Jeff Deskovic
How Often Do Prosecutors Knowingly
Fight Against Innocent Defendants?
In a New York Times article dated June 23, 2008, entitled Doubting Case, a Prosecutor Helped The Defense, by Benjamin Weiser, the story came out about a prosecutor who was ordered by his superior to try to preserve the conviction of two men who were on appeal who he believed were innocent. Here are the facts, as presented in the Times article.
The Palladium case certainly looked open and shut in 1992, when Mr. Lemus and Mr. Hidalgo were each sentenced to 25 years to life. Several bouncers identi-fied them as the men they scuffled with outside the Palladium, an East Village nightclub and Mr. Lemus’s ex-girlfriend said he had claimed to have shot a bouncer there. But the next decade brought a string of nagging contradictions. A former member of a Bronx drug gang confessed that he and a friend had done the shooting. at spurred new examinations by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, federal prosecutors, defense lawyers, police and the press.
When Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau was asked to take another look, ADA Bibb said his supervisors gave him carte blanche. “It really was, leave no stone unturned,” he said. Over 21 months, starting in 2003, Bibb and two detectives conducted more than 50 interviews in more than a dozen states, ferreting out witnesses the police had somehow missed or ignored.
ADA Bibb, a 21 year veteran, spent nearly two years re investigating the killing, and wound up believing that the two imprisoned men were
not guilty, and that their convictions should be overturned. Bibb said he shared his growing doubts with his superiors, and at a meeting in early 2005, he recalled, after defense lawyers won court approval for a hearing into the new evidence, he urged that the convictions be set aside. “I made what I considered to be my strongest pitch,” Bibb said. Instead, he said, he was ordered to go to the hearing, present the government’s case and let a judge decide; a strategy that violated his sense of a prosecutor’s duty. “I had always been taught that we made the decisions, that we made the tough calls, that we didn’t take things and throw them up against the wall for a judge or jury to sort out,” he said. He went on, “If the evidence doesn’t convince me, then I’m never going to be able to convince a jury.”
Still, Mr. Bibb said, he worried that if he did not take the case, another prosecutor would, and would win. In a recent interview, Mr. Bibb made a startling admission: He revealed that he threw the case. Unwilling to do what his bosses ordered, he said he deliberately helped the other side win. He tracked down hard-to-find or reluctant witnesses who pointed to other suspects, and prepared them to testify for the defense. He talked strategy with defense lawyers. And, when they veered from his coaching, he cornered them in the hallway and corrected them. “I did the best I could,” he said. “To lose. I was angry that I was being put in a position to defend convictions that I didn’t believe in,” Bibb remarked. Defense lawyers said he plunged in. In long phone conversations, he helped them sort through the new evidence he had gathered.
“If I make a mistake in my interpretation of what he said, he’ll correct me,” said Gordon Mehler, who represented Mr. Lemus. “If there’s a piece of evidence that bears on another piece of evidence I’m talking about, he’ll remind me of it. at’s not something that a prosecutor typically does.” As the defense decided which witnesses to call, he again hunted them down — sometimes in prison or witness protection — and, when necessary, persuaded them to testify in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. “I made sure all of their witnesses were going to testify in a manner that would have the greatest impact, certainly consistent with the truth,” Mr. Bibb said. “I wasn’t telling anybody to make anything up.” He told them what questions to expect, both from the defense and his own cross-examination — which he admitted felt “a little bit weird.” Defense lawyers say they first met some of their witnesses on the day of testimony, outside the courtroom. During breaks, Mr. Bibb confronted the lawyers when he felt they were not asking the right questions. “Don’t you understand?” One lawyer recalled him saying. “I’m your best friend in that courtroom.”
Cross-examining the witnesses, Mr. Bibb took pains not to damage their credibility. Facing a former gang member who had pleaded guilty to six murders, he asked only a few perfunctory questions about the man’s record. Daniel J. Horwitz, the other defense lawyer, said the help was invaluable. “Did Dan play a useful role in making sure that justice prevailed in that courtroom? The answer is unequivocally
yes.”
Today, the two men are free. At the end of the hearing, which stretched over six weeks, his superiors agreed to ask a judge to drop the conviction of one, Olmedo Hidalgo. The judge granted a new trial to the other, David Lemus, who was acquitted in December. Steven M. Cohen, a former federal prosecutor who pushed Mr. Morgenthau’s office to reinvestigate, said that while Mr. Bibb should have refused to present the case, his bosses should not have pressed him “If Bibb is to be believed, he was essentially asked to choose between his conscience and his job,” Mr. Cohen said. “Whether he made the right choice is irrelevant; that he was asked to make that choice is chilling.”
I have thought about what lines of reasoning prosecutors, who knowingly fight innocent people, might adopt. There are a multitude of potential answers. Some may have a deferential attitude, as when someone is new in the office or is the low person on the totem pole in terms of experience, and thus rationalizes it that way. Others may engage in blind obedience to authority. Some may be willing to sell their
souls for a paycheck. Others may have a desire to move up in authority and are thus willing to play ball. Still others may aspire to have a political career, and thus make the conscious decision to sacrifice someone who is innocent upon the pyre of their career.
A type of cognitive dissonance could be occurring as well, in which a prosecutor overlooks the role that they are playing and instead
distances themselves from the morality of it by saying that whatever role they play in it, it is really the responsibility of the person who ordered them. I want to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that although these various lines of reasoning are paths that people in such dilemmas go down mentally, there are, in the end, various ways of trying to justify what can never be made right: The attempt to knowingly imprison those who are innocent. I would like honest prosecutors, and the public in general, to know that there are plenty of options to choose from if, and when, they are ordered to prosecute or defend the conviction of someone that is innocent. Such individuals may go to their supervisor’s supervisor and, if necessary, to the next higher up individual in authority, going all the way to the District Attorney him, or herself. If, having reached the top, there is still nothing done, they should then go to the Attorney General. After that, if necessary, they
can go to the United States Attorney.
If all of the above should fail, then they should go to the press. All of these steps are better than either sending or keeping someone in prison who is innocent. If they suffer retaliation, they have legal recourse. They can file complaints, and/or lawsuits. Worse case scenario, they can
get another job. At least they would have been true to themselves, and to society. Having wrestled with what makes some prosecutors knowingly fight against innocent defendants, the next most relevant question is: How often does it happen?
From the annals of the wrongful conviction literature that I have read, along with my own personal experience, I would have to say that it happens a lot more often than any of us realize.
In Dallas, Texas, for example former District Attorney Bill Hill’s office regularly successfully fought against defendants getting DNA tests. Since Craig Watkins has become the District Attorney, his office has been in cooperation with the Texas Innocence Project, reviewing old cases in which requests for DNA testing had been opposed. Four hundred prisoners requesting the testing had been denied. Thus far, there have been six men who have been proven innocent. Therefore, it is well established that Bill Hill had a policy of fighting against requests for
DNA testing. But Hill, himself, personally, was not litigating the cases. Instead, his assistant district attorneys were doing his bidding in filing briefs against DNA requests.
As lawyers, all of those assistant district attorney’s realized what the value of DNA was in determining guilt or innocence. They knew very
well that they could be preventing innocent people from proving their innocence. Yet they argued against the testing anyway.
Alabama has no law allowing prisoners the right to DNA testing. Darrell Grayson had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. There was ample biological evidence which could have been subjected to DNA testing. Yet prosecutors fought against all of his appeals seeking to have the testing, and ultimately Alabama Gov. Riley signed the execution warrant authorizing his execution. He was executed
without benefit of the testing. Did they not know what they were doing? Common sense says “yes”. Now that same state has Thomas
Arthur scheduled for execution July 31, 2008, again without allowing Arthur to have the testing he seeks. Prosecutors have successfully fought every step of the way to prevent the testing, and every court he as litigated in, including the United States Supreme Court, has sided with those prosecutors. In Mississippi, it was recently exonerated Brewer and Brooks.
In New York, Lenny Lato helped keep Marty Tankleff in prison for seventeen years by fighting against every single one of his appeals, despite knowing that the circumstances under which the “confession” was obtained made it unreliable, and that evidence of Tankleff’s innocence was mounting. In my own case, Assistant District Attorney George Bolen insisted on prosecuted me despite knowing that DNA evidence proved that I was innocent fully eight months before my trial. Then, under Jeanine Pirro, Assistant DAs John Sergei and Steven
Bender filed brief after brief against me despite knowing that there was a DNA Test which had proved my innocence.
In conclusion, I realize that not every wrongful conviction is done intentionally, and that therefore every instance does not constitute a prosecutor knowingly fighting against an innocent defendant. Still, the above mentioned examples demonstrate that it happens a lot more often than most of us realize.
I believe that Daniel Bibb is only the tip of the iceberg, and that others simply have not, as yet, come forward, and perhaps will never come forward to admit that they were ordered to preserve a conviction at all costs. Though his means may have been unorthodox, I personally salute Bibb for not betraying his conscience, and for taking action. He deserves additional credit for coming forward afterwards. How many more simply fight against the innocent with little to no qualms about it?
I am not anti-law enforcement. In the last issue of The Guardian, I called for honest police officers to take back the police force from the corrupt ones. In this issue, I call for prosecutors everywhere to maintain their personal integrity and the integrity of their of-fice, by blowing the whistle on each and every instance where either they, or someone they know, were ordered to fight against a defendant that they knew is innocent.
In terms of knowing the actual number of incidents, there is no real way to know how often such prosecutions occur, because the true number of wrongful convictions is unknowable, due to DNA only being available in 10% of all serious felony cases, and that obtaining quality legal assistance paired with investigative work- which is needed to find new non DNA evidence of innocence, is even more elusive.
Can it be reasonably said that in the above-mentioned examples that nobody ever knew what they were doing, and that they were simply good faith errors?
Absolutely not. Prosecutors have to familiarize themselves with the facts of a case, and therefore are aware of evidence of innocence when they fight against claims of innocence, just as they are of the probative value of DNA as a means of proving, definitively, guilt or innocence. Each time they fight against a DNA test, or argue against a claim of innocence being heard on procedural grounds, or oppose an issue of law despite realizing that a claim is meritorious and actually impacted upon the fairness of a trial, thus speaking to the reliability of the verdict, they know what they are doing. I would like to point out that prosecutors have a law degree and are paid to analyze the facts and the law.
If anyone would like to try to prevent Thomas Arthur’s execution, please send an email to Gov. Riley. Use the following URL to get to the page: https://secure2.convio.net/ip/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr009=1gl65d8911.app8a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=108
If we all make our voices heard, at least we will let Governor Riley know that we, as citizens of the United States, find what he is intending to do to be morally unacceptable, just as the knowing fight against innocence is unacceptable. Indifference or failure to act, can sometimes be as culpable, or close, to the unjust actors themselves.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Westchester Guardian.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
The County’s Proposed
Social Host Law
On Tuesday, June 16, 2008 the Westchester County Board of Legislators held a public hearing to address a proposed Social Host law. This proposed law, as drafted by the Board’s Legislative Committee, would prohibit and establish fines for “hosting, allowing, entertaining, organizing, permitting, or ‘suffering’ a party, gathering, or event where minors are present and alcoholic beverages are consumed by any minor”.
In its “legislative intent” supporting the law, the Legislative Committee finds that “underage drinking is a significant societal problem that has
generated widespread concern in Westchester County” without noting where it obtains its statistics, if any, to support the extent of the problem or its definition of “significant”.
The Legislative Committee acknowledges that the New York State Legislature has already acted to “proscribe the unlawful giving, selling, and
possession of alcohol in relation to minors”. Despite the existence of these laws, the County Board believes there is an additional need, however unsubstantiated by them, for a law to regulate the situation where a person who is twenty-one years old or older knowingly allows the consumption of alcohol by a minor in their own home or property.
In short, should this law pass, a parent can now run afoul of the law by serving a glass of wine to their own teenager at dinner in their own home. The Legislative Committee fails to acknowledge in its determination that there are many cultures where wine is not prohibited and is seen as a necessary part of the enjoyment of a family dinner or celebration, or religious sacrament. The County Board hearings did not address the cultural and religious aspects of alcohol and how their proposal will infringe upon these rights.
Many local families of Italian descent make their own wine. Are these families now to be arrested because their teenager, who has safely participated in this family tradition for years, tastes this year’s batch? And what of a twenty-year old prospective bride or groom? Are
they not to take a celebratory glass of champagne in their own home within the safety of their own families?
The hearings did not acknowledge that not all uses of alcohol are detrimental to a child’s well-being – what of a parent giving a child a sample drink to taste so they will be able to recognize the taste of alcohol and therefore know if they’ve been duped at a party? The hearings
also did not address the negative impact of this proposed law.
When the state laws were passed to prevent the sale and distribution of alcohol to minors, some teenagers turned to cough medicine to get the
same alcoholic high since cough medicines list alcohol as a major ingredient.
Is the next step to prohibit parents from administering cough medications to children since they contain alcohol? By proposing this Social Host Law, the County Board is really saying “We don’t trust parents to do their jobs. We know better than you do.” Given the Board’s recent track record with their own finances and their approval of the Board of Election’s contested site in Ardsley, many local parents might
resent having the County Board telling them how to raise their children.
A college age student can vote, get married, serve on juries, write a will, hold public office, sign a contract, operate a business including hiring employees; conduct their lives as the adults they are, and be potentially called upon to die for our country. Yet that same student, if under
the age of 21, cannot legally toast their spouse at their own wedding, share a bottle of wine at a family dinner, or celebrate a family event with a glass of champagne.
That same student was sent off to college by parents who probably taught him how to drive, how to cook and do laundry, how to ride a bike, ski, swim, ice-skate, play an instrument, tell time, read, balance a checkbook, and all of the other skills he will need to survive. Except one. How to drink correctly. According to Professor David Hanson of the State University of New York, “Inexperienced drinkers become
intoxicated with much less alcohol than do experienced drinkers. They are more likely to have traffic accidents after consuming small amounts of alcohol”.
When a teenager is not educated in the logistical and physical aspects of drinking, they do not realize that the effects of alcohol on their systems are determined by their gender and weight and how much they have had to drink.
Inexperienced drinkers will not know how to properly mix a drink – they will not know how much a jigger of alcohol is if they’ve never used or seen one. Teenagers overestimate the amount of alcohol to be used in a mixed drink. A Pina Colada whipped up by a novice bartender could have the alcoholic kick of four, increasing the risks since the drinker thinks they are within safe limits – after all, they only had one
drink! Further, inexperienced drinkers do not know that many alcoholic drinks do not have an alcoholic taste at all, such as a Long Island Iced Tea, or that mixing certain alcoholic beverages, such as the traditional ‘shot and a beer’, increases the chances of becoming sick and getting alcohol poisoning.
And just because the drink has a cute-sounding name and comes with an umbrella and in a pretty glass or is a “girl’s drink”, doesn’t mean it won’t pack a lethal punch. All of which a teenager needs to be taught before they leave home for college. Even if they don’t plan on ever drinking, chances are, other students around them will.
Where can our youth learn this information so they or their friends won’t fall victim to the perils of alcohol abuse? Not in the current alcohol education programs. Most local schools have D.A.R.E. programs – the national Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. However, as the name implies, this program concentrates on illegal substances and their effects and how to resist peer pressure.
But nowhere in the D.A.R.E. program are students educated what alcohol actually tastes like so they can recognize it when served alcohol
either knowingly or unknowingly. The D.A.R.E. programs are successful in scaring children about the effects of drugs but tend to lump drugs and alcohol into the same categories without recognizing that most of the population who drink, do so responsibly. The D.A.R.E. materials actually state that “our goal is to arm our students with enough information and resources so that they will avoid experimentation with legal
and illicit drugs – including alcohol and tobacco” implying that a child’s parent who drinks a glass of wine with dinner is committing a crime!
If there is indeed a “significant” underage drinking problem locally, according to the experts on this issue, laws such as this proposed Social Host law are not the solution and may be, in fact, causing an even bigger problem – college binge drinking.
According to federal statistics recently released by the Associated Press, college drinking deaths are on the rise. This despite the fact that all 50 states have laws prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcohol to minors and the recent implementation of Social Host laws in many
municipalities. The Associated Press reported that these deaths are primarily due to ‘binge drinking’ – where students save their drinks up and drink them all at once. The AP discovered that many of the victims had “an average blood alcohol level of 0.40 percent, or five times
the legal limit for driving. In every case, friends knew the victim was drunk and put him or her to bed to sleep it off”.
Professor Hanson’s research of cultures where alcohol is used in family life, such as Italians, Jews, and Greeks, has revealed three elements for successful education of children with regards to alcohol:
1. Alcohol is seen as neutral, neither a poison nor a magic substance.
2. The act of drinking is viewed as normal. When there is no social pressure to drink, there is also no tolerance for abusive drinking.
3. Education about alcohol starts early and starts in the home. Hanson believes that some of the contributing factors to teenage drinking is the belief that “everybody is doing it”. He states that “the exaggeration of alcohol abuse tends to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more young people believe heavy drinking occurs, the more heavily they end up drinking in order to conform”. He also believes that the current legislative attitude of zero-tolerance towards college-age drinking contributes towards rebellion and rule-breaking by those students. Hanson proposes a gradual access to alcohol for students under parental supervision, much like the graduated driving laws. He asks “why not teach responsible drinking under mature supervision rather than leave these young adults to experiment on their own”?
Professor Hanson proposes several ways for parents to effectively educate their children about alcohol:
• Be good role models;
• Convey appropriate attitudes like not laughing at intoxication;
• Teach children that it is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem;
• Don’t drink and drive or ride with anyone who has been drinking;
• Don’t use machinery, climb ladders, operate boats, Jet Skis, when drinking;
• Never mix alcohol with medications or with other alcoholic beverages; Hanson also encourages parents to teach children:
• How to refuse a drink politely;
• How to ‘lose’ drinks that have been forced on them;
• How to prepare or order “mocktails” (drinks that look alcoholic);
• What constitutes a standard drink – 12 oz of beer, 5 oz of wine, 1 ½ oz of distilled spirits;
• Only time sobers a body, not coffee or cold air;
• Never drink on an empty stomach; food will slow alcohol absorption;
• Only one drink per hour;
• Vomiting when drunk can be fatal;
• Never drink for the sake of drinking or as part of a game or contest;
• Carbonated drinks will get alcohol into the bloodstream faster;
• Be wary of changes in your mood or perceptions when drinking;
Patricia Weems of the Fairgrounds Civic Association in Greenburgh echoed the need for education at the County hearing. Weems noted to the
legislators that many of her friends in college who had never drank before ended up alcoholics because of their lack of knowledge about alcohol. Weems asked the legislators “If we have to put money somewhere, let’s start with education”. The Social Host law will impose fines upon any adult found guilty of serving alcohol to minors in their homes. Weems asked “will fines stop teens from drinking? I doubt it!”
In comparison, another speaker at the hearing, told of a friend who was killed by a drunk driver and called for the proposed fines to be doubled and to reveal the offenders’ names publicly. Several area parents and civic leaders from Larchmont and Ossining echoed their
sentiments supporting the need for this legislation. However, while Assemblywoman Sandy Galef informed the legislators that, “This is a piece of legislation that will help to make sure our youth are protected,” she also noted that the state is currently considering the same legislation.
Indeed, the proposed law allows for the County to void it completely “on the day that federal or statewide legislation goes into effect”. So why incur the expense of pursuing this law when the state representatives are acknowledging that they are already doing so? One serious issue the hearing did not address is the potential for abuse of this law. An abusive parent in a bitter custody hearing could now use this law
as a legal weapon against an unsuspecting ex-spouse. Neighborhood battles could escalate – a local resident could turn in any neighbor they see just giving their child a sip of wine at dinner on their deck. There are still many issues to be addressed here before this proposal can, or should, become law.
The next hearing on this proposal is scheduled for August 11th. Anyone wishing to obtain information on this legislation, or any other, can find this on the Westchester County Board of Legislators website at http://www.westchesterlegislators.com/.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
The County’s Proposed
Social Host Law
On Tuesday, June 16, 2008 the Westchester County Board of Legislators held a public hearing to address a proposed Social Host law. This proposed law, as drafted by the Board’s Legislative Committee, would prohibit and establish fines for “hosting, allowing, entertaining, organizing, permitting, or ‘suffering’ a party, gathering, or event where minors are present and alcoholic beverages are consumed by any minor”.
In its “legislative intent” supporting the law, the Legislative Committee finds that “underage drinking is a significant societal problem that has
generated widespread concern in Westchester County” without noting where it obtains its statistics, if any, to support the extent of the problem or its definition of “significant”.
The Legislative Committee acknowledges that the New York State Legislature has already acted to “proscribe the unlawful giving, selling, and
possession of alcohol in relation to minors”. Despite the existence of these laws, the County Board believes there is an additional need, however unsubstantiated by them, for a law to regulate the situation where a person who is twenty-one years old or older knowingly allows the consumption of alcohol by a minor in their own home or property.
In short, should this law pass, a parent can now run afoul of the law by serving a glass of wine to their own teenager at dinner in their own home. The Legislative Committee fails to acknowledge in its determination that there are many cultures where wine is not prohibited and is seen as a necessary part of the enjoyment of a family dinner or celebration, or religious sacrament. The County Board hearings did not address the cultural and religious aspects of alcohol and how their proposal will infringe upon these rights.
Many local families of Italian descent make their own wine. Are these families now to be arrested because their teenager, who has safely participated in this family tradition for years, tastes this year’s batch? And what of a twenty-year old prospective bride or groom? Are
they not to take a celebratory glass of champagne in their own home within the safety of their own families?
The hearings did not acknowledge that not all uses of alcohol are detrimental to a child’s well-being – what of a parent giving a child a sample drink to taste so they will be able to recognize the taste of alcohol and therefore know if they’ve been duped at a party? The hearings
also did not address the negative impact of this proposed law.
When the state laws were passed to prevent the sale and distribution of alcohol to minors, some teenagers turned to cough medicine to get the
same alcoholic high since cough medicines list alcohol as a major ingredient.
Is the next step to prohibit parents from administering cough medications to children since they contain alcohol? By proposing this Social Host Law, the County Board is really saying “We don’t trust parents to do their jobs. We know better than you do.” Given the Board’s recent track record with their own finances and their approval of the Board of Election’s contested site in Ardsley, many local parents might
resent having the County Board telling them how to raise their children.
A college age student can vote, get married, serve on juries, write a will, hold public office, sign a contract, operate a business including hiring employees; conduct their lives as the adults they are, and be potentially called upon to die for our country. Yet that same student, if under
the age of 21, cannot legally toast their spouse at their own wedding, share a bottle of wine at a family dinner, or celebrate a family event with a glass of champagne.
That same student was sent off to college by parents who probably taught him how to drive, how to cook and do laundry, how to ride a bike, ski, swim, ice-skate, play an instrument, tell time, read, balance a checkbook, and all of the other skills he will need to survive. Except one. How to drink correctly. According to Professor David Hanson of the State University of New York, “Inexperienced drinkers become
intoxicated with much less alcohol than do experienced drinkers. They are more likely to have traffic accidents after consuming small amounts of alcohol”.
When a teenager is not educated in the logistical and physical aspects of drinking, they do not realize that the effects of alcohol on their systems are determined by their gender and weight and how much they have had to drink.
Inexperienced drinkers will not know how to properly mix a drink – they will not know how much a jigger of alcohol is if they’ve never used or seen one. Teenagers overestimate the amount of alcohol to be used in a mixed drink. A Pina Colada whipped up by a novice bartender could have the alcoholic kick of four, increasing the risks since the drinker thinks they are within safe limits – after all, they only had one
drink! Further, inexperienced drinkers do not know that many alcoholic drinks do not have an alcoholic taste at all, such as a Long Island Iced Tea, or that mixing certain alcoholic beverages, such as the traditional ‘shot and a beer’, increases the chances of becoming sick and getting alcohol poisoning.
And just because the drink has a cute-sounding name and comes with an umbrella and in a pretty glass or is a “girl’s drink”, doesn’t mean it won’t pack a lethal punch. All of which a teenager needs to be taught before they leave home for college. Even if they don’t plan on ever drinking, chances are, other students around them will.
Where can our youth learn this information so they or their friends won’t fall victim to the perils of alcohol abuse? Not in the current alcohol education programs. Most local schools have D.A.R.E. programs – the national Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. However, as the name implies, this program concentrates on illegal substances and their effects and how to resist peer pressure.
But nowhere in the D.A.R.E. program are students educated what alcohol actually tastes like so they can recognize it when served alcohol
either knowingly or unknowingly. The D.A.R.E. programs are successful in scaring children about the effects of drugs but tend to lump drugs and alcohol into the same categories without recognizing that most of the population who drink, do so responsibly. The D.A.R.E. materials actually state that “our goal is to arm our students with enough information and resources so that they will avoid experimentation with legal
and illicit drugs – including alcohol and tobacco” implying that a child’s parent who drinks a glass of wine with dinner is committing a crime!
If there is indeed a “significant” underage drinking problem locally, according to the experts on this issue, laws such as this proposed Social Host law are not the solution and may be, in fact, causing an even bigger problem – college binge drinking.
According to federal statistics recently released by the Associated Press, college drinking deaths are on the rise. This despite the fact that all 50 states have laws prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcohol to minors and the recent implementation of Social Host laws in many
municipalities. The Associated Press reported that these deaths are primarily due to ‘binge drinking’ – where students save their drinks up and drink them all at once. The AP discovered that many of the victims had “an average blood alcohol level of 0.40 percent, or five times
the legal limit for driving. In every case, friends knew the victim was drunk and put him or her to bed to sleep it off”.
Professor Hanson’s research of cultures where alcohol is used in family life, such as Italians, Jews, and Greeks, has revealed three elements for successful education of children with regards to alcohol:
1. Alcohol is seen as neutral, neither a poison nor a magic substance.
2. The act of drinking is viewed as normal. When there is no social pressure to drink, there is also no tolerance for abusive drinking.
3. Education about alcohol starts early and starts in the home. Hanson believes that some of the contributing factors to teenage drinking is the belief that “everybody is doing it”. He states that “the exaggeration of alcohol abuse tends to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more young people believe heavy drinking occurs, the more heavily they end up drinking in order to conform”. He also believes that the current legislative attitude of zero-tolerance towards college-age drinking contributes towards rebellion and rule-breaking by those students. Hanson proposes a gradual access to alcohol for students under parental supervision, much like the graduated driving laws. He asks “why not teach responsible drinking under mature supervision rather than leave these young adults to experiment on their own”?
Professor Hanson proposes several ways for parents to effectively educate their children about alcohol:
• Be good role models;
• Convey appropriate attitudes like not laughing at intoxication;
• Teach children that it is the abuse of alcohol that is the problem;
• Don’t drink and drive or ride with anyone who has been drinking;
• Don’t use machinery, climb ladders, operate boats, Jet Skis, when drinking;
• Never mix alcohol with medications or with other alcoholic beverages; Hanson also encourages parents to teach children:
• How to refuse a drink politely;
• How to ‘lose’ drinks that have been forced on them;
• How to prepare or order “mocktails” (drinks that look alcoholic);
• What constitutes a standard drink – 12 oz of beer, 5 oz of wine, 1 ½ oz of distilled spirits;
• Only time sobers a body, not coffee or cold air;
• Never drink on an empty stomach; food will slow alcohol absorption;
• Only one drink per hour;
• Vomiting when drunk can be fatal;
• Never drink for the sake of drinking or as part of a game or contest;
• Carbonated drinks will get alcohol into the bloodstream faster;
• Be wary of changes in your mood or perceptions when drinking;
Patricia Weems of the Fairgrounds Civic Association in Greenburgh echoed the need for education at the County hearing. Weems noted to the
legislators that many of her friends in college who had never drank before ended up alcoholics because of their lack of knowledge about alcohol. Weems asked the legislators “If we have to put money somewhere, let’s start with education”. The Social Host law will impose fines upon any adult found guilty of serving alcohol to minors in their homes. Weems asked “will fines stop teens from drinking? I doubt it!”
In comparison, another speaker at the hearing, told of a friend who was killed by a drunk driver and called for the proposed fines to be doubled and to reveal the offenders’ names publicly. Several area parents and civic leaders from Larchmont and Ossining echoed their
sentiments supporting the need for this legislation. However, while Assemblywoman Sandy Galef informed the legislators that, “This is a piece of legislation that will help to make sure our youth are protected,” she also noted that the state is currently considering the same legislation.
Indeed, the proposed law allows for the County to void it completely “on the day that federal or statewide legislation goes into effect”. So why incur the expense of pursuing this law when the state representatives are acknowledging that they are already doing so? One serious issue the hearing did not address is the potential for abuse of this law. An abusive parent in a bitter custody hearing could now use this law
as a legal weapon against an unsuspecting ex-spouse. Neighborhood battles could escalate – a local resident could turn in any neighbor they see just giving their child a sip of wine at dinner on their deck. There are still many issues to be addressed here before this proposal can, or should, become law.
The next hearing on this proposal is scheduled for August 11th. Anyone wishing to obtain information on this legislation, or any other, can find this on the Westchester County Board of Legislators website at http://www.westchesterlegislators.com/.
Westchester Guardian.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
In Our Opinion...
The Height Of Arrogance; County Board of Legislators
Make The Best Case Yet For Abolishing County Government
We were there, in the chambers of the County Board of Legislators, last Tuesday, July 8, when the Democratic majority demonstrated, once again, just how arrogantly they could treat their constituents in blind obedience to the dictates of the “Emperor” of the County Executive’s Office, Larry Schwartz. The time had come when Larry, and his front man, Andy Spano, would reward Jon Halpern, their friend, and generous campaign contributor, by taking his building, that he hasn’t been able to unload for five years, off his hands in exchange for 5.6 million of our tax dollars.
Oh, they had tried before to rationalize adding this 85,000-square-foot leaky, moldy old hulk to their inventory of more than four million square feet; at one point suggesting they would move the entire Board of Elections operation to the 450 Saw Mill River Road location in Ardsley. Never mind the underutilized space on Executive Boulevard in Yonkers, in Elmsford, and elsewhere, and that big parking lot right next door to the Election Board there in White Plains. Don’t even think about it.
And, there was no reason, after all, to be thinking about economizing. As far as Larry’s lackeys on the Board are concerned, things are financially wonderful here in Westchester. Besides, we’ve got to put those Stimulus Checks to work somehow. Friends don’t let friends, especially heavy contributors, get stuck with a big old building nobody wants. The Board had consented to 10 speakers from amongst those who had come out to the meeting; three minutes allotted to each. Not one spoke in favor of the scheme.
Paul Feiner, Supervisor of Greenburgh, and resident of Ardsley, told the legislators, amongst whom he once sat, “We’re overpaying, and this is not the time to spend the People’s money.” Then he shared with them, “The owner is seeking a 90 percent reduction in tax assessment. The County shouldn’t spend more than $1.2 million.” He concluded, “It smells like a gift.”
Anthony Futia, taxpayer advocate, declared, “It looks like a done deal with the main purpose of the authorities to get around a referendum.” Futia had exposed the ugly truth. They had bifurcated the package, the purchase for $5.6 million, and the repair for $7.5 million, in order to sneak around their own law, a bonding cap requiring them to put any such proposition before County taxpayers in a referendum if it exceeds $10 million.
Richard Garfunkel asked, “What about home rule?” He was acknowledging Legislator Tom Abinanti’s opposition to the purchase. He reiterated the dilapidated condition of the building with mold and asbestos problems, and asked why the old voting machines couldn’t be kept in the cheapest possible storage for the mandatory two years and the new machines, compliant with the HAVA legislation, stored in their place. He told the legislators, “The purchase of this building has been pushed on the taxpayers for a while.”
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka opened his remarks with, “I want to know the urgency of spending $13 million dollars.” He went on to remind the Board, “Mounting fuel costs and foreclosures affect those who must work hard just to pay taxes. He then said, “I am your boss, and everyone in this room is your boss. I will see that you will no longer be employed if you vote against the interests of the People.”
It truly did not matter to 12 of the 16 legislators present what concerned citizens, as well as the supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, had said. They had come to ram this $13 million political favor down taxpayer’s throats, like it or not. It didn’t matter that Tom Abinanti, a Democrat, in whose district the building stands, would be voting “no” together with Republicans George Oros, Jim Maisano, and Gordon Burrows. So much for Home Rule!
Burrows told his colleagues, “The People can see through this. Five point six million dollars to buy, seven point five million dollars to renovate a building with leaks and a mold problem, that’s falling apart. What are we doing in this county?” We believe Democratic Legislator Marty Rogowky expressed the arrogant attitude and the opinion of the Democratic majority; the best case for abolishing County Government. Rogowsky, apparently distressed that Journal News columnist Phil Reisman, had been diligently shining a spotlight on the Board’s latest rubber-stamp mischief for some time, addressing those in the audience, snidely remarked, “Newspapers and columnists don’t have any obligation to tell the truth.”
It might just turn out that Jim Maisano was hitting the nail on the head when he declared, “Only the County Government will pay $5.6 million for this building. The only winners are Ardsley Partners. It would be interesting to see if someone brings a litigation against this effort to get around the $10 million bond cap.”
Our Readers Respond...
Forgotten Promises, Broken Justice.
Dear Editor:
I am fortunate to be a member of a distinguished American institution, the du Pont family, and am proud of the role played by my forebears in the founding of our nation. I have witnessed for too long how corrupt our courts and lawyers are, and I can no longer remain silent or passive on this critical issue.
In general, any knowledgeable observer will find that the nation’s court systems- federal, state and local- are rife with a corrupt “buddy system.” I pose the question almost daily whether or not John Grisham has ever written an actual fiction. And as my travels have included
the same routes traveled by my 7th generation grandfather, and his friend President Thomas Jefferson, between New York and Virginia, I have been reluctant to accept one sad fact. The balance of power, the true test of “checks and balances” has somehow been abandoned.
The legal fraternities have indeed “embedded” themselves with one another- more than the general public realizes. Transparency is not a word that is liked in Judicial cloak-rooms and law firms, and if there is transparency, it is so skewed as to be rendered opaque so to prevent proper accountability. The Fix Is In In Virginia, I have witnessed the legal strategy of conflicting-out, an insider’s play where it is nearly impossible to hire a lawyer because individuals intentionally create conflicts of interest by a potential or actual opponent, thus obstructing proper legal advice. Courtroom procedures have reached farcical proportions, where disgruntled and biased judges warm the bench, and one
phone call with perhaps an associated wink and nod will provide the basis for a ruling that money can, and often does buy, whether directly or indirectly. I have observed pleas for integrity and honesty in the justice system summarily disregarded in Virginia, and when I moved to New York, I hoped I would witness a different- lawful - system. As things have turned out, I was completely mistaken!
I have observed countless examples that now support my, and many other’s, belief that our nation’s courts are in a state of complete contrast to what our founding fathers intended. The justice system can be and often is twisted with the speed, and ease, of a telephone call. I
have observed Virginia lawyers collude with their cronies here in New York City to continue to harass clients, while racking up millions – that’s right millions - in fees and expenses, including extended, first class stays at the city’s finest hotels for the bar members and their families, clearly tending to their, not their client’s, business. I am horri-fied to accept this practice of abuse of our national court system as the norm, not merely an anomaly.
In one case, the cost of legal maneuvering and skullduggery has so far cost well over $6 million, as lawyers and judges neatly design pleadings and rulings to keep this travesty alive. I am stunned by the daily reports that pass my desk evidencing a systemic and self-serving attack on the rule of law. Other well known, and not so well known, families and individuals have, and are, suffering similar losses and fi-nancial hardships, as they are forced to pay out counsel, executor, administrator, guardian, trustee and other similar fees in search of justice. An end must be brought to the legal largesse that corrupts our system of justice. It’s bad enough that the complexities and mysteries of the law compel the non-initiated to seek out expensive counsel in an effort to protect their rights and property. When it reaches the point, as well it has, when these same supposed guardians of liberty turn “their” system - and make no mistake the system belongs to them- into no more than a well orchestrated scam to defraud clients, something must be done.
I, for one, have resolved to devote my time and resources, and to recruit others similarly incensed, to shake the foundations of “their” system, letting in the light of transparency and the fresh air of real accountability, while bringing a long overdue end to the old buddy system.
My first action – and I ask that you join me- is to support an effort announced in June by three public interest organizations to form the Public Committee on Attorney Accountability, or PCAC, for short. This organization, currently in its organizational phase, is dedicated to establishing a lawyer disciplinary process controlled by non-attorneys in New York State.
Presently, believe it or not, lawyers review and police the alleged wrong doing of other lawyers. This Alice in Wonderland type of a system, invites unbridled favoritism, graft and corruption. In fact, as I write this, over a dozen federal and state law suits are pending in Manhattan courts, charging that complaints of malpractice, personal attacks and even theft, filed by individuals victimized by attorneys, have been regularly disregarded and covered up by the New York State socalled ‘ethics’ committees. Notably, a former attorney employed by the State
of New York went public in October of 2007 about the wide-spread corruption within New York State’s so-called “justice system” (Anderson v. New York S.D.N.Y 07cv9599).
I agree with the founders of the PCAC that placing non lawyers in charge of the grievance process will work to restore ethical standards to
what today is a fatally flawed process. I sincerely hope that PCAC’s search chairman, Mr. Jack T. Whitely, and his committee lead the charge to let the light of day come into the now darkened cloakrooms of the New York- and this nation’s - judicial system, and make true justice prevail at all levels. This is a needed first step to hold the bench and the bar accountable to the high standards envisioned by President
Jefferson and the other founding fathers. This goal is achievable, and I encourage you to join this long over due effort. The “old boy” network must be put to rest. I ask the public to support PCAC and to embrace the du Pont family motto, RECTITUDINE STO, “I STAND FOR THE RIGHT”- and as we will! Together, we can restore our nation’s justice system.
Mr. du Pont-de Bie Sr is a graduate of the Sorbonne in Paris. He has taught at the JFK University in Buenos Aires, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Higher Education, and the University of Florence, Italy. He is a founding member of the World Council for Gifted And Talented Children and a life member on the Board of the American Creativity Association. Mr. du Pont’s 7th greatgrandfather, Pierre Samuel du Pont De Nemours, was a major participant in the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase with President Thomas Jefferson.
Reader Says Amicone Lacks Ability To Make Hard Decisions
Dear Editor:
Why cars were leased for all the city workers i still don’t understand. Did they threaten not to take the jobs without a car? After three years knowing the many objections and the cost to the city, why weren’t they recalled and returned to the lessor? Is someone in City Hall going to
tell me that some employee enjoying a good salary, pensions and great health benefits will forego the job because he has no leased car?
Fact be told in a financial crunch such as Yonkers is always in, even “first responders” do not need leased cars. If the City building commissioner has to respond to an emergency and has no personal car, let him call the YPD, they will respond and deliver him sirens screaming.
I have a personal friend of 40 + years who was a deputy building commissioner for NYC when he retired. He lived and lives in lower Westchester, he responded to dozens of late night fires, building collapses, plane crashes etc. and never had a city car. Law clerks do
not need city cars nor does an Inspector General.
This past weekend, a long one, had the same cars sitting in the same spots all weekend long. Across from St. Johns RC Church on St. Johns Avenue, in front of a private house on Seminary Avenue, Palmer Road to highlight three locations. With a floundering national economy, gas at record prices with little prospect of any reduction in the forseeable future and with Yonkers in an admitted financial tailspin borrowing
against future revenue, bonding millions of dollars for future expenditures this continued car leasing policy is obscene. I cannot begin to imagine what is in the head of our Mayor, except the lack of ability to make hard decisions, very poor advice and a desire to bring the State Financial Control Board back to Yonkers at more expense to the taxpaying residents of Yonkers.
Sid Sloves
Yonkers
In Our Opinion...
The Height Of Arrogance; County Board of Legislators
Make The Best Case Yet For Abolishing County Government
We were there, in the chambers of the County Board of Legislators, last Tuesday, July 8, when the Democratic majority demonstrated, once again, just how arrogantly they could treat their constituents in blind obedience to the dictates of the “Emperor” of the County Executive’s Office, Larry Schwartz. The time had come when Larry, and his front man, Andy Spano, would reward Jon Halpern, their friend, and generous campaign contributor, by taking his building, that he hasn’t been able to unload for five years, off his hands in exchange for 5.6 million of our tax dollars.
Oh, they had tried before to rationalize adding this 85,000-square-foot leaky, moldy old hulk to their inventory of more than four million square feet; at one point suggesting they would move the entire Board of Elections operation to the 450 Saw Mill River Road location in Ardsley. Never mind the underutilized space on Executive Boulevard in Yonkers, in Elmsford, and elsewhere, and that big parking lot right next door to the Election Board there in White Plains. Don’t even think about it.
And, there was no reason, after all, to be thinking about economizing. As far as Larry’s lackeys on the Board are concerned, things are financially wonderful here in Westchester. Besides, we’ve got to put those Stimulus Checks to work somehow. Friends don’t let friends, especially heavy contributors, get stuck with a big old building nobody wants. The Board had consented to 10 speakers from amongst those who had come out to the meeting; three minutes allotted to each. Not one spoke in favor of the scheme.
Paul Feiner, Supervisor of Greenburgh, and resident of Ardsley, told the legislators, amongst whom he once sat, “We’re overpaying, and this is not the time to spend the People’s money.” Then he shared with them, “The owner is seeking a 90 percent reduction in tax assessment. The County shouldn’t spend more than $1.2 million.” He concluded, “It smells like a gift.”
Anthony Futia, taxpayer advocate, declared, “It looks like a done deal with the main purpose of the authorities to get around a referendum.” Futia had exposed the ugly truth. They had bifurcated the package, the purchase for $5.6 million, and the repair for $7.5 million, in order to sneak around their own law, a bonding cap requiring them to put any such proposition before County taxpayers in a referendum if it exceeds $10 million.
Richard Garfunkel asked, “What about home rule?” He was acknowledging Legislator Tom Abinanti’s opposition to the purchase. He reiterated the dilapidated condition of the building with mold and asbestos problems, and asked why the old voting machines couldn’t be kept in the cheapest possible storage for the mandatory two years and the new machines, compliant with the HAVA legislation, stored in their place. He told the legislators, “The purchase of this building has been pushed on the taxpayers for a while.”
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka opened his remarks with, “I want to know the urgency of spending $13 million dollars.” He went on to remind the Board, “Mounting fuel costs and foreclosures affect those who must work hard just to pay taxes. He then said, “I am your boss, and everyone in this room is your boss. I will see that you will no longer be employed if you vote against the interests of the People.”
It truly did not matter to 12 of the 16 legislators present what concerned citizens, as well as the supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, had said. They had come to ram this $13 million political favor down taxpayer’s throats, like it or not. It didn’t matter that Tom Abinanti, a Democrat, in whose district the building stands, would be voting “no” together with Republicans George Oros, Jim Maisano, and Gordon Burrows. So much for Home Rule!
Burrows told his colleagues, “The People can see through this. Five point six million dollars to buy, seven point five million dollars to renovate a building with leaks and a mold problem, that’s falling apart. What are we doing in this county?” We believe Democratic Legislator Marty Rogowky expressed the arrogant attitude and the opinion of the Democratic majority; the best case for abolishing County Government. Rogowsky, apparently distressed that Journal News columnist Phil Reisman, had been diligently shining a spotlight on the Board’s latest rubber-stamp mischief for some time, addressing those in the audience, snidely remarked, “Newspapers and columnists don’t have any obligation to tell the truth.”
It might just turn out that Jim Maisano was hitting the nail on the head when he declared, “Only the County Government will pay $5.6 million for this building. The only winners are Ardsley Partners. It would be interesting to see if someone brings a litigation against this effort to get around the $10 million bond cap.”
Our Readers Respond...
Forgotten Promises, Broken Justice.
Dear Editor:
I am fortunate to be a member of a distinguished American institution, the du Pont family, and am proud of the role played by my forebears in the founding of our nation. I have witnessed for too long how corrupt our courts and lawyers are, and I can no longer remain silent or passive on this critical issue.
In general, any knowledgeable observer will find that the nation’s court systems- federal, state and local- are rife with a corrupt “buddy system.” I pose the question almost daily whether or not John Grisham has ever written an actual fiction. And as my travels have included
the same routes traveled by my 7th generation grandfather, and his friend President Thomas Jefferson, between New York and Virginia, I have been reluctant to accept one sad fact. The balance of power, the true test of “checks and balances” has somehow been abandoned.
The legal fraternities have indeed “embedded” themselves with one another- more than the general public realizes. Transparency is not a word that is liked in Judicial cloak-rooms and law firms, and if there is transparency, it is so skewed as to be rendered opaque so to prevent proper accountability. The Fix Is In In Virginia, I have witnessed the legal strategy of conflicting-out, an insider’s play where it is nearly impossible to hire a lawyer because individuals intentionally create conflicts of interest by a potential or actual opponent, thus obstructing proper legal advice. Courtroom procedures have reached farcical proportions, where disgruntled and biased judges warm the bench, and one
phone call with perhaps an associated wink and nod will provide the basis for a ruling that money can, and often does buy, whether directly or indirectly. I have observed pleas for integrity and honesty in the justice system summarily disregarded in Virginia, and when I moved to New York, I hoped I would witness a different- lawful - system. As things have turned out, I was completely mistaken!
I have observed countless examples that now support my, and many other’s, belief that our nation’s courts are in a state of complete contrast to what our founding fathers intended. The justice system can be and often is twisted with the speed, and ease, of a telephone call. I
have observed Virginia lawyers collude with their cronies here in New York City to continue to harass clients, while racking up millions – that’s right millions - in fees and expenses, including extended, first class stays at the city’s finest hotels for the bar members and their families, clearly tending to their, not their client’s, business. I am horri-fied to accept this practice of abuse of our national court system as the norm, not merely an anomaly.
In one case, the cost of legal maneuvering and skullduggery has so far cost well over $6 million, as lawyers and judges neatly design pleadings and rulings to keep this travesty alive. I am stunned by the daily reports that pass my desk evidencing a systemic and self-serving attack on the rule of law. Other well known, and not so well known, families and individuals have, and are, suffering similar losses and fi-nancial hardships, as they are forced to pay out counsel, executor, administrator, guardian, trustee and other similar fees in search of justice. An end must be brought to the legal largesse that corrupts our system of justice. It’s bad enough that the complexities and mysteries of the law compel the non-initiated to seek out expensive counsel in an effort to protect their rights and property. When it reaches the point, as well it has, when these same supposed guardians of liberty turn “their” system - and make no mistake the system belongs to them- into no more than a well orchestrated scam to defraud clients, something must be done.
I, for one, have resolved to devote my time and resources, and to recruit others similarly incensed, to shake the foundations of “their” system, letting in the light of transparency and the fresh air of real accountability, while bringing a long overdue end to the old buddy system.
My first action – and I ask that you join me- is to support an effort announced in June by three public interest organizations to form the Public Committee on Attorney Accountability, or PCAC, for short. This organization, currently in its organizational phase, is dedicated to establishing a lawyer disciplinary process controlled by non-attorneys in New York State.
Presently, believe it or not, lawyers review and police the alleged wrong doing of other lawyers. This Alice in Wonderland type of a system, invites unbridled favoritism, graft and corruption. In fact, as I write this, over a dozen federal and state law suits are pending in Manhattan courts, charging that complaints of malpractice, personal attacks and even theft, filed by individuals victimized by attorneys, have been regularly disregarded and covered up by the New York State socalled ‘ethics’ committees. Notably, a former attorney employed by the State
of New York went public in October of 2007 about the wide-spread corruption within New York State’s so-called “justice system” (Anderson v. New York S.D.N.Y 07cv9599).
I agree with the founders of the PCAC that placing non lawyers in charge of the grievance process will work to restore ethical standards to
what today is a fatally flawed process. I sincerely hope that PCAC’s search chairman, Mr. Jack T. Whitely, and his committee lead the charge to let the light of day come into the now darkened cloakrooms of the New York- and this nation’s - judicial system, and make true justice prevail at all levels. This is a needed first step to hold the bench and the bar accountable to the high standards envisioned by President
Jefferson and the other founding fathers. This goal is achievable, and I encourage you to join this long over due effort. The “old boy” network must be put to rest. I ask the public to support PCAC and to embrace the du Pont family motto, RECTITUDINE STO, “I STAND FOR THE RIGHT”- and as we will! Together, we can restore our nation’s justice system.
Mr. du Pont-de Bie Sr is a graduate of the Sorbonne in Paris. He has taught at the JFK University in Buenos Aires, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Higher Education, and the University of Florence, Italy. He is a founding member of the World Council for Gifted And Talented Children and a life member on the Board of the American Creativity Association. Mr. du Pont’s 7th greatgrandfather, Pierre Samuel du Pont De Nemours, was a major participant in the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase with President Thomas Jefferson.
Reader Says Amicone Lacks Ability To Make Hard Decisions
Dear Editor:
Why cars were leased for all the city workers i still don’t understand. Did they threaten not to take the jobs without a car? After three years knowing the many objections and the cost to the city, why weren’t they recalled and returned to the lessor? Is someone in City Hall going to
tell me that some employee enjoying a good salary, pensions and great health benefits will forego the job because he has no leased car?
Fact be told in a financial crunch such as Yonkers is always in, even “first responders” do not need leased cars. If the City building commissioner has to respond to an emergency and has no personal car, let him call the YPD, they will respond and deliver him sirens screaming.
I have a personal friend of 40 + years who was a deputy building commissioner for NYC when he retired. He lived and lives in lower Westchester, he responded to dozens of late night fires, building collapses, plane crashes etc. and never had a city car. Law clerks do
not need city cars nor does an Inspector General.
This past weekend, a long one, had the same cars sitting in the same spots all weekend long. Across from St. Johns RC Church on St. Johns Avenue, in front of a private house on Seminary Avenue, Palmer Road to highlight three locations. With a floundering national economy, gas at record prices with little prospect of any reduction in the forseeable future and with Yonkers in an admitted financial tailspin borrowing
against future revenue, bonding millions of dollars for future expenditures this continued car leasing policy is obscene. I cannot begin to imagine what is in the head of our Mayor, except the lack of ability to make hard decisions, very poor advice and a desire to bring the State Financial Control Board back to Yonkers at more expense to the taxpaying residents of Yonkers.
Sid Sloves
Yonkers
Westchester Guardian.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Federal Judge Denies Harrison’s Motion To Dismiss
Holds Town And Individual Police Officers Accountable
Last Wednesday, June 9, United States District Judge William C. Conner denied a motion by Harrison Police Officers Lucas and DiGiacomo, and the Town of Harrison to dismiss the claim of Sofia Saenz, brought under 42USC Section 1983 against several Harrison Police Officers and the Town of Harrison.
Analysis:
Ms. Saenz, friend of Harrison Police Officer Ralph Tancredi, found herself unlawfully, unconstitutionally violated by police officers of the
Town of Harrison and ADA Barbara Egenhauser of the Westchester District Attorney’s Office as Captain Marraccini and Chief Hall, aided and abetted by the District Attorney’s Office, attempted to extract retaliation against Officer Tancredi.
The motion for dismissal brought by Defendants were predicated upon the theory that the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted by the Court. Judge Conner found that Plaintiff Saenz “has carried her burden on this motion,” and thus dismissed the Defendants’ action.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Federal Judge Denies Harrison’s Motion To Dismiss
Holds Town And Individual Police Officers Accountable
Last Wednesday, June 9, United States District Judge William C. Conner denied a motion by Harrison Police Officers Lucas and DiGiacomo, and the Town of Harrison to dismiss the claim of Sofia Saenz, brought under 42USC Section 1983 against several Harrison Police Officers and the Town of Harrison.
Analysis:
Ms. Saenz, friend of Harrison Police Officer Ralph Tancredi, found herself unlawfully, unconstitutionally violated by police officers of the
Town of Harrison and ADA Barbara Egenhauser of the Westchester District Attorney’s Office as Captain Marraccini and Chief Hall, aided and abetted by the District Attorney’s Office, attempted to extract retaliation against Officer Tancredi.
The motion for dismissal brought by Defendants were predicated upon the theory that the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted by the Court. Judge Conner found that Plaintiff Saenz “has carried her burden on this motion,” and thus dismissed the Defendants’ action.
Westchester Guardian/Ron Gatto.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Andy Spano And County Police Officer
Engage In Unlawful Dealings
In the June 5, 2008 issue of The Guardian, there appeared a Letter to the Editor entitled, “Reader Exposes County Police Conflict Of Interest,” from ‘A Concerned County Resident’. The letter asked, “Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Gatto is in charge of the Environmental Enforcement Unit for the Westchester County Police, yet he has his subordinate making a Consumer Affairs arrest and subsequent vehicle impounding of a garage door installer?”
The writer went on, “All the while Ron Gatto’s wife owns a garage door installation company, and the arrested party is the Number
One competitor of Ron Gatto’s wife’s company, Whitaker Overhead Garage Door.”
The writer asked, “Is it more than coincidence that both garage door companies are from Yorktown, further proving that this was more personal than professional?” The writer closed, asking, “Are there no more environmental violators for Gatto’s unit to focus on?” The Guardian wondered what it was all about, and decided to investigate, FOILing the County Executive’s Office and the Department of
Public Safety, Mr. Gatto’s employer.
We confirmed that “Director Gatto’s annual salary is $99,725.” A request for “resumes, qualifications, and training” was denied as were payroll records and stubs. We received a copy of a press release from the County Executive’s Office which had been first issued February 28, 2008, headlined, “Unlicensed Contractor Arrested, Van Seized By County Police. First Such Seizure Under New Consumer Protection Law.”
The press release declared, “This was the first-ever seizure in Westchester, but it won’t be the last.” It went on, “The arrest Wednesday of
Jason Grotsky, owner of the Door Doctor in Jefferson Valley was the second time in a week that Grotsky was charged by County Police.”
The press release essentially confirmed what had been written in the Letter to the Editor, detailing that Grotsky, owner of Door Doctor,
was arrested for failure to have a Consumer Protection License “after E.S.U. Director Ron Gatto, Detective Carfi, and E.S.U. Inspector
Allen Carroll went to a home on Constant Avenue in Peekskill and found Door Doctor repairing a garage door.”
When The Guardian googled “Captain Ron Gatto,” we turned up numerous newspaper accounts from 1999 and 2000 when he was with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. One story that appeared in The New York Times, May 10, 2000, by Randal C. Archibold, best summarizes Gatto’s history prior to employment with Westchester County. The article, entitled “Top Pollution Officer Fired After He Promotes An Aide,” read, in part, “The officer, Deputy Chief Lee Siegel, was fired Monday, a few days after he was ordered
to revoke the promotion of Captain Ronald A. Gatto. Captain Gatto has long clashed with City offi-cials, and he sued the City last year, saying that his superiors retaliated after he complained about inaction on investigations.”
Gatto was overheard, recently, telling someone at the Yorktown Diner, following the June 5 publication of the Letter to the Editor, “I’m untouchable; I put in garage doors and did other work at Andy Spano’s house for free.”
In that connection, The Guardian confirmed that on multiple occasions in December 2003 Gatto was called to Spano’s house while on duty, on County time, to work on garage doors he installed. On one occasion, he was apparently called to Spano’s house because the County Executive was locked out.
In light of the information gathered, strongly suggesting serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the arrest of a competitor of his wife in the garage door business, and the apparent unlawful relationship with County Executive Andy Spano, The Guardian decided,
last week, that it was time to confront Mr. Gatto and afford him the opportunity to explain, and/or dispute, our discoveries.
On Wednesday, July 9, Publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by a staff photographer and a staff assistant, traveled to the headquarters of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, and led the following report:
Wed., July 9, 2008, 6:19pm - I went to the Westchester Department of Public Safety at around 4:30pm, knowing that Ron Gatto comes out
at that time. He knew we were there and stayed inside for almost an hour, finally coming out. I told him, “Let me take a picture of you.”
I asked him, “Did you ever install doors or do any work for Andy Spano at his home? And, are you involved with Whitaker Doors?” He
said, “No, I’m a cop. I don’t know what you are talking about.” I then asked him, “Do you have anything to do with Whitaker Overhead
Doors in Yorktown?”
He said, “No.”
I asked, “Are you married to Faye Whitaker?”
He said, “No, nope. I’m married to a Faye, but not Faye Whitaker.” I persisted, “Is that her maiden name?”
He replied, “What can I tell you? No.” I then told him, “We have this allegation and I wanted to give you a chance to tell your side.”
His reply was, “It’s nonsense. I have two grandchildren, I have to go.” Again I asked, “Do you know Faye Whitaker?” Again, he said, “No, I do not!” Then I said, “Is your wife’s name Faye?”
“Yes, but not Faye Whitaker,” was his answer. I asked, “Do you know anything about Whitaker Doors?” He insisted, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
I immediately called Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors, located at 1500 Front Street in Yorktown Heights and got the answering machine.
The message directed me to an emergency number, 914-447-4898. I called that number and a gentleman named Jonathan answered. I then asked for Faye Whitaker. He said, “She is not in.” I then asked for Ron Gatto. He said, “He is also not in.” I then asked Jonathan, “Are Faye
and Ron husband and wife?” He answered, “Yes they are. Now, what can I do for you?”
I asked him, “How much did the doors cost that Ron installed in Andy Spano’s house?” He asked, “Which house? The one down here, or the
one upstate?” I said, “The one in Yorktown.” He said he would check and get back to me. I told him I liked the doors and wanted a price. He
asked if they were the custom doors.
I said, “I don’t know. I just want a price.” He called me back five minutes later and said, “I just checked that job, and could not nd an invoice.
I can’t tell you how much they cost.”Ron Gatto had denied being married to Faye Whitaker; denied being associated with Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors. Yet, his employee admits he is both married to Faye Whitaker and involved in the business.
He denied knowing anything about doors installed in Andy Spano’s house; yet, his employee, Jonathan, knew about Andy’s house down here, and the house upstate. Jonathan said he could not send an invoice. That probably means they were free.
– Sammy
Based upon our inquiry and interviews, as well as information volunteered by persons in the community regarding Mr. Gatto’s statements
and activities, The Guardian believes there is more than ample evidence to warrant the following:
•The New York State Commission of Investigation, and/or the State Attorney General’s Office, must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conflicted relationship between Director Ron Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano, including, but not limited to, the material
gain by each in violation of state statutes.
•The United States Attorney’s Office must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of Director Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano with respect to the violation of trust, and Public Integrity committed by each of them as public employees with respect to misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds as well as the violation of the civil rights, under Color of Law, of Jason Grotsky, and possibly others.
• Director Gatto must be immediately relieved of his duties pending the outcome of said investigations, lest further civil rights and ethical violations of Public Integrity occur.
• County Executive Spano must be made to account to the citizens of Westchester County as to why he should not be sanctioned and recalled from office.
• Under no circumstances may the District Attorney of Westchester County, Janet Di-Fiore, who has repeatedly demonstrated that she is conflicted in matters involving police officers and police agencies throughout Westchester County, be permitted to become involved in the
necessary investigations.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Andy Spano And County Police Officer
Engage In Unlawful Dealings
In the June 5, 2008 issue of The Guardian, there appeared a Letter to the Editor entitled, “Reader Exposes County Police Conflict Of Interest,” from ‘A Concerned County Resident’. The letter asked, “Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Gatto is in charge of the Environmental Enforcement Unit for the Westchester County Police, yet he has his subordinate making a Consumer Affairs arrest and subsequent vehicle impounding of a garage door installer?”
The writer went on, “All the while Ron Gatto’s wife owns a garage door installation company, and the arrested party is the Number
One competitor of Ron Gatto’s wife’s company, Whitaker Overhead Garage Door.”
The writer asked, “Is it more than coincidence that both garage door companies are from Yorktown, further proving that this was more personal than professional?” The writer closed, asking, “Are there no more environmental violators for Gatto’s unit to focus on?” The Guardian wondered what it was all about, and decided to investigate, FOILing the County Executive’s Office and the Department of
Public Safety, Mr. Gatto’s employer.
We confirmed that “Director Gatto’s annual salary is $99,725.” A request for “resumes, qualifications, and training” was denied as were payroll records and stubs. We received a copy of a press release from the County Executive’s Office which had been first issued February 28, 2008, headlined, “Unlicensed Contractor Arrested, Van Seized By County Police. First Such Seizure Under New Consumer Protection Law.”
The press release declared, “This was the first-ever seizure in Westchester, but it won’t be the last.” It went on, “The arrest Wednesday of
Jason Grotsky, owner of the Door Doctor in Jefferson Valley was the second time in a week that Grotsky was charged by County Police.”
The press release essentially confirmed what had been written in the Letter to the Editor, detailing that Grotsky, owner of Door Doctor,
was arrested for failure to have a Consumer Protection License “after E.S.U. Director Ron Gatto, Detective Carfi, and E.S.U. Inspector
Allen Carroll went to a home on Constant Avenue in Peekskill and found Door Doctor repairing a garage door.”
When The Guardian googled “Captain Ron Gatto,” we turned up numerous newspaper accounts from 1999 and 2000 when he was with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. One story that appeared in The New York Times, May 10, 2000, by Randal C. Archibold, best summarizes Gatto’s history prior to employment with Westchester County. The article, entitled “Top Pollution Officer Fired After He Promotes An Aide,” read, in part, “The officer, Deputy Chief Lee Siegel, was fired Monday, a few days after he was ordered
to revoke the promotion of Captain Ronald A. Gatto. Captain Gatto has long clashed with City offi-cials, and he sued the City last year, saying that his superiors retaliated after he complained about inaction on investigations.”
Gatto was overheard, recently, telling someone at the Yorktown Diner, following the June 5 publication of the Letter to the Editor, “I’m untouchable; I put in garage doors and did other work at Andy Spano’s house for free.”
In that connection, The Guardian confirmed that on multiple occasions in December 2003 Gatto was called to Spano’s house while on duty, on County time, to work on garage doors he installed. On one occasion, he was apparently called to Spano’s house because the County Executive was locked out.
In light of the information gathered, strongly suggesting serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the arrest of a competitor of his wife in the garage door business, and the apparent unlawful relationship with County Executive Andy Spano, The Guardian decided,
last week, that it was time to confront Mr. Gatto and afford him the opportunity to explain, and/or dispute, our discoveries.
On Wednesday, July 9, Publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by a staff photographer and a staff assistant, traveled to the headquarters of the Westchester County Department of Public Safety, and led the following report:
Wed., July 9, 2008, 6:19pm - I went to the Westchester Department of Public Safety at around 4:30pm, knowing that Ron Gatto comes out
at that time. He knew we were there and stayed inside for almost an hour, finally coming out. I told him, “Let me take a picture of you.”
I asked him, “Did you ever install doors or do any work for Andy Spano at his home? And, are you involved with Whitaker Doors?” He
said, “No, I’m a cop. I don’t know what you are talking about.” I then asked him, “Do you have anything to do with Whitaker Overhead
Doors in Yorktown?”
He said, “No.”
I asked, “Are you married to Faye Whitaker?”
He said, “No, nope. I’m married to a Faye, but not Faye Whitaker.” I persisted, “Is that her maiden name?”
He replied, “What can I tell you? No.” I then told him, “We have this allegation and I wanted to give you a chance to tell your side.”
His reply was, “It’s nonsense. I have two grandchildren, I have to go.” Again I asked, “Do you know Faye Whitaker?” Again, he said, “No, I do not!” Then I said, “Is your wife’s name Faye?”
“Yes, but not Faye Whitaker,” was his answer. I asked, “Do you know anything about Whitaker Doors?” He insisted, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
I immediately called Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors, located at 1500 Front Street in Yorktown Heights and got the answering machine.
The message directed me to an emergency number, 914-447-4898. I called that number and a gentleman named Jonathan answered. I then asked for Faye Whitaker. He said, “She is not in.” I then asked for Ron Gatto. He said, “He is also not in.” I then asked Jonathan, “Are Faye
and Ron husband and wife?” He answered, “Yes they are. Now, what can I do for you?”
I asked him, “How much did the doors cost that Ron installed in Andy Spano’s house?” He asked, “Which house? The one down here, or the
one upstate?” I said, “The one in Yorktown.” He said he would check and get back to me. I told him I liked the doors and wanted a price. He
asked if they were the custom doors.
I said, “I don’t know. I just want a price.” He called me back five minutes later and said, “I just checked that job, and could not nd an invoice.
I can’t tell you how much they cost.”Ron Gatto had denied being married to Faye Whitaker; denied being associated with Whitaker Overhead Garage Doors. Yet, his employee admits he is both married to Faye Whitaker and involved in the business.
He denied knowing anything about doors installed in Andy Spano’s house; yet, his employee, Jonathan, knew about Andy’s house down here, and the house upstate. Jonathan said he could not send an invoice. That probably means they were free.
– Sammy
Based upon our inquiry and interviews, as well as information volunteered by persons in the community regarding Mr. Gatto’s statements
and activities, The Guardian believes there is more than ample evidence to warrant the following:
•The New York State Commission of Investigation, and/or the State Attorney General’s Office, must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conflicted relationship between Director Ron Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano, including, but not limited to, the material
gain by each in violation of state statutes.
•The United States Attorney’s Office must conduct a comprehensive investigation into the conduct of Director Gatto and County Executive Andrew Spano with respect to the violation of trust, and Public Integrity committed by each of them as public employees with respect to misappropriation of taxpayers’ funds as well as the violation of the civil rights, under Color of Law, of Jason Grotsky, and possibly others.
• Director Gatto must be immediately relieved of his duties pending the outcome of said investigations, lest further civil rights and ethical violations of Public Integrity occur.
• County Executive Spano must be made to account to the citizens of Westchester County as to why he should not be sanctioned and recalled from office.
• Under no circumstances may the District Attorney of Westchester County, Janet Di-Fiore, who has repeatedly demonstrated that she is conflicted in matters involving police officers and police agencies throughout Westchester County, be permitted to become involved in the
necessary investigations.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Janet Difiore.
Jeff Deskovic
The Irma Marquez Case:
What Should Have Happened
As has been public knowledge for quite some time now, there is a serious problem with police brutality in Yonkers. The Guardian, nearly two years ago, in September of 2006 virtually opened Pandora’s Box with an article about a “Mother, 72, Daughter 49,” the Bostwicks, one of whom was roughed up, and the other brutalized and charged with bogus offenses by Yonkers Police. The police were responding to their call because a teenager who had been beaten up and bloodied by a neighbor of theirs came pleading for help to their door.
Within a week of the appearance of their story, the local chapter of the NAACP, chaired by President Karen Edmonson, held a seminar at the Riverfront Library, which was attended by approximately 125 people, at which 25 to 30 people came forward to describe their personal experiences and that of their families with Yonkers Police brutality. Their information was recorded by law students from Pace Law School under the direction of Randolph McLaughlin and Debra Cohen.
About a year later, at a similar public forum in Sept. 2007, Mayor Amicone was booed and chased out of the auditorium for trying to suggest that there was no problem. I will explore what happened to another Yonkers Police brutality vic-tim, Irma Marquez, and discuss what
should have happened as well as discussing community relations between the public and the police department, which was discussed at a recent public forum held in Mount Vernon at the Grace Baptist Church.
In March 2007, Irma Marquez’ niece was hit with a bottle and knocked unconscious at La Fonda restaurant in Yonkers. EMTs were called, and Marquez, a middle-aged home health aide, who was present, was also trying to tend to her niece, bending over her while the EMTs were working. An officer took Marquez by the arm and backed her up, and she accidentally stepped on the foot of another officer in the process.
At that point Yonkers police officer Wayne Simoes approached and shoved Marquez’ shoulder. Marquez apparently objected to being shoved, and Simoes grabbed her by the waist, lifted her in the air and slammed her face-first into the tile floor, handcuffing her as she lay unconscious.
She suffered a broken jaw and extensive bruising and had to be hospitalized for four days. The whole incident was captured on a concealed
security video camera. Marquez was nonetheless arrested and charged with Obstruction Of Governmental Administration, and an internal
inquiry cleared Simoes of any wrongdoing. After Marquez’s attorney, Gary Certain, viewed the tape, he asked for the charges to be dropped.
Assistant DA Paul Scharf, bureau chief of the local courts and grand jury, responded that he had reviewed the tape with Assistant District
Attorney Mark Garretto, Bureau Chief in Yonkers, and they had decided to follow through on the case against Marquez.
Attorney Certain said he then sent a letter to DiFiore with details of the video and pictures of Marquez’s injuries. She called him and indicated the case would be re-examined. However, he never heard back from her until early May, when her Office said it was proceeding to trial. At some point prior to the jury verdict, the Justice Department informed the City of Yonkers that it was investigating the case. Upon learning that, Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone held a news conference to praise the department, saying its officers “do their jobs the right way in full accordance with the law.” Marquez was acquitted following a jury trial, and proceeded to file an $11.3 million dollar lawsuit against the police department.
After the trial, Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore launched an internal inquiry into how her own office handled the matter. She suggested on Friday, June 27, in a terse written statement that the case was ‘mishandled’. She stated, “Personnel have been disciplined,
operational changes are being made, and enhanced training is being put in place.” Her office declined further comment and wouldn’t say who
was disciplined. However, Mark Garretto, who had been the bureau chief in Yonkers since DiFiore became district attorney in 2006, was reassigned to the Motions And Appeals Bureau. DiFiore’s spokesman, Lucien Chalfen, remained tight-lipped, not willing to say whether
Garretto’s transfer was related to the Marquez case.
On June 27th the FBI arrested Simoes and accused him of violating Marquez’ civil rights. FBI Agent Kristina Norris wrote in a criminal complaint against Simoes filed in U.S. District Court in White Plains that when agents asked police officers about the images from a surveillance videotape that showed Officer Wayne Simoes brutally slamming Irma Marquez facedown to the ground, “Several officers
stated that, based on their training and experience, Simoes’ use of force against Marquez was unreasonable and excessive,” Simoes surrendered to federal authorities at 9 a.m. in White Plains and made a brief court appearance two hours later. He was released on $300,000 bond.
Yonkers Police said in a statement that Commissioner Edmund Hartnett has told the department’s Internal Affairs Division to reopen its investigation. Additionally, Yonkers police released a statement that said Simoes had been placed on modified duty. Here is what should have happened: Firstly, the police officers who were on the scene should have arrested Simoes’ right there on the spot for assault. The fact that a perpetrator draws his paycheck from a law enforcement position does not excuse him. If anything, the fact that he is in a position of public trust and equipped with a gun and a baton, and other equipment, and has the ability to call others for help, and yet nonetheless abuses it, makes it an aggravating circumstance, Aggravated Assault.
When the other officers failed to arrest him, the supervisor should have arrested him, while suspending those officers who were present and did nothing. When that failed, each person up the line in authority should have made the arrest while suspending those under him/her who failed to do so. When the matter ultimately got to the level of the District Attorney’s Office, Assistant District Attorneys Mark Garretto and Paul Scharf should have charged Simoes with assault, while also dismissing the charges against Marquez.
After all, the incident was caught on tape and therefore there was no question as to what happened. When that failed, District Attorney DiFiore should have had Simoes arrested and had the charges dismissed against Marquez. A District Attorney is, I believe, ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in the office. In point of fact, they are there to oversee and supervise everything. While I can see
how it could get difficult to stay on top of every single thing, at all times, while letting nothing escape one’s notice, Attorney Certain stated that he sent a letter to DiFiore with details of the video and pictures of Marquez’s injuries, and upon receipt of which she called him
and indicated the case would be re-examined.
Therefore, she knew precisely what was going on. As I said earlier, when the officers who were present saw Simoes bodyslam Marquez, they should have immediately arrested them. If an ordinary citizen did that to somebody in the presence of police officers, they would
be arrested on the spot. We also see in the Marquez case that the blue wall of silence is very much still alive. Every single one of those officers who maintained that code of silence should be suspended. Lest anyone think that I am anti-cop or overreacting, we are talking about a
crime that was initially covered up, and likely still would be but for release of the videotape.
The covering up that typically goes on when the system covers up for the system, no matter what the facts are, manifested itself in the initial police internal investigation clearing Simoes. Mayor Amicone, making his public statement defending and praising the police when word got out that the Justice Department was investigating Simoes, and the District Attorney’s office not dropping the charges against Marquez and arresting him, represent a repititious conspiracy and scenario in blatant violation of the victim’s civil rights.
That Marquez had to be subjected to the trauma, expense, uncertainty, and risk of being wrongfully convicted that a trial brings for someone that the tape shows was innocent of, is shameful and unlawful. Anyone who believes that the reinvestigation by the Yonkers Police Department would have happened had the FBI not arrested Simoes, is naïve. In support of that thesis, I would like to point out that the tape and photos were around during the first go around. I am convinced that Simoes received preferential treatment from the court system once he was arrested, that only the connected, powerful, political, wealthy, and some law enforcement personnel are accorded: being released
on bail the same day that he was arrested. This two tiered system of justice-one for the poor and common folk, and the other for those on the upper end of the socio economic status, has got to stop if the law is to have any moral authority. I believe that the District Attorney’s Office should have released the names of those employees who were disciplined. Why should it be a private thing? I believe in transparency in government, and that the public has a right to know what is going on, and why. When someone has been transferred or disciplined for wrongdoing, the public should know so that we can have confidence that the same individual will not be able to repeat his or her actions,
and that it will not be tolerated by any other staff member. It would show that everything is above board, nothing is going on behind the scenes, nothing being swept under the rug, and no us v. them mentality. As a citizen of Westchester, I, along with the public, would like to know, without having to draw an inference; but instead being explicitly told, how the people who were disciplined were actually disciplined.
Why is it when ordinary citizens are arrested it is announced to the public; their names and what the charges are, and what the punishment ends up being. Whenever tragedy or misfortunate comes, I believe that we have a moral responsibility to victims to do what we can to see to it that they do not suffer for no reason. We, instead, must learn the lessons of the incident and do what we can to prevent any reccurrence.
The maxim that “Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future,” is true. Accordingly, I have some concrete ideas involving morality and legislation that would, if followed, prevent future cases such as Irma Marquez.
I would call upon the honest, law abiding police officers of Yonkers to take back the police force from the band of rogue cops who are engaging in police brutality, the breaking of the laws, and general corruption. There should be no feelings of solidarity between honest
cops and dishonest ones. Instead, true officer solidarity should come from the observable actions of honest, law-abiding police work that stays within the limits of the law, involves no brutality, cuts no corners, does not violate the rights of any civilians, whether suspects or not; takes no bribes, and engages in no corruption. The maintaining of good relations should be dependent upon the maintaining of those rules.
Prosecutors should pay special attention whenever there are allegations by defendants that they’ve been roughed up by police. In every instance where that has proven to be the case, charges against accused should be dismissed. To do less than that is to allow rogue law
enforcement officers to hijack the legal system and use it to their own ends as a means of covering up their own brutality. It is not unusual for such officers to falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” in order to try to justify their previous unlawful use of force. It also serves
to further punish a defendant who they have previously brutalized. We must enact laws which encourage law enforcement personnel who witness other officers committing crimes, to step forward and press charges; with the failure to do so being grounds not only for dismissal, but also to be charged with the crime of aiding and abetting and acting in concert. The same should apply to any supervisors who witness, or in any way learn of the occurrence of such activity and yet take no action to investigate and arrest where the evidence is secured.
In reality, those who turn their heads are, in fact, assisting the culture to form in which brutality is acceptable. In my book, that is aiding and
abetting. The legislation should be not just on a state level, but also on the federal level, authorizing the FBI and U.S. Attorney to step in whenever state law makers fail to do so. Each time an of-ficer gets away with police brutality, it threatens the safety of us all while setting
the stage for acceptability to set in, thus causing it to happen again. Until such time as legislation is passed to that effect, departments should adopt internal policies requiring officers and supervisors to take action when they witness or otherwise learn of police brutality.
Legislation is absolutely necessary which would establish an independent prosecutor to handle any and all cases involving the police. Police and prosecutors work together, and it is only natural that a certain amount of familiarity or cordiality develops between them, and such personal interaction can often factor into the thought processes with regard to whether to prosecute or not. Someone who has no personal familiarity with the people involved in a case, and can instead look at the facts of a case objectively with no personal consideration; in short, an independent prosecutor is what is needed. An independent prosecutor is not bound by the constraints imposed by the relationship
between district attorneys and police. Additionally, one cannot overemphasize the importance of Civilian Complaint Review Boards. However, such Boards cannot be effective unless they have subpoena power, and the power to suspend and bestow penalties.
The Irma Marquez Case:
What Should Have Happened
As has been public knowledge for quite some time now, there is a serious problem with police brutality in Yonkers. The Guardian, nearly two years ago, in September of 2006 virtually opened Pandora’s Box with an article about a “Mother, 72, Daughter 49,” the Bostwicks, one of whom was roughed up, and the other brutalized and charged with bogus offenses by Yonkers Police. The police were responding to their call because a teenager who had been beaten up and bloodied by a neighbor of theirs came pleading for help to their door.
Within a week of the appearance of their story, the local chapter of the NAACP, chaired by President Karen Edmonson, held a seminar at the Riverfront Library, which was attended by approximately 125 people, at which 25 to 30 people came forward to describe their personal experiences and that of their families with Yonkers Police brutality. Their information was recorded by law students from Pace Law School under the direction of Randolph McLaughlin and Debra Cohen.
About a year later, at a similar public forum in Sept. 2007, Mayor Amicone was booed and chased out of the auditorium for trying to suggest that there was no problem. I will explore what happened to another Yonkers Police brutality vic-tim, Irma Marquez, and discuss what
should have happened as well as discussing community relations between the public and the police department, which was discussed at a recent public forum held in Mount Vernon at the Grace Baptist Church.
In March 2007, Irma Marquez’ niece was hit with a bottle and knocked unconscious at La Fonda restaurant in Yonkers. EMTs were called, and Marquez, a middle-aged home health aide, who was present, was also trying to tend to her niece, bending over her while the EMTs were working. An officer took Marquez by the arm and backed her up, and she accidentally stepped on the foot of another officer in the process.
At that point Yonkers police officer Wayne Simoes approached and shoved Marquez’ shoulder. Marquez apparently objected to being shoved, and Simoes grabbed her by the waist, lifted her in the air and slammed her face-first into the tile floor, handcuffing her as she lay unconscious.
She suffered a broken jaw and extensive bruising and had to be hospitalized for four days. The whole incident was captured on a concealed
security video camera. Marquez was nonetheless arrested and charged with Obstruction Of Governmental Administration, and an internal
inquiry cleared Simoes of any wrongdoing. After Marquez’s attorney, Gary Certain, viewed the tape, he asked for the charges to be dropped.
Assistant DA Paul Scharf, bureau chief of the local courts and grand jury, responded that he had reviewed the tape with Assistant District
Attorney Mark Garretto, Bureau Chief in Yonkers, and they had decided to follow through on the case against Marquez.
Attorney Certain said he then sent a letter to DiFiore with details of the video and pictures of Marquez’s injuries. She called him and indicated the case would be re-examined. However, he never heard back from her until early May, when her Office said it was proceeding to trial. At some point prior to the jury verdict, the Justice Department informed the City of Yonkers that it was investigating the case. Upon learning that, Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone held a news conference to praise the department, saying its officers “do their jobs the right way in full accordance with the law.” Marquez was acquitted following a jury trial, and proceeded to file an $11.3 million dollar lawsuit against the police department.
After the trial, Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore launched an internal inquiry into how her own office handled the matter. She suggested on Friday, June 27, in a terse written statement that the case was ‘mishandled’. She stated, “Personnel have been disciplined,
operational changes are being made, and enhanced training is being put in place.” Her office declined further comment and wouldn’t say who
was disciplined. However, Mark Garretto, who had been the bureau chief in Yonkers since DiFiore became district attorney in 2006, was reassigned to the Motions And Appeals Bureau. DiFiore’s spokesman, Lucien Chalfen, remained tight-lipped, not willing to say whether
Garretto’s transfer was related to the Marquez case.
On June 27th the FBI arrested Simoes and accused him of violating Marquez’ civil rights. FBI Agent Kristina Norris wrote in a criminal complaint against Simoes filed in U.S. District Court in White Plains that when agents asked police officers about the images from a surveillance videotape that showed Officer Wayne Simoes brutally slamming Irma Marquez facedown to the ground, “Several officers
stated that, based on their training and experience, Simoes’ use of force against Marquez was unreasonable and excessive,” Simoes surrendered to federal authorities at 9 a.m. in White Plains and made a brief court appearance two hours later. He was released on $300,000 bond.
Yonkers Police said in a statement that Commissioner Edmund Hartnett has told the department’s Internal Affairs Division to reopen its investigation. Additionally, Yonkers police released a statement that said Simoes had been placed on modified duty. Here is what should have happened: Firstly, the police officers who were on the scene should have arrested Simoes’ right there on the spot for assault. The fact that a perpetrator draws his paycheck from a law enforcement position does not excuse him. If anything, the fact that he is in a position of public trust and equipped with a gun and a baton, and other equipment, and has the ability to call others for help, and yet nonetheless abuses it, makes it an aggravating circumstance, Aggravated Assault.
When the other officers failed to arrest him, the supervisor should have arrested him, while suspending those officers who were present and did nothing. When that failed, each person up the line in authority should have made the arrest while suspending those under him/her who failed to do so. When the matter ultimately got to the level of the District Attorney’s Office, Assistant District Attorneys Mark Garretto and Paul Scharf should have charged Simoes with assault, while also dismissing the charges against Marquez.
After all, the incident was caught on tape and therefore there was no question as to what happened. When that failed, District Attorney DiFiore should have had Simoes arrested and had the charges dismissed against Marquez. A District Attorney is, I believe, ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in the office. In point of fact, they are there to oversee and supervise everything. While I can see
how it could get difficult to stay on top of every single thing, at all times, while letting nothing escape one’s notice, Attorney Certain stated that he sent a letter to DiFiore with details of the video and pictures of Marquez’s injuries, and upon receipt of which she called him
and indicated the case would be re-examined.
Therefore, she knew precisely what was going on. As I said earlier, when the officers who were present saw Simoes bodyslam Marquez, they should have immediately arrested them. If an ordinary citizen did that to somebody in the presence of police officers, they would
be arrested on the spot. We also see in the Marquez case that the blue wall of silence is very much still alive. Every single one of those officers who maintained that code of silence should be suspended. Lest anyone think that I am anti-cop or overreacting, we are talking about a
crime that was initially covered up, and likely still would be but for release of the videotape.
The covering up that typically goes on when the system covers up for the system, no matter what the facts are, manifested itself in the initial police internal investigation clearing Simoes. Mayor Amicone, making his public statement defending and praising the police when word got out that the Justice Department was investigating Simoes, and the District Attorney’s office not dropping the charges against Marquez and arresting him, represent a repititious conspiracy and scenario in blatant violation of the victim’s civil rights.
That Marquez had to be subjected to the trauma, expense, uncertainty, and risk of being wrongfully convicted that a trial brings for someone that the tape shows was innocent of, is shameful and unlawful. Anyone who believes that the reinvestigation by the Yonkers Police Department would have happened had the FBI not arrested Simoes, is naïve. In support of that thesis, I would like to point out that the tape and photos were around during the first go around. I am convinced that Simoes received preferential treatment from the court system once he was arrested, that only the connected, powerful, political, wealthy, and some law enforcement personnel are accorded: being released
on bail the same day that he was arrested. This two tiered system of justice-one for the poor and common folk, and the other for those on the upper end of the socio economic status, has got to stop if the law is to have any moral authority. I believe that the District Attorney’s Office should have released the names of those employees who were disciplined. Why should it be a private thing? I believe in transparency in government, and that the public has a right to know what is going on, and why. When someone has been transferred or disciplined for wrongdoing, the public should know so that we can have confidence that the same individual will not be able to repeat his or her actions,
and that it will not be tolerated by any other staff member. It would show that everything is above board, nothing is going on behind the scenes, nothing being swept under the rug, and no us v. them mentality. As a citizen of Westchester, I, along with the public, would like to know, without having to draw an inference; but instead being explicitly told, how the people who were disciplined were actually disciplined.
Why is it when ordinary citizens are arrested it is announced to the public; their names and what the charges are, and what the punishment ends up being. Whenever tragedy or misfortunate comes, I believe that we have a moral responsibility to victims to do what we can to see to it that they do not suffer for no reason. We, instead, must learn the lessons of the incident and do what we can to prevent any reccurrence.
The maxim that “Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future,” is true. Accordingly, I have some concrete ideas involving morality and legislation that would, if followed, prevent future cases such as Irma Marquez.
I would call upon the honest, law abiding police officers of Yonkers to take back the police force from the band of rogue cops who are engaging in police brutality, the breaking of the laws, and general corruption. There should be no feelings of solidarity between honest
cops and dishonest ones. Instead, true officer solidarity should come from the observable actions of honest, law-abiding police work that stays within the limits of the law, involves no brutality, cuts no corners, does not violate the rights of any civilians, whether suspects or not; takes no bribes, and engages in no corruption. The maintaining of good relations should be dependent upon the maintaining of those rules.
Prosecutors should pay special attention whenever there are allegations by defendants that they’ve been roughed up by police. In every instance where that has proven to be the case, charges against accused should be dismissed. To do less than that is to allow rogue law
enforcement officers to hijack the legal system and use it to their own ends as a means of covering up their own brutality. It is not unusual for such officers to falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” in order to try to justify their previous unlawful use of force. It also serves
to further punish a defendant who they have previously brutalized. We must enact laws which encourage law enforcement personnel who witness other officers committing crimes, to step forward and press charges; with the failure to do so being grounds not only for dismissal, but also to be charged with the crime of aiding and abetting and acting in concert. The same should apply to any supervisors who witness, or in any way learn of the occurrence of such activity and yet take no action to investigate and arrest where the evidence is secured.
In reality, those who turn their heads are, in fact, assisting the culture to form in which brutality is acceptable. In my book, that is aiding and
abetting. The legislation should be not just on a state level, but also on the federal level, authorizing the FBI and U.S. Attorney to step in whenever state law makers fail to do so. Each time an of-ficer gets away with police brutality, it threatens the safety of us all while setting
the stage for acceptability to set in, thus causing it to happen again. Until such time as legislation is passed to that effect, departments should adopt internal policies requiring officers and supervisors to take action when they witness or otherwise learn of police brutality.
Legislation is absolutely necessary which would establish an independent prosecutor to handle any and all cases involving the police. Police and prosecutors work together, and it is only natural that a certain amount of familiarity or cordiality develops between them, and such personal interaction can often factor into the thought processes with regard to whether to prosecute or not. Someone who has no personal familiarity with the people involved in a case, and can instead look at the facts of a case objectively with no personal consideration; in short, an independent prosecutor is what is needed. An independent prosecutor is not bound by the constraints imposed by the relationship
between district attorneys and police. Additionally, one cannot overemphasize the importance of Civilian Complaint Review Boards. However, such Boards cannot be effective unless they have subpoena power, and the power to suspend and bestow penalties.
Westchester Guardian.
Thursday, July 10. 2008
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Hedging Your Bets In Investments
On June 10, 2008, a 2006 GMC Envoy belonging to hedge fund manager, Samuel Israel, was found abandoned on the Bear Mountain Bridge
with the words “Suicide is Painless” (the theme song from the M*A*S*H television series) finger-etched in dust on the hood. Israel was due to start a twenty-year prison sentence for his involvement in a $450 million fraud. Local police and Federal investigators believed that Israel faked his own death to avoid prison. Along with questions as to where Israel was; until he emerged surrendering to police in Massachusetts 23 days later, were additional questions as to how his investors, many of them local residents, could be duped by Israel and his fund, Bayou Hedge Fund Group, LLC of Stamford, Connecticut.
In the complaint lodged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Bayou, the allegations noted that “Defendants Samuel Israel III, Daniel E. Marino, and an associate, carried out a scheme to defraud investors in a family of hedge funds controlled by them directly and through defendant Bayou Management, LLC. From 1996 through 2005, Israel and Marino misappropriated, dissipated and lost tens of millions of dollars of their clients’ money that was invested in the Bayou Fund, and its successors, Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC, the
Bayou Affiliates Fund, LLC, the Bayou No Leverage Fund, LLC, and the Bayou Superfund, LLC (the “Funds”), and several related off shore funds organized in the Cayman Islands.
Investors deposited more than $450 million into the Funds over the course of their existence. To hide and perpetuate their fraudulent scheme,
the defendants knowingly misrepresented the value and performance of the Bayou Fund and the four successor Funds to clients; issued false and misleading financial statements, account statements and performance summary documents; fabricated “independent” audit reports from a fictitious accounting firm; and misled investors regarding other material facts”.
The definition of a hedge fund is a “private, largely unregulated pool of capital whose managers can buy or sell any assets, bet on falling as well as rising assets and participate substantially in profits from money invested. Hedge funds seek to offset potential losses by hedging
their investments using a variety of methods. Being outside the regulatory regime that applies to mutual funds greatly reduces the information a hedge fund is legally required to make public” (source: Wikipedia). Hedge funds can control billions of dollars and their investment trading can impact global markets.
More than half of all hedge funds are registered off shore, the most popular location being the Cayman Islands, a tax haven known for its loose regulations. Since hedge funds are sold via private placement, they are not advertised or offered to the general public. Hedge funds are
not for the average middle class investor; they require a minimum net worth, usually $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. So how did high-income,
and supposedly highly-educated, individuals get duped by Israel and his fund?
The same way ordinary investors do – they didn’t do their homework. The Guardian spoke with several local financial planners about the pitfalls all investors, both wealthy and average-income, fall into with their own investments.
C.J. Arditi, of Edward Jones Investments in Yorktown Heights, spoke to The Guardian at length about what local residents should look for when seeking a financial planner/investment manager. “Cases like Sam Israel have the potential to ruin it for legitimate planners,” Mr. Arditi acknowledged. “People get skeptical. But there are simple steps they can take to make sure that a similar situation will
not happen to them”.
Chief among these steps is to investigate a planner’s background. Arditi advised that potential clients should look for “the plaques on the
wall” like Series 7 licenses, a nationally-issued license for securities representatives (i.e. stockbroker).
Arditi also advises “trusting your instincts. A client ultimately has to follow their gut. They should always meet the (financial) planner in their office, face to face, to discuss their goals, lifestyle, investment types, and fees. The more transparent the planner is with his/her fee structure, the better the relationship between planner and client will be. The more hidden the fee is, the more it will probably cost the client.
Planners should take the time to explain the different fees and fee structures for every investment considered and what the planner will do for the client to earn those fees. Also, the planner should explain what the industry norm is and how his/her fees compare”. Israel’s clients made the mistake of not investigating the fee structure of the fund – when the Bayou fund started to lose money on bad investments, Israel sought to attract new money into the fund by reducing his management fee and lowering the initial investment threshold to $250,000, a combination that attracted many middle-class investors seeking to “play with the big boys”.
But such “bargain-basement” fees and lowering of investment levels would have set off warning signals to more experienced investors, some of whom withdrew from the hedge fund at that point. Arditi stressed that clients should steer clear of investments that are ‘too good to be true’ and ‘get-rich-quick’ schemes. He emphasized, “There’s no such thing. The best investment strategies are the old stand-bys – buying
stocks for the long-term and sticking to systematic funding of those investments which will eventually even out the ups and downs of the markets over time”.
Arditi also advises working with a planner who is easily accessible. “Many large brokerage houses outsource their client calls to a call center
in Ohio or Mumbai,” Arditi noted. He went on, “A client has to identify themselves by number. With a personal planner, that planner knows
you, your lifestyle, and your family. The relationship is personal, not ‘cookie-cutter’. A personal planner gets to know all the stuff about you that matters so they can plan for your unique and specific needs”.
In contrast, many of Israel’s clients noted that they heard from him regularly while the funds were doing well, but once the funds started
to lose money, his communications ended. Arditi noted that clients should receive communications from their personal planners on a regular,
scheduled basis. “Clients should receive statements at least quarterly,” he said, citing his own operations, he continued, “My office will generate a statement for our clients for any activity each month, even if that activity is only dividends being issued. Plus, whenever there’s a trade on an account, a confirmation of that trade is issued to the client that day.” Trades on an investment account (i.e. the buying and selling of investments) raise other issues for investors.
“I do not have discretion in any account,” Arditi said. “I cannot make any trades without a client’s okay. However, there are individuals who may prefer automatic trades and may allow their planners to make trades on their behalf. Those clients should have online access to their accounts and even set up alerts to the computers or cell phones to notify them whenever there’s any activity on their investments”.
Arditi stressed the importance of communicating regularly with clients but noted that such communication is a ‘two-way street’. “I give responsibility to my clients. They have to make sure they give me important information as well, such as notifying me of any life-changing events like the birth of a child, loss of a job, etc.” Arditi also believes in alerting family members when he notices any deterioration in a
client’s ability to handle or understand their investments. “If I see a decline in mental understanding or similar issues, I will insist on a family member being present. That’s protection for me as well as my client and it reassures the family that the client’s investments are being protected and handled properly,” he stressed.
The Israel/Bayou Fund debacle didn’t surprise Arditi. “Whenever we, as a society, get burned we find a new oven to burn ourselves in later on. In the 1990’s it was the ‘dot.com’ era until that fizzled. Then it was real estate. Now it’s the foreclosure market and hedge funds. People follow fashion instead of sticking to sound principles.” Not following sound investment principles is not the only way local residents lose money or find themselves defrauded out of their life savings.
Individuals can face financial ruin from a variety of life-altering events like medical problems, business losses, and divorce. In the latter
case, financial planners trained specifically in divorce issues can help an af-flicted spouse regain a financial footing. Mary Prior is a divorce planner in Valhalla. She spoke to The Guardian about financial pitfalls that an individual in any type of relationship (business or personal) can fall victim to. “The best way not to be duped is to be an active participant in your fi-nances,” Prior stressed. “People are afraid to speak up and ask questions whether it be to a spouse, a parent, a sibling, or a partner. Sometimes one party needs to be in control so they handle everything. Sometimes the financial duties have just fallen into their lap by default. Other times one party is happily ignorant. Whatever
the reason for the disjointed responsibility, often no conversations about finances ever take place.”
Prior notes that the average person does not need to study the stock market to be able to review their finances. “People simply need to look at what is being spent and how much money they’re taking in. It’s amazing how many people don’t even open their mail and look at their bills!” Women especially fall into this category, Prior noted. “Not only do they not look at the bills, they do not have any dollars set aside for their retirement. I often encounter couples where there was no spousal IRA for the non-working spouse. But women still live longer
than men. Women are still left alone so they should plan accordingly.”
Not taking care of their own needs is not the only area where women fall short when managing their finances, Prior noted. “Far too many spouses sign tax returns without looking at them and understanding them,” she said. “If you’re living a lifestyle that’s not substantiated by your tax return, there’s something wrong. You don’t need to be a tax accountant to review your tax return – a simple look at the first line (income) might be all it takes to uncover hidden funds”. Prior also recommends doing financial checkups regularly, at least once a year.
“Everyone should review the statements they receive at the end of the year to see if they make sense. Look at your annual Social Security statements and run an annual credit report from FreeCredit.com. Also watch your credit cards – those introductory rates may have increased dramatically.” Prior noted that there are plenty of sources for financial advice for individuals.
“All of the major investment houses such as Fidelity, have tons of information online and financial calculators to help individuals determine
how much money they’ll need for retirement, college, whatever”. The New York State Department of State also has a wealth of material available online for investors including an ‘investment quiz’ and complaints lodged against planners, investment houses, and banks. These resources can be found at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/ With the downturn in the economy, many local residents may be seeking ways to offset their declining purchasing power by pursuing questionable investments offering high gains and profits. But, as the Israel/Bayou case showed, even sophisticated investors can be duped and wind up losing their life savings.
All the planners The Guardian spoke with stressed the importance of open communication when it comes to personal finances. As local families feel the stress of higher gas and food prices, an increasing tax burden, and an uncertain business future, financial discussions and open communications become even more critical. The time to sit down and speak with a spouse, a family member, a partner, or a planner, is now.
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MICHAEL J. GARCIA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JOSEPH R. GUCCIONE, the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, and MARK J. MERSHON, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced that SAMUEL ISRAEL III surrendered to law enforcement authorities in Southwick, Massachusetts, earlier this morning. On June 9, 2008, ISRAEL failed to surrender to begin serving a 20-year prison sentence for fraudulently inducing investments in the Bayou hedge funds of over $450 million.
Today, at approximately 9:15 a.m., ISRAEL surrendered to officers of the Southwick, Massachusetts, Police Department.
The United States Marshals Service will transfer ISRAEL to the United States District Courthouse in Springfield, Massachusetts, where he will appear before United States District Judge MICHAEL A. PONSOR at 3 p.m.
Mr. GARCIA praised the United States Marshals Service for its extraordinary efforts leading to Israel’s surrender. Mr. GARCIA also praised the extraordinary work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which investigated the underlying fraud and worked with the United States Marshals in investigating ISRAEL's disappearance. Mr. GARCIA also thanked the New York State Police and the Southwick, Massachusetts, Police Department.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Hedging Your Bets In Investments
On June 10, 2008, a 2006 GMC Envoy belonging to hedge fund manager, Samuel Israel, was found abandoned on the Bear Mountain Bridge
with the words “Suicide is Painless” (the theme song from the M*A*S*H television series) finger-etched in dust on the hood. Israel was due to start a twenty-year prison sentence for his involvement in a $450 million fraud. Local police and Federal investigators believed that Israel faked his own death to avoid prison. Along with questions as to where Israel was; until he emerged surrendering to police in Massachusetts 23 days later, were additional questions as to how his investors, many of them local residents, could be duped by Israel and his fund, Bayou Hedge Fund Group, LLC of Stamford, Connecticut.
In the complaint lodged by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Bayou, the allegations noted that “Defendants Samuel Israel III, Daniel E. Marino, and an associate, carried out a scheme to defraud investors in a family of hedge funds controlled by them directly and through defendant Bayou Management, LLC. From 1996 through 2005, Israel and Marino misappropriated, dissipated and lost tens of millions of dollars of their clients’ money that was invested in the Bayou Fund, and its successors, Bayou Accredited Fund, LLC, the
Bayou Affiliates Fund, LLC, the Bayou No Leverage Fund, LLC, and the Bayou Superfund, LLC (the “Funds”), and several related off shore funds organized in the Cayman Islands.
Investors deposited more than $450 million into the Funds over the course of their existence. To hide and perpetuate their fraudulent scheme,
the defendants knowingly misrepresented the value and performance of the Bayou Fund and the four successor Funds to clients; issued false and misleading financial statements, account statements and performance summary documents; fabricated “independent” audit reports from a fictitious accounting firm; and misled investors regarding other material facts”.
The definition of a hedge fund is a “private, largely unregulated pool of capital whose managers can buy or sell any assets, bet on falling as well as rising assets and participate substantially in profits from money invested. Hedge funds seek to offset potential losses by hedging
their investments using a variety of methods. Being outside the regulatory regime that applies to mutual funds greatly reduces the information a hedge fund is legally required to make public” (source: Wikipedia). Hedge funds can control billions of dollars and their investment trading can impact global markets.
More than half of all hedge funds are registered off shore, the most popular location being the Cayman Islands, a tax haven known for its loose regulations. Since hedge funds are sold via private placement, they are not advertised or offered to the general public. Hedge funds are
not for the average middle class investor; they require a minimum net worth, usually $1,000,000 to $5,000,000. So how did high-income,
and supposedly highly-educated, individuals get duped by Israel and his fund?
The same way ordinary investors do – they didn’t do their homework. The Guardian spoke with several local financial planners about the pitfalls all investors, both wealthy and average-income, fall into with their own investments.
C.J. Arditi, of Edward Jones Investments in Yorktown Heights, spoke to The Guardian at length about what local residents should look for when seeking a financial planner/investment manager. “Cases like Sam Israel have the potential to ruin it for legitimate planners,” Mr. Arditi acknowledged. “People get skeptical. But there are simple steps they can take to make sure that a similar situation will
not happen to them”.
Chief among these steps is to investigate a planner’s background. Arditi advised that potential clients should look for “the plaques on the
wall” like Series 7 licenses, a nationally-issued license for securities representatives (i.e. stockbroker).
Arditi also advises “trusting your instincts. A client ultimately has to follow their gut. They should always meet the (financial) planner in their office, face to face, to discuss their goals, lifestyle, investment types, and fees. The more transparent the planner is with his/her fee structure, the better the relationship between planner and client will be. The more hidden the fee is, the more it will probably cost the client.
Planners should take the time to explain the different fees and fee structures for every investment considered and what the planner will do for the client to earn those fees. Also, the planner should explain what the industry norm is and how his/her fees compare”. Israel’s clients made the mistake of not investigating the fee structure of the fund – when the Bayou fund started to lose money on bad investments, Israel sought to attract new money into the fund by reducing his management fee and lowering the initial investment threshold to $250,000, a combination that attracted many middle-class investors seeking to “play with the big boys”.
But such “bargain-basement” fees and lowering of investment levels would have set off warning signals to more experienced investors, some of whom withdrew from the hedge fund at that point. Arditi stressed that clients should steer clear of investments that are ‘too good to be true’ and ‘get-rich-quick’ schemes. He emphasized, “There’s no such thing. The best investment strategies are the old stand-bys – buying
stocks for the long-term and sticking to systematic funding of those investments which will eventually even out the ups and downs of the markets over time”.
Arditi also advises working with a planner who is easily accessible. “Many large brokerage houses outsource their client calls to a call center
in Ohio or Mumbai,” Arditi noted. He went on, “A client has to identify themselves by number. With a personal planner, that planner knows
you, your lifestyle, and your family. The relationship is personal, not ‘cookie-cutter’. A personal planner gets to know all the stuff about you that matters so they can plan for your unique and specific needs”.
In contrast, many of Israel’s clients noted that they heard from him regularly while the funds were doing well, but once the funds started
to lose money, his communications ended. Arditi noted that clients should receive communications from their personal planners on a regular,
scheduled basis. “Clients should receive statements at least quarterly,” he said, citing his own operations, he continued, “My office will generate a statement for our clients for any activity each month, even if that activity is only dividends being issued. Plus, whenever there’s a trade on an account, a confirmation of that trade is issued to the client that day.” Trades on an investment account (i.e. the buying and selling of investments) raise other issues for investors.
“I do not have discretion in any account,” Arditi said. “I cannot make any trades without a client’s okay. However, there are individuals who may prefer automatic trades and may allow their planners to make trades on their behalf. Those clients should have online access to their accounts and even set up alerts to the computers or cell phones to notify them whenever there’s any activity on their investments”.
Arditi stressed the importance of communicating regularly with clients but noted that such communication is a ‘two-way street’. “I give responsibility to my clients. They have to make sure they give me important information as well, such as notifying me of any life-changing events like the birth of a child, loss of a job, etc.” Arditi also believes in alerting family members when he notices any deterioration in a
client’s ability to handle or understand their investments. “If I see a decline in mental understanding or similar issues, I will insist on a family member being present. That’s protection for me as well as my client and it reassures the family that the client’s investments are being protected and handled properly,” he stressed.
The Israel/Bayou Fund debacle didn’t surprise Arditi. “Whenever we, as a society, get burned we find a new oven to burn ourselves in later on. In the 1990’s it was the ‘dot.com’ era until that fizzled. Then it was real estate. Now it’s the foreclosure market and hedge funds. People follow fashion instead of sticking to sound principles.” Not following sound investment principles is not the only way local residents lose money or find themselves defrauded out of their life savings.
Individuals can face financial ruin from a variety of life-altering events like medical problems, business losses, and divorce. In the latter
case, financial planners trained specifically in divorce issues can help an af-flicted spouse regain a financial footing. Mary Prior is a divorce planner in Valhalla. She spoke to The Guardian about financial pitfalls that an individual in any type of relationship (business or personal) can fall victim to. “The best way not to be duped is to be an active participant in your fi-nances,” Prior stressed. “People are afraid to speak up and ask questions whether it be to a spouse, a parent, a sibling, or a partner. Sometimes one party needs to be in control so they handle everything. Sometimes the financial duties have just fallen into their lap by default. Other times one party is happily ignorant. Whatever
the reason for the disjointed responsibility, often no conversations about finances ever take place.”
Prior notes that the average person does not need to study the stock market to be able to review their finances. “People simply need to look at what is being spent and how much money they’re taking in. It’s amazing how many people don’t even open their mail and look at their bills!” Women especially fall into this category, Prior noted. “Not only do they not look at the bills, they do not have any dollars set aside for their retirement. I often encounter couples where there was no spousal IRA for the non-working spouse. But women still live longer
than men. Women are still left alone so they should plan accordingly.”
Not taking care of their own needs is not the only area where women fall short when managing their finances, Prior noted. “Far too many spouses sign tax returns without looking at them and understanding them,” she said. “If you’re living a lifestyle that’s not substantiated by your tax return, there’s something wrong. You don’t need to be a tax accountant to review your tax return – a simple look at the first line (income) might be all it takes to uncover hidden funds”. Prior also recommends doing financial checkups regularly, at least once a year.
“Everyone should review the statements they receive at the end of the year to see if they make sense. Look at your annual Social Security statements and run an annual credit report from FreeCredit.com. Also watch your credit cards – those introductory rates may have increased dramatically.” Prior noted that there are plenty of sources for financial advice for individuals.
“All of the major investment houses such as Fidelity, have tons of information online and financial calculators to help individuals determine
how much money they’ll need for retirement, college, whatever”. The New York State Department of State also has a wealth of material available online for investors including an ‘investment quiz’ and complaints lodged against planners, investment houses, and banks. These resources can be found at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/ With the downturn in the economy, many local residents may be seeking ways to offset their declining purchasing power by pursuing questionable investments offering high gains and profits. But, as the Israel/Bayou case showed, even sophisticated investors can be duped and wind up losing their life savings.
All the planners The Guardian spoke with stressed the importance of open communication when it comes to personal finances. As local families feel the stress of higher gas and food prices, an increasing tax burden, and an uncertain business future, financial discussions and open communications become even more critical. The time to sit down and speak with a spouse, a family member, a partner, or a planner, is now.
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MICHAEL J. GARCIA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JOSEPH R. GUCCIONE, the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York, and MARK J. MERSHON, the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced that SAMUEL ISRAEL III surrendered to law enforcement authorities in Southwick, Massachusetts, earlier this morning. On June 9, 2008, ISRAEL failed to surrender to begin serving a 20-year prison sentence for fraudulently inducing investments in the Bayou hedge funds of over $450 million.
Today, at approximately 9:15 a.m., ISRAEL surrendered to officers of the Southwick, Massachusetts, Police Department.
The United States Marshals Service will transfer ISRAEL to the United States District Courthouse in Springfield, Massachusetts, where he will appear before United States District Judge MICHAEL A. PONSOR at 3 p.m.
Mr. GARCIA praised the United States Marshals Service for its extraordinary efforts leading to Israel’s surrender. Mr. GARCIA also praised the extraordinary work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which investigated the underlying fraud and worked with the United States Marshals in investigating ISRAEL's disappearance. Mr. GARCIA also thanked the New York State Police and the Southwick, Massachusetts, Police Department.
Westchester Guardian/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore Slips Through Their Fingers
Says “I was told that we were not going to speak about specific cases.”
Saturday, June 28, there was a meeting, a community gathering at the Mount Vernon Grace Baptist Church, attended by some 250 individuals, mostly Mount Vernon residents, including approximately ten city clergymen and an equal number of African-American police of-ficers. The gathering was understood, by nearly everyone in attendance, as an opportunity, after five months, for the community,
and specifically, those such as Rev. W. Franklyn Richardson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Darin Moore, who have been working closely with the family of the late Christopher Ridley, to fi-nally get some straight answers to a host of questions.
Rev. Moore opened the session with a quick anecdote about a woman living in Harlem, “who fears the police, but is glad they are right down the street.” He went on to say, “The woman has a polemic”; adding, “My Grandma called it being between a rock and a hard place.” On that note, Rev. Sharpton, acknowledging that a grand jury had looked at the killing of Christopher Ridley, declared, “The case, in our opinion, has not been resolved.” Then, looking toward those who had come seeking the truth, he said, “Police cannot be above the law; we all must be held
accountable. We need accountability, legislation, and the truth.”
Next it was Rev. Richardson’s turn to define the purpose of the gathering, an event he had promised would occur as he stood in the rain, months earlier, at the spot on Court Street in White Plains where young Mount Vernon Police Officer Christopher Ridley had lost his life trying to save an innocent middle-aged man under brutal attack by a homeless, criminal vagrant.
Standing before the People, he told the officials seated on stage, speaking directly to DA Janet DiFiore, “First and foremost, we want answers.” He went on, “We know the issue is law enforcement and community relations.”
Andy Spano, riding shotgun for Janet DiFiore, got up to address the crowd, telling them, “There’s a concern out of the community that we hear. We’ve got to come out of here with one thing that could make a difference.”
Spano was trying to shift the focus of the proceedings from fact-finding, and learning of the truth, to suggesting preventative measures.
But Rev. Richardson came back with, “The DA’s Office has played a critical role in what we perceive was wrong in what happened in the
Christopher Ridley incident.” Janet DiFiore, looking very uncomfortable, said, “Rev. Richardson told me a lack of understanding builds suspicion.”
Then, she began to duck and dodge, telling everyone, “There are limitations upon what the District Attorney’s Office can do.” Her
next comment was a whopper: “My commitment to fairness has no boundary.”
At that point, the discussion shift-ed. Note paper had been distributed to the audience so that questions could be written out and passed up to the table consisting of Revs. Moore, Sharpton and Richardson, as well as State Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson. The issue of what percentage of African-Ameri-can cops were serving in the Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, and Yonkers Police Departments was raised.
Mount Vernon Police Commissioner David Chong acknowledged, “We are only at 24 percent. We try hard to hire Mount Vernon people first.” Rev. Sharpton, injecting a little sardonic wit, asked Chong, “Did you invite the White officers here today?” Newly-appointed Mount
Vernon Police Chief Barbara Duncan, seated way in the back of the chapel, stood up in response.
A number of comments followed that acknowledged the struggle to get more African-Americans to join their local police departments. Richardson summarized with, “If the People are not passing the tests, then we have to help them.” Senator Hassell-Thompson then read a question, directed to DA DiFiore, that referred to the Grand Jury process, which she concluded with her own direct statement, “You control the information the Grand Jury gets.”
DiFiore, somewhat indignant, immediately went on the defensive, stating, “I’ve been a prosecutor, a judge, and a lawyer, for almost 30 years. If you think I would compromise my... People need to recall that...” Al Sharpton broke in with, “They can’t review what is not in front of
them.” He then made reference to the arrest of Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes the day before, by Federal authorities rather than DA DiFiore’s of-fice. DiFiore responded with, “There were grave mistakes of judgment in that case.” She proceeded to lay blame for her Office’s wrongful prosecution of the victim, and her failure to prosecute Offficer Simoes on one of her assistant District Attorneys [see Our Readers Respond, p4]. Pressed for more details by Sharpton, she quickly ducked behind so-called rules that prevented her from being more forthcoming.
However, Sharpton came right back, with, “In light of the federal arrest, and the People’s understanding of the relationship between the police and prosecutors in Westchester, we believe there is a need for a Special Prosecutor in cases involving the police.” DiFiore quickly cracked, “I am not convinced that we need a special prosecutor.”
That comment was met with audible groans from the audience. Senator Hassell-Thompson then, first asked the DA to explain the grand
jury process; second, having not heard what she was interested in pursuing, the senator, obviously referring to the Ridley Investigation, spoke of state legislation in 1976 that dealt with grand jury reports, following which she asked the DA, “Are you planning to release a report?” DiFiore responded, “There’s no report issued by the District Attorney on the grand jury.”
Now, the senator, becoming more specific and more insistent, asked, “Are you prepared to issue a report on Christopher Ridley?”
At that point, Janet DiFiore dug in her heels, and replied, “I was told that we were not going to speak about specific cases.”
The DA made it abundantly clear, with that statement, that she had absolutely no intention of discussing the very subject that had brought everyone who filled the Chapel to Grace Baptist Church. She would not be accounting either for the conduct of the investiga-tion or the presentation to the grand jury. She would not be answering any questions pertaining to Christopher Ridley, period!
Although the session went on for another hour, with discussion of sensitivity training, and enlisting more African-American police officers, etc., it might just as well have ended with that declaration.
DiFiore had no intention of shedding any further light on what really happened to Christopher Ridley.The frustration felt by Rev. Richardson and Rev. Moore was apparent in their closing remarks as they ended the meeting a half hour earlier than scheduled.Richardson told the crowd, “What is very important is that there is a crisis with law enforcement in our community.
There is a problem, and dealing with what happened to Christopher Ridley is an opportunity for us to get it together. This is just the beginning of the discourse.
This is not going to go away.”Rev. Moore wasted few words expressing his frustration and disappointment. Speaking for all those gathered, hestated flatly, “This community is not going away.” Referring to the unanswered questions about the killing of Christopher Ridley, Moore vowed, “If it is not solved, we will do whatever it takes.”
Questions Needing To Be Answered By DA DiFiore
1. Why are you withholding Christopher Ridley’s wallet, clothing, and personal effects from his parents; could it be that they might reveal the circumstances under which he really died?
2. Why did you withhold so much from the public right from the start,but made sure to leak, within hours, the name of Sgt. Martin, the only Black County Officer involved in the incident?
3. Why have you withheld, to this moment, the fact that no shell casings from Martin’s gun were found?
4. Why do you perpetuate the lie that Officer Ridley was standing, holding a gun, and refusing to put it down when shot?
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore Slips Through Their Fingers
Says “I was told that we were not going to speak about specific cases.”
Saturday, June 28, there was a meeting, a community gathering at the Mount Vernon Grace Baptist Church, attended by some 250 individuals, mostly Mount Vernon residents, including approximately ten city clergymen and an equal number of African-American police of-ficers. The gathering was understood, by nearly everyone in attendance, as an opportunity, after five months, for the community,
and specifically, those such as Rev. W. Franklyn Richardson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Rev. Darin Moore, who have been working closely with the family of the late Christopher Ridley, to fi-nally get some straight answers to a host of questions.
Rev. Moore opened the session with a quick anecdote about a woman living in Harlem, “who fears the police, but is glad they are right down the street.” He went on to say, “The woman has a polemic”; adding, “My Grandma called it being between a rock and a hard place.” On that note, Rev. Sharpton, acknowledging that a grand jury had looked at the killing of Christopher Ridley, declared, “The case, in our opinion, has not been resolved.” Then, looking toward those who had come seeking the truth, he said, “Police cannot be above the law; we all must be held
accountable. We need accountability, legislation, and the truth.”
Next it was Rev. Richardson’s turn to define the purpose of the gathering, an event he had promised would occur as he stood in the rain, months earlier, at the spot on Court Street in White Plains where young Mount Vernon Police Officer Christopher Ridley had lost his life trying to save an innocent middle-aged man under brutal attack by a homeless, criminal vagrant.
Standing before the People, he told the officials seated on stage, speaking directly to DA Janet DiFiore, “First and foremost, we want answers.” He went on, “We know the issue is law enforcement and community relations.”
Andy Spano, riding shotgun for Janet DiFiore, got up to address the crowd, telling them, “There’s a concern out of the community that we hear. We’ve got to come out of here with one thing that could make a difference.”
Spano was trying to shift the focus of the proceedings from fact-finding, and learning of the truth, to suggesting preventative measures.
But Rev. Richardson came back with, “The DA’s Office has played a critical role in what we perceive was wrong in what happened in the
Christopher Ridley incident.” Janet DiFiore, looking very uncomfortable, said, “Rev. Richardson told me a lack of understanding builds suspicion.”
Then, she began to duck and dodge, telling everyone, “There are limitations upon what the District Attorney’s Office can do.” Her
next comment was a whopper: “My commitment to fairness has no boundary.”
At that point, the discussion shift-ed. Note paper had been distributed to the audience so that questions could be written out and passed up to the table consisting of Revs. Moore, Sharpton and Richardson, as well as State Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson. The issue of what percentage of African-Ameri-can cops were serving in the Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, and Yonkers Police Departments was raised.
Mount Vernon Police Commissioner David Chong acknowledged, “We are only at 24 percent. We try hard to hire Mount Vernon people first.” Rev. Sharpton, injecting a little sardonic wit, asked Chong, “Did you invite the White officers here today?” Newly-appointed Mount
Vernon Police Chief Barbara Duncan, seated way in the back of the chapel, stood up in response.
A number of comments followed that acknowledged the struggle to get more African-Americans to join their local police departments. Richardson summarized with, “If the People are not passing the tests, then we have to help them.” Senator Hassell-Thompson then read a question, directed to DA DiFiore, that referred to the Grand Jury process, which she concluded with her own direct statement, “You control the information the Grand Jury gets.”
DiFiore, somewhat indignant, immediately went on the defensive, stating, “I’ve been a prosecutor, a judge, and a lawyer, for almost 30 years. If you think I would compromise my... People need to recall that...” Al Sharpton broke in with, “They can’t review what is not in front of
them.” He then made reference to the arrest of Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes the day before, by Federal authorities rather than DA DiFiore’s of-fice. DiFiore responded with, “There were grave mistakes of judgment in that case.” She proceeded to lay blame for her Office’s wrongful prosecution of the victim, and her failure to prosecute Offficer Simoes on one of her assistant District Attorneys [see Our Readers Respond, p4]. Pressed for more details by Sharpton, she quickly ducked behind so-called rules that prevented her from being more forthcoming.
However, Sharpton came right back, with, “In light of the federal arrest, and the People’s understanding of the relationship between the police and prosecutors in Westchester, we believe there is a need for a Special Prosecutor in cases involving the police.” DiFiore quickly cracked, “I am not convinced that we need a special prosecutor.”
That comment was met with audible groans from the audience. Senator Hassell-Thompson then, first asked the DA to explain the grand
jury process; second, having not heard what she was interested in pursuing, the senator, obviously referring to the Ridley Investigation, spoke of state legislation in 1976 that dealt with grand jury reports, following which she asked the DA, “Are you planning to release a report?” DiFiore responded, “There’s no report issued by the District Attorney on the grand jury.”
Now, the senator, becoming more specific and more insistent, asked, “Are you prepared to issue a report on Christopher Ridley?”
At that point, Janet DiFiore dug in her heels, and replied, “I was told that we were not going to speak about specific cases.”
The DA made it abundantly clear, with that statement, that she had absolutely no intention of discussing the very subject that had brought everyone who filled the Chapel to Grace Baptist Church. She would not be accounting either for the conduct of the investiga-tion or the presentation to the grand jury. She would not be answering any questions pertaining to Christopher Ridley, period!
Although the session went on for another hour, with discussion of sensitivity training, and enlisting more African-American police officers, etc., it might just as well have ended with that declaration.
DiFiore had no intention of shedding any further light on what really happened to Christopher Ridley.The frustration felt by Rev. Richardson and Rev. Moore was apparent in their closing remarks as they ended the meeting a half hour earlier than scheduled.Richardson told the crowd, “What is very important is that there is a crisis with law enforcement in our community.
There is a problem, and dealing with what happened to Christopher Ridley is an opportunity for us to get it together. This is just the beginning of the discourse.
This is not going to go away.”Rev. Moore wasted few words expressing his frustration and disappointment. Speaking for all those gathered, hestated flatly, “This community is not going away.” Referring to the unanswered questions about the killing of Christopher Ridley, Moore vowed, “If it is not solved, we will do whatever it takes.”
Questions Needing To Be Answered By DA DiFiore
1. Why are you withholding Christopher Ridley’s wallet, clothing, and personal effects from his parents; could it be that they might reveal the circumstances under which he really died?
2. Why did you withhold so much from the public right from the start,but made sure to leak, within hours, the name of Sgt. Martin, the only Black County Officer involved in the incident?
3. Why have you withheld, to this moment, the fact that no shell casings from Martin’s gun were found?
4. Why do you perpetuate the lie that Officer Ridley was standing, holding a gun, and refusing to put it down when shot?
Westchester Guardian/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
In Our Opinion...
The Seeds Of Our Discontent
The People of Mount Vernon would do well to examine the treachery that begot the treachery they continue to endure with respect to the killing of one of their City’s finest sons, Detective Christopher Ridley. Despite Janet DiFiore’s obvious opinion to the contrary, the People of Mount Vernon are too savvy not to know perfectly well that their District Attorney has not leveled with them at any point regarding Officer Ridley since his tragic death more than five months ago. And, her performance at the gathering at Grace Baptist Church on Saturday, June 28, was simply more of same.
There were many clergy among the roughly 250, mostly Mount Vernon residents, present; prominent amongst them, and organizers of the function, were Rev. Darin Moore, Rev. W. Franklyn Richardson, and Rev. Al Sharpton. Rev. Moore opened the proceedings declaring,
“We’re going to hold one another accountable.” Rev. Sharpton came more precisely to the point, telling everyone, “Even though there’s been one grand jury, this case, in our opinion, has not been resolved.” Sharpton was, of course, referring to the killing of Officer Christopher Ridley.
Unfortunately, those who came hoping to hear some as yet unrevealed truth, some semblance of what actually occurred during those terrible 90 seconds just prior to 5pm on January 25 that ended Christopher Ridley’s life in a fusillade of bullets, were unreasonably optimistic.
Janet DiFiore wasn’t there to answer the questions uppermost in the minds of those who knew and loved the young man whose life was so needlessly snuffed out. In fact, despite Rev. Moore’s and Rev. Sharpton’s high-minded declarations of purpose, the program had been structured in such a way that no questions from the audience, or the press and media, would be directly put to her, or any of the other seven panelists on stage. In fact, to be sure that everyone understood she would not be held to account, she complained early on in response to a question she was uncomfortable with, “I was told that we were not going to speak about specific cases.”
Whoever assured DA DiFiore that there would be no questions on specific cases, if, indeed, anyone had, owed a real duty to all those present to announce up-front that they had granted the DA immunity from scrutiny, and that the next two and a half hours would be just another public relations exercise; so that we could all get up and leave. We want to know who gave such assurances to Janet DiFiore thus betraying and defeating the hopes and purposes of all those gathered to get beyond the lies, the deceit, and the defaming of Christopher Ridley’s honor and memory in, yet again, another massive coverup from the Office of the District Attorney.
We hold that whoever granted such assurance to Janet DiFiore betrayed the People of Mount Vernon, and all of Westchester as surely as Lisa Copeland and Reggie Lafayette did when, under orders from Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, they worked for DiFiore’s election as a Republican in 2005 against fellow Democrat Tony Castro, who had been nominated by acclimation of more than 900 loyal Westchester Democratic committee members. Make no mistake, the People of Mount Vernon and, more specifically, the family and friends of Christopher Ridley, have Lisa, Reggie, Larry, and Andy to thank for the fact that the arrogant and untruthful Janet DiFiore; without the decency or moral fiber to return Christopher’s clothing and personal effects to his family, is their District Attorney.
She is not the People’s Attorney. She has, in two and a half years in office, demonstrated time and again, that she is beholden to special interests and is under the control of Larry Schwartz as surely as every other individual employed by Westchester County. Furthermore,
DiFiore has demonstrated that in matters involving possible police misconduct, she is totally incapable of dealing lawfully and even-handedly; instead, politically targeting the innocent while covering up the wrongful acts of officers from departments she is incestuously
connected to.
We, once again, add Our voice to the many who have called for an independent federal investigation into the killing of Mount Vernon Police Detective Christopher Ridley. There are just too many reasons not to accept the authority, the process, or the conclusions, that
have been foisted upon us.
Our Readers Respond...
In a True Democracy There is a System of Checks and Balances
Dear Editor:
The admission and acknowledgement of the District Attorney that there were grave mistakes in the handling of the Marquez case should give us pause. As a community we should take this opportunity to stop, reflect and ask ourselves: how many other innocent people have buckled under the pressure of the District Attorney’s Office? How many of us settled for being accused of minor infractions? How many times were people’s constitutional rights violated and overlooked?
Many disadvantaged families, especially those in the Black and Latino communities have been forced to watch family members brought to court on trumped up charges like “disorderly conduct”, “obstruction of justice” and “resisting arrest” which are little more than smoke screens for police misconduct and criminality. Police Criminality is cancerous; and if left unchecked, it can erode the integrity of law enforcement and eat away at the trust of the community.
Politicians and law makers in Westchester should be called to the carpet for an ineffective and failed system of law enforcement and for the lack of accountability that is running rampant. In a true democracy, there is a system of checks and balances; there are forums for the people to be heard; and there is an opportunity for dialogue and change.
The National Black Police Association (NBPA) and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) have been monitoring the complaints of Police Criminality in the cities, towns and villages of Westchester. At the numerous rallies and community meetings we held over the past years, we discovered that many community residents do not know how to file a proper complaint when they felt their rights were violated by law enforcement officers. To this end, we have created an informational pamphlet “How Do You Handle Police Brutality A Citizens Plan For Action”. This pamphlet is meant to provide citizens with information to help them determine if their rights have been violated by the police and what steps to take if they feel their rights have been violated.
The NBPA will continue to support and rally for legislation that will secure the appointment of a State-wide Special Prosecutor to eliminate assumption of bias and political influence on investigations when local police municipalities are both “investigating” and “prosecuting” each other. Appointment of a Special Prosecutor will ensure transparency in the Justice System which is essential for building trust in the community we serve, and for ensuring that both the rights of victims and law enforcement of-ficers are protected.
In Unity And In Peace
Damon K. Jones, Executive Director
Westchester Blacks In Law Enforcement
Reflections Of A Truly Patriotically Spirited Reader
Dear Editor:
On the occasion of our Fourth of July holiday, when we celebrate throwing off the fetters that cruel England would have forced upon us, I think we should all take time to reflect, during the cookouts, firework displays, and parades, on the true nature and value of the freedoms
we hold so dear, and the sacrifices made in blood to secure them.
It is of special importance, I believe, at this time in our history, to consider another tyranny that threatens us - our dependence on foreign oil. We are, by nature, an optimistic and resourceful people. We have stores of talent and technology, enjoyed by few in this world, that may yet be mined to find a solution for this most vexing of problems.
A solution must be found if we are to continue to move forward and ensure for future generations the same hopes and dreams that have sustained and propelled this country to the position it enjoys today. We have diffi-culties, certainly, in our economy, and many of our citizens are suffering from hunger and lack of adequate housing and medical care. However, collectively, we are endowed with the strength
and resilience to overcome even the worst of circumstances, should we apply the full force of our minds and spirits to the matter.
How fortunate we are, too, to live in a country where one may speak freely. We have seen, only recently, the mockery made of democracy as goons frogmarched reluctant, terrified people to vote in a one-candidate election. We are blessed, indeed, to live free from the fear of reprisal for our choice of political candidate, which may mean death or dismemberment in these spurious “democracies.” Here, also, we are free to worship God in the manner we choose--or we may be unbelievers, all without fear of persecution.
We are, above all, a generous people--freely offering our talents and resources to those who suffer from want, wherever in the world they may be. At this moment though, our own economic markets are suffering. I am confident, nonetheless, given our past history, we will, as so many times before, resolve these difficulties and emerge a stronger and more resilient country and people.
Washington’s words still hold true today: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and
destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.
The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.” I wish all your readers a very happy--and reflective--Fourth of July holiday.
May God bless America, always.
MaryAnn McCarra-Fitzpatrick
New Castle Reader Laments
Dear Editor:
Well, folks of the Town of New Castle, the Thruway is coming to your hometown, to your neighborhood. Commencing sometime this summer or fall, the State Department of Transportation will start construction of a new bridge and byway over the railroad tracks and parkway that are the entryway to our town. This proposition has been demanded of our town by the DOT. Our Town Board commenced, eight years ago, when this need was first announced to expand on DOT’s plans to satisfy their byway agenda with government funding.
Today this proposal will cost $17,500,000. Its initial cost was $850,000. This 20.6 fold increase is the shameful work of your Town Board and Town Administrator in conjunction with DOT incompetents in Albany. This monstrous construction folly will alter the small town entranceway to downtown Chappaqua forever; It will not ease traffic patterns to and from town in the least; It will force the establishment of the traffic light circus that was originally dismissed by the Town Board months ago; This construction project is not integrated in any way with a Downtown Development Plan.
This project, which should be termed Faiella’s Folly (the Town Administrator), must be stopped. It is up to you, the citizens of New Castle, to stop this folly in its tracks. To accomplish this, you need to:
• Express your concerns to the Town Board in writing:
Barbara Gerardi – email: bgerrard@town.new-castle.ny.us
Elise Kessler Mottel – email: ekmottel@town.new-castle.ny.us
John Buckley – email: jbuckley@town.new-castle.ny.us
Robin Stout – email: rstout@town.new-castle.ny.us
Michael Wolfensohn – email: mbwolf@town.new-castle.ny.us
• Express your concerns to the DOT in writing:
Regional Director Joan Dupont, P.E.
Eleanor Roosevelt State Office Building
4 Burnett Boulevard
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Email – cmcgarrigle@DOT.STATE.NY.US
• Express your feelings to Jerry Faiella in writing:
Email – jfaiella@town.new-castle.ny.us
• Visit the Town Board meetings expressing your concerns: the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:30pm. Or, go to their work sessions on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month by appointment. The work sessions are held in rooms adjacent to the Assembly Hall. And, listen to us, The Concerned Citizens of Chappaqua. We have the professional solution to this folly. The Town Board will not listen to us. We hope you will.
David B. Metz, Chappaqua
Ossining Must Be Very Proud Of These Seventh Graders
Dear Editor:
On June 20, we put on a benefit concert at the Ossining Public Library on behalf of a project called “Change for Darfur” which we became part of to try to help the people of Darfur. It began as our community service project for our bar mitzvahs. For months, we have been putting out cans in local businesses and shops in Ossining to raise funds and awareness, and people were invited to come to our bar mitzvahs with cans and jars and bottles of coins. We made presentations about the suffering of Darfur, trying to send the message that we should not and could not remain silent while people suffered terribly and another Holocaust takes place.
Over the months, with people being incredibly generous, we had raised more than $1,000 but we decided to put together a concert because we thought it would be an even better way to raise money and awareness, and to get more people involved. The outcome was more than we could have hoped for, and we wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank some people: first of all the community of Ossining from
its business owners to its students who helped; Sharon Kirschner in Tarrytown who inspired us and helped us to bring “Change for Darfur” to Ossining; Mr. Bradley Morrison and Mr. Dave August, music directors at AMD who we couldn’t have done this without; and all the musicians and artists of the AMD Jazz Band, Jazz Choir and rock band Mercury who gave their time and talents on a Friday night and helped us raise more than $800! And the crowd had a great time!
All of the money we’ve raised will be donated directly to Doctors Without Borders, an organization that works in Darfur bringing desperately needed medical supplies and personnel. Thank you again to all who have helped with their time, their money or their energy!
Tal Mintz, Marco Spodek
Anne M. Dorner 7th graders
Ossining
In Our Opinion...
The Seeds Of Our Discontent
The People of Mount Vernon would do well to examine the treachery that begot the treachery they continue to endure with respect to the killing of one of their City’s finest sons, Detective Christopher Ridley. Despite Janet DiFiore’s obvious opinion to the contrary, the People of Mount Vernon are too savvy not to know perfectly well that their District Attorney has not leveled with them at any point regarding Officer Ridley since his tragic death more than five months ago. And, her performance at the gathering at Grace Baptist Church on Saturday, June 28, was simply more of same.
There were many clergy among the roughly 250, mostly Mount Vernon residents, present; prominent amongst them, and organizers of the function, were Rev. Darin Moore, Rev. W. Franklyn Richardson, and Rev. Al Sharpton. Rev. Moore opened the proceedings declaring,
“We’re going to hold one another accountable.” Rev. Sharpton came more precisely to the point, telling everyone, “Even though there’s been one grand jury, this case, in our opinion, has not been resolved.” Sharpton was, of course, referring to the killing of Officer Christopher Ridley.
Unfortunately, those who came hoping to hear some as yet unrevealed truth, some semblance of what actually occurred during those terrible 90 seconds just prior to 5pm on January 25 that ended Christopher Ridley’s life in a fusillade of bullets, were unreasonably optimistic.
Janet DiFiore wasn’t there to answer the questions uppermost in the minds of those who knew and loved the young man whose life was so needlessly snuffed out. In fact, despite Rev. Moore’s and Rev. Sharpton’s high-minded declarations of purpose, the program had been structured in such a way that no questions from the audience, or the press and media, would be directly put to her, or any of the other seven panelists on stage. In fact, to be sure that everyone understood she would not be held to account, she complained early on in response to a question she was uncomfortable with, “I was told that we were not going to speak about specific cases.”
Whoever assured DA DiFiore that there would be no questions on specific cases, if, indeed, anyone had, owed a real duty to all those present to announce up-front that they had granted the DA immunity from scrutiny, and that the next two and a half hours would be just another public relations exercise; so that we could all get up and leave. We want to know who gave such assurances to Janet DiFiore thus betraying and defeating the hopes and purposes of all those gathered to get beyond the lies, the deceit, and the defaming of Christopher Ridley’s honor and memory in, yet again, another massive coverup from the Office of the District Attorney.
We hold that whoever granted such assurance to Janet DiFiore betrayed the People of Mount Vernon, and all of Westchester as surely as Lisa Copeland and Reggie Lafayette did when, under orders from Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, they worked for DiFiore’s election as a Republican in 2005 against fellow Democrat Tony Castro, who had been nominated by acclimation of more than 900 loyal Westchester Democratic committee members. Make no mistake, the People of Mount Vernon and, more specifically, the family and friends of Christopher Ridley, have Lisa, Reggie, Larry, and Andy to thank for the fact that the arrogant and untruthful Janet DiFiore; without the decency or moral fiber to return Christopher’s clothing and personal effects to his family, is their District Attorney.
She is not the People’s Attorney. She has, in two and a half years in office, demonstrated time and again, that she is beholden to special interests and is under the control of Larry Schwartz as surely as every other individual employed by Westchester County. Furthermore,
DiFiore has demonstrated that in matters involving possible police misconduct, she is totally incapable of dealing lawfully and even-handedly; instead, politically targeting the innocent while covering up the wrongful acts of officers from departments she is incestuously
connected to.
We, once again, add Our voice to the many who have called for an independent federal investigation into the killing of Mount Vernon Police Detective Christopher Ridley. There are just too many reasons not to accept the authority, the process, or the conclusions, that
have been foisted upon us.
Our Readers Respond...
In a True Democracy There is a System of Checks and Balances
Dear Editor:
The admission and acknowledgement of the District Attorney that there were grave mistakes in the handling of the Marquez case should give us pause. As a community we should take this opportunity to stop, reflect and ask ourselves: how many other innocent people have buckled under the pressure of the District Attorney’s Office? How many of us settled for being accused of minor infractions? How many times were people’s constitutional rights violated and overlooked?
Many disadvantaged families, especially those in the Black and Latino communities have been forced to watch family members brought to court on trumped up charges like “disorderly conduct”, “obstruction of justice” and “resisting arrest” which are little more than smoke screens for police misconduct and criminality. Police Criminality is cancerous; and if left unchecked, it can erode the integrity of law enforcement and eat away at the trust of the community.
Politicians and law makers in Westchester should be called to the carpet for an ineffective and failed system of law enforcement and for the lack of accountability that is running rampant. In a true democracy, there is a system of checks and balances; there are forums for the people to be heard; and there is an opportunity for dialogue and change.
The National Black Police Association (NBPA) and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) have been monitoring the complaints of Police Criminality in the cities, towns and villages of Westchester. At the numerous rallies and community meetings we held over the past years, we discovered that many community residents do not know how to file a proper complaint when they felt their rights were violated by law enforcement officers. To this end, we have created an informational pamphlet “How Do You Handle Police Brutality A Citizens Plan For Action”. This pamphlet is meant to provide citizens with information to help them determine if their rights have been violated by the police and what steps to take if they feel their rights have been violated.
The NBPA will continue to support and rally for legislation that will secure the appointment of a State-wide Special Prosecutor to eliminate assumption of bias and political influence on investigations when local police municipalities are both “investigating” and “prosecuting” each other. Appointment of a Special Prosecutor will ensure transparency in the Justice System which is essential for building trust in the community we serve, and for ensuring that both the rights of victims and law enforcement of-ficers are protected.
In Unity And In Peace
Damon K. Jones, Executive Director
Westchester Blacks In Law Enforcement
Reflections Of A Truly Patriotically Spirited Reader
Dear Editor:
On the occasion of our Fourth of July holiday, when we celebrate throwing off the fetters that cruel England would have forced upon us, I think we should all take time to reflect, during the cookouts, firework displays, and parades, on the true nature and value of the freedoms
we hold so dear, and the sacrifices made in blood to secure them.
It is of special importance, I believe, at this time in our history, to consider another tyranny that threatens us - our dependence on foreign oil. We are, by nature, an optimistic and resourceful people. We have stores of talent and technology, enjoyed by few in this world, that may yet be mined to find a solution for this most vexing of problems.
A solution must be found if we are to continue to move forward and ensure for future generations the same hopes and dreams that have sustained and propelled this country to the position it enjoys today. We have diffi-culties, certainly, in our economy, and many of our citizens are suffering from hunger and lack of adequate housing and medical care. However, collectively, we are endowed with the strength
and resilience to overcome even the worst of circumstances, should we apply the full force of our minds and spirits to the matter.
How fortunate we are, too, to live in a country where one may speak freely. We have seen, only recently, the mockery made of democracy as goons frogmarched reluctant, terrified people to vote in a one-candidate election. We are blessed, indeed, to live free from the fear of reprisal for our choice of political candidate, which may mean death or dismemberment in these spurious “democracies.” Here, also, we are free to worship God in the manner we choose--or we may be unbelievers, all without fear of persecution.
We are, above all, a generous people--freely offering our talents and resources to those who suffer from want, wherever in the world they may be. At this moment though, our own economic markets are suffering. I am confident, nonetheless, given our past history, we will, as so many times before, resolve these difficulties and emerge a stronger and more resilient country and people.
Washington’s words still hold true today: “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and
destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them.
The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.” I wish all your readers a very happy--and reflective--Fourth of July holiday.
May God bless America, always.
MaryAnn McCarra-Fitzpatrick
New Castle Reader Laments
Dear Editor:
Well, folks of the Town of New Castle, the Thruway is coming to your hometown, to your neighborhood. Commencing sometime this summer or fall, the State Department of Transportation will start construction of a new bridge and byway over the railroad tracks and parkway that are the entryway to our town. This proposition has been demanded of our town by the DOT. Our Town Board commenced, eight years ago, when this need was first announced to expand on DOT’s plans to satisfy their byway agenda with government funding.
Today this proposal will cost $17,500,000. Its initial cost was $850,000. This 20.6 fold increase is the shameful work of your Town Board and Town Administrator in conjunction with DOT incompetents in Albany. This monstrous construction folly will alter the small town entranceway to downtown Chappaqua forever; It will not ease traffic patterns to and from town in the least; It will force the establishment of the traffic light circus that was originally dismissed by the Town Board months ago; This construction project is not integrated in any way with a Downtown Development Plan.
This project, which should be termed Faiella’s Folly (the Town Administrator), must be stopped. It is up to you, the citizens of New Castle, to stop this folly in its tracks. To accomplish this, you need to:
• Express your concerns to the Town Board in writing:
Barbara Gerardi – email: bgerrard@town.new-castle.ny.us
Elise Kessler Mottel – email: ekmottel@town.new-castle.ny.us
John Buckley – email: jbuckley@town.new-castle.ny.us
Robin Stout – email: rstout@town.new-castle.ny.us
Michael Wolfensohn – email: mbwolf@town.new-castle.ny.us
• Express your concerns to the DOT in writing:
Regional Director Joan Dupont, P.E.
Eleanor Roosevelt State Office Building
4 Burnett Boulevard
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Email – cmcgarrigle@DOT.STATE.NY.US
• Express your feelings to Jerry Faiella in writing:
Email – jfaiella@town.new-castle.ny.us
• Visit the Town Board meetings expressing your concerns: the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:30pm. Or, go to their work sessions on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month by appointment. The work sessions are held in rooms adjacent to the Assembly Hall. And, listen to us, The Concerned Citizens of Chappaqua. We have the professional solution to this folly. The Town Board will not listen to us. We hope you will.
David B. Metz, Chappaqua
Ossining Must Be Very Proud Of These Seventh Graders
Dear Editor:
On June 20, we put on a benefit concert at the Ossining Public Library on behalf of a project called “Change for Darfur” which we became part of to try to help the people of Darfur. It began as our community service project for our bar mitzvahs. For months, we have been putting out cans in local businesses and shops in Ossining to raise funds and awareness, and people were invited to come to our bar mitzvahs with cans and jars and bottles of coins. We made presentations about the suffering of Darfur, trying to send the message that we should not and could not remain silent while people suffered terribly and another Holocaust takes place.
Over the months, with people being incredibly generous, we had raised more than $1,000 but we decided to put together a concert because we thought it would be an even better way to raise money and awareness, and to get more people involved. The outcome was more than we could have hoped for, and we wanted to take this opportunity to publicly thank some people: first of all the community of Ossining from
its business owners to its students who helped; Sharon Kirschner in Tarrytown who inspired us and helped us to bring “Change for Darfur” to Ossining; Mr. Bradley Morrison and Mr. Dave August, music directors at AMD who we couldn’t have done this without; and all the musicians and artists of the AMD Jazz Band, Jazz Choir and rock band Mercury who gave their time and talents on a Friday night and helped us raise more than $800! And the crowd had a great time!
All of the money we’ve raised will be donated directly to Doctors Without Borders, an organization that works in Darfur bringing desperately needed medical supplies and personnel. Thank you again to all who have helped with their time, their money or their energy!
Tal Mintz, Marco Spodek
Anne M. Dorner 7th graders
Ossining
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
