Reintegration Into Society Is Most Often Difficult
By Jeff Deskovic
Reintegration into society following imprisonment, whether one was in prison wrongfully, as I was, or as the result of having committed a crime, is a very diffi-cult experience. As many are aware, I was incarcerated for 16 years for a crime I was proven innocent of by DNA.
In the first 14 months of my freedom, my life’s travels have brought me into contact, and discussion with both those who have been released from prison, having also been cleared of crime, as I was, as well as with people who are now free, having been paroled. Therefore, I have an
awareness of both dynamics, and more understanding of the bigger picture than I might have gained from merely my own experience.
In some ways the experience is the same. And yet, in others it is quite different.
I have discovered in my discussions with people who have never been incarcerated that there are many aspects of reintegration that escape most people. The thrust of this article is to take what I have learned from both my personal experience and discussions with others and
relate it in such a way that any reader will be better able to understand. I do not presume to speak for everybody, for I know
that people are different and therefore may perceive, and experience things differently.
Nonetheless, there is consensus for many going through the experience of reintegration after imprisonment. Upon being released from prison following years of confinement, an individual often finds himself in what seems like a strange and unnatural environment which, in some ways, parallels the world that they were once in, but in many ways does not, thus producing an internal feeling that the world on the outside is a parallel universe and that they are in an environment in which they really don’t belong.
There are different aspects to this. Most strikingly, advances in technology. For ex-ample, prior to my confinement, there were no cell phones, no Internet, DVD players, I pods, GPS systems, nor the sophisticated methods of banking that I came out to discover. Being unaccustomed to the technology had the effect of making me feel everyone else was operating on a different speed than I was. To make matters worse, in my own case, trying to learn the new technology was, at first, a slow and frustrating process.
Interestingly, some things are learned by unpleasant experiences; discovering that a debit card can be overdrawn; freezing a car engine by neglecting lubrication schedules. However, after a few things go wrong, it tends to produce an internal dread that something else will go wrong, that one is powerless to prevent. Some things, having been experienced, can often, but not always, be prevented the next time around. But then there is always the possibility that something else will go wrong.
I have found that when I go to towns and neighborhoods that I once knew, there are buildings and places that I am familiar with, and many things that I am not. Initially, this feels somewhat disorienting. It often takes a lot of time understanding where different stores are at in
the new town in which one lives, including which products can be found where. In my personal experience, when I need a particular item, the first obstacle is figuring out which store sells it, and then next is its location. In stores, there are very many different prices for similar products, and different quantities. I have no frame of reference with which to compare the products so as to know which product is superior, or which is a better buy. Of course, in addition, when it comes to purchasing things that I used to use, prices often seem very high as compared to when I used to buy them.
There are some situations in which I find myself uncertain as to social customs. For example, I never knew that using capital letters in emails is tantamount to shouting and therefore considered rude, or that when one is out with others, it is sometimes considered rude to answer your cell phone. I have discovered while out in restaurants that one should not cut up all of the meat before eating, that this is only done with children.
Then, again, simply getting used to freedom takes some adjustment, and even recognizing what one is allowed to do, and not allowed to do takes some doing. Upon release from prison, family ties, if there are any, need to be reestablished. It is no way like seeing somebody one hasn’t seen in several months, and catching up with each other in 15-20 minutes of conversation.
The experience is more like a time warp, where everybody else moved ahead while you remained frozen in time. My younger brother, who I saw a total of three times in 16 years, not only changed in appearance, but matured. We know who we are intellectually, but I don’t know
who he is as a person, and vice versa. As he recently said, “When I see you, I act like we used to when we were kids, because I don’t know you. I don’t know what to talk about, and what not to talk about.”
I feel similarly weird after seeing cousins who were merely babies when I was last free, but who are now adults. Putting the pieces back together, and relearning who people have become is very hard even when there are good intentions. Often there are issues that have arisen, however, in the form of resentment and anger. Sometimes family members feel betrayed by the person having done something that caused them to be sent away. Sometimes the former inmate feels angry at family for having abandoned him while he was wrongfully incarcerated, having not looked out for him.
When one is incarcerated, they are in a most powerless position. The people who are free become your lifeline. When they don’t help, it often produces resentment. There is a readjustment that all family members must make, not only in terms of getting used to the new person
and how to interact with him, but also in figuring out whether they will be a part of his life or not.
When I was first released, many family members came around, happy to see me. But, shortly thereafter they faded from sight, receding back into their own lives.
Making new friends can be very dif-ficult. I am free now. But free to hang out with whom? Free to do what? In prison, there was a designated time for recreation, and each activity could be found in a certain place. Getting someone to play a game with was easy. From that,
albeit through a cautious dance of getting to know people, associations from a distance were formed in which guarded, to a varying degree, conversations could be had.
In the outside world, obviously there is no such designated time and place, nor is it so easy. Most people make friends
through work, college, a friend or two left over from high school, and friends of friends. I earn money from doing lectures
at colleges, high schools, and other community organizations. I am never at the same place twice, unless an organization
brings me back six months later. At college, I was 34 when most other students were eighteen through twenty two,
the wrong age group for me.
Their idea of being friendly was saying “Hi” and “Bye”. To them I was a figure somewhat reminiscent of a parent, someone old and square. The idea that I could be fun was far removed from their minds. The few times I did things with a couple of them, it did not feel natural.
Rather than being able to interact on a peer-to-peer basis, I felt more like I was babysitting.
Night school wasn’t much better. Although the students there were older, many were working 40-50 hours a week, going to college, and involved with a wife or serious girlfriend, possibly kids. They all had pre-established friends who they didn’t get to see as often as they wished. That left little or no opportunity for me.
During the time when I was supposed to be in high school, I was incarcerated. Friends of friends didn’t work for me either, because I was starting out with no friends. Because I feel younger than my 34 years, I tend to have a lot of pent up energy that I would like to let out through sports and other physical activities, but have few friends to do them with.
In some respects, some of the problems that I have encountered upon gaining my freedom are more severe than others may have experienced. In part, because of the fact that I entered prison in my young adolescence and emerged into a world in which I had no waiting former adult contacts. To some who did not serve nearly so many years in prison and who were adults upon entering, the reintegration process, understandably, may be substantially easier. In no case, however, is it a simple walk in the park. Socializing with those who either do not have many of the same interests as I, or with individuals who were much older than I doesn’t work either. In the course of the last year and a half there have been many kind people who I have encountered along the way who at one point or another have invited me to dinner.
While I appreciated it, I knew very well while I was with them that they were not people with whom I could repeatedly
socialize. Others with whom I have spoken, who share my circumstances, have identified with my experience of generally having no idea where to go to meet people. Being the nameless teammate or faceless opponent at a YMCA or other recreational activity just hasn’t done it
for me, and although an activity may be fun and enjoyable, it usually lacks the human element. Thus, I find that I am by myself most of the time, free, but largely unable to enjoy that freedom.
As with many former inmates who emerge without a waiting relationship, finding a woman to know or possibly be serious with, is also a big challenge. When someone starts a conversation with me, I am fine. But I have no clue how to start a conversation myself, nor am I able to tell
when someone is really interested in me or simply being friendly.
It is one thing for someone to talk to me, as when they are curious when they see me, perhaps during the meet-and greet portion of a speaking engagement; it is quite another for them to want to be involved with me outside of that. Despite the fact that I have been fully exonerated, in many ways, I am perceived as an ex con, and therefore someone to be leery of. I have had several people tell me that others told them to be careful of me, for although I was wrongfully imprisoned, some of the criminal ways had to rub off on me.
I have had others who viewed me as a social outcast. In this respect, despite my innocence, I have been made to share what paroled individuals must go through. Of course, a person on parole not only faces the same challenges, but may, in fact, have been innocent but not
exonerated.
People, in some cases, thus have reason to be cautious. However, I know firsthand from my prison experience with people who made no bones about the fact that they were guilty, that there are many who have undergone transformations and truly wish to lead crime-free
lives. The importance to these people, and all former inmates, of having people with whom to interact and socialize, cannot be overestimated.
As an exoneree, I was released, quite literally, with nothing. I was not even given the $40 that parolees are given upon release. - ere is no provision in the law to immediately help those who are cleared establishing such basic needs as housing, cost of living expenses, education, mental health services, or health insurance. And while it is true that I am able to sue, civilly, and have, the litigation process is long, and the probable time table is between two and seven years.
I do not have work experience anywhere comparable to others my age, and cannot compete, at this point, for good paying or even decent jobs. And although I earn money doing lectures, that does not represent a steady source of income. It will be some time before I am able to achieve financial stability. Consequently, I have little disposable income with which to seek fun and recreation.
Most persons on parole encounter that same problem, in addition to which they also have a criminal record to explain. Of course, holding dead-end jobs that pay very little money increases the temptation to return to crime in order to make ends meet. Needless to say, financial
instability hinders the possibility of marriage and establishing a family.
It takes a lot mental toughness and determination to to forward with one’s life and not become consumed with prior incarceration, particularly in a case like mine where 16 years were wasted for nothing. Like many with whom I have spoken, I possess a determination to live life to the fullest extent, as many who have emerged have expressed, I need to look forward; and, in my case, attempt to
change the system for the better so that others won’t have to go through what I did.
Yet it is not easy. In some respects it is harder for an exoneree than someone who was incarcerated for a crime they actually committed. I discovered many in prison were able to work themselves mentally into a place where they said, “I did this to myself, committing a crime,
so I am not going to cry about it now. I have no one but myself to blame.” Exonerees are not able to take solace in that philosophy because they know they don’t belong in prison.
For some parolees, particularly those who have been incarcerated for a long time, it becomes a challenge to make something of their lives, particularly in light of carrying a criminal record, which will pop up periodically in their face, requiring an explanation. Many others have said it is as though they were never able to put it behind them and able to move on, no matter how much time had passed.
I believe that, as a society, we need do more to assist those returning from prison to successfully reintegrate into society. For those who have been exonerated, there should be a sum of $15,000 for each year of wrongful incarceration to be immediately paid, independent of any monies awarded as a result of a legal action, to cover cost of living, housing, insurance, education, and mental health services. Furthermore, compensation by way of lawsuits should be fast-tracked and given priority on court dockets, because of the financial struggles the wrongfully convicted must face.
For both exonerees and parolees, there needs to be a system in place that helps those who need assistance learning current technology, as well as affording them access to education that will enable them to get meaningful employment. With regard to mental health services, assistance with readjustment, and recreational and social opportunities there need to be private foundations willing to provide such assistance in a clubhouse environment, similar to those available to individuals formerly hospitalized with emotional illness or addiction.
I think that society must be more opened-minded towards those who are either parolees or exonerees struggling to regain a productive position in society. Those on parole should be allowed to earn trust and prove themselves on a case by case basis and should not be stereotyped. Those who are exonerated should not be viewed through the lens of suspicion or treated as an ex-convict, for to do that is to make their already unfortunate situation even worse, in effect, revictimizing the victim.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008
Northern Westchester Bureau Chief
Catherine Wilson
Do We Need Another Bridge Collapse?
On January 17, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) announced that it would “move to immediately implement the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) based on their investigation of last summer’s Minneapolis bridge collapse.
The NTSB and the FHWA recommendations specifically referred to steel truss bridges. Truss bridges are one of the oldest types of modern bridges, most of which were built before 1940. These bridges were often used for railways where the economics of the simple pin-jointed construction outweighed appearance. Several of these bridges are still in heavy daily use in upper Westchester County.
The Northbound Amvets Memorial Bridge, over the Croton Reservoir, on the Taconic Parkway is a deck truss bridge that was built in 1931. At the time of its construction the 750-foot, triple-hinged, steel truss arch bridge was the longest of its type in the world. While much recent attention has been paid to the aging condition of the Tappan Zee Bridge (completed in 1955), the Amvets Memorial Bridge is 24 years older and is in obvious visible need of immediate repair. Adding to the concern is the considerable daily use this bridge receives. The Westchester
County Planning Department estimates that as many as 75,000 vehicles cross this bridge daily, a total of over 27 million annually.
The New York State County Highway Superintendents Association (NYSCHSA) met in Albany on January 22 to discuss the projected $175 billion in transportation investment needed statewide over the next 20 years. At that conference, Commissioner Astrid Glynn of the NYS DOT remarked, “Maintaining a safe transportation infrastructure is an essential part of encouraging economic growth across New York State. We must advance a strategy including preserving, and updating, our existing assets”.
Commissioner Glynn, in a press release dated January 31, detailed the sources of pressure resulting in the NYSDOT’s increased funding needs; “rising inflation, an aging infrastructure, and an historic lack of sufficient preventive maintenance”. She remarked, “Going forward, projects that increase safety, promote regional economic growth, and demonstrate energy efficiency, will be top priorities”.
Chief among those priorities in our area is the Northbound Amvets Memorial Bridge. The NYSDOT announced January 24 that it had scheduled maintenance for this bridge. But several calls from The Guardian to the NYSDOT regional and state offices as to
what type of maintenance is scheduled for this bridge, went unanswered.
Given the volume of daily traffic, and the age and construction design of this bridge, The Guardian’s concerns, and the concerns of local citizens, need to be addressed by the officials responsible at the state DOT. What do they have to hide?
Local residents have reason to be concerned over our aging infrastructure after witnessing the failure of other, similar bridges around the nation. According to the American Society of Engineers, between 1989 and 2000, there were more than 500 bridge failures in the United States; the average age of those bridges having been 52.2 years.
Bridge overload and lateral impact from trucks, trains, barges/ships, accounted for 20% of the failures. According to a 2003 report by that same society, “Other frequent principal causes are design, detailing, construction, material, and maintenance.” Similar studies conducted between 1977–2000 revealed almost similar trends, with “most failures occurring during the bridge’s service life”.
Even an inspection does not assure that a bridge will not fail as the nation discovered last summer when a bridge in Minneapolis, MN, on Interstate 35, collapsed despite the fact that the bridge had recently passed inspection. The investigation into this disaster, which left
13 people dead, reviewed what testing methods were actually used to determine the existence of any structural weaknesses. This bridge collapse led engineers to reexamine how best to pinpoint and predict metal fatigue.
According to Richard Meyers, a professor of engineering at Virginia Tech, “The number and magnitude of the loads have an influence on fatigue life. If your actual weights have increased over time to a point that’s greater than anticipated, or if you have overloads crossing the bridge on a daily basis without your knowledge, you will get fatigue damage.”
As reported late last year in Design News, an engineering periodical: Whether fatigue is caused by overloading or corrosion, the end result is
micro-cracking of the support steel. Engineers say such cracks, almost invisible to the human eye, can propagate under normal loads that occur later. Even then, however, there’s no guarantee bridge inspectors will be able to see the cracks.
William O’Donnell, Chairman of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, said, “Typically, today’s inspection technology isn’t going to find microcracks. And even though the crack growth rate may be very small per loading cycle, if you put a million cycles on it, that crack can grow to be quite large.”
O’Donnell suggested consulting engineers can gather crack growth rate data by outfitting bridges with dynamic instrumentation that will provide data on dynamic loads on the bridge. That, however, can’t be done by bridge inspectors, who must climb over miles of structural steel each year in their search for telltale problems.
“Usually, the bridge inspector is stuck with the limitation of just looking to see if the cracks are already there. The technology it takes to do crack growth rate calculations is beyond the bridge inspector’s task,” said O’Donnell. Without a response from NYSDOT officials, The Guardian cannot inform our readers as to what type of inspections are being performed on the Amvets Memorial Bridge, when those
inspections were last done, if the equipment is in place to test for weight loads, and what repairs are needed to correct the corrosion already very evident on the superstructure.
Given the significant number of bridge failures nationwide involving bridges that are over 50 years old, it is reasonable to assume that the Northbound Amvet Memorial Bridge, built in 1931, may be nearing, or beyond, the end of its anticipated useful life. County
residents and all those who drive across and trust that bridge daily are entitled to know what, if any, plans exist to replace it, and what the state is doing in the interim to assure public safety.
Our readers may be assured that The Guardian will continue to seek answers from both the State Department of Transportation and other governmental agencies that need to be forthcoming with regard to the Northbound Amvets Memorial Bridge on the Taconic State Parkway.
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Buchanan: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined Indian Point $650,000 for missing multiple deadlines to get its emergency notification system fully operational. This is in addition to a $130,000 fine in 2007 for failing to have functioning sirens. The NRC has set a deadline
for this summer for this system to be fully operational.
Chappaqua: Hillary Clinton, the first viable female candidate for President, easily won the New York State Primary over Barack Obama,
a junior Senator from Illinois. Senator Clinton was accompanied by her family to the polling station at Grafflin Elementary School in her home town.
Ossining: Metro North announced that it will be removing asbestos and lead from its train stations in Ossining, Scarborough, and Philipse
Manor in preparation for renovations at those stations. The renovations will include new staircases, elevators, and overpasses.
Tarrytown: EF Education First, an international language school, applied for a permit to buy the Marymount College campus. This application is expected to be approved at the Village Board meeting on February 19. EF Education First is known to local area high school
students as the parent company for EF Tours, which offers international educational tours.
– Catherine Wilson
Northern Westchester Bureau Chief
Catherine Wilson
Do We Need Another Bridge Collapse?
On January 17, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) announced that it would “move to immediately implement the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) based on their investigation of last summer’s Minneapolis bridge collapse.
The NTSB and the FHWA recommendations specifically referred to steel truss bridges. Truss bridges are one of the oldest types of modern bridges, most of which were built before 1940. These bridges were often used for railways where the economics of the simple pin-jointed construction outweighed appearance. Several of these bridges are still in heavy daily use in upper Westchester County.
The Northbound Amvets Memorial Bridge, over the Croton Reservoir, on the Taconic Parkway is a deck truss bridge that was built in 1931. At the time of its construction the 750-foot, triple-hinged, steel truss arch bridge was the longest of its type in the world. While much recent attention has been paid to the aging condition of the Tappan Zee Bridge (completed in 1955), the Amvets Memorial Bridge is 24 years older and is in obvious visible need of immediate repair. Adding to the concern is the considerable daily use this bridge receives. The Westchester
County Planning Department estimates that as many as 75,000 vehicles cross this bridge daily, a total of over 27 million annually.
The New York State County Highway Superintendents Association (NYSCHSA) met in Albany on January 22 to discuss the projected $175 billion in transportation investment needed statewide over the next 20 years. At that conference, Commissioner Astrid Glynn of the NYS DOT remarked, “Maintaining a safe transportation infrastructure is an essential part of encouraging economic growth across New York State. We must advance a strategy including preserving, and updating, our existing assets”.
Commissioner Glynn, in a press release dated January 31, detailed the sources of pressure resulting in the NYSDOT’s increased funding needs; “rising inflation, an aging infrastructure, and an historic lack of sufficient preventive maintenance”. She remarked, “Going forward, projects that increase safety, promote regional economic growth, and demonstrate energy efficiency, will be top priorities”.
Chief among those priorities in our area is the Northbound Amvets Memorial Bridge. The NYSDOT announced January 24 that it had scheduled maintenance for this bridge. But several calls from The Guardian to the NYSDOT regional and state offices as to
what type of maintenance is scheduled for this bridge, went unanswered.
Given the volume of daily traffic, and the age and construction design of this bridge, The Guardian’s concerns, and the concerns of local citizens, need to be addressed by the officials responsible at the state DOT. What do they have to hide?
Local residents have reason to be concerned over our aging infrastructure after witnessing the failure of other, similar bridges around the nation. According to the American Society of Engineers, between 1989 and 2000, there were more than 500 bridge failures in the United States; the average age of those bridges having been 52.2 years.
Bridge overload and lateral impact from trucks, trains, barges/ships, accounted for 20% of the failures. According to a 2003 report by that same society, “Other frequent principal causes are design, detailing, construction, material, and maintenance.” Similar studies conducted between 1977–2000 revealed almost similar trends, with “most failures occurring during the bridge’s service life”.
Even an inspection does not assure that a bridge will not fail as the nation discovered last summer when a bridge in Minneapolis, MN, on Interstate 35, collapsed despite the fact that the bridge had recently passed inspection. The investigation into this disaster, which left
13 people dead, reviewed what testing methods were actually used to determine the existence of any structural weaknesses. This bridge collapse led engineers to reexamine how best to pinpoint and predict metal fatigue.
According to Richard Meyers, a professor of engineering at Virginia Tech, “The number and magnitude of the loads have an influence on fatigue life. If your actual weights have increased over time to a point that’s greater than anticipated, or if you have overloads crossing the bridge on a daily basis without your knowledge, you will get fatigue damage.”
As reported late last year in Design News, an engineering periodical: Whether fatigue is caused by overloading or corrosion, the end result is
micro-cracking of the support steel. Engineers say such cracks, almost invisible to the human eye, can propagate under normal loads that occur later. Even then, however, there’s no guarantee bridge inspectors will be able to see the cracks.
William O’Donnell, Chairman of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, said, “Typically, today’s inspection technology isn’t going to find microcracks. And even though the crack growth rate may be very small per loading cycle, if you put a million cycles on it, that crack can grow to be quite large.”
O’Donnell suggested consulting engineers can gather crack growth rate data by outfitting bridges with dynamic instrumentation that will provide data on dynamic loads on the bridge. That, however, can’t be done by bridge inspectors, who must climb over miles of structural steel each year in their search for telltale problems.
“Usually, the bridge inspector is stuck with the limitation of just looking to see if the cracks are already there. The technology it takes to do crack growth rate calculations is beyond the bridge inspector’s task,” said O’Donnell. Without a response from NYSDOT officials, The Guardian cannot inform our readers as to what type of inspections are being performed on the Amvets Memorial Bridge, when those
inspections were last done, if the equipment is in place to test for weight loads, and what repairs are needed to correct the corrosion already very evident on the superstructure.
Given the significant number of bridge failures nationwide involving bridges that are over 50 years old, it is reasonable to assume that the Northbound Amvet Memorial Bridge, built in 1931, may be nearing, or beyond, the end of its anticipated useful life. County
residents and all those who drive across and trust that bridge daily are entitled to know what, if any, plans exist to replace it, and what the state is doing in the interim to assure public safety.
Our readers may be assured that The Guardian will continue to seek answers from both the State Department of Transportation and other governmental agencies that need to be forthcoming with regard to the Northbound Amvets Memorial Bridge on the Taconic State Parkway.
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Buchanan: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined Indian Point $650,000 for missing multiple deadlines to get its emergency notification system fully operational. This is in addition to a $130,000 fine in 2007 for failing to have functioning sirens. The NRC has set a deadline
for this summer for this system to be fully operational.
Chappaqua: Hillary Clinton, the first viable female candidate for President, easily won the New York State Primary over Barack Obama,
a junior Senator from Illinois. Senator Clinton was accompanied by her family to the polling station at Grafflin Elementary School in her home town.
Ossining: Metro North announced that it will be removing asbestos and lead from its train stations in Ossining, Scarborough, and Philipse
Manor in preparation for renovations at those stations. The renovations will include new staircases, elevators, and overpasses.
Tarrytown: EF Education First, an international language school, applied for a permit to buy the Marymount College campus. This application is expected to be approved at the Village Board meeting on February 19. EF Education First is known to local area high school
students as the parent company for EF Tours, which offers international educational tours.
– Catherine Wilson
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Yonkers City Councilwoman Gronowski Cites Amicone Administration’s Violations Of Civil Service Regulations
Joan Gronowski, Yonkers third District Councilmember, met with New York State Civil Service officials in Albany to request a forensic
audit of the Yonkers system. The last audit, conducted in 1994, found that the City’s Administration of Civil Service was “poor”. The
most significant violation, among the many cited at that time, was the City’s abuse of provisional hiring. State officials confirmed that Civil
Service Law allows a maximum of nine months for any individual to be kept in provisional status and that the City is obligated to call
for a Civil Service exam within 30 days of hiring. The Law explicitly provides that any employee has not achieved permanent status in nine
months must be dismissed.
The New York State Court of Appeals recently affirmed the nine month provision. (In the Matter of City of Long Beach, Respondent, v Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.— Long Beach Unit, Appellant. Louis D. Stober, Jr., for appellant.) During her
meeting in Albany, Councilwoman Gronowski was also informed that it is a misdemeanor under New York State Civil Service Law for any City official to certify a payroll containing illegal employees.
Documents provided by the Amicone Administration in December 2007 show that in Mayor Amicone’s Office, alone, there are no fewer than ten provisional employees, some of whom have exceeded the nine month deadline, and whose combined salaries total $744,283 dollars before benefits. Included in those titles are one Mayoral Staff Assistant at a salary of $44,928, one Principal Mayoral Staff Assistant
at a salary of $85,000, one hourly Principal Mayoral Staff Assistant, five Senior Mayoral Staff Assistants ranging in salary from $51,000 to
$64,000, and two Special Assistants to the Mayor with salaries of $97,000 and $133,166 respectively. These do not include nine mayoral employees in the exempt category, whose combined salaries total $897,979.
Gronowski notes that these totals do not include provisional employees who may be employed by the Board of Education, Municipal Housing Authority and the Parking Authority.
Gronowski campaigned with a promise to “expose the political patronage system and to make municipal employment an equal playing
field for all qualified candidates,” and states that she is committed to her campaign promise, and that she will not vote to certify a budget containing illegal employees. She was encouraged by the willingness of state officials to help her identify and resolve the problem.
Yonkers City Councilwoman Gronowski Cites Amicone Administration’s Violations Of Civil Service Regulations
Joan Gronowski, Yonkers third District Councilmember, met with New York State Civil Service officials in Albany to request a forensic
audit of the Yonkers system. The last audit, conducted in 1994, found that the City’s Administration of Civil Service was “poor”. The
most significant violation, among the many cited at that time, was the City’s abuse of provisional hiring. State officials confirmed that Civil
Service Law allows a maximum of nine months for any individual to be kept in provisional status and that the City is obligated to call
for a Civil Service exam within 30 days of hiring. The Law explicitly provides that any employee has not achieved permanent status in nine
months must be dismissed.
The New York State Court of Appeals recently affirmed the nine month provision. (In the Matter of City of Long Beach, Respondent, v Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.— Long Beach Unit, Appellant. Louis D. Stober, Jr., for appellant.) During her
meeting in Albany, Councilwoman Gronowski was also informed that it is a misdemeanor under New York State Civil Service Law for any City official to certify a payroll containing illegal employees.
Documents provided by the Amicone Administration in December 2007 show that in Mayor Amicone’s Office, alone, there are no fewer than ten provisional employees, some of whom have exceeded the nine month deadline, and whose combined salaries total $744,283 dollars before benefits. Included in those titles are one Mayoral Staff Assistant at a salary of $44,928, one Principal Mayoral Staff Assistant
at a salary of $85,000, one hourly Principal Mayoral Staff Assistant, five Senior Mayoral Staff Assistants ranging in salary from $51,000 to
$64,000, and two Special Assistants to the Mayor with salaries of $97,000 and $133,166 respectively. These do not include nine mayoral employees in the exempt category, whose combined salaries total $897,979.
Gronowski notes that these totals do not include provisional employees who may be employed by the Board of Education, Municipal Housing Authority and the Parking Authority.
Gronowski campaigned with a promise to “expose the political patronage system and to make municipal employment an equal playing
field for all qualified candidates,” and states that she is committed to her campaign promise, and that she will not vote to certify a budget containing illegal employees. She was encouraged by the willingness of state officials to help her identify and resolve the problem.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Our Readers Respond...
Reader Misinterprets Columnist Camacho
Dear Editor:
I am a faithful reader of your publication. I appreciate your un-biased reporting of the news and your journalistic integrity.
However, I found the January 1, 2008 Op-Ed by Eridania Camacho insulting. It is derogatory and prejudicial, if not outright
veiled racism. The writer goes to great lengths to describe stereotypical behavior towards Latinos, yet uses the term “Anglo” to describe
Caucasian peoples.
I expect higher standards from your publication.
A Faithful Reader
Editor’s Note: We are so pleased that you are “A Faithful Reader”, and we are pleased to advise you that you may keep the faith. We hope you will be pleased to note that Ms. Camacho’s use of the word “Anglo” is neither “derogatory” nor “prejudicial”, nor any form of “veiled racism”.
If you would have taken a moment to consult Webster’s New World Dictionary, copyrighted 2002 by Wiley Publishing,
Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, you would have discovered that “Anglo” is defined as “a White inhabitant of the United States who is of
non-Hispanic descent.” No offense intended; no offense committed. We will strive to maintain our high standards. Thank you.
A Plea For Enforcement Of Disabilities Act of 1990
Dear Editor:
We need help! This is a handicapped person’s fight against those who violate and abuse the Americans With Disabilities
Act of the U.S.A.
“We” refers to the thousands of surviving World War II Vets, the millions of veterans from the Korean, Vietnam and Iraqi
Wars, and the multi-millions who are likewise physically or mentally handicapped. WE DESERVE BETTER!
Since April, 2006, I have made urgent appeals on several occasions to various elected officials and candidates for public
office by telephone calls, fax transmissions and by certified mail urging them to commit to putting teeth into existing laws or
creating stronger measures to create a true Open Door Policy for the 21st Century.
All such pleas for a commitment have borne no response whatsoever. The silence is deafening.
When President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act into law in 1990, he declared that our
nation “will not accept, we will not excuse, we will not tolerate discrimination in America.” Eighteen years later, individuals
with disabilities and our supporters, know that “tolerance” is still being defined.
My purpose is to obtain legislation to compel the enforcement of those laws, above captioned, and not just wait for a
tragic accident to happen. It is senseless to have laws that do not provide for penalties, if broken.
Howard Wm. Rasher,
Briarcliff Manor
Thursday, February 14, 2008
In Our Opinion...
Congestion Pricing In Manhattan: An Idea Whose Time Hopefully Will Never Come
Michael Bloomberg certainly demonstrates his boardroom mentality in his ongoing attempt to impose Congestion Pricing on
those who drive into Manhattan during peak traffic hours. We are not convinced that the scheme, if enacted into law, would survive a court
challenge under the theory of Equal Access. After all, to establish tolls of $8 for cars and $21 for trucks is to clearly separate individuals based upon socioeconomic situation, and to, in effect, deny a whole class of individuals access to publicly-financed facilities and rights-of-way.
Those who are accustomed to traveling into Manhattan, particularly below 86th Street, by automobile, know very well that the number of cars and trucks on the street, while an obvious contributor to congestion, is but one element in the equation. Double-parked cars, and trucks,
in particular, are leading contributors to backed-up cross-town streets. Utility and municipal construction and street repair also account for
slow-downs and congestion.
While the Bloomberg Administration contemplates revenues of as much as $500 million annually from such tolls, the method of collection
would seem to produce congestion of its own, and obviously require construction at numerous points across Manhattan that, no doubt, would consume space. How would one, who must travel in and out of the toll zone in the routine course of their daily business, cope
with the scheme?
How would those commuting into Manhattan, to points below 86th Street, be regulated; those coming through the Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, and Queens Midtown Tunnels, be dealt with? And, what about those coming over the Manhattan, Brooklyn, Williamsburg, or 59th Street Bridges, all below 86th Street, be handled?
Finally, any scheme that would limit the number of vehicles that might enter the Borough of Manhattan, of necessity, will significantly limit
the number of individuals who would do business there, and thus dramatically impact earnings and revenues, not to mention sales and excise
taxes that directly support the very community that Congestion Pricing is supposed to be assisting and preserving.
We believe that New York City, and Manhattan in particular, are unique, complex environments whose business and residential neighborhoods do not lend themselves easily to seemingly simplistic schemes. We believe Congestion Pricing is one such concept, and We fervently hope its time never comes.
Our Readers Respond...
Reader Misinterprets Columnist Camacho
Dear Editor:
I am a faithful reader of your publication. I appreciate your un-biased reporting of the news and your journalistic integrity.
However, I found the January 1, 2008 Op-Ed by Eridania Camacho insulting. It is derogatory and prejudicial, if not outright
veiled racism. The writer goes to great lengths to describe stereotypical behavior towards Latinos, yet uses the term “Anglo” to describe
Caucasian peoples.
I expect higher standards from your publication.
A Faithful Reader
Editor’s Note: We are so pleased that you are “A Faithful Reader”, and we are pleased to advise you that you may keep the faith. We hope you will be pleased to note that Ms. Camacho’s use of the word “Anglo” is neither “derogatory” nor “prejudicial”, nor any form of “veiled racism”.
If you would have taken a moment to consult Webster’s New World Dictionary, copyrighted 2002 by Wiley Publishing,
Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, you would have discovered that “Anglo” is defined as “a White inhabitant of the United States who is of
non-Hispanic descent.” No offense intended; no offense committed. We will strive to maintain our high standards. Thank you.
A Plea For Enforcement Of Disabilities Act of 1990
Dear Editor:
We need help! This is a handicapped person’s fight against those who violate and abuse the Americans With Disabilities
Act of the U.S.A.
“We” refers to the thousands of surviving World War II Vets, the millions of veterans from the Korean, Vietnam and Iraqi
Wars, and the multi-millions who are likewise physically or mentally handicapped. WE DESERVE BETTER!
Since April, 2006, I have made urgent appeals on several occasions to various elected officials and candidates for public
office by telephone calls, fax transmissions and by certified mail urging them to commit to putting teeth into existing laws or
creating stronger measures to create a true Open Door Policy for the 21st Century.
All such pleas for a commitment have borne no response whatsoever. The silence is deafening.
When President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities Act into law in 1990, he declared that our
nation “will not accept, we will not excuse, we will not tolerate discrimination in America.” Eighteen years later, individuals
with disabilities and our supporters, know that “tolerance” is still being defined.
My purpose is to obtain legislation to compel the enforcement of those laws, above captioned, and not just wait for a
tragic accident to happen. It is senseless to have laws that do not provide for penalties, if broken.
Howard Wm. Rasher,
Briarcliff Manor
Thursday, February 14, 2008
In Our Opinion...
Congestion Pricing In Manhattan: An Idea Whose Time Hopefully Will Never Come
Michael Bloomberg certainly demonstrates his boardroom mentality in his ongoing attempt to impose Congestion Pricing on
those who drive into Manhattan during peak traffic hours. We are not convinced that the scheme, if enacted into law, would survive a court
challenge under the theory of Equal Access. After all, to establish tolls of $8 for cars and $21 for trucks is to clearly separate individuals based upon socioeconomic situation, and to, in effect, deny a whole class of individuals access to publicly-financed facilities and rights-of-way.
Those who are accustomed to traveling into Manhattan, particularly below 86th Street, by automobile, know very well that the number of cars and trucks on the street, while an obvious contributor to congestion, is but one element in the equation. Double-parked cars, and trucks,
in particular, are leading contributors to backed-up cross-town streets. Utility and municipal construction and street repair also account for
slow-downs and congestion.
While the Bloomberg Administration contemplates revenues of as much as $500 million annually from such tolls, the method of collection
would seem to produce congestion of its own, and obviously require construction at numerous points across Manhattan that, no doubt, would consume space. How would one, who must travel in and out of the toll zone in the routine course of their daily business, cope
with the scheme?
How would those commuting into Manhattan, to points below 86th Street, be regulated; those coming through the Holland, Lincoln, Brooklyn Battery, and Queens Midtown Tunnels, be dealt with? And, what about those coming over the Manhattan, Brooklyn, Williamsburg, or 59th Street Bridges, all below 86th Street, be handled?
Finally, any scheme that would limit the number of vehicles that might enter the Borough of Manhattan, of necessity, will significantly limit
the number of individuals who would do business there, and thus dramatically impact earnings and revenues, not to mention sales and excise
taxes that directly support the very community that Congestion Pricing is supposed to be assisting and preserving.
We believe that New York City, and Manhattan in particular, are unique, complex environments whose business and residential neighborhoods do not lend themselves easily to seemingly simplistic schemes. We believe Congestion Pricing is one such concept, and We fervently hope its time never comes.
Janet Difiore.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Have they No Sense Of Decency?
Witnessing Assistant District Attorney Steven Bender rise in Supreme Court Justice Les Adler’s Court, last Wednesday morning, at the
Trial Readiness Hearing, in the George Bubaris case, to say, “I have to protect the honor and integrity of our Office,” brought to mind the exchange in June 1954 between demagogic Senator Joseph McCarthy and Attorney Joseph Welch during the so-called Army-McCarthy Hearings, when Welch turned to McCarthy and rebuking him, asked, “Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last? Have you le- no sense of decency?”
ADA Bender was seated at the Prosecution table, sandwiched between ADAs Perry Perrone, of the Homicide Bureau, and Mike Hughes, for many years the Head of the Public Integrity Unit. Off to their right, in a jury box seat, was Jim McCarty, as it turned out, there to rescue them if, by chance, they needed to field a tough question. Just such a question would be forthcoming.
Then there was Attorney Edward Hayes, representing accused and suspended Mount Kisco Police Officer George Bubaris, charged with Manslaughter in the death, 10 months ago, of homeless Guatemalan immigrant Rene Perez; in Court on a Motion and Affirmation calling upon Supreme Court Justice Les Adler to compel the District Attorney’s Office to come clean, and turn over all Brady material, all information in its possession, in any way relevant and useful to the Defense as prescribed by law.
Ironically, two of the cases Hayes was citing for purposes of reinforcing his argument that the Westchester District Attorney’s Office
had a deplorable record in terms of prosecutorial misconduct, and, more specifically, the withholding of exculpatory information, were the Anthony DiSimone and Richard DiGuglielmo cases. Steven Bender was the second seat Prosecutor in the DiSimone trial in 2000, and Perry Perone was the second seat Prosecutor in the DiGuglielmo trial in 1997.
In the case of Anthony DiSimone, Steven Bender, together with Clement Patti, under strict orders from Jeanine Pirro, intentionally and
maliciously prosecuted DiSimone for the multiple stabbing and murder of Louis Balancio, 20, outside the Strike Zone Bar on Central Avenue
in Yonkers on February 4, 1994, despite their knowledge that the crime had been confessed to, within six days, by Nick Djonovic and, despite their possession of 376 pages and 52 boxes of materials exculpatory to DiSimone, as well as information from the United States Attorney’s Of-fice that they were pursuing the wrong person.
Over a 13-year period, until Mr. DiSimone’s release by a Federal Court on a writ of habeus corpus, Mr. Bender, and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, perpetuated the lie, not only sending DiSimone to prison, but also sending William Brown and many others who were present, but who refused to lie for Pirro, to prison on other trumped up charges. How does Mr. Bender summon the gall to use the words “honor and integrity” in any sentence describing the Westchester District Attorney’s Office?
Perry Perrone, seated to the left of Bender, in Adler’s court, was a key player in the conspiracy between the District Attorney’s Office and the Dobbs Ferry Police Department, in October of 1996, to get three eyewitnesses, the only eyewitnesses to the 90-second struggle that ended with the self-defense shooting of Charles Campbell by off-duty New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo in an effort to save his father’s life, to change their initial accounts to comport with a Murder charge.
Perrone, together with Assistant DA Patricia Murphy, did everything in their power to get then-Police Chief George Longworth, and the entire three-man Dobbs Ferry Detective Bureau, to coerce altered statements from Kevin O’Donnell, Michael Dillon and Jimmy White, all three of whom had reported to police, as well as the media, shortly a- er the tragic incident, that the shooting was “clearly self-defense”.
The witnesses, in their initial accounts, had gone so far as to say that Campbell’s swings with a metal baseball bat, that had already broken the middle-aged father’s hand and savaged his leg, “could be heard a block away,” and that he was swinging for his head and would have “crushed it like a watermelon,” at the moment he was shot. The prosecutorial misconduct, the lies and malicious deceit that sent Officer DiGuglielmo to prison, so far serving more than 10 years, were finally exposed recently in an eight-day evidentiary hearing before Judge Rory Bellantoni, in response to a 440.10 Appeal.
Seated to ADA Bender’s right at the same table, last Wednesday in Adler’s court, was Michael Hughes, long-time head of the DA’s oxymoronically titled “Public Integrity Unit”. It was Mr. Hughes who wrote to Attorney Jim McKerrick several years ago, telling him that “it didn’t matter” if the Westchester DA’s Office knew that his brother, former New Rochelle Police Officer Matthew McKerrick, was, in fact, innocent when they knowingly, falsely charged, prosecuted, and convicted him of an Assault and Robbery in the Village of Mamaroneck for which he served six years in prison.
Judge Adler asked Perrone about the series of memoranda from the Mount Kisco Acting Police Chief, to his officers; one of which had
said that failure to appear before, and cooperate with, ADA Hughes and the DA’s Office would be viewed as “insubordination”. Turning to
Perrone, Adler asked, “Are you saying you didn’t have those materials, or, that you had them but didn’t think you should turn them over to
the Defense?” At that point Perrone, looking somewhat dumbfounded and obviously afraid to speak, turned to his right, summoning ADA
McCarty to the table, essentially to be told whether or not to admit the truth. Apparently, to his credit, McCarty advised him correctly, and
Perrone, in a rare moment of truthfulness, admitted that the DA’s of-fice had the materials but, “didn’t believe” they had to share it with the
Defense. Upon that admission, Judge Adler adjourned the Hearing For Determination Of Readiness to March 6th.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Have they No Sense Of Decency?
Witnessing Assistant District Attorney Steven Bender rise in Supreme Court Justice Les Adler’s Court, last Wednesday morning, at the
Trial Readiness Hearing, in the George Bubaris case, to say, “I have to protect the honor and integrity of our Office,” brought to mind the exchange in June 1954 between demagogic Senator Joseph McCarthy and Attorney Joseph Welch during the so-called Army-McCarthy Hearings, when Welch turned to McCarthy and rebuking him, asked, “Have you no sense of decency, Sir, at long last? Have you le- no sense of decency?”
ADA Bender was seated at the Prosecution table, sandwiched between ADAs Perry Perrone, of the Homicide Bureau, and Mike Hughes, for many years the Head of the Public Integrity Unit. Off to their right, in a jury box seat, was Jim McCarty, as it turned out, there to rescue them if, by chance, they needed to field a tough question. Just such a question would be forthcoming.
Then there was Attorney Edward Hayes, representing accused and suspended Mount Kisco Police Officer George Bubaris, charged with Manslaughter in the death, 10 months ago, of homeless Guatemalan immigrant Rene Perez; in Court on a Motion and Affirmation calling upon Supreme Court Justice Les Adler to compel the District Attorney’s Office to come clean, and turn over all Brady material, all information in its possession, in any way relevant and useful to the Defense as prescribed by law.
Ironically, two of the cases Hayes was citing for purposes of reinforcing his argument that the Westchester District Attorney’s Office
had a deplorable record in terms of prosecutorial misconduct, and, more specifically, the withholding of exculpatory information, were the Anthony DiSimone and Richard DiGuglielmo cases. Steven Bender was the second seat Prosecutor in the DiSimone trial in 2000, and Perry Perone was the second seat Prosecutor in the DiGuglielmo trial in 1997.
In the case of Anthony DiSimone, Steven Bender, together with Clement Patti, under strict orders from Jeanine Pirro, intentionally and
maliciously prosecuted DiSimone for the multiple stabbing and murder of Louis Balancio, 20, outside the Strike Zone Bar on Central Avenue
in Yonkers on February 4, 1994, despite their knowledge that the crime had been confessed to, within six days, by Nick Djonovic and, despite their possession of 376 pages and 52 boxes of materials exculpatory to DiSimone, as well as information from the United States Attorney’s Of-fice that they were pursuing the wrong person.
Over a 13-year period, until Mr. DiSimone’s release by a Federal Court on a writ of habeus corpus, Mr. Bender, and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, perpetuated the lie, not only sending DiSimone to prison, but also sending William Brown and many others who were present, but who refused to lie for Pirro, to prison on other trumped up charges. How does Mr. Bender summon the gall to use the words “honor and integrity” in any sentence describing the Westchester District Attorney’s Office?
Perry Perrone, seated to the left of Bender, in Adler’s court, was a key player in the conspiracy between the District Attorney’s Office and the Dobbs Ferry Police Department, in October of 1996, to get three eyewitnesses, the only eyewitnesses to the 90-second struggle that ended with the self-defense shooting of Charles Campbell by off-duty New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo in an effort to save his father’s life, to change their initial accounts to comport with a Murder charge.
Perrone, together with Assistant DA Patricia Murphy, did everything in their power to get then-Police Chief George Longworth, and the entire three-man Dobbs Ferry Detective Bureau, to coerce altered statements from Kevin O’Donnell, Michael Dillon and Jimmy White, all three of whom had reported to police, as well as the media, shortly a- er the tragic incident, that the shooting was “clearly self-defense”.
The witnesses, in their initial accounts, had gone so far as to say that Campbell’s swings with a metal baseball bat, that had already broken the middle-aged father’s hand and savaged his leg, “could be heard a block away,” and that he was swinging for his head and would have “crushed it like a watermelon,” at the moment he was shot. The prosecutorial misconduct, the lies and malicious deceit that sent Officer DiGuglielmo to prison, so far serving more than 10 years, were finally exposed recently in an eight-day evidentiary hearing before Judge Rory Bellantoni, in response to a 440.10 Appeal.
Seated to ADA Bender’s right at the same table, last Wednesday in Adler’s court, was Michael Hughes, long-time head of the DA’s oxymoronically titled “Public Integrity Unit”. It was Mr. Hughes who wrote to Attorney Jim McKerrick several years ago, telling him that “it didn’t matter” if the Westchester DA’s Office knew that his brother, former New Rochelle Police Officer Matthew McKerrick, was, in fact, innocent when they knowingly, falsely charged, prosecuted, and convicted him of an Assault and Robbery in the Village of Mamaroneck for which he served six years in prison.
Judge Adler asked Perrone about the series of memoranda from the Mount Kisco Acting Police Chief, to his officers; one of which had
said that failure to appear before, and cooperate with, ADA Hughes and the DA’s Office would be viewed as “insubordination”. Turning to
Perrone, Adler asked, “Are you saying you didn’t have those materials, or, that you had them but didn’t think you should turn them over to
the Defense?” At that point Perrone, looking somewhat dumbfounded and obviously afraid to speak, turned to his right, summoning ADA
McCarty to the table, essentially to be told whether or not to admit the truth. Apparently, to his credit, McCarty advised him correctly, and
Perrone, in a rare moment of truthfulness, admitted that the DA’s of-fice had the materials but, “didn’t believe” they had to share it with the
Defense. Upon that admission, Judge Adler adjourned the Hearing For Determination Of Readiness to March 6th.
Janet Difiore.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008
Court Report ...
By Richard Blassberg
Citizen Sherry Bobrowsky Continues To Deal With The Arrogance And Destructiveness Of The Westchester DA’s Office And The City Of Yonkers
DA’s Office Could Care Less About The Wishes Of Federal Judge
United States District Court
300 Quarropas Street, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Having suffered at the hands of the Yonkers Police Department, Yonkers Corporation Counsel and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office for nearly two years, having been forced from her own home, yet compelled to pay the mortgage and taxes; having suffered the unlawful con-fiscation and dissipation of many thousands of dollars in annuity funds, while being rendered homeless, Sherry Bobrowsky, a middle-aged, disabled medical doctor had hauled her opponents and detractors into United States District Court, White Plains, back on
December 5, 2007. Represented by attorney Anthony John Messina, she sought a Temporary Restraining Order and injunctive
relief from several ongoing violations of her civil rights, under the Constitution of the United States, by “State actors under Color of
Law”.
Seated at the Defense table were attorney Raymond Schmidt, representing Laurence A. Porcari, the Office of Yonkers Corporation Counsel,
and the Yonkers Police Department; attorney Susan Ansbach of the New York State Attorney General’s Office, representing Yonkers City Court Judges Klein and Wood; and attorney Jane Hogan Felix of the County Attorney’s Office, representing the Westchester District Attorney’s Office. At the December 5th session, Judge Stephen C. Robinson, aware of the fact that Attorney Messina had
just come into the case and, aware of the urgency of Plaintiff Bobrowsky’s situation; needing someplace to live, yet paying for a home she was barred from by an Order of Protection, had set a conference date for January 8th to enable Messina to more fully familiarize himself with the case.
Following the Federal Court appearance, Bobrowsky had appeared in Westchester Supreme Court before Judge Richard Liebowitz as a Plaintiff against her estranged brother, Jacques, and her incapacitated elderly mother, Lillian, who have adversely occupied her home for more than 20 months. Judge Liebowitz had found in Sherry Bobrowsky’s favor, ruling that she was, in fact, the owner of the house in question since 1995. Her brother and mother had allegedly attempted to fraudulently lay claim to the property, assisted by Attorney Herbert
N. Posner, who accompanied them to Liebowitz’s court.
Last Monday, February 4th, Dr. Bobrowsky returned to Federal Court, accompanied by Attorney Messina, and opposed by Attorneys Schmidt, Felix and Ansbach.
In opening the hearing into Plaintiff Bobrowsky’s motion for injunctive relief, Judge Robinson asked Mr. Messina, “What are the issues as you see them?”
Messina responded, “As the result of the State Supreme Court decision, the Orders of Protection, and the Orders by Yonkers City
Court.” He went on to explain Ms. Bobrowsky appeared before Judge Duffy in Family Court, who opened the file and told her
that there was a letter in the file from Judge Klein that said she, Bobrowsky, “is to get no relief from this Court.” Messina then asked,
“How do we get Sherry into her home?”
Robinson then responded, “I am stuck here where it appears to me that you expect me to be the ‘Super Court’, the ‘Super Judge’.
There are remedies. I understand that she may not feel that. You’re asking me to look at rulings of lower courts and determine.”
Messina responded, “My view in coming here today is that what happens down the road, not looking back, we’re looking at a (Section) 1983 case.”
Robinson then said, “People call me dumb, but not simplistic or naive. I don’t understand why a discussion can’t be had with the City enabling her to get back into her house. We now understand that the house belongs entirely to her.
She could say to anyone occupying the house Get out!”
The Judge went on, “Mr. Messina, I would say she should tell them to get out. Theoretically, the police would have to enforce that. I don’t understand how she cannot. All she has to say is, ‘Get out of my house.’ I don’t understand how she would not be able to get enforcement. I don’t understand why everybody, the Police Department, the D.A....”
At that point Messina responded, “Your Honor, I had a long conversation with the County Attorney’s Office, but we were told No way, no how.
Judge Robinson then made the defining observation, “I’m not sure I understand how the District Attorney’s Office cannot abide by the rulings of the State Supreme Court.”
Messina attempted to explain, “In the eyes of the Yonkers Police Department, this lady is an E.D.P.”
Mr. Schmidt broke in, “The Yonkers Police will enforce any order of the Court.”
Off Schmidt’s comment Robinson, speaking to Attorney Messina, said, “I suggest you file the appropriate papers. I don’t know Ms. Bobrowsky’s mother or brother from a hole in the wall. I take it that the Police Department, and the District Attorney, do not like Ms. Bobrowsky very much.”
Messina responded, “Since Counsel (Messina) pointed out to the D.A.’s Of-fice what a ludicrous position they are in, they haven’t gotten back to me.”
Robinson then observed, “It seems to me I try to look at things practically. I see Ms. Bobrowsky willing to let them stay, with a modification.”
Messina responded, “My concern here is the Yonkers Police Department.”
Attorney Schmidt then followed with, “There’s no reason to believe the Police wouldn’t obey a court order.”
Summarizing his position, Judge Robinson said, “I don’t intend not to rule on this motion. If Ms. Bobrowsky doesn’t see clear to accept a modification, she has to get them out. I am going to rule on this within the next two or three weeks.”
Then, changing gears, the Judge asked, “By the way, where is Ms. Bobrowsky living?” When Messina explained, “She is essentially living out of her car,” Robinson appeared taken aback.
Emerging from Court about 11am, having conferred with Mr. Messina regarding the wishes and advice of Judge Robinson, as well as the understanding achieved with the Defense Attorneys, in the presence of the Judge, that she would attempt to comply with his instructions to bring her State Court ruling to the Yonkers Police Department, it was decided that Plaintiff, Sherry Bobrowsky, would wait until 2:30pm to go to the Third Precinct in Yonkers, thus allowing sufficient time for Attorney Schmidt to inform the Police, and for Attorney Felix
to inform the District Attorney’s Office.
At 2:30pm The Guardian accompanied Sherry Bobrowsky to the Yonkers Police Department, Third Precinct.
She initially encountered a lot of resistance from a captain, a sergeant, and several patrolmen. There was a clear sense that she was known, and that she was going to get stiff-armed. The presence of The Guardian, and a willingness to help explain what had transpired in Federal Court earlier in the day, ultimately persuaded them to make some effort toward accompanying her to her home.
However, when they called the State Registry and discovered the existing Temporary Order of Protection, they then immediately indicated they would not accompany her despite what Federal Judge Robinson had advised her to do. Bobrowsky then asked them to contact Attorney Ray Schmidt, despite their reluctance to even call the Yonkers Corporation Counsel’s Office. When they finally reached Ray Schmidt, despite assurances to Mr. Messina earlier in Federal Court, he hung his hat on the invalid T.O.P. and told Police they could not
accompany her to the house.
Having spent more than an hour at the Yonkers Police, Third Precinct, Sherry Bobrowsky was compelled to leave without having had the opportunity either to file a report or gain entry to her house, accompanied by Yonkers Police. Bobrowsky contacted Attorney Anthony Messina who, in turn, reached Attorney Schmidt, who informed him that the Westchester District Attorney’s Office was refusing to modify the T.O.P. without a judge’s order specifically instructing them to do so. Messina now informed her that he was drawing up an
eviction notice that she would have to bring to a process server.
Contacted at his office the following day, Tuesday, February 5th, Attorney Messina told The Guardian, “I was very disappointed. Upon leaving Federal Court, I believed three things were going to occur. Firstly, Mr. Schmidt was going to contact the Yonkers Police Department; secondly, Assistant County Attorney, Jane Hogan Felix, would contact the District Attorney’s Office to apprise them of what had taken place in Judge Robinson’s court, seeking a correction/modification of the T.O.P.; and, thirdly, the Attorney General’s Office would look into the letter in Ms. Bobrowsky’s file from Judge Klein prohibiting the issuance of a T.O.P. in her favor, without his approval.”
Messina informed The Guardian that upon learning what had occurred at the Third Police Precinct, he informed Judge Robinson, through his Court Clerk, Mr. Skolnick.
Bobrowsky, contacted by The Guardian the following day, stated, “I didn’t want it to be this way, but the District Attorney’s Office has left me no choice.”
Analysis: Plaintiff Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky’s struggle with the Yonkers Police Department and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office is nothing surprising to so many similarly situated individuals over the years, despite its unliklihood, in the eyes of a Federal Court Judge. Quite simply stated, civil rights violations by Yonkers Police, aided and abetted by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, are commonplace, often going on for years without a just or fair conclusion.
Court Report ...
By Richard Blassberg
Citizen Sherry Bobrowsky Continues To Deal With The Arrogance And Destructiveness Of The Westchester DA’s Office And The City Of Yonkers
DA’s Office Could Care Less About The Wishes Of Federal Judge
United States District Court
300 Quarropas Street, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Having suffered at the hands of the Yonkers Police Department, Yonkers Corporation Counsel and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office for nearly two years, having been forced from her own home, yet compelled to pay the mortgage and taxes; having suffered the unlawful con-fiscation and dissipation of many thousands of dollars in annuity funds, while being rendered homeless, Sherry Bobrowsky, a middle-aged, disabled medical doctor had hauled her opponents and detractors into United States District Court, White Plains, back on
December 5, 2007. Represented by attorney Anthony John Messina, she sought a Temporary Restraining Order and injunctive
relief from several ongoing violations of her civil rights, under the Constitution of the United States, by “State actors under Color of
Law”.
Seated at the Defense table were attorney Raymond Schmidt, representing Laurence A. Porcari, the Office of Yonkers Corporation Counsel,
and the Yonkers Police Department; attorney Susan Ansbach of the New York State Attorney General’s Office, representing Yonkers City Court Judges Klein and Wood; and attorney Jane Hogan Felix of the County Attorney’s Office, representing the Westchester District Attorney’s Office. At the December 5th session, Judge Stephen C. Robinson, aware of the fact that Attorney Messina had
just come into the case and, aware of the urgency of Plaintiff Bobrowsky’s situation; needing someplace to live, yet paying for a home she was barred from by an Order of Protection, had set a conference date for January 8th to enable Messina to more fully familiarize himself with the case.
Following the Federal Court appearance, Bobrowsky had appeared in Westchester Supreme Court before Judge Richard Liebowitz as a Plaintiff against her estranged brother, Jacques, and her incapacitated elderly mother, Lillian, who have adversely occupied her home for more than 20 months. Judge Liebowitz had found in Sherry Bobrowsky’s favor, ruling that she was, in fact, the owner of the house in question since 1995. Her brother and mother had allegedly attempted to fraudulently lay claim to the property, assisted by Attorney Herbert
N. Posner, who accompanied them to Liebowitz’s court.
Last Monday, February 4th, Dr. Bobrowsky returned to Federal Court, accompanied by Attorney Messina, and opposed by Attorneys Schmidt, Felix and Ansbach.
In opening the hearing into Plaintiff Bobrowsky’s motion for injunctive relief, Judge Robinson asked Mr. Messina, “What are the issues as you see them?”
Messina responded, “As the result of the State Supreme Court decision, the Orders of Protection, and the Orders by Yonkers City
Court.” He went on to explain Ms. Bobrowsky appeared before Judge Duffy in Family Court, who opened the file and told her
that there was a letter in the file from Judge Klein that said she, Bobrowsky, “is to get no relief from this Court.” Messina then asked,
“How do we get Sherry into her home?”
Robinson then responded, “I am stuck here where it appears to me that you expect me to be the ‘Super Court’, the ‘Super Judge’.
There are remedies. I understand that she may not feel that. You’re asking me to look at rulings of lower courts and determine.”
Messina responded, “My view in coming here today is that what happens down the road, not looking back, we’re looking at a (Section) 1983 case.”
Robinson then said, “People call me dumb, but not simplistic or naive. I don’t understand why a discussion can’t be had with the City enabling her to get back into her house. We now understand that the house belongs entirely to her.
She could say to anyone occupying the house Get out!”
The Judge went on, “Mr. Messina, I would say she should tell them to get out. Theoretically, the police would have to enforce that. I don’t understand how she cannot. All she has to say is, ‘Get out of my house.’ I don’t understand how she would not be able to get enforcement. I don’t understand why everybody, the Police Department, the D.A....”
At that point Messina responded, “Your Honor, I had a long conversation with the County Attorney’s Office, but we were told No way, no how.
Judge Robinson then made the defining observation, “I’m not sure I understand how the District Attorney’s Office cannot abide by the rulings of the State Supreme Court.”
Messina attempted to explain, “In the eyes of the Yonkers Police Department, this lady is an E.D.P.”
Mr. Schmidt broke in, “The Yonkers Police will enforce any order of the Court.”
Off Schmidt’s comment Robinson, speaking to Attorney Messina, said, “I suggest you file the appropriate papers. I don’t know Ms. Bobrowsky’s mother or brother from a hole in the wall. I take it that the Police Department, and the District Attorney, do not like Ms. Bobrowsky very much.”
Messina responded, “Since Counsel (Messina) pointed out to the D.A.’s Of-fice what a ludicrous position they are in, they haven’t gotten back to me.”
Robinson then observed, “It seems to me I try to look at things practically. I see Ms. Bobrowsky willing to let them stay, with a modification.”
Messina responded, “My concern here is the Yonkers Police Department.”
Attorney Schmidt then followed with, “There’s no reason to believe the Police wouldn’t obey a court order.”
Summarizing his position, Judge Robinson said, “I don’t intend not to rule on this motion. If Ms. Bobrowsky doesn’t see clear to accept a modification, she has to get them out. I am going to rule on this within the next two or three weeks.”
Then, changing gears, the Judge asked, “By the way, where is Ms. Bobrowsky living?” When Messina explained, “She is essentially living out of her car,” Robinson appeared taken aback.
Emerging from Court about 11am, having conferred with Mr. Messina regarding the wishes and advice of Judge Robinson, as well as the understanding achieved with the Defense Attorneys, in the presence of the Judge, that she would attempt to comply with his instructions to bring her State Court ruling to the Yonkers Police Department, it was decided that Plaintiff, Sherry Bobrowsky, would wait until 2:30pm to go to the Third Precinct in Yonkers, thus allowing sufficient time for Attorney Schmidt to inform the Police, and for Attorney Felix
to inform the District Attorney’s Office.
At 2:30pm The Guardian accompanied Sherry Bobrowsky to the Yonkers Police Department, Third Precinct.
She initially encountered a lot of resistance from a captain, a sergeant, and several patrolmen. There was a clear sense that she was known, and that she was going to get stiff-armed. The presence of The Guardian, and a willingness to help explain what had transpired in Federal Court earlier in the day, ultimately persuaded them to make some effort toward accompanying her to her home.
However, when they called the State Registry and discovered the existing Temporary Order of Protection, they then immediately indicated they would not accompany her despite what Federal Judge Robinson had advised her to do. Bobrowsky then asked them to contact Attorney Ray Schmidt, despite their reluctance to even call the Yonkers Corporation Counsel’s Office. When they finally reached Ray Schmidt, despite assurances to Mr. Messina earlier in Federal Court, he hung his hat on the invalid T.O.P. and told Police they could not
accompany her to the house.
Having spent more than an hour at the Yonkers Police, Third Precinct, Sherry Bobrowsky was compelled to leave without having had the opportunity either to file a report or gain entry to her house, accompanied by Yonkers Police. Bobrowsky contacted Attorney Anthony Messina who, in turn, reached Attorney Schmidt, who informed him that the Westchester District Attorney’s Office was refusing to modify the T.O.P. without a judge’s order specifically instructing them to do so. Messina now informed her that he was drawing up an
eviction notice that she would have to bring to a process server.
Contacted at his office the following day, Tuesday, February 5th, Attorney Messina told The Guardian, “I was very disappointed. Upon leaving Federal Court, I believed three things were going to occur. Firstly, Mr. Schmidt was going to contact the Yonkers Police Department; secondly, Assistant County Attorney, Jane Hogan Felix, would contact the District Attorney’s Office to apprise them of what had taken place in Judge Robinson’s court, seeking a correction/modification of the T.O.P.; and, thirdly, the Attorney General’s Office would look into the letter in Ms. Bobrowsky’s file from Judge Klein prohibiting the issuance of a T.O.P. in her favor, without his approval.”
Messina informed The Guardian that upon learning what had occurred at the Third Police Precinct, he informed Judge Robinson, through his Court Clerk, Mr. Skolnick.
Bobrowsky, contacted by The Guardian the following day, stated, “I didn’t want it to be this way, but the District Attorney’s Office has left me no choice.”
Analysis: Plaintiff Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky’s struggle with the Yonkers Police Department and the Westchester District Attorney’s Office is nothing surprising to so many similarly situated individuals over the years, despite its unliklihood, in the eyes of a Federal Court Judge. Quite simply stated, civil rights violations by Yonkers Police, aided and abetted by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, are commonplace, often going on for years without a just or fair conclusion.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Rockefeller Drug Laws Should Be Repealed
By Jeff Deskovic
The Rockefeller Drug Law is the term used to refer to the statutes dealing with the sale and possession of narcotic drugs in the New York State Penal Code. The statutes are named for Nelson Rockefeller, who was the state’s governor at the time they were enacted.
The bill was signed into law on May 8, 1973. Under the Rockefeller law, the penalty for possessing four ounces, or more, of the same narcotic substance was a mandatory minimum of 15 years to life, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison. The same penalty applied
to those found to have sold two ounces or more of heroin, morphine, opium, cocaine, or marijuana.
The law, with respect to marijuana, was repealed in 1979, under Governor Carey. On August 30, 2005, then-Gov. Pataki signed a partial repeal of the law. Some 400 prisoners, facing the most severe sentences, up to life, were permitted to seek retroactive sentence cuts. But thousands of prisoners doing lesser, but still severe, sentences were not explicitly granted that right. Many of the classes of people that were intended to be helped by those that had been pushing for reform had not been helped. “We took two steps forward on Rockefeller reform last December, and we’re taking another step forward today, but we have another good 10 steps to go,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the
Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a not-for-profit group focused on changing national drug policy.
There have been many criticisms of the Rockefeller Law, from all angles, and from many diverse groups. I will endeavor to review some of them:
• Many law enforcement agencies, as well as citizens groups from The Rockefeller Drug Laws Should Be Repealed all sides of the political and ideological spectrum have stated that the sentences meted out are disproportionate to the crimes, in that sentences under
Rockefeller are often more than that for violent crimes, up to and sometimes including murder.
• Many of the more than 150,000 prison sentences handed down to drug offenders since the enactment of the Rockefeller Statutes have been so disproportionate to the crime; mostly retail street sales and other minor drug offenses, that they violate basic principles
of justice and fairness.
• The penalties apply without regard to the circumstances of the offense or the individual's character or background.
Whether the person is a first time or repeat offender, for instance, is irrelevant. Of all drug offenders sent to New York State prisons in 2000, nearly 80% were never convicted of a violent felony.
• The main criterion for guilt under the Rockefeller Laws is not the offender’s role in narcotics transactions, but the amount of drugs in their possession at the time of arrest.
• Drug kingpins know about this law and are rarely foolish enough to be caught carrying narcotics. They hire other people to transport drugs for them. These couriers are often caught with drugs in their possession, charged with serious felonies, and given long mandatory prison sentences.
• The State’s commitment to equal protection of the law and racial equality comes into question, given that ninety-four percent of the people sentenced under Rockefeller are Black or Hispanic. Black men are admitted to prison on drug charges at eleven times the rate of White men. Most drug arrests occur in lower income, primarily minority, urban, areas, even though Whites use drugs at approximately the same rate as Blacks. The Rockefeller Laws have filled prisons with non-violent, minor offenders, draining resources from other programs and services, such as drug treatment and education.
• In 2004, nearly 35% of the people sent to state prison in New York were drug offenders, compared to only 11% in 1980.
• Over 50% of the drug offenders in New York State prisons were convicted of selling or possessing only small
quantities.
• It cost the state over $1.7 billion to construct new prisons to house drug offenders. The annual operating expense for confining drug offenders comes to about $500 million per year.
• From 1988 to 1998, the state increased annual prison spending by $761 million. During that same period, the state decreased annual spending on the State and City Universities of New York by approximately $615 million.
Often, seeing the flesh and blood, up-close and personal impact of laws and policies not only brings home the human costs of such laws, decisions, policies and practices, but it also illuminates the wrong and right side of issues. The following account, by Anthony Papa in The Gotham Gazette Sept. 2005, is a good illustration: “I sat in the courtroom with a middle-aged mother who had been arrested in 1999 with a few ounces of cocaine. Though it was a first offense, she was sentenced to 17 years to- life. She was a drug mule, according to the facts of the record. But the Queens District Attorney’s Office twisted and manipulated the facts to make her look like she was a kingpin who had abused
her young daughter because the child was present in the room with a package of cocaine. That daughter, now a traumatized teen, has been placed in a foster home. She lost her mother and her childhood. She was in the courtroom praying for her mother along with two nuns with whom she now lives.
The judge and Queens District Attorney Richard Brown agreed to reduce her mother’s sentence to nine years-to life, leaving her to serve an additional five more years. The daughter left the courtroom in tears.” Papa, the author of the book 15 to Life: How I Painted
My Way To Freedom, understood all too well, from a personal perspective, what he was writing. He had enjoyed a middle-class life as an owner of an auto repair and radio business prior to his arrest.
He had been a family man and never been in trouble with the law, until a member of Papa’s bowling team offered him “some easy money” for delivering an envelope of cocaine to the City of Mount Vernon, New York. The courier who gave him the envelope was an undercover
police informant. And, when Papa delivered the 4.5 ounces of coke, he was promptly arrested and sentenced to 15 years-to-life, of which he served 12 years before getting clemency.
The group Human Rights Watch has issued the following statement: “For thirty years, the Rockefeller Drug Laws have curtailed judicial discretion and mandated prison sentences for almost all drug offenses. Excessively long and unnecessary prison sentences have
filled New York’s expensive prisons with low level drug offenders, men and women who sell drugs on the street, who are couriers, who occupy the lowest ranks in drug organizations. Few of those incarcerated are drug kingpins or major traffickers. Imprisonment deprives inmates of their liberty, their families, their friends, and their jobs.
It reduces their subsequent income and employability and ultimately can wreaks havoc on their families’ financial and social stability. An estimated 124,496 children have had at least one parent imprisoned at some point since 1980 on drug charges.”
I believe that the Rockefeller Drug Laws should be repealed. It defies a fundamental sense of fairness that somebody who is addicted to drugs and therefore needs help to break the habit, instead of receiving help is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years to life, and in some instances as much as 25 years to life.
Firstly, using drugs, and therefore being in possession of them, is in no way the same thing as committing a violent crime. Secondly, while I, in no way, condone the selling of drugs and do believe that actions should be taken to both prevent and punish drug selling, that, too, is not as serious as committing a violent crime. While I was wrongfully incarcerated, I met people who had been sentenced under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, as well as those who had committed murder, pled guilty to manslaughter, and been sentenced to 5-15 years. It seemed ridiculous to me that the former was sentenced to more time than the latter.
I believe that the Rockefeller Laws unnecessarily destroy lives, offenders themselves, along with their children and other family members. Additionally, the Laws impact upon one’s ability to get decent employment afterwards, and subjects one to the consequences that long term incarceration involves. The Laws deprive those with drug addiction the opportunity of rehabilitation.
I can say from personal observation that, currently, there are no rehabilitation programs in prison that work. Rather than coming up with or
implementing programs that work, the Department Of Corrections has taken it’s ASAT Program (Alcohol and Substance Abuse Training Program) and added the letter “R” to it, now calling it RSAT, which is supposed to mean Residential Substance Abuse Program.
They simply house all of those in the program in the same cell block. There is more drug abuse in those cell blocks than anywhere else in most prisons. When those who sell drugs are put together with those who use them, what else can be expected to happen?
Further, when one is caught using drugs, they are thrown out of the program, and must reapply. During the intervening time, there is no treatment administered. In addition, the program authorizes the prison guards to nitpick at every little thing, because the program has a lot of rules regarding the cells that have nothing to do with addressing the problem of drugs.
When a small infraction is detected, such as having too many boxes in one cell, the prisoner is placed on a status that only permits them to take showers twice one week, and three times the next. They are served less food; food that is often two or three days old. They are kept in the cell for 23 hours a day, and away from treatment. This regimen often goes on for up to 30 days. Should the inmate receive a sentence of more than 14 days, they are kicked out of the program. Many of the instructors are simply there for a paycheck.
There are many in prison under the Drug Law who truly represent no threat to society, such as Papa. Are such individuals the ones we want to spend money on incarcerating? The Rockefeller Drug Laws are a waste of the State’s financial resources. Those resources could be better used on drug prevention programs, drug rehabilitation facilities, and other social programs. Application of the Law has been demonstrated to
be racist by uneven enforcement, and it has the net effect of disenfranchising minorities, because those found guilty of a felony are not allowed to vote.
Every year, Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry, Chair of the Committee on Corrections and former Chair of the Black and Puerto Rican legislative Caucus, introduces a repeal bill that, if passed, would accomplish four essential objectives:
1) Restore sentencing discretion to trial judges in all drug cases;
2) Make sentencing reform retroactive so that current inmates could petition courts for review of their sentences;
3) Expand the funding available for alternatives to incarceration, including drug treatment, job training, and educational
programs so that judges have an appropriate place to send the offenders they decide need not be imprisoned;
4) Significantly reduce sentence lengths for drug offenses. I would encourage everyone to contact their Assemblypersons and Senators
and tell them that they want them to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws, so that the next time Assemblyman Aubry introduces the bill, it will get passed.
Many persons older than myself, have at times related that while they were in college, or some other stage of their lives, they briefly experimented with drugs. Suppose they had all been caught with four ounces? Should they all have been sent to prison for a long time? I cannot emphasize enough the idea that all of us must get involved in these criminal justice issues now, before, in one way or another, we are affected by it.
By Jeff Deskovic
The Rockefeller Drug Law is the term used to refer to the statutes dealing with the sale and possession of narcotic drugs in the New York State Penal Code. The statutes are named for Nelson Rockefeller, who was the state’s governor at the time they were enacted.
The bill was signed into law on May 8, 1973. Under the Rockefeller law, the penalty for possessing four ounces, or more, of the same narcotic substance was a mandatory minimum of 15 years to life, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison. The same penalty applied
to those found to have sold two ounces or more of heroin, morphine, opium, cocaine, or marijuana.
The law, with respect to marijuana, was repealed in 1979, under Governor Carey. On August 30, 2005, then-Gov. Pataki signed a partial repeal of the law. Some 400 prisoners, facing the most severe sentences, up to life, were permitted to seek retroactive sentence cuts. But thousands of prisoners doing lesser, but still severe, sentences were not explicitly granted that right. Many of the classes of people that were intended to be helped by those that had been pushing for reform had not been helped. “We took two steps forward on Rockefeller reform last December, and we’re taking another step forward today, but we have another good 10 steps to go,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the
Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a not-for-profit group focused on changing national drug policy.
There have been many criticisms of the Rockefeller Law, from all angles, and from many diverse groups. I will endeavor to review some of them:
• Many law enforcement agencies, as well as citizens groups from The Rockefeller Drug Laws Should Be Repealed all sides of the political and ideological spectrum have stated that the sentences meted out are disproportionate to the crimes, in that sentences under
Rockefeller are often more than that for violent crimes, up to and sometimes including murder.
• Many of the more than 150,000 prison sentences handed down to drug offenders since the enactment of the Rockefeller Statutes have been so disproportionate to the crime; mostly retail street sales and other minor drug offenses, that they violate basic principles
of justice and fairness.
• The penalties apply without regard to the circumstances of the offense or the individual's character or background.
Whether the person is a first time or repeat offender, for instance, is irrelevant. Of all drug offenders sent to New York State prisons in 2000, nearly 80% were never convicted of a violent felony.
• The main criterion for guilt under the Rockefeller Laws is not the offender’s role in narcotics transactions, but the amount of drugs in their possession at the time of arrest.
• Drug kingpins know about this law and are rarely foolish enough to be caught carrying narcotics. They hire other people to transport drugs for them. These couriers are often caught with drugs in their possession, charged with serious felonies, and given long mandatory prison sentences.
• The State’s commitment to equal protection of the law and racial equality comes into question, given that ninety-four percent of the people sentenced under Rockefeller are Black or Hispanic. Black men are admitted to prison on drug charges at eleven times the rate of White men. Most drug arrests occur in lower income, primarily minority, urban, areas, even though Whites use drugs at approximately the same rate as Blacks. The Rockefeller Laws have filled prisons with non-violent, minor offenders, draining resources from other programs and services, such as drug treatment and education.
• In 2004, nearly 35% of the people sent to state prison in New York were drug offenders, compared to only 11% in 1980.
• Over 50% of the drug offenders in New York State prisons were convicted of selling or possessing only small
quantities.
• It cost the state over $1.7 billion to construct new prisons to house drug offenders. The annual operating expense for confining drug offenders comes to about $500 million per year.
• From 1988 to 1998, the state increased annual prison spending by $761 million. During that same period, the state decreased annual spending on the State and City Universities of New York by approximately $615 million.
Often, seeing the flesh and blood, up-close and personal impact of laws and policies not only brings home the human costs of such laws, decisions, policies and practices, but it also illuminates the wrong and right side of issues. The following account, by Anthony Papa in The Gotham Gazette Sept. 2005, is a good illustration: “I sat in the courtroom with a middle-aged mother who had been arrested in 1999 with a few ounces of cocaine. Though it was a first offense, she was sentenced to 17 years to- life. She was a drug mule, according to the facts of the record. But the Queens District Attorney’s Office twisted and manipulated the facts to make her look like she was a kingpin who had abused
her young daughter because the child was present in the room with a package of cocaine. That daughter, now a traumatized teen, has been placed in a foster home. She lost her mother and her childhood. She was in the courtroom praying for her mother along with two nuns with whom she now lives.
The judge and Queens District Attorney Richard Brown agreed to reduce her mother’s sentence to nine years-to life, leaving her to serve an additional five more years. The daughter left the courtroom in tears.” Papa, the author of the book 15 to Life: How I Painted
My Way To Freedom, understood all too well, from a personal perspective, what he was writing. He had enjoyed a middle-class life as an owner of an auto repair and radio business prior to his arrest.
He had been a family man and never been in trouble with the law, until a member of Papa’s bowling team offered him “some easy money” for delivering an envelope of cocaine to the City of Mount Vernon, New York. The courier who gave him the envelope was an undercover
police informant. And, when Papa delivered the 4.5 ounces of coke, he was promptly arrested and sentenced to 15 years-to-life, of which he served 12 years before getting clemency.
The group Human Rights Watch has issued the following statement: “For thirty years, the Rockefeller Drug Laws have curtailed judicial discretion and mandated prison sentences for almost all drug offenses. Excessively long and unnecessary prison sentences have
filled New York’s expensive prisons with low level drug offenders, men and women who sell drugs on the street, who are couriers, who occupy the lowest ranks in drug organizations. Few of those incarcerated are drug kingpins or major traffickers. Imprisonment deprives inmates of their liberty, their families, their friends, and their jobs.
It reduces their subsequent income and employability and ultimately can wreaks havoc on their families’ financial and social stability. An estimated 124,496 children have had at least one parent imprisoned at some point since 1980 on drug charges.”
I believe that the Rockefeller Drug Laws should be repealed. It defies a fundamental sense of fairness that somebody who is addicted to drugs and therefore needs help to break the habit, instead of receiving help is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years to life, and in some instances as much as 25 years to life.
Firstly, using drugs, and therefore being in possession of them, is in no way the same thing as committing a violent crime. Secondly, while I, in no way, condone the selling of drugs and do believe that actions should be taken to both prevent and punish drug selling, that, too, is not as serious as committing a violent crime. While I was wrongfully incarcerated, I met people who had been sentenced under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, as well as those who had committed murder, pled guilty to manslaughter, and been sentenced to 5-15 years. It seemed ridiculous to me that the former was sentenced to more time than the latter.
I believe that the Rockefeller Laws unnecessarily destroy lives, offenders themselves, along with their children and other family members. Additionally, the Laws impact upon one’s ability to get decent employment afterwards, and subjects one to the consequences that long term incarceration involves. The Laws deprive those with drug addiction the opportunity of rehabilitation.
I can say from personal observation that, currently, there are no rehabilitation programs in prison that work. Rather than coming up with or
implementing programs that work, the Department Of Corrections has taken it’s ASAT Program (Alcohol and Substance Abuse Training Program) and added the letter “R” to it, now calling it RSAT, which is supposed to mean Residential Substance Abuse Program.
They simply house all of those in the program in the same cell block. There is more drug abuse in those cell blocks than anywhere else in most prisons. When those who sell drugs are put together with those who use them, what else can be expected to happen?
Further, when one is caught using drugs, they are thrown out of the program, and must reapply. During the intervening time, there is no treatment administered. In addition, the program authorizes the prison guards to nitpick at every little thing, because the program has a lot of rules regarding the cells that have nothing to do with addressing the problem of drugs.
When a small infraction is detected, such as having too many boxes in one cell, the prisoner is placed on a status that only permits them to take showers twice one week, and three times the next. They are served less food; food that is often two or three days old. They are kept in the cell for 23 hours a day, and away from treatment. This regimen often goes on for up to 30 days. Should the inmate receive a sentence of more than 14 days, they are kicked out of the program. Many of the instructors are simply there for a paycheck.
There are many in prison under the Drug Law who truly represent no threat to society, such as Papa. Are such individuals the ones we want to spend money on incarcerating? The Rockefeller Drug Laws are a waste of the State’s financial resources. Those resources could be better used on drug prevention programs, drug rehabilitation facilities, and other social programs. Application of the Law has been demonstrated to
be racist by uneven enforcement, and it has the net effect of disenfranchising minorities, because those found guilty of a felony are not allowed to vote.
Every year, Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry, Chair of the Committee on Corrections and former Chair of the Black and Puerto Rican legislative Caucus, introduces a repeal bill that, if passed, would accomplish four essential objectives:
1) Restore sentencing discretion to trial judges in all drug cases;
2) Make sentencing reform retroactive so that current inmates could petition courts for review of their sentences;
3) Expand the funding available for alternatives to incarceration, including drug treatment, job training, and educational
programs so that judges have an appropriate place to send the offenders they decide need not be imprisoned;
4) Significantly reduce sentence lengths for drug offenses. I would encourage everyone to contact their Assemblypersons and Senators
and tell them that they want them to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws, so that the next time Assemblyman Aubry introduces the bill, it will get passed.
Many persons older than myself, have at times related that while they were in college, or some other stage of their lives, they briefly experimented with drugs. Suppose they had all been caught with four ounces? Should they all have been sent to prison for a long time? I cannot emphasize enough the idea that all of us must get involved in these criminal justice issues now, before, in one way or another, we are affected by it.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008
Northern Westchester Bureau Chief
Catherine Wilson
Thousands Of County Residents Denied Right to Vote By New York State Lawmakers In Defiance Of Federal Law
In 2002, the federal government passed the “Help America Vote Act” (HAVA). - is legislation mandated that “voting systems must allow all voters, including those with disabilities, to vote independently and privately, by January 1, 2006.” To date, New York State is the only state in the nation still in violation of this federal law. On January 16 of this year, Judge Gary Sharpe, of the United States District Court, issued a court order against the State of New York noting that “New York remains in noncompliance with the voting systems requirements,” and that New York State “law and procedure must give way to federal law requirements.”
The federal court strongly admonished New York in its decision: “This Court finds that the defendants’ unacceptable and continual delays in meeting the voting systems requirements of HAVA….. has made full compliance with these HAVA requirements in time for New York’s February 2008 presidential preference primary….and November 2008 federal general election, not currently possible”.
The District Court found no obstacles to New York’s ability to provide “ballot marking devices and/or voting systems accessible to persons
with disabilities available for use in every polling place” in time for the fall 2008 elections and ordered that this “must be accomplished”.
Several state and local groups for the handicapped have been working since the inception of HAVA with NYS Assemblywoman Sandy Galef
(Democrat, 90th District) to address the accessibility issues raised by this law. Along with Assemblywoman Galef, these groups have been testing different voting devices and systems to determine which best serves their needs. Since 2002, these groups and their members have proposed modi-fications to the voting devices which have been addressed and adopted by several manufacturers. The selections
were narrowed down to three systems: voting machines by Sequoia ImageCast, ES&S, and Premier AutoMARK.
On January 24, the State Board of Elections met to review the modifications made to these systems and vote whether they were in compliance with the ballot display provisions in the federal law.
Despite the strong and clear order from the federal courts, as of the date of the latest meeting of the New York State Board of Elections,
the selection of voting systems for the fall elections is still up for grabs in New York. At the State Board of Elections meeting to adopt
the official voting devices, the votes to approve the systems endorsed by the advocacy groups for the handicapped split along party lines: the Democratic representative, Stanley Zalen, voting in favor of the modi-fications, the newly-appointed Republican representative, Todd Valentine, voting against.
Note to Guardian readers: The New York State Board of Elections may be reached at 40 Steuben Street, Albany, NY 12207-2108; by phone at 518-474-8100; via fax at 518-486-4068, or email at http://www.election.state.ny.us/.
On January 31, Assemblywoman Galef held a press conference, originally scheduled to announce the success of her’s and the advocacy groups’ efforts “to provide the right to private and independent votes for all”.
Instead, Ms. Galef spoke of the continuing frustration faced by those with special needs in getting New York State legislators
to acknowledge and address their rights. In a press release dated January 24, Ms. Galef reported “This is a victory for all voters because it assures that their vote will always be counted.” Reporting the latest rejection by the New York State Board of Elections at her January 31 news conference from the steps of the Westchester County Board of Elections, Ms. Galef declared, “The issue of selecting voting machines is big business. A lot of the big businesses sent contributions to elected officials and lots of money was spent in Albany to get specific machines. And, you know, the bad guys lost out. The DREs lost out and now they’re taking legal action to go forward”.
At issue is the selection of Direct Electronic Recording Machines (DREs) versus Optical Scan Machines. DREs use computerized
touchscreens to process votes. Optical devices scan printed ballots and can allow for audio interfaces while still providing paper ballots. The
advocacy groups prefer the optical devices since DREs are confusing for those with cognitive and other handicaps. Further, as Ms. Galef
noted, the optical scanners allow for “enlarging the letters so people who are visually handicapped can vote on it”. The opposition to the optical scanners, Ms. Galef continued, “means you can’t have everything on one page because you make the letters that much bigger. Well that’s good for our disabled community”.
“We have court maneuvers, we have people that are trying to get DREs into the mix” Ms. Galef warned, “so we need to continue our
vigilance. We hope the public will speak out for real democracy and make sure that their votes count. The Board of Elections, where we
are standing; the commissioners are going to have to make a decision in nine days as to which machines they are going to choose from.”
Reginald LaFayette, the Democratic Commissioner for the Westchester Board of Elections did make a brief appearance at Assemblywoman
Galef ’s conference but declined any comment. Carolee Sunderland, the Republican Commissioner, did not attend the conference. Neither
Westchester Commissioner responded to The Guardian’s requests for comment as of press time.
Ms. Galef remarked “This is the most grass-roots effort that I have ever seen”. These efforts were evident at her conference as several local and state advocacy groups addressed their support for voting accessibility. George Klein, Group Chair of the Sierra Club asked “Why is the Sierra Club interested in this issue? While we advocate for the environment and public health, we need to have politicians
in office who pay attention to the public and advocacy groups like the Sierra Club. If politicians can get into office without honest votes, they won’t pay attention to the citizens and democracy will start to fail. We want transparent, verifiable voting technology”.
Lisa Tarricone, Director of Systems Advocacy for the Westchester Independent Living Center, spoke of the efforts of the local handicapped
community on this issue: “We’ve been advocating for the use of optical scan voting since HAVA was first adopted in 2002. We’ve sat
in on joint commission hearings, committee hearings over the past couple of years. We’ve missed one major presidential election due to
politicking. Our votes were held hostage due to that process and we hope we’re not going to lose the next one which is very important to our
community’s needs.”
Sherry DeFrancesco, from Mount Kisco, representing the Westchester Council for the Blind and Westchester Disabled on the
Move, addressed the anticipation of the handicapped community: “We’re very excited. We’ve never been able to vote privately and independently in the history of the United States”.
Her emotional plea for her community “to get everything we’re hoping for” was felt by all present. She addressed the use of paper ballots
as actually preferable for the blind community “Because the scanner reads it back to you”. George Klein interjected, “With a DRE, there’s no
way for a blind person to know if the ballot was marked. With an optical scan as a ballot marking device with a paper ballot, you can put it in
and the device will read it back to you to double-check and tell you if it’s properly marked.”
Representatives of the handicapped community present noted the advantages of the optical scanners: They believed that these devices
would enable the mentally-handicapped community to vote due to larger font sizes, color-contrast capabilities, and audio feedback. The
optical scanners with audio components would also enable voters with learning disabilities such as dyslexia to confirm their votes. Optical
scanners can also show only one election race at a time to reduce confusion for a voter who may be overwhelmed by the multitude of choices on a large ballot.
With a paper ballot, voters with dexterity issues would not have to manipulate icons on a computer screen. The local advocates noted
that voters with special needs would be provided with a private booth to allow them extra time and privacy so they would not experience
stress and concern of delaying others. Optical scanners can also enlarge print so voters can verify their votes – a requirement of the
federal law.
In addition to the disabled community, several citizens groups are also interested in this issue. Margaret Yonco-Haines, the Executive Director of Mid-Hudson Verified Voting, noted “This is a non-partisan issue”. She drew a laugh from those present when she noted, “If I stop somebody randomly on the street and ask them ‘do you care if when you go to vote that your vote is counted and recorded
accurately?’ amazingly 100% of them say yes”. Ms. Yonco-Haines noted “The choice of voting on paper ballots and the use of optical scanners is only the first step. We must further ensure stringent procedures and processes to ensure the security of our elections and to maintain the openness to public observation and participation in our elections. We cannot do that on electronic voting machines. I call on the State Board of Elections to not retreat from this position”.
Teresa Hommel, chair of the task force of Election Integrity of Community Church of New York Unitarian Universalist, remarked
“Democracy means that ‘We the People’ choose our government offi-cials and we delegate power to them to run our government. Elections
alone don’t make democracy and it takes more than voters. We know this because totalitarian and fascist governments have held lots of phony elections. This is why the State Board’s decision is so important”.
Addressing the concerns of DRE computer systems malfunctioning during an election, Ms. Hommel noted the superiority of paper ballots
and held up an example to show “If you press your pencil as hard as you can and a mark doesn’t appear next to your candidate, you can just go and sharpen your pencil. You don’t have to take the pencil out of service for the rest of the day. If I mark my candidate, the mark doesn’t suddenly jump over to another candidate. The paper ballot doesn’t crash. People think high-tech is so great. But for elections, we need to keep it simple so we can get it right”.
Allegra Dengler, of the Citizens for Voting Integrity, expressed her concern with “the backroom deals in Albany”. A press release from
her office on January 31 noted her group’s concern with the recent vote from the State Board of Elections surmising that the split
vote “looks like a frivolous move on the part of Todd Valentine to create confusion in the process in order to give the decision back to
Judge Sharpe”. The release continued “It is absolutely disrespectful to the disabled community”. The Citizens for Voting Integrity noted
that ballot markers rank high in evaluations by disabled voters and recommended one system, the AutoMARK, in particular.
Galef noted that New York’s delay in adopting an accessible voting system did serve a purpose since “We have learned from the mistakes
of other states like California who installed DRE systems and are slow tossing them out”. In addition, the other states have all noted the
added expense of DREs (approximately $9,000 each) compared to optical scanners – an increase of up to two-thirds greater. Further, Ms.
Galef noted that DRE computerized manufacturers want an additional 15 – 18% of the purchase price per year for licensing fees and “we
would need three times more DREs than scanners. Optical scanners are a savings to the taxpayers.”
Ms. Galef concluded by noting “To me, this whole issue is so simple. Paper ballots can always be recounted. Things that are on our
computer we all know from home can get lost, be changed. We have high profile elections that come in close. We want to be sure that the
Board of Elections can count every one of our votes. We believe in optical scan. I don’t think there’s any citizen out there yelling for DREs.
The only people that really want the DRE’s are the companies and the political people who have an interest in those companies. The
public is with us”.
As of the 2000 Census, there were 52,000 disabled residents in Westchester County. While all of them may not be eligible to vote,
that number does not include people with other special needs such as early dementia or dyslexia. Because New York State is still in defiance
of the Federal Voting Accessibility Law, for the current presidential primary election, there were tens of thousands of our neighbors who
were denied their right to cast a private and independent vote!
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Armonk: A senior from the Byram Hills High School, Jeremy Blum, was selected as one of 40 finalists in Intel’s national Science Talent
Search winning a $5,000 scholarship and an Intel laptop. The award for the eventual national winner is a $100,000 college scholarship.
Blum expects to attend Cornell University in the fall.
Mt. Pleasant: The Mount Pleasant Town Court is a test center for the use of video technology in the court system. The town will allow inmates to attend arraignments and court appearances without necessitating leaving the county jail.
Ossining: Assemblywoman Sandy Galef announced a series of town meetings with constituents to discuss local issues and the proposed state budget. Future meetings will be held on February 7th and 9th at the Field Library in Peekskill and the Putnam Valley library.
Valhalla: Westchester Community College joined more than 1,000 colleges and universities nationwide for a Focus the Nation teach-in on January 30. The simultaneous broadcast from sites around the country included scientists, government leaders, and environmental activists.
– Catherine Wilson
Northern Westchester Bureau Chief
Catherine Wilson
Thousands Of County Residents Denied Right to Vote By New York State Lawmakers In Defiance Of Federal Law
In 2002, the federal government passed the “Help America Vote Act” (HAVA). - is legislation mandated that “voting systems must allow all voters, including those with disabilities, to vote independently and privately, by January 1, 2006.” To date, New York State is the only state in the nation still in violation of this federal law. On January 16 of this year, Judge Gary Sharpe, of the United States District Court, issued a court order against the State of New York noting that “New York remains in noncompliance with the voting systems requirements,” and that New York State “law and procedure must give way to federal law requirements.”
The federal court strongly admonished New York in its decision: “This Court finds that the defendants’ unacceptable and continual delays in meeting the voting systems requirements of HAVA….. has made full compliance with these HAVA requirements in time for New York’s February 2008 presidential preference primary….and November 2008 federal general election, not currently possible”.
The District Court found no obstacles to New York’s ability to provide “ballot marking devices and/or voting systems accessible to persons
with disabilities available for use in every polling place” in time for the fall 2008 elections and ordered that this “must be accomplished”.
Several state and local groups for the handicapped have been working since the inception of HAVA with NYS Assemblywoman Sandy Galef
(Democrat, 90th District) to address the accessibility issues raised by this law. Along with Assemblywoman Galef, these groups have been testing different voting devices and systems to determine which best serves their needs. Since 2002, these groups and their members have proposed modi-fications to the voting devices which have been addressed and adopted by several manufacturers. The selections
were narrowed down to three systems: voting machines by Sequoia ImageCast, ES&S, and Premier AutoMARK.
On January 24, the State Board of Elections met to review the modifications made to these systems and vote whether they were in compliance with the ballot display provisions in the federal law.
Despite the strong and clear order from the federal courts, as of the date of the latest meeting of the New York State Board of Elections,
the selection of voting systems for the fall elections is still up for grabs in New York. At the State Board of Elections meeting to adopt
the official voting devices, the votes to approve the systems endorsed by the advocacy groups for the handicapped split along party lines: the Democratic representative, Stanley Zalen, voting in favor of the modi-fications, the newly-appointed Republican representative, Todd Valentine, voting against.
Note to Guardian readers: The New York State Board of Elections may be reached at 40 Steuben Street, Albany, NY 12207-2108; by phone at 518-474-8100; via fax at 518-486-4068, or email at http://www.election.state.ny.us/.
On January 31, Assemblywoman Galef held a press conference, originally scheduled to announce the success of her’s and the advocacy groups’ efforts “to provide the right to private and independent votes for all”.
Instead, Ms. Galef spoke of the continuing frustration faced by those with special needs in getting New York State legislators
to acknowledge and address their rights. In a press release dated January 24, Ms. Galef reported “This is a victory for all voters because it assures that their vote will always be counted.” Reporting the latest rejection by the New York State Board of Elections at her January 31 news conference from the steps of the Westchester County Board of Elections, Ms. Galef declared, “The issue of selecting voting machines is big business. A lot of the big businesses sent contributions to elected officials and lots of money was spent in Albany to get specific machines. And, you know, the bad guys lost out. The DREs lost out and now they’re taking legal action to go forward”.
At issue is the selection of Direct Electronic Recording Machines (DREs) versus Optical Scan Machines. DREs use computerized
touchscreens to process votes. Optical devices scan printed ballots and can allow for audio interfaces while still providing paper ballots. The
advocacy groups prefer the optical devices since DREs are confusing for those with cognitive and other handicaps. Further, as Ms. Galef
noted, the optical scanners allow for “enlarging the letters so people who are visually handicapped can vote on it”. The opposition to the optical scanners, Ms. Galef continued, “means you can’t have everything on one page because you make the letters that much bigger. Well that’s good for our disabled community”.
“We have court maneuvers, we have people that are trying to get DREs into the mix” Ms. Galef warned, “so we need to continue our
vigilance. We hope the public will speak out for real democracy and make sure that their votes count. The Board of Elections, where we
are standing; the commissioners are going to have to make a decision in nine days as to which machines they are going to choose from.”
Reginald LaFayette, the Democratic Commissioner for the Westchester Board of Elections did make a brief appearance at Assemblywoman
Galef ’s conference but declined any comment. Carolee Sunderland, the Republican Commissioner, did not attend the conference. Neither
Westchester Commissioner responded to The Guardian’s requests for comment as of press time.
Ms. Galef remarked “This is the most grass-roots effort that I have ever seen”. These efforts were evident at her conference as several local and state advocacy groups addressed their support for voting accessibility. George Klein, Group Chair of the Sierra Club asked “Why is the Sierra Club interested in this issue? While we advocate for the environment and public health, we need to have politicians
in office who pay attention to the public and advocacy groups like the Sierra Club. If politicians can get into office without honest votes, they won’t pay attention to the citizens and democracy will start to fail. We want transparent, verifiable voting technology”.
Lisa Tarricone, Director of Systems Advocacy for the Westchester Independent Living Center, spoke of the efforts of the local handicapped
community on this issue: “We’ve been advocating for the use of optical scan voting since HAVA was first adopted in 2002. We’ve sat
in on joint commission hearings, committee hearings over the past couple of years. We’ve missed one major presidential election due to
politicking. Our votes were held hostage due to that process and we hope we’re not going to lose the next one which is very important to our
community’s needs.”
Sherry DeFrancesco, from Mount Kisco, representing the Westchester Council for the Blind and Westchester Disabled on the
Move, addressed the anticipation of the handicapped community: “We’re very excited. We’ve never been able to vote privately and independently in the history of the United States”.
Her emotional plea for her community “to get everything we’re hoping for” was felt by all present. She addressed the use of paper ballots
as actually preferable for the blind community “Because the scanner reads it back to you”. George Klein interjected, “With a DRE, there’s no
way for a blind person to know if the ballot was marked. With an optical scan as a ballot marking device with a paper ballot, you can put it in
and the device will read it back to you to double-check and tell you if it’s properly marked.”
Representatives of the handicapped community present noted the advantages of the optical scanners: They believed that these devices
would enable the mentally-handicapped community to vote due to larger font sizes, color-contrast capabilities, and audio feedback. The
optical scanners with audio components would also enable voters with learning disabilities such as dyslexia to confirm their votes. Optical
scanners can also show only one election race at a time to reduce confusion for a voter who may be overwhelmed by the multitude of choices on a large ballot.
With a paper ballot, voters with dexterity issues would not have to manipulate icons on a computer screen. The local advocates noted
that voters with special needs would be provided with a private booth to allow them extra time and privacy so they would not experience
stress and concern of delaying others. Optical scanners can also enlarge print so voters can verify their votes – a requirement of the
federal law.
In addition to the disabled community, several citizens groups are also interested in this issue. Margaret Yonco-Haines, the Executive Director of Mid-Hudson Verified Voting, noted “This is a non-partisan issue”. She drew a laugh from those present when she noted, “If I stop somebody randomly on the street and ask them ‘do you care if when you go to vote that your vote is counted and recorded
accurately?’ amazingly 100% of them say yes”. Ms. Yonco-Haines noted “The choice of voting on paper ballots and the use of optical scanners is only the first step. We must further ensure stringent procedures and processes to ensure the security of our elections and to maintain the openness to public observation and participation in our elections. We cannot do that on electronic voting machines. I call on the State Board of Elections to not retreat from this position”.
Teresa Hommel, chair of the task force of Election Integrity of Community Church of New York Unitarian Universalist, remarked
“Democracy means that ‘We the People’ choose our government offi-cials and we delegate power to them to run our government. Elections
alone don’t make democracy and it takes more than voters. We know this because totalitarian and fascist governments have held lots of phony elections. This is why the State Board’s decision is so important”.
Addressing the concerns of DRE computer systems malfunctioning during an election, Ms. Hommel noted the superiority of paper ballots
and held up an example to show “If you press your pencil as hard as you can and a mark doesn’t appear next to your candidate, you can just go and sharpen your pencil. You don’t have to take the pencil out of service for the rest of the day. If I mark my candidate, the mark doesn’t suddenly jump over to another candidate. The paper ballot doesn’t crash. People think high-tech is so great. But for elections, we need to keep it simple so we can get it right”.
Allegra Dengler, of the Citizens for Voting Integrity, expressed her concern with “the backroom deals in Albany”. A press release from
her office on January 31 noted her group’s concern with the recent vote from the State Board of Elections surmising that the split
vote “looks like a frivolous move on the part of Todd Valentine to create confusion in the process in order to give the decision back to
Judge Sharpe”. The release continued “It is absolutely disrespectful to the disabled community”. The Citizens for Voting Integrity noted
that ballot markers rank high in evaluations by disabled voters and recommended one system, the AutoMARK, in particular.
Galef noted that New York’s delay in adopting an accessible voting system did serve a purpose since “We have learned from the mistakes
of other states like California who installed DRE systems and are slow tossing them out”. In addition, the other states have all noted the
added expense of DREs (approximately $9,000 each) compared to optical scanners – an increase of up to two-thirds greater. Further, Ms.
Galef noted that DRE computerized manufacturers want an additional 15 – 18% of the purchase price per year for licensing fees and “we
would need three times more DREs than scanners. Optical scanners are a savings to the taxpayers.”
Ms. Galef concluded by noting “To me, this whole issue is so simple. Paper ballots can always be recounted. Things that are on our
computer we all know from home can get lost, be changed. We have high profile elections that come in close. We want to be sure that the
Board of Elections can count every one of our votes. We believe in optical scan. I don’t think there’s any citizen out there yelling for DREs.
The only people that really want the DRE’s are the companies and the political people who have an interest in those companies. The
public is with us”.
As of the 2000 Census, there were 52,000 disabled residents in Westchester County. While all of them may not be eligible to vote,
that number does not include people with other special needs such as early dementia or dyslexia. Because New York State is still in defiance
of the Federal Voting Accessibility Law, for the current presidential primary election, there were tens of thousands of our neighbors who
were denied their right to cast a private and independent vote!
Northern Westchester Round-Up
Armonk: A senior from the Byram Hills High School, Jeremy Blum, was selected as one of 40 finalists in Intel’s national Science Talent
Search winning a $5,000 scholarship and an Intel laptop. The award for the eventual national winner is a $100,000 college scholarship.
Blum expects to attend Cornell University in the fall.
Mt. Pleasant: The Mount Pleasant Town Court is a test center for the use of video technology in the court system. The town will allow inmates to attend arraignments and court appearances without necessitating leaving the county jail.
Ossining: Assemblywoman Sandy Galef announced a series of town meetings with constituents to discuss local issues and the proposed state budget. Future meetings will be held on February 7th and 9th at the Field Library in Peekskill and the Putnam Valley library.
Valhalla: Westchester Community College joined more than 1,000 colleges and universities nationwide for a Focus the Nation teach-in on January 30. The simultaneous broadcast from sites around the country included scientists, government leaders, and environmental activists.
– Catherine Wilson
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins Announces Dobbs Ferry Hospital Will Remain Open
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D- 35th District) joined State Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D., today at Community Hospital at Dobbs Ferry to announce that health care services will continue to operate under the sponsorship of St John’s Riverside
Hospital, as it has for many years.
“It is the right decision to keep this excellent health-care facility open to serve its community. I have made it a priority to keep this hospital open because there is a clear and demonstrated need for an emergency room and a primary health-care facility in the Rivertowns part of Westchester. I am thrilled that the proposed emergency room will have better and broader-based services – and additional outreach training which will even extend to community-based EMS personnel. This will also allow St. John’s hospital to continue to operate the many health care services it offers to the many low-income patients it serves in Yonkers,“ Senator Stewart-Cousins stated.
“The expansion of the superb Ashikari Comprehensive Breast Care Center is a significant and welcome part of this plan. Preventative breast
care services and early detection and treatment of breast cancer are essential components of women’s health care that would not otherwise be readily available to women in our community. The significance of the continued and expanded presence of the Ashikari Comprehensive Breast Care Center in our community cannot be overstated,” the Senator added.
The Community Hospital at Dobbs Ferry, a 50-bed hospital slated to close by the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century, would be re-opened by St. John’s Riverside Hospital, which will pilot an innovative health-care delivery model – designed to reduce hospitalizations and integrate primary care in the emergency room.
“Except in rural areas, New York has no financially viable health care delivery models that tailor services to target the needs of communities,“
Commissioner Daines said. “We need to shift the focus from institution based planning to patient-centered delivery systems. This Rivertowns community presents an optimal forum to test an alternative model for the health care: It’s a small community where health outcomes can be monitored and improvements can be measured.”
Chairman of the Board of Community Hospital, Gregory M. Fisk and Ronald J. Corti, Chief Executive Officer of Community Hospital said jointly, “We are grateful to the many people whose efforts contributed to keeping Community Hospital open. Most of all, we are grateful to Senator Stewart-Cousins, who led the charge from the anxious beginning to this happy end on behalf of the hospital and our community. For the many times you listened and made sure that our voices would be heard – by the Department of Health, by the Commission, by anyone who could help our cause – we thank you, Senator. Because of your leadership and advocacy we announce today that we will be here to serve our community for years to come.”
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins Announces Dobbs Ferry Hospital Will Remain Open
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D- 35th District) joined State Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D., today at Community Hospital at Dobbs Ferry to announce that health care services will continue to operate under the sponsorship of St John’s Riverside
Hospital, as it has for many years.
“It is the right decision to keep this excellent health-care facility open to serve its community. I have made it a priority to keep this hospital open because there is a clear and demonstrated need for an emergency room and a primary health-care facility in the Rivertowns part of Westchester. I am thrilled that the proposed emergency room will have better and broader-based services – and additional outreach training which will even extend to community-based EMS personnel. This will also allow St. John’s hospital to continue to operate the many health care services it offers to the many low-income patients it serves in Yonkers,“ Senator Stewart-Cousins stated.
“The expansion of the superb Ashikari Comprehensive Breast Care Center is a significant and welcome part of this plan. Preventative breast
care services and early detection and treatment of breast cancer are essential components of women’s health care that would not otherwise be readily available to women in our community. The significance of the continued and expanded presence of the Ashikari Comprehensive Breast Care Center in our community cannot be overstated,” the Senator added.
The Community Hospital at Dobbs Ferry, a 50-bed hospital slated to close by the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century, would be re-opened by St. John’s Riverside Hospital, which will pilot an innovative health-care delivery model – designed to reduce hospitalizations and integrate primary care in the emergency room.
“Except in rural areas, New York has no financially viable health care delivery models that tailor services to target the needs of communities,“
Commissioner Daines said. “We need to shift the focus from institution based planning to patient-centered delivery systems. This Rivertowns community presents an optimal forum to test an alternative model for the health care: It’s a small community where health outcomes can be monitored and improvements can be measured.”
Chairman of the Board of Community Hospital, Gregory M. Fisk and Ronald J. Corti, Chief Executive Officer of Community Hospital said jointly, “We are grateful to the many people whose efforts contributed to keeping Community Hospital open. Most of all, we are grateful to Senator Stewart-Cousins, who led the charge from the anxious beginning to this happy end on behalf of the hospital and our community. For the many times you listened and made sure that our voices would be heard – by the Department of Health, by the Commission, by anyone who could help our cause – we thank you, Senator. Because of your leadership and advocacy we announce today that we will be here to serve our community for years to come.”
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Our Readers Respond...
Dobbs Ferry Village Employee Opens A Can Of Worms
Dear Editor:
I am writing to request that The Westchester Guardian investigate and expose the Mayor of Dobbs Ferry, Scott Seskin, and his
corrupt friend, the former Police Chief, George Longworth. This poor excuse for a mayor ran a campaign, and then, within
one week of becoming Mayor, decided that he couldn’t handle it and needed a “consultant.” The person he handpicked was George Longworth, and planned to pay him $135 per hour for a 20-hr work week.
I suggest using the Freedom Of Information Act, and, getting hold of certain memos and emails that were sent from the Mayor, to Liz Draeper, the Village Clerk. In those memos, you will see that the Mayor had a definite salary planned for George Longworth, the former
Police Chief - in the amount of $135 per hour. He retired as Police Chief in the summer, and, he did so with the intention of partnering up with the Mayor to “rule” the Village from another vantage point.
There is a memo proving this, and, by law, they have to show it to the press or whomever asks to see it. Do not accept no for an answer.
Your paper has such integrity, and, I think you are the only journalists who could help Dobbs Ferry. Because the public found out
about the mild corruption, they voiced their opinions and Seskin backed down, and didn’t hire Longworth. However, Longworth is advising
Seskin every day on every email and every memo he writes.
Two weeks ago, the Mayor decided to put a hiring freeze with the Dobbs Ferry Police Department. He sent out a memo and a letter saying
so, in black and white, to all of the Police Department. He was met with outrage when the PBA found out about the Mayor’s plans, (specifically, Brian Hennessy who is the President). This is an outrage! And the residents of Dobbs Ferry don’t even know about this!
The Mayor is considering rescinding the memo only if the PBA publicly states that they are in support of studying the “Shared Services” plan for Greenburgh/Dobbs Ferry merge.
Some history about this merge: George Longworth, the former Police Chief of Dobbs Ferry, has designs to be the Police Commissioner of Greenburgh, and he is behind Mayor Seskin getting this done. He convinced Seskin to run for Mayor. He has a master plan, and wants
complete control of police departments and the Village of Dobbs Ferry.
George Longworth did everything he possibly could to keep Betsy Gilardi, the current Police Chief, from getting the position. He wanted another policeman to get the job, someone who is part of Longworth’s pack of intimidating, corrupt people.
Here are more facts: George Longworth is paying for a policeman’s wife to go to college. The policeman’s name is “Gabe” - he is the eyes and ears for him and alerts him of goings-on in the Police Department on a daily basis. Also, the judge of Dobbs Ferry, Steve Schwartz, is
aligned with Longworth, and they actually purchased a home for one the Lieutenants of the Police Department.
This way, they have “loyalists” who will share secrets, and disclose highly private information to Longworth, who is still kept “in
the loop.” Longworth still, to this day, calls the Police Department, and identifies himself as “the Chief.” He undermines Betsy Gilardi
(the current chief) and is constantly doing things to show that he still has power. Seskin dislikes Gilardi, didn’t want her as the Chief,
all because Longworth assured him she’d not go along with what his plans were.
In June of ‘07, the former Fire Chief of Dobbs Ferry, Dennis Roth, showed up at a fire call at Mercy College. He was highly intoxicated and belligerent, and, driving the village Surburban. All the while he had his mistress in the vehicle with him. is is on the record with the
Dobbs Ferry Police Department. Any other fire chief would have been arrested and dismissed. is Dennis Roth is also a village employee; he works for the DPW. For some odd reason, Longworth chose not to punish Roth. Again, any other municipality would have - red their chief, whether or not bad press would ensue as a result.
Further - Longworth and Seskin are partners together in a personal injury case, (Playland accidental death) and they are being extremely unethical by behaving like they’ve behaved. Mark my words, these two are extremely unethical people. This is the God’s honest truth. The
public should know what is going on in the Village. I believe your paper is the only paper who can help.
Please, utilize the Freedom of Information act. Please, view all emails that are on file, and all memos the Mayor has written.
You will open the eyes of innocent people all over the Village of Dobbs Ferry.
Thank you for your time. I can’t disclose who I am, as I work for the Parks Department, and could lose my job.
But we need your help badly.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
In Our Opinion....
The death of Officer Chrisopher A. Ridley: A Tragic Loss Compounded By Secrecy And News Management
We are dismayed to witness all of the behind-the-scenes manipulation and withholding of information that has followed the tragic killing of Mount Vernon Police Officer Christopher A. Ridley, 23. It is apparent, to those in the news-gathering business, that a calculated effort to control the release of information regarding the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Officer Ridley’s death has been in effect from the
moment he was pronounced dead.
The game plan was evident within 23 hours of the tragic incident when White Plains Police Commissioner Frank Straub, County Public Safety Commissioner Tom Belfiore, Mount Vernon Police Commissioner David Chong, and District Attorney Janet DiFiore appeared, more than an hour late, for a scheduled 3pm press conference at White Plains City Court and Police Headquarters on Saturday, January 26, one day following the heroic young officer’s demise. At that meeting, with press and broadcast media, only the three police commissioners spoke and little, in the way of information, was disseminated.
For example, although it was clearly known by both the White Plains Police, and the County Police, no mention was made of the fact that there were actually four County police officers, three patrolmen and a sergeant, any or all of whom may have discharged their weapon at Officer Ridley, apparently under the tragically mistaken impression that he was a criminal assailant attempting to shoot an unarmed innocent individual.
The identity of all four County officers was withheld until late Monday, fully three days after the shooting. And, then, it would be two more days, Wednesday, before the fact that two of those officers had come out of the Social Services Building at 85 Court Street, and two had come from the County Office Building, half a block away, would be disclosed.
By Thursday, six days had passed and still there was no concrete explanation as to where those County officers were positioned when they supposedly issued a command to Ridley to “Drop your gun,” then proceeding to fire. At least one eyewitness reported that they were across the street from Officer Ridley and his homeless assailant when they opened fire. If so, serious questions would be raised as to whether, at some 40 to 50 feet distance from Ridley, he could have heard them or been aware of their potential threat or, assuming
he could have, whether those four County officers could have heard his response, and understood that he was a cop struggling to collar a violent assailant.
Under the scenario suggesting that the County officers were on the opposite side of the street, it would hardly have made sense for the two who reportedly emerged from 85 Court Street to have given up their proximity to the violent struggle occurring on the sidewalk right in front of the building they had just emerged from. Could it be that they never crossed the street and, in effect, that they were part of a crossfire, four or five rounds of a reported ten or more fired, that instantly ended young Ridley’s life?
Surely, the deliberate withholding of fundamental information, beside being cruel and painful to family members and loved ones of young Officer Ridley, was counterproductive, undermining public confidence in Westchester Law Enforcement, and Prosecution, while causing endless speculation as to what more was being withheld and for what nefarious purpose. Into the sixth day following the incident, the identity of the 58-year-old Bronx resident, who had been originally attacked by assailant Anthony Jacobs, had still not been revealed. Worst of all, the withholding of information, from the very outset, dishonored the heroic and selfless conduct of Officer Ridley, even suggesting, early on, in the minds of some, the possibility of wrongful behavior, outraging family and fellow Mount Vernon police officers alike.
We now call upon the White Plains Police Department, the designated investigative agency, and the Westchester District Attorney, who thus far, six days following the tragic event, has not issued any statement, to proceed with all possible speed to produce a “White Paper” fully updating all that is known with regard to the killing, both for the well-being and right-to-know of Officer Ridley’s family and loved ones, as well as for the People of Westchester, in whose name such investigation, and any possible prosecution, must be truthfully pursued.
Our Readers Respond...
Dobbs Ferry Village Employee Opens A Can Of Worms
Dear Editor:
I am writing to request that The Westchester Guardian investigate and expose the Mayor of Dobbs Ferry, Scott Seskin, and his
corrupt friend, the former Police Chief, George Longworth. This poor excuse for a mayor ran a campaign, and then, within
one week of becoming Mayor, decided that he couldn’t handle it and needed a “consultant.” The person he handpicked was George Longworth, and planned to pay him $135 per hour for a 20-hr work week.
I suggest using the Freedom Of Information Act, and, getting hold of certain memos and emails that were sent from the Mayor, to Liz Draeper, the Village Clerk. In those memos, you will see that the Mayor had a definite salary planned for George Longworth, the former
Police Chief - in the amount of $135 per hour. He retired as Police Chief in the summer, and, he did so with the intention of partnering up with the Mayor to “rule” the Village from another vantage point.
There is a memo proving this, and, by law, they have to show it to the press or whomever asks to see it. Do not accept no for an answer.
Your paper has such integrity, and, I think you are the only journalists who could help Dobbs Ferry. Because the public found out
about the mild corruption, they voiced their opinions and Seskin backed down, and didn’t hire Longworth. However, Longworth is advising
Seskin every day on every email and every memo he writes.
Two weeks ago, the Mayor decided to put a hiring freeze with the Dobbs Ferry Police Department. He sent out a memo and a letter saying
so, in black and white, to all of the Police Department. He was met with outrage when the PBA found out about the Mayor’s plans, (specifically, Brian Hennessy who is the President). This is an outrage! And the residents of Dobbs Ferry don’t even know about this!
The Mayor is considering rescinding the memo only if the PBA publicly states that they are in support of studying the “Shared Services” plan for Greenburgh/Dobbs Ferry merge.
Some history about this merge: George Longworth, the former Police Chief of Dobbs Ferry, has designs to be the Police Commissioner of Greenburgh, and he is behind Mayor Seskin getting this done. He convinced Seskin to run for Mayor. He has a master plan, and wants
complete control of police departments and the Village of Dobbs Ferry.
George Longworth did everything he possibly could to keep Betsy Gilardi, the current Police Chief, from getting the position. He wanted another policeman to get the job, someone who is part of Longworth’s pack of intimidating, corrupt people.
Here are more facts: George Longworth is paying for a policeman’s wife to go to college. The policeman’s name is “Gabe” - he is the eyes and ears for him and alerts him of goings-on in the Police Department on a daily basis. Also, the judge of Dobbs Ferry, Steve Schwartz, is
aligned with Longworth, and they actually purchased a home for one the Lieutenants of the Police Department.
This way, they have “loyalists” who will share secrets, and disclose highly private information to Longworth, who is still kept “in
the loop.” Longworth still, to this day, calls the Police Department, and identifies himself as “the Chief.” He undermines Betsy Gilardi
(the current chief) and is constantly doing things to show that he still has power. Seskin dislikes Gilardi, didn’t want her as the Chief,
all because Longworth assured him she’d not go along with what his plans were.
In June of ‘07, the former Fire Chief of Dobbs Ferry, Dennis Roth, showed up at a fire call at Mercy College. He was highly intoxicated and belligerent, and, driving the village Surburban. All the while he had his mistress in the vehicle with him. is is on the record with the
Dobbs Ferry Police Department. Any other fire chief would have been arrested and dismissed. is Dennis Roth is also a village employee; he works for the DPW. For some odd reason, Longworth chose not to punish Roth. Again, any other municipality would have - red their chief, whether or not bad press would ensue as a result.
Further - Longworth and Seskin are partners together in a personal injury case, (Playland accidental death) and they are being extremely unethical by behaving like they’ve behaved. Mark my words, these two are extremely unethical people. This is the God’s honest truth. The
public should know what is going on in the Village. I believe your paper is the only paper who can help.
Please, utilize the Freedom of Information act. Please, view all emails that are on file, and all memos the Mayor has written.
You will open the eyes of innocent people all over the Village of Dobbs Ferry.
Thank you for your time. I can’t disclose who I am, as I work for the Parks Department, and could lose my job.
But we need your help badly.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
In Our Opinion....
The death of Officer Chrisopher A. Ridley: A Tragic Loss Compounded By Secrecy And News Management
We are dismayed to witness all of the behind-the-scenes manipulation and withholding of information that has followed the tragic killing of Mount Vernon Police Officer Christopher A. Ridley, 23. It is apparent, to those in the news-gathering business, that a calculated effort to control the release of information regarding the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Officer Ridley’s death has been in effect from the
moment he was pronounced dead.
The game plan was evident within 23 hours of the tragic incident when White Plains Police Commissioner Frank Straub, County Public Safety Commissioner Tom Belfiore, Mount Vernon Police Commissioner David Chong, and District Attorney Janet DiFiore appeared, more than an hour late, for a scheduled 3pm press conference at White Plains City Court and Police Headquarters on Saturday, January 26, one day following the heroic young officer’s demise. At that meeting, with press and broadcast media, only the three police commissioners spoke and little, in the way of information, was disseminated.
For example, although it was clearly known by both the White Plains Police, and the County Police, no mention was made of the fact that there were actually four County police officers, three patrolmen and a sergeant, any or all of whom may have discharged their weapon at Officer Ridley, apparently under the tragically mistaken impression that he was a criminal assailant attempting to shoot an unarmed innocent individual.
The identity of all four County officers was withheld until late Monday, fully three days after the shooting. And, then, it would be two more days, Wednesday, before the fact that two of those officers had come out of the Social Services Building at 85 Court Street, and two had come from the County Office Building, half a block away, would be disclosed.
By Thursday, six days had passed and still there was no concrete explanation as to where those County officers were positioned when they supposedly issued a command to Ridley to “Drop your gun,” then proceeding to fire. At least one eyewitness reported that they were across the street from Officer Ridley and his homeless assailant when they opened fire. If so, serious questions would be raised as to whether, at some 40 to 50 feet distance from Ridley, he could have heard them or been aware of their potential threat or, assuming
he could have, whether those four County officers could have heard his response, and understood that he was a cop struggling to collar a violent assailant.
Under the scenario suggesting that the County officers were on the opposite side of the street, it would hardly have made sense for the two who reportedly emerged from 85 Court Street to have given up their proximity to the violent struggle occurring on the sidewalk right in front of the building they had just emerged from. Could it be that they never crossed the street and, in effect, that they were part of a crossfire, four or five rounds of a reported ten or more fired, that instantly ended young Ridley’s life?
Surely, the deliberate withholding of fundamental information, beside being cruel and painful to family members and loved ones of young Officer Ridley, was counterproductive, undermining public confidence in Westchester Law Enforcement, and Prosecution, while causing endless speculation as to what more was being withheld and for what nefarious purpose. Into the sixth day following the incident, the identity of the 58-year-old Bronx resident, who had been originally attacked by assailant Anthony Jacobs, had still not been revealed. Worst of all, the withholding of information, from the very outset, dishonored the heroic and selfless conduct of Officer Ridley, even suggesting, early on, in the minds of some, the possibility of wrongful behavior, outraging family and fellow Mount Vernon police officers alike.
We now call upon the White Plains Police Department, the designated investigative agency, and the Westchester District Attorney, who thus far, six days following the tragic event, has not issued any statement, to proceed with all possible speed to produce a “White Paper” fully updating all that is known with regard to the killing, both for the well-being and right-to-know of Officer Ridley’s family and loved ones, as well as for the People of Westchester, in whose name such investigation, and any possible prosecution, must be truthfully pursued.
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
“He Was A Little Boy To His Mother And Father, But He Was A Man To Us”
– Rev. Richard H. Dixon, Jr.,
Mount Vernon Police Chaplain
The life of Officer Christopher A. Ridley, 23, snuffed out in a hail of gunfire from at least two of four Westchester County Police Officers, at approximately 5pm Friday, January 25, on the sidewalk in front of 85 Court Street, White Plains, must be respected and celebrated. Young men of his dedication and temperament come our way far too infrequently. Were it not for his noble public spirit, and his literal translation and interpretation of his 24/7 responsibility as a police officer, he would be alive today; a 58-year-old Bronx man might very well be
dead, and the judgment, and possibly the careers, of four Westchester County Police Officers, would not be in question.
What Officer Ridley, of the Mount Vernon Police Department, did very obviously came very naturally to him; a spontaneous gesture without precalculation, a selfless and right-headed act, the very response we would have expected of him. Those who knew him
on the job, those who watched him mature into a gentle, but potent, adult, a force for good in both his professional and private life, mourn his tragic loss, not only to his family and friends, but also to the entire Mount Vernon community.
Mount Vernon Mayor Clinton Young expressed it best at last Tuesday’s posthumous promotion of Ridley to Detective, when he told those
gathered in City Council Chambers, “Detective Ridley will forever be known as a role model and a hero to generations to come.”
The somber ceremony, in which a plaque bearing the fallen hero patrolman’s badge, number 2174, and his posthumously-awarded gold detective’s shield, number 11, together with a shoulder patch, and the inscription, “In Memory Of Detective Christopher A. Ridley, #11, Mount Vernon Police Department,” was presented to his family by Mayor Young, was deeply moving.
Police Commissioner David Chong captured the essence of Officer Ridley’s achievement, declaring, “A detective’s gold shield is one of the most recognized badges in law enforcement. It is a badge that you cannot take an exam for; it is a badge that can only be earned. So, for duty above and beyond the call of duty, and for his ultimate sacrifice, today we collectively, as a City, and as a Police Department, honor
our son, our brother, our friend, Police Of-ficer Christopher A. Ridley.”
Those in the press and media who have been attempting to inform the public with regard to the tragic circumstances of Officer Ridley’s death, have been frustrated by what appears to be a calculated attempt to manage and slow down the dissemination of information. A so-called press conference, scheduled for 3pm Saturday the 26th, actually commenced well beyond 4pm, some 23 hours after the incident, was held in the corridor of the White Plains City Court, a building that also houses Police Headquarters. Facing reporters and cameras were White Plains Commissioner Frank Straub, County Public Safety Commissioner Tom Bel-fiore, and Mount Vernon Police Commissioner David Chong, as well as Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore.
All three police commissioners made statements acknowledging the tragic incident, Commissioner Chong’s the longest. Visibly shaken
and hoarse, he concluded his remarks with, “Officer Christopher Ridley was a quiet and kind soul. I knew him as a young officer with unlimited potential.”
District Attorney DiFiore accompanied at the press conference by Assistant DAs Patricia Murphy, Mike Hughes, and Lana Hochheiser, offered no comment. Following Commissioner Chong’s remarks, White Plains Commissioner Straub abruptly told reporters, “There will be no questions.”
As the Commissioners and the District Attorney exited the corridor, several reporters turned to Mount Vernon PBA President Kevin
Mandel, who had been observing the press conference, together with more than 25 Mount Vernon police officers from an area cordoned off
some 30 feet behind the press and media. Mandel quickly seized the opportunity to set the record straight, telling reporters, “It’s good that
they finally said that Christopher acted as a hero. Chris loved being a cop and he did nothing wrong.”
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Bubaris Defense Presses For Discovery Material
Introductory Analysis: Attorney Edward Hayes is representing suspended Mount Kisco Police Officer George Bubaris, who has been charged by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office in the death, last spring, of Rene Perez, a homeless, undocumented Guatamalan, found near death on Byram Lake Road in the Town of Bedford. Hayes is only too keenly aware of the District Attorney’s Office’s notorious reputation for withholding exculpatory information, Brady, material. He is also keenly aware of the Office’s willingness to engage in extreme
prosecutorial misconduct. In his Affirmation, he cites both the Anthony Disimone case, with the concealment of 376 pages and 52 boxes of exculpatory material for 13 years, as well as the Richard DiGuglielmo case, with witness intimidation and coercion, as two of the more egregious examples of the Office’s sordid history and unlawful practices in his diligent effort to compel the production of all discovery material in existence.
COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
-against- NOTICE OF MOTION
GEORGE BUBARIS, Indictment No. 07-0679
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, upon the annexed affirmation of Edward W. Hayes, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the courts of this State, and the prior proceedings herein, that the undersigned will move this Court on February 7, 2008, or as soon thereafter
as counsel can be heard, for an Order:
1. Compelling discovery, pursuant to CPL §§ 240.20 and 240-40, of records of the Bedford, New York Police Department relative to one Juan Rene Javier Perez (“Perez”), including but not limited to arrest reports, on line booking sheets, complaint reports, and Aided Reports pertaining to any and all police interaction with Perez at any time prior to and including the date of Perez’ death on or about April 28, 200
2. Compelling discovery of any and all records concerning transportation of Perez by members of the Bedford Police Department or at the behest of the Bedford Police Department to any hospital or other medical facility between April 29, 2005 and April 29, 2007;
3. Compelling discovery of the prior criminal record of Rene Perez.
4. Compelling discovery of records of any and all communications between representatives of the Village of Mount Kisco and/or its police department and Police Officer Edward Dwyer and Lt. Edward Dunnigan or their representatives that state or imply that either Police Officer Dwyer and Lt. Edward Dunnigan would receive any benefit from cooperating with the prosecutors in this case;
5. Compelling production of the complete personnel records of Police Officer Edward Dwyer for in camera inspection by the Court and appropriate disclosure to the defense;
6. Such other relief as this Court may deem fair and proper under the circumstances.
DATED: New York, New York
January 28, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Edward W. Hayes, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
515 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 644-0303
TO:
Justice Lester Adler (By fax 914-824-5386)
County Court
County of Westchester
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
ADA Christopher R. Daniele (By fax 914-995-4672)
Office of the District Attorney
Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
John K. Grant, Esq. (By fax 845-566-9416)
Attorney for Edward Dwyer
3 Main Street, Suite 1
Nyack, New York 10960-3253
COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMATION
-against-
Indictment No. 07-0679
GEORGE BUBARIS,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
EDWARD W. HAYES, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the courts of this state, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:
1. I represent George Bubaris, the Defendant herein, and in this capacity am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter. This affirmation is submitted in reply to the People’s affirmation and memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant’s motion for discovery and inspection of certain records pertaining to Juan Rene Javier Perez (“Perez”), the alleged victim in this case.
Giglio Material
2. The District Attorney’s hyper technical interpretation of Defendant’s request for communications reflecting any benefit that could inure to either Police Officer Edward Dwyer and/or Lt. Edward Dunnigan from cooperating from the prosecution carries with it significant risks of noncompliance with the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose exculpatory material.
3. It is axiomatic and beyond cavil that when a police officer becomes involved in an incident that could implicate him criminally, he receives use immunity for any compelled statements that are made to or at the behest of his employer, but that he runs the risk of losing his job if he refuses to answer questions posed to him by his superiors (presumably in conformance with any union contractual provisions regarding
notice and right to counsel).
4. In this case, if Dwyer and Dunnigan are cooperating with the prosecutor and agreeing to give testimony for the prosecution at the upcoming trial of Officer Bubaris, the Defendant has an absolute right to know whether their cooperation has been obtained via an express or implied threat that they will be disciplined or fired if they do not cooperate with the District Attorney.
5. In its opposition papers, the District Attorney writes that “[t]he people are unaware of any such communications between the village of Mount Kisco and either Police Officer Edward Dwyer or Lieutenant Edward Dunnigan that state or imply any such benefit from cooperation with the prosecution.” Affidavit of A.D.A. Christopher Daniele dated January 29, 2008 at 4-5.
6. If the District Attorney construed our demand to mean only a payment of goods or money or promotion, let us clarify. Keeping one’s job as a public employee and avoiding discipline or other adverse employment action are most certainly benefits. Since the District Attorney, in this motion litigation, has asserted dominion and control over documents of municipalities including Mount Kisco, their claim to be unaware of any such communications is insufficient.
7. In fact, we already are in possession of a number of letters, disclosed to us as discovery in pending civil litigation and attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” that clearly show that the Mount Kisco police chief directed officers to speak with the District Attorney, then withdrew those directions, but conveyed the unmistakable message that failure to “voluntarily” speak with the prosecutor was regarded as lack of “cooperation.” These letters were prepared in coordination with the District Attorney’s office as is obvious from a letter sent by the District Attorney herself (also not disclosed). We respectfully ask this Court to order the District Attorney to search for and to disclose any further communications that express or imply that any potential witness was notified, required, or encouraged by the Police Department or the District Attorney to submit to questioning, even if the word “voluntary” was used. Excessive coercive measures against witnesses by the Westchester District Attorney is amply demonstrated by the case of Richard DiGuglielmo which is now sub judice in this building in front of the Honorable Rory J. Bellantoni.
8. Certainly the District Attorney should not be the arbiter of whether any document or information that is arguably exculpatory or that implicates the credibility of a witness under Brady v. Maryland, or United States v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) be disclosed forthwith. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in DiSimone v. Phillips and Spitzer, (citation), “to allow otherwise would be to appoint the fox as henhouse guard.” Decision at 23.
9. Reliance on hyper technical interpretations of statutes and insufficient inquiry not only ignores the District Attorney’s mandate to do justice, but also it carries the risk of subjecting that office to the same kind of criticism it received in DiSimone, supra. There the Westchester County District Attorney’s late disclosure of information concerning a second man’s involvement in a stabbing resulted in remand of the case for further fact-finding, remarking that [t]he more a piece of evidence is valuable and rich with potential leads, the less likely it will be that late disclosure provides the defense an “opportunity for use”. (See attached Decision Exhibit “B”.) (See the Decision on Remand, Exhibit “C”, also attached.) On remand when required to present evidence to support its position that the Defense had access to the material not disclosed by the Westchester District Attorney, the District Attorney’s office admitted, on the day of the hearing, that it had no evidence to support the position it had taken in the District Court and in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Officer Dwyer’s Personnel Records
10. Similar reasoning applies to Defendant’s application for in camera inspection of Officer Dwyer’s personnel records. People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543 (1979) and its progeny do not require that the Defense know all of the details of an officer’s prior
disciplinary record. Rather, they require more than a suspicion or mere curiosity. Here, our basis is a sworn attorney’s affirmation that references “several employment-related matters.”
11. Two factors underscore the good faith of our request. First, we ask for inspection by a respected Court, which can determine whether or not disclosure is warranted. Second, that we are not conducting the “fishing expedition” the prosecutor accuses us of is amply demonstrated by the fact that our application applies only to Dwyer.
Perez’ Prior History
12. Finally, the prosecutor’s fervent insistence that the Defense in this case is limited to the items detailed in Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law is woefully misplaced. The deceased’s disposition, prior health, prior criminal record, and prior contacts with police
officers from nearby jurisdictions are most certainly relevant and necessary to the preparation of a defense by any competent practitioner, especially in light of the fact that Perez interacted with Bedford police and a Bedford ambulance crew just a couple of hours before he died.
13. Furthermore, Perez’ health and behavior are highly relevant in the unusual circumstances of this case because the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal conduct by the Defendant caused Perez’ death, see People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725, 731 (1977).
14. Both sides agree that it is improper to attempt to circumvent Article 240 by subpoenaing items that should be litigated in a criminal forum. A prime example of this would be a subpoena on a police department for witness statements that are not required
to be turned over until trial. Here, however, the deceased’s prior contacts with neighboring police departments, although highly relevant to this case and likely to yield exculpatory evidence, are not among the items referenced in the Criminal Procedure Law.
15. Here the Westchester County District Attorney has placed the Defense between the proverbial rock and a hard place by declaring that the above-cited information is not discoverable pursuant to Article 240, but that the District Attorney has dominion and control over it and doesn’t choose to release it.
16. Certainly it is appropriate to provide this information in sufficient time for trial, (see DiSimone) pursuant to subpoena (see DiSimone Decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals attached as Exhibit “B”). If that is so, their attempts to delay our receipt of it so that it is not received in time to be used to prepare for trial are unjust and improper.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that Defendant’s motion be granted and that this Court grant any such other relief as it deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.
DATED: New York, New York, January 31, 2008
EDWARD W. HAYES
TO: Justice Lester Adler (By fax and FedEx 914-824-5386)
County Court
County of Westchester
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Bubaris Defense Presses For Discovery Material
Introductory Analysis: Attorney Edward Hayes is representing suspended Mount Kisco Police Officer George Bubaris, who has been charged by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office in the death, last spring, of Rene Perez, a homeless, undocumented Guatamalan, found near death on Byram Lake Road in the Town of Bedford. Hayes is only too keenly aware of the District Attorney’s Office’s notorious reputation for withholding exculpatory information, Brady, material. He is also keenly aware of the Office’s willingness to engage in extreme
prosecutorial misconduct. In his Affirmation, he cites both the Anthony Disimone case, with the concealment of 376 pages and 52 boxes of exculpatory material for 13 years, as well as the Richard DiGuglielmo case, with witness intimidation and coercion, as two of the more egregious examples of the Office’s sordid history and unlawful practices in his diligent effort to compel the production of all discovery material in existence.
COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
-against- NOTICE OF MOTION
GEORGE BUBARIS, Indictment No. 07-0679
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, upon the annexed affirmation of Edward W. Hayes, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the courts of this State, and the prior proceedings herein, that the undersigned will move this Court on February 7, 2008, or as soon thereafter
as counsel can be heard, for an Order:
1. Compelling discovery, pursuant to CPL §§ 240.20 and 240-40, of records of the Bedford, New York Police Department relative to one Juan Rene Javier Perez (“Perez”), including but not limited to arrest reports, on line booking sheets, complaint reports, and Aided Reports pertaining to any and all police interaction with Perez at any time prior to and including the date of Perez’ death on or about April 28, 200
2. Compelling discovery of any and all records concerning transportation of Perez by members of the Bedford Police Department or at the behest of the Bedford Police Department to any hospital or other medical facility between April 29, 2005 and April 29, 2007;
3. Compelling discovery of the prior criminal record of Rene Perez.
4. Compelling discovery of records of any and all communications between representatives of the Village of Mount Kisco and/or its police department and Police Officer Edward Dwyer and Lt. Edward Dunnigan or their representatives that state or imply that either Police Officer Dwyer and Lt. Edward Dunnigan would receive any benefit from cooperating with the prosecutors in this case;
5. Compelling production of the complete personnel records of Police Officer Edward Dwyer for in camera inspection by the Court and appropriate disclosure to the defense;
6. Such other relief as this Court may deem fair and proper under the circumstances.
DATED: New York, New York
January 28, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Edward W. Hayes, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
515 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 644-0303
TO:
Justice Lester Adler (By fax 914-824-5386)
County Court
County of Westchester
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
ADA Christopher R. Daniele (By fax 914-995-4672)
Office of the District Attorney
Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
John K. Grant, Esq. (By fax 845-566-9416)
Attorney for Edward Dwyer
3 Main Street, Suite 1
Nyack, New York 10960-3253
COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMATION
-against-
Indictment No. 07-0679
GEORGE BUBARIS,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
EDWARD W. HAYES, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the courts of this state, affirms the following to be true under the penalties of perjury:
1. I represent George Bubaris, the Defendant herein, and in this capacity am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter. This affirmation is submitted in reply to the People’s affirmation and memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant’s motion for discovery and inspection of certain records pertaining to Juan Rene Javier Perez (“Perez”), the alleged victim in this case.
Giglio Material
2. The District Attorney’s hyper technical interpretation of Defendant’s request for communications reflecting any benefit that could inure to either Police Officer Edward Dwyer and/or Lt. Edward Dunnigan from cooperating from the prosecution carries with it significant risks of noncompliance with the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose exculpatory material.
3. It is axiomatic and beyond cavil that when a police officer becomes involved in an incident that could implicate him criminally, he receives use immunity for any compelled statements that are made to or at the behest of his employer, but that he runs the risk of losing his job if he refuses to answer questions posed to him by his superiors (presumably in conformance with any union contractual provisions regarding
notice and right to counsel).
4. In this case, if Dwyer and Dunnigan are cooperating with the prosecutor and agreeing to give testimony for the prosecution at the upcoming trial of Officer Bubaris, the Defendant has an absolute right to know whether their cooperation has been obtained via an express or implied threat that they will be disciplined or fired if they do not cooperate with the District Attorney.
5. In its opposition papers, the District Attorney writes that “[t]he people are unaware of any such communications between the village of Mount Kisco and either Police Officer Edward Dwyer or Lieutenant Edward Dunnigan that state or imply any such benefit from cooperation with the prosecution.” Affidavit of A.D.A. Christopher Daniele dated January 29, 2008 at 4-5.
6. If the District Attorney construed our demand to mean only a payment of goods or money or promotion, let us clarify. Keeping one’s job as a public employee and avoiding discipline or other adverse employment action are most certainly benefits. Since the District Attorney, in this motion litigation, has asserted dominion and control over documents of municipalities including Mount Kisco, their claim to be unaware of any such communications is insufficient.
7. In fact, we already are in possession of a number of letters, disclosed to us as discovery in pending civil litigation and attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” that clearly show that the Mount Kisco police chief directed officers to speak with the District Attorney, then withdrew those directions, but conveyed the unmistakable message that failure to “voluntarily” speak with the prosecutor was regarded as lack of “cooperation.” These letters were prepared in coordination with the District Attorney’s office as is obvious from a letter sent by the District Attorney herself (also not disclosed). We respectfully ask this Court to order the District Attorney to search for and to disclose any further communications that express or imply that any potential witness was notified, required, or encouraged by the Police Department or the District Attorney to submit to questioning, even if the word “voluntary” was used. Excessive coercive measures against witnesses by the Westchester District Attorney is amply demonstrated by the case of Richard DiGuglielmo which is now sub judice in this building in front of the Honorable Rory J. Bellantoni.
8. Certainly the District Attorney should not be the arbiter of whether any document or information that is arguably exculpatory or that implicates the credibility of a witness under Brady v. Maryland, or United States v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) be disclosed forthwith. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in DiSimone v. Phillips and Spitzer, (citation), “to allow otherwise would be to appoint the fox as henhouse guard.” Decision at 23.
9. Reliance on hyper technical interpretations of statutes and insufficient inquiry not only ignores the District Attorney’s mandate to do justice, but also it carries the risk of subjecting that office to the same kind of criticism it received in DiSimone, supra. There the Westchester County District Attorney’s late disclosure of information concerning a second man’s involvement in a stabbing resulted in remand of the case for further fact-finding, remarking that [t]he more a piece of evidence is valuable and rich with potential leads, the less likely it will be that late disclosure provides the defense an “opportunity for use”. (See attached Decision Exhibit “B”.) (See the Decision on Remand, Exhibit “C”, also attached.) On remand when required to present evidence to support its position that the Defense had access to the material not disclosed by the Westchester District Attorney, the District Attorney’s office admitted, on the day of the hearing, that it had no evidence to support the position it had taken in the District Court and in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Officer Dwyer’s Personnel Records
10. Similar reasoning applies to Defendant’s application for in camera inspection of Officer Dwyer’s personnel records. People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543 (1979) and its progeny do not require that the Defense know all of the details of an officer’s prior
disciplinary record. Rather, they require more than a suspicion or mere curiosity. Here, our basis is a sworn attorney’s affirmation that references “several employment-related matters.”
11. Two factors underscore the good faith of our request. First, we ask for inspection by a respected Court, which can determine whether or not disclosure is warranted. Second, that we are not conducting the “fishing expedition” the prosecutor accuses us of is amply demonstrated by the fact that our application applies only to Dwyer.
Perez’ Prior History
12. Finally, the prosecutor’s fervent insistence that the Defense in this case is limited to the items detailed in Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law is woefully misplaced. The deceased’s disposition, prior health, prior criminal record, and prior contacts with police
officers from nearby jurisdictions are most certainly relevant and necessary to the preparation of a defense by any competent practitioner, especially in light of the fact that Perez interacted with Bedford police and a Bedford ambulance crew just a couple of hours before he died.
13. Furthermore, Perez’ health and behavior are highly relevant in the unusual circumstances of this case because the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal conduct by the Defendant caused Perez’ death, see People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725, 731 (1977).
14. Both sides agree that it is improper to attempt to circumvent Article 240 by subpoenaing items that should be litigated in a criminal forum. A prime example of this would be a subpoena on a police department for witness statements that are not required
to be turned over until trial. Here, however, the deceased’s prior contacts with neighboring police departments, although highly relevant to this case and likely to yield exculpatory evidence, are not among the items referenced in the Criminal Procedure Law.
15. Here the Westchester County District Attorney has placed the Defense between the proverbial rock and a hard place by declaring that the above-cited information is not discoverable pursuant to Article 240, but that the District Attorney has dominion and control over it and doesn’t choose to release it.
16. Certainly it is appropriate to provide this information in sufficient time for trial, (see DiSimone) pursuant to subpoena (see DiSimone Decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals attached as Exhibit “B”). If that is so, their attempts to delay our receipt of it so that it is not received in time to be used to prepare for trial are unjust and improper.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that Defendant’s motion be granted and that this Court grant any such other relief as it deems fair and appropriate under the circumstances.
DATED: New York, New York, January 31, 2008
EDWARD W. HAYES
TO: Justice Lester Adler (By fax and FedEx 914-824-5386)
County Court
County of Westchester
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
White Plains, New York 10601
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
