Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Decision By Federal District Judge Kenneth M. Karas
Illustrates Need To Enact Federal Legislation To Curtail
Prosecutorial Misconduct And Wrongful Conviction
Most readers of The Guardian, indeed, most news-conscious Westchester residents, are by now quite familiar with the outrageous and unlawful
treatment of a young, babyfaced, 16-year-old Peekskill schoolboy, Jeffrey Deskovic, received at the hands of the Peekskill Police, the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, and Medical Examiner’s Office, upon the brutal rape and murder of one of his high school classmates, 15-year-old Angela Correa.
Deskovic, who was maliciously and cynically robbed of 17 years of his youth and young adulthood by mindless, wretched individuals masquerading
as public servants, can never be adequately compensated for all that has been taken both from him and from his loved ones, is nevertheless seeking some nancial award which may help ease the pain, and the developmental and experiential gaps in his life with which he will likely continue to struggle so long as he lives.
Toward that end, since emerging from prison, he has been engaged in a civil rights lawsuit, principally a Section 1983 suit against the agencies and individuals whose deliberate and criminal conduct ruthlessly stole so much of his youth and promise. Amazingly, this young man who emerged from State Prison three years ago, did so without a trace of bitterness or anger, but rather an abiding commitment to working hard to prevent others from undergoing the nightmare of prosecutorial misconduct and wrongful conviction. He has been a tireless advocate, writing and speaking out for legislation to prevent the kind of tyrannical and heinous conduct by state actors under the Color of Law that can best be described as “man’s in-
humanity to man.”
The subject of this Court Report is the action taken by Judge Kenneth M. Karas with respect to a Motion to Dismiss the charges against former
Westchester Assistant District Attorney George Bolen, the chief prosecutor of Jeffrey Deskovic some 20 years ago, for a rape and murder he had
every reason to realize the youngster was totally innocent of.
One would hope that the penultimate nature of the horrific assault on justice that was perpetrated under the supervision and self-serving evil of ADA George Bolen might inspire all engaged in its discovery and reconciliation to carefully consider the global implications of their judgments
and actions particularly with respect to those who have gone to their execution under similar, unthinkable circumstances, and, most importantly, those who may still.
The rape and murder of Angela Correa, a girl he hardly knew, except by sight, on November 17, 1989, would prove to be a tragedy of defining
significance for a 16-year-old school-mate who would quickly become the target of a malicious and mindless campaign to produce a believable “monster” to satisfy the calls for a suspect, anyone who, once taken into custody, would calm the fears of a city consisting of fewer than 7,000 households.
Judge Karas would seem early on to be emphasizing the unlawful aspects of the Peekskill Police Department’s conduct with respect to Deskovic in the rst seven pages of his 35-page decision. Within three weeks of the crime, Detectives Tumolo, Levine, and McIntyre, without one concrete piece of evidence, were convinced that Deskovic was a “person of interest.”
Officer David Levine would, as noted by Karas, despite prior notification of the attachment of counsel, coerce the naive youngster into waiving
his right to counsel, whereupon he and his fellow Peekskill Police Officers surely, under the supervision and awareness of ADA Bolen “interrogated Deskovic on numerous other occasions.”
Judge Karas would seem to go out of his way not only to point out the unlawful activities of the Peekskill Police in their dealings with Deskovic,
but signi cantly emphasized that those same police, with respect to Deskovic’s knowing of details, falsely “represented in police reports, in conversations with prosecutors before trial, at pre-trial hearings, and a trial that these public facts were actually the product of Deskovic’s independent knowledge about the crime.”
When making detailed reference to the horrific January 25th, 1990 scenario under which Jeffrey Deskovic was unlawfully kidnapped by Tumolo,
McIntyre, and Levine while on his way to school, and brought to a virtual torture chamber in Brewster to be interrogated for some eight hours; most of that time attached to a polygraph machine, interestingly Karas initially makes no reference to the polygraph nor then-Putnam County Deputy Sheri Daniel Stephens.
Judge Karas does not fail to note Detective McIntyre’s exclusions from his police report, of any mention of threats of violence against Deskovic,
and the promise that he would “go home and receive mental health treatment” if he simply confessed, as well as Deputy Stephens’ reported false
representation that facts conveyed by Deskovic originated with him rather than the Peekskill Police Officers.”
It should be noted that the whole polygraph confession incident took place in Brewster, some 20 miles away from Peekskill, in a place totally unfamiliar to Deskovic.
Karas takes the opportunity to point out, “Plaintiffs also specifically allege that prosecutors were unaware of the bulk of the Peekskill Police
Departments’ officers’ misconduct and of other potentially exculpatory information.” One would be naive to believe that George Bolen could be, or would be, kept in the dark as to the details of how the false confession was extracted from 16-year-old Jeffrey.
There can be no question that Bolen was the engineer aboard the Runaway Train that the investigation into the rape and murder of Angela Correa
turned into.
The notion that a whole raft of exculpatory information known to Officers Tumolo, Levine and McIntyre, including false representations of Deskovic’s “independent knowledge,” the fabrication of evidence, material facts regarding the circumstances surrounding the “confession,” exculpatory statements from Peekskill High School students, etc., could be concealed from George Bolen, is totally incompatible with all that this
reporter knows about the experience and cunning of that prosecutor.
Judge Karas notes “the DNA test results were returned just days after Deskovic’s indictment,” and, further, that, “the tests definitively excluded
Deskovic as the source of semen found in Angela Correa’s body”, and, also that, “microscopic hair analysis of hairs found on Angela Correa’s
body excluded Deskovic as the source of those hairs.”
What was Bolen’s Big Rush to get an indictment, knowing that DNA and hair follicle results would be coming any day, and would be rock-solid
evidence for presentation to a grand jury. The real issue was whether the FBI lab had already tipped Bolen off.
In all fairness, Karas does indicate that once Bolen was officially notified of the DNA and hair results, he thereafter, as alleged, “directed that additional investigation be done by the Peekskill Police Department, and personally conducted and personally directed further investigation to provide an explanation for the presence of another man’s semen inside Angela Correa following her rape and murder.”
Further, after revealing that Plaintiffs alleged that Bolen and Dr. Luis Roh had determined they would provide evidence that the victim
had scarring on her hymen indicating she had been sexually active, the Judge states, “Bolen knew, or should have known, that Roh [Deputy Chief
Medical Examiner for Westchester County] had no scientific basis for this conclusion, and that he had not observed the scarring he had reported
to Bolen,” without question, exposing the most egregious of George Bolen’s feats of engineering.
Nonetheless, despite his illustration of such malicious prosecutorial misconduct, by Bolen’s own design after the obtaining of a “ham sandwich indictment,” the Judge unfortunately expresses the view that all of his relevant prosecutorial misconduct was in the capacity of
The Peoples’ Advocate, and not in his investigative capacity, where only qualified immunity would be available.
In the discussion section of Judge Karas’ decision, he writes, “The Supreme Court has held that while a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)6
Motion To Dismiss, does not need factual allegations, a Plaintiff ’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitlement to believe’ requires more
than labels and conclusions and a formulaic rescitation of the elements of a Cause Of Action will not do.”
This reporter believes it is more than “mere speculation” that Bolen was aware of the fact that DNA testing had proved the semen and the
hairs found in and on Angela Correa, respectively, were not from Jeffrey Deskovic, fully eight months before he took him to trial with suborned,
perjured testimony.
We firmly believe that at trial Dr. Luis Roh will surely implicate Bolen and very likely tell a jury that the reason he fabricated the scarred hymen
evidence was to help Bolen go forward with his misguided, malicious prosecution of Jeffrey Deskovic. Judge Karas, in discussing absolute
immunity, indicates, “Bolen claims he should be dismissed from Plaintiff ’s actions because he is absolutely immune from Section 1983
liability for his alleged conduct.”
He then cites Burns v. Reed (1991), “Courts recognize absolute immunity for official conduct to the same extent it was recognized at Common Law.” He then informs, quoting from Malley v. Briggs (1986), “Since [Section 1983] on its face does not provide for any immunities [courts would be] going far to read into it an absolute immunity for conduct which was only accorded qualified immunity in 1871, [when the statute was enacted].” Turning to a fairly recent Second Circuit case, Shmueli v. City Of New York (2005), Karas lifts the pronouncement, “It is now well established that a State Prosecuting Attorney who acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution, is immune from civil suit for damages under Section 1983.”
Continuing, he borrows from another Second Circuit decision, Hill v. City Of New York (1995), “Extending absolute immunity to such prosecutorial misconduct insures that public prosecutors can zealously perform the prosecutorial duties of the Office [without being] compelled to work under the constant threat of legal reprisals.”
We would ask whether George Bolen was acting within the scope of his duties when he refused to acknowledge the implication of the negative DNA and hair follicle test results? And, we would further ask whether inventing a terribly defaming and demeaning lie about young victim Angela Correa was also within the scope of his duties? Finally, we would inquire whether “zealous performance” includes unlawful scheming and intentionally sending an innocent 16-year-old child to prison for life, or, whether it is really all about collecting two paychecks a month?
Surely there would be no “retaliation” to worry about if prosecutors were doing what they are supposed to be doing, and not sending innocent persons to prison while turning guilty ones free to repeat their crimes.
Analysis:
If absolute immunity attaches when a prosecutor is acting as “an advocate for the State,” how was George Bolen ever an advocate for the State? The People are the State; and, how is he advocating for the People when he knowingly sends one of the People to prison for a crime he knows, or should know, he is innocent of, while permitting the real perpetrator to roam free, and to kill still another innocent person? Does concocting a false story to negate the DNA evidence of an accused person’s innocence come under, “Appropriate preparation for presentation?”
We contend that George Bolen was clearly a rogue prosecutor outside his role as an Advocate For The People; and that the People did not want Bolen to intentionally strive to send an innocent 16-year-old boy, without any criminal record, to prison for a crime Bolen knew he did not commit.
Judge Karas, citing several cases, explains, “For example, absolute immunity is not available when a prosecutor advises the police whether
probable cause exists during their pre-trial investigation.” We ask, how would such advice differ from a conversation by a prosecutor with
a medical examiner, assuming such exchange was in good faith? After all, both the police and the medical examiner perform an evidence-gathering
function, the product of which must reach a particular threshhold.
When the test results came back negative, Bolen knew he had no probable cause. A forced confession from a scared, 16-year-old boy surely
could not trump DNA and hair follicle evidence that did not match him. Twenty-five pages into his decision, Judge Karas declares, “The
Court finds that even taking the Plaintiff’s allegations to be true, Bolen’s allegedly improper actions took place in the judicial phase of
the criminal process. To begin with, it is important to note that the alleged conduct that forms the basis for Plaintiff’s claims against Bolen
occurred after Deskovic’s indictment.
And, from the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, it is evident not only that Bolen had no reason to doubt bona fides of the indictment, but also
that he had strong reason to believe that Deskovic was guilty based on his supposed confession.”
With all due respect to the Judge; as to the fact that Bolen’s act followed Deskovic’s indictment, it is very clear that Bolen rushed into the grand jury a day or two before he knew he would have the official results and, that the case was intentionally brought to the grand jury
a few days before the DNA and hair follicle results would be officially released for the following reason:
Bolen already knew the results and knew if he officially had them, he would have to acknowledge and explain them, and likely not get his
indictment, and not be eligible for absolute immunity if caught doing what he was about to do with Dr. Roh.
Showing posts with label Court Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court Report. Show all posts
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Hillary Fundraiser Pleads Guilty
In Investment Fraud Scheme
Faces Trial On Campaign Finance Fraud Charges
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NORMAN HSU pleaded guilty to ten counts of mail and wire fraud stemming from his role in an investment fraud scheme that defrauded investors across the United States.
HSU, a resident of New York, New York, pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court to Counts One through Ten of the superseding Indictment in which he is charged before United States District Judge VICTOR MARRERO.
Four counts of the superseding Indictment, charging campaign finance fraud, remain pending against HSU. According to the superseding Indictment led in Manhattan federal court and statements made during HSU’s guilty plea proceedings:
HSU was the Managing Director of two companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd. HSU solicited investments in the companies by promising guaranteed short-term high returns.
The companies would supposedly generate funds to pay those attractive returns by providing short-term financing to other businesses. After receiving money from victim investors, HSU, for a time, paid interest and returned principal as promised. Believing HSU to be trustworthy and the companies to be legitimate and potentially pro table, victims often agreed to roll over their invested funds into new investments with HSU; invest more money with HSU; and recruit friends to invest with HSU. In reality, money returned to earlier investors was paid with money received from subsequent investors.
From 2000 through August 2007, HSU convinced victims to invest at least $60 million in his fraudulent scheme. In the end, after making
some payments intended to perpetuate the scheme, HSU swindled his victims out of at least $20 million.
HSU pleaded guilty to five counts of mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud in connection with the investment fraud scheme. Trial on the remaining campaign finance fraud counts is set to begin on May 11, 2009. As to those charges, HSU is presumed innocent unless and until he is found guilty.
Mr. DASSIN praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of this case. If you believe you are a victim of the Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd. investment fraud, including a victim entitled to restitution, and you wish to provide information to law enforcement and/or receive notice of future developments in the case or additional information, please contact Wendy
Olsen-Clancy, the Victim Witness Coordinator at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at (866)-874-
8900, or Wendy.Olsen@usdoj.gov.
For additional information, go to: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/victimwitness.html on the Internet. This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys KATHERINE A. LEMIRE, ALEXANDER J. WILLSCHER, and RUA M. KELLY are in charge of the prosecution.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Hillary Fundraiser Pleads Guilty
In Investment Fraud Scheme
Faces Trial On Campaign Finance Fraud Charges
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that NORMAN HSU pleaded guilty to ten counts of mail and wire fraud stemming from his role in an investment fraud scheme that defrauded investors across the United States.
HSU, a resident of New York, New York, pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court to Counts One through Ten of the superseding Indictment in which he is charged before United States District Judge VICTOR MARRERO.
Four counts of the superseding Indictment, charging campaign finance fraud, remain pending against HSU. According to the superseding Indictment led in Manhattan federal court and statements made during HSU’s guilty plea proceedings:
HSU was the Managing Director of two companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd. HSU solicited investments in the companies by promising guaranteed short-term high returns.
The companies would supposedly generate funds to pay those attractive returns by providing short-term financing to other businesses. After receiving money from victim investors, HSU, for a time, paid interest and returned principal as promised. Believing HSU to be trustworthy and the companies to be legitimate and potentially pro table, victims often agreed to roll over their invested funds into new investments with HSU; invest more money with HSU; and recruit friends to invest with HSU. In reality, money returned to earlier investors was paid with money received from subsequent investors.
From 2000 through August 2007, HSU convinced victims to invest at least $60 million in his fraudulent scheme. In the end, after making
some payments intended to perpetuate the scheme, HSU swindled his victims out of at least $20 million.
HSU pleaded guilty to five counts of mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud in connection with the investment fraud scheme. Trial on the remaining campaign finance fraud counts is set to begin on May 11, 2009. As to those charges, HSU is presumed innocent unless and until he is found guilty.
Mr. DASSIN praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of this case. If you believe you are a victim of the Components Ltd. and Next Components Ltd. investment fraud, including a victim entitled to restitution, and you wish to provide information to law enforcement and/or receive notice of future developments in the case or additional information, please contact Wendy
Olsen-Clancy, the Victim Witness Coordinator at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, at (866)-874-
8900, or Wendy.Olsen@usdoj.gov.
For additional information, go to: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/victimwitness.html on the Internet. This prosecution is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys KATHERINE A. LEMIRE, ALEXANDER J. WILLSCHER, and RUA M. KELLY are in charge of the prosecution.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Janet Difiore and Chris Ridley Case.
Thursday, April 16, 2009.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Father Of Murdered Heroic Police Officer
Christopher Ridley Sues DA DiFiore In Fed Court
If Allegations Prove Correct, DiFiore Faces Prosecution
Stanley Ridley, father of the late Christopher Ridley, the Mount Vernon Police Officer who lost his life nearly 15 months ago to a bullet fired by a Westchester County cop, has brought a $10 million lawsuit in Federal Court charging Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore with organizing and perpetuating a fraudulent cover-up of a “self-evidently racist murder of an African-American Police Officer”, his son Christopher Ridley, 23, “by a Caucasian County Police Officer.”
The Summons and Complaint filed last Friday, April 10, in United States Federal District Court, White Plains, alleges that DiFiore “enlisted the cooperation of her co-Defendants to hide from Officer Ridley’s father the circumstances under which his son had been executed.” It is further charged that, “DiFiore directed, and Hyland (Chief Medical Examiner Millard Hyland) agreed to keep secret the medical examiner’s report regarding Officer Ridley’s autopsy even though that document is a public record, because it would prove the fatal, albeit unnecessary point-blank gunshot to Officer Ridley’s forehead.” The complaint further charges, “Hyland arranged to have the upper portion of Officer Ridley’s head bandaged while he was in the morgue so that Plaintiff could not see either the entry wound above his left eye or the bulge in the rear of Officer Ridley’s skull.”
Interviewed by The Guardian, Stanley Ridley explained that he was bringing the present federal action against the District Attorney and all of her co-Defendants who have conspired to keep the truth from him and from the public, in an effort to clear his son’s name. In that connection, readers will remember the calculated effort by DA DiFiore to suggest recklessness on Officer Ridley’s part by way of attempting to mitigate the County’s role and responsibility in his tragic death; the whole fiction advanced that Officer Ridley was not displaying his badge while carrying his service weapon; that it was found left in his car.
There is a reason why Janet DiFiore has repeatedly refused to release the video recordings of no fewer than four, and possibly as many as six, cameras mounted on the County Office Building as well as at 85 Court Street, each overlooking the scene of the tragic incident. DiFiore has stubbornly refused to show the un-redacted, un-doctored tapes because they would clearly confirm what several horrified eyewitnesses saw, located within a few feet of Officer Ridley, and have reported, that he was assassinated by Officer Frank Oliveri.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Father Of Murdered Heroic Police Officer
Christopher Ridley Sues DA DiFiore In Fed Court
If Allegations Prove Correct, DiFiore Faces Prosecution
Stanley Ridley, father of the late Christopher Ridley, the Mount Vernon Police Officer who lost his life nearly 15 months ago to a bullet fired by a Westchester County cop, has brought a $10 million lawsuit in Federal Court charging Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore with organizing and perpetuating a fraudulent cover-up of a “self-evidently racist murder of an African-American Police Officer”, his son Christopher Ridley, 23, “by a Caucasian County Police Officer.”
The Summons and Complaint filed last Friday, April 10, in United States Federal District Court, White Plains, alleges that DiFiore “enlisted the cooperation of her co-Defendants to hide from Officer Ridley’s father the circumstances under which his son had been executed.” It is further charged that, “DiFiore directed, and Hyland (Chief Medical Examiner Millard Hyland) agreed to keep secret the medical examiner’s report regarding Officer Ridley’s autopsy even though that document is a public record, because it would prove the fatal, albeit unnecessary point-blank gunshot to Officer Ridley’s forehead.” The complaint further charges, “Hyland arranged to have the upper portion of Officer Ridley’s head bandaged while he was in the morgue so that Plaintiff could not see either the entry wound above his left eye or the bulge in the rear of Officer Ridley’s skull.”
Interviewed by The Guardian, Stanley Ridley explained that he was bringing the present federal action against the District Attorney and all of her co-Defendants who have conspired to keep the truth from him and from the public, in an effort to clear his son’s name. In that connection, readers will remember the calculated effort by DA DiFiore to suggest recklessness on Officer Ridley’s part by way of attempting to mitigate the County’s role and responsibility in his tragic death; the whole fiction advanced that Officer Ridley was not displaying his badge while carrying his service weapon; that it was found left in his car.
There is a reason why Janet DiFiore has repeatedly refused to release the video recordings of no fewer than four, and possibly as many as six, cameras mounted on the County Office Building as well as at 85 Court Street, each overlooking the scene of the tragic incident. DiFiore has stubbornly refused to show the un-redacted, un-doctored tapes because they would clearly confirm what several horrified eyewitnesses saw, located within a few feet of Officer Ridley, and have reported, that he was assassinated by Officer Frank Oliveri.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
City of Mount Vernon.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Gerrie” Post And Wayne Charles Found
Guilty Of Mail Fraud And Conspiracy
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that CONSTANCE G. POST, former Commissioner of the Mount Vernon Department of Planning and Community Development as well as Executive Director of the Mount Vernon Department of Planning and Urban Renewal Agency, and WAYNE CHARLES were found guilty following a month-long jury trial in White Plains federal court on charges stemming from their diversion of more than $2 million in state and federal funds.
As established by the evidence at trial:
POST and CHARLES, who had a romantic relationship, arranged to steer a computer services contract to a company secretly owned by CHARLES. Using the name of a defunct computer services company that a friend had operated, CHARLES concealed from the City of Mount Vernon that he had no computer expertise, no employees, and no ability to perform under the contract. POST hired and directed people to work for CHARLES’ company, which enriched CHARLES but ultimately cost the City more than twice what it would have paid if the employees had worked directly for the City. POST also disregarded the monetary restrictions placed upon her by the Mount Vernon board that approved the computer services contract and steered hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond her authorization to CHARLES.
Separately, in connection with a $500,000 loan awarded by the City to CHARLES to renovate property on Third Street, CHARLES, with the approval of POST, falsely stated that he had not used any other names, and falsely certified that he had no other business with the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Agency.
In fact, CHARLES used numerous false names with the approval and assistance of POST in order to conceal his involvement in various matters in the City. Then, after renovations were complete at the Third Street property, another lender, in accordance with the terms of the City’s loan, repaid $250,000 of the loan, leaving an unpaid balance of $250,000. POST buried the unpaid balance on Mount Vernon’s books via a series of complicated financial transactions, ensuring that CHARLES was not required to repay the loan to Mount Vernon. Years later, in 2005, when federal investigators were examining the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Agency’s financial records, POST retroactively recorded the unpaid balance of the CHARLES loan on the books of the Urban Renewal Agency.
Shortly thereafter, CHARLES made a few payments on the loan, which otherwise remains unpaid. POST also received $30,000 from CHARLES and did not file the financial disclosure forms required by local law for her position.
POST and CHARLES were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and one count of mail fraud. CHARLES was also convicted of making false statements to federal agents who interviewed him in 2006.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 23, 2009, before United States District Judge KENNETH M. KARAS. POST, of Mount Vernon, New York, and CHARLES, of New York City, face up to 20 years in prison on the conspiracy charge and up to 20 years in prison on the mail fraud charge of the Indictment. CHARLES also faces up to five years in prison on the false statement charge. Mr. DASSIN praised the joint efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Inspector General.
Assistant United States Attorneys CYNTHIA K. DUNNE and ANDREW S. DEMBER are in charge of the prosecution.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Gerrie” Post And Wayne Charles Found
Guilty Of Mail Fraud And Conspiracy
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that CONSTANCE G. POST, former Commissioner of the Mount Vernon Department of Planning and Community Development as well as Executive Director of the Mount Vernon Department of Planning and Urban Renewal Agency, and WAYNE CHARLES were found guilty following a month-long jury trial in White Plains federal court on charges stemming from their diversion of more than $2 million in state and federal funds.
As established by the evidence at trial:
POST and CHARLES, who had a romantic relationship, arranged to steer a computer services contract to a company secretly owned by CHARLES. Using the name of a defunct computer services company that a friend had operated, CHARLES concealed from the City of Mount Vernon that he had no computer expertise, no employees, and no ability to perform under the contract. POST hired and directed people to work for CHARLES’ company, which enriched CHARLES but ultimately cost the City more than twice what it would have paid if the employees had worked directly for the City. POST also disregarded the monetary restrictions placed upon her by the Mount Vernon board that approved the computer services contract and steered hundreds of thousands of dollars beyond her authorization to CHARLES.
Separately, in connection with a $500,000 loan awarded by the City to CHARLES to renovate property on Third Street, CHARLES, with the approval of POST, falsely stated that he had not used any other names, and falsely certified that he had no other business with the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Agency.
In fact, CHARLES used numerous false names with the approval and assistance of POST in order to conceal his involvement in various matters in the City. Then, after renovations were complete at the Third Street property, another lender, in accordance with the terms of the City’s loan, repaid $250,000 of the loan, leaving an unpaid balance of $250,000. POST buried the unpaid balance on Mount Vernon’s books via a series of complicated financial transactions, ensuring that CHARLES was not required to repay the loan to Mount Vernon. Years later, in 2005, when federal investigators were examining the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Agency’s financial records, POST retroactively recorded the unpaid balance of the CHARLES loan on the books of the Urban Renewal Agency.
Shortly thereafter, CHARLES made a few payments on the loan, which otherwise remains unpaid. POST also received $30,000 from CHARLES and did not file the financial disclosure forms required by local law for her position.
POST and CHARLES were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and one count of mail fraud. CHARLES was also convicted of making false statements to federal agents who interviewed him in 2006.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 23, 2009, before United States District Judge KENNETH M. KARAS. POST, of Mount Vernon, New York, and CHARLES, of New York City, face up to 20 years in prison on the conspiracy charge and up to 20 years in prison on the mail fraud charge of the Indictment. CHARLES also faces up to five years in prison on the false statement charge. Mr. DASSIN praised the joint efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Inspector General.
Assistant United States Attorneys CYNTHIA K. DUNNE and ANDREW S. DEMBER are in charge of the prosecution.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, April 2, 2009.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
This Retired New York City Police Officer,
Kicked From Pillar To Post, Is No Longer
Willing To Accept The Corruption And
Collusion Of The Ninth Judicial District
Westchester County Bar Association
One North Broadway, Suite 512
White Plains, New York 10601
-----------------------------------------------X
Michael Kelly
SS:
- Against -
Anthony Dellicarri
-----------------------------------------------X
Comes now, Michael Kelly sui juris, on this day March 24, 2009. Matter of Kelly -v- Dellicarri.
Members of the panel, I Michael Kelly present today at the Westchester County Bar Association One North Broadway, New York, 10601 write this affidavit and make it a part of the public record to preserve my Sovereign and Constitutionally protected rights.
This informal hearing scheduled for today March 24, 2009 is designed to act as a court of no record. I have been informed via your staff that no record of this hearing is going to be documented either by a court stenographer or recording devise. Therefore any statements made at said hearing will not be documented and no record will be made.
I hereby wish to retain my right to be heard at a formal hearing fully documented and transcribed. The documents submitted to this panel prove that my civil and criminal files had been retained and not fully turned over to me in a timely fashion by my former attorney Anthony Dellicarri, before his appointment to the position of Senior Assistant District Attorney Rockland County, New York.
My due process rights were violated by not having access to my files. I was denied the right of a hearing because of the fact I did not have my files. Retaliation from the Rockland County District Attorney’s office has been levied against me (Michael Kelly) since the filing of a formal complaint filed with the Grievance Committee.
A prior charge of Harassment 2nd Degree which Mr. Dellicarri was representing me on, was removed from Rockland County Justice Court and the charge was upgraded to Assault 2nd Degree, by the Rockland County District Attorney‘s Office, after Mr. Dellicarri appointment to the position of Senior Prosecutor.
The charge, without a Grand Jury hearing the facts, was reduced back to Harassment 2nd degree and sent back to Justice Court Rockland County, where a trial was conducted. I (Michael Kelly), was found guilty of Harassment 2nd degree and sentenced to 14 days in the Rockland County Correctional Facility and the maximum fine was charged against me, a first time offender.
Now I (Michael Kelly) am directed to partake in this informal hearing that has the potential of destroying any remedies of possible redress in the future. Based upon the numerous submitted correspondences by Mr. Kelly to this panel , which clearly document the facts of this matter, this case should be forwarded to the Grievance Committee where a formal and thorough State investigation is warranted, not an informal hearing with any record held by a panel of Mr. Dellicarri’s peers.
By the fact that this hearing is not being documented it takes on the appearance of impropriety. Please advise me of the date and time of the
hearing that will be documented and the testimony and facts will be part of the record. I thank you for your time and consideration regarding
this matter.
Sworn on this day of our Lord:
Michael Kelly, sui juris
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
This Retired New York City Police Officer,
Kicked From Pillar To Post, Is No Longer
Willing To Accept The Corruption And
Collusion Of The Ninth Judicial District
Westchester County Bar Association
One North Broadway, Suite 512
White Plains, New York 10601
-----------------------------------------------X
Michael Kelly
SS:
- Against -
Anthony Dellicarri
-----------------------------------------------X
Comes now, Michael Kelly sui juris, on this day March 24, 2009. Matter of Kelly -v- Dellicarri.
Members of the panel, I Michael Kelly present today at the Westchester County Bar Association One North Broadway, New York, 10601 write this affidavit and make it a part of the public record to preserve my Sovereign and Constitutionally protected rights.
This informal hearing scheduled for today March 24, 2009 is designed to act as a court of no record. I have been informed via your staff that no record of this hearing is going to be documented either by a court stenographer or recording devise. Therefore any statements made at said hearing will not be documented and no record will be made.
I hereby wish to retain my right to be heard at a formal hearing fully documented and transcribed. The documents submitted to this panel prove that my civil and criminal files had been retained and not fully turned over to me in a timely fashion by my former attorney Anthony Dellicarri, before his appointment to the position of Senior Assistant District Attorney Rockland County, New York.
My due process rights were violated by not having access to my files. I was denied the right of a hearing because of the fact I did not have my files. Retaliation from the Rockland County District Attorney’s office has been levied against me (Michael Kelly) since the filing of a formal complaint filed with the Grievance Committee.
A prior charge of Harassment 2nd Degree which Mr. Dellicarri was representing me on, was removed from Rockland County Justice Court and the charge was upgraded to Assault 2nd Degree, by the Rockland County District Attorney‘s Office, after Mr. Dellicarri appointment to the position of Senior Prosecutor.
The charge, without a Grand Jury hearing the facts, was reduced back to Harassment 2nd degree and sent back to Justice Court Rockland County, where a trial was conducted. I (Michael Kelly), was found guilty of Harassment 2nd degree and sentenced to 14 days in the Rockland County Correctional Facility and the maximum fine was charged against me, a first time offender.
Now I (Michael Kelly) am directed to partake in this informal hearing that has the potential of destroying any remedies of possible redress in the future. Based upon the numerous submitted correspondences by Mr. Kelly to this panel , which clearly document the facts of this matter, this case should be forwarded to the Grievance Committee where a formal and thorough State investigation is warranted, not an informal hearing with any record held by a panel of Mr. Dellicarri’s peers.
By the fact that this hearing is not being documented it takes on the appearance of impropriety. Please advise me of the date and time of the
hearing that will be documented and the testimony and facts will be part of the record. I thank you for your time and consideration regarding
this matter.
Sworn on this day of our Lord:
Michael Kelly, sui juris
Thursday, March 26, 2009
David Chong and Janet Difiore.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Parents File Suit In Federal Court On
Behalf Of Children Brutalized By
Mount Vernon And Yonkers Police
Last Wednesday, March 18, Civil Rights Attorney Jonathan Lovett, accompanied by parents of three boys, all African-American, ages 12, 13 and 13, as well as the 12-year-old himself, held a press conference on the Mount Vernon City Hall Plaza opposite Police Headquarters to announce the filing of a $6 million federal lawsuit.
The suit filed specifically against 14-year-veteran Mount Vernon Police Sergeant Michael Marcucilli and several unnamed police officers from both the Mount Vernon and Yonkers Police Departments, as well as each of those cities, alleges violations of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, carried out against each of the three boys as well as the mother of one of the boys.
With respect to the three young boys, the complaint charges that on February 28, 2009, Sergeant Marcucilli and Mount Vernon and Yonkers
police officers, including a K-9 handler and his dog, responded to an alarm at the A.B. Davis Middle School on Gramatan Ave., Mount Vernon. Having arrived at the scene, the complaint further alleges that they observed the three young boys and “agreed to collectively beat and/or otherwise physically abuse and verbally intimidate them because of their race and/or skin color.”
Specifically, the complaint alleges one boy, the 12-year-old, was shouted to with, “Where are you going, nigger?”, was punched several times in the face, and ordered, “Shut up, nigger” when he told the officer beating him and pushing his face into the dirt, “I’m only 12 years old.
Why are you doing this to me?” It is further alleged that he was handcuffed behind and struck repeatedly with a metal baton on the left side of his head, causing a serious injury to his left ear requiring 19 stitches and more than two hours of surgery to stop the bleeding.
The boy’s father declared, “You are not going to beat my son like a piece of meat.” Demanding the badges of the officers involved, he said, “Nobody deserves to be beaten like that. This is unacceptable.”
The boy’s mother explained to reporters how the police lied to her about how he was injured, trying to say that her son had fallen down
stairs. She told of telephone harassment from the Mount Vernon Police and of their coming around her house to intimidate her and her family. The mother of a second boy, a Mount Vernon schoolteacher, was, herself, the target of harassment and police brutality by the same Sergeant Marcucilli several weeks before the incident involving the three boys.
Following a bogus traffic stop, she reportedly was pulled from her car and beaten with a metal baton, inflicting serious bruises to her leg.
Her 13-year-old son was choked by his sweatshirt from behind for “an extended period of time, placing him in fear that he might suffer an asthma attack and die,” and causing a serious welt on his neck. Police lied about the nature of his injury as well.
The third boy, also 13 years old, was bitten and repeatedly mauled by the police dog called in with his handler from the Yonkers Police Department K-9 Unit, “while he was on the ground helpless.” At the same moment, he was beaten with a baton and told, “Get your fat black ass up.” Attorney Jonathan Lovett told the media and press, “Juries in federal court are smart, and they know racism when they see it.” Asked about the District Attorney, Janet DiFiore, and her statement that she was going to investigate the incident, Lovett declared, “For her to claim that she is going to investigate is ludicrous, given that my clients are charged with felonies. She ought to dismiss all of the charges against these children.”
Damon K. Jones, executive director of the Westchester chapter of the National Black Police Association told reporters, “This is normal
activity in the Westchester community.” He called for the resignation of DA Janet Difiore and Police Commissioner David Chong.
Reverend W. Franklyn Richardson expressed his outrage at what had been done to the three young boys and one of their mothers, declaring,
with respect to the police officers involved, “Call us nigger, beat up our children; and, we pay you?”
Asked by this reporter if he intended to go to the district attorney about the incident, Richardson responded that he had already spoken with DiFiore the day before. Apparently he took little comfort from what she may have said as he was still very angry and outraged. Richardson concluded his remarks, predicting and threatening, “The People will march in the streets over racist police brutality.”
Mount Vernon Mayor Young And
Police Commissioner Chong Offer No
Comfort, No Assurances To Outraged Citizens
Immediately following the press conference held by the parents of three young African-American boys savaged and racially attacked by a combined task force of Mount Vernon and Yonkers police, Mount Vernon Mayor Clinton I. Young and Police Commissioner David Chong held a press conference of their own in the Mayor’s Chambers.
Mayor Young got off on the wrong foot, declaring, “If the purpose of bringing a lawsuit is to divide this City, that will not be accomplished.” He then attempted to appear to be on the right side of the issue, saying, “Even the mere allegation of excessive force is troubling to me.”
Young then made an effort to reassure the media and, in turn, the citizens of the Mount Vernon community that the Mount Vernon Police Department’s Internal Investigation Unit, and the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, would produce the truth and see to it that any
wrongdoers were dealt with.
Police Commissioner Chong followed the Mayor, also attempting to calm the outrage and the anger brought on by the racial and violent character of the excessive punishment meted out by his police officers acting in concert with Yonkers police officers, in a scenario very reminiscent of Selma, Alabama in the early 60s. Given the description of what had been done to three young boys, all that was missing
were the pressure hoses. Chong also emphasized that the DA’s Office was investigating.
When the Mayor once again spoke, he attempted to urge the children and their parents to cooperate with the District Attorney. At that point, this reporter asked the Mayor, “How can you and Commissioner Chong expect people to feel confident about the District Attorney’s
involvement in light of her repeated history of prosecuting victims of police brutality as in the Irma Marquez and Rui Florim cases, and many others not so well known?”
The Mayor could not respond directly, and instead, indicated that he preferred to concentrate on “the elements of the Mount Vernon case.”
Parents File Suit In Federal Court On
Behalf Of Children Brutalized By
Mount Vernon And Yonkers Police
Last Wednesday, March 18, Civil Rights Attorney Jonathan Lovett, accompanied by parents of three boys, all African-American, ages 12, 13 and 13, as well as the 12-year-old himself, held a press conference on the Mount Vernon City Hall Plaza opposite Police Headquarters to announce the filing of a $6 million federal lawsuit.
The suit filed specifically against 14-year-veteran Mount Vernon Police Sergeant Michael Marcucilli and several unnamed police officers from both the Mount Vernon and Yonkers Police Departments, as well as each of those cities, alleges violations of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1985, carried out against each of the three boys as well as the mother of one of the boys.
With respect to the three young boys, the complaint charges that on February 28, 2009, Sergeant Marcucilli and Mount Vernon and Yonkers
police officers, including a K-9 handler and his dog, responded to an alarm at the A.B. Davis Middle School on Gramatan Ave., Mount Vernon. Having arrived at the scene, the complaint further alleges that they observed the three young boys and “agreed to collectively beat and/or otherwise physically abuse and verbally intimidate them because of their race and/or skin color.”
Specifically, the complaint alleges one boy, the 12-year-old, was shouted to with, “Where are you going, nigger?”, was punched several times in the face, and ordered, “Shut up, nigger” when he told the officer beating him and pushing his face into the dirt, “I’m only 12 years old.
Why are you doing this to me?” It is further alleged that he was handcuffed behind and struck repeatedly with a metal baton on the left side of his head, causing a serious injury to his left ear requiring 19 stitches and more than two hours of surgery to stop the bleeding.
The boy’s father declared, “You are not going to beat my son like a piece of meat.” Demanding the badges of the officers involved, he said, “Nobody deserves to be beaten like that. This is unacceptable.”
The boy’s mother explained to reporters how the police lied to her about how he was injured, trying to say that her son had fallen down
stairs. She told of telephone harassment from the Mount Vernon Police and of their coming around her house to intimidate her and her family. The mother of a second boy, a Mount Vernon schoolteacher, was, herself, the target of harassment and police brutality by the same Sergeant Marcucilli several weeks before the incident involving the three boys.
Following a bogus traffic stop, she reportedly was pulled from her car and beaten with a metal baton, inflicting serious bruises to her leg.
Her 13-year-old son was choked by his sweatshirt from behind for “an extended period of time, placing him in fear that he might suffer an asthma attack and die,” and causing a serious welt on his neck. Police lied about the nature of his injury as well.
The third boy, also 13 years old, was bitten and repeatedly mauled by the police dog called in with his handler from the Yonkers Police Department K-9 Unit, “while he was on the ground helpless.” At the same moment, he was beaten with a baton and told, “Get your fat black ass up.” Attorney Jonathan Lovett told the media and press, “Juries in federal court are smart, and they know racism when they see it.” Asked about the District Attorney, Janet DiFiore, and her statement that she was going to investigate the incident, Lovett declared, “For her to claim that she is going to investigate is ludicrous, given that my clients are charged with felonies. She ought to dismiss all of the charges against these children.”
Damon K. Jones, executive director of the Westchester chapter of the National Black Police Association told reporters, “This is normal
activity in the Westchester community.” He called for the resignation of DA Janet Difiore and Police Commissioner David Chong.
Reverend W. Franklyn Richardson expressed his outrage at what had been done to the three young boys and one of their mothers, declaring,
with respect to the police officers involved, “Call us nigger, beat up our children; and, we pay you?”
Asked by this reporter if he intended to go to the district attorney about the incident, Richardson responded that he had already spoken with DiFiore the day before. Apparently he took little comfort from what she may have said as he was still very angry and outraged. Richardson concluded his remarks, predicting and threatening, “The People will march in the streets over racist police brutality.”
Mount Vernon Mayor Young And
Police Commissioner Chong Offer No
Comfort, No Assurances To Outraged Citizens
Immediately following the press conference held by the parents of three young African-American boys savaged and racially attacked by a combined task force of Mount Vernon and Yonkers police, Mount Vernon Mayor Clinton I. Young and Police Commissioner David Chong held a press conference of their own in the Mayor’s Chambers.
Mayor Young got off on the wrong foot, declaring, “If the purpose of bringing a lawsuit is to divide this City, that will not be accomplished.” He then attempted to appear to be on the right side of the issue, saying, “Even the mere allegation of excessive force is troubling to me.”
Young then made an effort to reassure the media and, in turn, the citizens of the Mount Vernon community that the Mount Vernon Police Department’s Internal Investigation Unit, and the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, would produce the truth and see to it that any
wrongdoers were dealt with.
Police Commissioner Chong followed the Mayor, also attempting to calm the outrage and the anger brought on by the racial and violent character of the excessive punishment meted out by his police officers acting in concert with Yonkers police officers, in a scenario very reminiscent of Selma, Alabama in the early 60s. Given the description of what had been done to three young boys, all that was missing
were the pressure hoses. Chong also emphasized that the DA’s Office was investigating.
When the Mayor once again spoke, he attempted to urge the children and their parents to cooperate with the District Attorney. At that point, this reporter asked the Mayor, “How can you and Commissioner Chong expect people to feel confident about the District Attorney’s
involvement in light of her repeated history of prosecuting victims of police brutality as in the Irma Marquez and Rui Florim cases, and many others not so well known?”
The Mayor could not respond directly, and instead, indicated that he preferred to concentrate on “the elements of the Mount Vernon case.”
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Court Report
By Rcihard Blassberg
Mount Vernon Police Call In Yonkers K-9
Squad To Help Punish 3 Young Boys
12-Year-Old’s Ear Torn Open By Police Baton; Requiring 19 Stitches
Three boys, whose names we are withholding because of their ages, friends 12, 13 and 14 years old, kids who should have known better; kids
who play Little League baseball, and one of whose dad is a coach, were clearly up to mischief at A.B. Davis Middle School in Mount Vernon, the school two of them attend, Saturday evening, Feb. 28. They were going through the hall and had written on the locker of a friend or two, by their own admission. Their activity set off an alarm which sent a six-man contingent of Mount Vernon police to the school under the supervision of Sergeant Michael Marcucilli, a 14-year veteran of the Department.
By their own account, the Mount Vernon Police arrived on the scene some time after 8pm, and, apparently decided that six armed police officers were not sufficient to handle and bring the situation under control; and so, not having access to their own police dog, they called in the Yonkers Police Department’s K-9 Unit.
What followed next played out like a scene from Selma, Alabama in the early 60s. A combined force of ten police officers, all White, with dogs, attacked the youths. All that was missing were the high-pressure water hoses. The youngest boy, upon seeing the flashlight of police, headed for the door. Once outside he was grabbed, handcuffed behind his back, and pushed face-first into the dirt, with two cops, one of them Sergeant Marcucilli, on his back. He was getting a beating with a metal retractable baton and punched in the face each time he lifted his head to breathe. When he cried out, “I’m 12 years old, why are you doing this?” he was told, “Shut up, nigger.”
He was struck so hard with the baton to his head that it tore open his left ear, causing profuse bleeding that required 19 stitches to repair. He was yelled at and told that he had better not tell anyone what was done to him; that he had better say that he fell down the stairs, or else they would come get him and beat him again.
His two friends, who remained inside the building, fared no better. One 13, the other 14, who was from New Rochelle, were each mauled by
the police dogs turned loose on them for no good reason. Additionally, the boy from New Rochelle was choked repeatedly with his hooded sweatshirt, leaving a large mark on his neck resembling a rope burn.
The fact is the three boys were beaten, bitten, and bleeding so badly that the police were compelled to call for medical units to transport them directly to Mount Vernon Hospital. At the hospital, the police continued to repeat the lie to the boys’ parents that one of them had fallen down stairs and another had nearly gone over a wall attempting to escape them. The 12-year-old, who weighs all of 120 lbs, and is 5 feet 6 inches tall, in addition to his lacerated ear, came away with a broken nose, a black eye, and severely sore ribs. For 10 days he required strong medication for severe headaches and body soreness. His parents, who we met four days after the incident, his mother in particular,
were so fearful from repeated harassing calls and drive-by surveillance of their apartment by the Mount Vernon Police, that they left their home and moved in with relatives in The Bronx. The mother of the oldest boy, from New Rochelle, as it happens, is a teacher in the Mount Vernon school system who, weeks before the incident, had been pulled over in Mount Vernon supposedly for running a stop sign, pulled out of her car after having been issued summonses and beaten and bruised on her leg with a metal baton. Then, as is so often done to cover up unjustifiable police brutality, she was falsely charged with assaulting the cop and with disorderly conduct.
Analysis:
The old expression, “Boys will be boys,” would ordinarily suffice to explain why three youngsters, such as the ones in question in this case, might wander into their school at night and engage in simple mischief. There’s no excuse for their wrongful behavior. However, there was no robbery, no serious vandalism or destruction involved. They were simply engaged in delinquent activity. Nevertheless, their parents should have known where each of them was at 8:30pm on a Saturday night, particularly in the city of Mount Vernon, that has seen so much gang
and youthful violence in recent years.
Having said that, there’s simply no excuse for the police brutality quite literally unleased upon three young boys; no excuse for the racial remarks, the meting out of extreme physical punishment, or the harassment of family members that followed. That was police misconduct of the worst kind, and will very likely be met with both a state and federal court response.
The fact that the three boys were Black, and all of the responding police officers were White, including the Yonkers cops, and that there was
the use of racial slurs accompanying a definite over-reaction and abusive force would seem to call for a thorough investigation by the FBI,
particularly in light of involvement by the Yonkers Police, a department already under federal investigation for police brutality for more than two years.
The officers involved, especially those who punched and beat these youths, need to be tested for anabolic steroids, and, at the very least, must be given comprehensive sensitivity and youth training if they are deemed worthy of retaining. Any notion of an internal investigation is unrealistic and unacceptable, as is involvement by the Westchester District Attorney’s Public Integrity Bureau under ADA Mike Hughes.
That office has shown us, in case after case, that it is incapable of conducting an unbiased investigation and arriving at a truthful conclusion when police brutality is involved, as demonstrated in the Irma Marquez and Rui Florem and Bostwick cases, to name but a few.
Mount Vernon Police Commissioner Chong’s public response to the release of Sgt. Marcucilli’s name and the names of other police officers
involved, his expressions of displeasure, certainly do not auger well for a just and comprehensive handling and resolution of this shocking incident. What we are witnessing, with increased frequency in several Westchester communities, is the phenomenon of out-of-control, over-reactive, brutal police officers taking the law into their own hands without fear of prosecution by the Westchester District Attorney, Janet DiFiore. Sadly, she has demonstrated, in case after case, particularly in cases out of Yonkers and Mount Vernon; her incredible unwillingness to protect innocent civilians from the unlawful actions of rogue cops. By her failure to discharge her sworn duty, she encourages police brutality.
The Court Report
By Rcihard Blassberg
Mount Vernon Police Call In Yonkers K-9
Squad To Help Punish 3 Young Boys
12-Year-Old’s Ear Torn Open By Police Baton; Requiring 19 Stitches
Three boys, whose names we are withholding because of their ages, friends 12, 13 and 14 years old, kids who should have known better; kids
who play Little League baseball, and one of whose dad is a coach, were clearly up to mischief at A.B. Davis Middle School in Mount Vernon, the school two of them attend, Saturday evening, Feb. 28. They were going through the hall and had written on the locker of a friend or two, by their own admission. Their activity set off an alarm which sent a six-man contingent of Mount Vernon police to the school under the supervision of Sergeant Michael Marcucilli, a 14-year veteran of the Department.
By their own account, the Mount Vernon Police arrived on the scene some time after 8pm, and, apparently decided that six armed police officers were not sufficient to handle and bring the situation under control; and so, not having access to their own police dog, they called in the Yonkers Police Department’s K-9 Unit.
What followed next played out like a scene from Selma, Alabama in the early 60s. A combined force of ten police officers, all White, with dogs, attacked the youths. All that was missing were the high-pressure water hoses. The youngest boy, upon seeing the flashlight of police, headed for the door. Once outside he was grabbed, handcuffed behind his back, and pushed face-first into the dirt, with two cops, one of them Sergeant Marcucilli, on his back. He was getting a beating with a metal retractable baton and punched in the face each time he lifted his head to breathe. When he cried out, “I’m 12 years old, why are you doing this?” he was told, “Shut up, nigger.”
He was struck so hard with the baton to his head that it tore open his left ear, causing profuse bleeding that required 19 stitches to repair. He was yelled at and told that he had better not tell anyone what was done to him; that he had better say that he fell down the stairs, or else they would come get him and beat him again.
His two friends, who remained inside the building, fared no better. One 13, the other 14, who was from New Rochelle, were each mauled by
the police dogs turned loose on them for no good reason. Additionally, the boy from New Rochelle was choked repeatedly with his hooded sweatshirt, leaving a large mark on his neck resembling a rope burn.
The fact is the three boys were beaten, bitten, and bleeding so badly that the police were compelled to call for medical units to transport them directly to Mount Vernon Hospital. At the hospital, the police continued to repeat the lie to the boys’ parents that one of them had fallen down stairs and another had nearly gone over a wall attempting to escape them. The 12-year-old, who weighs all of 120 lbs, and is 5 feet 6 inches tall, in addition to his lacerated ear, came away with a broken nose, a black eye, and severely sore ribs. For 10 days he required strong medication for severe headaches and body soreness. His parents, who we met four days after the incident, his mother in particular,
were so fearful from repeated harassing calls and drive-by surveillance of their apartment by the Mount Vernon Police, that they left their home and moved in with relatives in The Bronx. The mother of the oldest boy, from New Rochelle, as it happens, is a teacher in the Mount Vernon school system who, weeks before the incident, had been pulled over in Mount Vernon supposedly for running a stop sign, pulled out of her car after having been issued summonses and beaten and bruised on her leg with a metal baton. Then, as is so often done to cover up unjustifiable police brutality, she was falsely charged with assaulting the cop and with disorderly conduct.
Analysis:
The old expression, “Boys will be boys,” would ordinarily suffice to explain why three youngsters, such as the ones in question in this case, might wander into their school at night and engage in simple mischief. There’s no excuse for their wrongful behavior. However, there was no robbery, no serious vandalism or destruction involved. They were simply engaged in delinquent activity. Nevertheless, their parents should have known where each of them was at 8:30pm on a Saturday night, particularly in the city of Mount Vernon, that has seen so much gang
and youthful violence in recent years.
Having said that, there’s simply no excuse for the police brutality quite literally unleased upon three young boys; no excuse for the racial remarks, the meting out of extreme physical punishment, or the harassment of family members that followed. That was police misconduct of the worst kind, and will very likely be met with both a state and federal court response.
The fact that the three boys were Black, and all of the responding police officers were White, including the Yonkers cops, and that there was
the use of racial slurs accompanying a definite over-reaction and abusive force would seem to call for a thorough investigation by the FBI,
particularly in light of involvement by the Yonkers Police, a department already under federal investigation for police brutality for more than two years.
The officers involved, especially those who punched and beat these youths, need to be tested for anabolic steroids, and, at the very least, must be given comprehensive sensitivity and youth training if they are deemed worthy of retaining. Any notion of an internal investigation is unrealistic and unacceptable, as is involvement by the Westchester District Attorney’s Public Integrity Bureau under ADA Mike Hughes.
That office has shown us, in case after case, that it is incapable of conducting an unbiased investigation and arriving at a truthful conclusion when police brutality is involved, as demonstrated in the Irma Marquez and Rui Florem and Bostwick cases, to name but a few.
Mount Vernon Police Commissioner Chong’s public response to the release of Sgt. Marcucilli’s name and the names of other police officers
involved, his expressions of displeasure, certainly do not auger well for a just and comprehensive handling and resolution of this shocking incident. What we are witnessing, with increased frequency in several Westchester communities, is the phenomenon of out-of-control, over-reactive, brutal police officers taking the law into their own hands without fear of prosecution by the Westchester District Attorney, Janet DiFiore. Sadly, she has demonstrated, in case after case, particularly in cases out of Yonkers and Mount Vernon; her incredible unwillingness to protect innocent civilians from the unlawful actions of rogue cops. By her failure to discharge her sworn duty, she encourages police brutality.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/City of Mount Vernon.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
‘Gerrie’ Post And Wayne Charles Go To
Prosecutor-Predicted Four Week Trial
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
The fraud case of former Mount Vernon Planning, and Housing Commissioner, Constance Post, 59, better known to her friends and people around
City Hall as ‘Gerrie’, and her reputed lover, Wayne Charles, a small-time real estate speculator and developer, finally got underway last Tuesday afternoon following a weather cancellation on Monday, and the need for District Court Judge Kenneth M. Karas to deal with three of the 16
jurors who had been seated the previous Friday.
The thrust of the Government’s case against the pair involves the alleged steering of some $2.3 million in loans and city contracts by Post to Charles over several years, for which lead Prosecutor Cynthia Dunne told the jury, in her opening statement, “The evidence will show that while Charles was riding high, he gave post $30,000.”
Assistant United States Attorney Dunne, who readers will recall is also the lead prosecutor in the Paul Cote case, told the jurors, “This case is about fraud, theft, and corruption,” explaining that it was Post’s calculated intention to wrongfully enrich Wayne Charles, 56, and ultimately enter into business with him. Attempting to tie the Defendants tightly together in a common scheme, Dunne declared, “It’s about two people who lied and cheated to enrich themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Dunne said, “The most important Defendant is Constance Post. Post, and her very close friend, took advantage of funds available. Post made it
a priority to see that Mr. Charles got city contracts.”
Labeling it, “A brief overview,’ Dunne launched into the history of the company known as Micros Only, previously owned and operated by an associate of Charles, named Dante Brown. She explained how Charles, without Brown’s knowledge, set up checking accounts in the name of Micros Only Computer Concepts, Inc., thereby establishing a vehicle and depository into which funds from the City of Mount Vernon, in payment for computer technology services, ostensibly performed by Micros Only, could be deposited and disbursed under the control of Wayne Charles. Dunne explained that Charles involved his sister in the setting up and servicing of the bank accounts, thereby avoiding recognition and identification
with the flow of funds. Dunne explained that Post went far beyond steering computer technology business to Charles’ fraudulent business, declaring,
“Post took additional steps. She used HUD funds which were meant for housing and recreational uses.”
She explained further, to the jurors, “The City Council had placed specific caps on how much could be paid to Micros. When $80,000 was authorized, she [Post], in fact, released $335,000.”
Dunne indicated that in the following year Post moved more than $600,000 to Wayne Charles’ businesses, and, that when the City tightened the reins, she saw to it that her close friend obtained “A $500,000 loan by fraud as “Charles falsely swore he had no other relationship with the City.”
Dunne then pointed out to the jury that Mr. Charles had only repaid half of the loan, and that was several years later. Dunne went on to explain that there was a garage security contract for which Charles received $700,000, “even though he had no employees.” She pointed to the figure on a projection screen, to the jury, of $2,356,083.77 as the Government’s calculated “total of the funds that post arranged to be paid to Charles.”
Dunne assured the jurors that there would be abundant proof, “the testimony of many witnesses, lots of records and charts, the Defendant’s [Constance Post] very own words at public meetings.”
She concluded, telling the jury, “It’s about improper secret dealings, misuse of federal money, private benefits to the Defendants, and the abuse of trust to steer $2.3 million to Charles.”
Dunne then made the very high-minded statement, “Our system of government depends upon the absolute integrity of public servants.” Her opening statement took 38 minutes.
Defense Attorney Andrew Rubin, representing Gerrie Post, opened his comments with, “You just heard a lot of awful bad things about Ms. Post. The Government doesn’t have any evidence of any crimes Ms. Post has committed, any crimes.”
To illustrate his point Rubin said, “Wick Security [a firm put together by Wayne Charles] was a closed bid and Ms. Post had nothing to do with it.”
Rubin went on, “The Government will not be able to prove that Gerrie Post defrauded the City of Mount Vernon out of property or out of her honest services.”
Having said that, he reminded the jury, “The standard is whether the Government proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no evidence of
a business relationship between Gerrie Post and Wayne Charles.”
He informed the jurors that Post had worked for Mount Vernon for 27 years, under Mayors Sharpe, Blackwood, and Davis. He did “admit”, however, that there had been some sloppy record keeping on his client’s watch. He then turned stern and declared, “The Government will not be able to prove that she knew of Wayne Charles’ ownership of Micros Only.”
Then turning to the $500,000 loan that Charles had received, Attorney Rubin said, “Thirty three building owners received grants. Eleven loans were given out, and four loans were lost. The City of Mount Vernon got the benefit of the bargain for what it paid.”
Attempting to put his client’s position in perspective, Rubin told the jurors, “She presented hundreds of proposals over a 15-year period. This case is based upon innuendo and speculation.” His remarks on behalf of Gerrie Post took all of 22 minutes.
Attorney Richard Levitt, speaking on behalf of Wayne Charles, immediately acknowledged that his client, “doesn’t dot every ‘i’ or cross every ‘t’.”
He quickly shifted his comments to his client’s project on Third Street, the building improvement for which he had reportedly borrowed the $500,000. He emphasized to the jurors, “The Third Street corridor was dirty and dangerous,” by way of putting his client into a favorable light for having attempted, and succeeded, in rehabilitating the small, multi-family dwelling at a rat-infested, filthy site.
Levitt told the jury of his client’s trips to China in 1997 and 1998, accompanied by Mayor Davis and Gerrie Post. He explained that it was during those trips that his client got to know Gerrie Post.
He attempted to clarify the charges against Charles: two frauds, the $500,000 loan, and the Micros Only contract, plus a charge of having made false statements to government agents when he was questioned.
Levitt concluded, telling the jurors, “This case is not about the Charles/Post relationship.” He assured them that his client “Didn’t intend to defraud, and did not conspire to deny Mount Vernon Ms. Post’s honest services.”
Analysis:
It would appear up-front that this case is going to be a typical Cynthia Dunne prosecution. By that I mean it is obvious, upon examining the three-count, 13-page indictment against Gerrie Post and Wayne Charles, given the Prosecution’s promise of 40 witnesses, that what will be brought
out will read like a badly redacted, cut-and-pasted soap opera, wherein a substantial cast of supporting actors will be covered up as the story line jumps from one scene to another, in a concerted effort to not reveal the actionable activities of co-conspirators-turned-Government-witnesses;
maybe even Ernie Davis, himself.
It is simply Attorney Dunne’s style to leave on the cutting room floor so much truth as is necessary to more convincingly project the confabulation she believes works best for her in terms of getting a conviction of those she chooses to destroy.
For example, in the Paul Cote case, the Prosecutor who just told this jury, “Our system of government depends upon the absolute integrity of public servants,” chose to prosecute the man she knew damned well was not responsible for inmate Zorn Teodorovic’s ultimate death by using the man, John Mark Reimer, who was responsible, as her key witness. ‘Where is public servant Cynthia Dunne’s integrity?’
After all, if what Dunne was eliciting from Reimer even remotely resembled the truth, why did it require 17 hours of rehearsal, with her, for Reimer to get his story straight at trial?
So much for the Prosecution’s case.
As for Defense strategy, it would appear that both Andy Rubin, for Post, and Richard Levitt, for Charles, hope to convince the jurors that what transpired between their clients, as well as between them and numerous so-called public servants in the City of Mount Vernon Municipal Administration for some eight years, until 2005, was so common around City Hall as to be hardly worthy of mention, much less federal
prosecution.
If, aside from a trash hauler with an established problem with the law, and a sanitation supervisor with whom he did business with the City, Gerrie Post and her boyfriend, Wayne Charles, are all that Michael Garcia & Co. could pull out of Mount Vernon after three-plus years of intensive investigation, with high public participation, then we have a sense something isn’t quite right about that investigation and the present prosecution.
After all, if what Dunne was eliciting from Reimer even remotely resembled the truth, why did it require 17 hours of rehearsal, with her, for Reimer to get his story straight at trial?
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
‘Gerrie’ Post And Wayne Charles Go To
Prosecutor-Predicted Four Week Trial
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
The fraud case of former Mount Vernon Planning, and Housing Commissioner, Constance Post, 59, better known to her friends and people around
City Hall as ‘Gerrie’, and her reputed lover, Wayne Charles, a small-time real estate speculator and developer, finally got underway last Tuesday afternoon following a weather cancellation on Monday, and the need for District Court Judge Kenneth M. Karas to deal with three of the 16
jurors who had been seated the previous Friday.
The thrust of the Government’s case against the pair involves the alleged steering of some $2.3 million in loans and city contracts by Post to Charles over several years, for which lead Prosecutor Cynthia Dunne told the jury, in her opening statement, “The evidence will show that while Charles was riding high, he gave post $30,000.”
Assistant United States Attorney Dunne, who readers will recall is also the lead prosecutor in the Paul Cote case, told the jurors, “This case is about fraud, theft, and corruption,” explaining that it was Post’s calculated intention to wrongfully enrich Wayne Charles, 56, and ultimately enter into business with him. Attempting to tie the Defendants tightly together in a common scheme, Dunne declared, “It’s about two people who lied and cheated to enrich themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Dunne said, “The most important Defendant is Constance Post. Post, and her very close friend, took advantage of funds available. Post made it
a priority to see that Mr. Charles got city contracts.”
Labeling it, “A brief overview,’ Dunne launched into the history of the company known as Micros Only, previously owned and operated by an associate of Charles, named Dante Brown. She explained how Charles, without Brown’s knowledge, set up checking accounts in the name of Micros Only Computer Concepts, Inc., thereby establishing a vehicle and depository into which funds from the City of Mount Vernon, in payment for computer technology services, ostensibly performed by Micros Only, could be deposited and disbursed under the control of Wayne Charles. Dunne explained that Charles involved his sister in the setting up and servicing of the bank accounts, thereby avoiding recognition and identification
with the flow of funds. Dunne explained that Post went far beyond steering computer technology business to Charles’ fraudulent business, declaring,
“Post took additional steps. She used HUD funds which were meant for housing and recreational uses.”
She explained further, to the jurors, “The City Council had placed specific caps on how much could be paid to Micros. When $80,000 was authorized, she [Post], in fact, released $335,000.”
Dunne indicated that in the following year Post moved more than $600,000 to Wayne Charles’ businesses, and, that when the City tightened the reins, she saw to it that her close friend obtained “A $500,000 loan by fraud as “Charles falsely swore he had no other relationship with the City.”
Dunne then pointed out to the jury that Mr. Charles had only repaid half of the loan, and that was several years later. Dunne went on to explain that there was a garage security contract for which Charles received $700,000, “even though he had no employees.” She pointed to the figure on a projection screen, to the jury, of $2,356,083.77 as the Government’s calculated “total of the funds that post arranged to be paid to Charles.”
Dunne assured the jurors that there would be abundant proof, “the testimony of many witnesses, lots of records and charts, the Defendant’s [Constance Post] very own words at public meetings.”
She concluded, telling the jury, “It’s about improper secret dealings, misuse of federal money, private benefits to the Defendants, and the abuse of trust to steer $2.3 million to Charles.”
Dunne then made the very high-minded statement, “Our system of government depends upon the absolute integrity of public servants.” Her opening statement took 38 minutes.
Defense Attorney Andrew Rubin, representing Gerrie Post, opened his comments with, “You just heard a lot of awful bad things about Ms. Post. The Government doesn’t have any evidence of any crimes Ms. Post has committed, any crimes.”
To illustrate his point Rubin said, “Wick Security [a firm put together by Wayne Charles] was a closed bid and Ms. Post had nothing to do with it.”
Rubin went on, “The Government will not be able to prove that Gerrie Post defrauded the City of Mount Vernon out of property or out of her honest services.”
Having said that, he reminded the jury, “The standard is whether the Government proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no evidence of
a business relationship between Gerrie Post and Wayne Charles.”
He informed the jurors that Post had worked for Mount Vernon for 27 years, under Mayors Sharpe, Blackwood, and Davis. He did “admit”, however, that there had been some sloppy record keeping on his client’s watch. He then turned stern and declared, “The Government will not be able to prove that she knew of Wayne Charles’ ownership of Micros Only.”
Then turning to the $500,000 loan that Charles had received, Attorney Rubin said, “Thirty three building owners received grants. Eleven loans were given out, and four loans were lost. The City of Mount Vernon got the benefit of the bargain for what it paid.”
Attempting to put his client’s position in perspective, Rubin told the jurors, “She presented hundreds of proposals over a 15-year period. This case is based upon innuendo and speculation.” His remarks on behalf of Gerrie Post took all of 22 minutes.
Attorney Richard Levitt, speaking on behalf of Wayne Charles, immediately acknowledged that his client, “doesn’t dot every ‘i’ or cross every ‘t’.”
He quickly shifted his comments to his client’s project on Third Street, the building improvement for which he had reportedly borrowed the $500,000. He emphasized to the jurors, “The Third Street corridor was dirty and dangerous,” by way of putting his client into a favorable light for having attempted, and succeeded, in rehabilitating the small, multi-family dwelling at a rat-infested, filthy site.
Levitt told the jury of his client’s trips to China in 1997 and 1998, accompanied by Mayor Davis and Gerrie Post. He explained that it was during those trips that his client got to know Gerrie Post.
He attempted to clarify the charges against Charles: two frauds, the $500,000 loan, and the Micros Only contract, plus a charge of having made false statements to government agents when he was questioned.
Levitt concluded, telling the jurors, “This case is not about the Charles/Post relationship.” He assured them that his client “Didn’t intend to defraud, and did not conspire to deny Mount Vernon Ms. Post’s honest services.”
Analysis:
It would appear up-front that this case is going to be a typical Cynthia Dunne prosecution. By that I mean it is obvious, upon examining the three-count, 13-page indictment against Gerrie Post and Wayne Charles, given the Prosecution’s promise of 40 witnesses, that what will be brought
out will read like a badly redacted, cut-and-pasted soap opera, wherein a substantial cast of supporting actors will be covered up as the story line jumps from one scene to another, in a concerted effort to not reveal the actionable activities of co-conspirators-turned-Government-witnesses;
maybe even Ernie Davis, himself.
It is simply Attorney Dunne’s style to leave on the cutting room floor so much truth as is necessary to more convincingly project the confabulation she believes works best for her in terms of getting a conviction of those she chooses to destroy.
For example, in the Paul Cote case, the Prosecutor who just told this jury, “Our system of government depends upon the absolute integrity of public servants,” chose to prosecute the man she knew damned well was not responsible for inmate Zorn Teodorovic’s ultimate death by using the man, John Mark Reimer, who was responsible, as her key witness. ‘Where is public servant Cynthia Dunne’s integrity?’
After all, if what Dunne was eliciting from Reimer even remotely resembled the truth, why did it require 17 hours of rehearsal, with her, for Reimer to get his story straight at trial?
So much for the Prosecution’s case.
As for Defense strategy, it would appear that both Andy Rubin, for Post, and Richard Levitt, for Charles, hope to convince the jurors that what transpired between their clients, as well as between them and numerous so-called public servants in the City of Mount Vernon Municipal Administration for some eight years, until 2005, was so common around City Hall as to be hardly worthy of mention, much less federal
prosecution.
If, aside from a trash hauler with an established problem with the law, and a sanitation supervisor with whom he did business with the City, Gerrie Post and her boyfriend, Wayne Charles, are all that Michael Garcia & Co. could pull out of Mount Vernon after three-plus years of intensive investigation, with high public participation, then we have a sense something isn’t quite right about that investigation and the present prosecution.
After all, if what Dunne was eliciting from Reimer even remotely resembled the truth, why did it require 17 hours of rehearsal, with her, for Reimer to get his story straight at trial?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Town of Harrison.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Harrison Town Board Sitting As Police
Commissioners Suspend 3 Police Officers
As Rightly Recommended By Chief Hall
Town Code Enforcer Also Suspended After Second Executive Session
Last Thursday evening, the Harrison Town Board, meeting as Town Police Commissioners, went quickly into executive session accompanied
by Police Chief David Hall to discuss and deliberate a personnel matter involving three veteran Harrison Police Officers ranging in service
with the Department from seven to seventeen years; Detectives Richard Light and Frank Massaro, and Police Officer Mike DiLauria, all accused of inappropriate conduct involving use of the Internet.
It had been brought to the attention of Supervisor Joan Walsh, 74, that she had become the object of inappropriate and insubordinate sexual and personal observations, dialogue and ridicule, on the pages of Facebook.com. At the same site, President Barack Obama was ridiculed
with racist humor. It should be noted Detective Light is also a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed nine months ago by a Harrison teen who accused him of sexually abusing her.
After more than an hour submerged in executive session, during which time some 40 residents and spectators, including a dozen or so past
and present Harrison police officers, had joined the crowd together with reporters from local, as well as most major New York television stations, the police commissioners emerged and announced the outcome of their deliberations.
Supervisor Walsh declared, “The Police Chief has recommended that we suspend three police officers, effective immediately. He will
be conducting an investigation and reporting to the Board.”
Supervisor Walsh, attempting to avoid a dialogue with reporters concerning a personnel matter, nonetheless acknowledged that she was
upset with having been targeted on the Internet.
Following the announcement of the officers’ suspensions, Chief Hall left the courtroom and took questions from reporters in the lobby of Town Hall. Hall declared, “I expect my of-ficers to act the way I act. I don’t use that kind of language. It’s intolerable.”
He then proceeded to answer several questions. When asked by this reporter, “Chief, might it be in the best interest of the Department if you bring in an independent investigator,” Hall, who appeared disappointed and disgusted with the actions of the accused officers, responded, “That might be necessary.”
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Harrison Town Board Sitting As Police
Commissioners Suspend 3 Police Officers
As Rightly Recommended By Chief Hall
Town Code Enforcer Also Suspended After Second Executive Session
Last Thursday evening, the Harrison Town Board, meeting as Town Police Commissioners, went quickly into executive session accompanied
by Police Chief David Hall to discuss and deliberate a personnel matter involving three veteran Harrison Police Officers ranging in service
with the Department from seven to seventeen years; Detectives Richard Light and Frank Massaro, and Police Officer Mike DiLauria, all accused of inappropriate conduct involving use of the Internet.
It had been brought to the attention of Supervisor Joan Walsh, 74, that she had become the object of inappropriate and insubordinate sexual and personal observations, dialogue and ridicule, on the pages of Facebook.com. At the same site, President Barack Obama was ridiculed
with racist humor. It should be noted Detective Light is also a defendant in a federal lawsuit filed nine months ago by a Harrison teen who accused him of sexually abusing her.
After more than an hour submerged in executive session, during which time some 40 residents and spectators, including a dozen or so past
and present Harrison police officers, had joined the crowd together with reporters from local, as well as most major New York television stations, the police commissioners emerged and announced the outcome of their deliberations.
Supervisor Walsh declared, “The Police Chief has recommended that we suspend three police officers, effective immediately. He will
be conducting an investigation and reporting to the Board.”
Supervisor Walsh, attempting to avoid a dialogue with reporters concerning a personnel matter, nonetheless acknowledged that she was
upset with having been targeted on the Internet.
Following the announcement of the officers’ suspensions, Chief Hall left the courtroom and took questions from reporters in the lobby of Town Hall. Hall declared, “I expect my of-ficers to act the way I act. I don’t use that kind of language. It’s intolerable.”
He then proceeded to answer several questions. When asked by this reporter, “Chief, might it be in the best interest of the Department if you bring in an independent investigator,” Hall, who appeared disappointed and disgusted with the actions of the accused officers, responded, “That might be necessary.”
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Acting State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Cohen
Grants Injunctive Relief To Westchester County
Correction Officers In Dispute With County
Ruling Brings Into Focus Questionable Practices By
County Department Of Corrections Involving Millions Of Dollars
Westchester State Supreme Court
White Plains, New York
Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen Presiding
Analysis:
A ruling by Acting Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Cohen, a little more than two weeks ago, has brought a quick response from the County Attorney’s Office in the form of an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn. The Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association [COBA], bargaining agent for some 750 County correction officers, had brought an Article 78 proceeding in the form of an Order To Show Cause against “The County of Westchester and the Westchester County Department of Corrections.”
COBA had argued that the Respondents had, over a period of several years, been “withholding, revoking, and/or interfering with benefits due correction officers,” pursuant to General Municipal Law 207c in accordance with Article XX, Paragraph 12(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the union and the County. Essentially, the union argued that the practice of the Department of Corrections, over several years, involving reduction of officers’ leave time and benefits, was in blatant violation of State statutes and the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in force with respect to correction officers on leave due to job-related injury.
As is so often the case lately, when individuals, or agents acting on behalf of County employees, or a class of individuals, bring the County of Westchester and/or any of its many departments into State or Federal Court, the County Attorney’s Office typically attempts to obfuscate the legal issues and elements of fact with a ‘smokescreen’ of procedural arguments. Judge Cohen was neither distracted nor confused, manifesting a clear grasp of the history between the litigants as well as the applicable case law.
Relying upon “the plain language of Paragraph 12(a) of Article XX of the CBA” Cohen concluded that the petitioning union was correct in their contention that the Department of Corrections had “improperly deducted the individual petitioners’ accrued leave for a portion of the time period during which the Medical Consultant’s determination as to their fitness to return to work was still pending.”
While it is clearly very important, going forward, that Judge Cohen has, in fact, enjoined the County from engaging any further in such unlawful practices, the real impact will be felt from the retroactive application of the ruling to possibly hundreds of such wrongfully handled correction officers over the past several years, and the questions that will surely arise regarding those unpaid funds.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Acting State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Cohen
Grants Injunctive Relief To Westchester County
Correction Officers In Dispute With County
Ruling Brings Into Focus Questionable Practices By
County Department Of Corrections Involving Millions Of Dollars
Westchester State Supreme Court
White Plains, New York
Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen Presiding
Analysis:
A ruling by Acting Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Cohen, a little more than two weeks ago, has brought a quick response from the County Attorney’s Office in the form of an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn. The Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association [COBA], bargaining agent for some 750 County correction officers, had brought an Article 78 proceeding in the form of an Order To Show Cause against “The County of Westchester and the Westchester County Department of Corrections.”
COBA had argued that the Respondents had, over a period of several years, been “withholding, revoking, and/or interfering with benefits due correction officers,” pursuant to General Municipal Law 207c in accordance with Article XX, Paragraph 12(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the union and the County. Essentially, the union argued that the practice of the Department of Corrections, over several years, involving reduction of officers’ leave time and benefits, was in blatant violation of State statutes and the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement in force with respect to correction officers on leave due to job-related injury.
As is so often the case lately, when individuals, or agents acting on behalf of County employees, or a class of individuals, bring the County of Westchester and/or any of its many departments into State or Federal Court, the County Attorney’s Office typically attempts to obfuscate the legal issues and elements of fact with a ‘smokescreen’ of procedural arguments. Judge Cohen was neither distracted nor confused, manifesting a clear grasp of the history between the litigants as well as the applicable case law.
Relying upon “the plain language of Paragraph 12(a) of Article XX of the CBA” Cohen concluded that the petitioning union was correct in their contention that the Department of Corrections had “improperly deducted the individual petitioners’ accrued leave for a portion of the time period during which the Medical Consultant’s determination as to their fitness to return to work was still pending.”
While it is clearly very important, going forward, that Judge Cohen has, in fact, enjoined the County from engaging any further in such unlawful practices, the real impact will be felt from the retroactive application of the ruling to possibly hundreds of such wrongfully handled correction officers over the past several years, and the questions that will surely arise regarding those unpaid funds.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court ReportCity of Mount VernonJanet Difiore/Sam Zherka/Clinton Young.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Mayor Clinton Young: “I Think Chong
Is Doing Janet DiFiore’s Dirty Work”
Analysis:
DA Janet DiFiore’s First Amendment retaliatory abuse of her Office was vindictive and obvious. She apparently will stop at nothing in her misguided abuse of process against publisher Sam Zherka in retalitation for The Guardian’s exercise of Freedom Of The Press.
This is the same District Attorney who continues to prosecute the innocent victims of Yonkers Police brutality while covering up the rogue cops
involved; the same DA who demands the firing of veteran, dedicated cops who question her judgment; and, the same DA who prosecutes innocent
police officers without a shred of evidence.
The Mount Vernon incident clearly illustrates the contaminating influence a misguided district attorney, the likes of Janet DiFiore, will have on
the conduct of other public officials, particularly police, who are only too well aware of the damage she can do to them, and their careers, should
they refuse to “kiss her ring”. Notoriously dishonest, her stubbornness and stupidity render her a menace to public safety.
For more on this story, Link To: http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Mayor Clinton Young: “I Think Chong
Is Doing Janet DiFiore’s Dirty Work”
Analysis:
DA Janet DiFiore’s First Amendment retaliatory abuse of her Office was vindictive and obvious. She apparently will stop at nothing in her misguided abuse of process against publisher Sam Zherka in retalitation for The Guardian’s exercise of Freedom Of The Press.
This is the same District Attorney who continues to prosecute the innocent victims of Yonkers Police brutality while covering up the rogue cops
involved; the same DA who demands the firing of veteran, dedicated cops who question her judgment; and, the same DA who prosecutes innocent
police officers without a shred of evidence.
The Mount Vernon incident clearly illustrates the contaminating influence a misguided district attorney, the likes of Janet DiFiore, will have on
the conduct of other public officials, particularly police, who are only too well aware of the damage she can do to them, and their careers, should
they refuse to “kiss her ring”. Notoriously dishonest, her stubbornness and stupidity render her a menace to public safety.
For more on this story, Link To: http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Kerik Returns To Court
Seeking Dismissal
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, February 3rd, found Bernard Kerik, former Corrections Commissioner, and Police Commissioner of New York
City, back in Federal District Court, White Plains, together with his attorney, Barry Berke, a partner in the law firm of Kramer, Levin,
Naftalis & Frankel, before Judge Stephen C. Robinson, for some three and a half hours of pre-trial hearings. Kerik, who was charged in a 16-count indictment with Public Corruption, (denying the public his honest services), Tax Fraud, and making false statements to federal officials in connection with his nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security in 2004, had made two motions seeking dismissal of the charges.
Robinson opened the pre-trial hearing, asking Kerik’s attorney, “What are your strongest arguments for dismissal?” Attorney Berke responded, “The government has simply stretched too far in bringing an Honest Services indictment.” He continued, “We believe there are
clear laws that govern when the government may bring charges.”
Berke then specified, “The operative date is April 14, 2002. All of the alleged acts, and all of the alleged benefits, occurred before April 14,
2002. We have been unable to find any case in which Honest Services extend beyond one’s term in office.
Robinson responded, “Take me there. Can the statute be extended beyond the time because of concealment?”
Berke then cited Gruenwald, apparently relied upon by the government, attempting to distinguish it from his client’s circumstances. To bolster his position with respect to the Statute of Limitations, he declared, “Judge Rakoff, in Gabriel, ruled ‘someone doesn’t have to go to trial on stale charges.’ We need direct evidence of acts of agreement to conceal.”
Judge Robinson then asked, “Can it be that the acts of concealment... the allegations are that Mr. Kerik, in office, who received something for
vouching for the company.”The reference was to Interstate Industrial, a carting company owned by Peter and Frank DiTommaso, which was
seeking to do business with the City of New York.
Attorney Berke attempted to further distinguish his client with respect to the Statute of Limitations, prompting Robinson to remark, “I
get it. Mr. Kerik has already gotten whatever he was going to get.” Robinson went further, asking, “Wasn’t the value of Mr. Kerik’s participation in the crime that he would give the weight of his office, that would provide the benefits?” Turning to Berke, the Judge then asked, “When does the vouching end? Does it end when he does the vouching, or when they make the decision?”
Berke immediately answered, “When he left office, the vouching ends.” He cited Eppolito and the Continuity Of Purpose Theory. Changing gears, Robinson then stated, “Your argument is that the main objective was not concealment.” He then followed up with, “Let me ask a couple of questions. The goal of this conspiracy is get what you’re trying to get, and not get caught. He tries to get lulling letters, coverup letters.”
Robinson went on to ask, “Is it fair to say that Mr. Kerik is also still liable even though his participation has ended? Why is it that I would say that because his role has ended, but his co-conspirators continue to do what they were doing?”
Attorney Berke responded, “It’s doing the vouching, and receiving the benefits. The government is trying to put a square peg in a round
hole. The types of arguments that Your Honor raises are not appropriate here. If you dismiss the conspiracy, you must also dismiss the
substantive acts.”
Robinson simply answered, “I see what you mean.” Berke went on to discuss some cases he had cited in making his motions to dismiss; cases from the Second Circuit “where they used information obtained as the result of their relationship.”
Judge Robinson asked, “Why was the fact that they had access to insider information so significant? Didn’t Mr. Kerik use his influence
from his office? A jury could find that there was the wrongful use of his power; certainly his use of his power.”
Berke responded, “You need to be using the Sawyer Case to allow every misuse of office to be a fraud. If all you have is that a public...”
Berke continued, “You have to find whatever benefit you received impacted your performance of your official duties.”
At that point, Robinson stopped him with, “Ok, I got it. Take me to counts 12 and 13, the false statements.” Berke began, “Every year...” But Robinson cut him off, asking, “Is it your position that your question was so impermissibly vague that there was no answer that Mr. Kerik could give?”The Judge was referring to the question from federal investigators to Bernard Kerik, at the time he was being vetted for his appointment to be Secretary of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration, asking, “Is there anything in your past that might be embarrassing?”
Berke put off the question for consideration and followed by saying, “The vetting process is an imperfect one.” Robinson asked, “Doesn’t he
commit a crime?” Berke said, “It was an unsolicited misdemeanor.”
Robinson, growing a bit stern, responded, “Under any interpretation of the ambiguousness of the question, lying is not an appropriate answer.” Robinson next said, “Let me turn to the government.”
Mr. Eliot Jacobson, the Lead Assistant United States Attorney on the case, rose to his feet to declare, “I want to address the 1349 Conspiracy once it is conveyed continues into at least 2005 when the Department of Sanitation...”
Robinson then asked, “If the object of the conspiracy is to deny the public of his honest services while in office, that conspiracy must end
when he is no longer in office.” Jacobson responded, “Judge, let me talk about the subsidiary object of the conspiracy. He had a brother and
a best friend who were working for the company.” Jacobson then spoke of the briber and the bribee.
Jacobson said, “Where there is no overt act required, the effect of what he does continues after he leaves office. It would certainly continue
as the co-conspirators continue to reap benefits.” Prosecutor Jacobson went on to explain, “There is a presumption in a no-overt acts conspiracy that the defendant must prove disconnection from the conspiracy. There were a whole host of acts that were predicated on the conspiracy.”
Jacobson went on to cite Minuti and Eppolito, the former stating, “A conspiracy continues until the conspirators receive their anticipated
economic benefits,” the latter for the proposition “a briber and a bribee share a common purpose.” At that point, Judge Robinson asked, “So you are saying this is a hybrid case? An economic case, and a Deprivation of Honest Services case?”
Jacobson responded, “The whole purpose of the conferring of benefits upon Mr. Kerik was that XYZ Corporation would gain Trade Waste approvals.” He then went on to declare that the Defendant’s use of Gruenwald was totally wrong, and that there was no requirement that there be an express agreement.
Jacobson next introduced Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth, one of two other AUSAs at the Prosecution table. Attorney Bosworth told the Court, “He [Kerik] used his inside influence. He attended a meeting with people from the Department of Sanitation
as well as the Trade Waste Corporation. Middlemiss and Bush stand for Influence Peddling.”
Robinson then said, “So your answer would be Bush and Middlemiss.” Bosworth came back, “The Second Circuit typically casts a broad
net; using public office for private gain.”Robinson next turned to the part of the indictment that charges Kerik with Failing To Respond Honestly to federal probers who were questioning him by way of vetting him for appointment as Secretary of Homeland Security. Kerik’s attorney had earlier raised an objection to the use of the term ‘embarrassing’. Robinson said, “I am troubled by the use of the term ‘embarrassing.’ I believe it’s too vague.”
AUSA Jacobson was quick to respond, “This has got to be taken in context. If the White House knew he had committed crimes, even misdemeanors, it would’ve been considered serious.”
Robinson, directing his comments to Jacobson, then asked, “If I was to disclose that I find the use of the word ‘embarrassing’ to be very vague, how would you overcome that?” The Judge was moving into the area of his concerns over joinder issues, stating, “It could be fairly
said that the government is looking at the life of Mr. Kerik and including it in one indictment.” He then asked, “Why is all of this in one indictment?”
AUSA Bosworth responded, “What the Defendant is seeking is five separate trials. The Defendant says I had to beg, borrow, and steal to
get the apartment.” Mr. Berke then cited Ruiz from the Second Circuit, a move quickly shut down by the Judge, saying, “I got you.”
But Mr. Berke persisted, “They didn’t change anything, but deprivation of honest services.” Robinson came right back with, “Let’s just take the time he was the head of Corrections. Is it your position that all they are alleging here is that he had a Deprivation of Honest Services? He’s not meeting as a private citizen, he’s using his office as a commissioner.”
Defense Attorney Berke, straining to get his point across, said, “Judge, it’s not bribery, it’s not extortion, it’s not enough to use his office.
Mr. Jacobson said exactly the opposite of what Gruenwald stands for. There must be the original agreement to cover up. It must include an
agreement to cover up, to take steps to conceal.”
Attempting to reargue his original point, relative to the Statute of Limitations, Berke said, “The length of the conspiracy is determined by
the scope of the agreement; a continuation of purpose and continuation of acts.” Robinson then summarized, “Mr. Kerik gets work on his house, and, they get his influence at the table when their application was delayed.”
Analysis:
Bernard Kerik is obviously no garden variety defendant. He is an individual who would rise very quickly from a questionable background;
apparently cutting corners and showing little concern for formal protocol or possible consequences.
Unfortunately, he proved to be a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration, which was prepared to elevate him to Cabinet
status, apparently on the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, without a proper and complete vetting.
As a consequence, the government has thrown the book at him, seemingly attempting to join disconnected events in a single indictment.
Prosecutors would appear to be suggesting that when one exercises his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as Kerik obviously was doing without specifically stating so, when asked about any potentially embarrassing problems, his failure to reveal his criminal conspiracy was an additional crime.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Kerik Returns To Court
Seeking Dismissal
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, February 3rd, found Bernard Kerik, former Corrections Commissioner, and Police Commissioner of New York
City, back in Federal District Court, White Plains, together with his attorney, Barry Berke, a partner in the law firm of Kramer, Levin,
Naftalis & Frankel, before Judge Stephen C. Robinson, for some three and a half hours of pre-trial hearings. Kerik, who was charged in a 16-count indictment with Public Corruption, (denying the public his honest services), Tax Fraud, and making false statements to federal officials in connection with his nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security in 2004, had made two motions seeking dismissal of the charges.
Robinson opened the pre-trial hearing, asking Kerik’s attorney, “What are your strongest arguments for dismissal?” Attorney Berke responded, “The government has simply stretched too far in bringing an Honest Services indictment.” He continued, “We believe there are
clear laws that govern when the government may bring charges.”
Berke then specified, “The operative date is April 14, 2002. All of the alleged acts, and all of the alleged benefits, occurred before April 14,
2002. We have been unable to find any case in which Honest Services extend beyond one’s term in office.
Robinson responded, “Take me there. Can the statute be extended beyond the time because of concealment?”
Berke then cited Gruenwald, apparently relied upon by the government, attempting to distinguish it from his client’s circumstances. To bolster his position with respect to the Statute of Limitations, he declared, “Judge Rakoff, in Gabriel, ruled ‘someone doesn’t have to go to trial on stale charges.’ We need direct evidence of acts of agreement to conceal.”
Judge Robinson then asked, “Can it be that the acts of concealment... the allegations are that Mr. Kerik, in office, who received something for
vouching for the company.”The reference was to Interstate Industrial, a carting company owned by Peter and Frank DiTommaso, which was
seeking to do business with the City of New York.
Attorney Berke attempted to further distinguish his client with respect to the Statute of Limitations, prompting Robinson to remark, “I
get it. Mr. Kerik has already gotten whatever he was going to get.” Robinson went further, asking, “Wasn’t the value of Mr. Kerik’s participation in the crime that he would give the weight of his office, that would provide the benefits?” Turning to Berke, the Judge then asked, “When does the vouching end? Does it end when he does the vouching, or when they make the decision?”
Berke immediately answered, “When he left office, the vouching ends.” He cited Eppolito and the Continuity Of Purpose Theory. Changing gears, Robinson then stated, “Your argument is that the main objective was not concealment.” He then followed up with, “Let me ask a couple of questions. The goal of this conspiracy is get what you’re trying to get, and not get caught. He tries to get lulling letters, coverup letters.”
Robinson went on to ask, “Is it fair to say that Mr. Kerik is also still liable even though his participation has ended? Why is it that I would say that because his role has ended, but his co-conspirators continue to do what they were doing?”
Attorney Berke responded, “It’s doing the vouching, and receiving the benefits. The government is trying to put a square peg in a round
hole. The types of arguments that Your Honor raises are not appropriate here. If you dismiss the conspiracy, you must also dismiss the
substantive acts.”
Robinson simply answered, “I see what you mean.” Berke went on to discuss some cases he had cited in making his motions to dismiss; cases from the Second Circuit “where they used information obtained as the result of their relationship.”
Judge Robinson asked, “Why was the fact that they had access to insider information so significant? Didn’t Mr. Kerik use his influence
from his office? A jury could find that there was the wrongful use of his power; certainly his use of his power.”
Berke responded, “You need to be using the Sawyer Case to allow every misuse of office to be a fraud. If all you have is that a public...”
Berke continued, “You have to find whatever benefit you received impacted your performance of your official duties.”
At that point, Robinson stopped him with, “Ok, I got it. Take me to counts 12 and 13, the false statements.” Berke began, “Every year...” But Robinson cut him off, asking, “Is it your position that your question was so impermissibly vague that there was no answer that Mr. Kerik could give?”The Judge was referring to the question from federal investigators to Bernard Kerik, at the time he was being vetted for his appointment to be Secretary of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration, asking, “Is there anything in your past that might be embarrassing?”
Berke put off the question for consideration and followed by saying, “The vetting process is an imperfect one.” Robinson asked, “Doesn’t he
commit a crime?” Berke said, “It was an unsolicited misdemeanor.”
Robinson, growing a bit stern, responded, “Under any interpretation of the ambiguousness of the question, lying is not an appropriate answer.” Robinson next said, “Let me turn to the government.”
Mr. Eliot Jacobson, the Lead Assistant United States Attorney on the case, rose to his feet to declare, “I want to address the 1349 Conspiracy once it is conveyed continues into at least 2005 when the Department of Sanitation...”
Robinson then asked, “If the object of the conspiracy is to deny the public of his honest services while in office, that conspiracy must end
when he is no longer in office.” Jacobson responded, “Judge, let me talk about the subsidiary object of the conspiracy. He had a brother and
a best friend who were working for the company.” Jacobson then spoke of the briber and the bribee.
Jacobson said, “Where there is no overt act required, the effect of what he does continues after he leaves office. It would certainly continue
as the co-conspirators continue to reap benefits.” Prosecutor Jacobson went on to explain, “There is a presumption in a no-overt acts conspiracy that the defendant must prove disconnection from the conspiracy. There were a whole host of acts that were predicated on the conspiracy.”
Jacobson went on to cite Minuti and Eppolito, the former stating, “A conspiracy continues until the conspirators receive their anticipated
economic benefits,” the latter for the proposition “a briber and a bribee share a common purpose.” At that point, Judge Robinson asked, “So you are saying this is a hybrid case? An economic case, and a Deprivation of Honest Services case?”
Jacobson responded, “The whole purpose of the conferring of benefits upon Mr. Kerik was that XYZ Corporation would gain Trade Waste approvals.” He then went on to declare that the Defendant’s use of Gruenwald was totally wrong, and that there was no requirement that there be an express agreement.
Jacobson next introduced Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth, one of two other AUSAs at the Prosecution table. Attorney Bosworth told the Court, “He [Kerik] used his inside influence. He attended a meeting with people from the Department of Sanitation
as well as the Trade Waste Corporation. Middlemiss and Bush stand for Influence Peddling.”
Robinson then said, “So your answer would be Bush and Middlemiss.” Bosworth came back, “The Second Circuit typically casts a broad
net; using public office for private gain.”Robinson next turned to the part of the indictment that charges Kerik with Failing To Respond Honestly to federal probers who were questioning him by way of vetting him for appointment as Secretary of Homeland Security. Kerik’s attorney had earlier raised an objection to the use of the term ‘embarrassing’. Robinson said, “I am troubled by the use of the term ‘embarrassing.’ I believe it’s too vague.”
AUSA Jacobson was quick to respond, “This has got to be taken in context. If the White House knew he had committed crimes, even misdemeanors, it would’ve been considered serious.”
Robinson, directing his comments to Jacobson, then asked, “If I was to disclose that I find the use of the word ‘embarrassing’ to be very vague, how would you overcome that?” The Judge was moving into the area of his concerns over joinder issues, stating, “It could be fairly
said that the government is looking at the life of Mr. Kerik and including it in one indictment.” He then asked, “Why is all of this in one indictment?”
AUSA Bosworth responded, “What the Defendant is seeking is five separate trials. The Defendant says I had to beg, borrow, and steal to
get the apartment.” Mr. Berke then cited Ruiz from the Second Circuit, a move quickly shut down by the Judge, saying, “I got you.”
But Mr. Berke persisted, “They didn’t change anything, but deprivation of honest services.” Robinson came right back with, “Let’s just take the time he was the head of Corrections. Is it your position that all they are alleging here is that he had a Deprivation of Honest Services? He’s not meeting as a private citizen, he’s using his office as a commissioner.”
Defense Attorney Berke, straining to get his point across, said, “Judge, it’s not bribery, it’s not extortion, it’s not enough to use his office.
Mr. Jacobson said exactly the opposite of what Gruenwald stands for. There must be the original agreement to cover up. It must include an
agreement to cover up, to take steps to conceal.”
Attempting to reargue his original point, relative to the Statute of Limitations, Berke said, “The length of the conspiracy is determined by
the scope of the agreement; a continuation of purpose and continuation of acts.” Robinson then summarized, “Mr. Kerik gets work on his house, and, they get his influence at the table when their application was delayed.”
Analysis:
Bernard Kerik is obviously no garden variety defendant. He is an individual who would rise very quickly from a questionable background;
apparently cutting corners and showing little concern for formal protocol or possible consequences.
Unfortunately, he proved to be a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration, which was prepared to elevate him to Cabinet
status, apparently on the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, without a proper and complete vetting.
As a consequence, the government has thrown the book at him, seemingly attempting to join disconnected events in a single indictment.
Prosecutors would appear to be suggesting that when one exercises his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as Kerik obviously was doing without specifically stating so, when asked about any potentially embarrassing problems, his failure to reveal his criminal conspiracy was an additional crime.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Stephen Bonura/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Retaliatory Disciplinary Hearings Drag On
Against Detective Sergeant Steve Bonura
Pleasantville Village Board Continues Blindly On
Last Thursday evening, January 29, some 75 Village residents and retired and active police officers from around the County returned to the disciplinary hearings before the Pleasantville Village Board, sitting as police commissioners in judgment of charges, some 60 in all, that have been
lodged against Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura by Police Chief Anthony P. Chiarlitti, acting under pressure from District Attorney Janet DiFiore.
Chiarlitti is represented by attorney Terry O’Neil and, Detective Sergeat Bonura by Jonathan Lovett. Mayor Gordon called the hearing to order shortly after 7pm, announcing, “I’m joined here tonight by the other members of the Village Board. Once again, although this hearing is
open to the public, it is not a public hearing.” Gordon then said, “I notice that Mr. Bonura is not present tonight; Mr. Lovett, do you want to continue?”
Jonathan Lovett responded, “Oh, sure.”Attorney Terry O’Neil then spoke up, “The last time we were together there was talk about an injunction.
There has been none issued.” O’Neil then went on to discuss a hearing held two days earlier, Jan. 27, before State Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella, and then laid out the schedule of the next several days.
He told the Board, “I feel very uncomfortable going forward without the charged party being present. By next Friday, we believe Detective Sergeant Bonura can be brought before you.”
Then, moving in a different direction, O’Neil said, “There’s another tape in which Detective Sergeant Bonura mentions another informant.
We have videos we can play. The videos are in evidence and I believe Mr. Lovett has them.”
O’Neil told the Board, “The presen-tation of evidence in his [Bonura’s] absence is an extreme remedy. I have never proceeded under that circumstance, the first time the charged party failed to show up. Perhaps we can do the housekeeping things we need to do.”
O’Neil alluded to the possibility of a contempt proceeding that might be brought against Bonura if he failed, repeatedly, to show up.
Mr. Lovett responded, “If counsel didn’t want to appear tonight, he could’ve said that in four words.” Lovett then went on to point out O’Neil’s flawed service of process upon his client, declaring, “So there are three problems. I heard the judge say he would have a decision by next Friday. He didn’t say anything about a contempt proceeding.”
Mr. O’Neil went forward with, “We are here representing the Chief, and anything about a stay...”
Mayor Gordon spoke up, asking, “Mr. Lovett, do you know if Detective Sergeant Bonura was coming tonight?” Lovett responded, “I am not a witness, and I see no reason why I should respond to that question.”
The Mayor went further, “The Board is disappointed that Detective Sergeant Bonura is not here tonight.” Lovett snapped back with, “We’re
disappointed that you continue to withhold his pay.”
The Mayor then said, “We have scheduled these hearings at his request. We will continue tonight. Mr. O’Neil, please continue. The hearings
will continue Monday night.”
Actually, the Mayor’s statement was factually misleading. Bonura had certainly not called for discplinary hearings against himself. He had merely
insisted that whatever fact-finding procedure occurred, occur in public. Mr. O’Neil then explained that he would then be playing another audio
tape of Bonura being interrogated by Lieutenant Love, and that he also had videotapes.
Mr. Lovett responded, “We are in a new world here. We don’t need foundation. We don’t need any explanation.”
Mayor Gordon then jumped in with, “We’ll accept it subject to connection.” Mr. O’Neil then played a very scratchy, difficult to listen to, tape for nearly one hour, during which several Board members, and persons in the audience, appeared ready to fall asleep.
Upon completion of the first tape, O’Neil played still another, shorter one, after which he then launched into an extended session of exhibit identification, during which his associate brought out, for inspection by the Board, one exhibit after another. At one point they attempted to display Kahlil Gonzalez’ rap sheet to which Mayor Gordon responded, saying that he and the Board would rather not view it. At that point, Mr. Lovett observed “But you also have uncontroverted testimony that the rap sheet was generated by the Police Department.”
As O’Neil continued to bring out exhibit after exhibit, Lovett again cautioned the Board, saying: “I’d like to put on the record the Village just violated Mr. Gonzalez’ federal rights by revealing his social security number.
You can’t do that.” Moments later, he read off the Social Security number, and took the time to restate the fact that the Board “has no personal jurisdiction,” over his client because of their flawed service of process.
At that point, Mr. O’Neil broke in with, “We haven’t heard from Mr. Lovett, where his client is. Despite his position that he is not a witness he is
an attorney and has a responsibility”.
Climbing on O’Neil’s bandwagon, Mayor Gordon then said, “It seems like a reasonable request, Mr. Lovett. Do you know why he isn’t here tonight?” But Jonathan Lovett quickly shot back with, “Attorney-client privilege. Even if I knew, I can’t tell you.” The hearing adjourned at 9:35pm to be reconvened Monday night, February 2nd.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Retaliatory Disciplinary Hearings Drag On
Against Detective Sergeant Steve Bonura
Pleasantville Village Board Continues Blindly On
Last Thursday evening, January 29, some 75 Village residents and retired and active police officers from around the County returned to the disciplinary hearings before the Pleasantville Village Board, sitting as police commissioners in judgment of charges, some 60 in all, that have been
lodged against Detective Sergeant Stephen Bonura by Police Chief Anthony P. Chiarlitti, acting under pressure from District Attorney Janet DiFiore.
Chiarlitti is represented by attorney Terry O’Neil and, Detective Sergeat Bonura by Jonathan Lovett. Mayor Gordon called the hearing to order shortly after 7pm, announcing, “I’m joined here tonight by the other members of the Village Board. Once again, although this hearing is
open to the public, it is not a public hearing.” Gordon then said, “I notice that Mr. Bonura is not present tonight; Mr. Lovett, do you want to continue?”
Jonathan Lovett responded, “Oh, sure.”Attorney Terry O’Neil then spoke up, “The last time we were together there was talk about an injunction.
There has been none issued.” O’Neil then went on to discuss a hearing held two days earlier, Jan. 27, before State Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella, and then laid out the schedule of the next several days.
He told the Board, “I feel very uncomfortable going forward without the charged party being present. By next Friday, we believe Detective Sergeant Bonura can be brought before you.”
Then, moving in a different direction, O’Neil said, “There’s another tape in which Detective Sergeant Bonura mentions another informant.
We have videos we can play. The videos are in evidence and I believe Mr. Lovett has them.”
O’Neil told the Board, “The presen-tation of evidence in his [Bonura’s] absence is an extreme remedy. I have never proceeded under that circumstance, the first time the charged party failed to show up. Perhaps we can do the housekeeping things we need to do.”
O’Neil alluded to the possibility of a contempt proceeding that might be brought against Bonura if he failed, repeatedly, to show up.
Mr. Lovett responded, “If counsel didn’t want to appear tonight, he could’ve said that in four words.” Lovett then went on to point out O’Neil’s flawed service of process upon his client, declaring, “So there are three problems. I heard the judge say he would have a decision by next Friday. He didn’t say anything about a contempt proceeding.”
Mr. O’Neil went forward with, “We are here representing the Chief, and anything about a stay...”
Mayor Gordon spoke up, asking, “Mr. Lovett, do you know if Detective Sergeant Bonura was coming tonight?” Lovett responded, “I am not a witness, and I see no reason why I should respond to that question.”
The Mayor went further, “The Board is disappointed that Detective Sergeant Bonura is not here tonight.” Lovett snapped back with, “We’re
disappointed that you continue to withhold his pay.”
The Mayor then said, “We have scheduled these hearings at his request. We will continue tonight. Mr. O’Neil, please continue. The hearings
will continue Monday night.”
Actually, the Mayor’s statement was factually misleading. Bonura had certainly not called for discplinary hearings against himself. He had merely
insisted that whatever fact-finding procedure occurred, occur in public. Mr. O’Neil then explained that he would then be playing another audio
tape of Bonura being interrogated by Lieutenant Love, and that he also had videotapes.
Mr. Lovett responded, “We are in a new world here. We don’t need foundation. We don’t need any explanation.”
Mayor Gordon then jumped in with, “We’ll accept it subject to connection.” Mr. O’Neil then played a very scratchy, difficult to listen to, tape for nearly one hour, during which several Board members, and persons in the audience, appeared ready to fall asleep.
Upon completion of the first tape, O’Neil played still another, shorter one, after which he then launched into an extended session of exhibit identification, during which his associate brought out, for inspection by the Board, one exhibit after another. At one point they attempted to display Kahlil Gonzalez’ rap sheet to which Mayor Gordon responded, saying that he and the Board would rather not view it. At that point, Mr. Lovett observed “But you also have uncontroverted testimony that the rap sheet was generated by the Police Department.”
As O’Neil continued to bring out exhibit after exhibit, Lovett again cautioned the Board, saying: “I’d like to put on the record the Village just violated Mr. Gonzalez’ federal rights by revealing his social security number.
You can’t do that.” Moments later, he read off the Social Security number, and took the time to restate the fact that the Board “has no personal jurisdiction,” over his client because of their flawed service of process.
At that point, Mr. O’Neil broke in with, “We haven’t heard from Mr. Lovett, where his client is. Despite his position that he is not a witness he is
an attorney and has a responsibility”.
Climbing on O’Neil’s bandwagon, Mayor Gordon then said, “It seems like a reasonable request, Mr. Lovett. Do you know why he isn’t here tonight?” But Jonathan Lovett quickly shot back with, “Attorney-client privilege. Even if I knew, I can’t tell you.” The hearing adjourned at 9:35pm to be reconvened Monday night, February 2nd.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Harrison Police Crack Brutal Home Invasion Case
Prior to their arraignment in Harrison Town Court at noon on Thursday, Jan. 22, before Judge Ronald Bianci, the six perpetrators involved in a violent home invasion robbery at 209 Union Avenue in Harrison, Wednesday, September 3, 2008, between 7:10-7:30pm, were the subject of a press conference at Harrison Police Headquarters two hours earlier. Their victims had been William and Freida Schwartz, 75 and 73 years old,
respectively, a husband and wife, together with a caretaker, who had been brutalized and seriously injured; their heads slammed on their garage floor
before parting with cash, jewelery and their late-model Mercedes-Benz.
Harrison Police Captain Anthony Marraccini told reporters, “It was a very difficult case.” He then said, reassuringly, “But we got them all.” Marraccini, without specifying, then said, “They were involved in other crimes in other jurisdictions.”
Police Chief Dave Hall took over the microphone, declaring, “It’s a great day for the Harrison Police Department and all of the other agencies involved.” He went on, “The investigation was headed by Captain Marraccini, and involved the Bronx NYPD Robbery Squad, Steve Vandervelden, of the DA’s Of-fice, and the New York State Police, as well as Harrison officers Olson and Lucas and numerous other detectives and officers
‘bulldogging’ it.”
Vandervelden, head of the DA’s Organized Crime Squad, spoke up, declaring, “The investigation was tremendous work by the Harrison Police on this heinous crime.” He promised, “They will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Chief Hall, stepping back behind the microphone, ex-plained to reporters that Gary Pilavdjian was the ringleader, a contractor who did work at the
victims’ home, casing it and setting them up. He explained that Pilavdjian and John Mandracchia planned the robbery and recruited the others.
The Guardian asked, “What weapons were used in the Harrison home invasion?” Hall responded, “No guns were used; only their fists.” Neither Hall nor Marraccini were willing to respond when The Guardian asked, “What other evidence of crimes was discovered when the arrest warrants were executed?” Hall did, however, reveal that the investigation took police to the Bronx; Brooklyn; Columbia, South Carolina; and New Orleans,
Louisiana.
All six perpetrators have been preliminarily charged with First Degree Burglary, a Class-B Felony punishable by up to 25 years in State Prison. Hall indicated that he expected Assault, Robbery and Home Invasion charges to be added. The case will be heard by a grand jury this week.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Harrison Police Crack Brutal Home Invasion Case
Prior to their arraignment in Harrison Town Court at noon on Thursday, Jan. 22, before Judge Ronald Bianci, the six perpetrators involved in a violent home invasion robbery at 209 Union Avenue in Harrison, Wednesday, September 3, 2008, between 7:10-7:30pm, were the subject of a press conference at Harrison Police Headquarters two hours earlier. Their victims had been William and Freida Schwartz, 75 and 73 years old,
respectively, a husband and wife, together with a caretaker, who had been brutalized and seriously injured; their heads slammed on their garage floor
before parting with cash, jewelery and their late-model Mercedes-Benz.
Harrison Police Captain Anthony Marraccini told reporters, “It was a very difficult case.” He then said, reassuringly, “But we got them all.” Marraccini, without specifying, then said, “They were involved in other crimes in other jurisdictions.”
Police Chief Dave Hall took over the microphone, declaring, “It’s a great day for the Harrison Police Department and all of the other agencies involved.” He went on, “The investigation was headed by Captain Marraccini, and involved the Bronx NYPD Robbery Squad, Steve Vandervelden, of the DA’s Of-fice, and the New York State Police, as well as Harrison officers Olson and Lucas and numerous other detectives and officers
‘bulldogging’ it.”
Vandervelden, head of the DA’s Organized Crime Squad, spoke up, declaring, “The investigation was tremendous work by the Harrison Police on this heinous crime.” He promised, “They will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
Chief Hall, stepping back behind the microphone, ex-plained to reporters that Gary Pilavdjian was the ringleader, a contractor who did work at the
victims’ home, casing it and setting them up. He explained that Pilavdjian and John Mandracchia planned the robbery and recruited the others.
The Guardian asked, “What weapons were used in the Harrison home invasion?” Hall responded, “No guns were used; only their fists.” Neither Hall nor Marraccini were willing to respond when The Guardian asked, “What other evidence of crimes was discovered when the arrest warrants were executed?” Hall did, however, reveal that the investigation took police to the Bronx; Brooklyn; Columbia, South Carolina; and New Orleans,
Louisiana.
All six perpetrators have been preliminarily charged with First Degree Burglary, a Class-B Felony punishable by up to 25 years in State Prison. Hall indicated that he expected Assault, Robbery and Home Invasion charges to be added. The case will be heard by a grand jury this week.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Guilty Verdict Against Man Caught With
Pornographic Images Of 4-Year-Old Stepdaughter
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that yesterday, after a six-day jury trial
before United States District Judge RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM DAVIS was found guilty of possessing, producing, and attempting to
mail child pornography, as well as of possessing ammunition following a prior felony conviction.
According to the Indictment and the evidence at trial: The case began on January 4, 2007, when DAVIS was arrested at a motel in Ardsley, New York, in connection with a separate investigation by the Ardsley Police Department and the Westchester County Police Department.
Pornographic images of the defendant’s then four-year old stepdaughter were found at that time inside DAVIS’s backpack, in sealed envelopes ready to be mailed. A subsequent search of DAVIS’s personal safe revealed a collection of hundreds of images of child pornography, some involving infants. Ammunition and a taser gun were also found.
DAVIS was charged with one count each of possession of child pornography, production of child pornography, and attempting to mail child pornography. In addition, because DAVIS had a prior felony conviction, he was charged with illegal possession of ammunition. DAVIS was
found guilty on all counts.
DAVIS, 48, of New York, New York, faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment
on the charge of producing child pornography; a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 40 years for attempted mailing of child pornography; a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years for possession of child pornography; and a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for possession of ammunition as a prior-convicted felon.
Sentencing is scheduled for April 24, 2009.
Mr. DASSIN praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Ardsley Police Department, and the Westchester County Police Department in connection with the investigation and prosecution, and thanked the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office for its assistance.
Assistant United States Attorney AIMEE HECTOR is in charge of the prosecution.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Guilty Verdict Against Man Caught With
Pornographic Images Of 4-Year-Old Stepdaughter
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that yesterday, after a six-day jury trial
before United States District Judge RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM DAVIS was found guilty of possessing, producing, and attempting to
mail child pornography, as well as of possessing ammunition following a prior felony conviction.
According to the Indictment and the evidence at trial: The case began on January 4, 2007, when DAVIS was arrested at a motel in Ardsley, New York, in connection with a separate investigation by the Ardsley Police Department and the Westchester County Police Department.
Pornographic images of the defendant’s then four-year old stepdaughter were found at that time inside DAVIS’s backpack, in sealed envelopes ready to be mailed. A subsequent search of DAVIS’s personal safe revealed a collection of hundreds of images of child pornography, some involving infants. Ammunition and a taser gun were also found.
DAVIS was charged with one count each of possession of child pornography, production of child pornography, and attempting to mail child pornography. In addition, because DAVIS had a prior felony conviction, he was charged with illegal possession of ammunition. DAVIS was
found guilty on all counts.
DAVIS, 48, of New York, New York, faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 35 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment
on the charge of producing child pornography; a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 40 years for attempted mailing of child pornography; a mandatory minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years for possession of child pornography; and a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for possession of ammunition as a prior-convicted felon.
Sentencing is scheduled for April 24, 2009.
Mr. DASSIN praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Ardsley Police Department, and the Westchester County Police Department in connection with the investigation and prosecution, and thanked the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office for its assistance.
Assistant United States Attorney AIMEE HECTOR is in charge of the prosecution.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Paul Cote.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Framed Former County Correction Officer
Remanded To Jail, Awaiting Sentencing
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
Last Tuesday, January 6th, former 12-year veteran Westchester County Correction Officer Paul M. Cote, accompanied by some 35 friends and family, was present in Federal Court, White Plains, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas, responding to a motion by Assistant United States Attorney
Cynthia Dunne seeking to remand him to the Federal Detention Facility, awaiting sentencing, having been convicted by a federal jury for using excessive force against inmate Zoran Teodorovic, 46, thus violating his civil rights, in an incident at the Westchester County Jail, October 10, 2000.
Cote, who was convicted of second-degree assault by a jury in Westchester County Court, based on the same set of facts, serving three months in the Putnam County Jail and emerging November 27, 2001, had filed a civil rights lawsuit, claiming First Amendment retaliation on Wednesday, December 31, 2008. That complaint, naming now-Commissioner of Corrections for Westchester County Joseph Spano, numerous high-ranking
corrections officers as well as the Government’s chief Prosecution witness, Sergeant John Mark Reimer, and three jailhouse snitches, was gathered and assembled by civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett.
Attorney Lovett was present on Tuesday, seated at a separate Defense table behind Cote and Attorneys Bennett Epstein and John Patton, who had represented Cote at the federal trial in 2006, and whose motion, seeking a Judgment of Acquittal, was granted by Trial Judge the late Charles L.
Brieant, April 4, 2007, but reversed by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals late last year.
Judge Karas began the proceeding, announcing, “I have read the letters from the Government and from Mr. Epstein.”
There then followed opening remarks by Attorney Epstein, addressing Assistant United States Attorney Cynthia Dunne’s application to incarcerate Paul Cote prior to sentencing, reviewing for the Court’s information, Defense submissions and a brief overview of the Defense position relative to the Government’s. Epstein then told the Court, “There’s one more submission by another attorney who is present in Court.”
Judge Karas responded, “I have sent his petition to the wheel. Mr. Lovett’s papers.” He went on, “With all due respect to Mr. Lovett; and
I love him, I do not believe that what Mr. Lovett has to say is relevant to what the Government is saying.”
There followed several minutes of discussion between Epstein and Karas with respect to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Section 922, that sets the conditions which control the options available to a federal court in determining how it may handle persons in Cote’s situation
under Clauses One and Two. Epstein cited a specific case, telling the Court, “The Second Circuit view of 922 Crimes is out of step with most of the other Circuits.”
He then introduced a case off the Third Circuit blog which brought about some humorous remarks from the Judge about spending time on the blogosphere.
Judge Karas, turning more serious, engaged Epstein, suggesting, “Let’s assume the Second Circuit has just gone completely off the reservation. I have to go with them, don’t I?”
Epstein shot back, “But, Your Honor.”
Karas was still at it, saying, “Speaking of the Second Circuit, in the Acosta case the Second Circuit says...it breaks down 242...anyone who, under Color of Law.” He went on, “We express no opinion as to whether, if someone violates the second clause of 242, have they not committed a crime of violence?”
Epstein, not wanting to get boxed in, came back with, “My view is you can bifurcate the statute.”
Karas next cited two cases, and then said, “Something that results in bodily injury doesn’t necessarily imply a crime of violence.”
He then laid out a hypothetical that comported with Epstein’s argument and asked if it is “categorically a crime of violence.” He quickly added, “But that’s what the Supreme Court says I have to take out.” At that point lead Prosecutor Cynthia Dunne broke in with, “We’re looking at the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; but, we are talking about excessive force.”
Judge Karas came right back with, “But that’s based upon the facts of the case; which violation we’re looking at.” He then speci-fied, “Clause One: Bodily injury, Clause Two: Dangerous weapons.” Going back to a previously cited case, Acosta, he said, “Acosta deals with cops who robbed drug
dealers.” He went further, “You’re getting away again from the categorical approach.
That approach says you must look at what happened as defined by Congress.” He then laid out a DWI example. Dunne responded, indicating she
was not, “Up on DWI state law,” to which Karas joked, “Mr. Epstein’s up on Third Circuit bloggings. What are you doing in your spare time?”
Turning more serious, the Judge, continuing to address Dunne, said, “I understand that the way the case was charged and tried, and the jury verdict, that you view it as a crime of violence.
I don’t see it that way because we are not supposed to rely on the facts as alleged.” He continued further, “I agree with Mr. Epstein, that one does
not go through the transcripts or the trial looking for crimes of violence. The Second Circuit made it clear in Acosta that it was aligning itself with the Fifth Circuit, and, under Acosta, I don’t think I have any choice. It is appropriate to say he [Cote] was convicted under the Second Clause, and I must remaind Mr. Cote to jail.”
Analysis:
Up until that point, it seemed “Mr. Cote, I am sorry, but I am going to remand you until sentence.” to this observer, and probably to most of Paul Cote’s supporters in the Courtroom, that Judge Karas had been making a pretty fair argument for leaving Paul free in the community until his sentencing; which would explain the gasp heard from many as he uttered the words, “I must remand Mr. Cote to jail.”
Nevertheless, Mr. Epstein continued to argue, “This case is in a unique posture because of the passing of Judge Brieant. The Second Circuit didn’t resolve this case. It would be highly relevant to determine who caused the injury to Mr. Teodorovic.”
Judge Karas responded, “It seems to me you would want to. I am prepared to read the entire transcript of the trial. I am happy to read whatever
you want, including your Appellate briefs.”
Perhaps briefly reflecting upon what he had agreed to do, Karas then said, “This is all going to take a great deal of time.” He then proceeded to set
sentencing for May 8th at 2pm, telling Paul Cote, “Mr. Cote, I am sorry, but I’m going to remand you until sentence.”
Analysis:
Judge Karas is a very bright, sensitive and compassionate judge. Having not tried the case, but nonetheless being the one who must sentence Defendant Cote, he is temporarily operating at a disadvantage, not being fully familiar with the testimony or the circumstances that actually brought about the injury to, and ultimate death of, a homeless, belligerent, mentally-ill inmate of the County Jail, Zoran Teodorovic.
Neither is the Judge aware of the First Amendment retaliation and the behind-thescenes prosecutorial misconduct in both state and federal courts
that resulted in the charging, prosecution and conviction of a 12-year veteran correction offi-cer, Paul Cote, as detailed in the civil rights complaint filed with the District Court on December 31, 2008.
What Judge Karas does know, however, is that the late Judge Charles L. Brieant was nobody’s fool, and, that he had every good reason, having conducted the pretrial proceedings, and presided over the trial, to reverse the jury verdict as “inconsistent with the evidence,” as he did.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Framed Former County Correction Officer
Remanded To Jail, Awaiting Sentencing
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
Last Tuesday, January 6th, former 12-year veteran Westchester County Correction Officer Paul M. Cote, accompanied by some 35 friends and family, was present in Federal Court, White Plains, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas, responding to a motion by Assistant United States Attorney
Cynthia Dunne seeking to remand him to the Federal Detention Facility, awaiting sentencing, having been convicted by a federal jury for using excessive force against inmate Zoran Teodorovic, 46, thus violating his civil rights, in an incident at the Westchester County Jail, October 10, 2000.
Cote, who was convicted of second-degree assault by a jury in Westchester County Court, based on the same set of facts, serving three months in the Putnam County Jail and emerging November 27, 2001, had filed a civil rights lawsuit, claiming First Amendment retaliation on Wednesday, December 31, 2008. That complaint, naming now-Commissioner of Corrections for Westchester County Joseph Spano, numerous high-ranking
corrections officers as well as the Government’s chief Prosecution witness, Sergeant John Mark Reimer, and three jailhouse snitches, was gathered and assembled by civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett.
Attorney Lovett was present on Tuesday, seated at a separate Defense table behind Cote and Attorneys Bennett Epstein and John Patton, who had represented Cote at the federal trial in 2006, and whose motion, seeking a Judgment of Acquittal, was granted by Trial Judge the late Charles L.
Brieant, April 4, 2007, but reversed by a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals late last year.
Judge Karas began the proceeding, announcing, “I have read the letters from the Government and from Mr. Epstein.”
There then followed opening remarks by Attorney Epstein, addressing Assistant United States Attorney Cynthia Dunne’s application to incarcerate Paul Cote prior to sentencing, reviewing for the Court’s information, Defense submissions and a brief overview of the Defense position relative to the Government’s. Epstein then told the Court, “There’s one more submission by another attorney who is present in Court.”
Judge Karas responded, “I have sent his petition to the wheel. Mr. Lovett’s papers.” He went on, “With all due respect to Mr. Lovett; and
I love him, I do not believe that what Mr. Lovett has to say is relevant to what the Government is saying.”
There followed several minutes of discussion between Epstein and Karas with respect to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C. Section 922, that sets the conditions which control the options available to a federal court in determining how it may handle persons in Cote’s situation
under Clauses One and Two. Epstein cited a specific case, telling the Court, “The Second Circuit view of 922 Crimes is out of step with most of the other Circuits.”
He then introduced a case off the Third Circuit blog which brought about some humorous remarks from the Judge about spending time on the blogosphere.
Judge Karas, turning more serious, engaged Epstein, suggesting, “Let’s assume the Second Circuit has just gone completely off the reservation. I have to go with them, don’t I?”
Epstein shot back, “But, Your Honor.”
Karas was still at it, saying, “Speaking of the Second Circuit, in the Acosta case the Second Circuit says...it breaks down 242...anyone who, under Color of Law.” He went on, “We express no opinion as to whether, if someone violates the second clause of 242, have they not committed a crime of violence?”
Epstein, not wanting to get boxed in, came back with, “My view is you can bifurcate the statute.”
Karas next cited two cases, and then said, “Something that results in bodily injury doesn’t necessarily imply a crime of violence.”
He then laid out a hypothetical that comported with Epstein’s argument and asked if it is “categorically a crime of violence.” He quickly added, “But that’s what the Supreme Court says I have to take out.” At that point lead Prosecutor Cynthia Dunne broke in with, “We’re looking at the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; but, we are talking about excessive force.”
Judge Karas came right back with, “But that’s based upon the facts of the case; which violation we’re looking at.” He then speci-fied, “Clause One: Bodily injury, Clause Two: Dangerous weapons.” Going back to a previously cited case, Acosta, he said, “Acosta deals with cops who robbed drug
dealers.” He went further, “You’re getting away again from the categorical approach.
That approach says you must look at what happened as defined by Congress.” He then laid out a DWI example. Dunne responded, indicating she
was not, “Up on DWI state law,” to which Karas joked, “Mr. Epstein’s up on Third Circuit bloggings. What are you doing in your spare time?”
Turning more serious, the Judge, continuing to address Dunne, said, “I understand that the way the case was charged and tried, and the jury verdict, that you view it as a crime of violence.
I don’t see it that way because we are not supposed to rely on the facts as alleged.” He continued further, “I agree with Mr. Epstein, that one does
not go through the transcripts or the trial looking for crimes of violence. The Second Circuit made it clear in Acosta that it was aligning itself with the Fifth Circuit, and, under Acosta, I don’t think I have any choice. It is appropriate to say he [Cote] was convicted under the Second Clause, and I must remaind Mr. Cote to jail.”
Analysis:
Up until that point, it seemed “Mr. Cote, I am sorry, but I am going to remand you until sentence.” to this observer, and probably to most of Paul Cote’s supporters in the Courtroom, that Judge Karas had been making a pretty fair argument for leaving Paul free in the community until his sentencing; which would explain the gasp heard from many as he uttered the words, “I must remand Mr. Cote to jail.”
Nevertheless, Mr. Epstein continued to argue, “This case is in a unique posture because of the passing of Judge Brieant. The Second Circuit didn’t resolve this case. It would be highly relevant to determine who caused the injury to Mr. Teodorovic.”
Judge Karas responded, “It seems to me you would want to. I am prepared to read the entire transcript of the trial. I am happy to read whatever
you want, including your Appellate briefs.”
Perhaps briefly reflecting upon what he had agreed to do, Karas then said, “This is all going to take a great deal of time.” He then proceeded to set
sentencing for May 8th at 2pm, telling Paul Cote, “Mr. Cote, I am sorry, but I’m going to remand you until sentence.”
Analysis:
Judge Karas is a very bright, sensitive and compassionate judge. Having not tried the case, but nonetheless being the one who must sentence Defendant Cote, he is temporarily operating at a disadvantage, not being fully familiar with the testimony or the circumstances that actually brought about the injury to, and ultimate death of, a homeless, belligerent, mentally-ill inmate of the County Jail, Zoran Teodorovic.
Neither is the Judge aware of the First Amendment retaliation and the behind-thescenes prosecutorial misconduct in both state and federal courts
that resulted in the charging, prosecution and conviction of a 12-year veteran correction offi-cer, Paul Cote, as detailed in the civil rights complaint filed with the District Court on December 31, 2008.
What Judge Karas does know, however, is that the late Judge Charles L. Brieant was nobody’s fool, and, that he had every good reason, having conducted the pretrial proceedings, and presided over the trial, to reverse the jury verdict as “inconsistent with the evidence,” as he did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
