Message For Rob Astorino: Wake Up And Smell The Coffee!
Implications Of Massachusetts Upset For Westchester.
Last Tuesday night Scott Brown, winner of the special race for United States Senator from the State of Massachusetts declared, at his celebration in Boston, “Tonight the independent majority delivered a great victory for the people.” Brown, a Republican State Senator for some five years, defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Attorney General, for the seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for some 47 years, a remark-able upset, indeed.
There is no question that Mr. Brown’s victory will have an immediate negative impact upon the Obama Administration’s effort to pass major healthcare reform legislation. However, in a much broader sense, the election of a Republican to Ted Kennedy’s seat in perhaps the bluest, most liberal bastion in all of America, has far broader implications than the mere success or failure of Mr. Obama’s healthcare initiative.
The single most important implication lay in the very words Brown uttered in declaring victory. He did not exalt his own Republican Party. He acknowledged, and gave heartfelt thanks, to “the independent majority,” and not the Republican Party that nominated him and supported his brilliant campaign. He recognized, as our own newly-minted Republican County Executive should truly recognize, that without those non-aligned and independent voters, he would not have succeeded.
Despite the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the Bay State three to one, clearly, it was not a matter of Party allegiance, Democrats vs. Republicans, that would determine the outcome. Instead, it was really a cobbling together of those independent voters who understood that it was an election about issues, healthcare, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the sluggish economy.
Brown rightly sensed that voters did not feel especially understood or responded to by either the Democratic or Republican Parties, and that their mood was one of discontentment and anger with the status quo. Driving throughout the state to his numerous campaign rallies and speeches in a pickup truck, projected the image of a candidate who was one of them; one who would listen to them and bring about change they could live with and afford.
In plain language, the people of this country have grown tired of the “same ol’, same ol’”, a two-party system where the players, with few exceptions, are interchangeable, and neither side seems to care enough to bring about meaningful and lasting changes. They hunger for real solutions to the basic problems faced daily by working families in our sluggish economy as mortgage foreclosure continues to erode our neighborhoods and displace unemployed and underemployed constituent taxpayers.
Not since Watergate has the public perception of politicians and the two major parties been so poor. Never before have families been so heavily taxed while, at the same time, working longer hours to bring home less.
In Washington President Obama, who rode to victory just one year ago, promising “fundamental changes in the way government would be conducting business,” now finds himself being accused of “illusory tactics”, yet engaging in concessions and giveaways that continue to drain and depress our economy.
Here at home in Westchester, we do not particularly enjoy having the distinction of paying the highest property taxes in the nation, coupled with the falling market value of our homes. That one-two punch has tended to make us more uncomfortable with, and intolerant of, arrogant, self-serving politicians.
Those who participate in the electoral process have become increasingly unwilling to identify with either the Democrats or Republicans, preferring, instead, to be registered with the Independence Party, or as an independent, non-aligned voter. In fact, in many areas of the country, non-aligned and Independence Party registrations combined comprise more than one-third of voters in any given election; a fact that should now dramatically alter the rules of engagement in most future races.
No longer should the Independence Party of Westchester be content to cross-endorse either the Republican or Democratic Party choice, in any given contest, thus ensuring that particular candidate’s probable election. Rather, the time has come when the Independence Party should be actively issuing platforms and positions with respect to countywide, statewide and national issues.
At the same time, the Independence Party needs to actively interview, and recruit, compatible worthy candidates for all positions available, simultaneously aggressively registering and educating new Party members, particularly young adults.
It is no longer a productive strategy to merely crossendorse candidates who have been pre-selected by either the Democratic or Republican machine. That fact has been forcefully driven home by the actions of the Astorino Administration over the past 10 weeks since election.
Despite initial acknowledgement of the crucial role played by the Independence Party and nonaligned voters in Rob Astorino’s victory over Andy Spano, a victory predicted and encouraged by information published by The Guardian alone against all other local news media in Westchester, the new Administration has virtually avoided any and every opportunity to include those without whose active assistance their success would not have occurred.
It has rapidly become apparent that, with the exception of the switch at the very top, and those closest to him, the Astorino Administration is quite happy to leave much of the corrupt Spano organization in place.
Change? What change? We don’t see much change at all.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Westchester Guardian Article/Phil Amicone/Nick Spano/Al Pirro/Anthony Mangone/Sandy Annabi.
‘The Last Supper’
Was It The Pivotal MomentIn A Criminal Conspiracy?
‘The Last Supper’ Five Practiced Conspirators And Sandy Annabi Meet Hours Before Her Vote Reversal
Does anyone seriously believe that any significant amount of money exchanged hands to lubricate the passage of approvals by Yonkers City Council for either the Ridge Hill development or Longfellow Senior Housing, and Phil Amicone and Nick Spano received nothing for their efforts? Of course not. Nick and Phil, between them, controlled the Republican patronage machine in Yonkers; and, as between them, Nick was clearly el Capo.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, it is well known that City Chair, now Chairman of the County Legislature, Ken Jenkins, had lined up agency of the rentals in Ridge Hill for his ERA Gem Real Estate Brokerage. Let no one suggest that corruption isn’t an equal opportunity enterprise in Yonkers, with Republicans and Democrats cooperating to each grab a share. And, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Mike Spano is licensed to Ken Jenkins’ office.
We are informed by an exceptionally reliable and knowledgeable source, from first-hand observation, that a certain Italian restaurant in New Rochelle was the scene of a supper meeting attended by Al Pirro, Nick Spano, Mike Spano, as well as Anthony Mangone, Zehy Jereis and Sandy Annabi on the evening before the Yonkers City Council meeting at which Annabi changed her position and voted to enable the Ridge Hill Development Project to go forward; in a sense, a Last Supper.
Does such a meeting, in and of itself, prove any wrongdoing, any bribery or extortion was occurring? No, of course not. It’s possible, just possible, that all of those Yonkers players were out to celebrate because Sandy had changed her position and advised all of them that she would be voting in favor of Ridge Hill after all, because the builder, Bruce Ratner, had agreed to contribute $10 million to the Yonkers School System.
Pasta and a hot antipasto, even with a little Chianti to wash it all down, does not a conspiracy make. Neither does the payment of a seriously attractive, somewhat seductive, young woman’s utility bills, mortgage payments, or car lease, by members of the opposite sex, no matter how shady their prior histories.
We do not take breaches of public trust lightly, by any means, and we are only too well aware of the atmosphere of corruption engendered by a District Attorney who occupied the Office for 12 years while married to the most outrageous white-collar criminal in the County. One United States Attorney, who should have known better, MaryJo White, in fact, perpetuated the corrupt environment when she failed to include Jeanine Pirro in the original 67-count indictment that named Al, despite the fact that the case involved a 10-year-long tax fraud, 1988-1997, in which nine of those 10 years Jeanine jointly signed the tax returns.
Despite having been convicted in White Plains Federal District Court on June 20, 2000, and sentenced to 29 months in federal prison, Al was out by clever canard, in only 11. Additionally, although convicted of all 38 remaining counts of a 67- count indictment, after Judge Barrington Parker redacted the 29 most egregious counts involving the rip-off of Peekskill’s Hudson Valley Hospital, together with Robert Boyle, another of George Pataki’s crooked buddies, the Appellate Division, Second Department, never disbarred Al. Instead, they waited three years to act and then merely suspended his license for three years, beginning May 12, 2003.
No matter, Mr. Fixit, Al Pirro, went right on practicing law, making appearances before town boards and city planning commissions such as White Plains, and wherever he would normally appear, in direct disobedience to the specific conditions of his ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ suspension. No one can say the federal courts or state courts treated Al Pirro ‘badly’. Not only did they spare him; they also enabled him; and, now he pops up right in the middle of the Yonkers real estate development scandal. What a surprise!
After all, way back in 2003, before leaving office, then-Mayor John Spencer had retained Al Pirro as Yonkers’ official lobbyist, specifically tasked with the assignment of bringing qualified real estate developers to the City to help the administration that would soon be headed by his deputy, Phil Amicone, fulfill their master plan of development. Even in a culture of corruption such as Westchester, somehow Yonkers remains a standout for sheer chutzpah.
If every allegation in all 13 counts of Sandy Annabi’s federal indictment were essentially accurate, and, in fact, she benefitted to the tune of $166,000, still she would be a minor player by comparison with the likes of Al Pirro, Nick Spano, and the others at that table in New Rochelle. More likely, most of, if not all of, that cash ended up in Anthony Mangone’s, and Zehy Jereis’, accounts, well-trained soldiers in the Nick Spano mob.
As for the developers, they understand from years of doing business, that in Westchester, and particularly in Yonkers, for many decades, you don’t get the job and you don’t get through the City’s zoning, planning, and environmental approvals in a timely fashion unless you grease several palms. They simply know and accept the network of corruption as the price of doing business.
We understand the difference between those developers who can legitimately be said to have been victims of extortion, and those who routinely distribute envelopes filled with cash as a vital protocol. In either case, a serious crime has been committed when a government official has been paid off and the public trust has been breached. We are reminded of the County Courthouse at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in White Plains, where, after only 20 years, the siding was falling off the building that had been constructed by a builder brought to the project by Al Pirro. The consequences of kickbacks are often inferior materials and/or workmanship.
Given the $600-$800 million price tag on Ridge Hill alone, the notion that a clique composed of the Spano brothers (Nick and Mike), Al Pirro, Anthony Mangone and Zehy Jereis, would content themselves with a few hundred thousand dollars in ‘consulting fees’ is ludicrous. If Sandy Annabi did, in fact, accept some personal enrichment to alter her vote with respect either to the Longfellow, or the Ridge Hill projects – and that will take some serious proving – she was clearly a tool in the hands of the five political operatives and felons seated at that table with her in New Rochelle less than 24 hours before she cast her vote.
Interestingly, both Nick and Mikey Spano have now been very quick to disown and deny any association with, or knowledge of, Jereis’ or Mangone’s activities with regard to either project. However, my source is holding steadfast to the account of who they saw, where, and when. Even 1/10th of one percent of a $600 million project would involve $600,000. The United States Attorney is talking about $166,000.
Finally, Mike Edelman has been unusually talkative and ‘blogative’, even for him, since the unsealing of the Annabi Indictment. It would seem he “protesteth a bit too much”, particularly with respect to Al Pirro and the Spano brothers, not to mention Phil Amicone, also very quick to disassociate himself with strong words of denouncement.
Was It The Pivotal MomentIn A Criminal Conspiracy?
‘The Last Supper’ Five Practiced Conspirators And Sandy Annabi Meet Hours Before Her Vote Reversal
Does anyone seriously believe that any significant amount of money exchanged hands to lubricate the passage of approvals by Yonkers City Council for either the Ridge Hill development or Longfellow Senior Housing, and Phil Amicone and Nick Spano received nothing for their efforts? Of course not. Nick and Phil, between them, controlled the Republican patronage machine in Yonkers; and, as between them, Nick was clearly el Capo.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, it is well known that City Chair, now Chairman of the County Legislature, Ken Jenkins, had lined up agency of the rentals in Ridge Hill for his ERA Gem Real Estate Brokerage. Let no one suggest that corruption isn’t an equal opportunity enterprise in Yonkers, with Republicans and Democrats cooperating to each grab a share. And, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Mike Spano is licensed to Ken Jenkins’ office.
We are informed by an exceptionally reliable and knowledgeable source, from first-hand observation, that a certain Italian restaurant in New Rochelle was the scene of a supper meeting attended by Al Pirro, Nick Spano, Mike Spano, as well as Anthony Mangone, Zehy Jereis and Sandy Annabi on the evening before the Yonkers City Council meeting at which Annabi changed her position and voted to enable the Ridge Hill Development Project to go forward; in a sense, a Last Supper.
Does such a meeting, in and of itself, prove any wrongdoing, any bribery or extortion was occurring? No, of course not. It’s possible, just possible, that all of those Yonkers players were out to celebrate because Sandy had changed her position and advised all of them that she would be voting in favor of Ridge Hill after all, because the builder, Bruce Ratner, had agreed to contribute $10 million to the Yonkers School System.
Pasta and a hot antipasto, even with a little Chianti to wash it all down, does not a conspiracy make. Neither does the payment of a seriously attractive, somewhat seductive, young woman’s utility bills, mortgage payments, or car lease, by members of the opposite sex, no matter how shady their prior histories.
We do not take breaches of public trust lightly, by any means, and we are only too well aware of the atmosphere of corruption engendered by a District Attorney who occupied the Office for 12 years while married to the most outrageous white-collar criminal in the County. One United States Attorney, who should have known better, MaryJo White, in fact, perpetuated the corrupt environment when she failed to include Jeanine Pirro in the original 67-count indictment that named Al, despite the fact that the case involved a 10-year-long tax fraud, 1988-1997, in which nine of those 10 years Jeanine jointly signed the tax returns.
Despite having been convicted in White Plains Federal District Court on June 20, 2000, and sentenced to 29 months in federal prison, Al was out by clever canard, in only 11. Additionally, although convicted of all 38 remaining counts of a 67- count indictment, after Judge Barrington Parker redacted the 29 most egregious counts involving the rip-off of Peekskill’s Hudson Valley Hospital, together with Robert Boyle, another of George Pataki’s crooked buddies, the Appellate Division, Second Department, never disbarred Al. Instead, they waited three years to act and then merely suspended his license for three years, beginning May 12, 2003.
No matter, Mr. Fixit, Al Pirro, went right on practicing law, making appearances before town boards and city planning commissions such as White Plains, and wherever he would normally appear, in direct disobedience to the specific conditions of his ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ suspension. No one can say the federal courts or state courts treated Al Pirro ‘badly’. Not only did they spare him; they also enabled him; and, now he pops up right in the middle of the Yonkers real estate development scandal. What a surprise!
After all, way back in 2003, before leaving office, then-Mayor John Spencer had retained Al Pirro as Yonkers’ official lobbyist, specifically tasked with the assignment of bringing qualified real estate developers to the City to help the administration that would soon be headed by his deputy, Phil Amicone, fulfill their master plan of development. Even in a culture of corruption such as Westchester, somehow Yonkers remains a standout for sheer chutzpah.
If every allegation in all 13 counts of Sandy Annabi’s federal indictment were essentially accurate, and, in fact, she benefitted to the tune of $166,000, still she would be a minor player by comparison with the likes of Al Pirro, Nick Spano, and the others at that table in New Rochelle. More likely, most of, if not all of, that cash ended up in Anthony Mangone’s, and Zehy Jereis’, accounts, well-trained soldiers in the Nick Spano mob.
As for the developers, they understand from years of doing business, that in Westchester, and particularly in Yonkers, for many decades, you don’t get the job and you don’t get through the City’s zoning, planning, and environmental approvals in a timely fashion unless you grease several palms. They simply know and accept the network of corruption as the price of doing business.
We understand the difference between those developers who can legitimately be said to have been victims of extortion, and those who routinely distribute envelopes filled with cash as a vital protocol. In either case, a serious crime has been committed when a government official has been paid off and the public trust has been breached. We are reminded of the County Courthouse at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in White Plains, where, after only 20 years, the siding was falling off the building that had been constructed by a builder brought to the project by Al Pirro. The consequences of kickbacks are often inferior materials and/or workmanship.
Given the $600-$800 million price tag on Ridge Hill alone, the notion that a clique composed of the Spano brothers (Nick and Mike), Al Pirro, Anthony Mangone and Zehy Jereis, would content themselves with a few hundred thousand dollars in ‘consulting fees’ is ludicrous. If Sandy Annabi did, in fact, accept some personal enrichment to alter her vote with respect either to the Longfellow, or the Ridge Hill projects – and that will take some serious proving – she was clearly a tool in the hands of the five political operatives and felons seated at that table with her in New Rochelle less than 24 hours before she cast her vote.
Interestingly, both Nick and Mikey Spano have now been very quick to disown and deny any association with, or knowledge of, Jereis’ or Mangone’s activities with regard to either project. However, my source is holding steadfast to the account of who they saw, where, and when. Even 1/10th of one percent of a $600 million project would involve $600,000. The United States Attorney is talking about $166,000.
Finally, Mike Edelman has been unusually talkative and ‘blogative’, even for him, since the unsealing of the Annabi Indictment. It would seem he “protesteth a bit too much”, particularly with respect to Al Pirro and the Spano brothers, not to mention Phil Amicone, also very quick to disassociate himself with strong words of denouncement.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Westchester Guardian Article/Zehy Jereis/Anthony Mangone/Sandy Annabi.
THE FEDS ARE HERE!!
And They’ve Only Just Begun
Annabi, Mangone, Jereis Indicted United States Attorney Charges Former Democratic Majority Leader Of Yonkers City Council, Former Republican Party Chief, And Attorney With Public Corruption Crimes
Former Yonkers City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi Allegedly Received More Than $160,000 In Secret Payments; Defendants Charged With Conspiracy, Bribery, Extortion, False Statements, and Tax Crimes
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JOSEPH M. DEMAREST, JR., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and PATRICIA J.HAYNES, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Criminal Investigation Division, announced the unsealing of an Indictment against SANDY ANNABI, the former Democratic Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council, charging her with conspiracy, bribery, extortion, false statements, and tax crimes. The Indictment also charges ZEHY JEREIS, the former head of the Yonkers Republican Party, and ANTHONY MANGONE, a Westchester County attorney, with conspiracy, bribery, and extortion in connection with two real estate development projects within the City of Yonkers which were pending before ANNABI.
MANGONE was arrested early on the morning of January 6 in Purchase, New York. ANNABI and JEREIS surrendered to federal authorities on the same day. All three defendants are expected to be presented before United States Magistrate Judge LISA MARGARET SMITH in White Plains Federal Court.
According to the Indictment filed in White Plains Federal Court:
On November 6, 2001, SANDY ANNABI was elected to serve as a Councilwoman to represent the Second District of the City of Yonkers. ANNABI was reelected two subsequent times, in 2003 and2005, and served as the Democratic Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council. The Yonkers City Council’s primary function is to consider and vote on the City’s budget, zoning changes, and other legislation.
From the fall of 2003 through the fall of 2007, ZEHY JEREIS was the Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Party. As the Party Chairman, JEREIS’s duties were to promote the Republican Party in Yonkers and to advance the interests of Republican elected officials and candidates. ANTHONY MANGONE is an attorney whose office was located in Hawthorne, New York.
The Longfellow Project:
In 2003, a developer (“Developer No. 1”) proposed to develop a tract of land located partially within the Yonkers City Council District represented by ANNABI by renovating and transforming two vacant and dilapidated schools into market-rate housing (the “Longfellow Project”). ANNABI initially opposed the Longfellow Project. During a City Council meeting on June 14, 2005, ANNABI proclaimed her strong opposition to the project, stating: “Even if the entire community supported [it], I would be opposed.” She also said that the project was “outrageous” and a “slap in the face to the taxpayers of Yonkers.” Despite considerable effort, Developer No. 1 was unable to move the project forward in the face of ANNABI’s opposition.
In April 2006, however, Developer No. 1 hired MANGONE to assist in persuading ANNABI to support the Longfellow Project. Shortly thereafter, MANGONE arranged a meeting between a representative of Developer No. 1 and JEREIS, who advised that he could help persuade ANNABI to support the project. Later, MANGONE told Developer No. 1 that, in order for the project to proceed, Developer No. 1 would have to pay ANNABI $30,000 in exchange for her support. Developer No. 1 gave MANGONE the $30,000 in cash for ANNABI and paid MANGONE a $10,000 cash fee for his services.
Shortly after receiving the $30,000 in cash, ANNABI made several substantial cash and credit card purchases –including airline ticket upgrades, a Rolex watch, and a diamond cross necklace. Then, at a City Council meeting in September2006, ANNABI reversed her long-held opposition to the Longfellow Project and voted in favor of awarding the project to Developer No. 1.
The Ridge Hill Development Project:
The “Ridge Hill Development Project” was a project proposed by a large developer (“Developer No. 2”) to develop an 81-acre tract of land to establish retail shopping, restaurants, office space, hundreds of residential housing units, and a hotel and conference center. ANNABI was an outspoken critic of the proposed Ridge Hill Project and voted against both the project and legislation that would allow the project to move forward despite her opposition. ANNABI, with two other City Council members and others, also filed a civil lawsuit to effectively block the Ridge Hill Project. As the City Council was considering the Ridge Hill Project, Developer No. 2 made repeated and unsuccessful efforts to convince ANNABI to vote in favor of the project.
On June 2, 2006, JEREIS was introduced to representatives of Developer No. 2, after which JEREIS told representatives of Developer No. 2 that he could arrange a meeting between them, ANNABI, and JEREIS to discuss the Ridge Hill Project. JEREIS and representatives of Developer No. 2 also had an agreement in which Developer No. 2 would give JEREIS a consulting job sometime after ANNABI formally voted in favor of the Ridge Hill Project. After two meetings held in less than two weeks, ANNABI reversed her opposition to the Ridge Hill Project and issued a press release -- drafted by JEREIS and representatives of Developer No. 2 – informing the public of her support for the project.
Specifically, at a City Council meeting on July 11, 2006, ANNABI voted I favor of the zoning change necessary for the Ridge Hill Project. Shortly after ANNABI changed her vote on the Ridge Hill Project, JEREIS received the promised consulting contract from Developer No. 2 worth $60,000 over one year.
Secret Payments To ANNABI And Efforts To Conceal The Crimes: Since at least 2004, ANNABI has received from JEREIS, MANGONE, and others more than $160,000 worth of secret payments designed to influence and reward her for favorable official action or inaction on matters pending before the City Council as specific opportunities arose. ANNABI, JEREIS, and MANGONE also took various steps to conceal their scheme, by making false statements and/or omitting required information in various reporting documents.
For example, JEREIS secretly gave ANNABI money and purported loans to finance the purchase of two residential properties located outside of ANNABI’s Council District. To obtain favorable financing, ANNABI contemporaneously submitted applications to two different banks, advising both that she intended to occupy the house for which she was seeking financing and concealing that she was seeking to borrow money from the other bank for a second house. The closings for the two loans occurred only three days apart.
Furthermore, despite being required as a Council member, by state and local law, to live within her Council District, ANNABI in fact lived in one of these houses outside of her Council District. In order to meet the residential requirement to maintain her position, JEREIS purchased a cooperative apartment for ANNABI within her Council District. JEREIS had paid for the down payment and made the monthly mortgage payments, at times with postal money orders he had obtained.
The Indictment further charges that in her loan applications for one of the houses and for the apartment she purchased, ANNABI falsely inflated her income. ANNABI’s applications also included fake pay stubs, W-2’s, and bank statements.
According to the Indictment, ANNABI affirmatively concealed the illegal benefits she received from JEREIS and MANGONE by filing annual financial disclosure statements, from2004 through 2007, that intentionally omitted the illegal payments. ANNABI also failed to report in federal income tax returns the illegal payments that she received from JEREIS, MANGONE, and others.
In a further effort to conceal the criminal conduct, during the federal grand jury investigation into ANNABI’s corrupt relationship with JEREIS, MANGONE instructed Developer No. 1 not to tell an attorney representing Developer No. 1 that representatives of Developer No. 1 had given MANGONE the $30,000 in cash for ANNABI. MANGONE also failed to report, as required, the $30,000 cash bribe and an additional $10,000 fee that he received from Developer No. 1 to the IRS.
A chart setting forth the charges contained in the Indictment against ANNABI, JEREIS, and MANGONE and the maximum potential penalties for each offense is attached. The Indictment also seeks forfeiture of the proceeds of the crimes set forth above.
Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the FBI and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. He added that the investigation is ongoing.
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
“Today’s indictment describes what was essentially a bipartisan corruption pact between Sandy Annabi, Zehy Jereis, and Anthony Mangone. When the people of Yonkers elected Annabi to the City Council, she swore an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of her office. But rather than keep her word, she betrayed Yonkers’ residents by selling the most important assets any elected official has: her integrity and her independence. In our down economy, there are too many buildings with ‘For Sale’ signs hanging in the window; City Hall shouldn’t be one of them,” said United States Attorney PREET BHARARA.
“The conduct charged in the indictment is an assault on democracy. The people of Yonkers were betrayed by Sandy Annabi, someone elected – and sworn -- to serve them. In publicly opposing one of the projects for which she later sold her vote, she called it ‘a slap in the face to the taxpayers of Yonkers. ‘She willfully conspired to redefine her job from Councilmember to Councilmember-for-sale. That was the real slap in the face for the people of Yonkers,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge JOSEPH M. DEMAREST, JR.
“Public officials are no different from you or I in their responsibility to follow tax law. When this trust is violated it deteriorates confidence in the fairness of the application of tax law,” IRS Special Agent-in-Charge PATRICIA J.HAYNES.
Assistant United States Attorneys JASON P.W. HALPERIN and PERRY A. CARBONE are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Sandy, Say It Isn’t So, Sandy Annabi Facing The Fight Of Her Life
It was disappointing, to say the least, to be present last Wednesday in the Offices of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York at the Federal District Courthouse in White Plains for a press conference at which it was disclosed that Sandy Annabi, former Democratic Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council, had been indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with Conspiracy, Bribery, Extortion, False Statements, and Tax Crimes.
However, the last time we checked, indictment was still not the same as conviction. The charges stem from Annabi’s official action with respect to two proposed real estate developments in Yonkers which she initially opposed and then supported: The Longfellow Project, and the Ridge Hill Development Project.
This case has Nick Spano, his brother Mikey, Al Pirro, Phil Amicone, and Ken Jenkins written all over it, in that order; and the Government knows that. Named in the same indictment were Zehy Jereis and Anthony Mangone, two Nick Spano operatives, each with a long history of Election Fraud and manipulation as well as criminal political operations on behalf of Spano. Jereis, former Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Committee, and a former official of the Yonkers Chamber of Commerce, has a criminal record that includes Possession and Sale of A Controlled Substance.
And They’ve Only Just Begun
Annabi, Mangone, Jereis Indicted United States Attorney Charges Former Democratic Majority Leader Of Yonkers City Council, Former Republican Party Chief, And Attorney With Public Corruption Crimes
Former Yonkers City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi Allegedly Received More Than $160,000 In Secret Payments; Defendants Charged With Conspiracy, Bribery, Extortion, False Statements, and Tax Crimes
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, JOSEPH M. DEMAREST, JR., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and PATRICIA J.HAYNES, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Criminal Investigation Division, announced the unsealing of an Indictment against SANDY ANNABI, the former Democratic Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council, charging her with conspiracy, bribery, extortion, false statements, and tax crimes. The Indictment also charges ZEHY JEREIS, the former head of the Yonkers Republican Party, and ANTHONY MANGONE, a Westchester County attorney, with conspiracy, bribery, and extortion in connection with two real estate development projects within the City of Yonkers which were pending before ANNABI.
MANGONE was arrested early on the morning of January 6 in Purchase, New York. ANNABI and JEREIS surrendered to federal authorities on the same day. All three defendants are expected to be presented before United States Magistrate Judge LISA MARGARET SMITH in White Plains Federal Court.
According to the Indictment filed in White Plains Federal Court:
On November 6, 2001, SANDY ANNABI was elected to serve as a Councilwoman to represent the Second District of the City of Yonkers. ANNABI was reelected two subsequent times, in 2003 and2005, and served as the Democratic Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council. The Yonkers City Council’s primary function is to consider and vote on the City’s budget, zoning changes, and other legislation.
From the fall of 2003 through the fall of 2007, ZEHY JEREIS was the Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Party. As the Party Chairman, JEREIS’s duties were to promote the Republican Party in Yonkers and to advance the interests of Republican elected officials and candidates. ANTHONY MANGONE is an attorney whose office was located in Hawthorne, New York.
The Longfellow Project:
In 2003, a developer (“Developer No. 1”) proposed to develop a tract of land located partially within the Yonkers City Council District represented by ANNABI by renovating and transforming two vacant and dilapidated schools into market-rate housing (the “Longfellow Project”). ANNABI initially opposed the Longfellow Project. During a City Council meeting on June 14, 2005, ANNABI proclaimed her strong opposition to the project, stating: “Even if the entire community supported [it], I would be opposed.” She also said that the project was “outrageous” and a “slap in the face to the taxpayers of Yonkers.” Despite considerable effort, Developer No. 1 was unable to move the project forward in the face of ANNABI’s opposition.
In April 2006, however, Developer No. 1 hired MANGONE to assist in persuading ANNABI to support the Longfellow Project. Shortly thereafter, MANGONE arranged a meeting between a representative of Developer No. 1 and JEREIS, who advised that he could help persuade ANNABI to support the project. Later, MANGONE told Developer No. 1 that, in order for the project to proceed, Developer No. 1 would have to pay ANNABI $30,000 in exchange for her support. Developer No. 1 gave MANGONE the $30,000 in cash for ANNABI and paid MANGONE a $10,000 cash fee for his services.
Shortly after receiving the $30,000 in cash, ANNABI made several substantial cash and credit card purchases –including airline ticket upgrades, a Rolex watch, and a diamond cross necklace. Then, at a City Council meeting in September2006, ANNABI reversed her long-held opposition to the Longfellow Project and voted in favor of awarding the project to Developer No. 1.
The Ridge Hill Development Project:
The “Ridge Hill Development Project” was a project proposed by a large developer (“Developer No. 2”) to develop an 81-acre tract of land to establish retail shopping, restaurants, office space, hundreds of residential housing units, and a hotel and conference center. ANNABI was an outspoken critic of the proposed Ridge Hill Project and voted against both the project and legislation that would allow the project to move forward despite her opposition. ANNABI, with two other City Council members and others, also filed a civil lawsuit to effectively block the Ridge Hill Project. As the City Council was considering the Ridge Hill Project, Developer No. 2 made repeated and unsuccessful efforts to convince ANNABI to vote in favor of the project.
On June 2, 2006, JEREIS was introduced to representatives of Developer No. 2, after which JEREIS told representatives of Developer No. 2 that he could arrange a meeting between them, ANNABI, and JEREIS to discuss the Ridge Hill Project. JEREIS and representatives of Developer No. 2 also had an agreement in which Developer No. 2 would give JEREIS a consulting job sometime after ANNABI formally voted in favor of the Ridge Hill Project. After two meetings held in less than two weeks, ANNABI reversed her opposition to the Ridge Hill Project and issued a press release -- drafted by JEREIS and representatives of Developer No. 2 – informing the public of her support for the project.
Specifically, at a City Council meeting on July 11, 2006, ANNABI voted I favor of the zoning change necessary for the Ridge Hill Project. Shortly after ANNABI changed her vote on the Ridge Hill Project, JEREIS received the promised consulting contract from Developer No. 2 worth $60,000 over one year.
Secret Payments To ANNABI And Efforts To Conceal The Crimes: Since at least 2004, ANNABI has received from JEREIS, MANGONE, and others more than $160,000 worth of secret payments designed to influence and reward her for favorable official action or inaction on matters pending before the City Council as specific opportunities arose. ANNABI, JEREIS, and MANGONE also took various steps to conceal their scheme, by making false statements and/or omitting required information in various reporting documents.
For example, JEREIS secretly gave ANNABI money and purported loans to finance the purchase of two residential properties located outside of ANNABI’s Council District. To obtain favorable financing, ANNABI contemporaneously submitted applications to two different banks, advising both that she intended to occupy the house for which she was seeking financing and concealing that she was seeking to borrow money from the other bank for a second house. The closings for the two loans occurred only three days apart.
Furthermore, despite being required as a Council member, by state and local law, to live within her Council District, ANNABI in fact lived in one of these houses outside of her Council District. In order to meet the residential requirement to maintain her position, JEREIS purchased a cooperative apartment for ANNABI within her Council District. JEREIS had paid for the down payment and made the monthly mortgage payments, at times with postal money orders he had obtained.
The Indictment further charges that in her loan applications for one of the houses and for the apartment she purchased, ANNABI falsely inflated her income. ANNABI’s applications also included fake pay stubs, W-2’s, and bank statements.
According to the Indictment, ANNABI affirmatively concealed the illegal benefits she received from JEREIS and MANGONE by filing annual financial disclosure statements, from2004 through 2007, that intentionally omitted the illegal payments. ANNABI also failed to report in federal income tax returns the illegal payments that she received from JEREIS, MANGONE, and others.
In a further effort to conceal the criminal conduct, during the federal grand jury investigation into ANNABI’s corrupt relationship with JEREIS, MANGONE instructed Developer No. 1 not to tell an attorney representing Developer No. 1 that representatives of Developer No. 1 had given MANGONE the $30,000 in cash for ANNABI. MANGONE also failed to report, as required, the $30,000 cash bribe and an additional $10,000 fee that he received from Developer No. 1 to the IRS.
A chart setting forth the charges contained in the Indictment against ANNABI, JEREIS, and MANGONE and the maximum potential penalties for each offense is attached. The Indictment also seeks forfeiture of the proceeds of the crimes set forth above.
Mr. BHARARA praised the work of the FBI and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. He added that the investigation is ongoing.
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
“Today’s indictment describes what was essentially a bipartisan corruption pact between Sandy Annabi, Zehy Jereis, and Anthony Mangone. When the people of Yonkers elected Annabi to the City Council, she swore an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of her office. But rather than keep her word, she betrayed Yonkers’ residents by selling the most important assets any elected official has: her integrity and her independence. In our down economy, there are too many buildings with ‘For Sale’ signs hanging in the window; City Hall shouldn’t be one of them,” said United States Attorney PREET BHARARA.
“The conduct charged in the indictment is an assault on democracy. The people of Yonkers were betrayed by Sandy Annabi, someone elected – and sworn -- to serve them. In publicly opposing one of the projects for which she later sold her vote, she called it ‘a slap in the face to the taxpayers of Yonkers. ‘She willfully conspired to redefine her job from Councilmember to Councilmember-for-sale. That was the real slap in the face for the people of Yonkers,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge JOSEPH M. DEMAREST, JR.
“Public officials are no different from you or I in their responsibility to follow tax law. When this trust is violated it deteriorates confidence in the fairness of the application of tax law,” IRS Special Agent-in-Charge PATRICIA J.HAYNES.
Assistant United States Attorneys JASON P.W. HALPERIN and PERRY A. CARBONE are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Sandy, Say It Isn’t So, Sandy Annabi Facing The Fight Of Her Life
It was disappointing, to say the least, to be present last Wednesday in the Offices of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York at the Federal District Courthouse in White Plains for a press conference at which it was disclosed that Sandy Annabi, former Democratic Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council, had been indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with Conspiracy, Bribery, Extortion, False Statements, and Tax Crimes.
However, the last time we checked, indictment was still not the same as conviction. The charges stem from Annabi’s official action with respect to two proposed real estate developments in Yonkers which she initially opposed and then supported: The Longfellow Project, and the Ridge Hill Development Project.
This case has Nick Spano, his brother Mikey, Al Pirro, Phil Amicone, and Ken Jenkins written all over it, in that order; and the Government knows that. Named in the same indictment were Zehy Jereis and Anthony Mangone, two Nick Spano operatives, each with a long history of Election Fraud and manipulation as well as criminal political operations on behalf of Spano. Jereis, former Chairman of the Yonkers Republican Committee, and a former official of the Yonkers Chamber of Commerce, has a criminal record that includes Possession and Sale of A Controlled Substance.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Westchester Guardian Article/Sam Zherka.
Guardian Publisher Takes Seibel Dismissals To Federal Appeals Court
Cases Dismissed By District Court Judge Cathy Seibel Going To Second Circuit
Civil Actions Brought By Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Are Among More Than 1,500 Dismissed Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal
United States District Court White Plains, New York Judge Cathy Seibel Presiding
This reporter was present in Federal District Court, White Plains, several weeks ago when Judge Cathy Seibel served notice of her intention to dismiss cases brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against Yonkers Mayor Philip Amicone, Deputy Mayor John Fleming, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, and attorney and political consultant Michael Edelman for Defamation and Slander engaged in by way of First Amendment retaliation, conspiring to damage his good name and reputation.
Among the activities claimed by plaintiff Zherka were public statements of untruthful assertions of criminal activity about Zherka by Mayor Amicone before a large gathering of prominent Westchester citizens; repeated internet postings by Michael Edelman falsely alleging criminal activities by Zherka; and Abuse of Process and harrassment of Zherka and many of his friends and business associates by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office involving ADA Bogdanos.
All of the named defendants, were, and are, closely connected to and associated with Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who had telephoned Zherka, and who was recorded threatening him with reprisal because she was displeased with information published in The Guardian concerning political activities by her spouse, attorney Dennis Glazer.
Judge Seibel had admitted many months earlier, when the cases were first filed and assigned to her, that she had a personal relationship with Janet DiFiore, but nevertheless refused, despite that admission, to recuse herself.
Seibel’s dismissal comes under the dictates of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a case out of the Second Circuit that was argued be fore the United States Supreme Court, December 10, 2008 and decided May 18, 2009. The socalled Iqbal Decision, as it has come to be known, in effect has given great latitude to District Court judges to dismiss cases in the pleading stage based on their perception of the case’s plausibility, and has created quite a stir throughout the federal court system, among legal scholars, and in the halls of Congress. New York Congressman Jerry Nadler and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter have each promised to sponsor legislation to blunt, if not curtail, its influence.
Iqbal, in seven short months, has fundamentally changed the process and expectations in the pleadings stage of civil actions brought before federal courts. The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a)(2) of the General Rules of Pleading, simply called for “A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
A legal analyst writing for the highly regarded law firm Mayer, Brown three days after the ruling was handed up, observed “The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal significantly increases the factual detail required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in order to state a claim.”
In practical terms, under Iqbal, typical plaintiffs bringing a civil action against a corporate entity or government agency for many decades have not been expected to provide in their initial pleadings the level of explicit detail that, in most cases, comes to light through discovery. By now demanding such detailed information from plaintiffs in their initial pleadings, District Court judges are virtually throwing up a protective barrier, a shield around defendants, preventing good-faith, well-meant plaintiffs from proceeding, and from reaching the discovery necessary to prosecute their legitimate claims.
Publisher Zherka’s actions, filed long in advance of the Iqbal Decision, present numerous witnesses, audio and videotapes, photographs, and affidavits, little, or none of which,
Judge Seibel, with all due respect, seemed to have taken the trouble to become aware of as we observed her on November 20th when attorney Rory Bellantoni referenced them. In fairness to the judge, at a prior appearance several weeks earlier, she had asked attorney Jonathan Lovett, of Lovett & Bellantoni, to provide her with greater detail, which he certainly did in his amended pleadings.
Zherka, confused by the Judge’s dismissals, told this reporter, “There is so much evidence in our pleadings the case is a poster child for Iqbal.” He indicated that he was “definitely appealing the dismissals to the Second Circuit”, where he was confident they would be reversed, but, that he was “prepared, if necessary, to go all the way to the Supreme Court.” Additionally, he indicated he would be bringing an action against each of the defendants, individually, for Defamation and Slander in State Court.
Analysis:
Iqbal, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is by far and away the most telling and potentially destructive outcome to date to come from the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority established under President George W. Bush. In writing the Majority Opinion, Kennedy declared, “Rule 8(a)(2) demands more than an unadorned the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation and requires that a complaint be factually plausible.”
Mayer, Brown observed, “The decision in Iqbal thus suggests that a federal court no longer need draw factual inferences in favor of the complainant if it believes that a competing interpretation is more plausible.” Commenting just three days after the decision, they go on to say, “Although it remains to be seen whether lower federal courts will interpret Iqbal as abandoning Notice Pleading altogether, the opinion raises the pleading bar substantially and provides defendants with important ammunition to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a claim.”
Now, seven months, and more than 1,500 Iqbal dismissals later, we recognize that Iqbal creates a pretrial screen by which the more egregious and outrageous the conduct pleaded and alleged, the more likely it will be dismissed based upon a particular judge’s experiences, associations, and prejudices, all combining to determine that which she will consider “plausible”.
Regrettably, just as we were beginning to make some headway against prosecutorial misconduct, and major governmental and corporate acts of Constitutional violation, we
find ourselves hog-tied by a “Conservative” majority in the Supreme Court whose decision was designed to slow, if not interdict altogether, the process of uncovering unlawful actors, both in government and corporate enterprise.
In the meantime, Mike Edelman, whose malicious obsession with, and activity on, the blogosphere, is undisputed, continues to defame and malign publisher Sam Zherka as if having been granted a license to continue doing so by the decision of Judge Seibel.
His verbal graffiti, easily identified by other bloggers, can be found on the blogs of complicit media sources. And, of course, he continues to run his mouth frequently on News12 where he masquerades as a Republican commentator, a claim Doug Colety, Chairman of the Westchester Republican Party, has repeatedly refuted.
Cases Dismissed By District Court Judge Cathy Seibel Going To Second Circuit
Civil Actions Brought By Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Are Among More Than 1,500 Dismissed Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal
United States District Court White Plains, New York Judge Cathy Seibel Presiding
This reporter was present in Federal District Court, White Plains, several weeks ago when Judge Cathy Seibel served notice of her intention to dismiss cases brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against Yonkers Mayor Philip Amicone, Deputy Mayor John Fleming, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, and attorney and political consultant Michael Edelman for Defamation and Slander engaged in by way of First Amendment retaliation, conspiring to damage his good name and reputation.
Among the activities claimed by plaintiff Zherka were public statements of untruthful assertions of criminal activity about Zherka by Mayor Amicone before a large gathering of prominent Westchester citizens; repeated internet postings by Michael Edelman falsely alleging criminal activities by Zherka; and Abuse of Process and harrassment of Zherka and many of his friends and business associates by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office involving ADA Bogdanos.
All of the named defendants, were, and are, closely connected to and associated with Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who had telephoned Zherka, and who was recorded threatening him with reprisal because she was displeased with information published in The Guardian concerning political activities by her spouse, attorney Dennis Glazer.
Judge Seibel had admitted many months earlier, when the cases were first filed and assigned to her, that she had a personal relationship with Janet DiFiore, but nevertheless refused, despite that admission, to recuse herself.
Seibel’s dismissal comes under the dictates of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a case out of the Second Circuit that was argued be fore the United States Supreme Court, December 10, 2008 and decided May 18, 2009. The socalled Iqbal Decision, as it has come to be known, in effect has given great latitude to District Court judges to dismiss cases in the pleading stage based on their perception of the case’s plausibility, and has created quite a stir throughout the federal court system, among legal scholars, and in the halls of Congress. New York Congressman Jerry Nadler and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter have each promised to sponsor legislation to blunt, if not curtail, its influence.
Iqbal, in seven short months, has fundamentally changed the process and expectations in the pleadings stage of civil actions brought before federal courts. The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a)(2) of the General Rules of Pleading, simply called for “A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
A legal analyst writing for the highly regarded law firm Mayer, Brown three days after the ruling was handed up, observed “The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal significantly increases the factual detail required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in order to state a claim.”
In practical terms, under Iqbal, typical plaintiffs bringing a civil action against a corporate entity or government agency for many decades have not been expected to provide in their initial pleadings the level of explicit detail that, in most cases, comes to light through discovery. By now demanding such detailed information from plaintiffs in their initial pleadings, District Court judges are virtually throwing up a protective barrier, a shield around defendants, preventing good-faith, well-meant plaintiffs from proceeding, and from reaching the discovery necessary to prosecute their legitimate claims.
Publisher Zherka’s actions, filed long in advance of the Iqbal Decision, present numerous witnesses, audio and videotapes, photographs, and affidavits, little, or none of which,
Judge Seibel, with all due respect, seemed to have taken the trouble to become aware of as we observed her on November 20th when attorney Rory Bellantoni referenced them. In fairness to the judge, at a prior appearance several weeks earlier, she had asked attorney Jonathan Lovett, of Lovett & Bellantoni, to provide her with greater detail, which he certainly did in his amended pleadings.
Zherka, confused by the Judge’s dismissals, told this reporter, “There is so much evidence in our pleadings the case is a poster child for Iqbal.” He indicated that he was “definitely appealing the dismissals to the Second Circuit”, where he was confident they would be reversed, but, that he was “prepared, if necessary, to go all the way to the Supreme Court.” Additionally, he indicated he would be bringing an action against each of the defendants, individually, for Defamation and Slander in State Court.
Analysis:
Iqbal, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is by far and away the most telling and potentially destructive outcome to date to come from the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority established under President George W. Bush. In writing the Majority Opinion, Kennedy declared, “Rule 8(a)(2) demands more than an unadorned the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation and requires that a complaint be factually plausible.”
Mayer, Brown observed, “The decision in Iqbal thus suggests that a federal court no longer need draw factual inferences in favor of the complainant if it believes that a competing interpretation is more plausible.” Commenting just three days after the decision, they go on to say, “Although it remains to be seen whether lower federal courts will interpret Iqbal as abandoning Notice Pleading altogether, the opinion raises the pleading bar substantially and provides defendants with important ammunition to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a claim.”
Now, seven months, and more than 1,500 Iqbal dismissals later, we recognize that Iqbal creates a pretrial screen by which the more egregious and outrageous the conduct pleaded and alleged, the more likely it will be dismissed based upon a particular judge’s experiences, associations, and prejudices, all combining to determine that which she will consider “plausible”.
Regrettably, just as we were beginning to make some headway against prosecutorial misconduct, and major governmental and corporate acts of Constitutional violation, we
find ourselves hog-tied by a “Conservative” majority in the Supreme Court whose decision was designed to slow, if not interdict altogether, the process of uncovering unlawful actors, both in government and corporate enterprise.
In the meantime, Mike Edelman, whose malicious obsession with, and activity on, the blogosphere, is undisputed, continues to defame and malign publisher Sam Zherka as if having been granted a license to continue doing so by the decision of Judge Seibel.
His verbal graffiti, easily identified by other bloggers, can be found on the blogs of complicit media sources. And, of course, he continues to run his mouth frequently on News12 where he masquerades as a Republican commentator, a claim Doug Colety, Chairman of the Westchester Republican Party, has repeatedly refuted.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Westchester Guardian Article/Ken Jenkins.
A New Year...
SAME OLD CORRUPTION!
Having Investigated And Arrested Wilson Soto, The DA’s Office Must Now Deal With Ken Jenkins, A Far Greater Menace To Westchester Public Integrity
We were pleased to publish a press release issued by the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office on Thursday, December 17th, advising that Attorney Wilson Soto (D.O.B. 6/26/66) of 8 Huron Road, Yonkers, had been arraigned on a “Felony Complaint charging him with:
• One count of Offering A False Instrument for Filing, a Class E Felony;
• One count of Illegal Voting in violation of New York State Election Law, a Class E Felony.”
The arrest and arraignment of Mr. Soto came approximately 90 days following the September 15th Democratic Primary election in which he voted unlawfully, having issued a fraudulent Affidavit Ballot in support of his clients Jose Alvarado, candidate for re-election to the Westchester County Legislature from the 17th so called “Opportunity District” in southwest Yonkers, and candidate Wilson Terrero, seeking a seat on the Yonkers City Council from the 2nd Council District essentially contained within the 17th Legislative District.
Alvarado was opposed by Yonkers City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi, who was termlimited, and Terrero was facing Virginia Perez and two other candidates for the council seat Annabi was vacating.
It was tragically ironic that Wilson Soto should have been arrested and arraigned on December 17, 2009, the second anniversary of the senseless, brutal assassination of Virginia’s younger brother, Martin Perez. Perez was gunned down in a stairwell at 47 Riverdale Avenue in a botched robbery attempt as he was attempting to earn extra Christmas money delivering food from the former Emerald Diner across from Yonkers City Hall.
We were pleased that District Attorney Janet DiFiore chose to go forward with an investigation of Soto’s Election Fraud, having been supplied with a 76-page memorandum assembled by attorney Sam Abady, working on behalf of Sandy Annabi and Virginia Perez, and drawing upon information gathered from the two aggrieved candidates as well as affidavits from aggrieved voters, and, information gathered by, and reported, in The Westchester Guardian.
However, attorney Soto is clearly not the only individual involved in his acts of Election Fraud. County Legislator Jose Alvarado is deeply implicated. On Feb. 25, 2009, Alvarado had his first fundraiser at Wilson Soto’s home at 8 Huron Road. In his campaign finance filing with the State Board of Elections, Alvarado acknowledged a $1,000 campaign contribution from Soto, indicating Soto’s 8 Huron Road address. Nevertheless, Soto proceeded to fraudulently file his Affidavit Ballot on September 15 at the 15 Hamilton Avenue polling place, claiming to be domiciled at 279 South Broadway and proceeding to fraudulently vote for Alvarado and Wilson Terrero.
On October 5th Alvarado attended a celebration at Soto’s Huron Road home in honor of the seating of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Yet, when interviewed by News12 on October 19, following Sandy Annabi’s submission of the 76-page memorandum to the Public Integrity Unit of the Westchester DA’s Office, Legislator Alvarado declared, “Mr. Soto lives at 279 South Broadway and has lived there forever.”
The simple truth is, Mr. Alvarado, who maintains his district office in Soto’s law offices at 281 South Broadway, no doubt paid for with County taxpayers’ funds, was well aware of the fact that he was lying.
Soto and Alvarado are far from the only individuals deeply implicated in the rampant Election Fraud perpetrated in southwest Yonkers on Primary Election day, September 15th. As previously addressed in The Guardian, over the past three months, there were many players, so-called poll workers who engaged in various Election Fraud schemes designed to perpetuate Alvarado’s tenure, and to elect Terrero by giving them the Democratic Party designation. As it turned out, despite all of the unlawful activity intended to defeat Annabi and Perez, Sandy lost the Primary by fewer than five votes and Virginia by fewer than 10.
As reported by The Guardian, immediatelyfollowing the Primaryelection, Yonkers Democratic Committee City Chair Ken Jenkinswas well aware of the unlawful efforts being made onbehalf of Alvarado and Terrero by persons appointed by him,and clearly did nothing to preventthem. Jenkins, with respect to voter fraud, would not be any part of the solution, but, rather, a major player in the problem.
Moreover, Ken Jenkins, the County Legislator, was engaged in his own very personal Election Fraud, precisely the same as Wilson Soto who has been apprehended and arraigned by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office; only Jenkins’ ongoing felony fraud was perpetrated not for the benefit of Alvarado’s or Terrero’s candidacy, so much as for his own.
In point of fact, Ken Jenkins, who has been seated in the 16th Legislative District for the past two years, has been there unlawfully having knowingly and willfully Offered A False Document To The Westchester Board of Elections December 18, 2006 for filing, having several times voted under that false registration and, having twice unlawfully offered himself as the Democratic candidate for County Legislator from the 16th Legislative District, where he knows perfectly well he does not live.
Mr. Jenkins is guilty of several more counts of Election Fraud than Wilson Soto, having voted in several general and primary elections since fraudulently filing three years ago; two of those elections unlawfully placing him in the County Legislature and lining his pockets with more than $100,000 of taxpayers’ funds.
As importantly, Ken Jenkins, by his flagrant abuse of power and unlawful manipulation of the electoral system, has been an intolerable, corruptive influence not only in the Yonkers Democratic Committee which he chairs and controls for many years, but also, as importantly, in the Democratic-dominated County Legislature where every one of the 16 other legislators has been aware that he does not reside in the district he purports to represent, and nevertheless, the 13 Democratic members now designate him their candidate for Chairman.
Again, we are pleased that the Westchester DA’s Office has done the right thing in pursuing the arrest and prosecution of Attorney Wilson Soto for his Election Fraud. However, we now urge that Office to thoroughly investigate the felonious Election Fraud of Ken Jenkins, whose corruptive influence both in Yonkers politics and on the County Board of Legislators, has been far more pervasive and damaging than that of Mr. Soto, and whose continuing flagrant fraudulent activities pose an incalculable threat to the integrity of the electoral and governmental processes in the County of Westchester.
SAME OLD CORRUPTION!
Having Investigated And Arrested Wilson Soto, The DA’s Office Must Now Deal With Ken Jenkins, A Far Greater Menace To Westchester Public Integrity
We were pleased to publish a press release issued by the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office on Thursday, December 17th, advising that Attorney Wilson Soto (D.O.B. 6/26/66) of 8 Huron Road, Yonkers, had been arraigned on a “Felony Complaint charging him with:
• One count of Offering A False Instrument for Filing, a Class E Felony;
• One count of Illegal Voting in violation of New York State Election Law, a Class E Felony.”
The arrest and arraignment of Mr. Soto came approximately 90 days following the September 15th Democratic Primary election in which he voted unlawfully, having issued a fraudulent Affidavit Ballot in support of his clients Jose Alvarado, candidate for re-election to the Westchester County Legislature from the 17th so called “Opportunity District” in southwest Yonkers, and candidate Wilson Terrero, seeking a seat on the Yonkers City Council from the 2nd Council District essentially contained within the 17th Legislative District.
Alvarado was opposed by Yonkers City Councilwoman Sandy Annabi, who was termlimited, and Terrero was facing Virginia Perez and two other candidates for the council seat Annabi was vacating.
It was tragically ironic that Wilson Soto should have been arrested and arraigned on December 17, 2009, the second anniversary of the senseless, brutal assassination of Virginia’s younger brother, Martin Perez. Perez was gunned down in a stairwell at 47 Riverdale Avenue in a botched robbery attempt as he was attempting to earn extra Christmas money delivering food from the former Emerald Diner across from Yonkers City Hall.
We were pleased that District Attorney Janet DiFiore chose to go forward with an investigation of Soto’s Election Fraud, having been supplied with a 76-page memorandum assembled by attorney Sam Abady, working on behalf of Sandy Annabi and Virginia Perez, and drawing upon information gathered from the two aggrieved candidates as well as affidavits from aggrieved voters, and, information gathered by, and reported, in The Westchester Guardian.
However, attorney Soto is clearly not the only individual involved in his acts of Election Fraud. County Legislator Jose Alvarado is deeply implicated. On Feb. 25, 2009, Alvarado had his first fundraiser at Wilson Soto’s home at 8 Huron Road. In his campaign finance filing with the State Board of Elections, Alvarado acknowledged a $1,000 campaign contribution from Soto, indicating Soto’s 8 Huron Road address. Nevertheless, Soto proceeded to fraudulently file his Affidavit Ballot on September 15 at the 15 Hamilton Avenue polling place, claiming to be domiciled at 279 South Broadway and proceeding to fraudulently vote for Alvarado and Wilson Terrero.
On October 5th Alvarado attended a celebration at Soto’s Huron Road home in honor of the seating of United States Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Yet, when interviewed by News12 on October 19, following Sandy Annabi’s submission of the 76-page memorandum to the Public Integrity Unit of the Westchester DA’s Office, Legislator Alvarado declared, “Mr. Soto lives at 279 South Broadway and has lived there forever.”
The simple truth is, Mr. Alvarado, who maintains his district office in Soto’s law offices at 281 South Broadway, no doubt paid for with County taxpayers’ funds, was well aware of the fact that he was lying.
Soto and Alvarado are far from the only individuals deeply implicated in the rampant Election Fraud perpetrated in southwest Yonkers on Primary Election day, September 15th. As previously addressed in The Guardian, over the past three months, there were many players, so-called poll workers who engaged in various Election Fraud schemes designed to perpetuate Alvarado’s tenure, and to elect Terrero by giving them the Democratic Party designation. As it turned out, despite all of the unlawful activity intended to defeat Annabi and Perez, Sandy lost the Primary by fewer than five votes and Virginia by fewer than 10.
As reported by The Guardian, immediatelyfollowing the Primaryelection, Yonkers Democratic Committee City Chair Ken Jenkinswas well aware of the unlawful efforts being made onbehalf of Alvarado and Terrero by persons appointed by him,and clearly did nothing to preventthem. Jenkins, with respect to voter fraud, would not be any part of the solution, but, rather, a major player in the problem.
Moreover, Ken Jenkins, the County Legislator, was engaged in his own very personal Election Fraud, precisely the same as Wilson Soto who has been apprehended and arraigned by the Westchester District Attorney’s Office; only Jenkins’ ongoing felony fraud was perpetrated not for the benefit of Alvarado’s or Terrero’s candidacy, so much as for his own.
In point of fact, Ken Jenkins, who has been seated in the 16th Legislative District for the past two years, has been there unlawfully having knowingly and willfully Offered A False Document To The Westchester Board of Elections December 18, 2006 for filing, having several times voted under that false registration and, having twice unlawfully offered himself as the Democratic candidate for County Legislator from the 16th Legislative District, where he knows perfectly well he does not live.
Mr. Jenkins is guilty of several more counts of Election Fraud than Wilson Soto, having voted in several general and primary elections since fraudulently filing three years ago; two of those elections unlawfully placing him in the County Legislature and lining his pockets with more than $100,000 of taxpayers’ funds.
As importantly, Ken Jenkins, by his flagrant abuse of power and unlawful manipulation of the electoral system, has been an intolerable, corruptive influence not only in the Yonkers Democratic Committee which he chairs and controls for many years, but also, as importantly, in the Democratic-dominated County Legislature where every one of the 16 other legislators has been aware that he does not reside in the district he purports to represent, and nevertheless, the 13 Democratic members now designate him their candidate for Chairman.
Again, we are pleased that the Westchester DA’s Office has done the right thing in pursuing the arrest and prosecution of Attorney Wilson Soto for his Election Fraud. However, we now urge that Office to thoroughly investigate the felonious Election Fraud of Ken Jenkins, whose corruptive influence both in Yonkers politics and on the County Board of Legislators, has been far more pervasive and damaging than that of Mr. Soto, and whose continuing flagrant fraudulent activities pose an incalculable threat to the integrity of the electoral and governmental processes in the County of Westchester.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Westchester Guardian Article/Ken Jenkins.
Shameless Democratic Legislators
Ken Jenkins Nominated Chairman, Does Anybody Need A Better Argument For Abolishing The County Legislature?
Last week the Democratic members of the Westchester County Board of Legislators erased any doubt in the minds of taxpayers and homeowners as to just how corrupt they truly are.
For weeks, there had been speculation regarding who would be the Board Chair come January in light of Bill Ryan’s squeak-by victory over first-time challenger Bob Hyland in the November election. Tom Abinanti, Marty Rogowski, and Ken Jenkins were all mentioned as possible successors.
Having been tipped off by sources at the Journal News that former Congressman Joe DioGuardi and Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner would be holding a function at the County Center on Thursday, calling for the abolishment of the County Legislature, Chairman Ryan quickly put together an “initiative” dubbed Westchester Renewed. At a press conference in the Rotunda at the Legislature’s chambers on Wednesday, he surrounded himself with about 40 County employees, fellow legislators, and a few municipal officers including Mount Vernon Mayor Clinton Young.
Ken Jenkins was present, but tried to stay out of camera range ducking and dodging during the presentation. The Board had passed the much-debated County Budget by a 9-8 vote on Monday. Jenkins had cast the deciding vote, in favor. The Guardian had investigated rumors that Jenkins did not live in District 16 which he has represented for two years, and determined that he and his family, in fact, live in District 15, publishing its findings in the December 3rd issue.
We pointed out the fact that Jenkins actually resides on Bushey Avenue, and not Moultrie Avenue, providing photos of the dwellings in question. Additionally, we provided a copy of a December 4th, 2008 “Memorandum Of Legislation” on Mr. Jenkins’ Board letterhead, listing himself as sponsor of proposed legislation, the purpose of which he stated was: “Local Law to correct a boundary in Legislative Districts 15 and Legislate District 16 located in the City of Yonkers”; a virtual admission that he was not living inside District 16 and wanted the boundary line changed to accommodate him.
The Guardian also provided copies of his wife’s voter registration card, truthfully indicating the family residence on Bushey Avenue, dating all the way back to April 1988, as well as Jenkins’ re-registration card, filed December 18, 2006, falsely claiming that his domicile was at 28 Moultrie Avenue, a month after Andrea Stewart-Cousins was elected to the State Senate. We also provided the dialogue of a conversation with an actual resident of 28 Moultrie Ave., who made it clear that Ken Jenkins merely came to the dwelling to pick up his mail.
Given all of the above, and the fact that we had made certain that every member of the Board was aware of Jenkins’ “credentials problem”, and the fact that he was involved in the same kind of Election Fraud felony as Wilson Soto, we addressed Chairman Ryan at the press conference with the following: “Mr. Chairman, Richard Blassberg of the Westchester Guardian: While we think it is laudible that you have taken this initiative which will determine the nature of County Government in the future, we are concerned with how you will finance the current County Government?”
“It is our understanding that the County Executive’s Budget passed by just one vote, 9-8, and that, therefore, each vote cast in favor was a deciding vote, including the vote cast by Ken Jenkins, whose credentials have come under question, given the fact that he lives in District 15, and is representing District 16.”
“Mr. Chairman, we want to know how you intend to deal with the fact that, under the circumstances, with Mr. Jenkins not lawfully voting, any County taxpayer can now bring a likely successful suit to stop the passage of the budget because there was only an 8-8 tie vote.”
Bill Ryan responded that he would “only discuss questions directly related to his initiative.”
Wednesday evening, the 13 Democratic County Legislators, including Jenkins, meeting in caucus, decided that Ken Jenkins, a man each and every one of them knows does not live in the district he represents, and a man each and every one of them knows was deeply involved in the rampant election fraud in southwest Yonkers during the Democratic Primary election, was the best choice to be the next Chairman of the County Legislature.
Does anybody need a better argument for abolishing the County Legislature?
Ken Jenkins Nominated Chairman, Does Anybody Need A Better Argument For Abolishing The County Legislature?
Last week the Democratic members of the Westchester County Board of Legislators erased any doubt in the minds of taxpayers and homeowners as to just how corrupt they truly are.
For weeks, there had been speculation regarding who would be the Board Chair come January in light of Bill Ryan’s squeak-by victory over first-time challenger Bob Hyland in the November election. Tom Abinanti, Marty Rogowski, and Ken Jenkins were all mentioned as possible successors.
Having been tipped off by sources at the Journal News that former Congressman Joe DioGuardi and Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner would be holding a function at the County Center on Thursday, calling for the abolishment of the County Legislature, Chairman Ryan quickly put together an “initiative” dubbed Westchester Renewed. At a press conference in the Rotunda at the Legislature’s chambers on Wednesday, he surrounded himself with about 40 County employees, fellow legislators, and a few municipal officers including Mount Vernon Mayor Clinton Young.
Ken Jenkins was present, but tried to stay out of camera range ducking and dodging during the presentation. The Board had passed the much-debated County Budget by a 9-8 vote on Monday. Jenkins had cast the deciding vote, in favor. The Guardian had investigated rumors that Jenkins did not live in District 16 which he has represented for two years, and determined that he and his family, in fact, live in District 15, publishing its findings in the December 3rd issue.
We pointed out the fact that Jenkins actually resides on Bushey Avenue, and not Moultrie Avenue, providing photos of the dwellings in question. Additionally, we provided a copy of a December 4th, 2008 “Memorandum Of Legislation” on Mr. Jenkins’ Board letterhead, listing himself as sponsor of proposed legislation, the purpose of which he stated was: “Local Law to correct a boundary in Legislative Districts 15 and Legislate District 16 located in the City of Yonkers”; a virtual admission that he was not living inside District 16 and wanted the boundary line changed to accommodate him.
The Guardian also provided copies of his wife’s voter registration card, truthfully indicating the family residence on Bushey Avenue, dating all the way back to April 1988, as well as Jenkins’ re-registration card, filed December 18, 2006, falsely claiming that his domicile was at 28 Moultrie Avenue, a month after Andrea Stewart-Cousins was elected to the State Senate. We also provided the dialogue of a conversation with an actual resident of 28 Moultrie Ave., who made it clear that Ken Jenkins merely came to the dwelling to pick up his mail.
Given all of the above, and the fact that we had made certain that every member of the Board was aware of Jenkins’ “credentials problem”, and the fact that he was involved in the same kind of Election Fraud felony as Wilson Soto, we addressed Chairman Ryan at the press conference with the following: “Mr. Chairman, Richard Blassberg of the Westchester Guardian: While we think it is laudible that you have taken this initiative which will determine the nature of County Government in the future, we are concerned with how you will finance the current County Government?”
“It is our understanding that the County Executive’s Budget passed by just one vote, 9-8, and that, therefore, each vote cast in favor was a deciding vote, including the vote cast by Ken Jenkins, whose credentials have come under question, given the fact that he lives in District 15, and is representing District 16.”
“Mr. Chairman, we want to know how you intend to deal with the fact that, under the circumstances, with Mr. Jenkins not lawfully voting, any County taxpayer can now bring a likely successful suit to stop the passage of the budget because there was only an 8-8 tie vote.”
Bill Ryan responded that he would “only discuss questions directly related to his initiative.”
Wednesday evening, the 13 Democratic County Legislators, including Jenkins, meeting in caucus, decided that Ken Jenkins, a man each and every one of them knows does not live in the district he represents, and a man each and every one of them knows was deeply involved in the rampant election fraud in southwest Yonkers during the Democratic Primary election, was the best choice to be the next Chairman of the County Legislature.
Does anybody need a better argument for abolishing the County Legislature?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Westchester Guardian Article/The Advocate/Richard Blassberg/Andy Spano.
Republican County Legislator George Oros Declares Spano’s Last-Minute Contracts “A Kick In The Teeth To County Taxpayers”
Last Monday afternoon, retiring Republican County Legislator, Minority Leader George Oros, held a press conference at his law office in White Plains to blast outgoing County Executive Andy Spano for what Oros called “A 2010 Budget filled with land mines and rewards for Spano’s campaign contributors, especially law firms.” He told reporters, “Republicans are calling for a moratorium.”
Oros commented paranthetically, “I’d love to see the budget that would be there if Spano had won.” He went on, “We must bring State, County and Municipal people together. We can achieve real economies of scale. People just can’t take it anymore.”
Oros stressed that, for years, he had called for “reform of the Board of Acquisition and Contract,” but that, on November 24, “the A&C Agenda included a handful of multimillion dollar, multi-year contracts.”
The so-called “11th Hour Contracts” include:
• $2.7 million to various law firms, all of which have been big contributors to Spano’s campaigns to perform of counsel legal services;
• $12 million for Westhab to operate homeless shelters;
• $4 million for security systems integration at the County Jail;
• $900,000 for a fence at Rye Playland.
The Board of Acquisition and Contract consists of three members, the County Executive, and his appointed Commissioner of Public Works, as well as the elected Chairman of the Board of Legislators. In effect, the County Executive, through his appointee, retains the power to pass any contract or long-term lease by his control of two out of three votes.
Oros told reporters, “The Spano Administration wants to tie Mr. Astorino’s hands and make it much harder to achieve the goals the overwhelming majority of voters chose him to accomplish.” He went further, stating, “This is not the way a county executive who has served 12 years should go out the door.”
Oros went on, “Voters spoke loud and clear in the last election that they were tired of business-as-usual in Westchester County government. It’s time for Mr. Spano to step aside and let a breath of fresh air come in.”
Asked if he was, in fact, still pushing for A&C reforms, Oros said he would “like to see the County Budget submitted before Election Day, as well as the use of zero-based budgeting.”
Under zero-based budgeting, every proposed expense, every purchase, every position in County Government, is re-evaluated in terms of developments since the prior budget to determine whether the position, the purchase, etc., is still justified and necessary going forward or, if, for whatever reason, that expense may need to be increased or possibly cut back, or eliminated altogether. Under such budgeting practices, the tendency to fund unneeded positions and expenses is greatly reduced, and duplication of services and acquisition of unnecessary materials and leased space are more easily identified and eliminated.
Oros went on to say, “Spano is frustrating the will and the sentiment of the taxpayers with $30-40 million of 11th hour expenses. We should put those items on hold and give the new administration a change. He owes it to the voters, but he really doesn’t care what they think.”
As if to confirm George Oros’ assertions, on Wednesday, just 24 hours after the press conference, the Guardian received a “Letter to the Editor” from a County Government employee (see page four, “Spanocrat Going to County Board of Elections.”)
We were gratified that the reader had adopted the title ‘Spanocrat’, coined by The Advocate several years ago to describe those party insiders whose attachment for financial selfenrichment, to Andy Spano and Company was much more compelling than their commitment to Democratic principles and practices.
Last Monday afternoon, retiring Republican County Legislator, Minority Leader George Oros, held a press conference at his law office in White Plains to blast outgoing County Executive Andy Spano for what Oros called “A 2010 Budget filled with land mines and rewards for Spano’s campaign contributors, especially law firms.” He told reporters, “Republicans are calling for a moratorium.”
Oros commented paranthetically, “I’d love to see the budget that would be there if Spano had won.” He went on, “We must bring State, County and Municipal people together. We can achieve real economies of scale. People just can’t take it anymore.”
Oros stressed that, for years, he had called for “reform of the Board of Acquisition and Contract,” but that, on November 24, “the A&C Agenda included a handful of multimillion dollar, multi-year contracts.”
The so-called “11th Hour Contracts” include:
• $2.7 million to various law firms, all of which have been big contributors to Spano’s campaigns to perform of counsel legal services;
• $12 million for Westhab to operate homeless shelters;
• $4 million for security systems integration at the County Jail;
• $900,000 for a fence at Rye Playland.
The Board of Acquisition and Contract consists of three members, the County Executive, and his appointed Commissioner of Public Works, as well as the elected Chairman of the Board of Legislators. In effect, the County Executive, through his appointee, retains the power to pass any contract or long-term lease by his control of two out of three votes.
Oros told reporters, “The Spano Administration wants to tie Mr. Astorino’s hands and make it much harder to achieve the goals the overwhelming majority of voters chose him to accomplish.” He went further, stating, “This is not the way a county executive who has served 12 years should go out the door.”
Oros went on, “Voters spoke loud and clear in the last election that they were tired of business-as-usual in Westchester County government. It’s time for Mr. Spano to step aside and let a breath of fresh air come in.”
Asked if he was, in fact, still pushing for A&C reforms, Oros said he would “like to see the County Budget submitted before Election Day, as well as the use of zero-based budgeting.”
Under zero-based budgeting, every proposed expense, every purchase, every position in County Government, is re-evaluated in terms of developments since the prior budget to determine whether the position, the purchase, etc., is still justified and necessary going forward or, if, for whatever reason, that expense may need to be increased or possibly cut back, or eliminated altogether. Under such budgeting practices, the tendency to fund unneeded positions and expenses is greatly reduced, and duplication of services and acquisition of unnecessary materials and leased space are more easily identified and eliminated.
Oros went on to say, “Spano is frustrating the will and the sentiment of the taxpayers with $30-40 million of 11th hour expenses. We should put those items on hold and give the new administration a change. He owes it to the voters, but he really doesn’t care what they think.”
As if to confirm George Oros’ assertions, on Wednesday, just 24 hours after the press conference, the Guardian received a “Letter to the Editor” from a County Government employee (see page four, “Spanocrat Going to County Board of Elections.”)
We were gratified that the reader had adopted the title ‘Spanocrat’, coined by The Advocate several years ago to describe those party insiders whose attachment for financial selfenrichment, to Andy Spano and Company was much more compelling than their commitment to Democratic principles and practices.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Westchester Guardian Article/Ken Jenkins.
Back on Sept. 15th, during, and immediately after, the Democratic Primary between incumbent 17th District County Legislator Jose Alvarado and challenger Sandy Annabi, and the Primary for City Council District 2, Democratic designation, involving Virginia Perez, Wilson Terrero, and two other candidates, we had expressed our disappointment with the behavior of Ken Jenkins. Responding to calls from poll watchers throughout southwest Yonkers, we came upon numerous instances of Election Fraud, at various polling places, intended to benefit Alvarado, Terrero, Janet DiFiore, and Tim Idoni, the Democratic Party designees. In some cases we arrived at polling places within a few minutes of Jenkins’ departure, as in the case of 15 Hamilton Avenue, a polling location in a senior housing complex.
At that site, we had observed an individual who other poll workers complained had steered voters to Alvarado and Terrero, as well as having voted numerous times for them herself, in addition to electioneering within the polling place and wrongfully interrogating supporters of Annabi and Perez as to whom they would be voting for before turning them away on one false ruse or another. We expressed disappointment with the fact that Jenkins, Yonkers City Democratic Chairman, had done absolutely nothing to report or stop the fraudulent activities.
Running without Republican or other opposition for reelection to the 16th District legislative seat, Jenkins would be Alvarado’s and Terrero’s running mate, and, wasn’t going to let a little thing like numerous instances of reported Election Fraud; the turning away of voters who were qualified to vote, the intentional jamming of opponents’ levers in the machine, electioneering right into the voting machine, reported unauthorized voting at different polling places, and the like, to get in the way. As chairman of the largest municipal Democratic Committee in the County, and likely the third largest in the State, exclusive of New York City, Ken Jenkins saw no reason to curtail the unlawful activity on Primary Election Day, nor any reason to investigate the many complaints raised by affidavit by decent, honest Democrats in Yonkers who had been “run over” by Alvarado and Terrero operatives and poll workers selected by Jenkins.
Jenkins had nothing to say when The Guardian exposed attorney Wilson Soto’s felony Election Fraud, his falsely swearing on an affidavit ballot that he lived at 279 South Broadway, Yonkers, when, in fact, he lives at 8 Huron Road, several miles away. Jenkins has no problem at all with politicians and political operatives claiming they live one place when, in fact, they live somewhere else.
After all, he lives at 108 Bushey Avenue with his wife and children, a single-family dwelling clearly in the 15th Legislative District, but claims he lives at 28 Moultrie Avenue, a multiple dwelling in District 16 where, incredibly, he is the legislator. Apparently little fibs like intentionally falsely swearing on voting affidavits don’t really matter much to Legislator/Party Chairman Ken Jenkins, even though doing so is a felony.
It isn’t as though Jenkins was ever unaware of the fraud he has been perpetrating ever since he decided he would be the one to replace former County Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, when she moved into the State Senate after beating Nick Spano in November 2006 for a second time, having beaten him in 2004 by 355 votes, but getting screwed out of her victory by the combined efforts of such Democrats as Andy Spano, Larry Schwartz, Reggie LaFayette and, yes, Ken Jenkins, who never so much as spoke out on her behalf. He knew, as Yonkers City Chairman, he would get to replace her the next time she ran, and the Justice Department saw to it that Nick and his hoodlums, and Democratic co-conspirators, would do nothing to risk a stretch in federal prison.
No, it isn’t as though he hasn’t tried to gerrymander part of the district he actually lives in, District 15 into District 16 so that District 16 would include the street he has been living on for years with his family. In fact, almost a year ago, on December 4, 2008, he made a feeble, half-hearted attempt with a memo to his fellow legislators, “To correct a boundary in Legislative Districts [sic] 15 and Legislative District 16, located in the City of Yonkers.” Apparently, later he thought it was better not to bring attention to his ongoing fraud because the issue was never brought to the floor for action, as far as we can tell.
A visit to the Board of Elections last Monday, November 23, produced copies of Ken’s and Mrs. Jenkins’ voter registration cards. Deborah Hudson-Jenkins’ registration, that dates back to April of 1988, clearly indicates that she lives on Bushey Avenue in Yonkers. However, Kenneth W. Jenkins’ voter reregistration, filed on December 18, 2006, following the election of Stuart-Cousins, indicates that he had moved from 108 Bushey Avenue, and was now living at 28 Moultrie Avenue, inside Legislative District 16.
A visit to 28 Moultrie Avenue to photograph it on Saturday, Nov. 21 at 1pm, produced an interesting exchange with an actual resident of that apparent multiple dwelling. We photographed the building by getting out of our vehicle, walking up in front of it, and conspicuously shooting pictures.
Getting back into our car, we continued slowly north, up the street to its end and turned around. Approaching the house from the opposite direction we observed a tall, middle-aged man stepping out into the street, attempting to hail us down. We pulled up to speak with him.
He asked, “Why were you taking pictures of the house?” We told him that were with the Westchester Guardian newspaper and we were taking pictures of the houses where County officials live.
We asked, “Does Ken Jenkins live here?” The gentlemen replied, “Yes, he do; he gets his mail here.”
We asked, “Do you live here?” pointing to house number 28. He responded, “Yes.”
We then asked, “Does Kenny live here with his family?” He then said, “He comes here with his family.”
Ken Jenkins would appear to be carrying on a major scam with regard to his domicile address for political purposes for nearly three years now, having put himself, by virtue of his chairmanship of the Yonkers Democratic Committee, into the former County legislative seat of now-State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins. He apparently reasoned that nobody would be the wiser if, despite actually living for many years on Bushey Avenue in Legislative District 15, he simply filled out a new voter registration card indicating that was living at 28 Moultrie Avenue, in District 16, and arranged to have his mail delivered there where he might pick it up.
Of course, a year ago, when the scam was apparently becoming known to some he was concerned about, he produced the brief memo regarding the need to change the boundary line. In other words, boundary lines and rules are for other people, not for a powerful chairman of the Yonkers Democratic Committee.
Given his recent overtures with respect to the Chairman’s position on the Board of Legislators, we say, “Not so fast, Mr.Jenkins!” If 28 Moultrie Avenue in Yonkers is not your domicile address, the place where you actually live, then the voter registration card you filled out and signed on December 18, 2006 involved an act of fraud when you knowingly swore to, or affirmed, that false statement, and you have committed a felony for which, under statute, you should be “fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to four years.” However, as importantly, you should be immediately stripped of your legislative post upon confirmation of your failure to meet the residence requirements in the 16th Legislative District and made to return all salary and stipends fraudulently gathered over the last, nearly, three years.
At that site, we had observed an individual who other poll workers complained had steered voters to Alvarado and Terrero, as well as having voted numerous times for them herself, in addition to electioneering within the polling place and wrongfully interrogating supporters of Annabi and Perez as to whom they would be voting for before turning them away on one false ruse or another. We expressed disappointment with the fact that Jenkins, Yonkers City Democratic Chairman, had done absolutely nothing to report or stop the fraudulent activities.
Running without Republican or other opposition for reelection to the 16th District legislative seat, Jenkins would be Alvarado’s and Terrero’s running mate, and, wasn’t going to let a little thing like numerous instances of reported Election Fraud; the turning away of voters who were qualified to vote, the intentional jamming of opponents’ levers in the machine, electioneering right into the voting machine, reported unauthorized voting at different polling places, and the like, to get in the way. As chairman of the largest municipal Democratic Committee in the County, and likely the third largest in the State, exclusive of New York City, Ken Jenkins saw no reason to curtail the unlawful activity on Primary Election Day, nor any reason to investigate the many complaints raised by affidavit by decent, honest Democrats in Yonkers who had been “run over” by Alvarado and Terrero operatives and poll workers selected by Jenkins.
Jenkins had nothing to say when The Guardian exposed attorney Wilson Soto’s felony Election Fraud, his falsely swearing on an affidavit ballot that he lived at 279 South Broadway, Yonkers, when, in fact, he lives at 8 Huron Road, several miles away. Jenkins has no problem at all with politicians and political operatives claiming they live one place when, in fact, they live somewhere else.
After all, he lives at 108 Bushey Avenue with his wife and children, a single-family dwelling clearly in the 15th Legislative District, but claims he lives at 28 Moultrie Avenue, a multiple dwelling in District 16 where, incredibly, he is the legislator. Apparently little fibs like intentionally falsely swearing on voting affidavits don’t really matter much to Legislator/Party Chairman Ken Jenkins, even though doing so is a felony.
It isn’t as though Jenkins was ever unaware of the fraud he has been perpetrating ever since he decided he would be the one to replace former County Legislator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, when she moved into the State Senate after beating Nick Spano in November 2006 for a second time, having beaten him in 2004 by 355 votes, but getting screwed out of her victory by the combined efforts of such Democrats as Andy Spano, Larry Schwartz, Reggie LaFayette and, yes, Ken Jenkins, who never so much as spoke out on her behalf. He knew, as Yonkers City Chairman, he would get to replace her the next time she ran, and the Justice Department saw to it that Nick and his hoodlums, and Democratic co-conspirators, would do nothing to risk a stretch in federal prison.
No, it isn’t as though he hasn’t tried to gerrymander part of the district he actually lives in, District 15 into District 16 so that District 16 would include the street he has been living on for years with his family. In fact, almost a year ago, on December 4, 2008, he made a feeble, half-hearted attempt with a memo to his fellow legislators, “To correct a boundary in Legislative Districts [sic] 15 and Legislative District 16, located in the City of Yonkers.” Apparently, later he thought it was better not to bring attention to his ongoing fraud because the issue was never brought to the floor for action, as far as we can tell.
A visit to the Board of Elections last Monday, November 23, produced copies of Ken’s and Mrs. Jenkins’ voter registration cards. Deborah Hudson-Jenkins’ registration, that dates back to April of 1988, clearly indicates that she lives on Bushey Avenue in Yonkers. However, Kenneth W. Jenkins’ voter reregistration, filed on December 18, 2006, following the election of Stuart-Cousins, indicates that he had moved from 108 Bushey Avenue, and was now living at 28 Moultrie Avenue, inside Legislative District 16.
A visit to 28 Moultrie Avenue to photograph it on Saturday, Nov. 21 at 1pm, produced an interesting exchange with an actual resident of that apparent multiple dwelling. We photographed the building by getting out of our vehicle, walking up in front of it, and conspicuously shooting pictures.
Getting back into our car, we continued slowly north, up the street to its end and turned around. Approaching the house from the opposite direction we observed a tall, middle-aged man stepping out into the street, attempting to hail us down. We pulled up to speak with him.
He asked, “Why were you taking pictures of the house?” We told him that were with the Westchester Guardian newspaper and we were taking pictures of the houses where County officials live.
We asked, “Does Ken Jenkins live here?” The gentlemen replied, “Yes, he do; he gets his mail here.”
We asked, “Do you live here?” pointing to house number 28. He responded, “Yes.”
We then asked, “Does Kenny live here with his family?” He then said, “He comes here with his family.”
Ken Jenkins would appear to be carrying on a major scam with regard to his domicile address for political purposes for nearly three years now, having put himself, by virtue of his chairmanship of the Yonkers Democratic Committee, into the former County legislative seat of now-State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins. He apparently reasoned that nobody would be the wiser if, despite actually living for many years on Bushey Avenue in Legislative District 15, he simply filled out a new voter registration card indicating that was living at 28 Moultrie Avenue, in District 16, and arranged to have his mail delivered there where he might pick it up.
Of course, a year ago, when the scam was apparently becoming known to some he was concerned about, he produced the brief memo regarding the need to change the boundary line. In other words, boundary lines and rules are for other people, not for a powerful chairman of the Yonkers Democratic Committee.
Given his recent overtures with respect to the Chairman’s position on the Board of Legislators, we say, “Not so fast, Mr.Jenkins!” If 28 Moultrie Avenue in Yonkers is not your domicile address, the place where you actually live, then the voter registration card you filled out and signed on December 18, 2006 involved an act of fraud when you knowingly swore to, or affirmed, that false statement, and you have committed a felony for which, under statute, you should be “fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed for up to four years.” However, as importantly, you should be immediately stripped of your legislative post upon confirmation of your failure to meet the residence requirements in the 16th Legislative District and made to return all salary and stipends fraudulently gathered over the last, nearly, three years.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian Article/Giulio Cavallo.
Message from The Publisher.
Mighty Independence Party Chair Knocks Out Andy Spano In Fourth Round
On Tuesday, Election Night, The Guardian was present at the Astorino victory celebration at the Crowne Plaza in White Plains. At about 10:30pm a man in the room yelled out, “Giulio Cavallo knocked out Andy Spano.”There was a round of applause and cheers for Dr. Cavallo,
the maverick Chairman of the Westchester Independence Party.
As numbers continued to come in, it became clear that what the man had said was, in fact, true. The powerful political fat cat, Andy Spano, a Democrat, in a Democrat-dominated County, where Republicans are outnumbered two to one was, in fact, knocked out by the leader of the Independence Party, a small but mighty third party with fewer than 23,000 registered voters countywide.
That knock-out punch had come from the hand of none other than civic leader and party chair, Dr. Giulio Cavallo.
Dr. Cavallo has led the Westchester Independence Party for more than 12 years. In that time he has supported Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Conservatives alike in elections throughout Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties.
This year was special for Doc. After four years of arrogant, excessive taxation, and economic enslavement perpetrated by Democratic Party County Executive Andy Spano, and County Legislator Bill Ryan, Dr. Cavallo vowed to step up to the plate and fight the administrations he had helped elect in the last election cycle.
Cavallo had declared, “It’s about doing what is right. Our elected officials have forgotten that they were elected to serve and not to be served. The duty of the Independence Party is to represent the interests of the People, all the People.”
In January 2009, at a meeting in New Rochelle, Dr. Cavallo, the Westchester Independence Party Committee and Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka decided to join forces to organize the Westchester Tea Party, an anti-tax movement determined to reduce Westchester’s bloated County Government.
On April 25th, the Tea Party Rally was held at the Westchester County Office Building; and an estimated three thousand angry and frustrated citizen taxpayers assembled to petition and protest against Andy Spano and his Administration for their “tax and spend policies” which had turned Westchester citizens into “the highest taxed citizens in America”.
Spano and his Administration attempted to downplay the Tea Party event. However, that event clearly elevated stock in the Westchester Independence Party which helped deliver the knockout blow.
On Election Day The Guardian visited many polling places throughout the County, questioning voters before and after they cast their votes. One voter, a man in his 50’s, from Tuckahoe named Charles, stated that he was fed up with the status quo, and wished “for a revolution; a
revolution is what we need to teach our politicians a lesson, maybe a ‘tax strike.’” When asked if he had attended the Tea Party in White Plains back in April he indicated that he hadn’t, but that his family members had.
Another man, George Nivkor, accompanied by several family members at a polling place in Yonkers, when asked if he was happy with Yonkers and Westchester County politicians and taxes, said, “We feel like we are being extorted. I’m watching rampant waste and theft all at our expense; and we are tired of it.”
When asked if he was a Democrat or a Republican, Nivkor replied, “Some of my family are each, but this year we are Independent and voting Row C, the Independence Party.”
It’s clear that the Independence Party has struck a nerve, and the numbers show it. Over the last three countywide elections, the Independence Party received between five and seven thousand votes. This election, they more than doubled that number, with well over 12,000 votes, which Dr. Cavallo attributes to the Independence Party’s role at the Westchester Tea Party Rally and all the mailings and telephone calls the Party faithful did to get out the vote.
“We mailed literature to thousands of taxpayers, asking them to join us,” Cavallo said. He went on, “Unlike the Conservative and Working Families Parties, the People of Westchester County know where we stand on the issue of high taxes. The Conservative and Working Families
Parties have done nothing to combat the tax problem. In fact, both minor parties endorsed Andy Spano, but didn’t make a difference.”
Cavallo reiterated that as a civic leader and party chair, it is his duty to stand up against politically-entrenched, power-hungry politicians when it comes to issues that negatively effect so many lives as high taxes do.
When asked where the Independence Party will be going from here, Cavallo said, “Nowhere but up; we are the third largest party in the state, and maybe one day we’ll be the second, or even the first, but in the meantime, on Election Day, we were the most important party and the deciding factor for some of the most important races in Westchester.”
Political insiders have confirmed that Andy Spano made numerous attempts to obtain the Independence Party endorsement; but was rejected every time by Dr. Cavallo. It is clear that had Spano gotten that endorsement, he might have remained King Andy for a fourth term.
For now, we must hail Dr. Giulio Cavallo, a true leader with the moral fortitude and courage to do the right thing. He is the most powerful political figure in Westchester.
Mighty Independence Party Chair Knocks Out Andy Spano In Fourth Round
On Tuesday, Election Night, The Guardian was present at the Astorino victory celebration at the Crowne Plaza in White Plains. At about 10:30pm a man in the room yelled out, “Giulio Cavallo knocked out Andy Spano.”There was a round of applause and cheers for Dr. Cavallo,
the maverick Chairman of the Westchester Independence Party.
As numbers continued to come in, it became clear that what the man had said was, in fact, true. The powerful political fat cat, Andy Spano, a Democrat, in a Democrat-dominated County, where Republicans are outnumbered two to one was, in fact, knocked out by the leader of the Independence Party, a small but mighty third party with fewer than 23,000 registered voters countywide.
That knock-out punch had come from the hand of none other than civic leader and party chair, Dr. Giulio Cavallo.
Dr. Cavallo has led the Westchester Independence Party for more than 12 years. In that time he has supported Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Conservatives alike in elections throughout Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties.
This year was special for Doc. After four years of arrogant, excessive taxation, and economic enslavement perpetrated by Democratic Party County Executive Andy Spano, and County Legislator Bill Ryan, Dr. Cavallo vowed to step up to the plate and fight the administrations he had helped elect in the last election cycle.
Cavallo had declared, “It’s about doing what is right. Our elected officials have forgotten that they were elected to serve and not to be served. The duty of the Independence Party is to represent the interests of the People, all the People.”
In January 2009, at a meeting in New Rochelle, Dr. Cavallo, the Westchester Independence Party Committee and Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka decided to join forces to organize the Westchester Tea Party, an anti-tax movement determined to reduce Westchester’s bloated County Government.
On April 25th, the Tea Party Rally was held at the Westchester County Office Building; and an estimated three thousand angry and frustrated citizen taxpayers assembled to petition and protest against Andy Spano and his Administration for their “tax and spend policies” which had turned Westchester citizens into “the highest taxed citizens in America”.
Spano and his Administration attempted to downplay the Tea Party event. However, that event clearly elevated stock in the Westchester Independence Party which helped deliver the knockout blow.
On Election Day The Guardian visited many polling places throughout the County, questioning voters before and after they cast their votes. One voter, a man in his 50’s, from Tuckahoe named Charles, stated that he was fed up with the status quo, and wished “for a revolution; a
revolution is what we need to teach our politicians a lesson, maybe a ‘tax strike.’” When asked if he had attended the Tea Party in White Plains back in April he indicated that he hadn’t, but that his family members had.
Another man, George Nivkor, accompanied by several family members at a polling place in Yonkers, when asked if he was happy with Yonkers and Westchester County politicians and taxes, said, “We feel like we are being extorted. I’m watching rampant waste and theft all at our expense; and we are tired of it.”
When asked if he was a Democrat or a Republican, Nivkor replied, “Some of my family are each, but this year we are Independent and voting Row C, the Independence Party.”
It’s clear that the Independence Party has struck a nerve, and the numbers show it. Over the last three countywide elections, the Independence Party received between five and seven thousand votes. This election, they more than doubled that number, with well over 12,000 votes, which Dr. Cavallo attributes to the Independence Party’s role at the Westchester Tea Party Rally and all the mailings and telephone calls the Party faithful did to get out the vote.
“We mailed literature to thousands of taxpayers, asking them to join us,” Cavallo said. He went on, “Unlike the Conservative and Working Families Parties, the People of Westchester County know where we stand on the issue of high taxes. The Conservative and Working Families
Parties have done nothing to combat the tax problem. In fact, both minor parties endorsed Andy Spano, but didn’t make a difference.”
Cavallo reiterated that as a civic leader and party chair, it is his duty to stand up against politically-entrenched, power-hungry politicians when it comes to issues that negatively effect so many lives as high taxes do.
When asked where the Independence Party will be going from here, Cavallo said, “Nowhere but up; we are the third largest party in the state, and maybe one day we’ll be the second, or even the first, but in the meantime, on Election Day, we were the most important party and the deciding factor for some of the most important races in Westchester.”
Political insiders have confirmed that Andy Spano made numerous attempts to obtain the Independence Party endorsement; but was rejected every time by Dr. Cavallo. It is clear that had Spano gotten that endorsement, he might have remained King Andy for a fourth term.
For now, we must hail Dr. Giulio Cavallo, a true leader with the moral fortitude and courage to do the right thing. He is the most powerful political figure in Westchester.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Westchester County Government/Westchester County Board of Legislators.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
If This is What County Government
Has Done For The People Of Westchester, It’s
Time To Do Away With County Government
Last Tuesday morning, September 8th, we attended the third in a series of hearings at the County Legislators’ Committee Conference Room at the County Office Building dealing with the federal government’s ultimatum to Westchester to promulgate and finally comply with the rules and actions needed to bring about affordable, fair housing.
Regardless of the show that Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, continues to stage, ably assisted by attorney Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, there is no denying that Andy Spano, and his partner in crime, Larry Schwartz, have gotten Westchester taxpayers in over their heads by their reckless, incompetent misappropriation of nearly $52 million, and their deceptive accounting of its use.
Last week we suggested that Spano had let down both the legislators and taxpayers. We still believe that. However, following a discussion with Chairman Bill Ryan just prior to the start of Tuesday’s proceedings, we now believe that the legislature is every bit as culpable as Spano & Company for the predicament homeowners and taxpayers are now confronted with. When asked how it was that he and his fellow
Board Members had not retained their own attorney, Chairman Ryan indicated that he didn’t believe that the Board of Legislators needed separate legal counsel.
When we raised the issue of Separation Of Powers between the Executive and Legislative branches in County Government, Ryan saw no conflict in relying upon the legal advice of County Attorney, Charlene Indelicato, who was employed at the pleasure of the County Executive, and Stuart Gerson, outside counsel also retained by Spano, to whom Gerson expressed his “loyalty” at the first hearing, a notion Ryan quickly took issue with. We do not accept the idea that Bill Ryan could possibly be that naive. If he is trying to suggest that Andy and Larry haven’t misappropriated federal grants and misrepresented to the federal government, the Department Of Housing And Urban Development, what they did with $52 million, he is culpable before, and after, the fact, and should be held just as accountable as Spano,
Schwartz, and Tolchin, together with every other legislator who sits around that conference table never once asking where the $52
million went.
In plain English, there is no way that use of the same attorneys who, for more than two years, have worked for Spano & Company in the effort to mitigate and minimize their wrongdoing in negotiations with the Justice Department, HUD, and the Federal Court should now be advising and instructing a supposedly separate and independent body of taxpayer representatives, particularly given that those same taxpayers must now pick up the $65 million tab for all that wrongdoing.
It’s safe to say that the 17-member Legislature, the overwhelming majority of whom were campaign-financed and assisted by Spano from contributions controlled by him and Larry Schwartz, are not all that concerned about the plight of their constituents under the terms of the imposed settlement. Why else would only 12 of them show up on time and others, such as Republican Jim Maisano, miss both the first and third hearings?
Jim Johnson, a former United States Attorney, a federal prosecutor with extensive experience in the area of housing discrimination, was introduced as the appointed monitor, although Chairman Ryan was careful to describe him as “the individual proposed as monitor,” as if the County had
any choice in the matter if the Legislature accepts the settlement.
Then Ryan introduced Rose Noonan, an individual with several years of experience in housing issues in Westchester, dealing with not-for-profits, County government, as well as the City of Yonkers, and instructing at Pace University Law School; in short, someone thoroughly enmeshed
in, and dependant upon, the Westchester network of control for her bread and butter.
At that point, as if to emphasize his allegiance to, and blind obedience to, the Spano Regime, Ryan said, “We have our very own outside counsel who is acting as our consultant in this matter, Stuart Gerson.”
Nothing could be further from the truth given the manner in which this entire housing dilemma was brought into being, under the control and mismanagement of Spano & Company.
To now tell the public, the overtaxed homeowners and business-people who will have to foot the bill, that Stuart Gerson, an attorney who has
been working behind the scenes for more than two years to cover Andy’s backside, that he is the County Legislators’ legal consultant, is to deny
any independent voice, any representation of the Peoples’ interest, on the part of the so-called County Legislature.
In fact, it is a blatant admission that the Board of Legislators is simply a 17-member/50 support staff rubber stamp; and a damned expensive one at that. Readers must not lose sight of the fact that 13 out of 17 of these so-called legislators, individuals pulling down $1,000 a week plus stipends
for a part-time job, are Democrats, all of whom feel beholden to Spano and Schwartz, and, could care less about their constituents’ interests or wishes.
They proved that, unmistakeably, with the purchase of the Halpern white elephant at 450 Saw Mill River Road in Ardsley last year. They established that when Andy says “jump”, they only ask, “how high?”
The moldy old building was a commitment of $13.5 million, to possibly as much as $20 million, before it is repaired and renovated; we will never know for sure. This commitment, if approved, will be for $65 million. Not one of these legislators asks where the money went, or why Spano violated the False Claims Act by lying, yes, lying to HUD and the federal government. They don’t ask because they are culpable themselves.
If ever there was a moment when the citizens of Westchester could clearly see the dysfunction within County government; the failure to have checks and balances, the corruption with money of the Legislative Branch by the Executive, that moment is now!
The Board of Legislators is ready to sell out the People of Westchester. Not one of them apparently comes to the table with clean hands. So committed are they, Republicans included, to covering up all of the wrongdoing and double-dealing that has placed our homeowners and taxpayers
in the fix they are now in, that they are only too ready to sign off on an agreement that will cost their constituents $65 million and place control of the future growth of their communities in federal hands.
If this is what County government has done for the People of Westchester, it is time to do away with County government.
If This is What County Government
Has Done For The People Of Westchester, It’s
Time To Do Away With County Government
Last Tuesday morning, September 8th, we attended the third in a series of hearings at the County Legislators’ Committee Conference Room at the County Office Building dealing with the federal government’s ultimatum to Westchester to promulgate and finally comply with the rules and actions needed to bring about affordable, fair housing.
Regardless of the show that Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, continues to stage, ably assisted by attorney Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, there is no denying that Andy Spano, and his partner in crime, Larry Schwartz, have gotten Westchester taxpayers in over their heads by their reckless, incompetent misappropriation of nearly $52 million, and their deceptive accounting of its use.
Last week we suggested that Spano had let down both the legislators and taxpayers. We still believe that. However, following a discussion with Chairman Bill Ryan just prior to the start of Tuesday’s proceedings, we now believe that the legislature is every bit as culpable as Spano & Company for the predicament homeowners and taxpayers are now confronted with. When asked how it was that he and his fellow
Board Members had not retained their own attorney, Chairman Ryan indicated that he didn’t believe that the Board of Legislators needed separate legal counsel.
When we raised the issue of Separation Of Powers between the Executive and Legislative branches in County Government, Ryan saw no conflict in relying upon the legal advice of County Attorney, Charlene Indelicato, who was employed at the pleasure of the County Executive, and Stuart Gerson, outside counsel also retained by Spano, to whom Gerson expressed his “loyalty” at the first hearing, a notion Ryan quickly took issue with. We do not accept the idea that Bill Ryan could possibly be that naive. If he is trying to suggest that Andy and Larry haven’t misappropriated federal grants and misrepresented to the federal government, the Department Of Housing And Urban Development, what they did with $52 million, he is culpable before, and after, the fact, and should be held just as accountable as Spano,
Schwartz, and Tolchin, together with every other legislator who sits around that conference table never once asking where the $52
million went.
In plain English, there is no way that use of the same attorneys who, for more than two years, have worked for Spano & Company in the effort to mitigate and minimize their wrongdoing in negotiations with the Justice Department, HUD, and the Federal Court should now be advising and instructing a supposedly separate and independent body of taxpayer representatives, particularly given that those same taxpayers must now pick up the $65 million tab for all that wrongdoing.
It’s safe to say that the 17-member Legislature, the overwhelming majority of whom were campaign-financed and assisted by Spano from contributions controlled by him and Larry Schwartz, are not all that concerned about the plight of their constituents under the terms of the imposed settlement. Why else would only 12 of them show up on time and others, such as Republican Jim Maisano, miss both the first and third hearings?
Jim Johnson, a former United States Attorney, a federal prosecutor with extensive experience in the area of housing discrimination, was introduced as the appointed monitor, although Chairman Ryan was careful to describe him as “the individual proposed as monitor,” as if the County had
any choice in the matter if the Legislature accepts the settlement.
Then Ryan introduced Rose Noonan, an individual with several years of experience in housing issues in Westchester, dealing with not-for-profits, County government, as well as the City of Yonkers, and instructing at Pace University Law School; in short, someone thoroughly enmeshed
in, and dependant upon, the Westchester network of control for her bread and butter.
At that point, as if to emphasize his allegiance to, and blind obedience to, the Spano Regime, Ryan said, “We have our very own outside counsel who is acting as our consultant in this matter, Stuart Gerson.”
Nothing could be further from the truth given the manner in which this entire housing dilemma was brought into being, under the control and mismanagement of Spano & Company.
To now tell the public, the overtaxed homeowners and business-people who will have to foot the bill, that Stuart Gerson, an attorney who has
been working behind the scenes for more than two years to cover Andy’s backside, that he is the County Legislators’ legal consultant, is to deny
any independent voice, any representation of the Peoples’ interest, on the part of the so-called County Legislature.
In fact, it is a blatant admission that the Board of Legislators is simply a 17-member/50 support staff rubber stamp; and a damned expensive one at that. Readers must not lose sight of the fact that 13 out of 17 of these so-called legislators, individuals pulling down $1,000 a week plus stipends
for a part-time job, are Democrats, all of whom feel beholden to Spano and Schwartz, and, could care less about their constituents’ interests or wishes.
They proved that, unmistakeably, with the purchase of the Halpern white elephant at 450 Saw Mill River Road in Ardsley last year. They established that when Andy says “jump”, they only ask, “how high?”
The moldy old building was a commitment of $13.5 million, to possibly as much as $20 million, before it is repaired and renovated; we will never know for sure. This commitment, if approved, will be for $65 million. Not one of these legislators asks where the money went, or why Spano violated the False Claims Act by lying, yes, lying to HUD and the federal government. They don’t ask because they are culpable themselves.
If ever there was a moment when the citizens of Westchester could clearly see the dysfunction within County government; the failure to have checks and balances, the corruption with money of the Legislative Branch by the Executive, that moment is now!
The Board of Legislators is ready to sell out the People of Westchester. Not one of them apparently comes to the table with clean hands. So committed are they, Republicans included, to covering up all of the wrongdoing and double-dealing that has placed our homeowners and taxpayers
in the fix they are now in, that they are only too ready to sign off on an agreement that will cost their constituents $65 million and place control of the future growth of their communities in federal hands.
If this is what County government has done for the People of Westchester, it is time to do away with County government.
Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
In Our Opinion...
Hey, Mike!
We strongly support the First Amendment, particularly Freedom Of The Press. As a newspaper, we are very sensitive to any attempt,
no matter how subtle or disguised, to stifle free expression of one’s knowledge or beliefs. History has repeatedly shown us that totalitarian
regimes characteristically do not accept, or live in harmony with, a free press.
A free press, and an unfettered marketplace of ideas, is essential to any Democratic society or form of government. However, it is mandatory
that anyone holding themselves out as a journalist be willing to identify both himself and his source, especially when publishing an accusatory piece, one that may be damaging to another, or to their reputation. In this regard, although we support the First Amendment in all of its manifestations, be they broadcast, newsprint, hard-covered, or electronic, we have no respect for those who would ventilate their flatulent offerings while hiding behind the anonymity of their computer IP.
Such creatures foul up the marketplace of ideas with their excretions, frequently not merely assuming an Anon or some other fictional
identification, but often using many assumed identities, sometimes 10 or 12, posting one dropping after another, asking and answering their own irrelevancies. At times these ‘burnt offerings’ are almost amusing, but for their usual highly defamatory content. For such posters, it’s as though they can’t get their daily fix until they spew their venom, and then go hide.
To suggest that such multiple posters are cowardly creatures is to engage in classic British understatement. They have an axe to grind, and/or an agenda, or somebody else’s agenda to further, and frequently go from blog to blog, leaving behind their mostly fictional, malicious rants, much as graffiti sprayers do as they go from wall to fence, disfiguring the urban panorama.
Interestingly, even when they blow their own cover with their repetitive beef, their practice-specific terminology, and their manic repetition,
getting identified by name by the very next poster, they go right on as if the silver bullet had just bounced off their body armor. In reality, they are pathetically addicted to the blogosphere, getting a rush from posting rude, sometimes very crude, remarks about decent individuals whose shoes they couldn’t shine, whose eyes they couldn’t look into; they don’t stand tall enough.
“Cowardly creatures”? Sure, but somehow ‘little worm’ seems a much more fitting description. It’s truly hard to tell if they are one notch above, or one notch below, the creeps who write on the walls in public toilets. As a “political commentator”, Mike Edelman, what do you think?
Our Readers Respond...
And Now A Word From The Right
Dear Editor:
After reading an article by your Democratic operative, Fred Polvere (Our Elite Media) I must ask a question culled from his “objective” article. On what planet do you spend your time, Mr. Polvere? The article deals with an ad placed on MoveOn.Org during the Bush Administration which spliced together images of Bush and Hitler. It is Polvere’s contention that the Republican Party unfairly condemned the Democrats when he claims they were totally innocent in the publication of the ads.
For Polvere’s information MoveOn.Org is a left-wing group funded by George Soros, an avowed Socialist, and an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. To state as he did in the article that the Republicans should have remained mum and not condemned the Soros group and the Democrats is naïve. Who runs the mainstream media in America today? Not the Republicans or the various conservative talk show hosts,
but as Polvere knows, or should know, the media is infested with Liberals who wouldn’t know the truth if they fell over it.
Instead he condemns the Fox News Channel which at least makes an effort to present both sides of an issue. Can the same be said for CBS, NBC, ABC or the New York Times? The fact that a majority of Americans fell for the left wing propaganda of the left wing media and elected a neo-Marxist President is clear proof of the “objectivity” of the press. If they had dared to tell the truth about Obama’s background, his associates, and his political philosophy, it is a good bet that he would not be sitting in the White House with his American hating wife. The press in America has disgraced itself by laying down and becoming a harlot for the Obama Administration.
Sal Dye, New Rochelle
Another Good Idea From Paul
Dear Editor:
At the meeting of the Greenburgh Town Board on September 9th two residents spoke of the value of CPR training. One mother (Janine Thompson) advised the Town Board that her small child’s life was saved because a child care provider who worked for her provided CPR after the child choked (and after the frightened mother failed to successfully stop the choking). Wendy Marder Lewin also spoke of the need for CPR training.
The presentation made me reflect on an unpleasant fact: most people do not know what to do if a family member has a choking incident. Even if someone had CPR training years ago –if they don’t get refreshers, they will forget what needs to be done. I would like to suggest that all school districts teach every middle school and high school student CPR. CPR training by a qualified instructor could save lives. Students should also learn how to relieve choking and how to use an AED –automated external defibrillator. If one life is saved because of this annual instruction it would be worth the cost. Providing CPR training to every middle school and high school student and reinforcing the training each year makes a tremendous amount of sense.
Paul Feiner, Greenburgh Town Supervisor
In Our Opinion...
Hey, Mike!
We strongly support the First Amendment, particularly Freedom Of The Press. As a newspaper, we are very sensitive to any attempt,
no matter how subtle or disguised, to stifle free expression of one’s knowledge or beliefs. History has repeatedly shown us that totalitarian
regimes characteristically do not accept, or live in harmony with, a free press.
A free press, and an unfettered marketplace of ideas, is essential to any Democratic society or form of government. However, it is mandatory
that anyone holding themselves out as a journalist be willing to identify both himself and his source, especially when publishing an accusatory piece, one that may be damaging to another, or to their reputation. In this regard, although we support the First Amendment in all of its manifestations, be they broadcast, newsprint, hard-covered, or electronic, we have no respect for those who would ventilate their flatulent offerings while hiding behind the anonymity of their computer IP.
Such creatures foul up the marketplace of ideas with their excretions, frequently not merely assuming an Anon or some other fictional
identification, but often using many assumed identities, sometimes 10 or 12, posting one dropping after another, asking and answering their own irrelevancies. At times these ‘burnt offerings’ are almost amusing, but for their usual highly defamatory content. For such posters, it’s as though they can’t get their daily fix until they spew their venom, and then go hide.
To suggest that such multiple posters are cowardly creatures is to engage in classic British understatement. They have an axe to grind, and/or an agenda, or somebody else’s agenda to further, and frequently go from blog to blog, leaving behind their mostly fictional, malicious rants, much as graffiti sprayers do as they go from wall to fence, disfiguring the urban panorama.
Interestingly, even when they blow their own cover with their repetitive beef, their practice-specific terminology, and their manic repetition,
getting identified by name by the very next poster, they go right on as if the silver bullet had just bounced off their body armor. In reality, they are pathetically addicted to the blogosphere, getting a rush from posting rude, sometimes very crude, remarks about decent individuals whose shoes they couldn’t shine, whose eyes they couldn’t look into; they don’t stand tall enough.
“Cowardly creatures”? Sure, but somehow ‘little worm’ seems a much more fitting description. It’s truly hard to tell if they are one notch above, or one notch below, the creeps who write on the walls in public toilets. As a “political commentator”, Mike Edelman, what do you think?
Our Readers Respond...
And Now A Word From The Right
Dear Editor:
After reading an article by your Democratic operative, Fred Polvere (Our Elite Media) I must ask a question culled from his “objective” article. On what planet do you spend your time, Mr. Polvere? The article deals with an ad placed on MoveOn.Org during the Bush Administration which spliced together images of Bush and Hitler. It is Polvere’s contention that the Republican Party unfairly condemned the Democrats when he claims they were totally innocent in the publication of the ads.
For Polvere’s information MoveOn.Org is a left-wing group funded by George Soros, an avowed Socialist, and an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. To state as he did in the article that the Republicans should have remained mum and not condemned the Soros group and the Democrats is naïve. Who runs the mainstream media in America today? Not the Republicans or the various conservative talk show hosts,
but as Polvere knows, or should know, the media is infested with Liberals who wouldn’t know the truth if they fell over it.
Instead he condemns the Fox News Channel which at least makes an effort to present both sides of an issue. Can the same be said for CBS, NBC, ABC or the New York Times? The fact that a majority of Americans fell for the left wing propaganda of the left wing media and elected a neo-Marxist President is clear proof of the “objectivity” of the press. If they had dared to tell the truth about Obama’s background, his associates, and his political philosophy, it is a good bet that he would not be sitting in the White House with his American hating wife. The press in America has disgraced itself by laying down and becoming a harlot for the Obama Administration.
Sal Dye, New Rochelle
Another Good Idea From Paul
Dear Editor:
At the meeting of the Greenburgh Town Board on September 9th two residents spoke of the value of CPR training. One mother (Janine Thompson) advised the Town Board that her small child’s life was saved because a child care provider who worked for her provided CPR after the child choked (and after the frightened mother failed to successfully stop the choking). Wendy Marder Lewin also spoke of the need for CPR training.
The presentation made me reflect on an unpleasant fact: most people do not know what to do if a family member has a choking incident. Even if someone had CPR training years ago –if they don’t get refreshers, they will forget what needs to be done. I would like to suggest that all school districts teach every middle school and high school student CPR. CPR training by a qualified instructor could save lives. Students should also learn how to relieve choking and how to use an AED –automated external defibrillator. If one life is saved because of this annual instruction it would be worth the cost. Providing CPR training to every middle school and high school student and reinforcing the training each year makes a tremendous amount of sense.
Paul Feiner, Greenburgh Town Supervisor
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Former Manhattan Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Owner
Extradited From Canada Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy To Defraud
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ARTHUR KISSEL, a/k/a “Arthur Froom,” a former cosmetic surgery clinic owner, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to a scheme to defraud health insurance companies of more than $900,000.
According to the Indictment to which KISSEL pleaded guilty; the evidence at the 2000 trial of KISSEL’s wife, SONIA LAFONTAINE, in the case; and statements made during KISSEL’s September 2008 bail hearing and the guilty plea proceeding before United States District Judge DENNY CHIN: KISSEL and LAFONTAINE owned and operated LaFontaine Rish Medical Associates, a cosmetic surgery clinic located at 315 West 57th Street in Manhattan. LAFONTAINE -- who had no medical license and was not acting under a physician’s supervision - performed procedures which were billed as having been performed by licensed physicians. KISSEL and LAFONTAINE’s clinic also billed cosmetic procedures, such as “tummy-tucks” and liposuction, in the guise of medically necessary procedures, such as hernia repairs and lesion removals. They also submitted claims to insurance companies for procedures that were never performed, and exaggerated insurance claims by increasing the number and complexity of procedures that were actually performed.
KISSEL and LAFONTAINE were originally indicted in March 1998. At that time, KISSEL was in Canada where he and his wife ran another cosmetic surgery clinic. LAFONTAINE was arrested in the United States in 1998 and was found guilty on all charges on July 12, 2000, following a six-week jury trial. She was ultimately sentenced to ten years in prison. The United States initiated extradition proceedings against KISSEL in 2000, which resulted in his August 2008 return from Canada on these charges.
KISSEL, 55, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud, and one count of mail fraud. He faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison on each count; a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the crime on each count; and forfeiture of the proceeds of his crimes. KISSEL is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge CHIN on December 15, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Mr. BHARARA praised the outstanding investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Major Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorney ROBIN W. MOREY is in charge of the prosecution.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Former Manhattan Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Owner
Extradited From Canada Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy To Defraud
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ARTHUR KISSEL, a/k/a “Arthur Froom,” a former cosmetic surgery clinic owner, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to a scheme to defraud health insurance companies of more than $900,000.
According to the Indictment to which KISSEL pleaded guilty; the evidence at the 2000 trial of KISSEL’s wife, SONIA LAFONTAINE, in the case; and statements made during KISSEL’s September 2008 bail hearing and the guilty plea proceeding before United States District Judge DENNY CHIN: KISSEL and LAFONTAINE owned and operated LaFontaine Rish Medical Associates, a cosmetic surgery clinic located at 315 West 57th Street in Manhattan. LAFONTAINE -- who had no medical license and was not acting under a physician’s supervision - performed procedures which were billed as having been performed by licensed physicians. KISSEL and LAFONTAINE’s clinic also billed cosmetic procedures, such as “tummy-tucks” and liposuction, in the guise of medically necessary procedures, such as hernia repairs and lesion removals. They also submitted claims to insurance companies for procedures that were never performed, and exaggerated insurance claims by increasing the number and complexity of procedures that were actually performed.
KISSEL and LAFONTAINE were originally indicted in March 1998. At that time, KISSEL was in Canada where he and his wife ran another cosmetic surgery clinic. LAFONTAINE was arrested in the United States in 1998 and was found guilty on all charges on July 12, 2000, following a six-week jury trial. She was ultimately sentenced to ten years in prison. The United States initiated extradition proceedings against KISSEL in 2000, which resulted in his August 2008 return from Canada on these charges.
KISSEL, 55, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud, and one count of mail fraud. He faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison on each count; a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the crime on each count; and forfeiture of the proceeds of his crimes. KISSEL is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge CHIN on December 15, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Mr. BHARARA praised the outstanding investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Major Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorney ROBIN W. MOREY is in charge of the prosecution.
Westchester Guardian/Jeff Deskovic.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Jeff Deskovic
Creation Of A National Institute
Of Forensic Sciences Is Critical
On September 3, 2009, a story appeared in the Daily News regarding Dwight Gomas, who had spent 17 months in Rikers Island in New York for robbery before it came to light that the fingerprints which formed the basis for his arrest did not, in fact, match him.
According to the News, “He was in fact 880 miles away, living in Atlanta, when armed thugs robbed Theresa’s Gold Lynch jewelry store in
Howard Beach in October 2003. A year later, Gomas was arrested for the robbery by United States marshals. Detective Eileen Barrett had
matched a partial index finger print from the crime scene to Gomas, whose prints were on file after an arrest for driving with a suspended license in Brooklyn. It was the only arrest on his record other than a juvenile bust.
A second NYPD detective, Charles Schenkel, confirmed Barrett’s identification, according to court papers. Gomas maintained his innocence
before the grand jury, but was indicted and couldn’t make the $30,000 bail. His Legal Aid lawyer advised him to accept a plea offer of five years in prison, but he refused. Gomas was headed to trial for a Queens jewelry store stickup when a veteran detective routinely checked his identification.
‘When I looked at it, I said, ‘You know what? is is a screw up; this is not his fingerprints,’ said Detective Daniel Perruzza, according to a
court transcript. ‘It looks similar, but ‘similar’ doesn’t cut it in prints. It has to be an exact match,’ Perruzza said. During his 523 days in jail, he lost his spot in a cooking school and his girlfriend and their child moved in with another man.”
As I have long maintained, the idea that people could be arrested and wrongfully convicted for crimes that they are innocent of is quite
scary. But the idea that one could be wrongfully arrested for a crime that happens in another state nearly 1000 miles away is even scarier. Yet it is a reality.
According to The Innocence Project’s website, “A report from the National Academy of Sciences released this year found that fingerprint
analysis was among the forensic disciplines that has not ‘been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.’ According to The Innocence Project, “Stephan Cowans spent more than five years in Massachusetts prisons after a false fingerprint match led to his conviction for a crime he didn’t commit.”
But this problem goes way beyond merely cases in which fingerprint evidence is a factor. According to the Just Science website, which is
a broad-based group committed to having scientific standards in place regarding forensic science so that only scientifically based, sound procedures are the foundation of any forensic evidence and testimony in criminal cases: “Many forensic disciplines have evolved primarily through their use in individual cases and have not been scientifically validated or standardized. Forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings. Testimony about more dubious forensic disciplines, such as efforts to match a
defendant’s teeth to marks on a victim or attempts to compare a defendant’s voice to a voicemail recording, are cloaked in science but lack even the most basic scientific standards.
Even within forensic disciplines that are more firmly grounded in science, evidence is often made to sound more precise than it should. For example, analysts will testify that hairs from a crime scene ‘match’ or ‘are consistent with’ defendants’ hair – but because scientific research on validity and reliability of hair analysis is lacking, they have no way of knowing how rare these similarities are, so there is no way to know how meaningful this evidence is.
In approximately 50% of DNA exonerations, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the wrongful conviction. But, while DNA exonerations are a window into the effect of unvalidated or improper forensic science contributing to wrongful convictions, DNA does not solve the problem. Experts estimate that only 5-10% of all criminal cases involve biological evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. In the other 90-95% of crimes, DNA testing is not an option – so the criminal justice system relies on other kinds of evidence, including forensic disciplines that may not be scientifically sound or properly conducted.”
With that background, the need for a National Institute of Forensic Science created by Congress is obvious. Roy Brown spent 15 years in
prison in New York for a murder he was innocent of. Innocence Project Co-Founder Peter Neufeld testified at a Congressional Hearing that,
“‘The forensic dentist [at Roy Brown’s trial] used what was then the prevailing method of comparing bite marks found on a body with the dentures of a suspect,’ said Neufeld. ‘He examined them and decided that he had a match with Roy’s bite. He so testified in court, and Roy was convicted.’”
At the moment, Congress is holding hearings and considering creating just such an entity. Fueling the inquiry is a report that was recently released. According to the Just Science website, “In 2006, Congress appropriated funds to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
to thoroughly study the fundamental underpinnings of forensic science and its applications in our criminal justice system. A blue-ribbon NAS panel was formed – including scientists, academics, a retired federal judge, and other notable experts. Over an eighteen-month period, the group held several public hearings and gathered comprehensive research on forensic disciplines.
This Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community released its final report, Strengthening Forensic Science in
the United States: A Path Forward, in February 2009. In releasing their report, the co-chairs of the committee emphasized that there was a consistent theme throughout their deliberations.”
The report says: “The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has serious problems that can only be addressed
by a national commitment to overhaul the current structure that supports the forensic science community in this country. This can only be done with effective leadership at the highest levels of both federal and state governments, pursuant to national standards, and with a
significant infusion of federal funds.”
The report’s key findings include:
• “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently,
and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.” (NAS Report, page S-5)
• “…What is needed to support and oversee the forensic science community is a new, strong and independent entity that could take on the
tasks that would be assigned to it in a manner that is as objective and free of bias as possible – one with no ties to the past and with the authority and resources to implement a fresh agenda…” (NAS Report p S-13)
• “There are great disparities among existing forensic science operations in federal, state and local law enforcement jurisdictions and agencies…
It is clear, however, that any approach to overhauling the existing system needs to address and help minimize the community’s current
fragmentation and inconsistent practices.” (NAS Report, page S-4)
• “Although research has been done in some disciplines, there is a notable dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific
bases and validity of many forensic methods.” (NAS Report, page S-6)
• “A body of research is [also] required to establish the limits and measures of performance and to address the impact of sources of variability
and potential bias.” (NAS Report, page S-6)
• “…The adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of scientific evidence is not suited to the task of finding ‘scientific truth’…Judicial review, by itself, will not cure the infirmities of the forensic science community.” (NAS Report, page S-20)” According to that report, here is what reform would look like: “Assessment of validity and reliability:
• The federal government should establish a science-based federal entity or agency, the National Institute for Forensic Sciences (NIFS), to review
both existing and new techniques, devices and assays to determine the extent to which they are scientifically valid and reliable for use in the criminal justice system.
• NIFS should establish standards for reliable application of forensic science disciplines in criminal cases (e.g. match criteria) to ensure the use of forensics within prescribed parameters.
• NIFS should have compliance authority to ensure the discontinuation of invalid or unreliable methods.
Research:
• NIFS should fund both basic and applied research to test the validity and reliability of extant forensic methods, devices and assays; and to
support the development of new technologies to solve crime.
Quality assurance, accreditation and certification:
• NIFS should set enforceable standards for public and private laboratories, as well as for individual professionals, that conduct forensic tests
and examinations intended for use in courts.
• Quality controls and quality assurance programs should be established to secure the integrity of the ultimate forensic product in laboratories
and in courts. This should include (but not be limited to) validation of devices for particular labs; written protocols and procedures; minimum
qualifications, staff training and proficiency testing for personnel; and parameters for data interpretation, report writing and testimony.
Training:
• NIFS should support comprehensive training and professional development in the forensic science field in order to build the capacity for research
and quality assurance, and to bring current and new forensic science personnel into compliance with established qualifications and standards.
Oversight
• The Director of NIFS, in consultation with science-based federal government agencies, should appoint a Forensic Science National Commission
composed of science professionals to set broad research priorities and to promulgate forensic science standards.
• The Director of NIFS, in consultation with science and criminal justice-based federal government agencies, should also appoint an Advisory
Committee to provide input to the Commission and NIFS with regard to its various responsibilities.”
There are many junk sciences that lead to wrongful convictions. There is bullet lead analysis, which falsely purports to be able to trace the bullet fired from a gun used in a crime all the way back to the box from which it originated.
According to The Innocence Project’s website: “Hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm testing or tool mark analysis – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Other methods – such as serology (commonly known as blood typing) – have been properly validated
but are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results
or engaged in other misconduct.”
With each new revelation of a junk science, it becomes apparent that perhaps thousands more have been wrongfully convicted. Considering that we are talking about people’s lives, it is high time that we have a National Institute for Forensic Science. After all, in other disciplines oversight agencies and standards are in place. Electrical devices are scrutinized and tested by the Underwriters Laboratory. The Food and Drug Administration provides a similar function with respect to medicine and food.
A thought that has been absent, so far as I am aware, in the recent discussion about this topic is that while it is important for these steps to be taken, what has gone on previously? Surely the ‘experts’ who were testifying about various “sciences” in court in the furtherance of trying to
convict a defendant had to be aware that there was no scientific underpinning to them; that there existed no replicable protocols, or statistics,
that it was not hard science and in fact often was junk science.
While I could envision a few people doing so out of ignorance, it strains credulity to say that is the case with everybody. As people with advance degrees, they are familiar with general scientific methods. How could others who omit information regarding the statistical significance of a match or those who embellish, or even outright lie about it do so? Is there no conscience involved?
In my view, someone would have to be quite evil to give false or even simply inaccurate testimony against somebody, knowing that they were on trial often for serious crimes. Also unmentioned is the need to identify each and every “expert” who has engaged in any of these types of fraud,
and the need to vigorously prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Supervisors under whose watch fraud has occurred should, wherever it can be shown that they either looked the other way or even simply were negligent in their oversight, be fired and publicly disgraced, and permanently barred from ever working for the government again.
Their actions have, in my view, undermined, for quite a long time to come, the ability of the public who is aware of these issues, to feel safe as they
go about their daily lives, much as violent criminals who are concentrated in a particular geographical area do so.
In fact, I think that the level of fear could be higher. The odds of me, as an exoneree and therefore a high public profile, along with extremely competent lawyers working on my lawsuits, ever being wrongfully convicted again, are extremely low.
However, even with these differences between myself and the general public without those resources I, too, am once again afraid. Imagine that even being 880 miles away from a crime is not enough of an assurance of not being wrongfully arrested for it. As Dwight Gomas stated as reported in The Daily News “It is just a nightmare knowing that someone that’s innocent can be picked up off the street and held. That scares me now. It’s like I’m walking on eggshells. I try to cover my tracks for everywhere I go.”
Think, too, about sitting as a defendant at the defense table and listening to expert testimony that you don’t fully understand that is offered as evidence against you. Imagine being equipped with a court-appointed, overworked, under funded, and quite possibly incompetent, lawyer to represent you. Do you have confidence in what the outcome of such a trial would be, despite your innocence?
Jeff Deskovic
Creation Of A National Institute
Of Forensic Sciences Is Critical
On September 3, 2009, a story appeared in the Daily News regarding Dwight Gomas, who had spent 17 months in Rikers Island in New York for robbery before it came to light that the fingerprints which formed the basis for his arrest did not, in fact, match him.
According to the News, “He was in fact 880 miles away, living in Atlanta, when armed thugs robbed Theresa’s Gold Lynch jewelry store in
Howard Beach in October 2003. A year later, Gomas was arrested for the robbery by United States marshals. Detective Eileen Barrett had
matched a partial index finger print from the crime scene to Gomas, whose prints were on file after an arrest for driving with a suspended license in Brooklyn. It was the only arrest on his record other than a juvenile bust.
A second NYPD detective, Charles Schenkel, confirmed Barrett’s identification, according to court papers. Gomas maintained his innocence
before the grand jury, but was indicted and couldn’t make the $30,000 bail. His Legal Aid lawyer advised him to accept a plea offer of five years in prison, but he refused. Gomas was headed to trial for a Queens jewelry store stickup when a veteran detective routinely checked his identification.
‘When I looked at it, I said, ‘You know what? is is a screw up; this is not his fingerprints,’ said Detective Daniel Perruzza, according to a
court transcript. ‘It looks similar, but ‘similar’ doesn’t cut it in prints. It has to be an exact match,’ Perruzza said. During his 523 days in jail, he lost his spot in a cooking school and his girlfriend and their child moved in with another man.”
As I have long maintained, the idea that people could be arrested and wrongfully convicted for crimes that they are innocent of is quite
scary. But the idea that one could be wrongfully arrested for a crime that happens in another state nearly 1000 miles away is even scarier. Yet it is a reality.
According to The Innocence Project’s website, “A report from the National Academy of Sciences released this year found that fingerprint
analysis was among the forensic disciplines that has not ‘been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.’ According to The Innocence Project, “Stephan Cowans spent more than five years in Massachusetts prisons after a false fingerprint match led to his conviction for a crime he didn’t commit.”
But this problem goes way beyond merely cases in which fingerprint evidence is a factor. According to the Just Science website, which is
a broad-based group committed to having scientific standards in place regarding forensic science so that only scientifically based, sound procedures are the foundation of any forensic evidence and testimony in criminal cases: “Many forensic disciplines have evolved primarily through their use in individual cases and have not been scientifically validated or standardized. Forensic analysts sometimes testify in cases without a proper scientific basis for their findings. Testimony about more dubious forensic disciplines, such as efforts to match a
defendant’s teeth to marks on a victim or attempts to compare a defendant’s voice to a voicemail recording, are cloaked in science but lack even the most basic scientific standards.
Even within forensic disciplines that are more firmly grounded in science, evidence is often made to sound more precise than it should. For example, analysts will testify that hairs from a crime scene ‘match’ or ‘are consistent with’ defendants’ hair – but because scientific research on validity and reliability of hair analysis is lacking, they have no way of knowing how rare these similarities are, so there is no way to know how meaningful this evidence is.
In approximately 50% of DNA exonerations, unvalidated or improper forensic science contributed to the wrongful conviction. But, while DNA exonerations are a window into the effect of unvalidated or improper forensic science contributing to wrongful convictions, DNA does not solve the problem. Experts estimate that only 5-10% of all criminal cases involve biological evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. In the other 90-95% of crimes, DNA testing is not an option – so the criminal justice system relies on other kinds of evidence, including forensic disciplines that may not be scientifically sound or properly conducted.”
With that background, the need for a National Institute of Forensic Science created by Congress is obvious. Roy Brown spent 15 years in
prison in New York for a murder he was innocent of. Innocence Project Co-Founder Peter Neufeld testified at a Congressional Hearing that,
“‘The forensic dentist [at Roy Brown’s trial] used what was then the prevailing method of comparing bite marks found on a body with the dentures of a suspect,’ said Neufeld. ‘He examined them and decided that he had a match with Roy’s bite. He so testified in court, and Roy was convicted.’”
At the moment, Congress is holding hearings and considering creating just such an entity. Fueling the inquiry is a report that was recently released. According to the Just Science website, “In 2006, Congress appropriated funds to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
to thoroughly study the fundamental underpinnings of forensic science and its applications in our criminal justice system. A blue-ribbon NAS panel was formed – including scientists, academics, a retired federal judge, and other notable experts. Over an eighteen-month period, the group held several public hearings and gathered comprehensive research on forensic disciplines.
This Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community released its final report, Strengthening Forensic Science in
the United States: A Path Forward, in February 2009. In releasing their report, the co-chairs of the committee emphasized that there was a consistent theme throughout their deliberations.”
The report says: “The forensic science system, encompassing both research and practice, has serious problems that can only be addressed
by a national commitment to overhaul the current structure that supports the forensic science community in this country. This can only be done with effective leadership at the highest levels of both federal and state governments, pursuant to national standards, and with a
significant infusion of federal funds.”
The report’s key findings include:
• “With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently,
and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.” (NAS Report, page S-5)
• “…What is needed to support and oversee the forensic science community is a new, strong and independent entity that could take on the
tasks that would be assigned to it in a manner that is as objective and free of bias as possible – one with no ties to the past and with the authority and resources to implement a fresh agenda…” (NAS Report p S-13)
• “There are great disparities among existing forensic science operations in federal, state and local law enforcement jurisdictions and agencies…
It is clear, however, that any approach to overhauling the existing system needs to address and help minimize the community’s current
fragmentation and inconsistent practices.” (NAS Report, page S-4)
• “Although research has been done in some disciplines, there is a notable dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific
bases and validity of many forensic methods.” (NAS Report, page S-6)
• “A body of research is [also] required to establish the limits and measures of performance and to address the impact of sources of variability
and potential bias.” (NAS Report, page S-6)
• “…The adversarial process relating to the admission and exclusion of scientific evidence is not suited to the task of finding ‘scientific truth’…Judicial review, by itself, will not cure the infirmities of the forensic science community.” (NAS Report, page S-20)” According to that report, here is what reform would look like: “Assessment of validity and reliability:
• The federal government should establish a science-based federal entity or agency, the National Institute for Forensic Sciences (NIFS), to review
both existing and new techniques, devices and assays to determine the extent to which they are scientifically valid and reliable for use in the criminal justice system.
• NIFS should establish standards for reliable application of forensic science disciplines in criminal cases (e.g. match criteria) to ensure the use of forensics within prescribed parameters.
• NIFS should have compliance authority to ensure the discontinuation of invalid or unreliable methods.
Research:
• NIFS should fund both basic and applied research to test the validity and reliability of extant forensic methods, devices and assays; and to
support the development of new technologies to solve crime.
Quality assurance, accreditation and certification:
• NIFS should set enforceable standards for public and private laboratories, as well as for individual professionals, that conduct forensic tests
and examinations intended for use in courts.
• Quality controls and quality assurance programs should be established to secure the integrity of the ultimate forensic product in laboratories
and in courts. This should include (but not be limited to) validation of devices for particular labs; written protocols and procedures; minimum
qualifications, staff training and proficiency testing for personnel; and parameters for data interpretation, report writing and testimony.
Training:
• NIFS should support comprehensive training and professional development in the forensic science field in order to build the capacity for research
and quality assurance, and to bring current and new forensic science personnel into compliance with established qualifications and standards.
Oversight
• The Director of NIFS, in consultation with science-based federal government agencies, should appoint a Forensic Science National Commission
composed of science professionals to set broad research priorities and to promulgate forensic science standards.
• The Director of NIFS, in consultation with science and criminal justice-based federal government agencies, should also appoint an Advisory
Committee to provide input to the Commission and NIFS with regard to its various responsibilities.”
There are many junk sciences that lead to wrongful convictions. There is bullet lead analysis, which falsely purports to be able to trace the bullet fired from a gun used in a crime all the way back to the box from which it originated.
According to The Innocence Project’s website: “Hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm testing or tool mark analysis – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Other methods – such as serology (commonly known as blood typing) – have been properly validated
but are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In some cases, forensic analysts have fabricated results
or engaged in other misconduct.”
With each new revelation of a junk science, it becomes apparent that perhaps thousands more have been wrongfully convicted. Considering that we are talking about people’s lives, it is high time that we have a National Institute for Forensic Science. After all, in other disciplines oversight agencies and standards are in place. Electrical devices are scrutinized and tested by the Underwriters Laboratory. The Food and Drug Administration provides a similar function with respect to medicine and food.
A thought that has been absent, so far as I am aware, in the recent discussion about this topic is that while it is important for these steps to be taken, what has gone on previously? Surely the ‘experts’ who were testifying about various “sciences” in court in the furtherance of trying to
convict a defendant had to be aware that there was no scientific underpinning to them; that there existed no replicable protocols, or statistics,
that it was not hard science and in fact often was junk science.
While I could envision a few people doing so out of ignorance, it strains credulity to say that is the case with everybody. As people with advance degrees, they are familiar with general scientific methods. How could others who omit information regarding the statistical significance of a match or those who embellish, or even outright lie about it do so? Is there no conscience involved?
In my view, someone would have to be quite evil to give false or even simply inaccurate testimony against somebody, knowing that they were on trial often for serious crimes. Also unmentioned is the need to identify each and every “expert” who has engaged in any of these types of fraud,
and the need to vigorously prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Supervisors under whose watch fraud has occurred should, wherever it can be shown that they either looked the other way or even simply were negligent in their oversight, be fired and publicly disgraced, and permanently barred from ever working for the government again.
Their actions have, in my view, undermined, for quite a long time to come, the ability of the public who is aware of these issues, to feel safe as they
go about their daily lives, much as violent criminals who are concentrated in a particular geographical area do so.
In fact, I think that the level of fear could be higher. The odds of me, as an exoneree and therefore a high public profile, along with extremely competent lawyers working on my lawsuits, ever being wrongfully convicted again, are extremely low.
However, even with these differences between myself and the general public without those resources I, too, am once again afraid. Imagine that even being 880 miles away from a crime is not enough of an assurance of not being wrongfully arrested for it. As Dwight Gomas stated as reported in The Daily News “It is just a nightmare knowing that someone that’s innocent can be picked up off the street and held. That scares me now. It’s like I’m walking on eggshells. I try to cover my tracks for everywhere I go.”
Think, too, about sitting as a defendant at the defense table and listening to expert testimony that you don’t fully understand that is offered as evidence against you. Imagine being equipped with a court-appointed, overworked, under funded, and quite possibly incompetent, lawyer to represent you. Do you have confidence in what the outcome of such a trial would be, despite your innocence?
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Protecting Your Assets From
Your Own Family
In August, 2007, the Guardian reported on the prevalence of identity the in our society. At that time we revealed that the biggest threat to an individual’s identity and assets is their own family. Who else knows your date of birth, your mother’s maiden name, the first school you attended,
your last address, and even the name of your pets? When a family member uses your information to obtain a loan for themselves, it constitutes identity the and they can be criminally prosecuted.
But there is a growing area of the that is posing an even greater cause for concern for our local residents, particularly the elderly and the disabled – the the of assets covered under a power-of-attorney.
In recent months the Guardian has learned of numerous cases in Westchester communities where a family discovered, upon the demise of a loved one, that their loved one’s estate was depleted using a pre-existing power-of-attorney (POA). Until this month, depleting the entire life savings
of a family member with a power-of-attorney was relatively easy to do in New York State. All the unethical family member needed to do was coerce their loved one in granting them full powers over their assets by signing a POA form in the presence of a notary.
Prior state laws incorrectly surmised that a notary would assure that the POA was being signed by the individual of their own free will. Notaries
Public regularly witness the signing of a variety of legal documents and are supposed to be independent of the parties involved. However, there is no audit mechanism in place in New York State to verify that the notary witnessing the signature was indeed independent and verified the capability of the signer and their willingness to conduct the transaction.
In one case that the Guardian has observed, the notaries involved did not conduct any due diligence whatsoever, thereby allowing the fraud to
happen.
Virtually anyone over the age of 18 can become a Notary Public in New York State – all it takes is a $15 fee and a passing grade on a relatively
simple test, the answers to which are supplied online by local County Clerks’ offices. It is all too easy under current New York State Notary Public laws for a family member to become a notary and “witness” the coerced form signed by the elderly victim.
Dementia victims, individuals suffering from mental and cognitive problems, poorly educated individuals, and even individuals who are incredibly trusting, are particularly vulnerable to this type of the . An elderly individual who is no longer able to take care of their finances and affairs often turns to a family-member for assistance. That family member, once aware of the amount of assets in the elderly person’s accounts, may see an opportunity to obtain those assets all for themselves, rather than waiting to receive their portion, if any, in accordance with the elderly relative’s will.
Once the unscrupulous individual has a power-of-attorney in their hands, they can now make all banking, investment, and real estate transactions for their victim. In each and every case the Guardian uncovered, by the time other family members realized what had happened, the money and even the houses were long gone. The Guardian uncovered cases where local thieves bought automobiles and homes claiming they were for the use of the victim, even moving the victim into the houses for a period of time to “justify” the purchases, and then transferring the deeds to themselves, circumventing any wishes the elderly person expressly noted in their Last Will and Testament for the distribution of their funds and assets.
Both our Federal and State governments inadvertently encourage the elderly and disabled to shift their money out of their own control thanks to Medicaid and disability laws. Individuals who need nursing home care or extensive medical assistance, such as the mentally ill and disabled, cannot
usually afford the high cost of such extended intensive care and must apply to the government for assistance.
However, in order to be able to qualify for government aid, the individual must first “spend down” their assets – they will only qualify for help once they can prove that they have almost nothing left in their own name with which to pay for their care. Once an elderly individual realizes that they are in the early stages of dementia, they will often be concurrently advised by their attorneys and financial planners to immediately start transferring their assets out of their own name to “protect them from Medicare”.
One of the first steps an elder care attorney will take with a new client is to draft a power-of-attorney form for them, entrusting the power over their assets to a family member or close friend. These powers can be drafted on behalf of the dementia victim to be used only once the individual no longer has any ability to act in their own behalf. However, banks and investment firms rarely ask for confirmation that an individual is incapacitated when accepting a power-of-attorney (POA) for a transaction.
The role of the elder care attorney is to assure that the individual is not being coerced in such situations; an attorney will interview the client
separate from the family members to assure that they are acting of their own free will. However, current state laws do not mandate that the power-of-attorney forms be drafted in the presence of an attorney. Anyone with access to the internet can download a free form and coerce the victim into signing it in front of a notary. As the Guardian uncovered, the notaries do not always assure that the individual signing the form is not being coerced. Nor are notaries required to take any training which would help them to identify the signs of coercion.
To deter some of these acts of fraud, New York State recently enacted new laws to expand the protection for individuals drafting a power-of-
attorney. As of September 1, 2009, the new power-of-attorney forms have several new clauses to protect the individual issuing the powers.
The new form’s name alone indicates the changes, the title was changed from “Statutory Short Form Power of Attorney” to “Statutory Short Form and Other Powers of Attorney For Financial Estate Planning”, recognizing the fact that most individuals drafting this form are doing so as part of an estate plan and that the POA should work in tandem with the wishes and directives outlined in the individual’s “Last Will and Testament”.
The new laws do not affect most POA’s already in effect prior to September 1, 2009. However, the law specifically requires new
POA’s for the following types of powers:
§5-1502J for “Construction” authority - for authority over benefits from governmental programs or civil and military service
§5-1502K for “Construction” authority - for authority on health care billing and payment matters; records reports and statements
§5-1504 for “Acceptance of statutory short form power of attorney”;
§5-1510 for “Special Proceedings”
The new state laws expand the definitions used in a POA including “Capacity”. Capacity is now defined by the State to mean “the ability
to comprehend the nature and consequences of the act of executing and granting, revoking, amending or modifying a power of attorney, any
provision in a power of attorney, or the authority of any person to act as agent under a power of attorney”.
In short, the definition as expanded raises questions as to the capacity of a cognitively-impaired, mentally disabled, or victim of dementia, even a mild version, to authorize a POA on their behalf.
Such restrictions may now require legal guardians to be appointed to review a POA for these individuals. While this may appear to be added
protection, the Guardian has revealed in recent months the kickback nature of the guardianship process in our courts, where such appointments routinely are given to attorneys whose only qualification is the amount of their campaign contributions to the judge appointing them. In one local instance, the court appointed a convicted felon to handle the affairs of a disabled young woman who was the victim of Aspersers’. The Surrogate’s Court has never required that this felon account for the $2 million in his care, in defiance with New York State laws. This sad case was reported by the Guardian in February and March of this year. To date, the court has done nothing to rectify this situation.
To circumvent individuals who possess POA’s from “gifting” any funds in their victim’s bank accounts to themselves, the new state law has
expanded its definition of a “Statutory major gifts rider”. According to the law, this rider allows the individual to define who and what they
intend to gift, if anything. The new law mandates that the “statutory major gifts rider and the statutory short form power of attorney it supplements must be read together as a single instrument”. Anyone acting on a POA, and attempting to make a gift to themselves from a bank account or other asset, will now have to produce the gifts rider as evidence along with the POA.
The individual who holds the authorities granted in a POA is referred to as an “agent” since they are acting on behalf of the person who signed
the POA (referred to as the “principal”). The new law has expanded the definition of agent to now include an individual who has a “fiduciary relationship with the principal”. The purpose of this new clause in the law is to avoid circumstances such as the recent organ-selling cases from disabled and poor victims. In this 10-year investigation uncovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, nursing home and health care employees were providing names of individuals who had no family members to the organ-selling ring who then obtained POA’s and other legal rights from their victims, enabling the crime. The new state law attempts to avoid “third-party” POA’s where the individual appointed as agent has no reason to be acting “in the best interests” of the principal.
A person who has a “fiduciary relationship” with another is someone who is legally expected to be acting “in the best interests” of the
other. While this new law has yet to be tested and applied in the courts, it does appear that the intent of the New York State lawmakers is to have agents prove that the purchases and expenditures they were making on behalf of the principal were indeed “in their best interests”. If not, this law could conceivably allow the other family members to legally challenge those purchases and any depletion of assets and funds.
Note – due to the stranglehold that the New York State Bar Association has over the New York State legislature by virtue of their lobbying
efforts and campaign contributions, only an attorney may offer legal advice in the State of New York. Therefore, this reporter cannot state the obvious here without running afoul of local lawyers, so any inferences we make about this new law have to be couched in terms such as “conceivably” and “perhaps” - not our usual direct style of reporting. But the trusts our readers’ ability to decipher this of the new law for themselves!
The new law specifically addresses what happens to a POA when the individual authorizing it becomes incapacitated – the new forms have
a clause that states “this POWER OF ATTORNEY shall not be affected by my subsequent incapacity unless I have stated otherwise below, under
“Modification”. The principal can elect to revoke the POA completely once they become incapacitated. The law also covers the size of the print that must be used on the POA form and specific cautions to be noted to protect the principal signing this form.
A new “Caution” clause has been added to the POA form: “CAUTION TO THE PRINCIPAL: Your power of Attorney is an important document. As the “principal”, you give the person whom you choose (your “agent”) authority to spend your money and sell or dispose of your property
during your lifetime without telling you. You do not lose your authority to act even though you have given your agent similar authority.
When your agent exercises this authority, he or she must act according to any instructions you have provided or, where there are no specific instructions, in your best interests. “Important Information for the Agent” at the end of this document describes your agent’s responsibilities.
Your agent can act on your behalf only after signing the Power of Attorney before a notary public. You can request information from your agent at any time. If you are revoking a prior Power of Attorney by executing this Power of Attorney, you should provide written notice of the revocation to your prior agent(s) and to the financial institutions where your accounts are located.
You can revoke or terminate your Power of Attorney at any time for any reason as long as you are of sound mind. If you are no longer of sound
mind, a court can remove an agent for acting improperly.
Your agent cannot make health care decisions for you. You may execute a ‘Health Care Proxy’ to do this. The law governing Powers of Attorney
is contained in the New York General Obligations Law, Article 5, Title 15. This law is available at a law library, or online through the New York
State Senate or Assembly websites, www.senate.state.ny.us or www.assembly.state.ny.us.
If there is anything about this document that you do not understand, you should ask a lawyer of your own choosing to explain it to you.” In addition, the new law imposes the following obligations upon the agent named in the POA: “When you accept the authority granted under this Power of Attorney, a special legal relationship is created between you and the principal. This relationship imposes on you legal responsibilities
that continue until you resign or the Power of Attorney is terminated or revoked. You must:
• Act according to any instructions from the principal, or, where there are no instructions, in the principal’s best interest;
• Avoid conflicts that would impair your ability to act in the principal’s best interest;
• Keep the principal’s property separate and distinct from any assets you own or control, unless otherwise permitted by law;
• Keep a record of all receipts, payments, and transactions conducted for the principal; and
• Disclose your identity as an agent whenever you act for the principal by writing or printing the principal’s name and signing your own name as “agent” in either of the following manner: (Principal’s Name) by (Your Signature) as Agent, or (your signature) as Agent for (Principal’s Name).”
While this new law instructs to act in the best interest of the principal and in accordance with any written instructions by the principal, it does not address whether those written instructions will hold up in court.
Many local elderly residents have already shifted the control of their assets to other family members to “protect them from Medicare”, under the
advice of their attorneys. Ethical family members understand that those funds are not their own money and hold them aside to be used for their
loved one’s needs.
Since these funds and assets were transferred to other family members before their death, and are then part of that family member’s portfolio,
these funds and assets are not considered to be part of the estate when the elderly individual dies. To assure that the family member holding the transferred assets does not keep them all to themselves, the elderly family member usually leaves written instructions as to how those funds and assets should be distributed upon their demise.
Unfortunately, those written instructions do not hold up in court. The Guardian has evidence of how one local attorney, a Law Secretary with the White Plains Supreme Court, advised his elderly mother to shift $150,000 of her funds to him to “protect them from Medicare”. When she died eight years later, those funds now legally belonged to her son. The attorney’s mother had left written instructions to address the distribution of these funds including allocating a small portion of them to each of her grand-children. But the attorney chose to ignore his dying mother’s
wishes and kept the funds for himself instead. When the children’s mother took this attorney to court to protest him not acting in his mother’s best interests by defying her written instructions, the mother was sanctioned and fined by the judge for daring to pursue this for her children.
So, while the new POA law may allow for written instructions to be followed, court orders in similar instances show that judges ignore these laws. As the Guardian has noted in previous reports on these issues, the courts offer little support to victims of fraud since so many fraud cases are perpetrated by attorneys and officers of the court to begin with. The best defense therefore that an elderly resident has is to find the most trustworthy member of their family, or circle of friends, to entrust the handling of their affairs to.
The new law is explained in detail by the New York State Bar Association in their online publication at www.nysba.org. The NYSBA has provided
a sixty-nine page analysis covering all of the areas of this new law. Since the changes are extensive and cover sensitive areas such as access to medical billing and government records and, since this article cannot be construed by the reader as legal advice, any local resident concerned about their existing power-of-attorneys, or their need for a POA, should consult with a trusted attorney who is experienced in the drafting, and pitfalls, of POA’s.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Protecting Your Assets From
Your Own Family
In August, 2007, the Guardian reported on the prevalence of identity the in our society. At that time we revealed that the biggest threat to an individual’s identity and assets is their own family. Who else knows your date of birth, your mother’s maiden name, the first school you attended,
your last address, and even the name of your pets? When a family member uses your information to obtain a loan for themselves, it constitutes identity the and they can be criminally prosecuted.
But there is a growing area of the that is posing an even greater cause for concern for our local residents, particularly the elderly and the disabled – the the of assets covered under a power-of-attorney.
In recent months the Guardian has learned of numerous cases in Westchester communities where a family discovered, upon the demise of a loved one, that their loved one’s estate was depleted using a pre-existing power-of-attorney (POA). Until this month, depleting the entire life savings
of a family member with a power-of-attorney was relatively easy to do in New York State. All the unethical family member needed to do was coerce their loved one in granting them full powers over their assets by signing a POA form in the presence of a notary.
Prior state laws incorrectly surmised that a notary would assure that the POA was being signed by the individual of their own free will. Notaries
Public regularly witness the signing of a variety of legal documents and are supposed to be independent of the parties involved. However, there is no audit mechanism in place in New York State to verify that the notary witnessing the signature was indeed independent and verified the capability of the signer and their willingness to conduct the transaction.
In one case that the Guardian has observed, the notaries involved did not conduct any due diligence whatsoever, thereby allowing the fraud to
happen.
Virtually anyone over the age of 18 can become a Notary Public in New York State – all it takes is a $15 fee and a passing grade on a relatively
simple test, the answers to which are supplied online by local County Clerks’ offices. It is all too easy under current New York State Notary Public laws for a family member to become a notary and “witness” the coerced form signed by the elderly victim.
Dementia victims, individuals suffering from mental and cognitive problems, poorly educated individuals, and even individuals who are incredibly trusting, are particularly vulnerable to this type of the . An elderly individual who is no longer able to take care of their finances and affairs often turns to a family-member for assistance. That family member, once aware of the amount of assets in the elderly person’s accounts, may see an opportunity to obtain those assets all for themselves, rather than waiting to receive their portion, if any, in accordance with the elderly relative’s will.
Once the unscrupulous individual has a power-of-attorney in their hands, they can now make all banking, investment, and real estate transactions for their victim. In each and every case the Guardian uncovered, by the time other family members realized what had happened, the money and even the houses were long gone. The Guardian uncovered cases where local thieves bought automobiles and homes claiming they were for the use of the victim, even moving the victim into the houses for a period of time to “justify” the purchases, and then transferring the deeds to themselves, circumventing any wishes the elderly person expressly noted in their Last Will and Testament for the distribution of their funds and assets.
Both our Federal and State governments inadvertently encourage the elderly and disabled to shift their money out of their own control thanks to Medicaid and disability laws. Individuals who need nursing home care or extensive medical assistance, such as the mentally ill and disabled, cannot
usually afford the high cost of such extended intensive care and must apply to the government for assistance.
However, in order to be able to qualify for government aid, the individual must first “spend down” their assets – they will only qualify for help once they can prove that they have almost nothing left in their own name with which to pay for their care. Once an elderly individual realizes that they are in the early stages of dementia, they will often be concurrently advised by their attorneys and financial planners to immediately start transferring their assets out of their own name to “protect them from Medicare”.
One of the first steps an elder care attorney will take with a new client is to draft a power-of-attorney form for them, entrusting the power over their assets to a family member or close friend. These powers can be drafted on behalf of the dementia victim to be used only once the individual no longer has any ability to act in their own behalf. However, banks and investment firms rarely ask for confirmation that an individual is incapacitated when accepting a power-of-attorney (POA) for a transaction.
The role of the elder care attorney is to assure that the individual is not being coerced in such situations; an attorney will interview the client
separate from the family members to assure that they are acting of their own free will. However, current state laws do not mandate that the power-of-attorney forms be drafted in the presence of an attorney. Anyone with access to the internet can download a free form and coerce the victim into signing it in front of a notary. As the Guardian uncovered, the notaries do not always assure that the individual signing the form is not being coerced. Nor are notaries required to take any training which would help them to identify the signs of coercion.
To deter some of these acts of fraud, New York State recently enacted new laws to expand the protection for individuals drafting a power-of-
attorney. As of September 1, 2009, the new power-of-attorney forms have several new clauses to protect the individual issuing the powers.
The new form’s name alone indicates the changes, the title was changed from “Statutory Short Form Power of Attorney” to “Statutory Short Form and Other Powers of Attorney For Financial Estate Planning”, recognizing the fact that most individuals drafting this form are doing so as part of an estate plan and that the POA should work in tandem with the wishes and directives outlined in the individual’s “Last Will and Testament”.
The new laws do not affect most POA’s already in effect prior to September 1, 2009. However, the law specifically requires new
POA’s for the following types of powers:
§5-1502J for “Construction” authority - for authority over benefits from governmental programs or civil and military service
§5-1502K for “Construction” authority - for authority on health care billing and payment matters; records reports and statements
§5-1504 for “Acceptance of statutory short form power of attorney”;
§5-1510 for “Special Proceedings”
The new state laws expand the definitions used in a POA including “Capacity”. Capacity is now defined by the State to mean “the ability
to comprehend the nature and consequences of the act of executing and granting, revoking, amending or modifying a power of attorney, any
provision in a power of attorney, or the authority of any person to act as agent under a power of attorney”.
In short, the definition as expanded raises questions as to the capacity of a cognitively-impaired, mentally disabled, or victim of dementia, even a mild version, to authorize a POA on their behalf.
Such restrictions may now require legal guardians to be appointed to review a POA for these individuals. While this may appear to be added
protection, the Guardian has revealed in recent months the kickback nature of the guardianship process in our courts, where such appointments routinely are given to attorneys whose only qualification is the amount of their campaign contributions to the judge appointing them. In one local instance, the court appointed a convicted felon to handle the affairs of a disabled young woman who was the victim of Aspersers’. The Surrogate’s Court has never required that this felon account for the $2 million in his care, in defiance with New York State laws. This sad case was reported by the Guardian in February and March of this year. To date, the court has done nothing to rectify this situation.
To circumvent individuals who possess POA’s from “gifting” any funds in their victim’s bank accounts to themselves, the new state law has
expanded its definition of a “Statutory major gifts rider”. According to the law, this rider allows the individual to define who and what they
intend to gift, if anything. The new law mandates that the “statutory major gifts rider and the statutory short form power of attorney it supplements must be read together as a single instrument”. Anyone acting on a POA, and attempting to make a gift to themselves from a bank account or other asset, will now have to produce the gifts rider as evidence along with the POA.
The individual who holds the authorities granted in a POA is referred to as an “agent” since they are acting on behalf of the person who signed
the POA (referred to as the “principal”). The new law has expanded the definition of agent to now include an individual who has a “fiduciary relationship with the principal”. The purpose of this new clause in the law is to avoid circumstances such as the recent organ-selling cases from disabled and poor victims. In this 10-year investigation uncovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, nursing home and health care employees were providing names of individuals who had no family members to the organ-selling ring who then obtained POA’s and other legal rights from their victims, enabling the crime. The new state law attempts to avoid “third-party” POA’s where the individual appointed as agent has no reason to be acting “in the best interests” of the principal.
A person who has a “fiduciary relationship” with another is someone who is legally expected to be acting “in the best interests” of the
other. While this new law has yet to be tested and applied in the courts, it does appear that the intent of the New York State lawmakers is to have agents prove that the purchases and expenditures they were making on behalf of the principal were indeed “in their best interests”. If not, this law could conceivably allow the other family members to legally challenge those purchases and any depletion of assets and funds.
Note – due to the stranglehold that the New York State Bar Association has over the New York State legislature by virtue of their lobbying
efforts and campaign contributions, only an attorney may offer legal advice in the State of New York. Therefore, this reporter cannot state the obvious here without running afoul of local lawyers, so any inferences we make about this new law have to be couched in terms such as “conceivably” and “perhaps” - not our usual direct style of reporting. But the trusts our readers’ ability to decipher this of the new law for themselves!
The new law specifically addresses what happens to a POA when the individual authorizing it becomes incapacitated – the new forms have
a clause that states “this POWER OF ATTORNEY shall not be affected by my subsequent incapacity unless I have stated otherwise below, under
“Modification”. The principal can elect to revoke the POA completely once they become incapacitated. The law also covers the size of the print that must be used on the POA form and specific cautions to be noted to protect the principal signing this form.
A new “Caution” clause has been added to the POA form: “CAUTION TO THE PRINCIPAL: Your power of Attorney is an important document. As the “principal”, you give the person whom you choose (your “agent”) authority to spend your money and sell or dispose of your property
during your lifetime without telling you. You do not lose your authority to act even though you have given your agent similar authority.
When your agent exercises this authority, he or she must act according to any instructions you have provided or, where there are no specific instructions, in your best interests. “Important Information for the Agent” at the end of this document describes your agent’s responsibilities.
Your agent can act on your behalf only after signing the Power of Attorney before a notary public. You can request information from your agent at any time. If you are revoking a prior Power of Attorney by executing this Power of Attorney, you should provide written notice of the revocation to your prior agent(s) and to the financial institutions where your accounts are located.
You can revoke or terminate your Power of Attorney at any time for any reason as long as you are of sound mind. If you are no longer of sound
mind, a court can remove an agent for acting improperly.
Your agent cannot make health care decisions for you. You may execute a ‘Health Care Proxy’ to do this. The law governing Powers of Attorney
is contained in the New York General Obligations Law, Article 5, Title 15. This law is available at a law library, or online through the New York
State Senate or Assembly websites, www.senate.state.ny.us or www.assembly.state.ny.us.
If there is anything about this document that you do not understand, you should ask a lawyer of your own choosing to explain it to you.” In addition, the new law imposes the following obligations upon the agent named in the POA: “When you accept the authority granted under this Power of Attorney, a special legal relationship is created between you and the principal. This relationship imposes on you legal responsibilities
that continue until you resign or the Power of Attorney is terminated or revoked. You must:
• Act according to any instructions from the principal, or, where there are no instructions, in the principal’s best interest;
• Avoid conflicts that would impair your ability to act in the principal’s best interest;
• Keep the principal’s property separate and distinct from any assets you own or control, unless otherwise permitted by law;
• Keep a record of all receipts, payments, and transactions conducted for the principal; and
• Disclose your identity as an agent whenever you act for the principal by writing or printing the principal’s name and signing your own name as “agent” in either of the following manner: (Principal’s Name) by (Your Signature) as Agent, or (your signature) as Agent for (Principal’s Name).”
While this new law instructs to act in the best interest of the principal and in accordance with any written instructions by the principal, it does not address whether those written instructions will hold up in court.
Many local elderly residents have already shifted the control of their assets to other family members to “protect them from Medicare”, under the
advice of their attorneys. Ethical family members understand that those funds are not their own money and hold them aside to be used for their
loved one’s needs.
Since these funds and assets were transferred to other family members before their death, and are then part of that family member’s portfolio,
these funds and assets are not considered to be part of the estate when the elderly individual dies. To assure that the family member holding the transferred assets does not keep them all to themselves, the elderly family member usually leaves written instructions as to how those funds and assets should be distributed upon their demise.
Unfortunately, those written instructions do not hold up in court. The Guardian has evidence of how one local attorney, a Law Secretary with the White Plains Supreme Court, advised his elderly mother to shift $150,000 of her funds to him to “protect them from Medicare”. When she died eight years later, those funds now legally belonged to her son. The attorney’s mother had left written instructions to address the distribution of these funds including allocating a small portion of them to each of her grand-children. But the attorney chose to ignore his dying mother’s
wishes and kept the funds for himself instead. When the children’s mother took this attorney to court to protest him not acting in his mother’s best interests by defying her written instructions, the mother was sanctioned and fined by the judge for daring to pursue this for her children.
So, while the new POA law may allow for written instructions to be followed, court orders in similar instances show that judges ignore these laws. As the Guardian has noted in previous reports on these issues, the courts offer little support to victims of fraud since so many fraud cases are perpetrated by attorneys and officers of the court to begin with. The best defense therefore that an elderly resident has is to find the most trustworthy member of their family, or circle of friends, to entrust the handling of their affairs to.
The new law is explained in detail by the New York State Bar Association in their online publication at www.nysba.org. The NYSBA has provided
a sixty-nine page analysis covering all of the areas of this new law. Since the changes are extensive and cover sensitive areas such as access to medical billing and government records and, since this article cannot be construed by the reader as legal advice, any local resident concerned about their existing power-of-attorneys, or their need for a POA, should consult with a trusted attorney who is experienced in the drafting, and pitfalls, of POA’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
