Our Readers Respond...
Thank You So Much!
Dear Editor:
Thanks so much for putting out a great newspaper! I have been picking it up every week since you have started. Your articles are informative and concise, yet very in-depth. Great follow-up, too!
My very favorite part, however, is the weekly column by Kenneth Lange. I have neither been a history nor law buff in the past, but his writing and topics make this column the best! Give that man a raise!! Thanks again!
Tina Barrett
Teachers Must Learn To Identify Actual At-Risk Children
Dear Editor:
Hats off to that little Met fan and his mother. I am a retired BCW worker and the school is wrong. They have to report cases or it would look as if they are not watching out, so they destroy a child and family.
I agree with the mother, the teachers need to be taught how to identify children at risk. Shame on Irvington for
not even following up and reaching out to the family; they should find another way to be a hero.
They had many bomb scares in one year. My neighbor’s children are always home early. Maybe they should put their time into finding out who is calling in bomb threats instead of picking on a little child; they are doing more damage. I love your paper, you are not afraid to tell it like it is.
A. Johnson
What’s Going On At the New Rochelle High School Athletic Field?
Dear Editor:
What’s going on at the athletic field of New Rochelle High School? For over one month now, the neighborhood has been subjected to horrendous noise and a great deal of air pollution created by as many as five earth-removing vehicles. Does anyone in the community know (certainly the immediate neighborhood does not) exactly what all this activity is for, how much longer it will persist and, equally important for New Rochelle taxpayers, how much is it costing?
The loud noise and choking clouds of air-borne dirt begin at 7:15 a.m. six days a week, although city laws say that heavy-duty equipment should not be operated before 8 a.m. Then there are the trails of dirt and mud from trucks exiting the field, tracking debris for several blocks from the school. Some neighbors complain the removal of earth has disturbed mice nests causing them to relocate in nearby yards.
What else is the Board of Education not telling us? Are they waiting until after November elections to inform us
that an additional elementary school is needed? Doesn’t the New Rochelle Board of Education realize that they have a direct and on-going responsibility to inform the community before such extensive plans are put into action? Not to do so is surely not the way to win friends and influence city taxpayers!
June Carletti Sambol, New Rochelle
In Our Opinion...
Fake Bombs? Whatever Happened To the Element Of Intent?
It’s a sad commentary on our society in general, and the prevailing mentality in Westchester government and law enforcement, in particular, that the hypersensitive over-reaction of responding police officers could set in motion
such a destructive, unlawful bureaucratic boondoggle as we have witnessed in response to a harmless high school senior prank. What made the cheap windup alarm clocks “fake bombs?” In reality, only the paranoid, over-reactive mind of a police officer responding late on a Sunday night, and prosecutors accustomed to indicting “ham sandwiches,” not to mention innocent people.
The June 28th edition of this newspaper called upon the District Attorney’s Of-fice to “get real.” After all, how does a reasonable prosecutor conclude that there was intent on the part of the high school students involved to try to convince anyone that those sixty-seven little alarm clocks were bombs? There were no wires, no toilet paper rolls rigged up to look like a stick of dynamite, or a pipe bomb. There was nothing but a bunch of cheap clocks, more than five dozen, all wound up and set to ring at 9:15am Monday morning, June 10th. And, oh
yes, in addition to the alarm clocks, in some instances, there was duct tape, needed to secure some of the clocks in certain locations throughout the Hendrick Hudson High School building.
Like beauty in the eye of the beholder, the evil was in the mind of the apprehenders, the police, the prosecutor, and school officials. If any unlawful act was committed, surely it had nothing to do with bombs, fake, or otherwise. In fact, the kids, the 19 of them who placed the clocks around the school late that Sunday night were guilty of trespass, a violation, not a felony, not even a misdemeanor. What criminal intent did these kids possess? They merely wanted all 67 clocks to ring at the same time so that they could get up and walk out of school as they might to a dismissal bell. Everyone would have had a good laugh, surprised teachers and staff included, and within fifteen or twenty minutes the Senior Prank would have been history, and classes returned to normal.
But no, some silly motion detector device had to go off and spoil everything! The real “crime” in all of what has happened is the total abuse of power, by law enforcement and school personnel as well. It’s not the kids involved, who Youth Resources Officer, Trooper Velez told The Guardian, were “good kids,” who need the counseling. It’s those who made such an unnecessary fiasco of a harmless prank because of their hyper-reactive mentalities in the wake of 9/11.
They are the ones who need to “chill out” and get real. If they really want to do the right thing by these kids, they will stop pretending that something criminal happened, and that they are doing those charged a favor by reducing the charges to a misdemeanor, telling all future employers, “Hey you know what? This young person looking for a job really didn’t plant a false bomb as originally charged, but merely attempted to plant a false bomb.”
Hogwash! The records of these youngsters must be expunged, except for the violation of trespass. They must not be made to carry the stigma of a felony charge, even one reduced to a misdemeanor, all because police, prosecutors, and school officials, who should have known better, have neither the courage, nor the decency
to admit that they over-reacted. What we have here are adults, not kids, acting badly, putting their egos and their pride ahead of the welfare and well-being of decent youngsters.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
State Legislature Must End Enigma And Injustice Of “Depraved Indifference Murder”
Exactly forty years ago New York State Legislators, in their infinite collective wisdom, passed, and Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed into law, the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, and thus was born one of the
most misunderstood and abused devices in the State’s criminal code arsenal.
Sometimes referred to as Depraved Mind Murder, an alias that only tends to invite further confusion, the statute, in effect, was an attempt to establish a homicide that would carry a penalty as severe as Second Degree
Murder, without the element of intent. Lawmakers were attempting to deal with those reckless behaviors, that were, in fact, so reckless as to “evince a depraved indifference” to whether someone, anyone, might live or die, as a consequence of the perpetrator’s conduct. The operative word was ‘indifference’ as distinguished from intent, as in Intentional Murder. Perhaps legislators were responding to a public outcry over individuals whose reckless, but unintentional, acts of Manslaughter had resulted in sentences of five years, or fewer.
Unfortunately, few people really understood the defining aspect of the notion of indifference. Many, both in, and out, of the courts, especially under the alternate title Depraved Mind Murder, came to believe that the notion of depravity attached to any murder. And, therein lay the potential for what ultimately became massive abuse of the statute by unethical and manipulative prosecutors.
Over time it came to be used more and more frequently as a safety net, or backstop, for self-promoting politically motivated District Attorneys, who would charge an accused both with Intentional, and Depraved Indifference Murder.
That practice, only recently frowned upon in appellate decisions, was essentially a statement by prosecutors that either they really didn’t have a strong, provable, theory to explain why, and by whom, someone had been
murdered, or they were not willing to invest the time and effort needed to develop one. Either way, unscrupulous prosecutors, focused merely on winning, frequently got juries who were unconvinced, or unwilling to convict
a defendant of Intentional Murder, to “compromise” by finding him guilty of Depraved Indifference Murder. Little did such juries realize that they had been duped, or that the sentence for Depraved was identical to Intentional Murder.
It took 37 years, until pressure from one State Court of Appeals Judge, now retired, Judge Rosenblatt, began to bring about a closer examination and reassertion of the statute’s elements and definition, as case after case
began piling up with greater frequency in the Appellate Division, ultimately filtering up to the high court. In March of 2004, Gonzalez, a case out of Rochester, in a decision authored by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, began to set guidelines as to what constituted an ‘indifferent’ mindset.
The Defendant had shot his victim in the back, who then fell to the floor of a barbershop, whereupon he continued to fire seven more rounds into his head and back. The trial jury had acquitted the defendant of
Intentional Murder, instead preferring the compromise Depraved Indifference verdict.
The conviction was overturned by the high court. A year later in a case from Long Island’s Suffolk County, Payne a man who was convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder, but acquitted of Intentional Murder, having
gone to his neighbor’s front door, putting a shotgun to the neighbor’s midsection and blowing him away, likewise had his conviction vacated. In writing the decision, Judge Rosenblatt, in an attempt to set aside any further ambiguity, or doubt, as to the very narrow and infrequent circumstances that warranted a charge of Depraved Indifference Murder, wrote, “The more times the victim is shot, or the more times he is bludgeoned, the more intentional, and the less depraved, is the act.”
Then there was Policano, a case out of Kings County that was reversed almost two years ago by Federal District Judge John Gleeson. That case upon appeal from the District Attorney of King’s County to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, backed up by numerous other appeals to that Court by persons convicted under the Depraved Mind Statute, caused a three-judge panel, led by Judge Calabrese, to call upon the New York Court
of Appeals for a “Certification” of the definition and applicability of Depraved Indifference Murder. With all due respect, Judge Calabrese demonstrated his own confusion by his off-handed observations from the bench.
Here, at home in Westchester, under the reign of former DA Jeanine Pirro, the statute was so o en abused, there was hardly a homicide prosecution that did not include a charge of “Depraved” no matter how obviously the fact pattern being proffered pointed to Intentional Murder. And, she had been using the device for many years.
Anthony DiSimone, falsely charged with stabbing Louis Balancio 13 times, was nevertheless convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder, having been acquitted of Intentional Murder. Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, sent to prison for saving his father’s life from a bat-wielding assailant, having put three bullets into the assailant’s heart at close range in an act of self-defense, was acquitted of Intentional Murder, but convicted of Depraved
Indifference Murder.
Because of the self-preserving approach of Judith Kaye and Company, in essence creating two separate Depraved Indifference Murder statutes, one before Gallagher and one after, the fact that Officer DiGuglielmo could not, under the same circumstances be charged, much less convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder today, is not availing to him, nor to scores of others similarly situated and languishing in state prison because Kaye and her gang would not permit retroactivity, as it would have raised the issue of why that Court had permitted such abuse of the statute for nearly four decades.
A few years ago a middle-aged County bus driver was charged both with Intentional and Depraved for allegedly having strangled his elderly aunt with his bare hands. The Judge, Mary Smith, hearing the case, was persuaded to drop the Depraved charge when then-recent case law was brought to her attention. A man falsely convicted
of a double homicide that was actually a Murder/Suicide, was also charged with Depraved Indifference Murder, as well as First and Second Degree Intentional Murder, all under DA Jeanine Pirro.
Most recently, here in Westchester, the Anthony Burton homicide case, clearly a textbook definition Depraved Indifference Murder, in which the shooter admitted to knowing that there were many people standing on the
sidewalk when he mindlessly red six bullets from the window of a moving car in their direction, was nevertheless acquitted by a jury because one of the bullets struck a sign above their heads, and Burton claimed to be shooting at the sign. In this case Depraved was not the compromise, Manslaughter was.
Viewed from any perspective the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute has been a tool of more injustice than any other criminal legislation in recent New York State history. In the name of justice, and in furtherance of
equal treatment under the law, the statute should be retired.
Richard Blassberg
State Legislature Must End Enigma And Injustice Of “Depraved Indifference Murder”
Exactly forty years ago New York State Legislators, in their infinite collective wisdom, passed, and Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed into law, the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, and thus was born one of the
most misunderstood and abused devices in the State’s criminal code arsenal.
Sometimes referred to as Depraved Mind Murder, an alias that only tends to invite further confusion, the statute, in effect, was an attempt to establish a homicide that would carry a penalty as severe as Second Degree
Murder, without the element of intent. Lawmakers were attempting to deal with those reckless behaviors, that were, in fact, so reckless as to “evince a depraved indifference” to whether someone, anyone, might live or die, as a consequence of the perpetrator’s conduct. The operative word was ‘indifference’ as distinguished from intent, as in Intentional Murder. Perhaps legislators were responding to a public outcry over individuals whose reckless, but unintentional, acts of Manslaughter had resulted in sentences of five years, or fewer.
Unfortunately, few people really understood the defining aspect of the notion of indifference. Many, both in, and out, of the courts, especially under the alternate title Depraved Mind Murder, came to believe that the notion of depravity attached to any murder. And, therein lay the potential for what ultimately became massive abuse of the statute by unethical and manipulative prosecutors.
Over time it came to be used more and more frequently as a safety net, or backstop, for self-promoting politically motivated District Attorneys, who would charge an accused both with Intentional, and Depraved Indifference Murder.
That practice, only recently frowned upon in appellate decisions, was essentially a statement by prosecutors that either they really didn’t have a strong, provable, theory to explain why, and by whom, someone had been
murdered, or they were not willing to invest the time and effort needed to develop one. Either way, unscrupulous prosecutors, focused merely on winning, frequently got juries who were unconvinced, or unwilling to convict
a defendant of Intentional Murder, to “compromise” by finding him guilty of Depraved Indifference Murder. Little did such juries realize that they had been duped, or that the sentence for Depraved was identical to Intentional Murder.
It took 37 years, until pressure from one State Court of Appeals Judge, now retired, Judge Rosenblatt, began to bring about a closer examination and reassertion of the statute’s elements and definition, as case after case
began piling up with greater frequency in the Appellate Division, ultimately filtering up to the high court. In March of 2004, Gonzalez, a case out of Rochester, in a decision authored by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, began to set guidelines as to what constituted an ‘indifferent’ mindset.
The Defendant had shot his victim in the back, who then fell to the floor of a barbershop, whereupon he continued to fire seven more rounds into his head and back. The trial jury had acquitted the defendant of
Intentional Murder, instead preferring the compromise Depraved Indifference verdict.
The conviction was overturned by the high court. A year later in a case from Long Island’s Suffolk County, Payne a man who was convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder, but acquitted of Intentional Murder, having
gone to his neighbor’s front door, putting a shotgun to the neighbor’s midsection and blowing him away, likewise had his conviction vacated. In writing the decision, Judge Rosenblatt, in an attempt to set aside any further ambiguity, or doubt, as to the very narrow and infrequent circumstances that warranted a charge of Depraved Indifference Murder, wrote, “The more times the victim is shot, or the more times he is bludgeoned, the more intentional, and the less depraved, is the act.”
Then there was Policano, a case out of Kings County that was reversed almost two years ago by Federal District Judge John Gleeson. That case upon appeal from the District Attorney of King’s County to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, backed up by numerous other appeals to that Court by persons convicted under the Depraved Mind Statute, caused a three-judge panel, led by Judge Calabrese, to call upon the New York Court
of Appeals for a “Certification” of the definition and applicability of Depraved Indifference Murder. With all due respect, Judge Calabrese demonstrated his own confusion by his off-handed observations from the bench.
Here, at home in Westchester, under the reign of former DA Jeanine Pirro, the statute was so o en abused, there was hardly a homicide prosecution that did not include a charge of “Depraved” no matter how obviously the fact pattern being proffered pointed to Intentional Murder. And, she had been using the device for many years.
Anthony DiSimone, falsely charged with stabbing Louis Balancio 13 times, was nevertheless convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder, having been acquitted of Intentional Murder. Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, sent to prison for saving his father’s life from a bat-wielding assailant, having put three bullets into the assailant’s heart at close range in an act of self-defense, was acquitted of Intentional Murder, but convicted of Depraved
Indifference Murder.
Because of the self-preserving approach of Judith Kaye and Company, in essence creating two separate Depraved Indifference Murder statutes, one before Gallagher and one after, the fact that Officer DiGuglielmo could not, under the same circumstances be charged, much less convicted of Depraved Indifference Murder today, is not availing to him, nor to scores of others similarly situated and languishing in state prison because Kaye and her gang would not permit retroactivity, as it would have raised the issue of why that Court had permitted such abuse of the statute for nearly four decades.
A few years ago a middle-aged County bus driver was charged both with Intentional and Depraved for allegedly having strangled his elderly aunt with his bare hands. The Judge, Mary Smith, hearing the case, was persuaded to drop the Depraved charge when then-recent case law was brought to her attention. A man falsely convicted
of a double homicide that was actually a Murder/Suicide, was also charged with Depraved Indifference Murder, as well as First and Second Degree Intentional Murder, all under DA Jeanine Pirro.
Most recently, here in Westchester, the Anthony Burton homicide case, clearly a textbook definition Depraved Indifference Murder, in which the shooter admitted to knowing that there were many people standing on the
sidewalk when he mindlessly red six bullets from the window of a moving car in their direction, was nevertheless acquitted by a jury because one of the bullets struck a sign above their heads, and Burton claimed to be shooting at the sign. In this case Depraved was not the compromise, Manslaughter was.
Viewed from any perspective the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute has been a tool of more injustice than any other criminal legislation in recent New York State history. In the name of justice, and in furtherance of
equal treatment under the law, the statute should be retired.
Janet Difiore.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
A Decade Too Late, The Wheels Of Justice Finally Start Turning
Wednesday, July 25th, with the holding of oral arguments by Westchester County Court Judge Rory J. Bellantoni, the Wheels of Justice finally began turning in the case of Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, maliciously and
wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, and sent to state prison for a crime he did not commit, a decade ago. A New York City Transit Police Officer for twelve years at the time of the incident, Officer DiGuglielmo did, in fact,
fire “three shots to center mass” killing Charles Campbell who was beating DiGuglielmo’s father with a metal baseball bat, late in the afternoon of October 3, 1996. Simply, and accurately stated, DiGuglielmo did what
the law called for under the circumstances, both in his capacity as a police officer, and as a civilian. Under two
separate applicable New York State statutes his response, saving the life of an unarmed, innocent, civilian was a
justifiable homicide irrespective of the fact that the life he saved was that of his middle-aged father.
The bat-wielding assailant, Charles Campbell, was an amateur boxer and body builder, with a long criminal
record, including violent offenses, who was known, even amongst his associates and employers, to have “a short
fuse.” He had already broken the elder DiGuglielmo’s hand, and had severely injured his leg with blows, that
one eyewitness said, “could be heard a block away.” Another witness had said Campbell was going to “crush the father’s head like a watermelon.” And, in fact, Campbell was swinging to do precisely that when shot, as the bullet entry points clearly demonstrated, despite DA Pirro’s fiction to the contrary.
Officer DiGuglielmo’s parents, and some 18 other supporters filled one side of the spectators gallery, as
Defense Attorneys Andrew Shapiro, and Steven Lewis engaged Assistant DAs Robert Sauer and Timothy Ward in argument of the merits of several issues raised in a 440.10 Appeal of DiGuglielmo’s conviction for Depraved
Indifference Murder.
Analysis
In any of sixty-one other counties of New York State, other than Westchester County, under DA Jeanine Pirro, the fact pattern would not have called for an indictment. But, for Mrs. Pirro, Officer Richard DiGuglielmo
represented a prosecution of opportunity, not unlike her malicious, and unlawful prosecution of Anthony DiSimone for the murder of Louis Balancio, three years earlier. Each of these young men, totally innocent of the crime that Mrs. Pirro couldn’t resist falsely accusing them of, went to prison for the sole purpose of furthering her twisted political agenda.
Neither prosecution, nor the confabulated fiction attached to each, had anything to do with finding the truth, or bringing about justice. Judge Bellantoni opened the proceedings addressing the Defense with, “The focus has changed as we have gone forward. I want to give the Defense the opportunity to make a record.” The Judge was making reference to the 440.10 Application that he had been considering for many months meeting with both sides, Defense and Prosecution attorneys, in conference, in an attempt to deal with a number of issues that had continued to develop, from investigation going forward, suggesting that significant information had been, and continues to be, withheld by the District Attorney’s Office.
The premise of a 440.10 Application is that there are issues, particular information, ‘unavailable’ to a convicted
defendant, at the time of his trial and conviction, which, if presented to the trier of fact, the jury, would
likely have produced a different outcome. In DiGuglielmo’s case there are a number of such issues. One involves the fact that the crime for which he was convicted, Depraved Indifference Murder, is one for which he could not be indicted, much less convicted today. However, despite that fact, the State’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, under the politically self-serving hand of Judith Kaye, has outrageously closed the door to all but a very few wrongfully and unlawfully prosecuted and convicted for four decades under the statute. There was nothing ‘indifferent’ about Officer DiGuglielmo’s action, having fired three rounds to center mass at close range, precisely as trained to for twelve years by the New York City Police Department, in such circumstances. And, the jury, considering those circumstances, refused to convict him of Intentional Murder, or even Assault.
Analysis
In light of the New York Court Of Appeals’ cowardice over the last year, when put to the test by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the issue of Depraved Indifference Murder has become one that will
go all the way to the Supreme Court because Judith Kaye, and Company would rather violate the Constitutional rights of several hundred innocent citizens than admit to the Court’s complicity over forty years.
A number of other issues were raised in DiGuglielmo’s present 440.10 Application. Referencing, perhaps the most urgent, Judge Bellantoni declared, “The key witness, Mr. Dillon who saw the incident from start to
finish and was closest to the parties, has unequivocally stated that his trial testimony was inaccurate as he was worn down.” Attorney Andrew Shapiro went on to explain the implications of Mr. Dillon’s recent submissions to
the Court. He indicated, firstly, that the issue of coercion of a witness, that would be a serious violation if engaged in by police and/or prosecutors, was implied. And, secondly, Shapiro discussed his concerns that the DA’s Of-fice never provided trial counsel with information regarding the numerous interrogations Mr. Dillon is claiming occurred between his first statement to Dobbs Ferry Police, the evening of the incident, October 3, 1996, and the statement he gave in the early morning hours of October 8th, concealment of which Shapiro said would constitute “a Rosario violation.”
Bellantoni then asked Shapiro, “How is it Rosario material?” Shapiro proceeded to explain that if, in fact, the Dobbs Ferry Police had interrogated Mr. Dillon, as he alleges, between his first statement and his last, four or more times in between, on October 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, there had to be memo pads, follow up reports, and possibly tape recordings none of which were ever turned over to the Defense. Shapiro went on to elaborate
on the issue of tape recording of statements by the Dobbs Ferry Police, indicating that despite denials by that department, Mr. Dillon and other witnesses have reported the use of tape recorders.
Judge Bellantoni, at this point, revisited the Depraved Indifference Murder issue, remarking, “The Payne, Suarez, and Feingold rulings cannot be applied retroactively, thus keeping a person in prison who, if he were tried today, could not be tried under the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute.” He went on, “You would like me to rule that the Court of Appeals ruling is Unconstitutional.”
Shapiro came back, “We are not saying that Depraved Indifference Murder is not a crime, but, that under the statute as it is today, our client could not be tried under it.” Bellantoni responded, indicating that he was
in no position to overrule the state’s highest court irrespective of his own position on the matter.
Returning to the affidavit of the key witness, Michael Dillon, Bellantoni said, “There are allegations that Mr. Dillon gave a statement and then was questioned six or seven hours a day for several days.”
ADA Sauer interjected, “On September seventh he’s on the stand and he’s being cross-examined. Why doesn’t he say something?” Sauer goes on, “We have no reports of other contacts with the police between his first and
his last statements.” He tries to make the argument that there were only two statements.
Then Judge Bellantoni asked Mr. Sauer how it could be that the Dobbs Ferry Detectives could have spoken only of two statements given that there were also statements on the fourth, fifth, and sixth of October? He then proceeded to raise the issue of a possible Brady violation in the District Attorney’s failure to give information of several interviews of witnesses to the Defense Attorneys.
Apparently lacking any substantive counter to the Judge’s statements, Mr. Sauer attempted to use Mr. Dillon’s statement that he was “tired,” and lacked the opportunity to review his statement, on October 7th, (that actually
ran for some 3 ½ hours, beyond 1:00am the morning of the eighth.) Bellantoni then explored the difference between intimidation and coercion on the part of police interrogators. Mr. Sauer again insisting, “There was no information that there were any other interviews between the fourth and the eleventh. We gave everything we had to the Defense.”
At this point in the proceedings, obviously sensing the District Attorney’s resistance to possible exposure of prosecutorial, and/or police misconduct that might come out at a hearing from witnesses under oath, and
subject to cross-examination, the Judge, addressing Mr. Sauer, asked, “Isn’t it true that the best way to resolve this is with a hearing? You said before we can’t judge the credibility of Mr. Dillon based on the affidavits.”
Sauer responded, “No Your Honor.”
The Judge came back, “Isn’t there a presumption that the outcome might have been different if he gave a story on the witness stand that is remarkably different from his original statement?”
Sauer, then tried to slip one by the Court remarking, “They are trying to raise issues they could have raised on cross-examination at trial.”
Analysis
Of course, Mr. Sauer knew very well that the whole point of the discussion thus far involved the failure of the District Attorney’s Office to turn over, to the Defense, discovery materials that would have revealed the
multiple interrogations that occurred between Mr. Dillon’s first statement to the Dobbs Ferry Police and his so-called “second statement.”
Mr. Shapiro then spoke of a “fundamental misunderstanding of Rosario,” referencing multiple interrogations, and asking, “How could it not have been different if a witness had said, I lied?” Turning to Bellantoni he went on, “Your Honor is right; in the initial filing and in our motion we referred to the pressure having been applied.”
The Judge then added, “Doesn’t it make a difference if the witness comes to Court and says this was self-defense?” Then Mr. Shapiro posed the question most difficult for the Prosecution, “In the interest of truthfulness and finality why are the People opposing a hearing?”
Glancing down at the Defense filings, Bellantoni then stated, “These papers were filed in September 2006, and this Court has contemplated it for almost a year.” Then, turning to Mr. Sauer, he asked, “Are you saying the
standard for granting a hearing is the same as for calling for a new trial?”
Analysis
That question, of course, highlighted the very purpose of the oral argument, essentially a hearing to determine whether there should be an Evidentiary Hearing to expose and explore the issues before the Court with respect to the possible withholding of significant discovery materials. It is not such a shocking allegation, after all, regarding a District Attorney’s Office that the legal community has now come to recognize was quite capable
of concealing 376 pages and 52 boxes of exculpatory material in order to send an innocent man, Anthony DiSimone, to prison for life, while perpetuating a thirteen-year lie.
There followed discussion of other information that investigators for the Defense have recently uncovered involving one of the jurors who had been convicted of a crime, and who would never have sat on the jury had
that fact been revealed.
Stating, “I don’t believe Mr. Dillon’s testimony here, is incredible,” Bellantoni indicated that he would conduct a hearing, the purpose of which will be, in his words, “to run down, once and for all, exactly what Mr. Dillon
is alleging.” The dates of the hearing agreed upon were September 24th, 25th, and 26th. It would appear the Wheels of Justice have finally begun to turn for Richard DiGuglielmo.
By Richard Blassberg
A Decade Too Late, The Wheels Of Justice Finally Start Turning
Wednesday, July 25th, with the holding of oral arguments by Westchester County Court Judge Rory J. Bellantoni, the Wheels of Justice finally began turning in the case of Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, maliciously and
wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, and sent to state prison for a crime he did not commit, a decade ago. A New York City Transit Police Officer for twelve years at the time of the incident, Officer DiGuglielmo did, in fact,
fire “three shots to center mass” killing Charles Campbell who was beating DiGuglielmo’s father with a metal baseball bat, late in the afternoon of October 3, 1996. Simply, and accurately stated, DiGuglielmo did what
the law called for under the circumstances, both in his capacity as a police officer, and as a civilian. Under two
separate applicable New York State statutes his response, saving the life of an unarmed, innocent, civilian was a
justifiable homicide irrespective of the fact that the life he saved was that of his middle-aged father.
The bat-wielding assailant, Charles Campbell, was an amateur boxer and body builder, with a long criminal
record, including violent offenses, who was known, even amongst his associates and employers, to have “a short
fuse.” He had already broken the elder DiGuglielmo’s hand, and had severely injured his leg with blows, that
one eyewitness said, “could be heard a block away.” Another witness had said Campbell was going to “crush the father’s head like a watermelon.” And, in fact, Campbell was swinging to do precisely that when shot, as the bullet entry points clearly demonstrated, despite DA Pirro’s fiction to the contrary.
Officer DiGuglielmo’s parents, and some 18 other supporters filled one side of the spectators gallery, as
Defense Attorneys Andrew Shapiro, and Steven Lewis engaged Assistant DAs Robert Sauer and Timothy Ward in argument of the merits of several issues raised in a 440.10 Appeal of DiGuglielmo’s conviction for Depraved
Indifference Murder.
Analysis
In any of sixty-one other counties of New York State, other than Westchester County, under DA Jeanine Pirro, the fact pattern would not have called for an indictment. But, for Mrs. Pirro, Officer Richard DiGuglielmo
represented a prosecution of opportunity, not unlike her malicious, and unlawful prosecution of Anthony DiSimone for the murder of Louis Balancio, three years earlier. Each of these young men, totally innocent of the crime that Mrs. Pirro couldn’t resist falsely accusing them of, went to prison for the sole purpose of furthering her twisted political agenda.
Neither prosecution, nor the confabulated fiction attached to each, had anything to do with finding the truth, or bringing about justice. Judge Bellantoni opened the proceedings addressing the Defense with, “The focus has changed as we have gone forward. I want to give the Defense the opportunity to make a record.” The Judge was making reference to the 440.10 Application that he had been considering for many months meeting with both sides, Defense and Prosecution attorneys, in conference, in an attempt to deal with a number of issues that had continued to develop, from investigation going forward, suggesting that significant information had been, and continues to be, withheld by the District Attorney’s Office.
The premise of a 440.10 Application is that there are issues, particular information, ‘unavailable’ to a convicted
defendant, at the time of his trial and conviction, which, if presented to the trier of fact, the jury, would
likely have produced a different outcome. In DiGuglielmo’s case there are a number of such issues. One involves the fact that the crime for which he was convicted, Depraved Indifference Murder, is one for which he could not be indicted, much less convicted today. However, despite that fact, the State’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, under the politically self-serving hand of Judith Kaye, has outrageously closed the door to all but a very few wrongfully and unlawfully prosecuted and convicted for four decades under the statute. There was nothing ‘indifferent’ about Officer DiGuglielmo’s action, having fired three rounds to center mass at close range, precisely as trained to for twelve years by the New York City Police Department, in such circumstances. And, the jury, considering those circumstances, refused to convict him of Intentional Murder, or even Assault.
Analysis
In light of the New York Court Of Appeals’ cowardice over the last year, when put to the test by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the issue of Depraved Indifference Murder has become one that will
go all the way to the Supreme Court because Judith Kaye, and Company would rather violate the Constitutional rights of several hundred innocent citizens than admit to the Court’s complicity over forty years.
A number of other issues were raised in DiGuglielmo’s present 440.10 Application. Referencing, perhaps the most urgent, Judge Bellantoni declared, “The key witness, Mr. Dillon who saw the incident from start to
finish and was closest to the parties, has unequivocally stated that his trial testimony was inaccurate as he was worn down.” Attorney Andrew Shapiro went on to explain the implications of Mr. Dillon’s recent submissions to
the Court. He indicated, firstly, that the issue of coercion of a witness, that would be a serious violation if engaged in by police and/or prosecutors, was implied. And, secondly, Shapiro discussed his concerns that the DA’s Of-fice never provided trial counsel with information regarding the numerous interrogations Mr. Dillon is claiming occurred between his first statement to Dobbs Ferry Police, the evening of the incident, October 3, 1996, and the statement he gave in the early morning hours of October 8th, concealment of which Shapiro said would constitute “a Rosario violation.”
Bellantoni then asked Shapiro, “How is it Rosario material?” Shapiro proceeded to explain that if, in fact, the Dobbs Ferry Police had interrogated Mr. Dillon, as he alleges, between his first statement and his last, four or more times in between, on October 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th, there had to be memo pads, follow up reports, and possibly tape recordings none of which were ever turned over to the Defense. Shapiro went on to elaborate
on the issue of tape recording of statements by the Dobbs Ferry Police, indicating that despite denials by that department, Mr. Dillon and other witnesses have reported the use of tape recorders.
Judge Bellantoni, at this point, revisited the Depraved Indifference Murder issue, remarking, “The Payne, Suarez, and Feingold rulings cannot be applied retroactively, thus keeping a person in prison who, if he were tried today, could not be tried under the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute.” He went on, “You would like me to rule that the Court of Appeals ruling is Unconstitutional.”
Shapiro came back, “We are not saying that Depraved Indifference Murder is not a crime, but, that under the statute as it is today, our client could not be tried under it.” Bellantoni responded, indicating that he was
in no position to overrule the state’s highest court irrespective of his own position on the matter.
Returning to the affidavit of the key witness, Michael Dillon, Bellantoni said, “There are allegations that Mr. Dillon gave a statement and then was questioned six or seven hours a day for several days.”
ADA Sauer interjected, “On September seventh he’s on the stand and he’s being cross-examined. Why doesn’t he say something?” Sauer goes on, “We have no reports of other contacts with the police between his first and
his last statements.” He tries to make the argument that there were only two statements.
Then Judge Bellantoni asked Mr. Sauer how it could be that the Dobbs Ferry Detectives could have spoken only of two statements given that there were also statements on the fourth, fifth, and sixth of October? He then proceeded to raise the issue of a possible Brady violation in the District Attorney’s failure to give information of several interviews of witnesses to the Defense Attorneys.
Apparently lacking any substantive counter to the Judge’s statements, Mr. Sauer attempted to use Mr. Dillon’s statement that he was “tired,” and lacked the opportunity to review his statement, on October 7th, (that actually
ran for some 3 ½ hours, beyond 1:00am the morning of the eighth.) Bellantoni then explored the difference between intimidation and coercion on the part of police interrogators. Mr. Sauer again insisting, “There was no information that there were any other interviews between the fourth and the eleventh. We gave everything we had to the Defense.”
At this point in the proceedings, obviously sensing the District Attorney’s resistance to possible exposure of prosecutorial, and/or police misconduct that might come out at a hearing from witnesses under oath, and
subject to cross-examination, the Judge, addressing Mr. Sauer, asked, “Isn’t it true that the best way to resolve this is with a hearing? You said before we can’t judge the credibility of Mr. Dillon based on the affidavits.”
Sauer responded, “No Your Honor.”
The Judge came back, “Isn’t there a presumption that the outcome might have been different if he gave a story on the witness stand that is remarkably different from his original statement?”
Sauer, then tried to slip one by the Court remarking, “They are trying to raise issues they could have raised on cross-examination at trial.”
Analysis
Of course, Mr. Sauer knew very well that the whole point of the discussion thus far involved the failure of the District Attorney’s Office to turn over, to the Defense, discovery materials that would have revealed the
multiple interrogations that occurred between Mr. Dillon’s first statement to the Dobbs Ferry Police and his so-called “second statement.”
Mr. Shapiro then spoke of a “fundamental misunderstanding of Rosario,” referencing multiple interrogations, and asking, “How could it not have been different if a witness had said, I lied?” Turning to Bellantoni he went on, “Your Honor is right; in the initial filing and in our motion we referred to the pressure having been applied.”
The Judge then added, “Doesn’t it make a difference if the witness comes to Court and says this was self-defense?” Then Mr. Shapiro posed the question most difficult for the Prosecution, “In the interest of truthfulness and finality why are the People opposing a hearing?”
Glancing down at the Defense filings, Bellantoni then stated, “These papers were filed in September 2006, and this Court has contemplated it for almost a year.” Then, turning to Mr. Sauer, he asked, “Are you saying the
standard for granting a hearing is the same as for calling for a new trial?”
Analysis
That question, of course, highlighted the very purpose of the oral argument, essentially a hearing to determine whether there should be an Evidentiary Hearing to expose and explore the issues before the Court with respect to the possible withholding of significant discovery materials. It is not such a shocking allegation, after all, regarding a District Attorney’s Office that the legal community has now come to recognize was quite capable
of concealing 376 pages and 52 boxes of exculpatory material in order to send an innocent man, Anthony DiSimone, to prison for life, while perpetuating a thirteen-year lie.
There followed discussion of other information that investigators for the Defense have recently uncovered involving one of the jurors who had been convicted of a crime, and who would never have sat on the jury had
that fact been revealed.
Stating, “I don’t believe Mr. Dillon’s testimony here, is incredible,” Bellantoni indicated that he would conduct a hearing, the purpose of which will be, in his words, “to run down, once and for all, exactly what Mr. Dillon
is alleging.” The dates of the hearing agreed upon were September 24th, 25th, and 26th. It would appear the Wheels of Justice have finally begun to turn for Richard DiGuglielmo.
Democrat Robertson Emerging As ‘People’s Choice’ Challenges Amicone To Level With Yonkers Families
In a wide-ranging interview, Dennis Robertson, running for Mayor of Yonkers on the Democratic and Working Families lines, sharply criticized Phil Amicone for his lack of accountability to the families and taxpayers of Yonkers. Indicating that the Mayor, at his present rate of irresponsible spending, is on a course to create a $60
million deficit, according to the State Comptroller’s Office.
Robertson, 46, who has been conducting an energetic door to-door campaign, claims he is garnering a great deal of support, not only from rank-and-file Democrats, but also from many Republicans and Independence Party voters who are fed up with high taxes and poor schools.
Asked to list the three most pressing concerns he is hearing from homeowners on the campaign trail, Robertson responded, “Education, Public Safety, and Sensible Development.” He pointed to the fact that he does not
need the job to earn a living, and that as a City Councilman he personally pays for the lease and gas of his City-issued car. Asked how he would deal with continuing allegations of police brutality, he responded “The key is getting rid of the Bad Apples. They only give the Department a bad name. When I am Mayor there will be more
public trust.”
Robertson, presently a Councilman from the City’s Third District, who serves as Chairman of the Real Estate Committee, believes Tax Incremental Financing, popular with the present City administration, “is not good for the People of Yonkers.” He told The Guardian, “As Mayor I will ask potential developers what they will do to benefit the residents of our City.”
Robertson sees County Government as mostly detrimental to the families of Yonkers. “We pay in much more in
taxes than we receive from the County in services.” He faults Phil Amicone, who he claims is popular with the County Executive and with Larry Schwartz, because, “He never questions what the County does that inflicts pain upon the People of Yonkers.”
Robertson has promised openness and honesty in City government when elected. He vowed, “There will be no more sweetheart deals.” He concluded by saying, “There are seven other elected Yonkers officials, elected by somebody. As Mayor I will meet with each of them to work for the betterment of Yonkers.”
In a wide-ranging interview, Dennis Robertson, running for Mayor of Yonkers on the Democratic and Working Families lines, sharply criticized Phil Amicone for his lack of accountability to the families and taxpayers of Yonkers. Indicating that the Mayor, at his present rate of irresponsible spending, is on a course to create a $60
million deficit, according to the State Comptroller’s Office.
Robertson, 46, who has been conducting an energetic door to-door campaign, claims he is garnering a great deal of support, not only from rank-and-file Democrats, but also from many Republicans and Independence Party voters who are fed up with high taxes and poor schools.
Asked to list the three most pressing concerns he is hearing from homeowners on the campaign trail, Robertson responded, “Education, Public Safety, and Sensible Development.” He pointed to the fact that he does not
need the job to earn a living, and that as a City Councilman he personally pays for the lease and gas of his City-issued car. Asked how he would deal with continuing allegations of police brutality, he responded “The key is getting rid of the Bad Apples. They only give the Department a bad name. When I am Mayor there will be more
public trust.”
Robertson, presently a Councilman from the City’s Third District, who serves as Chairman of the Real Estate Committee, believes Tax Incremental Financing, popular with the present City administration, “is not good for the People of Yonkers.” He told The Guardian, “As Mayor I will ask potential developers what they will do to benefit the residents of our City.”
Robertson sees County Government as mostly detrimental to the families of Yonkers. “We pay in much more in
taxes than we receive from the County in services.” He faults Phil Amicone, who he claims is popular with the County Executive and with Larry Schwartz, because, “He never questions what the County does that inflicts pain upon the People of Yonkers.”
Robertson has promised openness and honesty in City government when elected. He vowed, “There will be no more sweetheart deals.” He concluded by saying, “There are seven other elected Yonkers officials, elected by somebody. As Mayor I will meet with each of them to work for the betterment of Yonkers.”
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Sayegh Officially Enters Race for Yonkers Mayor Files More Than Four Times Required Number Of Signatures
In a show of overwhelming grass-roots support, Independence Party candidate Nader Sayegh filed petitions for Mayor with over four times the required number of signatures. Sayegh, a School Principal and Career Educator
with over 34 years of experience, will campaign on a theme calling for the improvement of Yonkers Schools
“by making sure that our children have all the resources necessary to excel in life.”
Sayegh declared, “Education is my top priority, and I will be the education candidate. When it comes to making
Yonkers Public Schools the best they can be, my opponent, Phil Amicone, talks the talk but I have walked the walk.”
As a resident of Yonkers for more than 50 years, Mr. Sayegh has a long history of service to the community. As mayor, he will draw from his experiences as a community activist, educator, and attorney, to competently address the issues of greatest concern to the people of Yonkers.
He was, himself, educated in the Yonkers Public Schools as were his five children. Sayegh reflected, “Everyone I meet is concerned about the lack of integrity and the lack of open government, as well as the abuse of political power, that has been taking place in Yonkers for years. I intend to vigorously address these issues head-on.”
In a show of overwhelming grass-roots support, Independence Party candidate Nader Sayegh filed petitions for Mayor with over four times the required number of signatures. Sayegh, a School Principal and Career Educator
with over 34 years of experience, will campaign on a theme calling for the improvement of Yonkers Schools
“by making sure that our children have all the resources necessary to excel in life.”
Sayegh declared, “Education is my top priority, and I will be the education candidate. When it comes to making
Yonkers Public Schools the best they can be, my opponent, Phil Amicone, talks the talk but I have walked the walk.”
As a resident of Yonkers for more than 50 years, Mr. Sayegh has a long history of service to the community. As mayor, he will draw from his experiences as a community activist, educator, and attorney, to competently address the issues of greatest concern to the people of Yonkers.
He was, himself, educated in the Yonkers Public Schools as were his five children. Sayegh reflected, “Everyone I meet is concerned about the lack of integrity and the lack of open government, as well as the abuse of political power, that has been taking place in Yonkers for years. I intend to vigorously address these issues head-on.”
Our Readers Respond...
Reader Gives Patient Litigants A Heads Up
Dear Editor:
In reply to “A Concerned State Worker” Our Readers Respond... July 19, 2007:
The mystery writer makes statements about Republican Minority Leader Westchester County Legislator
George Oros and his wife Marianne Oros of the New York State Health Department. The past-tense reference regarding a hospital Mrs. Oros “oversaw” is confusing. Does the writer have proof that Marianne Oros is no longer the director of the hospital program? She was the director in March of 2006.
Why doesn’t the writer indicate that the hospital in question is Hudson Valley Hospital? Is that some sort of secret? The people that should be concerned the most about this Oros situation are the patients of Hudson Valley Hospital who filed complaints about their care to the New York State Health Department and received the standard “your concerns could not be substantiated” letter. In my opinion, those patients should seek
legal advice regarding the Oros conflict of interest and how it may have impacted the results of their complaint.
Jennifer Forte, Millwood
Everyone’s Entitled To Their Opinion
Dear Editor:
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”. Sir Walter Scott wrote these timeless and prophetic words, and they are as profound today as they were back in the eighteenth century. And there is enough deceit to go around, especially among those in the fourth estate.
In the July 19th edition of The Westchester Guardian, both Fred Polvere and Richard Blassberg offer the reader the same distorted liberal rhetoric. This unnatural hatred and contempt for George W. Bush is beyond ideological differences. Blassberg accuses the Bush administration of treason, while Polvere in another distraught and anguish-filled tirade concludes his column with these words, “he (Bush) has sealed his legacy as a President who
stands for Unequal Justice Under the Law”. In a previous column, Polvere accused Mr. Bush of being, “the most incompetent and immoral president in the history of the United States”. One can only imagine what is yet to come: George Bush is a maniac, killer, genocidal dictator. He’s inhuman!
Both of the columns are replete with the same usual platitudes and inaccuracies: misled Congress and the American People into war, enormous financial profits collected by Halliburton which Dick Cheney is intimately connected, obstruction of justice, misguided claims of “Executive Privilege”. But what is most egregious
– and liberals are noted for this kind of gutter politics – is when it gets personal. Blassberg writes that, “Bush is both stupid and stubborn.” And Polvere refers to the President’s alcoholism, which he has overcome, and “probable substance abuse.” That’s right, probable substance abuse. It has never been proven, so I guess Mr.
Polvere probably believes it. It is Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it is out of control.
I have come to the conclusion that most diehard liberals would show more compassion and understanding toward terrorists than they would this President, any in his administration, Republicans, and most certain Lewis Libby. And, in conclusion, I’d like to offer some advice to The Westchester Guardian. You might want to
consider changing the name to The Westchester Liberal Guard-ian, and instead of what appears to be the effigy of a colonial militiaman, you show a facsimile of George Bush encircled with a line through it.
Bob Pascarella,
The Bronx
“One Man’s Encounter With A CORRUPT D.S.S. and County Executive Office That Put Me Here”
Dear Editor:
I saw your latest edition today; “$25,000 For Corruption. As you know from earlier contacts, I’m not after the
money. The best way to to entitle this is, “One man’s encounter with a CORRUPT Department of Social Services, and the County Executive Office that put me here.”
In 2001 I was sent to work for Galante Contracting in various Westchester County offices. Mr. Galante had
already been found guilty for not paying prevailing wages at least one time prior to my hire. He should have been
barred from future contracts but, because of his friendships with members of the County Government, he was
able to be caught four more times. Four more, before he was unable to get no more work (at times without bid), and before I learned I was ill, and he had never paid my insurance. This, however, was in 2001, and is just background to today’s reason I write you.
I have congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, and now, due to D.S.S., kidney disease. In July of 2005 I became homeless. I went to 85 Court Street, White Plains to apply for benefits. My intake was handled
by a Ms. Cooley. She was efficient and fair.
When she was finished, I was given to a Ms. (Jackie) Brutto. Her first contact with me was by phone, and she said, “I’ve called your Union, I’ve pulled your photo and I know who you are. I’m going to deny you.”
She would later admit to an Administrative Judge she had called my Union before ever talking with me. This was at a fair hearing in December 2005. Ms. Brutto further, opened my mail, canceled my Medicaid and stopped all
benefits with FORGED documents and lies. The latest of these incidents happened shortly before the death of my father, in March of this year. I had stayed with him for over three months when he was ill. After he went into the hospital, my sisters and their friend illegally locked me out of the apartment. This happened in Greenburgh and, of course, those Courts or Police were of NO and LITTLE help, respectively. The P.D.’s hands were effectively tied by the Court, and I returned to D.S.S., 85 Court Street, and was assisted by two people who helped me get back into housing and on Medicaid. Then it was back to Ms. Brutto. I was placed in Valhalla, and waited for assessment. During that time I had my “F.E.D.S.” hearing. This is where they tell you what to get to
show eligibility. One thing I needed was a letter from my Union, and the other a letter from my Doctor. I mmediately faxed my Union, and set up an appointment with my Doctor for the following Monday.
I went to D.S.S. and let Ms. Brutto know I would need help with the Union, and would have the Doctor’s letter the following Monday.
To my surprise, the NEXT DAY I was on the list for the three-day assessment. NO prior notice, which is normal, and when I tried to postpone the assessment, I was sanctioned. I immediately filed for a Fair Hearing. Due to my illness, I was granted an Emergency Hearing, however, benefits were CUT. Until its outcome, I now had to stay at the “DROP-IN” shelter at 85 Court Street. Located in the basement, totally below ground with NO WINDOWS, NO SHOWERS, and only three toilets for forty three “CLIENTS”, and staff. While I was waiting for this hearing my father passed. I postponed the hearing, and then had it. At the hearing, someone
named “Tommy” from the Assessment Center was interviewed by phone.
He had sent an information “package” to the hearing. It contained an obviously FORGED list of names, mine included, of people who were to start their assessment on the 30th of March, 2007. Only one problem, it was dated April 29, 2007, one month later! How obvious can you get? Ms. Brutto was not available, and the
County “WITHDREW”, the action, after learning I am ill.
I again saw my Doctor, got a letter for housing, and went to D.S.S. giving the papers to Ms. Brutto. Over the phone she told me, “We still have other ‘ISSUES’, and the decision did not matter.” I then went to the Commissioner’s office at 112 East Post Road, White Plains, and saw a “Chris” (these people are not too
interested in giving their names). I asked for Ms. Brutto to at least be taken off my case, at most “FIRED” for refusing a direct order, or to be suspended. Mr. Chris laughed! This (none of these) could not be done. Now all I have is Medicaid. I have no housing or benefits. Ms. Brutto is still on my case, though I was told to go at a later date to D.S.S. Why, I will not be placed, and I was undergoing a series of tests to see how bad my kidneys are.
Now, as you know, the Drop-In Shelter is closing on August 6, 2007. I did VERY little research and found this is not “PROPER” under New York State, Department of Social Services laws (see Affirming the Right to Shelter, New York State Supreme Court, February, 2000). Yet Mr. Larry Schwartz, of the County Executive’s
office, with little warning, announced the closing. If I cannot be placed, and I now should lose my medical, what am I to do?
Since the announcement, acts of assault have taken place against the homeless by workers who are supposed to help. Others have had to leave shelters because the county requires more money than they earn at jobs (over 100 percent of the gross income) for “SHELTER EXPENSES”, and if you do not get “into” the system, you
will be on the street. No doubt to be arrested or otherwise harassed.
I have contacted the A.C.L.U. and Nita Lowey, along with the Coalition For The Homeless. One question comes to mind about Larry Schwartz. He has been a constant from Galante to now. In the Journal News (which should be printed about 5” wide, put on a cardboard roller, and perforated every 5”); about three weeks after the announcement of the shelter’s demise, the paper’s headline was about Mr. Capelli. He has, as rumor goes, wanted the shelter out of White Plains. The headline said he received an $110,000,000 tax cut on his new buildings on Main Street in White Plains. Since the County Executive’s of-fice closed the shelter, and there was
such a generous tax cut, how much went to the favorite charity (A POCKET?) of someone in the Executive’s office?
David Boudreau
Welcome, Pilgrim
Dear Editor:
I have just been informed about your newspaper. I have read a few of the articles about the political and judicial
corruption that we, in Westchester County, have been expected to tolerate for far too long. I am a protective mother who has witnessed this corruption in the White Plains, NY and Stamford, Ct family court system.
I am a domestic violence activist and have been very active politically in Westchester County. I have witnessed
the political and judicial corruption while trying to protect my children from child abuse, medical neglect and
continued coercive control.
Ann Coleman
In Our Opinion...
Nothing Quite Like Competition To Bring Out The Best
We realize that it doesn’t especially please Westchester’s political control freaks; guys like Larry Schwartz, Giulio Cavallo, and Zehy Jereis, who have been manipulating the outcome of elections in the County for years.
However, We are delighted that the political process is beginning to open up, and incumbents in places such as Yonkers and Mount Vernon will no longer be shoe-ins. Phil Amicone and Ernie Davis will now face serious and determined competition, and, most importantly, will be held to account for their conduct in office.
After all, isn’t it the American way? Aren’t we all for competition to bring out the best possible product, at the lowest possible cost? Why should we view the holding of public office and the running of government any differently? In short, the fixing of elections, yes, the fixing of elections, both before and after the fact, the like of which has been all too common in Westchester, is downright un-American.
We are really pleased that County Legislator Clinton Young will be running against Ernie Davis in the Democratic Primary. Of course, in a city as overwhelmingly Democratic as Mount Vernon, for the most part the primary is
the general election. Therefore it will be important for those who want to bring about meaningful change in their city to make sure that they bring people to the primary who ordinarily leave those contests to the party mucky-mucks.
And, let’s face it; everybody knows it’s time for a change in Mount Vernon. The same ol’, same ol’ just won’t cut it anymore.
In Yonkers, the fourth largest city in New York State, the incumbent is facing competition from within his own party, the Republican party, in the person of Vinny Restiano, not to mention Democratic candidate, and City Councilman Dennis Robertson, a strong vote-getter, as well as Independence, and Independent, candidate Nader Sayegh, an extremely popular educator, and public servant.
Unlike his first run for mayor, this time Phil Amicone will not have the ‘slingshot’ edge that John Spencer gave him last time. In fact, Amicone has been so desperate for endorsement that he has taken up with the likes of Giulio Cavallo, Zehy Jereis, and Nick Spano. What’s the old expression; something about “birds of a feather?”
Nevertheless, whether on good terms, or not, with his mentor John Spencer, Phil Amicone cannot deny that he has been right there at the heart of city government, pulling strings for nearly twelve years.
High taxes, coupled with poor schools, rest on his shoulders. Police brutality, coupled with increased street crime and violence, likewise rest with him. He will have to answer to the People of Yonkers, many of whom are considering moving back to The Bronx or to other communities less expensive and safer than Yonkers has become under his watch. All the expensive new high-rise construction and fancy shopping centers, catering to the wealthy, simply won’t make the lives of hardworking, ordinary, citizens struggling to raise their families,
in what has become of Yonkers any easier.
Once again, We are delighted that there will be serious competition in at least two major Westchester elections this year. Perhaps the crucible of meaningful opposition will produce outcomes that will actually be beneficial to constituents and their families.
Reader Gives Patient Litigants A Heads Up
Dear Editor:
In reply to “A Concerned State Worker” Our Readers Respond... July 19, 2007:
The mystery writer makes statements about Republican Minority Leader Westchester County Legislator
George Oros and his wife Marianne Oros of the New York State Health Department. The past-tense reference regarding a hospital Mrs. Oros “oversaw” is confusing. Does the writer have proof that Marianne Oros is no longer the director of the hospital program? She was the director in March of 2006.
Why doesn’t the writer indicate that the hospital in question is Hudson Valley Hospital? Is that some sort of secret? The people that should be concerned the most about this Oros situation are the patients of Hudson Valley Hospital who filed complaints about their care to the New York State Health Department and received the standard “your concerns could not be substantiated” letter. In my opinion, those patients should seek
legal advice regarding the Oros conflict of interest and how it may have impacted the results of their complaint.
Jennifer Forte, Millwood
Everyone’s Entitled To Their Opinion
Dear Editor:
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”. Sir Walter Scott wrote these timeless and prophetic words, and they are as profound today as they were back in the eighteenth century. And there is enough deceit to go around, especially among those in the fourth estate.
In the July 19th edition of The Westchester Guardian, both Fred Polvere and Richard Blassberg offer the reader the same distorted liberal rhetoric. This unnatural hatred and contempt for George W. Bush is beyond ideological differences. Blassberg accuses the Bush administration of treason, while Polvere in another distraught and anguish-filled tirade concludes his column with these words, “he (Bush) has sealed his legacy as a President who
stands for Unequal Justice Under the Law”. In a previous column, Polvere accused Mr. Bush of being, “the most incompetent and immoral president in the history of the United States”. One can only imagine what is yet to come: George Bush is a maniac, killer, genocidal dictator. He’s inhuman!
Both of the columns are replete with the same usual platitudes and inaccuracies: misled Congress and the American People into war, enormous financial profits collected by Halliburton which Dick Cheney is intimately connected, obstruction of justice, misguided claims of “Executive Privilege”. But what is most egregious
– and liberals are noted for this kind of gutter politics – is when it gets personal. Blassberg writes that, “Bush is both stupid and stubborn.” And Polvere refers to the President’s alcoholism, which he has overcome, and “probable substance abuse.” That’s right, probable substance abuse. It has never been proven, so I guess Mr.
Polvere probably believes it. It is Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it is out of control.
I have come to the conclusion that most diehard liberals would show more compassion and understanding toward terrorists than they would this President, any in his administration, Republicans, and most certain Lewis Libby. And, in conclusion, I’d like to offer some advice to The Westchester Guardian. You might want to
consider changing the name to The Westchester Liberal Guard-ian, and instead of what appears to be the effigy of a colonial militiaman, you show a facsimile of George Bush encircled with a line through it.
Bob Pascarella,
The Bronx
“One Man’s Encounter With A CORRUPT D.S.S. and County Executive Office That Put Me Here”
Dear Editor:
I saw your latest edition today; “$25,000 For Corruption. As you know from earlier contacts, I’m not after the
money. The best way to to entitle this is, “One man’s encounter with a CORRUPT Department of Social Services, and the County Executive Office that put me here.”
In 2001 I was sent to work for Galante Contracting in various Westchester County offices. Mr. Galante had
already been found guilty for not paying prevailing wages at least one time prior to my hire. He should have been
barred from future contracts but, because of his friendships with members of the County Government, he was
able to be caught four more times. Four more, before he was unable to get no more work (at times without bid), and before I learned I was ill, and he had never paid my insurance. This, however, was in 2001, and is just background to today’s reason I write you.
I have congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, and now, due to D.S.S., kidney disease. In July of 2005 I became homeless. I went to 85 Court Street, White Plains to apply for benefits. My intake was handled
by a Ms. Cooley. She was efficient and fair.
When she was finished, I was given to a Ms. (Jackie) Brutto. Her first contact with me was by phone, and she said, “I’ve called your Union, I’ve pulled your photo and I know who you are. I’m going to deny you.”
She would later admit to an Administrative Judge she had called my Union before ever talking with me. This was at a fair hearing in December 2005. Ms. Brutto further, opened my mail, canceled my Medicaid and stopped all
benefits with FORGED documents and lies. The latest of these incidents happened shortly before the death of my father, in March of this year. I had stayed with him for over three months when he was ill. After he went into the hospital, my sisters and their friend illegally locked me out of the apartment. This happened in Greenburgh and, of course, those Courts or Police were of NO and LITTLE help, respectively. The P.D.’s hands were effectively tied by the Court, and I returned to D.S.S., 85 Court Street, and was assisted by two people who helped me get back into housing and on Medicaid. Then it was back to Ms. Brutto. I was placed in Valhalla, and waited for assessment. During that time I had my “F.E.D.S.” hearing. This is where they tell you what to get to
show eligibility. One thing I needed was a letter from my Union, and the other a letter from my Doctor. I mmediately faxed my Union, and set up an appointment with my Doctor for the following Monday.
I went to D.S.S. and let Ms. Brutto know I would need help with the Union, and would have the Doctor’s letter the following Monday.
To my surprise, the NEXT DAY I was on the list for the three-day assessment. NO prior notice, which is normal, and when I tried to postpone the assessment, I was sanctioned. I immediately filed for a Fair Hearing. Due to my illness, I was granted an Emergency Hearing, however, benefits were CUT. Until its outcome, I now had to stay at the “DROP-IN” shelter at 85 Court Street. Located in the basement, totally below ground with NO WINDOWS, NO SHOWERS, and only three toilets for forty three “CLIENTS”, and staff. While I was waiting for this hearing my father passed. I postponed the hearing, and then had it. At the hearing, someone
named “Tommy” from the Assessment Center was interviewed by phone.
He had sent an information “package” to the hearing. It contained an obviously FORGED list of names, mine included, of people who were to start their assessment on the 30th of March, 2007. Only one problem, it was dated April 29, 2007, one month later! How obvious can you get? Ms. Brutto was not available, and the
County “WITHDREW”, the action, after learning I am ill.
I again saw my Doctor, got a letter for housing, and went to D.S.S. giving the papers to Ms. Brutto. Over the phone she told me, “We still have other ‘ISSUES’, and the decision did not matter.” I then went to the Commissioner’s office at 112 East Post Road, White Plains, and saw a “Chris” (these people are not too
interested in giving their names). I asked for Ms. Brutto to at least be taken off my case, at most “FIRED” for refusing a direct order, or to be suspended. Mr. Chris laughed! This (none of these) could not be done. Now all I have is Medicaid. I have no housing or benefits. Ms. Brutto is still on my case, though I was told to go at a later date to D.S.S. Why, I will not be placed, and I was undergoing a series of tests to see how bad my kidneys are.
Now, as you know, the Drop-In Shelter is closing on August 6, 2007. I did VERY little research and found this is not “PROPER” under New York State, Department of Social Services laws (see Affirming the Right to Shelter, New York State Supreme Court, February, 2000). Yet Mr. Larry Schwartz, of the County Executive’s
office, with little warning, announced the closing. If I cannot be placed, and I now should lose my medical, what am I to do?
Since the announcement, acts of assault have taken place against the homeless by workers who are supposed to help. Others have had to leave shelters because the county requires more money than they earn at jobs (over 100 percent of the gross income) for “SHELTER EXPENSES”, and if you do not get “into” the system, you
will be on the street. No doubt to be arrested or otherwise harassed.
I have contacted the A.C.L.U. and Nita Lowey, along with the Coalition For The Homeless. One question comes to mind about Larry Schwartz. He has been a constant from Galante to now. In the Journal News (which should be printed about 5” wide, put on a cardboard roller, and perforated every 5”); about three weeks after the announcement of the shelter’s demise, the paper’s headline was about Mr. Capelli. He has, as rumor goes, wanted the shelter out of White Plains. The headline said he received an $110,000,000 tax cut on his new buildings on Main Street in White Plains. Since the County Executive’s of-fice closed the shelter, and there was
such a generous tax cut, how much went to the favorite charity (A POCKET?) of someone in the Executive’s office?
David Boudreau
Welcome, Pilgrim
Dear Editor:
I have just been informed about your newspaper. I have read a few of the articles about the political and judicial
corruption that we, in Westchester County, have been expected to tolerate for far too long. I am a protective mother who has witnessed this corruption in the White Plains, NY and Stamford, Ct family court system.
I am a domestic violence activist and have been very active politically in Westchester County. I have witnessed
the political and judicial corruption while trying to protect my children from child abuse, medical neglect and
continued coercive control.
Ann Coleman
In Our Opinion...
Nothing Quite Like Competition To Bring Out The Best
We realize that it doesn’t especially please Westchester’s political control freaks; guys like Larry Schwartz, Giulio Cavallo, and Zehy Jereis, who have been manipulating the outcome of elections in the County for years.
However, We are delighted that the political process is beginning to open up, and incumbents in places such as Yonkers and Mount Vernon will no longer be shoe-ins. Phil Amicone and Ernie Davis will now face serious and determined competition, and, most importantly, will be held to account for their conduct in office.
After all, isn’t it the American way? Aren’t we all for competition to bring out the best possible product, at the lowest possible cost? Why should we view the holding of public office and the running of government any differently? In short, the fixing of elections, yes, the fixing of elections, both before and after the fact, the like of which has been all too common in Westchester, is downright un-American.
We are really pleased that County Legislator Clinton Young will be running against Ernie Davis in the Democratic Primary. Of course, in a city as overwhelmingly Democratic as Mount Vernon, for the most part the primary is
the general election. Therefore it will be important for those who want to bring about meaningful change in their city to make sure that they bring people to the primary who ordinarily leave those contests to the party mucky-mucks.
And, let’s face it; everybody knows it’s time for a change in Mount Vernon. The same ol’, same ol’ just won’t cut it anymore.
In Yonkers, the fourth largest city in New York State, the incumbent is facing competition from within his own party, the Republican party, in the person of Vinny Restiano, not to mention Democratic candidate, and City Councilman Dennis Robertson, a strong vote-getter, as well as Independence, and Independent, candidate Nader Sayegh, an extremely popular educator, and public servant.
Unlike his first run for mayor, this time Phil Amicone will not have the ‘slingshot’ edge that John Spencer gave him last time. In fact, Amicone has been so desperate for endorsement that he has taken up with the likes of Giulio Cavallo, Zehy Jereis, and Nick Spano. What’s the old expression; something about “birds of a feather?”
Nevertheless, whether on good terms, or not, with his mentor John Spencer, Phil Amicone cannot deny that he has been right there at the heart of city government, pulling strings for nearly twelve years.
High taxes, coupled with poor schools, rest on his shoulders. Police brutality, coupled with increased street crime and violence, likewise rest with him. He will have to answer to the People of Yonkers, many of whom are considering moving back to The Bronx or to other communities less expensive and safer than Yonkers has become under his watch. All the expensive new high-rise construction and fancy shopping centers, catering to the wealthy, simply won’t make the lives of hardworking, ordinary, citizens struggling to raise their families,
in what has become of Yonkers any easier.
Once again, We are delighted that there will be serious competition in at least two major Westchester elections this year. Perhaps the crucible of meaningful opposition will produce outcomes that will actually be beneficial to constituents and their families.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Ten Months After Exposure, No Progress Toward Ending Yonkers Police Brutality
Mayor And Police Commissioner Dragging Their Feet
The headline of the September 21, 2006 edition of The Guardian read Mother 72, Daughter 49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. Six days later Police Commissioner Robert Taggart resigned, effective
November 2nd. The story gave a detailed description of how a mother and daughter, two mature, conscientious
citizens of Yonkers, who had spent their entire lives living on a residential street behind Saunders High School,
had called the Yonkers Police Department to report that a bloodied and beaten teen was in need of emergency assistance, as the result of an altercation with their neighbor.
The boy had come to their door at night seeking help. For being good Samaritans, and lending their assistance to someone in desperate need, Tina and Mary Bostwick were brutalized by a responding Yonkers Police Officer.
That incredible account had opened a floodgate of responses from all over the community, and on Saturday September 23, the Yonkers Chapter of the NAACP, under the direction of Karen Edmonson, together with Attorney Michael Sussman, conducted a three hour “speak-out” at the Riverfront Library. The event drew more than one hundred attendees, many of whom had risen to their feet to share their horrific experiences at the hands
of brutal Yonkers Police Officers.
Also present were local civil rights attorneys Debra Cohen and Randolph McLaughlin, together with three law students from Pace University Law School, who gathered information from those seeking legal redress.
Because the session had been organized by the NAACP, a majority of those in attendance were people of color. However, there were a number of caucasian men and women reporting as well. One fellow told those assembled
that a friend of his who worked as a Correction Officer at the County Jail, told him, “We can always identify persons who have been arrested in Yonkers because they are usually so badly bruised and beaten.”
Last Saturday, July 21st, Al Sharpton came to Yonkers at the invitation of Ms. Edmonson. It had been fully ten months since the ‘dirty truth’ about Yonkers Police Brutality had been publicly exposed. Many had hoped that
would have made serious efforts to identify and weed out the violent perpetrators in the ranks, hopefully no more than ten or twelve rogue officers in a department of six hundred.
However, such was not the case. And, although very disappointing, it did not come as a surprise to The Guardian which had three times requested an interview with the commissioner regarding his plans for dealing with
police brutality and had each time been rejected, despite the fact that he had promised to meet with us. The third attempt to arrange an interview was met with outright rudeness from the commissioner.
The Guardian approached Karen Edmonson inquiring as to why she had brought Al Sharpton into the effort to eliminate police brutality in Yonkers.
Edmonson said, “I would not have reached out to Reverend Sharpton had there been any progress in talks with Mayor Amicone and Police Commissioner Hartnett.”
Mr. Sharpton, who was originally scheduled to speak at the Messiah Baptist Church on Warburton Avenue in
downtown Yonkers, came instead to the African-American Festival at Trevor Park, when word from the Yonkers Police Department warning that “there might be civil disobedience” following his appearance, caused the pastor of the church to bar the event.
Sharpton issued a brief statement to the press and the more than 400 persons at the park. Summing up the situation as he saw it he declared, “There’s been about eighty complaints of police brutality in Yonkers so
far this year, and more than half have come from white folks.” With that observation the civil rights activist was drawing the important distinction between what might have been seen as racially-motivated police brutality,
and what is, in fact, long standing, unbridled brutality by a stubborn core of Yonkers Police Officers against men, women, and children of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Indicating that his organization would be setting
up shop in Yonkers, the often-controversial activist promised, “We will be non-violent but firm.”
To date Mayor Amicone, and his hand-picked police commissioner have failed the families of Yonkers miserably. They know very well that citizens should not live in fear of needing to call upon their police department
when they, or someone else, is in need of assistance. The police of-ficers responsible for unlawful, brutal, acts must be identified, fired, and prosecuted if decent law-abiding people are going to feel free and secure
living in the City of Yonkers.
Richard Blassberg
Ten Months After Exposure, No Progress Toward Ending Yonkers Police Brutality
Mayor And Police Commissioner Dragging Their Feet
The headline of the September 21, 2006 edition of The Guardian read Mother 72, Daughter 49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. Six days later Police Commissioner Robert Taggart resigned, effective
November 2nd. The story gave a detailed description of how a mother and daughter, two mature, conscientious
citizens of Yonkers, who had spent their entire lives living on a residential street behind Saunders High School,
had called the Yonkers Police Department to report that a bloodied and beaten teen was in need of emergency assistance, as the result of an altercation with their neighbor.
The boy had come to their door at night seeking help. For being good Samaritans, and lending their assistance to someone in desperate need, Tina and Mary Bostwick were brutalized by a responding Yonkers Police Officer.
That incredible account had opened a floodgate of responses from all over the community, and on Saturday September 23, the Yonkers Chapter of the NAACP, under the direction of Karen Edmonson, together with Attorney Michael Sussman, conducted a three hour “speak-out” at the Riverfront Library. The event drew more than one hundred attendees, many of whom had risen to their feet to share their horrific experiences at the hands
of brutal Yonkers Police Officers.
Also present were local civil rights attorneys Debra Cohen and Randolph McLaughlin, together with three law students from Pace University Law School, who gathered information from those seeking legal redress.
Because the session had been organized by the NAACP, a majority of those in attendance were people of color. However, there were a number of caucasian men and women reporting as well. One fellow told those assembled
that a friend of his who worked as a Correction Officer at the County Jail, told him, “We can always identify persons who have been arrested in Yonkers because they are usually so badly bruised and beaten.”
Last Saturday, July 21st, Al Sharpton came to Yonkers at the invitation of Ms. Edmonson. It had been fully ten months since the ‘dirty truth’ about Yonkers Police Brutality had been publicly exposed. Many had hoped that
would have made serious efforts to identify and weed out the violent perpetrators in the ranks, hopefully no more than ten or twelve rogue officers in a department of six hundred.
However, such was not the case. And, although very disappointing, it did not come as a surprise to The Guardian which had three times requested an interview with the commissioner regarding his plans for dealing with
police brutality and had each time been rejected, despite the fact that he had promised to meet with us. The third attempt to arrange an interview was met with outright rudeness from the commissioner.
The Guardian approached Karen Edmonson inquiring as to why she had brought Al Sharpton into the effort to eliminate police brutality in Yonkers.
Edmonson said, “I would not have reached out to Reverend Sharpton had there been any progress in talks with Mayor Amicone and Police Commissioner Hartnett.”
Mr. Sharpton, who was originally scheduled to speak at the Messiah Baptist Church on Warburton Avenue in
downtown Yonkers, came instead to the African-American Festival at Trevor Park, when word from the Yonkers Police Department warning that “there might be civil disobedience” following his appearance, caused the pastor of the church to bar the event.
Sharpton issued a brief statement to the press and the more than 400 persons at the park. Summing up the situation as he saw it he declared, “There’s been about eighty complaints of police brutality in Yonkers so
far this year, and more than half have come from white folks.” With that observation the civil rights activist was drawing the important distinction between what might have been seen as racially-motivated police brutality,
and what is, in fact, long standing, unbridled brutality by a stubborn core of Yonkers Police Officers against men, women, and children of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Indicating that his organization would be setting
up shop in Yonkers, the often-controversial activist promised, “We will be non-violent but firm.”
To date Mayor Amicone, and his hand-picked police commissioner have failed the families of Yonkers miserably. They know very well that citizens should not live in fear of needing to call upon their police department
when they, or someone else, is in need of assistance. The police of-ficers responsible for unlawful, brutal, acts must be identified, fired, and prosecuted if decent law-abiding people are going to feel free and secure
living in the City of Yonkers.
Janet Difiore.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Depraved Indifference Murder Trial Continues
Westchester County Courthouse, White Plains
Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, following several days of recess, the trial of Anthony Burton, 18, of Yonkers, for the Second Degree Murder, as Depraved Indifference Murder, of Jessica Santos, in a drive-by shooting incident, August 27th of last year, resumed before Judge Robert Neary. Prior to the jury’s entrance into the courtroom, Defense Attorney Barry Warhit made a motion requesting that the jury be allowed to watch the videotape of his client’s statement to police, his confession, without the benefit of printed transcripts, the first time.
Warhit explained that he wanted the jurors, as he put it, “to get the full affect of my client and the police,” without the distraction of attempting to read the transcript at the same time.
Predictably, Assistant District Attorney Robert Prisco objected to Warhit’s proposal, and prevailed. Neary denied the motion, stating, “For now I’m going to deny the Defense request. But, if I perceive some difficulty viewing the tape, and reading the transcript, I might change my mind.”
The Prosecution called New York City Police Officer Carlos J. Lopez, of the 47th Precinct in the northeast Bronx, to the stand. Officer Lopez, under direct examination, detailed the circumstances under which he had come in contact with Defendant Burton the day after the shooting. He explained that he and his partner, in a marked NYPD patrol car, had approached the Defendant standing amongst several other male youths on Eli Avenue, near Boston Post Road in the Bronx, in response to a radio dispatch that had described, “a male black, wearing a white hat, black T-shirt, and blue jeans.”
The officer described having approached Burton, patting him down, finding only a cell phone, and obtaining his
pedigree. He told the jury, “We got on the radio and gathered more information.” ADA Prisco responded, “You mentioned that the intial call mentioned an incident in Yonkers the night before.”
Officer Lopez answered, “My partner asked if he knew of any incident that occurred in Yonkers the night before. He said, No.”
ADA Prisco, “What happened next?”
Officer Lopez, “I told him he was the victim of an identity theft scam, and that he needed to come down to the precinct with us.”
ADA Prisco, “What happened next?”
Officer Lopez, “He agreed to come. We drove with him, uncuffed, in the back of the police car to the 47th Precinct.
Defense Attorney Warhit then cross-examined the witness. He asked the of-ficer, “Mr. Burton did not attempt to run away?” Lopez responded, “Correct.”
Warhit asked, “He came over when you called to him?”
Again Officer Lopez responded, “Correct.”
Warhit went on, “He even consented to being patted down?”
Lopez answered, “That’s correct.”
Warhit then asked, “Would you characterize him as cooperative?”
Lopez again answered, “That’s correct.”
The Prosecution then put Yonkers Detective Andrew Guski, who had gone to the 47th Precinct to arrest and retrieve Burton, on the witness stand. ADA Prisco drew from this witness the essential fact that Guski, together with his partner Detctive Pellegrino, had gotten no response from the Defendant upon placing him under arrest, and further, that there had been no conversation with him during the twenty-minute ride to Yonkers Police Headquarters.
Attorney Warhit took a moment to briefly cross-examine this witness, asking, “You identified yourselves to Mr. Burton?” Guski responded, “We told him we were detectives, and flashed our badges.”
ADA Prisco next brought Yonkers Detective Vincent Starkey to the witness stand. Starkey, who was the lead detective assigned to the case, and, who, together with his partner Detective McCabe conducted the interrogations and ultimate videotaping of Anthony Burton, was examined in great detail, by Mr. Prisco. He related that for two separate interrogations that he claimed the Defendant consented to, without requesting legal representation, after being read his Miranda Rights, and signing off on them, Burton gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts before, during, and after, the shooting.
Starkey told the jury that following the second interrogation he told the Defendant, “We don’t believe you in any
way, shape, or form, and you will be arrested and sent to prison.” Starkey said, “He then broke down and admitted the shooting.”
ADA Prisco drew out testimony from Starkey that Burton told him, “I was aiming for the grocery sign because I
didn’t want to hurt anybody.” He also elicited testimony that Detective McCabe had asked the Defendant, “Were there people standing on the street?” And, that Burton had answered, “Yeah” And he further testified that when McCabe asked, “How many people; a lot of people?” Burton again answered, “Yeah.”
Following this testimony and a brief break, the jury was shown the twenty minute videotaped confessional statement of Anthony Burton in the presence of Detectives Starkey and McCabe.
Analysis
It was important for the purposes of the Prosecution to establish in evidence the fact that in firing the handgun out of a passing car window Mr. Burton was not intentionally shooting at anyone, given that he was not being charged with Intentional Murder, nor a lesser intentional crime such as Manslaughter. It was equally important to get the Defendant’s admission, into evidence, that he realized there were many people on the street in the area into which he had fired, thereby establishing the requisite threshold level of recklessness to sustain the elements of the crime of Depraved Indifference Murder. Toward those ends, the Prosecution would seem to have accomplished their objectives.
By Richard Blassberg
Depraved Indifference Murder Trial Continues
Westchester County Courthouse, White Plains
Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, following several days of recess, the trial of Anthony Burton, 18, of Yonkers, for the Second Degree Murder, as Depraved Indifference Murder, of Jessica Santos, in a drive-by shooting incident, August 27th of last year, resumed before Judge Robert Neary. Prior to the jury’s entrance into the courtroom, Defense Attorney Barry Warhit made a motion requesting that the jury be allowed to watch the videotape of his client’s statement to police, his confession, without the benefit of printed transcripts, the first time.
Warhit explained that he wanted the jurors, as he put it, “to get the full affect of my client and the police,” without the distraction of attempting to read the transcript at the same time.
Predictably, Assistant District Attorney Robert Prisco objected to Warhit’s proposal, and prevailed. Neary denied the motion, stating, “For now I’m going to deny the Defense request. But, if I perceive some difficulty viewing the tape, and reading the transcript, I might change my mind.”
The Prosecution called New York City Police Officer Carlos J. Lopez, of the 47th Precinct in the northeast Bronx, to the stand. Officer Lopez, under direct examination, detailed the circumstances under which he had come in contact with Defendant Burton the day after the shooting. He explained that he and his partner, in a marked NYPD patrol car, had approached the Defendant standing amongst several other male youths on Eli Avenue, near Boston Post Road in the Bronx, in response to a radio dispatch that had described, “a male black, wearing a white hat, black T-shirt, and blue jeans.”
The officer described having approached Burton, patting him down, finding only a cell phone, and obtaining his
pedigree. He told the jury, “We got on the radio and gathered more information.” ADA Prisco responded, “You mentioned that the intial call mentioned an incident in Yonkers the night before.”
Officer Lopez answered, “My partner asked if he knew of any incident that occurred in Yonkers the night before. He said, No.”
ADA Prisco, “What happened next?”
Officer Lopez, “I told him he was the victim of an identity theft scam, and that he needed to come down to the precinct with us.”
ADA Prisco, “What happened next?”
Officer Lopez, “He agreed to come. We drove with him, uncuffed, in the back of the police car to the 47th Precinct.
Defense Attorney Warhit then cross-examined the witness. He asked the of-ficer, “Mr. Burton did not attempt to run away?” Lopez responded, “Correct.”
Warhit asked, “He came over when you called to him?”
Again Officer Lopez responded, “Correct.”
Warhit went on, “He even consented to being patted down?”
Lopez answered, “That’s correct.”
Warhit then asked, “Would you characterize him as cooperative?”
Lopez again answered, “That’s correct.”
The Prosecution then put Yonkers Detective Andrew Guski, who had gone to the 47th Precinct to arrest and retrieve Burton, on the witness stand. ADA Prisco drew from this witness the essential fact that Guski, together with his partner Detctive Pellegrino, had gotten no response from the Defendant upon placing him under arrest, and further, that there had been no conversation with him during the twenty-minute ride to Yonkers Police Headquarters.
Attorney Warhit took a moment to briefly cross-examine this witness, asking, “You identified yourselves to Mr. Burton?” Guski responded, “We told him we were detectives, and flashed our badges.”
ADA Prisco next brought Yonkers Detective Vincent Starkey to the witness stand. Starkey, who was the lead detective assigned to the case, and, who, together with his partner Detective McCabe conducted the interrogations and ultimate videotaping of Anthony Burton, was examined in great detail, by Mr. Prisco. He related that for two separate interrogations that he claimed the Defendant consented to, without requesting legal representation, after being read his Miranda Rights, and signing off on them, Burton gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts before, during, and after, the shooting.
Starkey told the jury that following the second interrogation he told the Defendant, “We don’t believe you in any
way, shape, or form, and you will be arrested and sent to prison.” Starkey said, “He then broke down and admitted the shooting.”
ADA Prisco drew out testimony from Starkey that Burton told him, “I was aiming for the grocery sign because I
didn’t want to hurt anybody.” He also elicited testimony that Detective McCabe had asked the Defendant, “Were there people standing on the street?” And, that Burton had answered, “Yeah” And he further testified that when McCabe asked, “How many people; a lot of people?” Burton again answered, “Yeah.”
Following this testimony and a brief break, the jury was shown the twenty minute videotaped confessional statement of Anthony Burton in the presence of Detectives Starkey and McCabe.
Analysis
It was important for the purposes of the Prosecution to establish in evidence the fact that in firing the handgun out of a passing car window Mr. Burton was not intentionally shooting at anyone, given that he was not being charged with Intentional Murder, nor a lesser intentional crime such as Manslaughter. It was equally important to get the Defendant’s admission, into evidence, that he realized there were many people on the street in the area into which he had fired, thereby establishing the requisite threshold level of recklessness to sustain the elements of the crime of Depraved Indifference Murder. Toward those ends, the Prosecution would seem to have accomplished their objectives.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Janet Difiore.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
An Actual Depraved Indifference Murder Case
Westchester County Courthouse, White Plains
Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary Presiding
Last Tuesday Defendant Anthony Burton, whose extremely reckless act with a handgun claimed the life of Jessica Santos, 19, a beautiful, vibrant, college student August 27th, last year, appeared at trial before Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary on a three-count indictment, charging him with Murder in the Second Degree, as Depraved Indifference Murder, carrying a sentence of 25 years to life. Jessica, a second-year student at the University of New Haven, had packed and was preparing to return to school when she drove to Yonkers in response to a friend’s desire to say goodbye.
Represented by Attorney Barry Warhit, of White Plains, Burton, who confessed to having fired the shot from the back seat of a moving car, that claimed Ms. Santos’ life, is contending that he was merely firing at the sign above the deli/grocery at the corner of Beech and Poplar Streets in the Nodine Hill section of Yonkers. Ms. Santos was struck in the upper chest by one of six bullets fired from a 25-caliber handgun, causing massive blood loss and death.
The first witness called by Assistant District Attorney Robert Prisco, was Yonkers Police Officer Zielinski, who had been on the job approximately six months when he was called to the scene at around 10pm August 27, 2006. Arriving at the corner of Beech and Poplar, Zielinski testified, “I saw Jessica Santos lying on the ground.” Asked what he did at the scene, Zielinski replied, “I helped tape off the crime
scene, and accompanied Ms. Santos to the hospital.”
ADA Prisco inquired, “What do you recall occurring?”
Officer Zielinski responded, “Emergency medical personnel were attempting to keep her alive.” He went on to describe for the jury how he had ridden with Santos and the emergency workers to St. Joseph’s Medical Center, remaining close to her in the emergency room as doctors and nurses struggled in vain to keep her alive, ultimately declaring her dead at 10:55pm. Following Zielinski’s direct testimony, Defense Attorney Warhit did not seek cross-examination.
The next Prosecution witness was recently retired Yonkers Police Of-ficer Mario Mazzi, who spent the last sixteen years of his twenty-eight year police career working in the Criminal Identification Unit of the Yonkers Police Department processing crime scenes.
ADA Prisco, having quickly established that Mazzi had been called to the crime scene immediately following the incident, asked Mazzi, “What did you do upon arrival?” Mazzi responded, “We did a walkthrough of the crime scene.” He then explained those activities normally associated with a walkthrough for the purpose of collecting evidence and information.
Given the fact that the crime had occurred well after dark, Prisco asked, “While you were walking through, were you assisted by any lighting in your search?” Mazzi explained that, in addition to hand-held flashlights, he and his assistant were aided by a Civil Defense lighting truck used by the Yonkers Police Department under nighttime conditions.
Prisco quickly brought the witness to a discussion of his discovery of five 25-caliber shell casings found strewn on the roadway of Beech Street at varied distances from the intersection of Poplar, and varied distances from the curb. After lengthy discussion regarding the shell casings Prisco introduced the fact that Mazzi had not only produced still photos of the crime scene, but also had videotaped it as well.
Judge Neary, recognizing what he referred to as having been “important, but tedious testimony,” granted the jury a brief break before the Prosecution’s presentation of Mazzi’s videotape. Returning from the break, Prisco took advantage of the opportunity, as the tape played, to get former police officer Mazzi to describe the neighborhood immediately surrounding the crime scene. The witness responded,
as if on cue, “It’s residential; two- and three-family homes.”
Analysis:
This description of the neighborhood extracted by ADA Prisco was a tactical move intended for use later in the trial by the Prosecution, speci-fically in its closing argument, when attempting to persuade the jury that the crime committed by Anthony Burton was, indeed, a Depraved Indifference Murder, and not a Reckless Manslaughter, which would carry a significantly lighter sentence. By establishing the residential character, and population density, the Prosecution was laying the foundation for the notion that the Defendant should clearly have foreseen the high probability that by firing a weapon into the area into which he fired it would likely produce grievous injury and/or even death to somebody, as in fact it did. Essentially, the Prosecution was attempting to demonstrate a level of recklessness consistent with “Depraved Indifference” as to the possible outcome of his own conduct by the Defendant.
By Richard Blassberg
An Actual Depraved Indifference Murder Case
Westchester County Courthouse, White Plains
Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary Presiding
Last Tuesday Defendant Anthony Burton, whose extremely reckless act with a handgun claimed the life of Jessica Santos, 19, a beautiful, vibrant, college student August 27th, last year, appeared at trial before Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary on a three-count indictment, charging him with Murder in the Second Degree, as Depraved Indifference Murder, carrying a sentence of 25 years to life. Jessica, a second-year student at the University of New Haven, had packed and was preparing to return to school when she drove to Yonkers in response to a friend’s desire to say goodbye.
Represented by Attorney Barry Warhit, of White Plains, Burton, who confessed to having fired the shot from the back seat of a moving car, that claimed Ms. Santos’ life, is contending that he was merely firing at the sign above the deli/grocery at the corner of Beech and Poplar Streets in the Nodine Hill section of Yonkers. Ms. Santos was struck in the upper chest by one of six bullets fired from a 25-caliber handgun, causing massive blood loss and death.
The first witness called by Assistant District Attorney Robert Prisco, was Yonkers Police Officer Zielinski, who had been on the job approximately six months when he was called to the scene at around 10pm August 27, 2006. Arriving at the corner of Beech and Poplar, Zielinski testified, “I saw Jessica Santos lying on the ground.” Asked what he did at the scene, Zielinski replied, “I helped tape off the crime
scene, and accompanied Ms. Santos to the hospital.”
ADA Prisco inquired, “What do you recall occurring?”
Officer Zielinski responded, “Emergency medical personnel were attempting to keep her alive.” He went on to describe for the jury how he had ridden with Santos and the emergency workers to St. Joseph’s Medical Center, remaining close to her in the emergency room as doctors and nurses struggled in vain to keep her alive, ultimately declaring her dead at 10:55pm. Following Zielinski’s direct testimony, Defense Attorney Warhit did not seek cross-examination.
The next Prosecution witness was recently retired Yonkers Police Of-ficer Mario Mazzi, who spent the last sixteen years of his twenty-eight year police career working in the Criminal Identification Unit of the Yonkers Police Department processing crime scenes.
ADA Prisco, having quickly established that Mazzi had been called to the crime scene immediately following the incident, asked Mazzi, “What did you do upon arrival?” Mazzi responded, “We did a walkthrough of the crime scene.” He then explained those activities normally associated with a walkthrough for the purpose of collecting evidence and information.
Given the fact that the crime had occurred well after dark, Prisco asked, “While you were walking through, were you assisted by any lighting in your search?” Mazzi explained that, in addition to hand-held flashlights, he and his assistant were aided by a Civil Defense lighting truck used by the Yonkers Police Department under nighttime conditions.
Prisco quickly brought the witness to a discussion of his discovery of five 25-caliber shell casings found strewn on the roadway of Beech Street at varied distances from the intersection of Poplar, and varied distances from the curb. After lengthy discussion regarding the shell casings Prisco introduced the fact that Mazzi had not only produced still photos of the crime scene, but also had videotaped it as well.
Judge Neary, recognizing what he referred to as having been “important, but tedious testimony,” granted the jury a brief break before the Prosecution’s presentation of Mazzi’s videotape. Returning from the break, Prisco took advantage of the opportunity, as the tape played, to get former police officer Mazzi to describe the neighborhood immediately surrounding the crime scene. The witness responded,
as if on cue, “It’s residential; two- and three-family homes.”
Analysis:
This description of the neighborhood extracted by ADA Prisco was a tactical move intended for use later in the trial by the Prosecution, speci-fically in its closing argument, when attempting to persuade the jury that the crime committed by Anthony Burton was, indeed, a Depraved Indifference Murder, and not a Reckless Manslaughter, which would carry a significantly lighter sentence. By establishing the residential character, and population density, the Prosecution was laying the foundation for the notion that the Defendant should clearly have foreseen the high probability that by firing a weapon into the area into which he fired it would likely produce grievous injury and/or even death to somebody, as in fact it did. Essentially, the Prosecution was attempting to demonstrate a level of recklessness consistent with “Depraved Indifference” as to the possible outcome of his own conduct by the Defendant.
Westchester Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka, In An Unprecedented Effort To Help Eradicate Corruption And Strengthen Public Integrity in
Westchester County, Has Offered A $25,000 Reward For Information Leading To the Arrest and Conviction Of those In Political and Governmental Administrations, Under the Leadership of those Depicted, Who Are Engaged in Unlawful Activities.
Persons with verifiable information are urged to call 914-738-1670. Information will be turned over to Federal authorities and informant identities will be kept confidential.
Westchester County, Has Offered A $25,000 Reward For Information Leading To the Arrest and Conviction Of those In Political and Governmental Administrations, Under the Leadership of those Depicted, Who Are Engaged in Unlawful Activities.
Persons with verifiable information are urged to call 914-738-1670. Information will be turned over to Federal authorities and informant identities will be kept confidential.
George Pataki’s Negative Impact On The Prison System Is Still Felt
Part 2
By Jeffrey Deskovic
The Death Penalty
George Pataki wasted no time getting the Death Penalty passed. In 1995 at his urging, the Legislature, still feeling the heat of the “hot button” topic the death penalty had become - so much so - that it decided the gubernatorial race, again passed the death penalty. And this
time, with Pataki in office, it was signed into law. His initiative proved costly: from 1995 to 2004, New York State spent $200 million dollars and executed nobody, thus wasting financial resources that could have been better spent on social programs and crime prevention.
While he passed the death penalty, he certainly made clear, very quickly, that there would be no good time bill, which was a measure which would have provided incentive and hope for the inmates, that had long been championed by Mario Cuomo. Thanks to Pataki’s death penalty measure, New York has come frighteningly close to executing someone who was innocent, when Rochester Prosecutors attempted to indict
Doug Warney for 1st degree murder, for the purpose of being able to seek the death penalty. Warney was wrongfully convicted of 2nd degree murder based on a false confession and served 10 years, before being cleared by DNA. Fortunately for him, the grand jury only indicted
him for second degree murder.
Prison Expansion
When Pataki became Governor he built even more prisons, many of them built specifically as part of the special housing units, in which prisoners would be held with little time at all out of their cells, with less access to showers, less recreation, no phone access, often double-
celled with other prisoners who had committed violent acts. As might well be imagined, this regime led to more violence at a time when Pataki remained opposed to spending money on therapeutic and educational programs.
Work Release
When George Pataki became Governor, he altered the criteria by which inmates could become eligible for work release. Work release had been a program in which prisoners were able to work in the community for up to 14 hours, and then returned to their correctional facility. They
were thus able to support themselves, send money to their families, and pay taxes, rather than being a burden to taxpayers. It was a program midway between prison and home, and for many inmates it paved the way for a better transition. When Pataki got into office, he disallowed all those who had been convicted of a violent crime to participate in the program. That was a great disservice to the community because
the better prepared to reenter society inmates were, the more likely they would experience a successful transition. I remember being in the college program and overhearing one of the college administrators say on the phone, “Not only have the criteria been changed by executive order, but even those who are in the program successfully are being rounded up and returned to prison.
Sex Offender Program
With Pataki in office, Department of Corrections Commissioner Goord felt free to push around the prisoners, knowing full well that the Governor didn’t care about them, and had built his career around taking things from them, and generally making their lives more difficult, just because he could. In 2002 one example of this was the State’s changing of Correction Department directives with respect to the Sex Offender
Program. Previously, if one was imprisoned for a sex offense, he could take the sex offender program without admitting guilt. What changed under Pataki, however, was that the Department was now taking an all-out approach, shoving the program down inmates’ throats. I, along
with other prisoners, was warned that if I did not take the program I would not have much of a chance before the Parole Board, and that I would not be allowed to participate in the family reunion program, which was designed to strengthen and maintain family ties by enabling
prisoners and their families, and/or spouses to spend a few days in a trailer located on prison grounds. Those who were appealing their cases were allowed to be given an exception to having to complete the program before participating, in recognition of ongoing litigation, and the possibility of innocence.
What sense would it make, after all, for someone who was innocent to take the program? Under the new rules, that exception was eliminated. Also eliminated was the former procedure of allowing prisoners to take the program for parole purposes while not admitting guilt. From
Pataki forward, in order to take the program, one would have to admit guilt to the instructors, and then in front of the class, and then again, in writing, giving full details. Failure to do so was automatic grounds for dismissal from the program. These rules totally disregarded the idea that the innocent are sometimes wrongfully convicted of sex offenses, thereby placing prisoners in the position of having to lie to have a chance at freedom, or to maintain their innocence at the cost of possible freedom. It also placed a strain on spousal relationships wherein the couples were used to having the visits for conjugal purposes. I can remember one man’s direct appeal that had not yet been decided, and yet the Department of Corrections had given the fact no consideration, and neither did the court. These rules personally affected me because it prevented me from having a family visit in the trailers, and also prevented me from applying to Honor Block, where a few prisoners had it a little bit easier by being given a little bit more recreation and the option of not having to go to the same rec area as the general population.
That option enabled inmates to get away from being in the same area as a lot of the violence, and granted them more access to showers, refrigerators and stoves. While that might not seem like much to think about now, while I was incarcerated the standard of living was considered much higher for those in Honor Block.
My declining to participate in the program also resulted in my being housed in Elmira Prison for a much longer period of time than I might have despite having stayed out of trouble. It also prevented my transfer to a prison closer to home. Prior to Pataki, one could simply stay out of trouble and earm a transfer closer to facilitate family visits. This affected me because, as time went on, the long trips wore down my mother, along with her health, resulting in my receiving fewer and fewer visits.
Sex Offender Civil Commitment
I lived in fear that the Civil Commitment Bill would be passed. Every year Pataki would call on the state legislators to pass civil confinement laws, that would allow the state to continue to keep people in custody even after their sentence was complete. The way it worked prisoners would be examined by a couple of psychologists and, if certi-fied as a future danger, they could then be kept in a mental hospital, being reviewed every year or two for continued dangerousness. I knew from my studies that one of the factors in determining whether somebody was dangerous was whether they had undergone treatment, and, treatment entailed admitting guilt. I personally felt fear because I realized
that the crime for which I was imprisoned was a sex crime, and that, because I would not admit guilt, I would be labeled as dangerous and likely would be imprisoned in a mental hospital. I knew that sex offenders were easy political targets who legislators could use to create
a climate of panic. I also realized that the public did not fully understand the issues or the pitfalls, a situation deliberately perpetuated by some politicians.
It was not hard to imagine that the law would be passed, and I was very fearful that innocent people, including myself, would get caught up in it. Every year, when Pataki would revisit the subject, I would become frightened, and would remain so for quite a while. Despite its failure to pass in any given year, I knew that Pataki would continue to pursue it, and so the danger never ceased and loomed large over my head.
Under Gov. Spitzer the law has passed, and I now wonder how many innocent people have finished their unjust sentences and yet cannot go home. Instead being committed to mental hospitals, having no means of clearing themselves for lack of legal representation, or definitive DNA evidence. Because DNA evidence is only available in 10 percent of all serious felony cases, and there is nowhere near the legal resources needed by all those pleading innocent, this is no remote possibility. In addition, the idea of being denied freedom based on what
somebody thinks that you will do, or not do, in the future is silly. No one knows what anybody will do in the future, no one has a crystal ball. Additionally, the problem of those who are innocent being caught up in its web remains.
Libby Pataki’s Suggestion
In the first couple of weeks following my release, after spending the initial couple of days with my family in Upstate New York, I returned to Westchester County at the first opportunity, realizing that it was too rural where my familiy now lives, to be able to rebuild my life. My mind was still very much clouded, and I was not adjusted well at all. In addition, since I was released with nothing but the clothing on my back, I had tremendous financial pressure on me. I was painfully aware that the goodwill of other people in allowing me to have meals with them could not last indefinitely, and that I would not be able to continue to stay with other people. At the same time I knew that I was not in any shape mentally to work yet.
I had been informed that the standard fee for an attorney to represent me in a lawsuit against the state would be one third of any monies awarded. That seemed like an awful lot to me, particularly since, before the one third was paid, I would have to pay the court costs, which was estimated at between $75,000 to $125,000. I also knew that the average time before one might actually receive any compensation was
between 2-7 years, and that I needed money as soon as possible. There was a priest at The Assumption Church in Peekskill that I knew
from the days when I had attended the church in my youth and the adjoining school. During a conversation with him I learned that he knew George Pataki personally. Out of desperation, I asked him if he could approach the Governor on my behalf, in an attempt to get the State to compensate me on its own, voluntarily, in light of the wrong that was done to me. I was hoping that my financial predicament might be immediately solved and that I might have money to live off of, and not have to pay lawyers anything. At the same time I believed I would be saving the State some money by accepting less than they would otherwise potentially have to pay.
The priest said that he would try and was somewhat hopeful, but could not promise anything. I, too, was hopeful, and pleased with the compromise I had thought of, if only naively, and viewed as a win/win for everybody. As I reflect now, I was really desperate. The priest made a few attempts on my behalf but told me that Pataki said it would involve too much money. He was not happy, and told me he was going to try again, this time going through Pataki’s wife Libby. However, when he contacted me again, he related that when he explained
everything to her, detailing my general destitute condition, including the fact I had no place to live, Mrs. Pataki replied “Let him go to Catholic Charities.”
When the priest told Mrs. Pataki “This is not a matter of charity,” and that I had been wronged, she remained steadfast against any aid to me. I could tell by the look on his face that he was both frustrated and saddened that he could make no headway on this issue, knowing full well my circumstances.
Conclusion
George Pataki did not make decisions with the best interest of New Yorkers in mind with respect to the prison system, keeping in mind the need for inmate rehabilitation in order to prevent future crimes.
Instead, he set the stage for anger and rage, and the returning of ill-prepared prisoners to society in a condition worse than when they entered prison. On a personal level, he made my already difficult time in prison for a crime I had not committed, even worse than it had to be.
Part 2
By Jeffrey Deskovic
The Death Penalty
George Pataki wasted no time getting the Death Penalty passed. In 1995 at his urging, the Legislature, still feeling the heat of the “hot button” topic the death penalty had become - so much so - that it decided the gubernatorial race, again passed the death penalty. And this
time, with Pataki in office, it was signed into law. His initiative proved costly: from 1995 to 2004, New York State spent $200 million dollars and executed nobody, thus wasting financial resources that could have been better spent on social programs and crime prevention.
While he passed the death penalty, he certainly made clear, very quickly, that there would be no good time bill, which was a measure which would have provided incentive and hope for the inmates, that had long been championed by Mario Cuomo. Thanks to Pataki’s death penalty measure, New York has come frighteningly close to executing someone who was innocent, when Rochester Prosecutors attempted to indict
Doug Warney for 1st degree murder, for the purpose of being able to seek the death penalty. Warney was wrongfully convicted of 2nd degree murder based on a false confession and served 10 years, before being cleared by DNA. Fortunately for him, the grand jury only indicted
him for second degree murder.
Prison Expansion
When Pataki became Governor he built even more prisons, many of them built specifically as part of the special housing units, in which prisoners would be held with little time at all out of their cells, with less access to showers, less recreation, no phone access, often double-
celled with other prisoners who had committed violent acts. As might well be imagined, this regime led to more violence at a time when Pataki remained opposed to spending money on therapeutic and educational programs.
Work Release
When George Pataki became Governor, he altered the criteria by which inmates could become eligible for work release. Work release had been a program in which prisoners were able to work in the community for up to 14 hours, and then returned to their correctional facility. They
were thus able to support themselves, send money to their families, and pay taxes, rather than being a burden to taxpayers. It was a program midway between prison and home, and for many inmates it paved the way for a better transition. When Pataki got into office, he disallowed all those who had been convicted of a violent crime to participate in the program. That was a great disservice to the community because
the better prepared to reenter society inmates were, the more likely they would experience a successful transition. I remember being in the college program and overhearing one of the college administrators say on the phone, “Not only have the criteria been changed by executive order, but even those who are in the program successfully are being rounded up and returned to prison.
Sex Offender Program
With Pataki in office, Department of Corrections Commissioner Goord felt free to push around the prisoners, knowing full well that the Governor didn’t care about them, and had built his career around taking things from them, and generally making their lives more difficult, just because he could. In 2002 one example of this was the State’s changing of Correction Department directives with respect to the Sex Offender
Program. Previously, if one was imprisoned for a sex offense, he could take the sex offender program without admitting guilt. What changed under Pataki, however, was that the Department was now taking an all-out approach, shoving the program down inmates’ throats. I, along
with other prisoners, was warned that if I did not take the program I would not have much of a chance before the Parole Board, and that I would not be allowed to participate in the family reunion program, which was designed to strengthen and maintain family ties by enabling
prisoners and their families, and/or spouses to spend a few days in a trailer located on prison grounds. Those who were appealing their cases were allowed to be given an exception to having to complete the program before participating, in recognition of ongoing litigation, and the possibility of innocence.
What sense would it make, after all, for someone who was innocent to take the program? Under the new rules, that exception was eliminated. Also eliminated was the former procedure of allowing prisoners to take the program for parole purposes while not admitting guilt. From
Pataki forward, in order to take the program, one would have to admit guilt to the instructors, and then in front of the class, and then again, in writing, giving full details. Failure to do so was automatic grounds for dismissal from the program. These rules totally disregarded the idea that the innocent are sometimes wrongfully convicted of sex offenses, thereby placing prisoners in the position of having to lie to have a chance at freedom, or to maintain their innocence at the cost of possible freedom. It also placed a strain on spousal relationships wherein the couples were used to having the visits for conjugal purposes. I can remember one man’s direct appeal that had not yet been decided, and yet the Department of Corrections had given the fact no consideration, and neither did the court. These rules personally affected me because it prevented me from having a family visit in the trailers, and also prevented me from applying to Honor Block, where a few prisoners had it a little bit easier by being given a little bit more recreation and the option of not having to go to the same rec area as the general population.
That option enabled inmates to get away from being in the same area as a lot of the violence, and granted them more access to showers, refrigerators and stoves. While that might not seem like much to think about now, while I was incarcerated the standard of living was considered much higher for those in Honor Block.
My declining to participate in the program also resulted in my being housed in Elmira Prison for a much longer period of time than I might have despite having stayed out of trouble. It also prevented my transfer to a prison closer to home. Prior to Pataki, one could simply stay out of trouble and earm a transfer closer to facilitate family visits. This affected me because, as time went on, the long trips wore down my mother, along with her health, resulting in my receiving fewer and fewer visits.
Sex Offender Civil Commitment
I lived in fear that the Civil Commitment Bill would be passed. Every year Pataki would call on the state legislators to pass civil confinement laws, that would allow the state to continue to keep people in custody even after their sentence was complete. The way it worked prisoners would be examined by a couple of psychologists and, if certi-fied as a future danger, they could then be kept in a mental hospital, being reviewed every year or two for continued dangerousness. I knew from my studies that one of the factors in determining whether somebody was dangerous was whether they had undergone treatment, and, treatment entailed admitting guilt. I personally felt fear because I realized
that the crime for which I was imprisoned was a sex crime, and that, because I would not admit guilt, I would be labeled as dangerous and likely would be imprisoned in a mental hospital. I knew that sex offenders were easy political targets who legislators could use to create
a climate of panic. I also realized that the public did not fully understand the issues or the pitfalls, a situation deliberately perpetuated by some politicians.
It was not hard to imagine that the law would be passed, and I was very fearful that innocent people, including myself, would get caught up in it. Every year, when Pataki would revisit the subject, I would become frightened, and would remain so for quite a while. Despite its failure to pass in any given year, I knew that Pataki would continue to pursue it, and so the danger never ceased and loomed large over my head.
Under Gov. Spitzer the law has passed, and I now wonder how many innocent people have finished their unjust sentences and yet cannot go home. Instead being committed to mental hospitals, having no means of clearing themselves for lack of legal representation, or definitive DNA evidence. Because DNA evidence is only available in 10 percent of all serious felony cases, and there is nowhere near the legal resources needed by all those pleading innocent, this is no remote possibility. In addition, the idea of being denied freedom based on what
somebody thinks that you will do, or not do, in the future is silly. No one knows what anybody will do in the future, no one has a crystal ball. Additionally, the problem of those who are innocent being caught up in its web remains.
Libby Pataki’s Suggestion
In the first couple of weeks following my release, after spending the initial couple of days with my family in Upstate New York, I returned to Westchester County at the first opportunity, realizing that it was too rural where my familiy now lives, to be able to rebuild my life. My mind was still very much clouded, and I was not adjusted well at all. In addition, since I was released with nothing but the clothing on my back, I had tremendous financial pressure on me. I was painfully aware that the goodwill of other people in allowing me to have meals with them could not last indefinitely, and that I would not be able to continue to stay with other people. At the same time I knew that I was not in any shape mentally to work yet.
I had been informed that the standard fee for an attorney to represent me in a lawsuit against the state would be one third of any monies awarded. That seemed like an awful lot to me, particularly since, before the one third was paid, I would have to pay the court costs, which was estimated at between $75,000 to $125,000. I also knew that the average time before one might actually receive any compensation was
between 2-7 years, and that I needed money as soon as possible. There was a priest at The Assumption Church in Peekskill that I knew
from the days when I had attended the church in my youth and the adjoining school. During a conversation with him I learned that he knew George Pataki personally. Out of desperation, I asked him if he could approach the Governor on my behalf, in an attempt to get the State to compensate me on its own, voluntarily, in light of the wrong that was done to me. I was hoping that my financial predicament might be immediately solved and that I might have money to live off of, and not have to pay lawyers anything. At the same time I believed I would be saving the State some money by accepting less than they would otherwise potentially have to pay.
The priest said that he would try and was somewhat hopeful, but could not promise anything. I, too, was hopeful, and pleased with the compromise I had thought of, if only naively, and viewed as a win/win for everybody. As I reflect now, I was really desperate. The priest made a few attempts on my behalf but told me that Pataki said it would involve too much money. He was not happy, and told me he was going to try again, this time going through Pataki’s wife Libby. However, when he contacted me again, he related that when he explained
everything to her, detailing my general destitute condition, including the fact I had no place to live, Mrs. Pataki replied “Let him go to Catholic Charities.”
When the priest told Mrs. Pataki “This is not a matter of charity,” and that I had been wronged, she remained steadfast against any aid to me. I could tell by the look on his face that he was both frustrated and saddened that he could make no headway on this issue, knowing full well my circumstances.
Conclusion
George Pataki did not make decisions with the best interest of New Yorkers in mind with respect to the prison system, keeping in mind the need for inmate rehabilitation in order to prevent future crimes.
Instead, he set the stage for anger and rage, and the returning of ill-prepared prisoners to society in a condition worse than when they entered prison. On a personal level, he made my already difficult time in prison for a crime I had not committed, even worse than it had to be.
Our Readers Respond...
Open letter to Mr. Richard Blassberg, Editor of the Westchester Guardian
CC: NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct; Eliot Spitzer, Governor of the State of New York; Honorable Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge; Honorable Ann T. Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge; Francis Nicolai, Administrative Judge, 9th Judicial District
Dear Mr. Blassberg,
I’m writing to you in regards to the article “Blue Ribbon Panel Delivers White Papers DA Asked For” from the July 12 issue of The Guardian. In your article you revealed the name of the former Assistant DA Robert Neary among the four main wrongdoers in the conviction
and imprisonment of innocent Jeffrey Deskovic. In your article you correctly stated that at present Mr. Robert Neary acts as an appointed NYS Supreme Court Judge.
I believe that you are aware that Mr. Robert Neary run three times unsuccessfully in elections for Westchester County and NYS
Supreme Court Judge and was recently appointed as a Supreme Court Judge by governor Pataki. What strikes me is the fact that you stopped here. I have a couple of questions to you:
1. Do you feel comfortable that one of the guys who took away 16 years from the life of young Jeffrey Deskovic (and most probably
contributed to the murder of Pat Morrison) is now acting with full immunity under the guise of a Supreme Court Judge?
2. Do you think that having Mr. Neary on the judicial bench does not represent an imminent danger to the life and property of
Westchester County litigants?
3. Do we need to wait until the wrongdoer does a major strike (of the magnitude of wrongful conviction of Mr. Deskovic or the murder of Pat
Morrison) in order to take measures to prevent him from doing wrong.
4. What do you think is the role of journalism and in particular of The Guardian - keeping it cold blooded and report the events post
factum (just like the investigative panel appointed my the Westchester DA) or taking a proactive role in uprooting the public corruption and
helping the society. Curious to know your stance.
My personal believe is that Mr. Neary needs to be suspended immediately from his position. Of course he might challenge the investigative
panel’s report and if he proves that he didn’t do anything wrong he can be reappointed to the Supreme Court. I’m sure you can do better.
Thank you in advance for your response,
Peter Petrov, White Plains
Editor’s Note: Mr. Petrov’s letter is misdirected. Perhaps his inquiry would have been more intelligently directed to any one of, or all of, the five sources to which he CC’d his letter to us, and then CC’d to The Westchester Guardian, if he so desired. Nevertheless, since he directs four specific questions to us, We will attempt to address each one of them.
1. Given the fact that The Guardian publicly revealed former ADA Neary’s up-until-now publicly-concealed role in the sordid Deskovic
affair, we believe the answer to this question is obvious.
2. Despite the awkward way in which he phrases this question, suf-fice to say We have never endorsed Mr. Neary’s judgeship.
3. It is difficult to know who the “we” that Mr. Petrov makes reference to, actually is. However, We, The Westchester Guardian, believe
that We have been fulfilling our obligation under the First Amendment by exposing the truth, and, that is the “measure” that We have taken
and will continue to take on behalf of the People of Westchester.
4. As regards “taking a pro-active role in uprooting the public corruption and helping society,” as Mr. Petrov refers to it, We would wonder
if he is aware of any other weekly Westchester newspaper that has been more pro-active?
Finally, We appreciate Mr. Petrov’s assurances in his statement, “I’m sure you can do better.” In fact, We are striving to do better all the time.
In Our Opinion...
When Larry Met Larry
Last week’s resignation by State Supreme Court Justice Larry Horowitz, while disconcerting and surprising to outside observers, raising eyebrows in polite circles, actually had its origins in a deal struck with the Devil six years ago. In 2001 when Larry Horowitz, an unknown struggling attorney, met with Larry Schwartz, Andy Spano’s Deputy County Executive, and agreed to be the Republican “fall-guy
candidate” to run against Andy, a process was set in motion that would ultimately devastate Horowitz’ professional career.
In exchange for playing the stooge Horowitz was guaranteed an appointment to a County Court Judgeship the following year, which he received, and then used as a springboard to run for State Supreme Court in 2003. The whole deal was very fraudulent, and obvious to most political observers. And, just in case any voter was naïve enough to miss the fix, the last Republican mailer for countywide offices, just
before Election Day 2001, showed the faces of three candidates against the background of the ballot, Jeanine Pirro for District Attorney, Len Spano for County Clerk, and Andy Spano, a Democrat, for County Executive. Larry Horowitz was nowhere to be seen.
Horowitz was uncomfortable in his position as a judge almost from the very beginning, expressing disillusionment and regret for having left private practice. Things apparently were not going too well on the home front either, and perhaps it was inevitable that something would give out under the weight of it all. Larry Horowitz, ostensibly a decent, likable, fellow before his entanglement with Larry Schwartz
and the political dregs of Westchester, having been badly sullied by his involvement with them, hopefully will find the strength and the courage to acknowledge his mistake, and pick up the pieces of his career returning to private practice.
• • •
Schwartz’ Revenge In Greenburg
It would appear that Suzanne Berger has learned nothing from Larry Horowitz’ sad experience with Larry Schwartz. Last week’s “spontaneous gathering” of misguided local Democrats, supposedly in support of Berger’s candidacy for Supervisor of Greenburg, was, in actuality Schwartz’ political payback against Supervisor Paul Feiner who stood up for the residents of Greenburg several months ago, refusing to permit Schwartz to install a so-called “Homeless Drop-In Shelter” behind the headquarters of the County Department of Public Safety, in Hawthorne, in violation of a contract between the Town of Greenburg and the County of Westchester banning such institutions within less than two miles of any other shelter. In Mr. Schwartz’ twisted mentality Supervisor Feiner’s first allegiance should be to him, Schwartz, and not to Feiner’s constituents.
By standing firm, and holding the County to its contractual commitment, Mr. Feiner demonstrated the kind of courage, and dedication to the well-being of the People of Greenburg, very rare in public officials these days, particularly here in Westchester. It is obvious to us that Ms. Berger has now demonstrated that she is all too willing to cozy up to Larry Schwartz and his evil agenda. No doubt, there is a commitment of Democratic County Committee funds, -monies which have been totally, but wrongfully, under Schwartz’ control for many years now- to her campaign.
But, We digress; the subject of monies raised for many years, by Democrats in Westchester, and their misuse to promote election fraud, and to betray the intentions of contributors, will be the subject of another writing, in the near future.
Open letter to Mr. Richard Blassberg, Editor of the Westchester Guardian
CC: NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct; Eliot Spitzer, Governor of the State of New York; Honorable Judith S. Kaye, Chief Judge; Honorable Ann T. Pfau, Chief Administrative Judge; Francis Nicolai, Administrative Judge, 9th Judicial District
Dear Mr. Blassberg,
I’m writing to you in regards to the article “Blue Ribbon Panel Delivers White Papers DA Asked For” from the July 12 issue of The Guardian. In your article you revealed the name of the former Assistant DA Robert Neary among the four main wrongdoers in the conviction
and imprisonment of innocent Jeffrey Deskovic. In your article you correctly stated that at present Mr. Robert Neary acts as an appointed NYS Supreme Court Judge.
I believe that you are aware that Mr. Robert Neary run three times unsuccessfully in elections for Westchester County and NYS
Supreme Court Judge and was recently appointed as a Supreme Court Judge by governor Pataki. What strikes me is the fact that you stopped here. I have a couple of questions to you:
1. Do you feel comfortable that one of the guys who took away 16 years from the life of young Jeffrey Deskovic (and most probably
contributed to the murder of Pat Morrison) is now acting with full immunity under the guise of a Supreme Court Judge?
2. Do you think that having Mr. Neary on the judicial bench does not represent an imminent danger to the life and property of
Westchester County litigants?
3. Do we need to wait until the wrongdoer does a major strike (of the magnitude of wrongful conviction of Mr. Deskovic or the murder of Pat
Morrison) in order to take measures to prevent him from doing wrong.
4. What do you think is the role of journalism and in particular of The Guardian - keeping it cold blooded and report the events post
factum (just like the investigative panel appointed my the Westchester DA) or taking a proactive role in uprooting the public corruption and
helping the society. Curious to know your stance.
My personal believe is that Mr. Neary needs to be suspended immediately from his position. Of course he might challenge the investigative
panel’s report and if he proves that he didn’t do anything wrong he can be reappointed to the Supreme Court. I’m sure you can do better.
Thank you in advance for your response,
Peter Petrov, White Plains
Editor’s Note: Mr. Petrov’s letter is misdirected. Perhaps his inquiry would have been more intelligently directed to any one of, or all of, the five sources to which he CC’d his letter to us, and then CC’d to The Westchester Guardian, if he so desired. Nevertheless, since he directs four specific questions to us, We will attempt to address each one of them.
1. Given the fact that The Guardian publicly revealed former ADA Neary’s up-until-now publicly-concealed role in the sordid Deskovic
affair, we believe the answer to this question is obvious.
2. Despite the awkward way in which he phrases this question, suf-fice to say We have never endorsed Mr. Neary’s judgeship.
3. It is difficult to know who the “we” that Mr. Petrov makes reference to, actually is. However, We, The Westchester Guardian, believe
that We have been fulfilling our obligation under the First Amendment by exposing the truth, and, that is the “measure” that We have taken
and will continue to take on behalf of the People of Westchester.
4. As regards “taking a pro-active role in uprooting the public corruption and helping society,” as Mr. Petrov refers to it, We would wonder
if he is aware of any other weekly Westchester newspaper that has been more pro-active?
Finally, We appreciate Mr. Petrov’s assurances in his statement, “I’m sure you can do better.” In fact, We are striving to do better all the time.
In Our Opinion...
When Larry Met Larry
Last week’s resignation by State Supreme Court Justice Larry Horowitz, while disconcerting and surprising to outside observers, raising eyebrows in polite circles, actually had its origins in a deal struck with the Devil six years ago. In 2001 when Larry Horowitz, an unknown struggling attorney, met with Larry Schwartz, Andy Spano’s Deputy County Executive, and agreed to be the Republican “fall-guy
candidate” to run against Andy, a process was set in motion that would ultimately devastate Horowitz’ professional career.
In exchange for playing the stooge Horowitz was guaranteed an appointment to a County Court Judgeship the following year, which he received, and then used as a springboard to run for State Supreme Court in 2003. The whole deal was very fraudulent, and obvious to most political observers. And, just in case any voter was naïve enough to miss the fix, the last Republican mailer for countywide offices, just
before Election Day 2001, showed the faces of three candidates against the background of the ballot, Jeanine Pirro for District Attorney, Len Spano for County Clerk, and Andy Spano, a Democrat, for County Executive. Larry Horowitz was nowhere to be seen.
Horowitz was uncomfortable in his position as a judge almost from the very beginning, expressing disillusionment and regret for having left private practice. Things apparently were not going too well on the home front either, and perhaps it was inevitable that something would give out under the weight of it all. Larry Horowitz, ostensibly a decent, likable, fellow before his entanglement with Larry Schwartz
and the political dregs of Westchester, having been badly sullied by his involvement with them, hopefully will find the strength and the courage to acknowledge his mistake, and pick up the pieces of his career returning to private practice.
• • •
Schwartz’ Revenge In Greenburg
It would appear that Suzanne Berger has learned nothing from Larry Horowitz’ sad experience with Larry Schwartz. Last week’s “spontaneous gathering” of misguided local Democrats, supposedly in support of Berger’s candidacy for Supervisor of Greenburg, was, in actuality Schwartz’ political payback against Supervisor Paul Feiner who stood up for the residents of Greenburg several months ago, refusing to permit Schwartz to install a so-called “Homeless Drop-In Shelter” behind the headquarters of the County Department of Public Safety, in Hawthorne, in violation of a contract between the Town of Greenburg and the County of Westchester banning such institutions within less than two miles of any other shelter. In Mr. Schwartz’ twisted mentality Supervisor Feiner’s first allegiance should be to him, Schwartz, and not to Feiner’s constituents.
By standing firm, and holding the County to its contractual commitment, Mr. Feiner demonstrated the kind of courage, and dedication to the well-being of the People of Greenburg, very rare in public officials these days, particularly here in Westchester. It is obvious to us that Ms. Berger has now demonstrated that she is all too willing to cozy up to Larry Schwartz and his evil agenda. No doubt, there is a commitment of Democratic County Committee funds, -monies which have been totally, but wrongfully, under Schwartz’ control for many years now- to her campaign.
But, We digress; the subject of monies raised for many years, by Democrats in Westchester, and their misuse to promote election fraud, and to betray the intentions of contributors, will be the subject of another writing, in the near future.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
For Ernie Davis It’s Three Strikes, You’re Out!
It appears the People of Mount Vernon have had their fill of Ernie Davis and his broken promises. They are more keenly aware than ever
before that ‘Old Ernie’ merely talks a good game but does nothing; nothing about violence in the streets, violence in the schools; schools that are going backwards despite sky-high taxes. The fact is, conditions are so bad in some neighborhoods that many houses are up for sale, and families are moving back to the Bronx and other communities where parents feel their children will be safer.
Under Davis, Mount Vernon has become a city without hope, without a future for young people. Only a select few, those politically
connected, those closest to Davis, enjoy the limited recreational opportunities - summer camp, summer youth employment. Money
provided by the federal government for housing and recreational opportunities, lots of money, somehow mysteriously disappears. How does a mayor who has been in charge for 12 years, fully three terms in office, look his citizens in the eye and tell them he can’t account for $3 million missing on his watch? How does he ask for a fourth term?
Ernie Davis has been getting away with corruption and indifference to the serious needs of Mount Vernon families for so long that he believes
he is anointed. He’s been controlling the election process, bribing party workers, and ward healers with City jobs and contracts for so many
years that he places little stock in the power of Mount Vernon’s families to control their own city’s destiny. And, what he cannot control by
bribery, he has lately attempted to control by force and intimidation.
Last week the Mayor sent ‘goon squads’ into certain neighborhoods armed with lawn signs, attempting to intimidate homeowners, many of
them middle-aged and elderly, into keeping his campaign sign on their property. Homeowners in one such neighborhood, in the southeast
section of the City, that had been inundated the weekend before last with Davis signs, had taken down just about every one of them by last
Wednesday afternoon.
That evening Mount Vernon’s favorite son, and strongest supporter, Denzel Washington, was greeted by more than three hundred cheering residents in the parking area of the Centennial Church on Eighth Avenue, at an event billed as “The Mount Vernon Youth Forum” featuring “It’s Time For A Change.”
Washington, who frequently comes home to the city of his youth, has contributed more than $2 million and much of his time and energy
primarily to the city’s Boys and Girls Club, and to other youth-oriented programs over the years, and holds a very special place in the hearts of Mount Vernon families. A er greeting and congratulating numerous young people, some for academic achievement such as Rashad Senior,
who will be going to Harvard University on a full scholarship; others for athletic prowess, such as 12-year-old Deajah Stevenson who will be
competing in the National Junior Olympics in California, Washington spoke to the crowd about the importance of providing opportunities
for their children, and encouraging them to reach high.
He then turned to his friend, County Legislator Clinton Young, declaring, “I love this brother like a brother and I support him one hundred
percent.” Washington then introduced Young as “The Next Mayor.”
Ernie Davis has become a tired act. It’s time he exits the stage and makes way for someone more positive, more motivated, and more
concerned about the families of Mount Vernon than he has been for a very long time. It’s time for a leader who will renew the spirit and
the confidence of Mount Vernon. In brief, it’s time for a change, time for Clinton Young.
Richard Blassberg
For Ernie Davis It’s Three Strikes, You’re Out!
It appears the People of Mount Vernon have had their fill of Ernie Davis and his broken promises. They are more keenly aware than ever
before that ‘Old Ernie’ merely talks a good game but does nothing; nothing about violence in the streets, violence in the schools; schools that are going backwards despite sky-high taxes. The fact is, conditions are so bad in some neighborhoods that many houses are up for sale, and families are moving back to the Bronx and other communities where parents feel their children will be safer.
Under Davis, Mount Vernon has become a city without hope, without a future for young people. Only a select few, those politically
connected, those closest to Davis, enjoy the limited recreational opportunities - summer camp, summer youth employment. Money
provided by the federal government for housing and recreational opportunities, lots of money, somehow mysteriously disappears. How does a mayor who has been in charge for 12 years, fully three terms in office, look his citizens in the eye and tell them he can’t account for $3 million missing on his watch? How does he ask for a fourth term?
Ernie Davis has been getting away with corruption and indifference to the serious needs of Mount Vernon families for so long that he believes
he is anointed. He’s been controlling the election process, bribing party workers, and ward healers with City jobs and contracts for so many
years that he places little stock in the power of Mount Vernon’s families to control their own city’s destiny. And, what he cannot control by
bribery, he has lately attempted to control by force and intimidation.
Last week the Mayor sent ‘goon squads’ into certain neighborhoods armed with lawn signs, attempting to intimidate homeowners, many of
them middle-aged and elderly, into keeping his campaign sign on their property. Homeowners in one such neighborhood, in the southeast
section of the City, that had been inundated the weekend before last with Davis signs, had taken down just about every one of them by last
Wednesday afternoon.
That evening Mount Vernon’s favorite son, and strongest supporter, Denzel Washington, was greeted by more than three hundred cheering residents in the parking area of the Centennial Church on Eighth Avenue, at an event billed as “The Mount Vernon Youth Forum” featuring “It’s Time For A Change.”
Washington, who frequently comes home to the city of his youth, has contributed more than $2 million and much of his time and energy
primarily to the city’s Boys and Girls Club, and to other youth-oriented programs over the years, and holds a very special place in the hearts of Mount Vernon families. A er greeting and congratulating numerous young people, some for academic achievement such as Rashad Senior,
who will be going to Harvard University on a full scholarship; others for athletic prowess, such as 12-year-old Deajah Stevenson who will be
competing in the National Junior Olympics in California, Washington spoke to the crowd about the importance of providing opportunities
for their children, and encouraging them to reach high.
He then turned to his friend, County Legislator Clinton Young, declaring, “I love this brother like a brother and I support him one hundred
percent.” Washington then introduced Young as “The Next Mayor.”
Ernie Davis has become a tired act. It’s time he exits the stage and makes way for someone more positive, more motivated, and more
concerned about the families of Mount Vernon than he has been for a very long time. It’s time for a leader who will renew the spirit and
the confidence of Mount Vernon. In brief, it’s time for a change, time for Clinton Young.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Our Readers Respond...
Feiner Rejects Cavallo
Dear Editor:
I would like to thank The Westchester Guardian for the stories about the Independence Party. As a result of your reporting, I decided, earlier this year, not to seek the endorsement of the Independence Party.
The Independence Party sounds independent and non-partisan to those who are not familiar with the party, but the party (under the leadership of Giulio Cavallo) doesn’t share my beliefs. The party leadership has sold cross-endorsements for dollars and/or jobs. I want to be associated with political parties that share my philosophy about government. I’m running in the Democratic primary on September 18th with Kevin Morgan, Sonja Brown (council candidates) and Judith Beville (clerk). We are also starting to circulate petitions to form a new political party: Greenburgh United Party. Over 1500 voters will sign petitions in the coming month creating the party. This party will be formed by people who want good government, not by the political bosses.
Paul Feiner
Greenburgh Town Supervisor
More Concern About Cavallo
Dear Editor:
I have been following your editorials on Giulio Cavallo with great interest. What has not been reported is the disposition of the investigation by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer into Mr. Cavallo’s no-show, six-figure job as a doctor in the New York State Department of Health Hospital Unit in New Rochelle. As you know, he never had a doctor’s certificate from the State to attach ‘doctor’ to his name. He quietly resigned from this position. Was he made to pay restitution of the salary he collected for years for this no-show job?
While he was still “working” for the Hospital Unit he bragged how he got a job in the same unit for Marianne Oros who, in effect, became his boss after she was fired from Westchester Medical Center. Mrs. Oros is the wife of George Oros, who is in the County Legislature. He is also on the board of one of the hospitals that Mrs. Oros oversaw, clearly a conflict of interest. When a patient who had a complaint against the hospital made the state aware of this situation, Mrs. Oros was asked to resign, which she refused to do. She was then given another position.
This is just another example of Giulio Cavallo’s influence in this state. It seems corruption and incompetence are rewarded instead of being rooted out. If you have any information on the outcome from Mr. Spitzer’s office please print it or let your readers know how to obtain this
information.
A Concerned State Worker
Aghast At Condition of Mt. Vernon High School
To the Editor:
Last month, friends and I attended a commendable performance of Dreamgirls at Mt. Vernon High School. As it was our first visit to that institution, we were shocked at the shabby condition of the unmown grass, the profusion of weeds and bare patches of earth--as
well as the generally unwelcoming appearance of the grounds fronting the building’s entrance. In addition, the Venetian blinds covering the
large windows of the edifice, were bent, broken off, or in some cases, missing slats entirely.
Once inside the school, we viewed the equally shabby courtyard (presumably for students’ use), where weeds proliferated between the blocks of concrete on the walkway and a sense of miasma hovered over what might once have been a thriving area for student interaction.
Considering that the new, completely non-utilitarian musical fountain at the traffic circle on Gramatan Ave. in Mt. Vernon reportedly cost taxpayers a cool $4 million, it is unconscionable that money was not allocated to the high school for landscaping and maintenance of the grounds as well as for purchasing new Venetian blinds. The fact is that the patent neglect of the premises sends a terrible message
not only to visitors but to attending students. It says, in effect, “We don’t really care about you. You don’t deserve to study in an attractive place.” Hasn’t it occurred to Mayor Davis or other officials who are involved with the Mt. Vernon schools, that if we treat our young people
as though they were second-class citizens, so will they consider themselves?
Aware of the crime statistics in the schools as well as in the streets, residents with children approaching school-age often move out of Mt. Vernon. Yet Mayor Davis, ostensibly oblivious to it all, seems to believe that erecting a visible monument (the fountain) to his tenure will
again catapult him into yet another term in office. But parents who cannot afford to leave the city want something better for their children and are now clamoring for a change in government. Judging from the condition of Mt. Vernon High School, that change can’t come fast enough.
Elaine Booth Selig, Mt. Vernon
Concerned About New Rochelle Development
Dear Editor:
A report at the City Council meeting from the New Rochelle Environmental Committee suggested many ideas for a greener New Rochelle. The Committee favored open space and more environmentally-friendly buildings and mentioned that the new construction in downtown
does not fit these criteria. Among the items mentioned was flooding caused by too many impervious surfaces. Certainly residents can remember the recent flooding in many areas of the city.
There are other environmental problems in New Rochelle. On North Avenue, between Huguenot and Main Streets, there have been numerous instances of the Con Edison cables overheating. Yet in the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) for the proposed Simone Project
for Church/Division Streets, Con Edison on page 3b-11 claimed that they can supply the gas and electricity. Similarly, in the environmental report for Forest City Ratner’s proposal for the Brooklyn Atlantic yards, Con Edison said they could supply the electricity and gas. But when Con Edison appeared recently at a state Assembly hearing about a large rate increase, they claimed they were “strapped” and massive
projects like these Atlantic yards are to blame. Therefore, all residents are forced to subsidize these projects.
These are just two examples of how our City’s taxpayers and residents will be impacted by the high rise Simone project. The City Council is likely to vote on this proposal this month. Any one who is concerned about the environmental impacts of this large and dense project on the Queen City of the Sound should let Council members know immediately.
Peggy Godfrey, New Rochelle
Games People Play
We found last Wednesday’s gathering at County Democratic Headquarters in White Plains amusing and somewhat ironic. Several prominent local Democrats, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver had come together to welcome Republican Assemblyman Michael Spano, little
brother of former State Senator Nick Spano - once the Number Three Republican in the State - into the fold.
Yes, after ten years in the Assembly as a Republican; after leaving that body for personal reasons, and apparently failing to cut it in the private sector, and, after running against an under-funded Democrat, and reclaiming his old seat, as a Republican just last year, Mike Spano decides he’s really a Democrat, and has been for some time. Some might say, “Wow!” We simply ask, “What else is new?”
Naturally, the powers that be, Larry Schwartz, Inc. brought together as many local Democratic legislators and politicians as could be rounded up on short notice for the photo-op. Of course, some of those Democrats standing behind Mike had stood behind Big Brother Nicky and Daddy Leonard Spano numerous times, and they didn’t have to switch parties for their support. No fooling.
Andy Spano, no relation mind you, and Larry Schwartz’ puppet, Reggie LaFayette, did their best to re-elect Republican County Clerk Len Spano in 2001, and Big Nick, every two years, succeeding right through 2004. Last year the presence of federal monitors and attorneys raised the stakes to where nobody was willing to step over the line to put Nick back into the Senate. In that regard We would wonder what was going through Andrea Stewart-Cousins’ mind as she stood smiling amongst the assemblage.
Truth be told, Andy Spano didn’t appear especially delighted to be welcoming Mike Spano, no relative, into the Democratic Party. The bigger question, however, involves how Larry feels about the move. Does he believe it will strengthen his hand in Albany? Does he think Mike will be willing to accept his oppressive presence?
We have a few questions for Mike:
• Would you be changing parties if Nicky were still sitting in the State Senate?
• Is it really George W. Bush you’re trying to distance yourself from, or is it Big Brother Nicky?
• And, having won your seat as a Republican, how do you face your constituents next year, for re-election, and tell them that you really stand for the philosophy, and the politics they thought you opposed when they elected you last year?
Feiner Rejects Cavallo
Dear Editor:
I would like to thank The Westchester Guardian for the stories about the Independence Party. As a result of your reporting, I decided, earlier this year, not to seek the endorsement of the Independence Party.
The Independence Party sounds independent and non-partisan to those who are not familiar with the party, but the party (under the leadership of Giulio Cavallo) doesn’t share my beliefs. The party leadership has sold cross-endorsements for dollars and/or jobs. I want to be associated with political parties that share my philosophy about government. I’m running in the Democratic primary on September 18th with Kevin Morgan, Sonja Brown (council candidates) and Judith Beville (clerk). We are also starting to circulate petitions to form a new political party: Greenburgh United Party. Over 1500 voters will sign petitions in the coming month creating the party. This party will be formed by people who want good government, not by the political bosses.
Paul Feiner
Greenburgh Town Supervisor
More Concern About Cavallo
Dear Editor:
I have been following your editorials on Giulio Cavallo with great interest. What has not been reported is the disposition of the investigation by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer into Mr. Cavallo’s no-show, six-figure job as a doctor in the New York State Department of Health Hospital Unit in New Rochelle. As you know, he never had a doctor’s certificate from the State to attach ‘doctor’ to his name. He quietly resigned from this position. Was he made to pay restitution of the salary he collected for years for this no-show job?
While he was still “working” for the Hospital Unit he bragged how he got a job in the same unit for Marianne Oros who, in effect, became his boss after she was fired from Westchester Medical Center. Mrs. Oros is the wife of George Oros, who is in the County Legislature. He is also on the board of one of the hospitals that Mrs. Oros oversaw, clearly a conflict of interest. When a patient who had a complaint against the hospital made the state aware of this situation, Mrs. Oros was asked to resign, which she refused to do. She was then given another position.
This is just another example of Giulio Cavallo’s influence in this state. It seems corruption and incompetence are rewarded instead of being rooted out. If you have any information on the outcome from Mr. Spitzer’s office please print it or let your readers know how to obtain this
information.
A Concerned State Worker
Aghast At Condition of Mt. Vernon High School
To the Editor:
Last month, friends and I attended a commendable performance of Dreamgirls at Mt. Vernon High School. As it was our first visit to that institution, we were shocked at the shabby condition of the unmown grass, the profusion of weeds and bare patches of earth--as
well as the generally unwelcoming appearance of the grounds fronting the building’s entrance. In addition, the Venetian blinds covering the
large windows of the edifice, were bent, broken off, or in some cases, missing slats entirely.
Once inside the school, we viewed the equally shabby courtyard (presumably for students’ use), where weeds proliferated between the blocks of concrete on the walkway and a sense of miasma hovered over what might once have been a thriving area for student interaction.
Considering that the new, completely non-utilitarian musical fountain at the traffic circle on Gramatan Ave. in Mt. Vernon reportedly cost taxpayers a cool $4 million, it is unconscionable that money was not allocated to the high school for landscaping and maintenance of the grounds as well as for purchasing new Venetian blinds. The fact is that the patent neglect of the premises sends a terrible message
not only to visitors but to attending students. It says, in effect, “We don’t really care about you. You don’t deserve to study in an attractive place.” Hasn’t it occurred to Mayor Davis or other officials who are involved with the Mt. Vernon schools, that if we treat our young people
as though they were second-class citizens, so will they consider themselves?
Aware of the crime statistics in the schools as well as in the streets, residents with children approaching school-age often move out of Mt. Vernon. Yet Mayor Davis, ostensibly oblivious to it all, seems to believe that erecting a visible monument (the fountain) to his tenure will
again catapult him into yet another term in office. But parents who cannot afford to leave the city want something better for their children and are now clamoring for a change in government. Judging from the condition of Mt. Vernon High School, that change can’t come fast enough.
Elaine Booth Selig, Mt. Vernon
Concerned About New Rochelle Development
Dear Editor:
A report at the City Council meeting from the New Rochelle Environmental Committee suggested many ideas for a greener New Rochelle. The Committee favored open space and more environmentally-friendly buildings and mentioned that the new construction in downtown
does not fit these criteria. Among the items mentioned was flooding caused by too many impervious surfaces. Certainly residents can remember the recent flooding in many areas of the city.
There are other environmental problems in New Rochelle. On North Avenue, between Huguenot and Main Streets, there have been numerous instances of the Con Edison cables overheating. Yet in the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) for the proposed Simone Project
for Church/Division Streets, Con Edison on page 3b-11 claimed that they can supply the gas and electricity. Similarly, in the environmental report for Forest City Ratner’s proposal for the Brooklyn Atlantic yards, Con Edison said they could supply the electricity and gas. But when Con Edison appeared recently at a state Assembly hearing about a large rate increase, they claimed they were “strapped” and massive
projects like these Atlantic yards are to blame. Therefore, all residents are forced to subsidize these projects.
These are just two examples of how our City’s taxpayers and residents will be impacted by the high rise Simone project. The City Council is likely to vote on this proposal this month. Any one who is concerned about the environmental impacts of this large and dense project on the Queen City of the Sound should let Council members know immediately.
Peggy Godfrey, New Rochelle
Games People Play
We found last Wednesday’s gathering at County Democratic Headquarters in White Plains amusing and somewhat ironic. Several prominent local Democrats, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver had come together to welcome Republican Assemblyman Michael Spano, little
brother of former State Senator Nick Spano - once the Number Three Republican in the State - into the fold.
Yes, after ten years in the Assembly as a Republican; after leaving that body for personal reasons, and apparently failing to cut it in the private sector, and, after running against an under-funded Democrat, and reclaiming his old seat, as a Republican just last year, Mike Spano decides he’s really a Democrat, and has been for some time. Some might say, “Wow!” We simply ask, “What else is new?”
Naturally, the powers that be, Larry Schwartz, Inc. brought together as many local Democratic legislators and politicians as could be rounded up on short notice for the photo-op. Of course, some of those Democrats standing behind Mike had stood behind Big Brother Nicky and Daddy Leonard Spano numerous times, and they didn’t have to switch parties for their support. No fooling.
Andy Spano, no relation mind you, and Larry Schwartz’ puppet, Reggie LaFayette, did their best to re-elect Republican County Clerk Len Spano in 2001, and Big Nick, every two years, succeeding right through 2004. Last year the presence of federal monitors and attorneys raised the stakes to where nobody was willing to step over the line to put Nick back into the Senate. In that regard We would wonder what was going through Andrea Stewart-Cousins’ mind as she stood smiling amongst the assemblage.
Truth be told, Andy Spano didn’t appear especially delighted to be welcoming Mike Spano, no relative, into the Democratic Party. The bigger question, however, involves how Larry feels about the move. Does he believe it will strengthen his hand in Albany? Does he think Mike will be willing to accept his oppressive presence?
We have a few questions for Mike:
• Would you be changing parties if Nicky were still sitting in the State Senate?
• Is it really George W. Bush you’re trying to distance yourself from, or is it Big Brother Nicky?
• And, having won your seat as a Republican, how do you face your constituents next year, for re-election, and tell them that you really stand for the philosophy, and the politics they thought you opposed when they elected you last year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
