legal representation, or if there was no DNA to test?

The Parole Board Should Not Be Allowed To Deny Parole Based Upon Applicants Not Expressing Remorse

The reason for this is that this is an obstacle for those who are actually innocent, because they cannot meet this criteria. There are many who are innocent who are parole-eligible who go to the Parole Board, and are then turned down because when asked if they feel remorse, state that they were innocent. This should not be required of them, especially since this is not even written into the statute regarding parole,
but rather is something that the Parole Board has taken upon itself to often insist upon. Do we really want to place those who are wrongfully in prison in the untenable position of either saying they are guilty, when they are not, in order to express remorse to have a chance at freedom or else being compelled to remain in prison as the price of maintaining innocence? What kind of choice is that? Remember that Betty Tyson and her co-defendant were denied parole numerous times before being cleared because of this.

Reforms Pertaining to Prison The Department of Corrections

Should Not Be Allowed to Require An Admission of Guilt as a Condition of Completing Sex Offender Classes. Prior to being cleared, I was in prison for murder and rape. That meant that in order to complete the programs that the Parole Board would want to see I had completed, I would have to take the Sex Offender Program. I was informed that in order to take and complete the course I would, as a condition of taking the class, be required to verbally admit guilt. Failure to do so would result in my being kicked out of the class and being deemed to have
refused. Not only would I have had to admit guilt of a crime for which I was totally innocent, but I would also have had to make up false details, and do all of this verbally and in writing, and in front of the other people in the class. I was thus presented with the choice of admitting guilt to something I did not do, and then being required to say I did rather sickening things, or else practically give up any
chance to regain my freedom.

My attempts to talk to the instructor during the pre-program interviews and explain that I was innocent, and that the DNA proved this, that I could not admit guilt to something that I did not do and yet that I needed somehow to complete this class so I had a chance to be released,
proved futile. I told him that I wanted to be able to interact with my mother in the free world and, that in light of all this, wasn’t there some way that I could take the class, do all that was required of me without admitting guilt? He flatly refused. I then wrote to the Superintendent of Programs, but got nowhere there either.

This policy must be changed because it punishes the innocent. There is no good reason why the program must be administered in that fashion.

The Measure of Civilly Committing to Mental Hospitals Those Who Are Imprisoned For Sex Offenses Must Be Seriously Considered to Avoid the “End Run” Approach Utilized by Former Governor Pataki.

The reason for this is that there will be some Innocents who get caught up in it. This measure, recently passed, indicates that after completion of their sentence, those who have been convicted of a sex offense might then be eligible for civil confinement based upon an assessment of their future danger to society. One of the bases of determining someone’s dangerousness is whether they have admitted guilt and can therefore be considered to have addressed their issue. Where does that leave the Innocent? Wouldn’t they have suffered enough having been wrongfully convicted and then been made to serve out a sentence because the system failed them? When I was a prisoner, I constantly worried that the measure then being debated by the State Legislature would be passed. e prospect of being civilly committed, even if I had somehow been able to overcome the odds of being paroled, weighed heavily on my mind, because I knew that I might not
be cleared.

As I think about it, it was wrong on so many levels:

• It is a fiction to believe that anybody, whether professional or not, can say what anybody will do in the future, including a jury of their peers;

• It is morally wrong to hold people once their sentence is up, regardless, even if the new place is a mental hospital. It is a very slippery slope we are going down, because allowing the state to do this, how long would it be before others seek to expand the program, extending
it to those who had been convicted of other crimes? Yet we believe, and rightfully so, in giving people a second chance.

College Education for Inmates Should Be Reinstated

I obtained an Associates Degree, and went on to work on obtaining my B.A. Yet I was not able to complete it because then-Gov. Pataki cut state financial aid for prisoners, and Senator Helms did the same for federal inmates. I could have been that much further along, educationally, when I was released. There are other Innocents who are in the same position. The recidivism rate is much lower for those with a college education than those without. One reason is that they are able to get meaningful employment upon release, thus lowering the odds that crime will be resorted to as a means of making money. Therefore, we can prevent the possibility of other victims, and reduce the tax burden of incarceration, by reinstating higher education in our state prison system.

Editor’s Note: Jeffrey Deskovic returns to the pages of The Westchester Guardian to explain in the final of a 3-part series the changes in police procedure and judicial handling that need to be legislated to prevent the kind of injustice and unconstitutional behavior that put him behind bars at age 16. Maliciously and knowingly charged and convicted of the crimes of rape and murder despite his innocence and the fact that his DNA and hair follicles did not match those found in and on his alleged victim, Mr.
Deskovic emerges neither bitter nor vindictive, but dedicated to doing all in his power to prevent what happened to him from happening to others.


– RB

Our Readers Respond...


In Opposition to Raises For Election Commissioners




Dear Editor:


By law, Westchester County is required to have two Commissioners of Elections, one representing each of the two major parties. Although there is no reason to believe that the responsibilities of this office are too much for a single individual, they collectively pull down almost a quarter of a million plus per year plus benefits and pension (currently $127,125 a year each, plus longevity pay). Having been recommended by their respective parties, each commissioner is appointed to a two-year term by the County Executive and confirmed by the Board of Legislators. The Republican commissioner, Carolee Sunderland, was vice chair of the county Republican Party and ran its White Plains office for a decade. Her opposite number, Reginald LaFayette, is currently the chairman of the county Democratic Party. Neither appears to have had any obvious qualifications for the office of Commissioner of Elections, other than faithful party service, prior to having been appointed.


Now, “increased responsibilities” stemming from the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is offered by the County Executive (and of course, the commissioners themselves) as justifi-cation for bringing their salaries “up to par” with other county commissioners, who get $155,245 for 2007. This means each will need $28,000 more per year, raising their collective pay to over $300,000. Among our elected officials none seems to question the need for such an increase. Nor has anyone questioned why two people should be paid a full salary for holding down what is essentially one job. (Of course, one reason might be that they spend half their time maneuvering against each other!)



“Parity,” it seems to me, would mean $77,622.50 apiece plus half the longevity pay, assuming the other commissioners receive this extra perk. I wonder just how far down the Board of Elections organization chart this duplication of office goes. The Board letterhead lists two Deputy Commissioners, each tucked neatly under his or her respective commissioner. As a poll worker I am aware that there must be at
least one representative from each party working in each election district. (I fill this role as a Democrat on election day.) In my experience I have never seen any action taken in regard to someone’s right to vote which in the slightest way reflects party bias. But what about in between these extremes? Doesn’t there come a point at which it is counterproductive to have rival sets of foxes minding the chicken coop?



That way it takes weeks to decide closely contested elections. That way it takes years to select foolproof voting machines. That way the arcane election laws are perennially interpreted so as to keep opposition candidates off the ballot in party primaries and general elections. According to the Journal News (March 18, p. 1A), only George Oros, the Republican Minority Leader in the County Legislature, has expressed concerns about the propriety of a party leader holding a “county policymaking post,” but he apparently takes no issue with the purely political nature of Board of Elections appointments. In my opinion the Board of Elections should be headed by a single non-partisan commissioner who takes advice, but certainly not direction, from a committee comprised of representatives from all the political parties that have received some minimum percentage of the vote in the previous gubernatorial election. This will take a change in the law at the state level but perhaps our elected representatives are not beyond redemption.


Joel Rudikoff
White Plains




Editor’s Note: While We endorse the spirit and the substance of Mr. Rudikoff’s comments, We would ask him, What makes you think that Reggie and Carolee spend any time maneuvering against each other? A closer examination will reveal that, for many years, they have spent all of their time maneuvering in mutual service of political power brokers such as Larry Schwartz, Giulio Cavallo, and all those candidates who
have been under their control.



Agrees We Can’t Ban Words




Dear Editor:


I am inclined to agree with your position regarding banning the word nigger. In a free society it is preposterous to suggest banning words, no matter how offensive they are to that society. I offer the supposition had society banned the word abolition in the early 1800’s the concept of abolitionists may have never took hold and slavery might still exist.


And the use of the word nigger with all of its hated, anger and hostility would still be as acceptable as it was when I was an early teen. And therefore this whole discussion would be rhetorical It is dangerous when governments control what people say and think. That government can then control the ideas and actions of the people thus enabling the government to suppress the people’s desire for human rights. I believe this to be true because I was taught this in school, in an America where freedom rang loudly especially on AUG. 28, 1963.


Martin Luther King, Jr., in one of the great speeches ever given by a human being, in a much more eloquent way than I stated, ” let freedom ring,” “let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city,” please note he never suggested that George Wallace, Strom Thurmond or the Grand Wizard should not have the right to use the word nigger.


The irony is while the legislature was engaging in this monumentally absurd pretense ” banning the use of the word nigger” it would appear that according to the article submitted by the “White Sergeant.” Anyone in the employ of the county that actually uses the word nigger with all of its hated, anger and hostility is rewarded. Banning words and not actions is the conduct of tyrants and cowards it would not surprise me to find the county legislature is full of both. Even though the excerpts were from MLK’s I Have a Dream speech the legislature should realize “We are not asleep”!


Kevin L. McGrew




Father of Pirro Victim Speaks Out


Dear Editor:




I just read with great interest your edition of March 15, 2007. I have a personal interest in the article because I am Marci Stein’s father. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to discover the evidence of what Pirro and Laura Murphy had done only to find out that there was nothing
that could be done to punish them. They are bigger criminals than most of the people they have prosecuted. I would like to help you in any
way I can to achieve what you are attempting to do. In contacting the state officials I wonder if there could be pardons granted to those individuals that had their lives turned upside down by Pirro and her staff. In reading further in the paper I saw that Judge Kenneth Lange has a column. He was the Judge that Marci’s case was first given to and he was removed and replaced by one of Pirro’s cronies.


We never knew why he was removed. Would it be appropiate to ask him why. We always suspected that Pirro was behind it but couldn’t prove it. I wish to thank you for what you are doing and again I would like to help you in any way.


Joseph Bilello




Editor’s Note: In speaking with Judge Lange, we have discovered that he had initial contact with Marci’s case in the pretrial hearings. It is not unusual for one judge to handle the pretrial hearings while another may actually preside over the trial. Frequently a judge who has handled the pretrial motions is already committed to another case in the same time frame, and must relinquish to an available judge.


It happens the editor attended Marci’s trial back in the summer of 2001, presided over by County Court Judge Barbara Zambelli. It was from that attendance, over several days, that the information that formed the basis of our comments in our March 15th edition were derived.
As regards your “frustration” with the fact that, having once discovered Pirro and Murphy’s malicious prosecutorial misconduct “there was nothing that could be done to punish them,” be assured that issue, as pertains to future prosecutions, is a matter currently under study and for which a legislative remedy may soon be in the offing.

Our Readers Respond...

Greenburgh Board of Ethics Member Resigns in Protest


Dear Editor:

After 15 years of service on the Board of Ethics of the Town of Greenburgh, I have resigned as a member and chairman. I no longer have confidence in the integrity of the present own Board which by inaction and attempts at political intimidation has rendered the Board of Ethics impotent. The Town Board has repeatedly failed to fill vacancies on the Board of Ethics, leaving it without a quorum and frustrating
its ability to conduct business. On March 1, I was notified that the Town Board had not reappointed Louis Schenkel as a member of the Ethics Board. Mr.Schenkel is Associate General Counsel for four major New York City hospitals and has the responsibility for overseeing all ethical and conflict of interest issues of more than 17,000 employees.

Since the Ethics Board was revived fifteen years ago, Mr.Schenkel has served with integrity and distinction and was unanimously reappointed by four previous Town Boards. It was not until Aug. 1, 2006, a month after Mr. Schenkel’s term expired, that he was scheduled to meet with the Town Board. After waiting for an hour, he was told that the Board could not see him and he would have to come back. On Aug. 8, after waiting for an hour and a half, Mr. Schenkel met with Town Board members and for an hour they didn’t discuss his credentials, but spent the time criticizing the Board of Ethics. At the end of the meeting, I asked the Town Board members to act expeditiously so that the Ethics Board would have a quorum. Without his appointment, there would be only two of the five-member Board of Ethics remaining,
Mrs.Robin J.Bauer, an attorney for over thirty years, a senior attorney with the Legal Aid Society and former counsel to the state Grievance Committee, and myself.

The Town Board later took a vote; Supervisor Paul Feiner and Councilwoman Eddie Mae Barnes voted to reappoint Mr. Schenkel; Councilmen Steven Bass and Francis Sheehan voted no, and Councilwoman Diana Juettner deferred her vote. It was not until eight months later that Mr.Schenkel was advised that he was not reappointed.

After repeated criticism in the media of the manner in which the Board of Ethics was handling a matter involving Mr.Feiner’s request for an Ethics opinion, I met with the Town Board on July 5, 2006. I advised them that finally, at my insistence, the District Attorney’s Office officially notified me only four days earlier that the complaints involving Mr.Feiner’s campaign contributions were not criminal in nature and the matter was closed in their office. I advised the Town Board that as soon as they reappointed Mr.Schenkel we would have a
quorum and the matter would be resolved within a week. That was eight months ago. As of March 1, 2007, the Board of Ethics
still did not have a quorum.

In its fifteen-year existence, no opinion of the Board of Ethics has ever been challenged or appealed but once. In 2003, the Town Board requested Councilman Bass to recuse himself from a pending matter due to a conflict of interest. Mr.Bass refused to do so and the Town Board referred the matter to the board of Ethics which then twice voted unanimously that he should recuse himself. I then received a telephone call at home from a county legislator and a letter from Mr.Bass’ attorney stating that he was advising him not to recuse himself. To my knowledge, Mr.Bass did not do so, despite the long standing position of the Town Board for over thirty years “its intention to abide by the opinions issued by the Board of Ethics”.

On July 11, 2006, the Board of Ethics and Town Board received a letter from a town resident alleging that Mr. Bass improperly received campaign contributions. The resident further requested a review of the campaign contributions of all council members. I advised him that under the Code of Ethics, our Board could only render advisory opinions at the request of the Town Board and that his request had been forwarded to them for appropriate action. It is now nine months later and nothing has been done.

Campaign contribution reform is long overdue. When Mr. Sheehan was a candidate for the Town Board he submitted lengthy proposals to the League of Women Voters calling for campaign contribution reform and the right of a Town resident to file a complaint directly to the Board of Ethics. He has been a Town Councilman for 15 months and no action has been taken on those issues other than to impede the Board of Ethics in its duties.

The Board of Ethics must vigorously defend its responsibility to be independently free from political and partisan pressure and influence. I am unable to do so under the present Town Board. I have served our Country, State, County and Town in the enforcement of the law for over 50 years, and in all those years I have not compromised my principles or duties. I will not now.

I have been advised that Robin J.Bauer,Esq. has joined me in resigning from the Board of Ethics.

Thomas A. Facelle
Justice (ret),
NYS Supreme Court
Brigadier General (ret),
USAF


Reader Apprciates The Guardian

The Editor:


I just want to congratulate you on such an informative paper. I look forward to reading it weekly. Your staff should be commended. The topics are relative and up to date, with old references for us to use as a guide to do research.

I especially enjoy reading The Advocate and Freedom isn’t Free articles. I have cut out issues & mailed to others, the topics were that good.
Please continue the great work you are doing, it is really appreciated. Please convey my thanks to your staff.

Gladys Ramsey


Reader Appalled by Treatment of Jing and Tristram Kelly

Dear Editor:


I am a stay-at-home mother of three and an American born and raised in NYC, who lives in Westchester. Not that this has any bearing, but I just wanted to make clear who I am. I am writing to you as I happened to be food shopping and came across a newspaper called the Westchester Guardian and saw your article on Jing Kelly who I first read about back when she and her son return to the United States to
clear her name, and was arrested.

I have to tell you that your article has made me extremely upset and that my whole day was anti-law, not to mention distorted. I’m a big advocate for the children and never really ever get involved especially in news articles as I don’t always get the full story. But the very first article on her I first thought she should have just been given a slap on the wrist even though she committed a crime of custodial interference.

She did it not for herself, but for her child and the fact that her husband no longer was living I felt the case should have been dismissed. Also,
the fact that the in-laws got custody is the BIGGEST joke of them all. Boy they must have some POWER and according to the way the Judge is behaving throughout this entire case what is her take? Or, rather how much are they paying her outside the court room?

I have personal friends who have had difficulty having children. So when they went to adopt an American child age didn’t matter, they were told that it is extremely difficult and that the government likes to keep the children with their natural parents whether the parents are in rehab or jail, didn’t matter. Yet, in Jing’s case her child was taken away and never returned! And her in-laws are doing their hardest to keep her from getting her own child.

I didn’t know that our government catered to people with a revengeful motive. The government and the power-hungry people in this
Country have been given wayyyyyy too much power. Jing’s only true crime was escaping her abusive husband who, by the way, no longer exists, and yet she cannot have custody of her only child.

What I couldn’t understand at first was considering that her husband had passed away and the abuse he had done to her, why she does not have her son. I understand that I am just a reader and don’t really know the gist of the entire story, but coming from the news it sounds like she had done her time living with the man she married and who abused her.

I know that there is always two sides, but I’ll say it again, her husband, the only true problem party in this case, no longer exist so why does she not have her son and why do the in-laws continue to badger her by fighting to keep her son away from her? Tristram is Jing’s son!!!!

If Jing was smart she should appeal to the American public and fight fire with fire, go to Warner Brothers or a famous celebrity and have the public make the decision as it will break their hearts to see what the courts are doing to this poor women.

Lisa Kenny


Editor’s Note:

Jing Kelly, who was voluntarily returning to the United States with her two-year-old infant son, Tristram, when she was arrested and her child was kidnapped by Gail Hiler, sister of Jing’s deceased, abusive husband, in Vancouver, British Columbia under arrangements made with Canadian authorities by then-DA Jeanine Pirro. Ms. Kelly, by definition, because of voluntarily returning, was never guilty of Custodial
Interference in the First Degree, a felony, as she was overcharged by Pirro. A jury of her peers recognized that fact and found her guilty merely of Misdemeanor Custodial Interference.

Ms. Kelly’s appeal of that conviction was recently heard by a panel of the State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, sitting in White Plains. That appeal was essentially based upon the trial court’s refusal to permit Kelly’s attorneys to offer an affirmative defense.