Thursday, May 22, 2008

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Senate Measure Allows Use Of
Hearsay Evidence From Sexually Abused Minors
Measure Helps Children Talk About Alleged Abuse

Press Release

ALBANY, NY – May 13, 2008 – Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm A. Smith (D – St. Albans) sponsored a bill (S. 4390) that was unanimously passed by the Senate aimed at allowing the out-of-court testimony from a child less than 12 years of age to be admissible during a sex abuse trial.

“We must protect those who cannot protect themselves and this measure is geared towards that result,” Senator Smith said. “Children are the most precious parts of our family. We must protect children from being abused and neglected while providing a stable home environment. But when the system fails we must provide these children with a safe and secure setting that is essential to their healing, success and recovery.”

Under the measure, the testimony would only be admissible if the sexually abused child:

• is unable to testify in court or an official court proceeding;


• has been determined to suffer possible severe trauma by testifying;


• when the testimony of an individual is relevant to the case in question.

Senator Smith has been a longtime proponent of protecting children. Two other measures he is sponsoring are aimed at increasing penalties for crimes against children.

Analysis:

With regard to New York State Senate Bill (S. 4390), unanimously passed by the Senate and “aimed at allowing the out-of-court testimony
from a child less than 12 years of age to be admissible during a sex abuse trial,” one must realize that even the most rightly intentioned measure that would permit the avoidance of compliance with long-held legal principles, must be carefully considered and weighed against alternatives when liberty interests hang in the balance.

In a perfect world, where children are not manipulated and enlisted by feuding parents engaged in matrimonial litigation, often involving
issues of custody and support; or by deceitful and over-reaching prosecutors in criminal matters, the lowering of long-recognized legal
principles and standards such as the Hearsay Rule, might be of less concern. However, those who labor in the Matrimonial and Criminal Parts of the New York State Supreme Court, know very well how imperfect those arenas are. Attorneys, prosecutors, and law guardians
routinely engage in Perjury and the Subornation Of Perjury, manipulating and abusing the rights of children in State Supreme Court for the
purpose of producing one wrongful outcome or another. Even without the statutory admission of out-of court testimony by infants under
the age of 12 case law is replete with wrongful convictions, particularly involving alleged sexual abuse by caretakers, parental and otherwise,
brought about by false, often coached, testimony of infants both under and over the age of 12.

Absent court appearance, and subjection to cross-examination, there is a much higher probability of unreliable, even maliciously false, testimony from usually well-behaved, generally truthful, children. We must always be especially cautious about any legislation that would, for whatever good purpose, nonetheless, tend to erode our civil liberties, and Constitutional guarantees.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

NEWS FLASH!!

Exclusive To The Westchester Guardian

Confidential sources inform The Guardian that two male Correction Of-ficers and two inmates at the Westchester Penitentiary in Valhalla have come down with potentially fatal MRSA, a virulent staff infection. Also, no fewer than four inmates have been found with pus-oozing
boils, suspected of being the same.

County officials are reportedly attempting to keep word of the outbreak from reaching news sources and the public.

U.S. Supreme Court Continues To Make
Rulings Inconsistent With Basic Human
Rights, Decency, And Justice
Part II

By Jeff Deskovic

Continuing on last week’s theme, the United States Supreme Court made yet another ruling inconsistent with human dignity and rights, and simple justice. The Court, on April 14, refused to accept an appeal from a 12-year-old boy who had been sentenced to 30 years without parole, whose argument was that his sentence amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The case was summarized by Bill Mears of CNN, whose expertise I now defer to:

Christopher Pittman’s defenders argued the sentence was excessive for someone that age, and claim heavy doses of antidepressants, he
was taking at the time, sent his mind spinning out of control. Now 19, Pittman was convicted three years ago of killing his grandparents with a shotgun as they slept, then setting the house on fire. The county prosecutor in South Carolina argued “it was as malicious a murder as you’re ever going to find.” The justices, without comment, refused to intervene. At issue was whether the state properly used its discretion to try Pittman as an adult, whether the sentence was excessive, and whether mitigating factors should apply.

Outside a death-penalty context, the high court has offered little recent guidance on how to treat underaged defendants. Pittman’s lawyers
argued no other inmate in the United States is serving so severe a sentence for a crime committed at such an early age. The inmate’s legal
team, from the University of Texas Law School, expressed disappointment at the high court’s refusal to accept the case.

Michele Deitch, an attorney and adjunct professor, speculated that the justices “may have recognized a growing national trend against sentencing young children to harsh mandatory terms in prison, and wants to give state legislatures the opportunity to correct this problem
before it rules on the issue.” Deitch and other lawyers worked on the case for free, since Pittman could not afford to pay the extensive legal
costs. Pittman, now 6 feet 2 inches tall, works grounds maintenance at an adult correctional facility outside Columbia, South Carolina. He
received a GED high school equivalency in 2006.

With the High Court’s denial of his appeal, Pittman has few legal options to have his sentence reduced. Under his current sentence, he would be released from prison in his mid-40s. He has a separate civil lawsuit against the state, alleging his court-appointed trial lawyers were ineffective. At the time of the crime, the boy had bounced around homes for years, experiencing a half dozen family splits and divorces after his mother had twice abandoned him as a child. She has not been in Pittman’s life for years. Joe Pittman, the boy’s father, raised Christopher Pittman and his sister for much of their lives, but the relationship between father and son deteriorated. A state psychologist later testified this was a “young man who’d had difficulty with the adults in his life.”

After threatening to harm himself and suffering other emotional incidents, the boy was diagnosed as clinically depressed. His lawyers said Pittman was then given Paxil, a mild antidepressant no longer recommended for those under 18. In the midst of these episodes, the youngster
was allowed to live temporarily with his paternal grandparents in Chester County, about halfway between Columbia, South Carolina, and Charlotte, North Carolina. The family said Joe and Joy Pittman had been a source of stability for young Christopher earlier in his life.

On November 28, 2001, Pittman was sent home early for fighting in school and sent to bed by the grandparents. The boy claimed his
‘Pop-Pop’ also beat him with a belt as punishment. Christopher later admitted taking a pump-action shotgun and shooting his grandparents
to death in their bedroom shortly before midnight. Prosecutors said he then set the house on fire to cover his tracks, took the family
SUV, his golden retriever and a cache of weapons, and fled. He was arrested hours later on a remote gravel road in a nearby county. Just
days before, a doctor had begun prescribing Zoloft, another antidepressant.

The family contends the abrupt substitution of drugs caused a bad chemical reaction, triggering violent outbursts. At trial, a parade of psychiatrists offered conflicting testimony on whether the boy’s emotional problems excused his criminal behavior. Prosecutors called the Zoloft defense a “smokescreen.” The jury took less than a day to find Pittman guilty. Because he had been transferred from juvenile
to adult court, the judge was not allowed to take his age into account at sentencing. Pittman received the shortest possible term for murder, 30 years without parole. Juror Steven Platt later told CNN the crime appeared deliberate. “It always seemed like the defense was grasping at
straws,” he said. “Just because you take prescription medicine doesn’t mean you can’t be held accountable for your actions.”

Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft, would not comment on the current appeal, but said after the verdict the drug “didn’t cause his [Pittman’s]
problems, nor did the medication drive him to commit murder. On these two points, both Pfizer and the jury agree.” The Food and Drug Administration in 2004 ordered Zoloft and other such medications to carry warnings of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in children.

Pittman’s sister, Danielle Pittman Fincher, said afterward, “I know for a fact that there is absolutely no possible way my brother in his current state of mind could have done something like that.” The Supreme Court in 2005 banned the death penalty for underage killers. The justices in that case cited evolving “national standards” as a reason to ban such executions. Attorney Michael Sturley said 41 states do not punish 12-year-olds as South Carolina does. And none has allowed as harsh a sentence as Pittman was given. “There are no 12-year-old monsters,” said Duprey. Pittman’s attorney’s sought to utilize, by analogy, a previous ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v Simmons, which outlawed the application of the death penalty to juveniles. As reported by Wikipedia, “the appeal challenged the constitutionality of capital punishment for persons who were juveniles when their crimes were committed, citing the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Previously, a 1988 Supreme Court decision Thompson v Oklahoma barred execution of offenders under the age of 16. In 1989, another case, Stanford v Kentucky upheld the possibility of capital punishment for offenders who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed the capital offense. The same day in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Penry v Lynaugh, that it was permissible to execute the mentally retarded. However, in 2002, that decision was overruled in Atkins v Virgina, where the Court held that evolving standards of decency had made the execution of the mentally retarded cruel and unusual punishment and thus unconstitutional.

Under the “evolving standards of decency” test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy cited a body of sociological and scientific research that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility as compared with adults. Adolescents were found to be overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior. The Court noted that in recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, almost every state prohibited those under the age of 18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent. The studies also found that juveniles are more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures,
including peer pressure. They have less control, or experience with control, over their own environment.

They also lack the freedom that adults have, in escaping a setting. The United States Supreme Court did not accept the argument that on a similar line of reasoning, life without parole, and giving such long prison sentences to juveniles, should be banned.

Analysis


While Roper v Simmons should be lauded as a good ruling in outlawing the application of the death penalty for juveniles, the Court clearly should have taken the next step and intervened in the Pittman case and disrupted the imposition of a 30-year sentence for a crime committed by a 12-year-old. While I can in no way justify the committing of a murder, what is stark to me is that the imposition of a 30-year prison sentence upon a 12-year old, whatever the crime, is sheer brutality, defies logic and common sense. The same arguments made in Roper by the Court are also true when considering the issue of life sentences for juveniles:

• Recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, as evidenced by almost every state prohibited those under
age 18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent;

• Juveniles being more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure;

• Juveniles have less control, or experience with control, over their own environment.

How is it that children aren’t regarded as mature enough to be allowed to vote, but are mature enough to be given a sentence like that? Does Pittman really require a 30-year prison sentence in order to rehabilitate him? Children are not adults. They do not have the mind to premeditate a murder in the same way that adults can. They are often not aware of what the prison sentence for a given crime may be,
so there is really no deterence effect of imposing or allowing such a sentence to stand. Instead, all that it serves to accomplish is to show
how brutal some states are, and how unjust the Court is.

If, indeed, the reason the Court ducked the issue was because they were waiting for state legislatures to fix the problem, I must take issue
with that notion on several levels. Firstly, that doesn’t prevent the injustice perpetrated on Pittman. Secondly, considering that most
politicians do not do things because it is the right thing to do morally, it is indeed a steep hill to climb to get state legislatures to revoke draconian laws, because in the furtherance of their careers many want to be perceived as “tough on crime”, to the point that they will support anything or uphold anything.

Thirdly, as the head steward of the judiciary, the United States Supreme Court is supposed to ensure that justice is being done. That doesn’t happen when it refuses to step in and answer important questions. I also think that, taking in the world at large as a context, enabling such a policy to remain in place doesn’t put our country in a good moral position to question other countries about human rights.

I think that the Court’s ruling in the above-mentioned Atkins case, in which they signed off on the execution of a mentally retarded person, was a particular low moment. Does it not follow, by way of common sense, that a mentally retarded person does not fully understand what they are doing? The perception of prisoners, and of minorities, the non-rich, many of the middle class, and more and more people are realizing, as more and more cases fail to meet with justice, that the confidence people have in the High Court, is becoming less and less. The court’s general mindset is now extreme. I think that too often, the immortal dissent of Butler, J. in the case Olmstead v United States, is
ignored. Justice Butler declared, “If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a
law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

If I was totally in the right, as I was when I applied for permission to appeal to them while wrongfully incarcerated, with the facts and circumstances of a case, I would not want the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on it, because I have zero confidence in them. After reading about the previous cases in the last two issues, would you?

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester

The Implications Of Expanding “287g” Legislation

New York State Assemblyman Greg Ball, (R)-Carmel, recently introduced legislation to expand the federal government’s 287(g) Program. is program provides training to local, county, and state law enforcement officials as to how to initiate deportation proceedings for illegal aliens involved in crime. Matt Neuringer, Legislative Director for Assemblyman Ball, told The Guardian, “this (proposed) law is one of the most comprehensive 287(g) legislations in the nation. We are not only addressing illegal immigrant criminals, but also the hiring practices of businesses in hiring these individuals.”


According to Neuringer, “ The average illegal alien criminal has a recidivating rate of 8 times; 30% of those who cross our southern border already have a past criminal history; 287(g) serves as a deterrent”. Neuringer stated that New York State currently spends over $165 million annually on the incarceration of illegal aliens.

Many opponents to the proposed The Implications Of Expanding “287g” Legislation 287(g) legislation argue that the vehicle is already in place. Indeed, Neuringer admitted that “Currently 43 out of the 62 counties in New York State accept federal funding through a State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).

According to the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), “SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.” Neuringer claims that the federal government only reimburses 20% of the actual costs incurred by the states. However, according to the BJA website, their reimbursement rate
is 33.5%. e actual dollars distributed would support this calculation. In 2007, New York State received over $53 million in SCAAP. If indeed the state spent $165 million on incarceration of illegal alien criminals, $53 million represents approximately a 32% reimbursement.
In 2007, Westchester County received $515,410 from this Federal program.

Assemblyman Ball stressed, “My objective is to make sure that the 287(g) focuses like a surgical laser on criminal illegal aliens. It is not about the larger immigration issue.” Ball noted that he is currently working on legislation to provide assistance to legal immigrants to obtain services and find employment.

“The immigration process we have now penalizes individuals who obey the law. I believe we should expand the visas but complimented with securing our borders.” Ball stated. “The New York economy needs a strong influx of immigrants to grow. But we need the federal government
to take on more of the burden. This legislation would assure that we would get federal dollars,” he said. Ball dismissed the criticism of the legislation by local law enforcement groups who stated that they already have these methods and programs in place. Ball observed, “While law enforcement is working hard and doing their jobs, there are still tens of thousands of illegal alien criminals going back into our Communities”.

Neuringer implied that Assemblyman Ball’s 287(g) legislation would be a useful tool in combating terrorism. Assemblyman Ball had said, “New York is the second greatest target after Jerusalem. One day before 9/11, four of the terrorists were pulled over for a traffic stop. One of the terrorists had overstayed his visa so he was here illegally”. Neuringer noted that the 287(g) legislation would provide local law enforcement officials with access to federal databases to make identifications in those types of situations. But Neuringer admitted that the
terrorists had over 200 different identity documents.

As The Guardian noted in the Broudwiack case, one of the difficulties that law enforcement has had in verifying one’s status is whether the identification the individual is providing is accurate to begin with. The Guardian was informed in that particular case, by law enforcement officials, that seasoned career criminals are quite adept at evading identification. Even if a law enforcement official has the federal database at his/her disposal, they need correct information to input, to begin with, or else the data base is worthless. Accountants refer to this information as “garbage in, garbage out!

Further, as The Guardian reported in the Broudwiack case, the data bases are not consistent nationally. What may be a felony in one state is often a misdemeanor in another. Also, states do not have the funding or resources to provide historical information to these databases so
that old criminal records are always accessible. Broudwiack was a repeat sex offender who had been previously deported and was detained in Port Chester during a traffic stop.

However, he escaped incarceration after making bail and his current whereabouts are still unknown. Assemblyman Ball notes that his legislation would prevent such outcomes since it would allow for a judge to detain an individual who cannot prove their identity for a three-day period before posting bail. This proposal is very similar to the British detention laws in Northern Ireland which allowed that government to detain suspects for up to one week. Despite the fact that the British law was ruled to be a violation of human rights conventions by a European Union Court, this did not prevent similar laws from being enacted throughout Europe.

In October of last year, German newspapers reported that, due to a new wave of anti-terrorism legislation, political opponents and investigative journalists have come under attack in a “crime of association”. The newspapers reported groups being held under these laws who do not fit the description of terrorist organizations. Under Ball’s proposed legislation, anyone detained by the police who cannot prove their identity can be detained for three days. However, many individuals who are poor, mentally-ill, suffering from dementia/memory or
health problems, and even victims of crimes may be unable to immediately prove their identities and could fall into this category for detention and incarceration. Many current immigrants have escaped persecution in their home countries.

According to Carola Bracco, the Executive Director of Neighbor’s Link, an immigrant assistance organization in Mt. Kisco, “Most of the individuals we work with are Moms and Dads and their children. They have strong values and an incredible work ethic. They also have an incredible amount of courage.” But Bracco still notes that their fear over the impending legislation is ‘significant’. He told The Guardian, “Our members want to be part of the community. They want to be integrated. But this legislation will make them afraid of the police. They will be afraid to report crimes and employers who mistreat them”.

Bracco noted that the immigrants she works with have a strong relationship with the Mount Kisco Police Department now. She noted, “We
have the police department come here and run workshops. Over one hundred people will attend. Everyone in the room is looking for a safe community,” Bracco stressed.

Bracco is concerned about the language used by some of the individuals with respect to this issue. “People are not ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’”, she stressed. She stated, “This is about documentation. The people we deal with are ‘undocumented’. They want to be part of our community.
They have an appreciation for our community and what our volunteers and organizations do for them.” Bracco noted “Solutions on these issues come forward when people work together”.

Cecilia Bikkal, an immigration attorney in White Plains, agreed with Bracco that most immigrants want to be here legally. Bikkal stressed that the immigrants she deals with pay taxes and receive limited or no benefits in return. She said, “The first thing I advise my clients is to file and pay their federal income taxes. Even if an employer is paying them in cash, they can obtain a 1099 form and a tax identification number and report their cash earned”. Bikkal noted that certification for an immigrant to become legal can take years and during that time period “they are not entitled to receive unemployment, nor social security or Medicare or Medicaid, or health benefits, unless their employer provides
them. So, even though they are paying taxes, they receive no benefits from those taxes in return”. Bikkal noted further, “All immigrants are paying sales taxes into our local communities; and, if they own property, they are paying real estate taxes as well”.

Ball’s proposed legislation has drawn the attention of national groups, the “Families of 9/11” among them. He notes this group as the co-host of his website, http://www.operationsecureny.com/. However, not all members of the 9/11 Families support Ball’s legislation. In her speech following Ball’s forum at the Mahopac Library on April 19 on this issue, Valerie Lucznikowska, an aunt of a 9/11 victim, claims, “Partisan political groups and individuals attempt to blur the real problems of this country – that of a failing economy dependent on foreign oil skyrocketing in price, the lack of health care that places the United States at the bottom of the list of developed countries, the falling number of good jobs available, growing unemployment, and the soaring national debt. They are trying to replace those real problems with a fear of others who are not like us – ‘the others’ – foreigners. They are playing on emotions to hide their failures”.

Lucznikowska agreed with the arguments of the local law enforcement agencies in opposition to this legislation, stating, “We should be worrying about the budgets for our local police, schools and other services that have been slashed by reduced federal aid because our money is going to a failed war that was started with lies. Turning our local police forces into immigration police is not making us safer, it is doing
the opposite, taking them away from the real concerns of any local police force”.

Local community organizations representing numerous ethnic groups have formed a coalition, The Hudson Valley Community Coalition, to address these issues. Prominent amongst their members are Irish and Asian communities, as well as Hispanic groups, all equally frustrated
over current immigration laws. In 2006, Ireland received only 54 Lottery Visas and 1,906 Green Cards. The Irish immigrant groups’ frustration over immigration policies has attracted the attention of Senators McCain and Clinton, both of whom have advocated overall
reform. Jon Riley, a spokesperson for the Coalition, spoke to The Guardian about their mutual concerns. “I don’t know anyone who is in favor of illegal immigration.


I don’t know anyone who is in favor of criminals. I know people who want a sane immigration policy that can be strictly enforced.” Riley stated. “What is good for America is that we have the right people to do the right jobs. Immigration Policy should reflect the needs of the country, from the intellectuals to the laborers.” Riley continued, “Immigration Policy is a federal responsibility. The government’s inability to legislate a workable system has led it to talk tough, but allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented people to fill the voids in the economy. Failure is too kind a word for the inaction of our national leadership.

Instead of reforming the system, the Federal Government has come up with an alleged policy, which simply gives the illusion of action: 287g. This does nothing for America”.

Riley had strong words for the proposed legislation: “287g is not a cure for federal incompetence. It is not a substitute for intelligent immigration reform. 287g may even be well intentioned. But, it is being used by the worst political panderers. It gives them a pass on viable
solutions. We are getting fear mongerers when we need leaders. That may be good for a local politician, but it is bad for America.”

The Coalition addressed the residents of the Hudson Valley in an open letter dated April 19, 2008. In this letter, co-signed by thirty-five local organizations from police associations to ethnic groups, the Coalition stressed, “We believe such actions will undermine trust and cooperation between police and the communities they are sworn to protect, divert law enforcement resources away from more important policing activities, lead to costly mistakes and civil rights violations, and make us all less safe”.

The Coalition notes, “Like all Americans, we are concerned about public safety and security. We want to protect our families and our communities from crime and terrorism. We also understand that serious and comprehensive immigration reform is needed to resolve our country’s immigration problems. “

All of these groups agree that they want a safe community. As Ms. Bracco pointed out, many of the immigrants she deals with escaped unsafe environments themselves. Like Ms. Bracco and the Hudson Valley Community Coalition, they want to work together to resolve
this issue so that we all can be safe in our communities.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

In Our Opinion...

It Shouldn’t Be All About Ratings; The Truth Matters

So now We are being told that Jeanine Pirro will be doing a Judge Judy-style show on the CW Network come September. Of course, We have heard similar predictions before; first, more than three years ago when she, and her County-paid mouthpiece, Annmarie Corbalis, told us she would be doing a gig on Court TV, and again, about a year ago, when We were told she would be doing a similar stint for Warner Communications. We wish to make it clear that We believe that everyone has the right to earn a living; and, We need not remind
anyone how fiercely We advocate Freedom of Speech.

However, having said that, a number of issues regarding Jeanine Pirro and the role she now claims she will be playing on television in about four months, bear reflection. For one thing, we have noticed, over the years, that the frequency of her television appearances always markedly increase when she is in the deepest “poop”. She seems to labor under the impression that she cannot, and will not, be brought to account for her prosecutorial misconduct and her various criminal acts if she is at the peak of her celebrity.

Here in Westchester, while she was District Attorney, there were times when she appeared on NEWS12 just about every other day. Her internet “stink”, alone, between July of 1999, beginning with the DeCarlo case, and December of 2005, when she left office, entailed approximately 110 cases, every one of which was turned into a “public hanging” on television. In fact, she was barely in office a year when Geraldo Rivera made her a television fixture in the O.J. Simpson trial, a mistake he continues to pay for.

The fact is, the People of Westchester are far more savvy and truthful about Jeanine Pirro than the media can ever allow themselves to be. NEWS12 was, no doubt, somewhat surprised by the results of a survey they ran last Monday in which they asked viewers to indicate whether they would be watching Pirro’s new show come September. A mere 26 percent said they would. The Journal News gave her hyped-up announcement front-page billing.

We believe the CW Network has done a very poor job of vetting their prospective new “judge” unless what they have in mind is Theater Of The Absurd or something with the integrity and intellectual appeal of the Jerry Springer Show. After all, if it’s a judge that she will be portraying, she ought to be someone whose own history, both personal and professional, represent models to be emulated. Surely, if that be the case, she fails on both counts.

We are not particularly concerned with her personal life, nor should we be, except where it has intersected, and interfered with, her official position and sworn duties. The fact that she was not named in a 67-count federal indictment for income tax evasion and fraud, 38 counts
of which her spouse was tried, convicted, and slapped on the wrist for, in no way mitigates her pro-active role between 1988 and 1997 in nine of ten years of their joint tax fraud. Her personal aggressive participation came through in damning testimony at trial despite the
political decision by then-United States Attorney Mary Jo White, to name only Al for fear that Jeanine’s “popularity” might derail the prosecution.

We do not believe that a person who committed so many acts of prosecutorial misconduct over a 12-year period: Arranging the kidnapping of Jing Kelly’s infant son Tristram; withholding 376 pages and 52 boxes and miles of audio tape of exculpatory information from Anthony DiSimone while allowing Nick Djonovic, the confessed actual killer of Louis Balancio, to escape; coercing witnesses and altering evidence to turn the justifiable self-defense killing of Charles Campbell by police officer Richard DiGuglielmo into a bias crime; the retaliatory prosecution of Marcy Stein, whose husband worked in the office of Mary Jo White; and, no fewer than six times preventing the testing of DNA material, over a period of six years, that she knew would have proven the innocence of Jeffrey Deskovic, a mere fraction of the self-serving, demonic acts she engaged in, can possibly qualify for consideration by any serious media outlet to act in the capacity of a judge.

Our Readers Respond....

Political Opponent Takes Issue With Supervisor Paul Feiner

Dear Editor


Before you advise someone else to “clean up his house,” your house should be spotless, or at least clean. Paul Feiner has been in charge of Greenburgh, the largest town in the county, second largest in the state, since 1991. After all those years, he is administratively, managerially
and financially challenged.

Payroll is on an upward trajectory; overtime is uncontrolled; capital projects have no oversight ( at least by someone conversant with the industry; taxes are in a double digit mode, to name but a few accomplishments. Policies are rati-fied on a Monday only to be disregarded by Wednesday (no exaggeration.) Ethics codes are rewritten to prevent acceptance of gifts of value from people with business before the Town, and these very same people cater events at which the author of the rewrite of the code is in attendance along with the Supervisor (Feiner who voted for the “new improve version”), fellow Board members, the Chairman of the Ethics board, as well as chairs of other boards- Zoning, Planning, building commissioner. In short, the people who decide.

With as blemished a track record as his, would you or Andy Spano “buy an idea,” fro Paul Feiner? On the other hand, when you need “Gimmicks-R-Us,” Paul’s your guy. While we’re at it, if he want to “investigate” the effi-cacy” of having a county government, I would like similar treatment. I would like to “investigate the “efficacy” of Greenburgh town government. The six villages within our town work very cost effectively. So why not create villages in Edgemont, Hartsdale, Fairview and North Greenburgh?

The school districts work. The village governments work. The DPW work. The libraries work. Son of a gun, come to think of it, if everything works why do we have to send money to determine the known? IT WORKS! So let’s do away with Greenburgh Town government; find a job for Paul at a sales promotion company; divvy up the people in the existing departments that are really necessary, and save a boatload of taxes?

Sometimes redundant systems do work. Sorry Paul, you should not have jiggled my mind.

Ed Krauss, Scarsdale, N.Y.

Janet Difiore.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Attempt To Resolve Harrison
Police Brutality Incident
Witnesses Unwilling To Speak With Police Chief

Two weeks ago, in the May 1st issue of The Guardian, the Advocate column, in a piece entitled, “Harrison: A Town Under Siege By Its Police Department,” had revealed an incident which had occurred three weeks earlier. Witnesses had alleged that Harrison Police Captain
Anthony Marraccini, while off-duty and dressed in civilian clothing, had engaged in the brutal beating, together with his brother-in-law
Robert Luiso, of 21-year-old Harrison town employee John Carollo in the roadway of Halstead Avenue, outside Al Dente Bar & Restaurant,
at 1:30 in the morning in the pouring rain. Marraccini was reported to have been drinking, and to have instigated the incident, dragging
Carollo outside the bar and holding him down while Luiso repeatedly kicked the youngster about his head and face.

The Guardian received information that Town Supervisor Joan Walsh had reportedly called upon Police Chief Dave Attempt To Resolve Harrison Police Brutality Incident Witnesses Unwilling To Speak With Police Chief Hall to open an investigation into the incident in light of our exclusive published report, and the fact that individuals had contacted her office indicating that they had witnessed the incident, and were
willing to speak to police, but that Hall had refused her request. That information prompted The Guardian to contact Hall.

Reached at his of-fice, Harrison Police Chief Hall confirmed that Supervisor Walsh had contacted him and requested an investigation into the beating of Carollo, but he denied having refused to proceed. Hall claimed that Supervisor Walsh had refused to turn over the names of the witnesses because they were unwilling to speak with him. He further advised The Guardian that he had not received any complaint,
and that he had statements from other individuals who indicated that the victim, Carollo, had been “belligerent and aggressive.”

We pointed out the reality that witnesses who were willing to come forward with unfavorable information about someone with Marraccini’s high rank, reputation, and influence in the police department, would justifiably be concerned about making their disclosure, while Marraccini
was actively engaged carrying a gun and a badge. We suggested that Hall might suspend him, with pay, while an investigation of the incident, and his role in it, was in progress. We advised him that we would attempt to reach Supervisor Walsh, and would get back to him.

Reached at her office, and informed by The Guardian that Chief Hall had claimed that he had not gone forward with her requested investigation into the Carollo incident because she had refused to give him the names of those who had approached her, Walsh explained
that she would not be unwilling, but that the witnesses specifically indicated that they did not want to be interviewed by Hall, but had
named two Harrison police offi-cers they would be willing to speak to. Walsh made a point of stating that she had not taken the accounts of the incident from the witnesses.

Having clarified the issue with Walsh, The Guardian immediately got back to Chief Hall. Hall repeated his earlier claim that he had not received a complaint, either from the alleged victim, or anyone else and then, referring to Walsh, he asked, “Why doesn’t she go to the DA’s Of-fice?” We reminded Hall that most Harrison residents have come to understand the relationship of the DA’s Office to the activities of his
department, specifically involving disputes between high-ranking of-ficers and rank and file police, as well as civilians. We then reiterated
our continuing position that if any outside agency should be involved, it was the FBI, given the civil rights implications of the alleged incident.

There followed several barbs back and forth. Hall repeated his earlier claim that nobody had filed a complaint, not even the bar owner,
who he volunteered was also injured. He did, however, finally agree to permit Harrison police officers other than himself to interview the
witnesses Walsh was aware of. Having secured that understanding with Hall, we proceeded to immediately re-contact Supervisor Walsh to inform her. Walsh responded favorably, but asked if the interviewing officers might be two that the witnesses had specified. We indicated that having secured the Chief ’s agreement to proceed with an investigation without his having to personally interview the witnesses,
we did not feel that we were in the position to determine those who would interview, but that we were confident that she could “negotiate
an acceptable outcome.”

The Guardian will continue to closely monitor developments.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

United States Attorney Announces Indictment Of
International Arms Dealer For Conspiracy
To Kill Americans And Related Terrorism Charges

United States Attorney
Southern District of New York

MICHAEL J. GARCIA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and MICHELE M. LEONHART, the Acting
Administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), announced the unsealing of an Indictment against international arms dealer VIKTOR BOUT, a/k/a “Boris,” a/k/a “Victor Anatoliyevich Bout,” a/k/a “Victor But,” a/k/ a “Viktor Budd,” a/k/a “Viktor Butt,” a/k/a “Viktor Bulakin,” a/k/a “Vadim Markovich Aminov,” for, among other things, conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (the “FARC”), a designated foreign terrorist organization based in Colombia, to be used to kill Americans in Colombia. BOUT was arrested by Thai authorities on a provisional arrest warrant on April 9,
2008, based on a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

BOUT has been in custody in Thailand since March 6, 2008. According to the Indictment unsealed in Manhattan Federal Court:
BOUT, an international weapons trafficker since the 1990s, has carried out his weapons trafficking business by assembling a fleet of cargo airplanes capable of transporting weapons and military equipment to various parts of the world, including Africa, South America and
the Middle East. In 2004, as a result of his weapons trafficking activities in Liberia, the United States Of-fice of Foreign Assets Control within the Department of Treasury placed BOUT on the Specially Designated Nationals list, which prohibits any transactions between
BOUT and any U.S. nationals, and freezes any of BOUT’s assets that are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Between November 2007 and March 2008, BOUT agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars’ worth of weapons – including surface-to air missile systems (“SAMs”), armor piercing rocket launchers, AK-47 firearms, millions of rounds of ammunition, Russian spare parts for
rifles, anti-personnel land mines, C-4 plastic explosives, nightvision equipment, “ultra-light” airplanes that could be outfitted with grenade launchers and missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

BOUT agreed to sell the weapons to two confidential sources working with the DEA (the “CSs”), who represented that they were acquiring
these weapons for the FARC, with the specific understanding that the weapons were to be used to attack United States helicopters in Colombia. As described in the Indictment, during a covertly recorded meeting in Thailand on March 6, 2008, BOUT stated to the CSs that he
could arrange to airdrop the arms to the FARC in Colombia, and offered to sell two cargo planes to the FARC that could be used for arms deliveries. BOUT also provided a map of South America, and asked the CSs to show him American radar locations in Colombia. BOUT said that he understood that the CSs wanted the arms for use against American personnel in Colombia, and advised that the United States was also his enemy, stating that the FARC’s fight against the United States was also his fight. During the meeting, BOUT also offered to provide people to train the FARC in the use of the arms.

The Indictment unsealed charges BOUT with four separate terrorism offenses:

Count One: Conspiracy to kill United States nationals;

Count Two: Conspiracy to kill United States officers or employees;

Count Three: Conspiracy to acquire and use an antiaircraft missile; and

Count Four: Conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

If convicted, BOUT faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on each of Counts One through Three, including a mandatory minimum
sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for Count Three. BOUT faces a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment on Count Four. The case
is assigned to United States District Judge SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN.

The United States is actively pursuing BOUT’s extradition from Thailand. Mr. GARCIA praised the investigative work of the DEA and thanked the Royal Thai Police, Office of the Attorney General for Thailand, and the Royal Thai government for their assistance. Mr. GARCIA also thanked the Romanian Border Police, the Romanian Prosecutor’s Office Attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Korps Politie Curacao of the Netherlands Antilles, and the Danish National Police Security Services, for their cooperation, and thanked the U.S. Department of Justice Office of International Affairs.

“Viktor Bout has long been considered by the international community as one of the world’s most prolific arms traffickers,” said U.S. Attorney MICHAEL J. GARCIA. “Today, Bout is in Thai custody facing extradition to the United States, where he will be prosecuted for agreeing to arm a terrorist organization, an aim of which was to kill American citizens.” “Viktor Bout no doubt faces some of the most extraordinarily serious conspiracy charges possible for his crimes against Americans,” said DEA Acting Administrator MICHELE M.
LEONHART. “With the unsealing of this indictment, we are one step closer to ensuring Bout has delivered his last load of high-powered weaponry and armed his final terrorist.”

Assistant United States Attorneys ANJAN SAHNI and BRENDAN R. McGUIRE are in charge of the prosecution. The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

U.S. Supreme Court Continues To Make
Rulings Inconsistent With Basic Human
Rights, Decency, And Justice
Part 1

By Jeff Deskovic

As I wrote a few weeks ago in a two part series, the entire appellate process, beginning with the state court system all the way through
the federal courts, is woefully inadequate to protect the wrongfully convicted. A portion of that article dealt with the fact that the United
States Supreme Court routinely does not do ensure that justice is done in each case, either because of rulings that are inconsistent with justice, fairness, and basic human rights, or, more usually, by simply ducking the responsibility to rule on issues at all merely declining to hear cases.

On April 17, 2008, it once again fell short of living up to it’s awesome responsibility. Constitutionality Of Lethal Injection The case Baze v. Rees concentrated on the Constitutionality of the lethal injection procedure, the form of execution used in most states that engage in capital punishment. Specifically, two Kentucky prisoners claimed that the method of lethal injection posed a significant enough risk of misadministration and excruciating pain that its use, even when properly administered, constituted cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.

At the heart of the Baze case was a hypothetical scenario vividly portraying what Baze might experience if the execution protocol was not
followed precisely. Under the three drug protocol used in Kentucky, the first drug administered is a barbiturate that is intended to render the
inmate unconscious. Next, the inmate receives a dose of a drug that causes total paralysis. Finally, potassium chloride is injected to stop the
heart.

The concern is that if the first drug fails to work properly the inmate will remain mentally aware as the other drugs are injected. Medical
experts agree that a condemned inmate will endure unbearable pain and suffering from the injection of the potassium chloride. But because
he has just been paralyzed by the second drug, the inmate will be unable to show any sign of distress. To an observer, the inmate may appear to have gone peacefully to sleep. But some experts say the inmate may, in fact, be fully conscious and in agony during his final moments of life.

A split court voted 7-2 to uphold Kentucky’s use of a three-drug protocol, saying the state has adequate safeguards to ensure inmates won’t endure significant pain. Two inmates argued that the state’s procedure violated the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. “Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of objectively intolerable risk of harm that qualifies as cruel and unusual,’’ wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court’s lead opinion.

Justices Alito and Kennedy concurred with Roberts’ opinion. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Stevens and Breyer, all said they agreed with the result, though not with Roberts’ reasoning. Thomas, writing for himself and Scalia, said that an execution method is unconstitutional “only if
it is deliberately designed to inflict pain.’’ Dissenting Justices Ginsburg and Souter, along with Breyer (who had agreed with the decision), said Roberts’ opinion made it too diff-icult for inmates to challenge an execution method as unconstitutional.

All said they would outlaw execution methods that create “untoward, readily avoidable risk of in-flicting severe and unnecess-ary pain.’’
Breyer said the Kentucky inmates failed to show that risk existed, while Ginsburg and Souter said they would return the case to the lower courts to reconsider the issue My views on the death penalty are fairly well-known to readers of The Guardian. It brings with it the
inevitability that innocent people will be executed. In New York, over a stretch of ten months, six people who had been convicted of murder
had been proven innocent by DNA, in cases which if there had been a death penalty, they would likely have received it.

If I personally had been eighteen rather than sixteen at the time of my wrongful conviction, I would have received the death penalty, my appeals having been exhausted in 2001 and not being cleared until 2006, I would never have lived long enough to prove my innocence.
Aside from that, the racism involved with the death penalty, the arbitrariness with which it is decided who gets it; and the drain of financial resources that it creates, not to mention the continued pain and suffering of victim family members who have to keep reliving it through
the increased media attention cases bring throughout the appeals process, and the classism involved in that rich people are never sentenced
to death, all make the death penalty something society would be far better without.

That having been said, this case is about methodology of lethal injection. The case of Angel Diaz, ex-ecuted on Dec. 13, 2006, in Florida,
was an example of the pain and suffering that can take place as the result of lethal injections. Diaz bucked and grimaced during his execution,
which took more than twice as long as usual. An investigation determined corrections employees pierced needles through his veins, causing the chemicals to spray into his flesh — prolonging his death and very likely causing great pain. What’s even more frightening is the fact that in most cases, it is impossible to tell what type of suffering the condemned is undergoing, because he or she is unable to move.

The fact that it has been banned in euthanasia of animals, an argument raised to the court, speaks volumes to the inhumanity in applying this to human beings. Yet the United States Supreme Court had no problem in signing off on that. In the course of the opinion of the case, the Judges made a variety of statements that are disturbing. Justice Stevens wrote “The imposition of the death penalty represents the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purpose. A penalty with such negligible
returns to the State [is] patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment violative of the Eighth Amendment”. If the penalty is cruel
and unusual, then the method must be as well. Yet he betrays his own conscience and votes with the majority in rejecting the challenge!!

Chief Judge Roberts wrote: “If [the paralyzing agent] pancuronium is too cruel for animals, the argument goes, then it must be too cruel
for the condemned inmate.” Roberts further observerved, “Whatever rhetorical force the argument carries ... it overlooks the States’ legitimate interest in providing for a quick, certain death.” Simply put, if it has been rejected for animals, how is it that basic human decency does not require that it be banned for humans? This is no mere “rhetoric”. It is instead a legitimate point that has yet to be ruled on regarding the merits and refuted. It instead has everyday flesh-and-blood implications. There are currently thousands of prisoners sitting on death row throughout this country.

Justice Scalia wrote, “There is a risk that an innocent person might be convicted and sentenced to death—though not a risk that Justice Stevens can quantify, because he lacks a single example of a person executed for a crime he did not commit in the current American system.”
Scalia shocking statement overlooks a variety of matters. Those sentenced to death are most often poor people who cannot afford to
hire quality lawyers and investigators to find additional evidence of innocence. There is therefore no telling how many innocent people
have been executed. In addition, most people who have been wrongfully convicted do not have anyone who is free to champion their cause.

Lacking that when they are still alive but awaiting execution, they certainly do not suddenly get advocates once they are executed. Further, the fact that there have been 215 DNA exonerations throughout the country, and many others achieved through means other than DNA shows that the system is broken. DNA has only been around since the late 1980’s. There is no telling how many people were
executed because the technology did not exist. What’s more, it is only available in 10% of all serious felony cases. There have been plenty of cases, where, in hindsight, people have looked back and expressed serious doubts about the person.

I also take issue with Justice Thomas’ statement, joined by Scalia, which states that “a punishment is only cruel and unusual if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain.” What if something was not intended to purposely inflict pain, but it had that effect? Would that be okay? Justice Roberts wrote “Kentucky had established a number of safeguards to prevent botched executions. They included requiring
members of the injection team to have at least one year of professional experience as a certified medical assistant or paramedic. In addition,
the state requires the warden and deputy warden to be present in the execution chamber and available to watch for problems. In light of
these safeguards, we cannot say that the risks identified by [the inmates] are so substantial or imminent as to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.”

Roberts continues, “Much of the [inmate’s] case rests on the contention that they have identified a significant risk of harm that can be
eliminated by adopting alternative procedures. But the Eighth Amendment does not require the invalidation of execution methods whenever
a slightly or marginally safer alternative is identified. Permitting an Eighth Amendment violation to be established on such a showing would threaten to transform courts into boards of inquiry charged with determining ‘best practices’ for executions”. My response to this statement
is that if a state chose not to adopt a safe alternative to a method that was used, then that would certainly trigger a violation of the cruel and
unusual clause of the Constitution. The fact that the Chief Judge of the United States Supreme Court would not see fit to step into such a case, is very troubling.

The U.S. Supreme Court, once a proud upholder of Constitutional Rights as in the Warren era, has sadly evolved into little more than an institution that will sign off on anything, with no conscience, in which right and wrong, guilt and innocence, human rights, and basic
human decency, are seen as unwarranted.

The Court can no longer be counted upon by anyone other than the State, it’s agents, those politically connected, and the wealthy. This is true to such an extent that when, on rare occasions, they do the right thing, it is regarded as an anomaly, rather than the other way around. How I long for a day when the court system is changed and, instead, is truly regarded as ‘The Halls Of Justice’, and when our Constitution can once again be regarded as something more than Swiss cheese with so many holes that the exceptions outweigh the Rules.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Dr. Shereen Bobrowsky, Disabled Victim Of Fraud, Tells How She Became Homeless

I am extremely dismayed with the Westchester DA’s Office. Even with all the stories I have heard, I have tried to keep an open mind. In 2006 ADA Russell Smith told my attorney, in court, “Show that the home is yours, and the Order of Protection should protect you.” Instead, I was removed from my home on a “Deed Allegation” in Yonkers Family Court with no hearing, even though I own my home, and even though they had no jurisdiction. Now, the petition is clearly based upon fraud, and I still sit a homeless homeowner, living from my car, disabled, and conflicted out of all help from Westchester County and the City of Yonkers.

I now have a decision from the New York State Department of State, where previously disbarred Attorney Herbert N. Posner, was now found guilty of Deed Fraud. On April 1, 2008, the decision, following a one-and-a-half-year-long investigation, verified the fraud. Mr. Posner admitted that he had prior knowledge that I was the homeowner since the 1995 deed, and deed agreement. He suborned perjury in my 81- year-old mother, to sign a document he knew to be false, and then signed it over to my brother in 2006. Mr. Posner admitted he had full knowledge that I was the owner, fee simple. With the decision that Mr. Posner filed a deed out of its chain of title, practicing fraud and deceit; my next question is who prosecutes the crime and who will help mend my family and put me back in my home? I am presently a homeless homeowner, kept out of a home for which I pay mortgage and taxes each month with my protected Social Security benefits. My
life’s savings is in my home, that I bought, with all contents, in 1995.

With the New York State Department of State decision in hand, I called the United States Attorney’s Office, who referred me to the FBI. After a lengthy conversation with their Fraud Division, I was told the next logical step was to press charges. I was told the Westchester DA would do this. I hesitated, because I had already entered a complaint against Mr. Posner and his disreputable title agency, on November
20, 2006, that was never investigated, and turned into a closed case. I called the DA on May 1, 2008 to be complete, and follow up on what the U.S. Attorney, and the FBI, said I should do.

On Thursday, May 1, at 9:50am, I called the Westchester DA’s Office, asking for ADA Citarella, who was apparently in charge of the prior complaint I had entered. I explained that although they had Dr. Shereen Bobrowsky, Disabled Victim Of Fraud, Tells How She Became Homeless closed that case, the attorney that I had complained about had recently been found guilty of Title And Deed Fraud, and I had been referred back to the DA’s office by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.

I was asked my name. After explaining who I was, I told the woman the date of the complaint, the attorney’s name, Herbert N. Posner, and spelled it out. I was told they did not want his name, they wanted my name. I spelled my name for them. I then heard the woman say, “That’s who it is; hang up on the f-----g c--t,” at which point the phone clicked, and they hung up on me. My heart sank. This was the office that was supposed to help me? A hang-up with profanities? A serious question comes to mind, and that is, why was Mr. Posner not prosecuted when his license to practice law was suspended for $500,000 in Mortgage Fraud in 1988, that I found in Grievance Committee
of Matter of Posner, 136 A.D.2d 236, 527 N.Y.S.2d 45.

Mr. Posner said he knows people; and he cannot get in trouble and, “not to f--- with him.” I am very troubled with this call. His private clients consist of persons such as Westchester Commissioner of Adult Protective Services, Diane Atkins, who I also saw. When she saw Mr. Posner’s name on the decision, she refused to open a File of Abuse to protect me as a disabled victim of fraud. I am extremely concerned with
the appearance of improprieties, at the very least. My question now is, “How do I go for help when the Westchester DA refuses to help prosecute a person who had been found guilty of fraud by the State Department of State. With Mr. Posner’s own admission that he knew that I was the owner of my home, fee simple, from the 1995 Deed and Deed Agreement. The Yonkers Police, working shoulder to shoulder with the Westchester DA’s Office, have repeatedly refused to accept any complaints from me, and now, the DA not only refuses to help me, but they have the nerve to hang up on me, spurting profanities, knowing full well that I am holding a guilty verdict, already rendered, against the attorney who committed fraud against me, along with his Title company.

I thank God for the New York State Department of State who did such an excellent investigation, though it took a while. They were neutral, polite, and humane. And I remain truly grateful. I do not understand why the District Attorney is doing this. The DA went out of her way to cover a police complaint that I had filed against Yonkers Police Office Renzi, who has been retaliiating against me, along with Yonkers Corporate Counsel.

The DA is still refusing to allow me back into my own home after the District Attorney’s attorney, Ms. Felix, stated to Federal District Judge Steven C. Robinson, that the DA had no reason not to modify the Temporary Order of Protection. Yet, on April 4, 2008, ADA Lowry, in Yonkers City Court, said, “The DA is opposed to any modification,” contrary to their representation in federal court. The DA also stated that they would call in Adult Protective Services to assess the situation first, which Judge Scatteretico-Naber, required. ADA
Lowry told the judge that Adult Protective was unable to help.

After I met personally with Adult Protective Services Manager, Natalie Siler, and Second Deputy Commissioner Diane Atkins, I was informed that no referral was ever requested by the DA’s office. There was misrepresentation to the Court that denied me my home, thus leaving me a “homeless homeowner.” As a consequence, the Temporary Order of Protection was extended for yet another full year, while I had no witness to question.

I have been forced to prove my home was my home; and I did. Then I received the decision from the New York State Department of State, showing fraud had been perpetrated by Attorney Posner, upon me; and, still I remain homeless with the entities that can, and should, act in my behalf; the Yonkers Police Department, the District Attorney’s Office, refusing to act. I was informed that Mr. Posner has an illegal
mortgage on my home, which is why he is aggressively working so hard, and using all of his connections, to keep me out of my
own home.

Who protects me; a physically disabled person in Westchester County. An attorney followed me for a day, and heard all of the hard facts for himself. I am conflicted out of all help as a homeless homeowner. I should be placed back into my home by the persons and entities who removed me, due to the fraud that has been perpetrated against me.

I am not the lone victim of Attorney Herbert N. Posner. He has hurt many other persons. I have found a few Afro-American victims. The complaints can stem from a simple failure to serve, followed by his deceitful claiming of service, which is a violation of Executive Law 130. If the fraud involved, a deed that he files, as in my case, it is a felony in addition.

My life and life essentials, with my health, are short on time. Mother’s Day is coming, and the DA and her staff will enjoy themselves while I remain deprived of my 81-year-old mother for another year. This is heinous. A failure to investigate is inexcusable. I asked Adult Protective Services whether they would consider investigation, and they refused. APS’s definition of an investigation consisted of asking an elderly
person whether they feared this person or that. That is absurd. To ask what is feared must also be accompanied by an investigation to see if there is an underlying reason for an allegation. However, APS said they do not get involved in that. My family must be put back together by the same Court who took us apart. The solution is easy; a neutral forensic evaluation of my mom and my brother, by an entity outside of Westchester due to the conflicts of interest. I read in The Guardian, where the DA’s Office spoke profanities, and tried to take it with a grain
of salt. However, I am totally disheartened that the Westchester DA’s Office really acts this way. it must not be condoned.

As a practicing physician, I treated many Yonkers police officers and city workers for years before my accident and injury. I never had a single complaint. Where are these people now? Do the few corrupt persons get to destroy the reputation of a Department that I trusted and believed in? I am not alone, and I ask all other victims of attorney Herbert N. Posner and judicial title insurance agency (Judicial Abstract)
to write to me, care of the editor of the Westchester Guardian, as well as all victims of the Westchester District Attorney’s Office who may have faced misconduct similar to that practiced against me.

I am presently engaged in actions in four courts, having taken out three loans for legal expenses. And, having little money for food and essentials, I still will not give up the home that is mine, which represents my life savings. With Posner’s guilty verdict, I should be declared innocent. But, if Posner is not prosecuted, I don’t forsee any relief, which could be given due to the fraud that has been orchestrated by Attorney Posner, who has unduly influenced my 81-year-old mother and my middle-aged brother, who was traumatized by the death of his daughter. Mr. Posner is a predator of all predators. I reach out to the District Attorney to do the right thing, and arrest him, and prosecute him, for his fraudulent acts.

Thursday, May 8, 2008


In Our Opinion...


Persistence Overcomes Resistance

If Larry Schwartz, Andy Spano, Bill Ryan, or any of their cadre of political appointees, have even the slightest notion that the petition drive launched last week by Paul Feiner, Joan Gronowski, and some 200 Westchester taxpayers was simply a momentary blip, a temporary
response to a tightened economy, that will quickly be abandoned when things loosen up, they are sadly mistaken.

Those who came out to the Will Library in Yonkers, from all over the County, were merely a vanguard, a fractional representation of those who will soon be joining the ranks of volunteers and demonstrators. The County Executive’s Office, and the Board of Legislators, haven’t a clue between them regarding the level of resentment and disgust homeowners, hard-working tax-paying families, have come to feel for them and their selfish antics.

After all, Westchester residents have known, for some time, that they are the most heavily taxed property owners in the nation. Given that fact, one wonders what characters, like Bill Ryan and Larry Schwartz, were thinking about. A County budget approaching $2 billion - $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Westchester - and a 40 percent pay hike wasn’t exactly throwing salt on taxpayers’ wounds, more like sulfuric acid. Trouble is, these greedy, money-driven politicos are too self-absorbed to give a moment’s thought to anyone else’s needs, anyone else’s feelings. They just don’t get it.

It’s one thing to abuse your constituency, but quite another to be in their face, especially when they are struggling just to make ends meet. Of course, Schwartz really has no concern about ordinary, hard-working people. He knows he’s “The Most Powerful Person In The County,” and he makes sure anyone, who may get in his way, even momentarily, even elderly, slower-moving gentlemen discover that fact. In simple language, he could care less how the People, who are footing the bill, might feel about $28,000 raises to part-time election commissioners
if it means he can keep those hacks loyal enough to him to fix still another election outcome when called upon.

No, those in County government did not anticipate the present uprising, the present “taxpayer revolt.” And, even now, they do not realize that there will be no turning back. Neither Paul Feiner, nor Joan Gronowski, are the least bit worried about Larry, or Andy, or any of their mob. And, those who have begun to enlist in the effort want nothing so much as to “throw the bums out.”

Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka hit the nail on the head when he told those gathered at the Will Library last week, “Power comes in numbers.” His prediction, that with each succeeding meeting, the petition drive will grow in number and influence, reflects his own success, less than two years ago, in dealing with Mayor Noam Bramson and the City Council of New Rochelle, who foolishly thought they would seize his commercial downtown property and turn it over to developer Louis Cappelli. Two hundred supporters, and 2,311 petition signatures delivered at the Council’s public hearing, together with firm assurances that the numbers would be more than doubled at the next hearing, turned the Mayor and the Council around 180 degrees, and Mr. Cappelli came to the table and paid a fair price for value received.

The families of Westchester must remain resolute, unwilling to be driven from their homes by the thoughtlessness and greed of self-serving politicians. The People must take back control by coming out in ever-increasing numbers, bringing friends and relatives with them, not
merely to carry petitions, but to vote the present crew right out of office; the Andy Spanos, the Bill Ryans, the Ken Jenkinses, the Jose Alvarados, and every other self-servant, replacing them with public servants.

With persistance, over time, positive results will be achieved and, Runaway County Government, which has become an unbearable financial burden, as well as an intrusive interfering force, will either be significantly brought under control or abolished altogether.

Our Readers Respond...

A Note Of Hope And Thanks


Dear Editor:

I just wanted to thank you for running the two articles written by me in last month’s editions of your paper. As you know, what I experienced from the system here in Westchester was a trauma, to say the least. No one is perfect, and I am no exception. However, what I
experienced was completely uncalled for.

The Department of Social Services here in Westchester County disrupted my life unnecessarily and forever damaged my family. The Northern Westchester Domestic Violence Shelter functions as a State-supported radical feminist vigilante squad. Those that support these institutions should be ashamed of themselves. They are organizations within a system that has lost its integrity. Once again, thank you for running the piece; hopefully it will help bring about social change.

Matthew Kletter, Esq.


Reader Says ‘Charity Begins At Home’

Dear Editor:


Why is it the immigrants get everything for free and the American-born people don’t or can’t? This subject or topic, whichever you want to call it, goes on and on. There are plenty of American children and senior citizens who are starving and can use some help. Some of them can’t afford food, pay medical bills or other bills, but the immigrants get it free, free, free. They all sneak into our country and they still get
away with things that they shouldn’t be getting away with.

Our government should be looking into some of our states to see what is going on. They have homes, cars, cell phones, and are in their own businesses. If they can’t speak or understand English, how can they be in business, or get their licenses? Their children get lunches for 25 cents a day. Some of the children ask their teachers or the cafeteria cashiers to change a $50 bill to buy junk food. Can you believe that this does happen?

If there are some immigrants that are so down and out, then why is it possible for so many of them to go to the store and buy
Scratch Off tickets that costs them between $15-$20 at a time and call themselves homeless?

My parents, grandparents, along with others, came into this country and became citizens, worked just as hard, or even harder, in their day, but never could get any help. I do feel sorry for the ones in need of help but, believe me, I also feel for our American people who need help.
My mother, who passed away years ago, always said “Charity starts at home first, then you help others.”

Nancy Bronzino, Mount Kisco

Corrupt Village Of Mamaroneck Injustice System

Dear Editor:


For seven years, until I moved in Dec 2007, I resided at 1421 Mamaroneck Ave, Mamaroneck with my family. The supers who managed our
building complex, were two criminals by the names, Sandy and Peter Stam. These individuals were extremely racist and would maliciously harass tenants based on racial profiling. From 2000-2003 they would periodically send letters to the landlord which contained frivolous and unsubstantiated accusations of lease violations. The supers were determined to force us to voluntarily leave; however, we were equally
determined to stay. We wrote letters back to the building management complaining about the supers and refused to let Peter and Sandy Stam into our apartment. At this point, the Stams decided to change their malicious tactics and began to tamper with my car and smashed the windshield of a Hispanic family who lived in the building at that time who were also brave enough to stand up to them. Peter Stam would
often get into the face of the Hispanic father and curse racial remarks Assistant DA Smith also lived in our building complex. On numerous occasions, my family had talked with him about the Stams’ behavior. He professed his friendship with them and doubted our story.

Additionally, he claimed not to work out of the Mamaroneck Village Court.Things came to a boil in Jan 2004. Mr. Peter Stam approached me and got into my face. I was unaware he possessed a weapon in his right hand considering it was concealed in his pocket. Without provocation, he sprayed me in the eyes with mace. My eyes were burning and I took further action by calling the police. Three police offi-
cers responded, Sergeant James Gaff-ney was one of them. If I could have only imagined what was going to happen next. These officers began to continuously ask me if I was on drugs or psychological prescription drugs, I responded honestly and said no. After Sergeant Gaffney spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Stam, he informed me I was going to be arrested for harassment, based on Mrs. Stams testimony that I pushed Mr. Stam. However, I had the right to counter charge the Stams for assault. I was in a state of disbelief as to why the officers believed the perpetrators’ side of the story. Later that same day I was taken to the emergency room, the Mamaroneck officers who accompanied me there were actually laughing about the incident. I thought this was extremely unprofessional and disrespectful to me as an assault victim.

On my first court date, Asst. DA Ross Smith, was the prosecuting DA. After being assigned my legal counsel I was taken into the back of the police station for arraignment. At this point I overheard Ross Smith discussing the case with some police officers. He discussed Peter Stams suspension from his teaching job in the NYC school system pending the outcome of the case. He also thought his GOOD FRIEND had received the raw end of the deal. The officers were describing my reaction to attack and again seemed to be amused over the incident.

They also discussed Sergeant Gaffney’s reason for arresting me based on my irrational reaction to the mace attack in my eyes and Stam telling them he was incapable of violence because he suffered from heart conditions. Never did the police even question why a building super possessed a can of mace, right, every building super carries one around as part of the basic clearing equipment. The next two court appearances, Ross Smith was again in court, however, he was directing a female Asst. DA who was handling the paperwork for him. The case ended up being dismissed based on the fact Stam and I could not testify against each other because we were both defendants.

Mrs. Stam could testify against me if it went to trial, so I was forced by my lawyer and Ross Smith to drop the case that Sergeant Gaffney wrote to favor Mr. Stam who was the perpetrator. Additionally, Sergeant Gaffney lied regarding a discrepency in the incident report. He stated Mr. Stam used mace and not pepper spray, however, in the report, it said Mr. Stam used pepper spray.After the case ended, I decided to file a complaint with the public (lack of integrity office of the DA) against Ross Smith and Sergeant Gaffney. I later learned from a Gannett newspaper writer, that Sergeant Gaffney was involved in a considerable number of corruption scandals the village police were facing at that time. These included, involvement in the cover up of Jeannie Pirro and her husband on a drunk driving case, and a drunk driving false arrest case of a young female motorist who was subsequently acquitted after trial of all charges and later sued the village with her attorney John
Lovett. Assistant DA Citerella handeled my case, informing me I should file my complaint with the internal affairs in the police dept. I was very skeptical of an internal investigation amounting to anything positive and as I suspected the case went nowhere. Detective Mc-
Nally was the police officer who took my complaint and I could tell based on his demeanor and comments he disapproved of me going against his drinking buddy, Sergeant Gaffney (now Lieutenant Gaffney). A month later, Chief Flynn sent a letter in the mail stating the officer acted correctly. A week after filing the case against Sergeant Gaffney, my car, which was registered in my name, was impounded twice
under the scoff law for unpaid parking tickets. The first time it seemed to be legit based on 4 or more outstanding parking violations, but the second time it occurred, I only had one. It seems rather evident all I accomplished with the complaint against the officer was to make him vengeful and angry.

Eugene Pastore


End Violations Of The Americans With Disabilities Act

Dear Editor:


We need help! is is a handicapped person’s fight against those who violate and abuse the Americans With Disabilities Act of the USA. “We” refers to the thousands of surviving World War II vets, the millions of veterans from the Korean, Vietnam and Iraqi Wars, and the multimillions who are likewise physically or mentally handicapped. We deserve better!

Since 2005, 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, except for State of New York Assemblywoman Sandy Galef, who co-sponsored two bills which were introduced that would add Title II (A6328) and Title III (A7294)
to ADA Human Rights Law, the latter, dealing with discrimination in business and commercial facilities, was passed by both Houses, and was delivered to Governor Pataki, who vetoed the bill on August 16, 2006. Otherwise the silence has been 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.

Howard Wm. Rasher, Esq.
Briarcliff Manor

Thursday, May 8, 2008

The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg

Police Officer’s Self-Deprecating Testimony In Murder Trial Raises Serious Concerns
Westchester County Court, White Plains
Judge James Hubert Presiding

Monday, April 28, the double trial of Defendants Lloyd Braham and Warren Davis, of Mount Vernon, each charged in connection with the
break-in, shooting and murder of Neville Brett, 52, on June 29, 2007, at 138 West 4th Street, Mount Vernon, resumed. Brett resided together
with his brother Michael Brett, with whom he was heavily engaged in the trafficking and abuse of marijuana.

Braham and Davis, who have denied their involvement, are each charged with Felony Murder, accused of having conspired with, and joined with, Carlos Jean-Baptiste and Andrew Crewe, in a robbery of marijuana and cash from the Bretts, who were both Rastafarians. Jean-
Baptiste, the accused triggerman, and Crewe, are charged with First Degree Murder, and Second Degree Murder, respectively, as well as numerous other felonies.

On Friday the 25th, the Prosecution, and Defense Attorneys, Peter St. George-Davis, representing Lloyd Braham, and Mayo Bartlett,
representing Warren Davis, had presented opening arguments; and Prosecutor Julia Cornaccio had examined the first Prosecution witness,
17-year veteran Mount Vernon Police Officer Joseph Cappuccilli, who had been first to arrive at the scene of the crime. Attorney St. George-
Davis now proceeded to cross-examine the witness, who had stated that his regular duties involved the training of other, less-experienced,
police officers.

St. George-Davis: “You were in a patrol car?”

Officer Cappuccilli: “Yes.” There followed four questions attempting to determine whether there was a working video camera in that patrol car.

However, Officer Cappuccilli could not be made to acknowledge that fact. Mr. St. George-Davis then pursued another line of questioning, “You didn’t know who was shot?” Officer Cappuccilli responded, “No. I followed him (referring to someone he encountered at the scene) to the rear of the location, to the basement where he said someone was shot.”

St. George-Davis: “Did you take any photos?”

Cappuccilli: “No.”


St. George-Davis: “Did you write any notes or memos?”

Cappuccilli: “No.”


St. George-Davis: “The police report that you wrote, was it from your memo book?”

Cappuccilli: “No.”

Referring to the victim, Neville Brett, who Officer Cappuccilli had said was accompanied by his brother, Michael, when he discovered
them, Attorney St. George-Davis asked, “Did you try his pulse?” The officer responded, “No.”

St. George-Davis: “Did you administer CPR?”

Cappuccilli: “No.”


St. George-Davis: “It was apparent to you that the victim was deceased?”

Cappuccilli: “Yes.”


St. George-Davis: “Did you interview Michael Brett?”

Cappuccilli: “Yes.”


St. George-Davis: “Did police come in an ambulance?”

Cappuccilli: “We are not capable of transporting anyone.”

St. George-Davis: “What do they carry?”

Cappuccilli: “Medical paraphernalia, oxygen.”

St. George-Davis: “What were you doing when the Emergency Medical Services Unit (ESU) arrived?”

Cappuccilli: “I was securing Mr. Michael Brett and Delroy Melbourne.”

St. George-Davis: “How long did you secure them, stand outside the room?”

Cappuccilli: “Twenty minutes.”

Officer Cappuccilli under continued questioning indicated that he didn’t know who the detectives were who responded to the scene. He acknowledged that he had worked a double shift, and had gotten the call at 11:16pm. However, he would not acknowledge that, after 15 hours of work, he was even the least bit tired; volunteering, “I have been doing double shifts for the last 10 years.”

Attorney Mayo Bartlett now cross-examined Officer Cappuccilli. Barlett proceeded to elicit acknowledgements from Cappuccilli that, amongst his responsibilities, he worked part-time as an ESU of-ficer, and received training in that role. Additionally, he acknowledged that he had had crime scene training 17 years ago, on the job, as well as in the Police Academy.

Bartlett: “What time did you arrive?”

Cappuccilli: “About 11:15pm.”


Bartlett: “Did you call for backup?”

Cappuccilli: “No, I didn’t.”


Bartlett then showed People’s Exhibits 93 and 94 to the witness, photos of Neville Brett, asking, “When you first saw Mr. Brett, did he have his shirt on?”

Cappuccilli: “Yes.”


Analysis:

Prior to admission of the two juries into the courtroom, Mr. Bartlett had stated to the Court, “I would like to make a record. The only purpose of introducing these photographs (that the Prosecution was seeking to put into evidence and publish to the juries) is to arouse sympathy in the jury. We have conceded that Mr. Brett is dead. These are staged photographs. They do not show the victim as he was when
he died.”

Judge Hubert had responded to Bartlett, declaring, “The photographs are in evidence, and your remarks are simply an expansion of your previous objections. Your motion is denied.”

Mr. Bartlett continued. Referring to the victim, Neville Brett, he asked the witness, “How did you find him?” Officer Cappuccilli responded, “He was lying on his back, and his brother, Michael, was lying over him.” At this point Hubert broke in, asking if he had spoken to the detectives. Cappuccilli acknowledged that he had not. He further acknowledged that he did not look for physical evidence, nor collect any. He admitted that he didn’t check the perimeter of the property, nor secure it. He further admitted that he didn’t search for firearms. Responding to a question from Bartlett, Cappuccilli informed the Court that he was released from the scene by Mount Vernon Police Sergeant Gallagher, and immediately left the area.

On re-direct, Officer Cappuccilli stated he had learned the deceased victim’s name, “from Michael Brett, who was lying over him.” On re-cross examination, by Attorney St. George-Davis, with reference to the victim, Officer Cappuccilli claimed that he determined, “within five to ten seconds, that he was dead,” indicating that he was standing directly over the victim when he made the determination of death, because of the gray film covering the victim’s open eyes.

Attorney Bartlett, on re-cross, then asked, “When you arrived, Mr. Brett was fully dressed?”

Cappuccilli: “Yes.”


Bartlett: “Do you know who took Mr. Brett’s shirt off?”

Cappuccilli: “No.”


Bartlett then, once again, showed him People’s Exhibits 93 and 94 In Evidence, trying five separate times to get a response from the witness
regarding two white defibrilator patches on the victim’s bare chest. But each question was “sustained” by Judge Hubert even before formal
objections could be lodged by the Prosecution.

Analysis:


Readers must consider how Of-ficer Cappuccilli, a 17-year veteran of the Mount Vernon Police Department, who acknowledged that his regular duties include training other officers, gave the testimony he gave under cross-examination. It is not unreasonable to consider the instructions and the pressure likely put on him by the District Attorney’s Office, in order to preserve their case theory, that might have
necessitated such a self-deprecating performance.

Thursday, May 8, 2008


Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester


The Medical Insurance Maze

The Empire Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical insurance provider recently sent out a letter to local plan participants that several
Westchester hospitals were discontinuing their contract with Anthem. Anthem assured their plan participants that they would continue to
negotiate with the hospitals, but advised patients with surgeries scheduled for later this year to seek another hospital to have their procedures
handled elsewhere.

These letters are becoming more common and the instances more varied as insurance companies, medical providers, and employers alike seek ways to rein in their skyrocketing health care costs. But caught in the middle are the patients who have come to rely on a specific doctor, hospital, medication, and insurance plan for their ongoing care. The Guardian spoke with several of our local government representatives
and residents concerning the problems they are experiencing with their medical insurance.

Janis Morris, the Director of Constituent Services for New York State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, 35th District, spoke to The
Guardian about specific instances where local residents have sought the Senator’s assistance in resolving their medical insurance difficulties.
“We had a grandmother come to us about the medication her granddaughter was using for severe acid-reflux problems,” Morris told us. “The child could not digest food and depended upon this formula. But the medication became an “over-the-counter” product and was no longer covered by a prescription policy. The family had to spend $50 a can for this formula, or more than $650 a month, which they could not afford.

Our office had to prove to the insurance company that this was a life-threatening situation to get them to switch back to accepting prescriptions for this medication”. Pharmaceutical companies advocate switching their products to “Over-The-Counter” access, thereby circumventing the need for a doctor’s prescription, under the assumption that this will allow greater access to these medications. In reality,
the opposite is often true.

A patient, who paid a co-pay of $10 or even $30 for a medication for a monthly supply of 30 pills, may now be faced with shelling out at least that amount weekly for just 12 tablets that are no longer covered by insurance. In 2002, Schering-Plough announced that they would be releasing their allergy medication, Claritin, over-the-counter. Millions of allergy sufferers, faced either paying for this medication themselves, or having their doctors change their prescriptions to another, more expensive product such as Clarinex, made by, of course, Schering-Plough.

But the medical insurance companies fought back and started denying payments for any type of allergy/asthma medications claiming that these patients could now all use Claritin and pay for it themselves over-the-counter. Asthma victims, this writer included, who rely on daily doses of Singular to ward off severe life threatening attacks, were told by their insurance companies that their prescriptions to their allergy
medications would no longer be covered since they could use Claritin instead.

Asthma patients had to file appeals to the insurance companies explaining to them that a hay-fever attack was a different medical problem from asthma and therefore could not be treated with the same medication. Sadly, many local patients face equal frustrations and illogical behavior from their insurance providers in all areas of their medical care.

Ms. Morris gave an example of how insurance companies deny treatments to the elderly on Medicare. “One couple selected an HMO (Blue Cross/Blue Shield – BC/BS) as their insurance provider and had their monthly premiums deducted from their social security checks. At one point, the husband needed to go to the hospital and BC/BS denied his admission telling him that he never paid his premiums. The patient immediately paid his premiums himself and was told he would be reimbursed. It took six months to get the reimbursement”.

Ms. Morris said that there is now a new ruling prohibiting insurance providers from contacting the Medicare recipients directly about premium problems. The insurance providers must now contact Social Security to fix the problem, keeping the patient out of the loop and avoiding instance like this one where an elderly person on Social Security is forced to foot the bill for something they’ve already paid for.
But many medical insurance mix-ups can take years to resolve. The Guardian spoke to a young widow, Marie, about her two-year struggle to resolve the payments of her late husband’s medical bills (her name has been changed to protect her young family’s privacy). Marie’s husband died of cancer in 2006, leaving her with four young children to care for alone.

He had been in a local hospital for over a month, showing no signs of improvement. The hospital recommended moving him to a respite/nursing facility where he spent the final six weeks of his life, until the night he died when he was rushed back to the hospital emergency room for his final hours. Shortly after his death, Marie received bills from the nursing facility for her husband’s stay. A few calls
to his medical insurance company revealed that his policy allowed for 100 days of nursing care and he had only used 45 so there was no problem with covering these bills. Two years later, the insurance company is refusing to pay claiming the facility and the nursing care it provided is not covered under their plan. The facility, in turn, is now sending threatening letters to this widow seeking to collect this debt.

“I have not been able to take the time to grieve for my husband with dealing with this for the past two years,” she told us. “I am so sick over
these bills. They are almost $30,000. My husband would be heart-broken to know his family is being treated like this. He died thinking he had provided for us. He worked so hard all his life to do the right thing for his family. How would he feel if he found out that all the precautions he had taken so much trouble to set up were now being rejected and his family was being hounded?”

Marie has shut off her answering machine and won’t answer her home phone anymore without checking the caller-ID first. “I can’t return
phone calls on this any more – I have to psych myself up to be able to talk about this. I get sick to my stomach every time the mail comes – I’m afraid to see what’s in there. I have two children in college this fall and two younger ones coming up. Why am I being asked to pay $30,000 when my husband had plenty of medical insurance to cover this? What was he paying premiums for?”

Marie’s case raises the issue of how the use of a particular facility should be determined and who is best suited to make that determination.
In her situation, no one could expect a young mother, with four young children around her, to think of whether the insurance company
would pay for the nursing facility at a time when she was dealing with the impending death of her husband and her children’s father. So why didn’t anyone at the hospital call the insurance provider up front to get a written confirmation that this transfer would be approved? The hospital stay for Marie’s husband was covered in full by insurance. Ironically, if he hadn’t been transferred to another facility, at the hospital’s recommendation, she wouldn’t have this problem. So why was her husband transferred out of a facility that was being covered by insurance into a non-covered one? Who should be responsible for making that kind of decision? And why should the patient (of their family) be expected to pay for these mistakes when they didn’t make this decision?

A review of Marie’s bills also revealed another disturbing fact. Just one night in the emergency room alone cost over $10,000 for her husband’s care. Yet the hospital settled with the insurance company for less than $2,000 for his treatment that fi-nal night. Is this actually the rate and, if so, who pays it? Does that mean that local residents without insurance would have to pay this hospital the full $10,000 for a one-night stay in the emergency room? Or was the hospital deliberately upping its charges to the insurance company knowing that they would be reduced? One of our local state representatives is working with Marie to resolve this issue. In speaking with several representatives on this issue, The Guardian learned that resolving medical insurance problems for their constituents takes up a significant portion of their time. “Approximately one-third of the state budget is dedicated to health care,”

Assemblywoman Sandy Galef, 90th District, told us. “And we do spend about that much time on these issues for local residents. We often
get the call that the person has insurance but their particular problem is not covered. Or they have been dropped from their insurance.”
(Assemblyman Greg Ball’s office confirmed this estimate). Galef noted that many of her constituents have problems affording medical insurance to begin with. “We put them in touch with the plans the state has, such as Child Health Plus for children, Family Health Plus for families and individuals, and Healthy New York for small businesses. We also have a prescription discount card for our disabled residents or residents who are 50 -64 years old and do not qualify for Medicare yet.

People are often surprised to learn that they qualify for these plans – they often make the false assumption that their income is too high to get help. The New York State Department of Health is doing more publicity to get the word out on these programs so that our residents
will take advantage of them”. Assemblywoman Galef also noted that Albany’s approach to the health care issue has changed. “In the last budget, we have shifted dollars to out-patient care and community health centers. We are putting more money into prevention so that
people can deal with their medical problems up front and don’t end up in emergency rooms”. New York State is also advancing other programs. “We are providing nursing visits for low-income first time mothers on prevention issues like better nutrition.” Galef advises
that their offices, like the offices of all local representatives, can offer local residents help in all medical areas. She said, “My office assists local residents with concerns regarding nursing homes and VA hospitals. We can deal with the insurance issues – we have contacts at all of the HMO’s and we try to open up doors for our constituents. If we have to, we can take the matter to the New York State insurance department for them”.

There are some steps local residents can take to offset the costs of their medical care. The Westchester County Department of Health
can assist residents with the New York State insurance plans. They can be reached at 914-813-5048. The county department for Seniors
(914-813-6400) can assist with the elderly pharmaceutical insurance coverage plan (EPIC). And, individuals without prescription coverage, can reduce their out-of-pocket expenses by comparing the costs of their medicines at local pharmacies on the New York State Department of Health web site www.rx.nyhealth.gov.

A quick check by this writer of prices of common drugs revealed wide discrepancies in prices in our area. Xanax ranges from $13.28 at the Sound Shore Pharmacy in Mt. Vernon to $181.93 at the Main Street Surgical Supply in New Rochelle. When all else fails in dealing with a medical insurance problem, a patient does have the legal right to an appeal. Again, the New York State Department of Health can assist with this. Their web site has forms and instructions for how to initiate an appeal and what the consumer’s rights are and even what to do if the appeal is initially denied.

Our local representatives and the county office can further assist local residents with these issues. Dealing with a medical condition is difficult enough without having financial and insurance problems to boot. As The Guardian saw in Marie’s case, she feels so trapped
in an insurance nightmare that she is not even able to grieve for her late husband. The Guardian will stay involved in her case and will hopefully be able to report success back to our readers in the not-too-distant future.