Thursday. September 10, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Dan Schorr Refutes DA DiFiore’s Statements
Victim Issued Letter To The Court Denouncing Minimal Sentence
Last Tuesday, September 1st, Dan Schorr, Republican candidate for Westchester District Attorney, stepped up his criticism of the handling of David Sanchez by that Office under Janet DiFiore. Schorr had previously strongly criticized DiFiore on August 17th for having offered Sanchez, who had been charged with Attempted Murder and Assault for savagely beating his ex-girlfriend nearly to death for more than five hours, holding her hostage in her car, a plea-bargained minimal sentence of five years in State prison.
Following Schorr’s remarks on August 17th, the DA’s Office issued a written response claiming that there had been no plea deal, and that the Court had made the sentence determination, and not the District Attorney’s Office.
At his press conference on Tuesday, Mr. Schorr said, “The Court record clearly indicates that the sentencing Mr. Sanchez received was a result of a negotiated plea bargain that was orchestrated by the DA’s Office.”
He went on, “Not only did Janet DiFiore offer another lenient plea bargain to a violent felon, but she then issued false statements to the media in order to cover up her complicity.”
The victim, Stephanie Vedovino also criticized the plea deal, issuing a letter to the Court denouncing the minimal sentence and Sanchez’ return to
society in five short years after his horrific crimes.
Again, your Honor, these are the words of Stephanie Vedovino. The following documentation is to inform the Courts of New York State, regarding the case of David Sanchez, of the events and occurrences which took place on May 29, 2008.
There was a force in Mr. Sanchez that I had never before experienced. It was a violent nature that terribly frightened me. The experiences that followed were traumatic and violent and very definitely, life-threatening.
I was beaten unconscious several times. It is difficult to remember some specific details. However, for six-and a-half hours, Mr. Sanchez held me as a prisoner in my own vehicle, turning it into a live torture chamber, where he violently attacked me and beat me viciously, threatening my life. I suffered from a fractured left eye orbit, a broken nose, facial distortion, skull and cranial contusions, contusions between my two scapula, contusions to my upper forearms, a slight concussion, a ruptured left eardrum, a blood filled eye, due to many broken blood vessels, lost hair, a
bruised trachea, visible strangulation marks around my neck and burns to my skin on my left arm caused by cigarette burns.
Mr. Sanchez told me in no uncertain terms that he was going to torture me the entire night and that I would be awake to see it all, until he would finally take my life. Mr. Sanchez is an extremely strong and athlete individual, and it was clearly impossible for me to escape from him. My vehicle became bloodbath, with splatters of blood including having spotted the interior roof of the vehicle, and strands of loose hair. My life was spared only through a miraculous intervention of a phone call.
At this point another party heard almost incoherent, terrified sounds. Mount Pleasant Police were then phoned and they searched and located my vehicle on Lilac Place in Hawthorne, New York, about a quarter mile down from my actual job site. The details are fuzzy as I was unconscious part of the time but Mr. Sanchez drove the vehicle himself to that location. Mount Pleasant police officers approached the vehicle.
Mr. Sanchez apparently told the police officer that I was his girlfriend and I had fallen down the stairs. At that point? while waiting for an additional officer, they took him into custody.
Mr. Sanchez then turned and shouted very loudly that he was just going to sit in the back of the cop car and everything was going to be all right.
Mr. Sanchez was then placed in custody in the back of the patrol vehicle. In my condition, I was required to go to headquarters to try to give a verbal deposition. There I finally was transferred to an ambulance and received medical attention at Westchester Medical Center. I was housed in a shelter for battered women. I am in constant and enormous pain both physically and emotionally. I receive therapy twice a week and group therapy once a week and am living in constant fear.
Following these truly terrifying events, I have come to realize that there is no greater fear than the fear of knowing that your own life may at any moment be taken by another so-called human being in your own society. The realization of awaiting the day, or having knowledge that there is a day to come where this individual will be once again in the arms of society, among the innocent, is a day wanted forbidden to come.
The face of justice, would that be the face of an incomplete woman, or is it not to ever see the face of the nemesis again. Does a stranger hold any
significance in this case, to those who have defeated the strangest individual. This is to all who consider society to be as a whole, for it is not a whole with those who cut through it. Please consider the truth of justice. The truth of justice which is one’s justice and freedom in society, we belong to society, not belong running from society. How can one call themselves to be one, when they can torture another one with no remorse, no reason, no cause, and be set free, to prey once again on society.
How can there be such justice for the individual who is capable of causing such harm to another, perhaps taking a life of another. Following the
release of a criminal from their sentenced time of imprisonment, the victim will indefinitely continue to find themselves still serving time.
Your Honor, that being said the People acknowledge, as does the victim, that this is a negotiated plea, that the Court’s promise to the defendant is a sentence of five years state prison and we’d ask your Honor to abide by the negotiations.
Showing posts with label Janet Difiore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Janet Difiore. Show all posts
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Sam Zherka/Bennett Gershman/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Responds To Law Professor Bennett Gershman
Bennett Gershman, the Pace Law professor, has taken the easy way out by assailing Sam Zherka, for exercising his Constitutional right by criticizing nearly every politician in Westchester County, including life-long Republican, District Attorney Janet DiFiore. What Bennett Gershman forgot to mention is that Janet DiFiore, and her husband, Dennis Glazer, who was accused of trying to bribe the Right-To-Life Party candidate for District Attorney in 2005, make large contributions to Pace University, and sit on the Board of Directors. In essence, Janet DiFiore is Bennett Gershman’s boss.
In an editorial written in the Journal News, Gershman attempts to spin the truth by painting District Attorney Janet DiFiore as a professional and responsible DA who plays by the rules. The job of the District Attorney is to seek justice, not just a conviction, or DiFiore Justice, but the justice guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law. The unlawful prosecution of Irma Marquez, an innocent home health aide, who was brutally beaten nearly to death is just one of the many civil rights violations Janet DiFiore, the current DA, was involved in.
What does Mr. Gershman, the Pace Con-Law professor, say to the family of Rui Florim, a Portuguese restaurant worker who was brutally tortured by six Yonkers Police officers for over an hour, netting him 72 stitches, a fractured skull, lacerations and bruises all over his body, then prosecuted by Janet DiFiore without ever committing a crime? How would you feel if Rui was your son?
Mr. Gershman, what do you say to Kian Khatibi’s mother, whose innocent son was released this year after suffering in prison for over nine years for a crime he did not commit? Janet DiFiore, as a judge, was one of the culprits involved in stripping this young man of his freedom by denying his 440.10 Motion almost nine years ago. Up until the day of his release, DiFiore fought hard to keep this innocent man in prison.
Janet DiFiore’s very close relationship with Peter Viviano, a man with close ties to the Genovese Crime Family, is alarming and an eye-opener. Her solicitation and acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the Gabelli Fund, which the federal government accused of Fraud, and who was forced to fork over nearly 150 million dollars of public funds, tells us who Janet DiFiore really is.
Janet DiFiore, who was entrusted with the power to affect peoples’ lives, liberty and reputations, is the same DA who, on March 21, 2007 after The Westchester Guardian published an article revealing corruption on her behalf and her husband’s, called Sam Zherka on the phone and threatened Zherka and his family, saying, “How would you like it if someone came a er your family”.
Mr. Gershman needs to know that, when asked whether she threatened Sam Zherka and his family on the phone, she responded “I don’t recall” in court documents her lawyers submitted on her behalf. I would ask Mr. Gershman, “Are these the actions of a servant of the law and a representative of the People who defends the rights and liberties of all citizens with vigor?”
Mr. Gershman asks what Sam Zherka’s motivation is. As the son of Albanian immigrants whose father spent over a decade in Communist concentration camps under torture, and whose mother was beaten every day for over three years for demanding freedom and liberty, Sam Zherka’s motivation is exactly that, the guarantee of freedom and liberty for me, my eight children, my family and all people. I want to inspire people to participate in the political process, to ask more questions, and to demand answers from our public servants; to teach our family, friends and children to scorn injustice and falsehood.
The United States Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the People, but an instrument for the People to restrain the
Government. Mr. Gershman’s allegations that Sam Zherka has insinuated himself into the DA’s primary race are absolutely true. As an American-born citizen of this great country, it is my Constitutional right and duty to insinuate myself into every elected race especially when one of the candidates is a direct threat to the fabric of freedom and liberty.
As for any investigation by any authority, whether it be Janet DiFiore’s friends at the Manhattan DA’s office or any agency, I openly challenge anyone who can say Sam Zherka has ever committed a crime other than the exercise of Free Speech, which apparently to some in power in Westchester County is a crime.Mr. Gershman, as a professor of law and the Constitution, you should be ashamed of yourself for siding with opportunity over righteousness, politics over dignity, influence over Civil Rights and our Constitutional freedoms. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Sam Zherka, Publisher, The Westchester Guardian
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Responds To Law Professor Bennett Gershman
Bennett Gershman, the Pace Law professor, has taken the easy way out by assailing Sam Zherka, for exercising his Constitutional right by criticizing nearly every politician in Westchester County, including life-long Republican, District Attorney Janet DiFiore. What Bennett Gershman forgot to mention is that Janet DiFiore, and her husband, Dennis Glazer, who was accused of trying to bribe the Right-To-Life Party candidate for District Attorney in 2005, make large contributions to Pace University, and sit on the Board of Directors. In essence, Janet DiFiore is Bennett Gershman’s boss.
In an editorial written in the Journal News, Gershman attempts to spin the truth by painting District Attorney Janet DiFiore as a professional and responsible DA who plays by the rules. The job of the District Attorney is to seek justice, not just a conviction, or DiFiore Justice, but the justice guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law. The unlawful prosecution of Irma Marquez, an innocent home health aide, who was brutally beaten nearly to death is just one of the many civil rights violations Janet DiFiore, the current DA, was involved in.
What does Mr. Gershman, the Pace Con-Law professor, say to the family of Rui Florim, a Portuguese restaurant worker who was brutally tortured by six Yonkers Police officers for over an hour, netting him 72 stitches, a fractured skull, lacerations and bruises all over his body, then prosecuted by Janet DiFiore without ever committing a crime? How would you feel if Rui was your son?
Mr. Gershman, what do you say to Kian Khatibi’s mother, whose innocent son was released this year after suffering in prison for over nine years for a crime he did not commit? Janet DiFiore, as a judge, was one of the culprits involved in stripping this young man of his freedom by denying his 440.10 Motion almost nine years ago. Up until the day of his release, DiFiore fought hard to keep this innocent man in prison.
Janet DiFiore’s very close relationship with Peter Viviano, a man with close ties to the Genovese Crime Family, is alarming and an eye-opener. Her solicitation and acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the Gabelli Fund, which the federal government accused of Fraud, and who was forced to fork over nearly 150 million dollars of public funds, tells us who Janet DiFiore really is.
Janet DiFiore, who was entrusted with the power to affect peoples’ lives, liberty and reputations, is the same DA who, on March 21, 2007 after The Westchester Guardian published an article revealing corruption on her behalf and her husband’s, called Sam Zherka on the phone and threatened Zherka and his family, saying, “How would you like it if someone came a er your family”.
Mr. Gershman needs to know that, when asked whether she threatened Sam Zherka and his family on the phone, she responded “I don’t recall” in court documents her lawyers submitted on her behalf. I would ask Mr. Gershman, “Are these the actions of a servant of the law and a representative of the People who defends the rights and liberties of all citizens with vigor?”
Mr. Gershman asks what Sam Zherka’s motivation is. As the son of Albanian immigrants whose father spent over a decade in Communist concentration camps under torture, and whose mother was beaten every day for over three years for demanding freedom and liberty, Sam Zherka’s motivation is exactly that, the guarantee of freedom and liberty for me, my eight children, my family and all people. I want to inspire people to participate in the political process, to ask more questions, and to demand answers from our public servants; to teach our family, friends and children to scorn injustice and falsehood.
The United States Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the People, but an instrument for the People to restrain the
Government. Mr. Gershman’s allegations that Sam Zherka has insinuated himself into the DA’s primary race are absolutely true. As an American-born citizen of this great country, it is my Constitutional right and duty to insinuate myself into every elected race especially when one of the candidates is a direct threat to the fabric of freedom and liberty.
As for any investigation by any authority, whether it be Janet DiFiore’s friends at the Manhattan DA’s office or any agency, I openly challenge anyone who can say Sam Zherka has ever committed a crime other than the exercise of Free Speech, which apparently to some in power in Westchester County is a crime.Mr. Gershman, as a professor of law and the Constitution, you should be ashamed of yourself for siding with opportunity over righteousness, politics over dignity, influence over Civil Rights and our Constitutional freedoms. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Sam Zherka, Publisher, The Westchester Guardian
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Westchester Guardian Special Report/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
Life-Long Republican Janet DiFiore Grabs Huge
Campaign Contribution From Gabelli Fund
Sued By S.E.C. & F.C.C. For Public Ripoffs
At this time in our nation’s history, when we have become too painfully aware of the unlawful antics
and schemes that so-called hedge funds and investment advisors and managers have engaged in over
the past several years, raking in enormous personal profits at the expense of honest, trusting clients, it
is appalling to discover that Janet DiFiore has accepted an enormous campaign contribution, in May
of this year, from Gabelli Funds, headquartered at One Corporate Center, Rye, New York.
According to a BusinessWeek report dated August 13, 2009, “Gabelli Funds, LLC is an asset management arm of Gamco Investors,
Inc. with approximately $29 billion in assets under management.
The firm provides its services to investment companies. It manages a family of equity, fixed-income, money-market and balanced mutual funds for its clients.”
BusinessWeek reported, in April of last year, that, “Gabelli Funds, LLC reached a settlement with the SEC.”The BusinessWeek report
stated, “SEC Sues Former Portfolio Manager Of Gamco Global Growth Fund And Chief Operating Officer Of Gabelli Funds.”
The report detailed, “The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Marc J. Gabelli, the former portfolio manager of Gabelli Global Growth Fund, currently known as Gamco Global Growth Fund, and Bruce Alpert, Chief Operating Officer of Gabelli Funds, LLC in connection with an undisclosed market timing arrangement with Folkes Asset Management, currently known as Head Start Advisors, Ltd.
The report further states, “The complaint charges Marc Gabelli and Alpert with fraud for aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.” It goes on to state, “It charges Alpert with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Secton 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10-5.”
The report explains, “In a related administrative proceeding, the Commission simultaneously instituted and settled Administrative Cease And Desist proceedings against Gabelli Funds, a registered investment advisor.” Gabelli Funds, Janet DiFiore’s second-biggest contributor, from
who she saw fit, three months ago, to accept $16,000, last year:
• was censured;
• ordered to Cease And Desist its violations of federal laws;
• ordered to pay $9.7 million in disengorgement;
• ordered to pay $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest, and;
• ordered to pay $5 million penalty, for a total of $16 million in 2008.
Under the court order, the monies paid by Gabelli Funds were to be distributed to shareholders who were harmed by the market timing activity Gabelli had engaged in.
Two years earlier, in 2006, according to www.lawyersandsettlements.com, “Mario Gabelli and Companies agree to pay $130 million to settle fraud allegations brought by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)” who charged that he “allegedly created fake companies to gain an illegal advantage in the auction of cell phone spectrum, and in so doing, sought to benefit from public resources.”
Most people recognize that Janet DiFiore, despite her ridiculous attempt to convince voters that she is a Democrat, is, in fact, a very wealthy, heavily-connected Republican accustomed to doing business with the Gabellis, and other high rollers like them. Having very wealthy friends certainly isn’t a crime.
However, accepting a huge campaign contribution from their company just three months ago, knowing full well that that company, over the last couple of years, was compelled to pay nearly $150 million to settle suits brought by both the SEC and the FCC because of unlawful activities harmful to American citizens and investors, is totally unacceptable and speaks volumes about who Janet DiFiore really is.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
Life-Long Republican Janet DiFiore Grabs Huge
Campaign Contribution From Gabelli Fund
Sued By S.E.C. & F.C.C. For Public Ripoffs
At this time in our nation’s history, when we have become too painfully aware of the unlawful antics
and schemes that so-called hedge funds and investment advisors and managers have engaged in over
the past several years, raking in enormous personal profits at the expense of honest, trusting clients, it
is appalling to discover that Janet DiFiore has accepted an enormous campaign contribution, in May
of this year, from Gabelli Funds, headquartered at One Corporate Center, Rye, New York.
According to a BusinessWeek report dated August 13, 2009, “Gabelli Funds, LLC is an asset management arm of Gamco Investors,
Inc. with approximately $29 billion in assets under management.
The firm provides its services to investment companies. It manages a family of equity, fixed-income, money-market and balanced mutual funds for its clients.”
BusinessWeek reported, in April of last year, that, “Gabelli Funds, LLC reached a settlement with the SEC.”The BusinessWeek report
stated, “SEC Sues Former Portfolio Manager Of Gamco Global Growth Fund And Chief Operating Officer Of Gabelli Funds.”
The report detailed, “The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Marc J. Gabelli, the former portfolio manager of Gabelli Global Growth Fund, currently known as Gamco Global Growth Fund, and Bruce Alpert, Chief Operating Officer of Gabelli Funds, LLC in connection with an undisclosed market timing arrangement with Folkes Asset Management, currently known as Head Start Advisors, Ltd.
The report further states, “The complaint charges Marc Gabelli and Alpert with fraud for aiding and abetting violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940.” It goes on to state, “It charges Alpert with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Secton 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10-5.”
The report explains, “In a related administrative proceeding, the Commission simultaneously instituted and settled Administrative Cease And Desist proceedings against Gabelli Funds, a registered investment advisor.” Gabelli Funds, Janet DiFiore’s second-biggest contributor, from
who she saw fit, three months ago, to accept $16,000, last year:
• was censured;
• ordered to Cease And Desist its violations of federal laws;
• ordered to pay $9.7 million in disengorgement;
• ordered to pay $1.3 million in pre-judgment interest, and;
• ordered to pay $5 million penalty, for a total of $16 million in 2008.
Under the court order, the monies paid by Gabelli Funds were to be distributed to shareholders who were harmed by the market timing activity Gabelli had engaged in.
Two years earlier, in 2006, according to www.lawyersandsettlements.com, “Mario Gabelli and Companies agree to pay $130 million to settle fraud allegations brought by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)” who charged that he “allegedly created fake companies to gain an illegal advantage in the auction of cell phone spectrum, and in so doing, sought to benefit from public resources.”
Most people recognize that Janet DiFiore, despite her ridiculous attempt to convince voters that she is a Democrat, is, in fact, a very wealthy, heavily-connected Republican accustomed to doing business with the Gabellis, and other high rollers like them. Having very wealthy friends certainly isn’t a crime.
However, accepting a huge campaign contribution from their company just three months ago, knowing full well that that company, over the last couple of years, was compelled to pay nearly $150 million to settle suits brought by both the SEC and the FCC because of unlawful activities harmful to American citizens and investors, is totally unacceptable and speaks volumes about who Janet DiFiore really is.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
At The Westchester Democratic Convention
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Democratic Party Insiders Stage
A Very Tightly Controlled
Un-Democratic Nominating Convention
Last Wednesday night the clique that tightly controls all that goes on in County government to the point where the County Legislature is
nothing more than a rubber stamp for the will and the whim of County Executive Andrew Spano, ran a totally choreographed, really un-Democratic Party nominating event.
Entering the arena at the County Center in White Plains, we were immediately struck by the predetermined nature of it all. Signs declaring
Andrew Spano, Janet DiFiore, and Tim Idoni, were strung up everywhere to the exclusion of all others as though the outcome, the very
purpose of the evening, had already been pre-determined.
A district leader from Mount Vernon was told, in no uncertain terms by Reginald LaFayette, that he could not put up a sign for Tony Castro,
candidate for District Attorney. And, in fact, when he then placed some 150 Tony Castro signs at a table next to the entrance where all delegates came in to the arena, and where there were three other stacks of signs, all for Spano, Idoni and DiFiore, those Castro signs were quickly removed, never to be seen again.
When Andrew Spano, the County Executive who first ran for the Office 12 years ago, telling everyone he was only seeking two terms, and who is now, at 74, seeking a fourth, took to the podium, it was difficult to determine just what he was thinking about when he uttered the following: “You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.” This reporter certainly had to agree that what has
been going on in County Government between the County Executive and the Board of Legislators doesn’t pass the smell test.
Spano then, apparently not quite through with the subject of waste matter, proceeded to tell the delegates a whopper of a lie, declaring that
he had “gotten the Mob out of the solid waste business in Westchester.”
This reporter was present, some four years ago, having been personally invited to attend a meeting of the County Legislature’s Solid Waste
Subcommittee, by its chair, Tom Abinanti, when then-Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz stood at the doorway to the conference room, and, one by one, called each of the several legislators present out of the room in order to twist their arms into approving an $87 million, five-year contract, with City Carting of Connecticut, a company the City of New York refused to do business with because of its known Mob connections, rather than exercise the County’s available option to renew with the then-current hauler for only $70 million for the next five years.
When asked by this reporter if the original hauler, at $70 million, had been doing a good job, then- Solid Waste Commissioner Landi, another Andy Spano crony, admitted that they were. When then asked, “Why, then, did you not renew the option with them for the next five years, at $17 million less than you will now be paying?”, Landi said, “We wanted to test the waters.” Landi knew then, as did each legislator in the room, that trash hauling was a very tightly-held and choreo-graphed industry, where prices only went up, just like County government over the last 12 years; just like the so-called nominating convention.
Curiously, when it came to nominating a candidate for District Attorney, Party Chairman Reginald LaFayette insisted that Tony Castro’s,
and Janet DiFiore’s, speeches could only be given after a voice vote was recorded declaring DiFiore the nominee. Apparently he was so insecure that, perhaps, if they each spoke before the balloting, perhaps Castro might have inspired too many of even the tightly-controlled, rather unenthusiastic, crowd.
Truth be told, Spano never really supported Tony Castro in either of his prior attempts to become District Attorney. Andrew Spano has far too many skeletons in his closet, both as County Clerk and as County Executive, to ever risk having a competent, experienced law-abiding prosecutor, the likes of Tony Castro, in the District Attorney’s Office. Spano and his cronies needed, and still need, people like Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, who will sacrifice the interests of decent, innocent individuals, police officers and civilians alike, while covering up crimes and malfeasance, outright corruption in office. Hence, the all-out effort to put Janet DiFiore, a horrible, self-serving Republican DA, across as a Democrat.
Spano expects the real Democrats, the families who are not Fat Cat Insiders, but who, instead, are struggling with the highest taxes in the nation, to accept DiFiore as one of their own, despite her well-known, ruthless handling of innocent victims, and her vindictive crushing of honest, hard-working police officers. He expects her acceptance from rank and file Democrats, just as he expected them to accept the $5,000 raises he wanted to gift to his crony commissioners already getting $155,000 salaries last Fall. In short, he wants Democratic families to drink the Kool-Aid and accept Janet DiFiore despite the fact that a News 12 poll, taken several weeks ago, with a hefty 999 viewer response that indicated voters for District Attorney favored Tony Castro by an overwhelming 55 percent, Dan Schorr, the Republican, with 27 percent,
and incumbent Janet DiFiore, a distant third, with only 18 percent.
We are confident that, in the certain primary between Castro and DiFiore, Westchester’s Democratic families will not be fooled into Drinking
The Kool-Aid for DiFiore.
“You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.”
Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano
Richard Blassberg
Democratic Party Insiders Stage
A Very Tightly Controlled
Un-Democratic Nominating Convention
Last Wednesday night the clique that tightly controls all that goes on in County government to the point where the County Legislature is
nothing more than a rubber stamp for the will and the whim of County Executive Andrew Spano, ran a totally choreographed, really un-Democratic Party nominating event.
Entering the arena at the County Center in White Plains, we were immediately struck by the predetermined nature of it all. Signs declaring
Andrew Spano, Janet DiFiore, and Tim Idoni, were strung up everywhere to the exclusion of all others as though the outcome, the very
purpose of the evening, had already been pre-determined.
A district leader from Mount Vernon was told, in no uncertain terms by Reginald LaFayette, that he could not put up a sign for Tony Castro,
candidate for District Attorney. And, in fact, when he then placed some 150 Tony Castro signs at a table next to the entrance where all delegates came in to the arena, and where there were three other stacks of signs, all for Spano, Idoni and DiFiore, those Castro signs were quickly removed, never to be seen again.
When Andrew Spano, the County Executive who first ran for the Office 12 years ago, telling everyone he was only seeking two terms, and who is now, at 74, seeking a fourth, took to the podium, it was difficult to determine just what he was thinking about when he uttered the following: “You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.” This reporter certainly had to agree that what has
been going on in County Government between the County Executive and the Board of Legislators doesn’t pass the smell test.
Spano then, apparently not quite through with the subject of waste matter, proceeded to tell the delegates a whopper of a lie, declaring that
he had “gotten the Mob out of the solid waste business in Westchester.”
This reporter was present, some four years ago, having been personally invited to attend a meeting of the County Legislature’s Solid Waste
Subcommittee, by its chair, Tom Abinanti, when then-Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz stood at the doorway to the conference room, and, one by one, called each of the several legislators present out of the room in order to twist their arms into approving an $87 million, five-year contract, with City Carting of Connecticut, a company the City of New York refused to do business with because of its known Mob connections, rather than exercise the County’s available option to renew with the then-current hauler for only $70 million for the next five years.
When asked by this reporter if the original hauler, at $70 million, had been doing a good job, then- Solid Waste Commissioner Landi, another Andy Spano crony, admitted that they were. When then asked, “Why, then, did you not renew the option with them for the next five years, at $17 million less than you will now be paying?”, Landi said, “We wanted to test the waters.” Landi knew then, as did each legislator in the room, that trash hauling was a very tightly-held and choreo-graphed industry, where prices only went up, just like County government over the last 12 years; just like the so-called nominating convention.
Curiously, when it came to nominating a candidate for District Attorney, Party Chairman Reginald LaFayette insisted that Tony Castro’s,
and Janet DiFiore’s, speeches could only be given after a voice vote was recorded declaring DiFiore the nominee. Apparently he was so insecure that, perhaps, if they each spoke before the balloting, perhaps Castro might have inspired too many of even the tightly-controlled, rather unenthusiastic, crowd.
Truth be told, Spano never really supported Tony Castro in either of his prior attempts to become District Attorney. Andrew Spano has far too many skeletons in his closet, both as County Clerk and as County Executive, to ever risk having a competent, experienced law-abiding prosecutor, the likes of Tony Castro, in the District Attorney’s Office. Spano and his cronies needed, and still need, people like Jeanine Pirro and Janet DiFiore, who will sacrifice the interests of decent, innocent individuals, police officers and civilians alike, while covering up crimes and malfeasance, outright corruption in office. Hence, the all-out effort to put Janet DiFiore, a horrible, self-serving Republican DA, across as a Democrat.
Spano expects the real Democrats, the families who are not Fat Cat Insiders, but who, instead, are struggling with the highest taxes in the nation, to accept DiFiore as one of their own, despite her well-known, ruthless handling of innocent victims, and her vindictive crushing of honest, hard-working police officers. He expects her acceptance from rank and file Democrats, just as he expected them to accept the $5,000 raises he wanted to gift to his crony commissioners already getting $155,000 salaries last Fall. In short, he wants Democratic families to drink the Kool-Aid and accept Janet DiFiore despite the fact that a News 12 poll, taken several weeks ago, with a hefty 999 viewer response that indicated voters for District Attorney favored Tony Castro by an overwhelming 55 percent, Dan Schorr, the Republican, with 27 percent,
and incumbent Janet DiFiore, a distant third, with only 18 percent.
We are confident that, in the certain primary between Castro and DiFiore, Westchester’s Democratic families will not be fooled into Drinking
The Kool-Aid for DiFiore.
“You flush the toilet. Ever wonder where it goes? That’s County Government.”
Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano
The Westchester Democratic Convention
Democratic Committeeman Maurio M. Sax’s
Nominating Speech For Tony Castro
Chairman LaFayette, fellow Delegates, eight years ago I had the privilege to stand before you and place in nomination Tony Castro for Westchester County District Attorney. At that time you enthusiastically, and overwhelmingly, made him our nominee for that Office. Four years later, again, you gave him your unconditional endorsement and, in the election that followed, he received more votes on the Democratic line than his Republican opponent, Janet DiFiore did, on the Republican line. Unfortunately, he lost because of minor Party endorsements held by his opponent.
This evening, we have a complex issue before us, as Tony Castro, once again, seeks the Democratic nomination for DA. He is being challenged by the present Republican incumbent who seeks the Democratic nomination for her re-election to that Office. Let’s be clear. There is a real distinction between these two candidates.
Tony Castro is the incumbent Democratic nominee, seeking to be the Democratic nominee to run as our Democratic candidate for DA. Ms. DiFiore is the incumbent Republican District Attorney who seeks the Democratic nomination for her re-election.
One must question why the Republican incumbent, who campaigned against our Party’s candidate, is now seeking our Party’s nomination.
When asked, at a Committee meeting, why she is defecting the Republican Party, she responded, “I like the Democratic Party’s values.” And, when asked which of those values she liked, the response was, “I am against the Iraq War.”
The question must be asked, what, in fact, being a Democratic District Attorney, would permit you to do that you can’t do as the present Republican in that office? Is there a Democratic or a Republican method of enforcing our laws and protecting the public interest? Will you be more competent and serve the public interest better now that you are a Democrat? This Office requires a person who is independent from political demands; someone who possesses fair social ideals and humanitarian principles which relate to law and justice.
Or, is the real reason that the incumbent Republican candidate cannot win re-election against a strong Democratic challenger. If it is, it is an admittance of weakness in your ability to serve that Office. We should not allow our Party to be used for political opportunism and self-preservation. Let’s not be enablers to those who seek to entrench themselves in public office. If this is the trend, there will be a public backlash against this. Both political parties must maintain the sanctity of the two-party system which is basic to our democratic values.
The facts are, when News Channel 12 ran a poll as to who should be Westchester District Attorney, Tony Castro received 55 percent. Dan Schorr received 27 percent. And Janet DiFiore received 18 percent. From this poll, and his two campaigns, we know that there is strong public support
for Tony’s candidacy.
Most of us in this room know Tony Castro. We have seen him and supported him through two elections. He is the prime example of the American Dream. He is the son of immigrant parents, who worked his way through Harvard University. His whole life has been one of public service, having served for 14 years, with distinction, as an Assistant District Attorney. He is committed to public service and will champion the cause of virtue over vice. Finally, allow me to say this. In over 100 years, a Democrat has never been elected to this office. With Tony Castro, we now have an opportunity to elect a life-long Democrat. Let this be an opportunity to elect a true Democrat to be our next DA, for he will enrich the Office with new, dynamic leadership that is so sorely needed.
It is with great pleasure that I place the name of Tony Castro as our Party’s nominee for the next District Attorney of this great County.
The Westchester Democratic Convention
Tony Castro’s Address Before The
Westchester Democratic Convention
Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice; and, when they fail in this purpose, they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.” Two generations ago, New York Democrats were instrumental in waging and winning a battle for the soul of our Party as we embraced Dr. King’s non-violent crusade for justice as our own.
Just last November, New York Democrats proudly took part in an historic election of change, and promise, when we elected a President of the United States who is as much a son of Kenya as he is of Kansas. But the battle goes on. Today, here in Westchester County, victims of violence at the hands of a few law enforcement officials, are prosecuted by our District Attorney despite public and overwhelming evidence that they have done nothing wrong.
One man was held incommunicado and denied access to his attorney and family for four days. I know, because I was his attorney. In two recent cases, the United States Department of Justice has had to step in and prosecute because our District Attorney charged the victim instead of the offender.
I am a candidate for District Attorney this year, not out of any sense of entitlement as a former candidate. I run because, in this election, I am the better candidate, the better Democrat, and I will be the better District Attorney. Many of you know me as a life-long Democrat who fights the good fight and remains true to the values that define us as Democrats; an uncompromising, unwavering commitment to the civil liberties and rights of all, regardless of economic or social status.
That is the kind of District Attorney Westchester deserves, and that is the kind of District Attorney I will be. Our representations of justice show her blindfolded so that she may weigh, in the scales she holds, the fate of the accused before her, without regard to who that individual may be. In the United States, we are all equal before the law and, as District Attorney, I will make sure that is the practice here in Westchester County again.
Now, I know change is hard. It’s easier to embrace the status quo, to go with the conventional wisdom, to stick with the incumbent even when she just joined our Party. Senator Obama had a good gig going in Washington. It’s nice to be a United States Senator. It’s hard spending weeks in the frozen fields of Iowa convincing Iowa Democrats, sometimes one at a time, that you are the right instrument of the change that America needs.
So, tonight, in asking you to do the right thing for Westchester, and for our Party, I am asking you to do something hard. I am asking you to send a message to the power brokers who put this deal together, and to say “No”, a three-time Republican is not the future of the Democratic Party here in Westchester. And, “No”, we embrace a different vision of justice for our home towns.
It may well be easier to send this message in the privacy of a voting booth in September. But I ask you tonight to join my cause because it is the right thing, not the easy thing, to do. How important is this cause? Dr. King taught us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Westchester deserves a better administration of justice than it has. And, as the Majority Party, it is our obligation to see to it.
Fellow Democrats, I ask for your support, and with it, I promise to return law enforcement to its true purpose, the establishment of justice. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and God bless the United States of America, and our President.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Jeff Deskovic/Janet Difiore.
Jeff Deskovic.
An Open Letter To Chief Judge Lippman
On Sunday, May 3, I discovered that The Journal News published a lead editorial entitled Another Turn At Justice. Let me quote the opening
paragraphs: “New Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals is quickly moving to address the kind of mind-numbing legal travesty that cost Peekskill’s Jeffrey Deskovic much of his youth and liberty, and gave the criminal justice system in Westchester a black eye. Intervening where the slow-moving Legislature had been content to slumber, Lippman is forming a permanent task force to examine wrongful convictions and recommend ways to minimize them.
The initiative is a long overdue reply to a steady string of exoneration cases in New York, most often brought to light by the do-gooder lawyers group the Innocence Project. Aided by ever-improving DNA technology, the New York City-based group played a critical role in securing the 2006 exoneration of Deskovic, who served more than 15 years in prison for the 1989 rape and murder of Peekskill High classmate Angela Correa. DNA testing ultimately ordered by District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who entered office in 2006, led to the stunning revelation that someone else had killed Correa.”The article also contains a picture of me.
Before getting to my open letter to Judge Lippman, there are a few things that I want to clarify. As many people are aware, I served 16 years in prison for a murder and rape which I was innocent of. In the face of a negative DNA test which clearly showed that semen found in the victim did not match me, I was convicted based upon a coerced, false confession, prosecutorial misconduct, and forensic misconduct.
In addition, my public defender was not very good. All of my appeals had been exhausted by 2001. For approximately the next four and a half years I tried in vain to obtain the legal assistance needed to prove my innocence and regain my freedom. Try though I did, nobody would take my case pro bono, as I had no money. I, therefore, languished in prison while desperately trying to obtain assistance.
I was ultimately cleared because The Innocence Project agreed to represent me, and then approached Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore who agreed not to oppose further DNA Testing. Once the results matched an individual in the DNA database, who, in fact, had been imprisoned for another rape and murder of another Peekskill woman just three and a half years after my wrongful conviction, DiFiore then joined the defense motion to overturn my conviction and shortly thereafter, have the indictment dismissed on the grounds of actual innocence.
I appreciate her not opposing the testing and deciding to join the defense motions. But that is not to say that I was freed because my case was discovered in the course of a pro-active search of old cases by the DA’s Office, which is one way that The Journal News article
could be mistakenly interpreted. Further, I would like to add that although I was saved from having to litigate for the testing, and again I am grateful for that; if we had had to I haven’t any doubt that The Innocence Project would have won the right to the testing.
Life’s events seldom happen in a vacuum, and the election cycle for Westchester District Attorney is nearing. My photo in The Journal
News article at this time might suggest that I support Janet DiFiore in her re-election bid. I have nothing against her personally, and, as stated previously, I appreciate her doing the right thing in my case. However, I am concerned about more than simply my own case.
I am concerned with both preventing future wrongful convictions and seeing that ongoing cases of injustice are corrected. at is my life’s calling and mission and I cannot, ultimately, betray that mission or the people who support my anti-wrongful conviction advocacy by remaining silent.
I do not support District Attorney DiFiore in the upcoming race, for the following reasons:
A) The Anthony DiSimone case, in which the Westchester DA’s office, under DiFiore, fought up until the last minute before being forced to concede by the federal Court, and only then handing over exculpatory, previously withheld, evidence pointing to a third party suspect, yet continuing in their efforts to retry DiSimone;
B) The Richard DiGuglielmo case, involving DiFiore’s fighting the overturning of the verdict in which the Judge ruled that information had not been turned over to the defense, and then appealing the decision, not to mention the Prosecutor’s conduct, which I personally witnessed, and
that the Judge noted in his decision, that rather than being concerned with the truth the prosecutors were simply trying to win;
C) The Kian Khattibi case, in which the prosecutors first dissuaded the defendant’s brother from telling the truth in court that he committed
the stabbings by falsely threatening him with prosecution although the statute of limitations had run out, and then, once the brother wouldn’t
testify, arguing that the other family member’s testimony as to the confession they had heard was hearsay; when then-Judge DiFiore denied
Khattibi’s meritorious 440.10 Motion placing procedure above justice arguing that his petition contained inconsistent statements by witnesses, some of were on the record and others which were not;
D) Her failure to prosecute rogue Police Officer Wayne Simoes, who ultimately was arrested by the FBI for body slamming Irma Marquez
thereby breaking her jaw and causing multiple physical trauma, even though it was all on videotape; and, instead prosecuting Marquez;
E) Waiting 18 months before dropping her prosecution on false charges against Yonkers police brutality victim Rui Florim.
Dear Judge Lippman,
I have read that you have created a permanent task force in order to address the serious issue of wrongful convictions. As you know, wrongful convictions are much more prevalent than society previously realized. DNA has opened a window into the world of wrongful convictions allowing us to identify the systemic causes as well as common themes and patterns.
Since DNA material is only available in 10-12% of all serious felony cases, it is important that we prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. As it stands for the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no science that can definitively separate guilt from innocence. Additionally, as I can attest personally, the human toll of wrongful conviction on defendants and their families is incalculable.
I would hope that since you are seeking to make the New York State Court System more accurate, you will address issues that contribute to wrongful outcomes which I would respectfully like to point out.
1) More Frequent and Careful Review Is Needed. A common theme in many wrongful conviction cases, especially the 24 DNA-proven cases in New York, is that the Defendants have long since had their appeals exhausted. In many of those cases, including my own, the Court Of Appeals declined to grant permission to the Defendants to appeal to them.
In my case, for example, I was denied permission to appeal to the Court Of Appeals, with a ruling that stated there was “no merit in law to justify the reviewing.” Why is it that in so many of these wrongful conviction cases we can look back and see many red flags that should have been clear signs that something was not right? More cases need to be caught while they are still in the appellate process. Clearly,
what is needed is more review, not less. Therefore, cases that come before the Court should be given a closer look when deciding whether to review them or not. That scrutiny should be done in light of what is known about the causes of wrongful conviction.
Cases based on confessions should be looked at very carefully in terms of the circumstances under which they were procured. In identification-based cases, the quality of the ID and the procedures used to procure them should be closely looked at. Additionally, in many cases involving misidentification, courts have erroneously allowed convictions to stand despite victims having given clearly inaccurate descriptions with respect to height and weight. Cases involving allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel should be looked at carefully since it is known that without quality representation defendants may be wrongfully convicted despite being innocent. Such cases need to be heavily scrutinized and adjudicated on the merits rather than with deference to the defense attorney.
I am aware that such deference is accorded in order to uphold the sanctity of defense counsel and not by way of second guessing one’s strategy. However, either a challenged omission or commission constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel or not; no deference is needed. Instead, it must speak for itself.
If forensics furnishes part of the evidence, the Court must question whether it is based upon sound science, studies and data, or merely junk science. When a so-called science has been exposed as junk, every judge should be on the lookout for it in future cases, and even old cases should be re-examined to see if anything slipped past.
While I understand that the Court Of Appeals does not review cases on a factual basis but merely rules on issues pertaining to law, clearly where claims of actual innocence are present, particularly when DNA is involved, the Court should keep that in mind when deciding whether to accept a case in order to rule on the legal issues it presents.
2) In Confession Cases, Implement A Pre-Trial Hearing On The Issue Of Truthfulness. False confessions have been the cause of wrongful convictions in 25% of the 237 DNA-proven wrongful conviction cases, and in 10 of New York’s 24 cases. Yet, in none of those cases, despite clear warning signs that can be pointed to post exoneration, were the confessions suppressed. False confession literature shows that
once a confession has been entered into evidence there is an 80% conviction rate. Clearly, a pre-trial Huntley hearing where the sole issue considered is voluntariness is insufficient. Instead, a hearing in which the focus is the truthfulness of the confession is needed, akin to a Wade Hearing.
3) Ban Tactics Which Have Been Linked To False Confessions, such as prolonged interrogations, the misuse and abuse of the polygraph, lying to suspects, claiming to have non-existent evidence, and the interrogation of the mentally ill and/or retarded without an attorney present. Such practices, that are acknowledged to be psychologically coercive, lead to false confessions and therefore to wrongful convictions, and run
in the face of the spirit and intent of both New York State and federal Constitutional prohibitions against self incrimination.
4) Reverse Parole Board denials of parole applications as the result of applicants expressing innocence. There have been cases in which otherwise meritorious parole applications have been denied because they maintained innocence at the parole hearing. Such declarations are seen as “not taking responsibility” and “not showing remorse”. Colin Warner served 21 years in prison in New York prior to being proven
innocent. He was denied parole three times, in part because he refused to admit guilt at the Parole Board. Westchester Exoneree Kian Khattibi served nine and a half years before it was revealed that his brother committed the crime, and not he.
Prior to that, at his Parole Board Appearance, he maintained his innocence. The Parole Board denied him parole based upon that fact, saying “Your lack of remorse minimizing your involvement, notwithstanding your institutional adjustments, are a concern, and, when coupled with the violence in the instant offense make you an unacceptable risk for release at this time.”
Such a rigid approach doesn’t take into account the reality that wrongful convictions occur. I am unaware of any person so denied then successfully taking their case to court and obtaining relief. In fact, in many of the rare cases where a parole appeal based on any grounds at all is reversed, frequently the Court Of Appeals has stepped in and reversed the Appellate Division.
The problem of such a policy on the part of the Parole Board is obvious. It places the wrongfully convicted prisoner in the position of potentially sacrificing his or her freedom as the price for maintaining innocence, when in reality it doesn’t need to be done that way. Either an applicant can demonstrate by their record that they are likely to live and remain at liberty without breaking the law or not. The granting of parole need not be tied to a statement of responsibility.
An additional pitfall of such a guilt acknowledgement is that the wrongfully convicted defendant potentially creates additional evidence against himself in the event that his conviction is overturned, as part of the price of trying to meet the Parole Board requirements. An example of this is the John Duval case. He was convicted in 1973 of committing a murder in Rochester, New York, along with his co-defendant Betty Tyson. They were convicted based upon confessions which they stated were beaten out of them, and on the testimony of two teenage runaways.
After his appeals failed, in order to try to obtain his freedom, Duval twice admitted guilt in front of the Parole Board in 1995 and 1997 because he felt that was the only way he could regain his freedom because of the practice.
Later his conviction, along with that of his co-defendant Betty Tyson, was overturned because one of the witnesses recanted his testimony, saying he had lied previously. In addition, prosecutors then came up with a buried synopsis of a police interview with the other teen, in which he denied seeing Duval or Tyson, contrary to what the teen had testified in 1973. However, while the prosecutors dropped the charges
and Tyson was awarded money for her imprisonment, prosecutors retried Duval, using the statements that he had made in front of the Parole Board as evidence.
5) Reverse Prior Decisions Allowing The Department Of Corrections To Mandate Self Incrimination In Order To Continue To Participate In The Sex Offender Program. Prior court challenges of this practice by the Department Of Corrections have not yielded any relief, even when a defendant is still pursuing appeals. In order to have any chance at parole, defendants convicted of sex offenses must admit guilt, to staff and peers, in writing, and give details. To not do so is considered to be tantamount to refusing the program. This, too, forces prisoners to potentially sacrifice freedom as the price for maintaining innocence. This does not take into account wrongful convictions.
I will close by saying there is a great need for incarcerative and financial penalties for rogue prosecutors who intentionally commit Brady and Rosario violations, suborn perjury, fail to correct perjury, and who have patterns and practices established with coroners and other experts, whereby those experts work backwards to prove whatever a prosecutor is trying to prove. I would urge you to include these in your report. After all, what does an honest prosecutor have to lose? To me, prosecutorial misconduct is like any other crime. Don’t do the time if you can’t do the time.
I hope that your report will be hard hitting, critical, and proves to be an impetus by which urgently needed legislation is obtained. The cracks in the system which I have attempted to point out above are correctable judicially. Please do not ignore problems from within while only addressing those from without.
Best regards,
Jeffrey Deskovic, Criminal Justice Advocate and Exoneree
An Open Letter To Chief Judge Lippman
On Sunday, May 3, I discovered that The Journal News published a lead editorial entitled Another Turn At Justice. Let me quote the opening
paragraphs: “New Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals is quickly moving to address the kind of mind-numbing legal travesty that cost Peekskill’s Jeffrey Deskovic much of his youth and liberty, and gave the criminal justice system in Westchester a black eye. Intervening where the slow-moving Legislature had been content to slumber, Lippman is forming a permanent task force to examine wrongful convictions and recommend ways to minimize them.
The initiative is a long overdue reply to a steady string of exoneration cases in New York, most often brought to light by the do-gooder lawyers group the Innocence Project. Aided by ever-improving DNA technology, the New York City-based group played a critical role in securing the 2006 exoneration of Deskovic, who served more than 15 years in prison for the 1989 rape and murder of Peekskill High classmate Angela Correa. DNA testing ultimately ordered by District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who entered office in 2006, led to the stunning revelation that someone else had killed Correa.”The article also contains a picture of me.
Before getting to my open letter to Judge Lippman, there are a few things that I want to clarify. As many people are aware, I served 16 years in prison for a murder and rape which I was innocent of. In the face of a negative DNA test which clearly showed that semen found in the victim did not match me, I was convicted based upon a coerced, false confession, prosecutorial misconduct, and forensic misconduct.
In addition, my public defender was not very good. All of my appeals had been exhausted by 2001. For approximately the next four and a half years I tried in vain to obtain the legal assistance needed to prove my innocence and regain my freedom. Try though I did, nobody would take my case pro bono, as I had no money. I, therefore, languished in prison while desperately trying to obtain assistance.
I was ultimately cleared because The Innocence Project agreed to represent me, and then approached Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore who agreed not to oppose further DNA Testing. Once the results matched an individual in the DNA database, who, in fact, had been imprisoned for another rape and murder of another Peekskill woman just three and a half years after my wrongful conviction, DiFiore then joined the defense motion to overturn my conviction and shortly thereafter, have the indictment dismissed on the grounds of actual innocence.
I appreciate her not opposing the testing and deciding to join the defense motions. But that is not to say that I was freed because my case was discovered in the course of a pro-active search of old cases by the DA’s Office, which is one way that The Journal News article
could be mistakenly interpreted. Further, I would like to add that although I was saved from having to litigate for the testing, and again I am grateful for that; if we had had to I haven’t any doubt that The Innocence Project would have won the right to the testing.
Life’s events seldom happen in a vacuum, and the election cycle for Westchester District Attorney is nearing. My photo in The Journal
News article at this time might suggest that I support Janet DiFiore in her re-election bid. I have nothing against her personally, and, as stated previously, I appreciate her doing the right thing in my case. However, I am concerned about more than simply my own case.
I am concerned with both preventing future wrongful convictions and seeing that ongoing cases of injustice are corrected. at is my life’s calling and mission and I cannot, ultimately, betray that mission or the people who support my anti-wrongful conviction advocacy by remaining silent.
I do not support District Attorney DiFiore in the upcoming race, for the following reasons:
A) The Anthony DiSimone case, in which the Westchester DA’s office, under DiFiore, fought up until the last minute before being forced to concede by the federal Court, and only then handing over exculpatory, previously withheld, evidence pointing to a third party suspect, yet continuing in their efforts to retry DiSimone;
B) The Richard DiGuglielmo case, involving DiFiore’s fighting the overturning of the verdict in which the Judge ruled that information had not been turned over to the defense, and then appealing the decision, not to mention the Prosecutor’s conduct, which I personally witnessed, and
that the Judge noted in his decision, that rather than being concerned with the truth the prosecutors were simply trying to win;
C) The Kian Khattibi case, in which the prosecutors first dissuaded the defendant’s brother from telling the truth in court that he committed
the stabbings by falsely threatening him with prosecution although the statute of limitations had run out, and then, once the brother wouldn’t
testify, arguing that the other family member’s testimony as to the confession they had heard was hearsay; when then-Judge DiFiore denied
Khattibi’s meritorious 440.10 Motion placing procedure above justice arguing that his petition contained inconsistent statements by witnesses, some of were on the record and others which were not;
D) Her failure to prosecute rogue Police Officer Wayne Simoes, who ultimately was arrested by the FBI for body slamming Irma Marquez
thereby breaking her jaw and causing multiple physical trauma, even though it was all on videotape; and, instead prosecuting Marquez;
E) Waiting 18 months before dropping her prosecution on false charges against Yonkers police brutality victim Rui Florim.
Dear Judge Lippman,
I have read that you have created a permanent task force in order to address the serious issue of wrongful convictions. As you know, wrongful convictions are much more prevalent than society previously realized. DNA has opened a window into the world of wrongful convictions allowing us to identify the systemic causes as well as common themes and patterns.
Since DNA material is only available in 10-12% of all serious felony cases, it is important that we prevent wrongful convictions in the first place. As it stands for the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no science that can definitively separate guilt from innocence. Additionally, as I can attest personally, the human toll of wrongful conviction on defendants and their families is incalculable.
I would hope that since you are seeking to make the New York State Court System more accurate, you will address issues that contribute to wrongful outcomes which I would respectfully like to point out.
1) More Frequent and Careful Review Is Needed. A common theme in many wrongful conviction cases, especially the 24 DNA-proven cases in New York, is that the Defendants have long since had their appeals exhausted. In many of those cases, including my own, the Court Of Appeals declined to grant permission to the Defendants to appeal to them.
In my case, for example, I was denied permission to appeal to the Court Of Appeals, with a ruling that stated there was “no merit in law to justify the reviewing.” Why is it that in so many of these wrongful conviction cases we can look back and see many red flags that should have been clear signs that something was not right? More cases need to be caught while they are still in the appellate process. Clearly,
what is needed is more review, not less. Therefore, cases that come before the Court should be given a closer look when deciding whether to review them or not. That scrutiny should be done in light of what is known about the causes of wrongful conviction.
Cases based on confessions should be looked at very carefully in terms of the circumstances under which they were procured. In identification-based cases, the quality of the ID and the procedures used to procure them should be closely looked at. Additionally, in many cases involving misidentification, courts have erroneously allowed convictions to stand despite victims having given clearly inaccurate descriptions with respect to height and weight. Cases involving allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel should be looked at carefully since it is known that without quality representation defendants may be wrongfully convicted despite being innocent. Such cases need to be heavily scrutinized and adjudicated on the merits rather than with deference to the defense attorney.
I am aware that such deference is accorded in order to uphold the sanctity of defense counsel and not by way of second guessing one’s strategy. However, either a challenged omission or commission constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel or not; no deference is needed. Instead, it must speak for itself.
If forensics furnishes part of the evidence, the Court must question whether it is based upon sound science, studies and data, or merely junk science. When a so-called science has been exposed as junk, every judge should be on the lookout for it in future cases, and even old cases should be re-examined to see if anything slipped past.
While I understand that the Court Of Appeals does not review cases on a factual basis but merely rules on issues pertaining to law, clearly where claims of actual innocence are present, particularly when DNA is involved, the Court should keep that in mind when deciding whether to accept a case in order to rule on the legal issues it presents.
2) In Confession Cases, Implement A Pre-Trial Hearing On The Issue Of Truthfulness. False confessions have been the cause of wrongful convictions in 25% of the 237 DNA-proven wrongful conviction cases, and in 10 of New York’s 24 cases. Yet, in none of those cases, despite clear warning signs that can be pointed to post exoneration, were the confessions suppressed. False confession literature shows that
once a confession has been entered into evidence there is an 80% conviction rate. Clearly, a pre-trial Huntley hearing where the sole issue considered is voluntariness is insufficient. Instead, a hearing in which the focus is the truthfulness of the confession is needed, akin to a Wade Hearing.
3) Ban Tactics Which Have Been Linked To False Confessions, such as prolonged interrogations, the misuse and abuse of the polygraph, lying to suspects, claiming to have non-existent evidence, and the interrogation of the mentally ill and/or retarded without an attorney present. Such practices, that are acknowledged to be psychologically coercive, lead to false confessions and therefore to wrongful convictions, and run
in the face of the spirit and intent of both New York State and federal Constitutional prohibitions against self incrimination.
4) Reverse Parole Board denials of parole applications as the result of applicants expressing innocence. There have been cases in which otherwise meritorious parole applications have been denied because they maintained innocence at the parole hearing. Such declarations are seen as “not taking responsibility” and “not showing remorse”. Colin Warner served 21 years in prison in New York prior to being proven
innocent. He was denied parole three times, in part because he refused to admit guilt at the Parole Board. Westchester Exoneree Kian Khattibi served nine and a half years before it was revealed that his brother committed the crime, and not he.
Prior to that, at his Parole Board Appearance, he maintained his innocence. The Parole Board denied him parole based upon that fact, saying “Your lack of remorse minimizing your involvement, notwithstanding your institutional adjustments, are a concern, and, when coupled with the violence in the instant offense make you an unacceptable risk for release at this time.”
Such a rigid approach doesn’t take into account the reality that wrongful convictions occur. I am unaware of any person so denied then successfully taking their case to court and obtaining relief. In fact, in many of the rare cases where a parole appeal based on any grounds at all is reversed, frequently the Court Of Appeals has stepped in and reversed the Appellate Division.
The problem of such a policy on the part of the Parole Board is obvious. It places the wrongfully convicted prisoner in the position of potentially sacrificing his or her freedom as the price for maintaining innocence, when in reality it doesn’t need to be done that way. Either an applicant can demonstrate by their record that they are likely to live and remain at liberty without breaking the law or not. The granting of parole need not be tied to a statement of responsibility.
An additional pitfall of such a guilt acknowledgement is that the wrongfully convicted defendant potentially creates additional evidence against himself in the event that his conviction is overturned, as part of the price of trying to meet the Parole Board requirements. An example of this is the John Duval case. He was convicted in 1973 of committing a murder in Rochester, New York, along with his co-defendant Betty Tyson. They were convicted based upon confessions which they stated were beaten out of them, and on the testimony of two teenage runaways.
After his appeals failed, in order to try to obtain his freedom, Duval twice admitted guilt in front of the Parole Board in 1995 and 1997 because he felt that was the only way he could regain his freedom because of the practice.
Later his conviction, along with that of his co-defendant Betty Tyson, was overturned because one of the witnesses recanted his testimony, saying he had lied previously. In addition, prosecutors then came up with a buried synopsis of a police interview with the other teen, in which he denied seeing Duval or Tyson, contrary to what the teen had testified in 1973. However, while the prosecutors dropped the charges
and Tyson was awarded money for her imprisonment, prosecutors retried Duval, using the statements that he had made in front of the Parole Board as evidence.
5) Reverse Prior Decisions Allowing The Department Of Corrections To Mandate Self Incrimination In Order To Continue To Participate In The Sex Offender Program. Prior court challenges of this practice by the Department Of Corrections have not yielded any relief, even when a defendant is still pursuing appeals. In order to have any chance at parole, defendants convicted of sex offenses must admit guilt, to staff and peers, in writing, and give details. To not do so is considered to be tantamount to refusing the program. This, too, forces prisoners to potentially sacrifice freedom as the price for maintaining innocence. This does not take into account wrongful convictions.
I will close by saying there is a great need for incarcerative and financial penalties for rogue prosecutors who intentionally commit Brady and Rosario violations, suborn perjury, fail to correct perjury, and who have patterns and practices established with coroners and other experts, whereby those experts work backwards to prove whatever a prosecutor is trying to prove. I would urge you to include these in your report. After all, what does an honest prosecutor have to lose? To me, prosecutorial misconduct is like any other crime. Don’t do the time if you can’t do the time.
I hope that your report will be hard hitting, critical, and proves to be an impetus by which urgently needed legislation is obtained. The cracks in the system which I have attempted to point out above are correctable judicially. Please do not ignore problems from within while only addressing those from without.
Best regards,
Jeffrey Deskovic, Criminal Justice Advocate and Exoneree
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
The Justice Department Needs
To Enforce The Law Of The Land
Collegial Deference Makes Them An Accomplice After The Fact
Simply put, those who would enforce the law must live by it. A front-page dispatch out of Washington, D.C. in last Wednesday’s New York Times stated, “An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush Administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations, but they should not be prosecuted according to government officials briefed on its findings.”
The report, which was prepared by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Ethics Unit within the Justice Department, indicated that the Feds might relegate their responsibility to identify and punish those attorneys who blatantly authorized and justified serious violations
of Constitutional guarantees, to state bar associations, and, would likely involve little more than reprimands, went a long way to con-
firm the two-tiered justice system most Americans believe we have been living under for some time.
The Obama Administration needs to push for a Justice Department that ordinary citizens will have reason to believe will dish out equal penalty and punishment for equal offense. After all, Constitutional guarantees are the bedrock of our democracy, the rules of the game. If the promise of change is what prompted the majority of Americans to install an African-American man with a Muslim-sounding name in the
White House, Constitutional violations and Executive Privilege, the like of which the Bush/ Cheney Administration thrived on for eight years, simply will not do.
We all quickly came to understand what the Right meant by “Law And Order.” It simply meant that those in power were above the law and would give the orders. And, make no mistake, the so-called trickle-down Republican philosophy was never more effective than in the realm of law enforcement. Here, in Westchester, we were exposed to the penultimate model.
Former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, one Michael J. Garcia, precisely three years ago, May 12, 2006, took the unprecedented measure of releasing the telephone number of a so-called “Corruption Hotline” 1-877-ENDGRAFT, as he put it, “through which members of the public can call and report potential abuses of the public trust by public officials.”
Judging by the extraordinarily low number of public integrity arrests and prosecutions in Westchester, as well as the five counties immediately north and west named in Garcia’s original announcement, one might logically conclude that we were as clean as a whistle, and that there were few calls, given that one can count on the fingers of one hand the number of public integrity cases indicted and convicted by
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the County of Westchester, “the suburbs north of New York City,” as then-President Bush had defined the geographic scope of his area of concern.
One would surely conclude that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, manning the hotline, were like the Maytag Man, waiting for the phone to ring. But, in fact, the opposite was true.
We learned from scores of readers who did phone in that they had been repeatedly told by FBI agents that they were “swamped with calls and couldn’t handle any more.”
So what happened? By comparison, Chris Christie, the United States Attorney, appointed by Bush in 2001 to deal with corruption in New
Jersey, had, by 2008, convicted or taken guilty pleas from more than 125 corrupt public officials; most of them going to prison. What was Mr. Garcia doing with the flood of information pouring into his hotline? We have no way to know for sure.
However, we do know that he attended the retirement party given for former Dobbs Ferry Police Chief George Longworth, the same corrupt
police chief who eyewitnesses in the Richard DiGuglielmo case, testified personally harassed them, together with all three of his detectives, and treated them like suspects until they broke down and changed their original accounts with respect to the self-defense shooting of
bat-wielding perpetrator Charles Campbell to accounts that conformed with what DA Jeanine Pirro wanted them to say.
We do know that on at least two separate occasions Garcia was entertained at the Hamptons Villa of Westchester DA Janet DiFiore, whose refusal to prosecute a rogue, violent Yonkers police officer, and another from Sleepy Hollow, has caused federal prosecutors to step in and do so. In the Yonkers incident, not only did DA DiFiore fail to prosecute the violent, abusive cop, but, in fact, proceeded instead to prosecute
Irma Marquez, the innocent, severely injured victim, even after viewing a videotape of the incident. She did the same in the Rui Florim
case, involving a near-fatal beating by six off-duty Yonkers cops, as well as in numerous, similar, documented cases without any reprimand or acknowledgement of wrongdoing, from Garcia’s Of-fice.
Call it collegial deference, selective prosecution, whatever lightweight term you wish. In plain language, it is injustice; a two-tiered system of enforcement; federal prosecutors protecting and covering up the misconduct of their state counterparts, and their cronies. Westchester is rife with corruption and serious issues of public integrity; and, yet, there has been in-finitesimally little production in that area of criminal activity from the United States Attorney’s Office.
Taxpayers are disillusioned; quick to believe “They’re all in bed together.” They cannot understand the lack of accountability from federal, state, and county government officials, and law enforcement agencies as, all the while, they are being bled dry with taxes to support the
corruption. The “Trickle-Down Effect”, the “Them v Us” reality at a time when families are losing their homes, and putting food on the table, has become harder and harder, is the more intolerable while many police officers are making $250,000 and more, and part-time County commissioners, such as Reggie LaFayette, are getting $155,000, plus all they can steal from one slush fund or another.
The Justice Department must enforce the law of the land, holding persons, particularly those in positions of power and authority, to account if this Nation is to come through this difficult period intact. The majority of hardworking reasonable individuals must not become convinced, as too many already have, that the ‘Promise of America’, a good life for one’s family, is merely a myth, no longer supported by
constitutional guarantees.
While many, particularly in New York, already acknowledge the corruption and greed that has clearly taken control of the State Court System; and, with it, much of state and municipal government, many still hold out hope that the federal government, the Department of
Justice, particularly under the Obama Administration, will fulfill its mandate and prosecute crime and malfeasance everywhere without malice or favor.
To do less would be to invite societal collapse. William Pitt said it quite bluntly; “Where Law Ends, Tyranny Begins.”
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
The Justice Department Needs
To Enforce The Law Of The Land
Collegial Deference Makes Them An Accomplice After The Fact
Simply put, those who would enforce the law must live by it. A front-page dispatch out of Washington, D.C. in last Wednesday’s New York Times stated, “An internal Justice Department inquiry has concluded that Bush Administration lawyers committed serious lapses of judgment in writing secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations, but they should not be prosecuted according to government officials briefed on its findings.”
The report, which was prepared by the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Ethics Unit within the Justice Department, indicated that the Feds might relegate their responsibility to identify and punish those attorneys who blatantly authorized and justified serious violations
of Constitutional guarantees, to state bar associations, and, would likely involve little more than reprimands, went a long way to con-
firm the two-tiered justice system most Americans believe we have been living under for some time.
The Obama Administration needs to push for a Justice Department that ordinary citizens will have reason to believe will dish out equal penalty and punishment for equal offense. After all, Constitutional guarantees are the bedrock of our democracy, the rules of the game. If the promise of change is what prompted the majority of Americans to install an African-American man with a Muslim-sounding name in the
White House, Constitutional violations and Executive Privilege, the like of which the Bush/ Cheney Administration thrived on for eight years, simply will not do.
We all quickly came to understand what the Right meant by “Law And Order.” It simply meant that those in power were above the law and would give the orders. And, make no mistake, the so-called trickle-down Republican philosophy was never more effective than in the realm of law enforcement. Here, in Westchester, we were exposed to the penultimate model.
Former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, one Michael J. Garcia, precisely three years ago, May 12, 2006, took the unprecedented measure of releasing the telephone number of a so-called “Corruption Hotline” 1-877-ENDGRAFT, as he put it, “through which members of the public can call and report potential abuses of the public trust by public officials.”
Judging by the extraordinarily low number of public integrity arrests and prosecutions in Westchester, as well as the five counties immediately north and west named in Garcia’s original announcement, one might logically conclude that we were as clean as a whistle, and that there were few calls, given that one can count on the fingers of one hand the number of public integrity cases indicted and convicted by
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the County of Westchester, “the suburbs north of New York City,” as then-President Bush had defined the geographic scope of his area of concern.
One would surely conclude that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, manning the hotline, were like the Maytag Man, waiting for the phone to ring. But, in fact, the opposite was true.
We learned from scores of readers who did phone in that they had been repeatedly told by FBI agents that they were “swamped with calls and couldn’t handle any more.”
So what happened? By comparison, Chris Christie, the United States Attorney, appointed by Bush in 2001 to deal with corruption in New
Jersey, had, by 2008, convicted or taken guilty pleas from more than 125 corrupt public officials; most of them going to prison. What was Mr. Garcia doing with the flood of information pouring into his hotline? We have no way to know for sure.
However, we do know that he attended the retirement party given for former Dobbs Ferry Police Chief George Longworth, the same corrupt
police chief who eyewitnesses in the Richard DiGuglielmo case, testified personally harassed them, together with all three of his detectives, and treated them like suspects until they broke down and changed their original accounts with respect to the self-defense shooting of
bat-wielding perpetrator Charles Campbell to accounts that conformed with what DA Jeanine Pirro wanted them to say.
We do know that on at least two separate occasions Garcia was entertained at the Hamptons Villa of Westchester DA Janet DiFiore, whose refusal to prosecute a rogue, violent Yonkers police officer, and another from Sleepy Hollow, has caused federal prosecutors to step in and do so. In the Yonkers incident, not only did DA DiFiore fail to prosecute the violent, abusive cop, but, in fact, proceeded instead to prosecute
Irma Marquez, the innocent, severely injured victim, even after viewing a videotape of the incident. She did the same in the Rui Florim
case, involving a near-fatal beating by six off-duty Yonkers cops, as well as in numerous, similar, documented cases without any reprimand or acknowledgement of wrongdoing, from Garcia’s Of-fice.
Call it collegial deference, selective prosecution, whatever lightweight term you wish. In plain language, it is injustice; a two-tiered system of enforcement; federal prosecutors protecting and covering up the misconduct of their state counterparts, and their cronies. Westchester is rife with corruption and serious issues of public integrity; and, yet, there has been in-finitesimally little production in that area of criminal activity from the United States Attorney’s Office.
Taxpayers are disillusioned; quick to believe “They’re all in bed together.” They cannot understand the lack of accountability from federal, state, and county government officials, and law enforcement agencies as, all the while, they are being bled dry with taxes to support the
corruption. The “Trickle-Down Effect”, the “Them v Us” reality at a time when families are losing their homes, and putting food on the table, has become harder and harder, is the more intolerable while many police officers are making $250,000 and more, and part-time County commissioners, such as Reggie LaFayette, are getting $155,000, plus all they can steal from one slush fund or another.
The Justice Department must enforce the law of the land, holding persons, particularly those in positions of power and authority, to account if this Nation is to come through this difficult period intact. The majority of hardworking reasonable individuals must not become convinced, as too many already have, that the ‘Promise of America’, a good life for one’s family, is merely a myth, no longer supported by
constitutional guarantees.
While many, particularly in New York, already acknowledge the corruption and greed that has clearly taken control of the State Court System; and, with it, much of state and municipal government, many still hold out hope that the federal government, the Department of
Justice, particularly under the Obama Administration, will fulfill its mandate and prosecute crime and malfeasance everywhere without malice or favor.
To do less would be to invite societal collapse. William Pitt said it quite bluntly; “Where Law Ends, Tyranny Begins.”
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
In Our Opinion...
Politicians Who Kiss Up To DiFiore Could Care Less About The Harm She Brings To Their Constituents
Two weeks ago, when Janet DiFiore, Darling of Westchester’s Political Fat Cats, made her official announcement outside of the County Courthouse that she was running for a second term as District Attorney, we made several observations with respect to the crowd she brought with her. For one thing, more than half of the roughly 200 individuals present were her recognizable assistant district attorneys, investigators, and support staff. No big surprise; Pirro used to stack her announcements that way too, with staff virtually compelled to show up.
What was very telling, however, was the noticeable lack of police personnel from the 43 Departments across the County. Of course, given her callous handling of decent, hard-working police officers, coupled with her mind-boggling protection of rogue, abusive cops, the unwillingness of the overwhelming majority of Westchester’s Finest to support DiFiore was certainly understandable.
After all, they are the ones who have been dealing with her for some three and a half years now, and they are the ones whose fellow officers have suffered under her heavy-handed vindictiveness, as was the case with Detective Sergeant Steven Bonura of the Pleasantville Police Department.
Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the Department, father of five children, had commented to a reporter from The Journal News how inappropriate he thought it was for DiFiore’s Office to be constantly plea-bargaining with a career criminal with 30 arrests, putting that offender quickly back on the street to commit more thefts, more burglaries, and offenses involving guns, supposedly in exchange for information on other criminals. DiFiore, unable to face constructive criticism, insisted on Detective Bonura’s “head on a silver platter”, which she received from the Village Board at the urging of Police Chief Anthony Chiarlitti.
Then there was Officer George Bubaris, of the Mount Kisco Police Department who DiFiore brought to trial without a stitch of evidence
connecting him to the death of homeless immigrant Rene Perez. We had said at the start of the trial, “DA Comes To Court With Tank On Empty.” Bubaris was acquitted, but not before losing his job and spending a fortune in legal fees. Police departments across Westchester have little use for Janet DiFiore; but, apparently, nobody tipped off Pat Lynch, President of the New York City Police Benevolent Association.
Lynch is a union guy. He’s no police officer. He’s just another politician, one who apparently could care less about DiFiore’s mistreatment of good cops, or prosecution of the innocent victims of police brutality, at the hands of bad ones. Like politician Chuck Lesnick, the Yonkers City Council President who never once publicly spoke out against the brutal beating of Rui Florim, or the body-slamming of Irma Marquez,
or the beatings of dozens of other individuals, all his constituents, including women and children, Lynch showed up to kiss up to Janet DiFiore, who, in fact, prosecuted those innocent victims.
Our Readers Respond....
One More Time, Fourth Amendment Alive And Well
Dear Editor:
Last Friday at 6 p.m. I was perched on a public road in sunny Chappaqua, New York awaiting a passing train or three on the Harlem Line. A patrolling New Castle PD cruiser happened upon me, standing trackside armed with my Nikon D100 digital camera. Before he exited his vehicle, he radioed for back-up. Within one minute, another two police cars come racing down this dead-end street at over 50 MPH.
Now that the whole posse was here the grilling began.
Q. “Why are you here? What are you doing?”
A. “Taking pictures of trains.”
Q. “Why are you taking pictures of trains? What are you going to do with pictures?”
A. “It’s my hobby.”
Q. “Let me see some I.D.”
After he ran my license, checked the tags on my car, and all comes back A-OK, he then explained to me that “All of this is necessary in the
name of post-9/11, transit systems being targeted, subway bombings in Spain and England, etc.”
I explained that I’m taking pictures from a public road, of public transportation, all within my rights. He said, “True, but we still have to make sure, you know?” Actually, I did not know why I needed to be checked out, but ok.
He then asked for permission to search my vehicle. At this point, I knew if I refused, things could get ugly. They could write me a ticket for
parking two feet from the curb, worn left tire, parking the wrong way on the left side of the road, etc. So, knowing that I had nothing to hide in my car I said “Sure, go ahead, search the vehicle.”
They asked me to step away from the car as they conducted their search. They went through my work bag, my laptop computer case, the
trunk, the glove box and everywhere in between.
And then one officer saw my Metro-North Railroad parking permit. He said “Hey, do you have Metro-North ID?” I said “Sure, here it is.” “Oh, you work for Metro-North?” they asked. I said “Yes.” At this point, they ended their search and the ordeal was over. The two
officers who arrived last left the scene. The remaining officer finished his notes, and upon leaving stated again that all of this is “Due to 9/11.”
He thanked me for co-operating and drove off into the sunset.
As you probably know, the MTA photo policy states that any John Q. Public can take a picture of any train, bus or subway car so long as you are not in a RESTRICTED area. So, why do these cops violate me when I am John Q. Public standing on a public road?
Answer - because they can.
Welcome to modern day Communism folks, right here in the U.S. of A. Please note, that I did not want to be “Let o- because I’m an MTA
employee.” But rather, I wanted to simply act within the letter of the law and exercise my rights as a free citizen living in the greatest state in the greatest country on earth. I should not have been violated by these guys like this. Obviously, that was too much to ask for...in New Castle anyway.
But maybe, that is what they do to “justify their jobs” - ya know? As in “extra protection” for the “Billary & Co.” mansion located a few
miles away. i.e. Stop any out-of-towner and give ‘em a good lashing! I am truly saddened by this unfortunate event.
W. Koch
Editor’s Note: Reader Koch would do well to read the “In Our Opinion” column in the May 7, 2009 edition of The Guardian in which we discuss the very recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, authored by Justice Stevens, with respect to police searches of vehicles incident to an occupant’s arrest. In overturning those automatic warrantless searches which dated back to 1981 Stevens declared, “A rule that gives police the power to conduct a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”
Machiavellian Maneuvers Of Lawyers, Judges And Defendant For Over 20 years
Dear Editor:
The 20 year span of over 20 Judges in one divorce action one would question Why?
Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Index No.90/1972, County of Putnam,
Honorable Andrew P. O’Rourke
Maria Gkanios, Plaintiff
-Against-
Frank A/K/A Fotios Gkanios, Defendant
Selective Prosecution
Why does a divorce take 20 years; Gkanios vs. Gkanios, the longest divorce case in Putnam County? Why was this defendant allowed to operate under a second Social Security number?
Why were charges not filed against this defendant for filing false net worth statements in this divorce action without the new Social Security Number?
Why would Judge Andrew O’ Rourke at one point knowing that the defendant Mr. Gkanios, is a convicted Pedophile having to decide Fault in the divorce. This is an insult. Fault should not have even been a question in this divorce. One would also question the qualifications of Judge Andrew O’ Rourke if he cannot recognize how the law requires him to deal with a convicted Pedophile in a matrimonial action.
How is he sitting on a matrimonial case, failing to follow the rule requirements in matrimonial including discovery, due process, notice, hearing etc…?
Why would Judge Andrew O’Rourke taint himself with the appearance of impropriety by further condoning and rewarding the actions of the defendant by having to think of having to decide fault. It was only after Plaintiff reminded this judge of the heinous acts by the defendant that fault was removed.
Bifurcation of a divorce is illegal in New York. Again Judge Andrew O’Rourke violated the law by bifurcating this divorce from the bench, NO written order, no discovery etc. There should be no question as to fault; the egregious conduct of the defendant being a convicted pedophile under egregious conduct clearly proven in the State of New York!
This divorce belongs under EGREGIOUS CONDUCT not Equitable Distribution. The plaintiff ’s marriage to this defendant from the inception was a lie. Egregious conduct is hard to prove but not in this case. Defendant was found guilty by a jury on December 11, 1991
in Putnam County and, on the same charges, in Westchester County plead guilty to the full indictment on April 14, 1992. In the State of New York under Egregious conduct plaintiff is entitled to all the marital assets, that is the very reason that the courts, the defendant, his attorneys sent plaintiff on a wild goose chase for years because of his crimes!
The question here why the sentence was concurrent and such a minimum sentence? He served a total of four years on such a heinous crime! If it was anyone else they would have served at least 25 years.
Why did Judge Andrew O’ Rourke turn a willful contempt hearing for failure to pay child support into a matrimonial trial, knowing that, to date, there has been no discovery; no note of issue can be filed.
Defendant was hiding in the State of Florida at 2585 South East 9th Street. Pompano Beach under the second Social Security number. Why was this defendant not picked up after reporting it to the DA’s office and the Carmel PD for help? On April 11, 2008 defendant was picked in the State of Florida on the Adam Walsh Law for failure to register as a sex offender. He left the State of New York illegally.
Defendant has lived an elegant life style in New York and in the State of Florida in a multi million dollar home in Pompano Beach. Claiming he works and makes 250.00 a week but testified that he pays 1,200.00 a month rent, what about the food, electric, insurance etc. Red Flag?
Why didn’t Judge Andrew O’ Rourke order the production of the defendants Past and Present Tax returns? Why didn’t Judge Andrew O’
Rourke demand a full accounting from this defendant?
How is it that this defendant continues to falsely claim financial hardship. If that were true than the proper action for the defendant would be to motion the court for Poor Persons relief under CPLR ARTICLE 11 Sec 1101, 1102, 1103, not show up in court with paid attorneys, appraisers, at the same time falsely and frivolously claiming to have no money to pay child support. Adding insult to injury giving the plaintiff two money orders of $25 each just two days before the court hearing for contempt and an additional two more money orders for
$25 each after the court hearing. This is an insult to plaintiff, the court and the laws governing Child Support including every father who has gone to jail for not paying child support arrears. Fathers who pay support and Fathers who have been jailed for non support Mike Kelly,
Doug Higbee, Domenick Lieto, Bret Evans, Allen Ortz, Thomas Butti, Edward Mancini, Tony Nocera and John McKeon the list goes on.
Why?
Why would Judge Andrew O’Rourke violate the law further to wipe out child support arrears totaling over $300,000. Notice of Entry of all orders, properly filed and served along with all the affidavits of service the time for the defendant to appeal has long been gone. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times! Has Judge Andrew O’Rourke now become an appellate judge and appointed himself?
“DRL Section 244, article; that the court NO LONGER has broad discretion in determining whether to grant applications for judgment. Where the arrears are the arrears in child support, the court must enter a money judgment for the amount of arrears, now arrears in child support must be awarded in full.” Judge Andrew O’ Rourke was not appointed by the AIS Part to hear this case why did he continue and appoint himself to this case?
Before Judge Andrew O’ Rourke, Attorney Victor Grossman opened the door on the production of tape recordings that the plaintiff was in possession of. Plaintiff produced the tape recording after court and counsel received the damaging evidence before the court against the defendant, the court has again through deceptive practice conspicuously and deliberately leaving this out of record. This clearly constitutes
continued fraud, and bias. WHY?
Tape one show’s how the plaintiff was fighting with the defendant because the defendant wanted to burn the tore down, a restaurant in Eastchester, and collect the insurance money and plan that it was the plaintiff. The second tape was the day before the second restaurant in Mt Vernon was taken. Defendant’s thugs came in and threatened that plaintiff better give the store to the defendant or they were going to send the boys up.
There were numerous and prejudicial statements directed at the plaintiff by Justice Andrew O’ Rourke. The remarks made were not proper and undermining of the public’s trust. I would think that the actions of the court are deliberate violations of the Cannons of Professional Responsibility and his oath of office.
That plaintiff pay for the transcripts and then the defendant will give plaintiff half. Judge O’ Rourke comments: “Call your rich relatives in California, let them give you the money” Plaintiff was granted Poor person in a divorce action years ago. Plaintiff cannot afford the transcript.
Plaintiff does not work. In the interests of justice plaintiff ’s poor person request is accepted and the transcripts produced without further violating plaintiff ’s due process rights and civil rights. There is not just one violation, there are numerous. This case has gone on for quite a number of years.
Compliance with the rules is essential to the integrity of the Judicial Process. In this case there has been no compliance ever!
The Child Support Judgements
1. Dated March 11, 1994 is from week December 18,1990 to February 13,1993 plus interest totaling $71,484, 00 defendant was served at the Correctional Facility along with his counsel.
2. Dated June 24,1994 is from week February 14,1993 to May 8, 1994 plus interest Totaling $36,090.14
3. Dated November 16,1995 is from week May 9, 1994 to June 4, 1995 plus interest Totaling $31,838,68
4. Dated June 16, 1996 is from week June 5, 1995 to November 12,1995 plus interest totaling $12,138.01
5. Dated October 13,1996 is from week November 13,1995 to September 1,1996 plus interest totaling $ 22,822.68
6. Dated October 15, 1999 is from week September 2,1996 to May 31,1999 plus Interest totaling $ 86,654.12
7. Dated March 12,1996 is from December 11,1990 to March 12,1996 plus interest totaling $ 24,671.60. This judgment is for the care of the defendants step-son Peter Cirino Defendant signed a Confession of Judgment.
Machiavellian maneuvers by the Courts, the defendant and Defendant’s counsel should no longer be tolerated by this or any other Court!
As Professor Siegel sets forth: “The present system is too tolerant of the deliberately evasive and dilatory litigant, increasing the expense of
litigation in money, time, trouble, and feeling, and tending as a consequence to undermine public confidence in the courts.” New York Practice, 2d. Ed., David D. Siegel, 367, p. 541 (.1991).
Lets Play Catch
Child Support takes precedence over any claims. Defendant’s former counsel Terrence Dwyer illegally obtained a confession of judgment from the defendant, just two days prior to his incarceration, against marital property in an attempt to defeat any and all my economic claims, and the minor children born of this marriage: in particular, those claims of child support CPLR 5234 (b). “Such executions for child support
shall have priority over any other assignment, levy or process”.
Dwyer violated the Court Orders by obtaining the confession of judgment after JUSTICE SWEENEY’s decision. Dwyer was not awarded attorney’s fees by this court or any other court for his representation of my husband in this matrimonial action or any other action.
The order entered in the Matrimonial matter of Judge Fred Dickenson dated 7/1/91 states: (Paragraph 3, The defendant’s, his agents, employees and representatives are restrained and enjoined, except in the regular course of business and subject to further order of the court, from concealing, dissipating, utilizing, assigning, transferring, or in any way disposing or encumbering the marital assets, unless the plaintiff, in writing consents to such action.) and Further: A second order of Justice Sweeney’s dated October 21, 1991, states:
“This court is most reluctant to award attorney’s fees where child support is outstanding. Therefore, the ‘court Sua Sponte vacates its award of attorney’s fees without prejudice to renew ‘if it is found, specifically in the Supreme Court Action, that Respondent, herein, was not in arrears.”
Upon reading the newspaper to my surprise I found that Dwyer was going to auction off my property through his confession of judgment. Dwyer is not a marital debtor; he cannot enforce judgment against a marital property without the written consent of the creditor. The marital estate is not liable for the debts incurred by husband after the separation.
Contrary to State and Federal statutes regarding child Support as well as prevailing case law authority; and his bad faith attempt to take possession and control of the marital property located in Putnam County through a Sheriff ’s Sale which was scheduled February 4,
1993 without disclosing it to me that there existed a Confession of Judgment secured by him against my husband and without notice to me “CPLR 5236(c) Requires Notice” that he intended to execute upon said judgment; violating NYCRR. 1200. 11[DR 2-106] The rules precluded Defendants Attorney Dwyer from a contingency fee agreement in a criminal matter. Dwyer proceeded knowingly to obtain marital
property although the rights to his property had not yet been determined; CPLR 5239.
Attorney Dwyer failed to provide plaintiff with any and all documents, correspondence, or agreements regarding the procurance of said judgment which he has levied against the property, my property. NYCRR 1200.11 [DR 2-106] prohibits Dwyer from obtaining an agreement upon security interest, Confession of Judgment or other lien without prior notice to the client in a signed retainer agreement which Dwyer has failed to produce to date. There is no privilege where notice has to be of an application for a security interest to the other spouse; A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect:
(1) A contigent fee for representing my husband in a criminal case; or
(2) Any fee in a Domestic relations matter to which Part 1400 of the joint rules of the Appellate Division is applicable,
(a) The payment or amount of which is Contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of maintenance, support, equitable distribution, or property settlement; or
(b) Unless a written retainer agreement is signed t the lawyer and the client setting forth in plain language the nature of the relationship and the details of the fee arrangement.
(c) Based upon a security, interest, Confession of Judgment or other lien without prior notice to the, client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from the Court after NOTICE to the Adversary.
Dwyer proceeded knowingly and unlawfully to obtain a security interest in the marital estate via Confession of Judgment without presenting to the lower court any documents which demonstrates that a fee agreement existed; and that I had been given notice, the adversary in this action; or that the court had granted approval for the “security interest,” after submission of an application for counsel fee [NYCRR
1400.5 a) (1).(2) and (3)].
(A) An attorney may obtain a confession of judgment or promissory note, take a lien on real property, or otherwise obtain a security interest to secure his or her fee only where:
(1) the retainer agreement provides that a security interest may be sought;
(2) Notice of an application for a security interest has been given to the other spouse;
(3) The court grants approval for the security interest after submission of an application for counsel fee
(B) Unless a written retainer agreement is signed by the lawyer and the client etting forth in plain language the ature of the relationship and the details o the fee arrangement.
(C) Based upon a security, interest, confession of Judgment or other lien ithout prior notice to the, client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from the Court after NOTICE to the Adversary
In addition to Defendant and, by his previous counsel, falsifying statements of net worth; dated 8/5/91 defendant and by his counsel failed to include the property in question that was owned by my husband and myself. DRL 236 Pt B, Subd. 1 c provides marital property is all property acquired by either or both parties during, the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement
of a matrimonial action. Defendants counsel executed upon the confession of judgment in Westchester County with full knowledge that said property was the subject to the equitable distribution laws of this state. Further defendants counsel was not a creditor of the marital estate
and his contempt of court orders dated July 3, 1991 and the Honorable Justice Sweeney Dated 10/21/91
Defendant’s former attorney Dwyer attempted to foreclose on me and from attaching any interest in this property his attempts violated my rights to deprive me of my property and to defeat Equitable Distribution. The support issues must be addressed and come before Dwyer’s action but what counsel tried to do was screw you. Courts, I am getting my money.
Foreclosure
Judge O’ Rourke continued to allow an appraisal for my children’s house and property when it was foreclosed on years ago when I continued to object to each and every time on any and all statements made. The defendant, as well as I are FOREVER BARRED.
Judge O’ Rourke is trying to collect half of what the house was worth at foreclosure knowing that the defendant and I were forever barred in an attempt to deduct that from the child support the defendant owes the plaintiff. One would question why there was a span of 20 years and over 30 Judges, in one divorce action.
Maria Gkanios, Mahopac
Citizens Need A Direct Vote On Critical Issues
Dear Editor:
The state produces nothing. It gets all of its money from the disorganized majority and gives it to the organized unions, non-profits, and large corporations. Other state-dependent, un-elected organizations are the public authorities, such as the MTA, the Empire State Development Corporation, and the Dormitory Authority, which sell billions of dollars of bonds without taxpayer approval even though the taxpayers have the responsibility to pay them back, with interest.
Every year when the state budget rip-off is being decided, the MTA’s highly-paid executives and their huge staffs distract the citizens by declaring transit, bus and train fares, and tolls, will face a dramatic increase, but when the budget process is completed, the MTA miraculously finds another billion dollars in its own budget. The distraction is successful, and the fare increases are minimal or postponed.
One difficult solution to the corruption and financial mess in Albany would be to allow citizens to collect the required number of signatures,
and then put critical issues on the ballot for voters to accept or reject (the initiative process), or to give voters the right to reject all
or parts of legislation passed by the politicians, by direct ballot after signatures have been collected (the referendum process).
Acceptable initiative and referendum legislation, introduced by Senator Ranzenhofer (S3525), is extremely difficult to pass because virtually every politician, union, non-profit, and corporation opposes it. Only taxpayer groups support the legislation. Politicians consider themselves upperclass royalty and despise the hardworking citizens since legislators get their power from special interest groups, not the voters. They are arrogant and corrupt as witnessed by indictments for DWI, sex with interns, assault, bribery and kickbacks, and misuse of funds.
Meanwhile, the teachers and health care unions and non-profits suck billions of dollars from these compliant politicians who jam
needles into the veins of taxpayers day after day to satisfy the needs of their blood-thirsty patrons.
Opponents of initiative and referendum legislation, and a state Constitutional amendment, claim it isn’t necessary in a democracy because citizens are represented by elected legislators. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a democratic government in Albany in many decades. The
State Legislature goes to the highest bidder, and the public be damned. Types of legislation that could be passed by the initiative process
include: term limits; court reform; public authority bond debt must be approved by the voters; corporations receiving tax subsidies must
guarantee worker employment and no plant closings/relocations; property tax reform; “sunlight” on all state union contracts, contractor
biddings/awards, and non-profit contracts; all contracts and audited financial reports of non-profits must be online within three months
after agreements are signed; right to cut health benefits for families of state workers; and right to cut the salaries, perks, travel, pensions,
staff, and health care for legislators.
Tell your state senator and assembly member to support the initiative and referendum bill S3525, and not any other useless, smokescreen
bills.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
Reader Endorses Candidate For New Rochelle School Board
Dear Editor:
I was glad to learn that Vincent Malfetano has become a candidate for the New Rochelle School Board. With the present School Board proposing a budget that approaches a quarter of a billion dollars, it is urgent that we elect some new people to the Board who have a more reasonable stance on school budgets.
As a parent, homeowner, lawyer and instructor, Mr. Malfetano is well-qualified to serve on the Board. He understands the need to
properly educate all of our children. But he also understands this must be done in a cost-conscious manner that will stop the constant
increases in taxes of double and triple the rate of inflation that is causing many home owners to flee the city.
In addition, Mr. Malfetano would bring a much needed balance to the Board. He is a resident of the South end of the city and would
give the parents of children attending Trinity, Jefferson, Columbus and Isaac E. Young schools a stronger voice on the Board that has too
often been dominated by North end residents.
Ines Candrea, New Rochelle
In Our Opinion...
Politicians Who Kiss Up To DiFiore Could Care Less About The Harm She Brings To Their Constituents
Two weeks ago, when Janet DiFiore, Darling of Westchester’s Political Fat Cats, made her official announcement outside of the County Courthouse that she was running for a second term as District Attorney, we made several observations with respect to the crowd she brought with her. For one thing, more than half of the roughly 200 individuals present were her recognizable assistant district attorneys, investigators, and support staff. No big surprise; Pirro used to stack her announcements that way too, with staff virtually compelled to show up.
What was very telling, however, was the noticeable lack of police personnel from the 43 Departments across the County. Of course, given her callous handling of decent, hard-working police officers, coupled with her mind-boggling protection of rogue, abusive cops, the unwillingness of the overwhelming majority of Westchester’s Finest to support DiFiore was certainly understandable.
After all, they are the ones who have been dealing with her for some three and a half years now, and they are the ones whose fellow officers have suffered under her heavy-handed vindictiveness, as was the case with Detective Sergeant Steven Bonura of the Pleasantville Police Department.
Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the Department, father of five children, had commented to a reporter from The Journal News how inappropriate he thought it was for DiFiore’s Office to be constantly plea-bargaining with a career criminal with 30 arrests, putting that offender quickly back on the street to commit more thefts, more burglaries, and offenses involving guns, supposedly in exchange for information on other criminals. DiFiore, unable to face constructive criticism, insisted on Detective Bonura’s “head on a silver platter”, which she received from the Village Board at the urging of Police Chief Anthony Chiarlitti.
Then there was Officer George Bubaris, of the Mount Kisco Police Department who DiFiore brought to trial without a stitch of evidence
connecting him to the death of homeless immigrant Rene Perez. We had said at the start of the trial, “DA Comes To Court With Tank On Empty.” Bubaris was acquitted, but not before losing his job and spending a fortune in legal fees. Police departments across Westchester have little use for Janet DiFiore; but, apparently, nobody tipped off Pat Lynch, President of the New York City Police Benevolent Association.
Lynch is a union guy. He’s no police officer. He’s just another politician, one who apparently could care less about DiFiore’s mistreatment of good cops, or prosecution of the innocent victims of police brutality, at the hands of bad ones. Like politician Chuck Lesnick, the Yonkers City Council President who never once publicly spoke out against the brutal beating of Rui Florim, or the body-slamming of Irma Marquez,
or the beatings of dozens of other individuals, all his constituents, including women and children, Lynch showed up to kiss up to Janet DiFiore, who, in fact, prosecuted those innocent victims.
Our Readers Respond....
One More Time, Fourth Amendment Alive And Well
Dear Editor:
Last Friday at 6 p.m. I was perched on a public road in sunny Chappaqua, New York awaiting a passing train or three on the Harlem Line. A patrolling New Castle PD cruiser happened upon me, standing trackside armed with my Nikon D100 digital camera. Before he exited his vehicle, he radioed for back-up. Within one minute, another two police cars come racing down this dead-end street at over 50 MPH.
Now that the whole posse was here the grilling began.
Q. “Why are you here? What are you doing?”
A. “Taking pictures of trains.”
Q. “Why are you taking pictures of trains? What are you going to do with pictures?”
A. “It’s my hobby.”
Q. “Let me see some I.D.”
After he ran my license, checked the tags on my car, and all comes back A-OK, he then explained to me that “All of this is necessary in the
name of post-9/11, transit systems being targeted, subway bombings in Spain and England, etc.”
I explained that I’m taking pictures from a public road, of public transportation, all within my rights. He said, “True, but we still have to make sure, you know?” Actually, I did not know why I needed to be checked out, but ok.
He then asked for permission to search my vehicle. At this point, I knew if I refused, things could get ugly. They could write me a ticket for
parking two feet from the curb, worn left tire, parking the wrong way on the left side of the road, etc. So, knowing that I had nothing to hide in my car I said “Sure, go ahead, search the vehicle.”
They asked me to step away from the car as they conducted their search. They went through my work bag, my laptop computer case, the
trunk, the glove box and everywhere in between.
And then one officer saw my Metro-North Railroad parking permit. He said “Hey, do you have Metro-North ID?” I said “Sure, here it is.” “Oh, you work for Metro-North?” they asked. I said “Yes.” At this point, they ended their search and the ordeal was over. The two
officers who arrived last left the scene. The remaining officer finished his notes, and upon leaving stated again that all of this is “Due to 9/11.”
He thanked me for co-operating and drove off into the sunset.
As you probably know, the MTA photo policy states that any John Q. Public can take a picture of any train, bus or subway car so long as you are not in a RESTRICTED area. So, why do these cops violate me when I am John Q. Public standing on a public road?
Answer - because they can.
Welcome to modern day Communism folks, right here in the U.S. of A. Please note, that I did not want to be “Let o- because I’m an MTA
employee.” But rather, I wanted to simply act within the letter of the law and exercise my rights as a free citizen living in the greatest state in the greatest country on earth. I should not have been violated by these guys like this. Obviously, that was too much to ask for...in New Castle anyway.
But maybe, that is what they do to “justify their jobs” - ya know? As in “extra protection” for the “Billary & Co.” mansion located a few
miles away. i.e. Stop any out-of-towner and give ‘em a good lashing! I am truly saddened by this unfortunate event.
W. Koch
Editor’s Note: Reader Koch would do well to read the “In Our Opinion” column in the May 7, 2009 edition of The Guardian in which we discuss the very recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, authored by Justice Stevens, with respect to police searches of vehicles incident to an occupant’s arrest. In overturning those automatic warrantless searches which dated back to 1981 Stevens declared, “A rule that gives police the power to conduct a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”
Machiavellian Maneuvers Of Lawyers, Judges And Defendant For Over 20 years
Dear Editor:
The 20 year span of over 20 Judges in one divorce action one would question Why?
Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Index No.90/1972, County of Putnam,
Honorable Andrew P. O’Rourke
Maria Gkanios, Plaintiff
-Against-
Frank A/K/A Fotios Gkanios, Defendant
Selective Prosecution
Why does a divorce take 20 years; Gkanios vs. Gkanios, the longest divorce case in Putnam County? Why was this defendant allowed to operate under a second Social Security number?
Why were charges not filed against this defendant for filing false net worth statements in this divorce action without the new Social Security Number?
Why would Judge Andrew O’ Rourke at one point knowing that the defendant Mr. Gkanios, is a convicted Pedophile having to decide Fault in the divorce. This is an insult. Fault should not have even been a question in this divorce. One would also question the qualifications of Judge Andrew O’ Rourke if he cannot recognize how the law requires him to deal with a convicted Pedophile in a matrimonial action.
How is he sitting on a matrimonial case, failing to follow the rule requirements in matrimonial including discovery, due process, notice, hearing etc…?
Why would Judge Andrew O’Rourke taint himself with the appearance of impropriety by further condoning and rewarding the actions of the defendant by having to think of having to decide fault. It was only after Plaintiff reminded this judge of the heinous acts by the defendant that fault was removed.
Bifurcation of a divorce is illegal in New York. Again Judge Andrew O’Rourke violated the law by bifurcating this divorce from the bench, NO written order, no discovery etc. There should be no question as to fault; the egregious conduct of the defendant being a convicted pedophile under egregious conduct clearly proven in the State of New York!
This divorce belongs under EGREGIOUS CONDUCT not Equitable Distribution. The plaintiff ’s marriage to this defendant from the inception was a lie. Egregious conduct is hard to prove but not in this case. Defendant was found guilty by a jury on December 11, 1991
in Putnam County and, on the same charges, in Westchester County plead guilty to the full indictment on April 14, 1992. In the State of New York under Egregious conduct plaintiff is entitled to all the marital assets, that is the very reason that the courts, the defendant, his attorneys sent plaintiff on a wild goose chase for years because of his crimes!
The question here why the sentence was concurrent and such a minimum sentence? He served a total of four years on such a heinous crime! If it was anyone else they would have served at least 25 years.
Why did Judge Andrew O’ Rourke turn a willful contempt hearing for failure to pay child support into a matrimonial trial, knowing that, to date, there has been no discovery; no note of issue can be filed.
Defendant was hiding in the State of Florida at 2585 South East 9th Street. Pompano Beach under the second Social Security number. Why was this defendant not picked up after reporting it to the DA’s office and the Carmel PD for help? On April 11, 2008 defendant was picked in the State of Florida on the Adam Walsh Law for failure to register as a sex offender. He left the State of New York illegally.
Defendant has lived an elegant life style in New York and in the State of Florida in a multi million dollar home in Pompano Beach. Claiming he works and makes 250.00 a week but testified that he pays 1,200.00 a month rent, what about the food, electric, insurance etc. Red Flag?
Why didn’t Judge Andrew O’ Rourke order the production of the defendants Past and Present Tax returns? Why didn’t Judge Andrew O’
Rourke demand a full accounting from this defendant?
How is it that this defendant continues to falsely claim financial hardship. If that were true than the proper action for the defendant would be to motion the court for Poor Persons relief under CPLR ARTICLE 11 Sec 1101, 1102, 1103, not show up in court with paid attorneys, appraisers, at the same time falsely and frivolously claiming to have no money to pay child support. Adding insult to injury giving the plaintiff two money orders of $25 each just two days before the court hearing for contempt and an additional two more money orders for
$25 each after the court hearing. This is an insult to plaintiff, the court and the laws governing Child Support including every father who has gone to jail for not paying child support arrears. Fathers who pay support and Fathers who have been jailed for non support Mike Kelly,
Doug Higbee, Domenick Lieto, Bret Evans, Allen Ortz, Thomas Butti, Edward Mancini, Tony Nocera and John McKeon the list goes on.
Why?
Why would Judge Andrew O’Rourke violate the law further to wipe out child support arrears totaling over $300,000. Notice of Entry of all orders, properly filed and served along with all the affidavits of service the time for the defendant to appeal has long been gone. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times! Has Judge Andrew O’Rourke now become an appellate judge and appointed himself?
“DRL Section 244, article; that the court NO LONGER has broad discretion in determining whether to grant applications for judgment. Where the arrears are the arrears in child support, the court must enter a money judgment for the amount of arrears, now arrears in child support must be awarded in full.” Judge Andrew O’ Rourke was not appointed by the AIS Part to hear this case why did he continue and appoint himself to this case?
Before Judge Andrew O’ Rourke, Attorney Victor Grossman opened the door on the production of tape recordings that the plaintiff was in possession of. Plaintiff produced the tape recording after court and counsel received the damaging evidence before the court against the defendant, the court has again through deceptive practice conspicuously and deliberately leaving this out of record. This clearly constitutes
continued fraud, and bias. WHY?
Tape one show’s how the plaintiff was fighting with the defendant because the defendant wanted to burn the tore down, a restaurant in Eastchester, and collect the insurance money and plan that it was the plaintiff. The second tape was the day before the second restaurant in Mt Vernon was taken. Defendant’s thugs came in and threatened that plaintiff better give the store to the defendant or they were going to send the boys up.
There were numerous and prejudicial statements directed at the plaintiff by Justice Andrew O’ Rourke. The remarks made were not proper and undermining of the public’s trust. I would think that the actions of the court are deliberate violations of the Cannons of Professional Responsibility and his oath of office.
That plaintiff pay for the transcripts and then the defendant will give plaintiff half. Judge O’ Rourke comments: “Call your rich relatives in California, let them give you the money” Plaintiff was granted Poor person in a divorce action years ago. Plaintiff cannot afford the transcript.
Plaintiff does not work. In the interests of justice plaintiff ’s poor person request is accepted and the transcripts produced without further violating plaintiff ’s due process rights and civil rights. There is not just one violation, there are numerous. This case has gone on for quite a number of years.
Compliance with the rules is essential to the integrity of the Judicial Process. In this case there has been no compliance ever!
The Child Support Judgements
1. Dated March 11, 1994 is from week December 18,1990 to February 13,1993 plus interest totaling $71,484, 00 defendant was served at the Correctional Facility along with his counsel.
2. Dated June 24,1994 is from week February 14,1993 to May 8, 1994 plus interest Totaling $36,090.14
3. Dated November 16,1995 is from week May 9, 1994 to June 4, 1995 plus interest Totaling $31,838,68
4. Dated June 16, 1996 is from week June 5, 1995 to November 12,1995 plus interest totaling $12,138.01
5. Dated October 13,1996 is from week November 13,1995 to September 1,1996 plus interest totaling $ 22,822.68
6. Dated October 15, 1999 is from week September 2,1996 to May 31,1999 plus Interest totaling $ 86,654.12
7. Dated March 12,1996 is from December 11,1990 to March 12,1996 plus interest totaling $ 24,671.60. This judgment is for the care of the defendants step-son Peter Cirino Defendant signed a Confession of Judgment.
Machiavellian maneuvers by the Courts, the defendant and Defendant’s counsel should no longer be tolerated by this or any other Court!
As Professor Siegel sets forth: “The present system is too tolerant of the deliberately evasive and dilatory litigant, increasing the expense of
litigation in money, time, trouble, and feeling, and tending as a consequence to undermine public confidence in the courts.” New York Practice, 2d. Ed., David D. Siegel, 367, p. 541 (.1991).
Lets Play Catch
Child Support takes precedence over any claims. Defendant’s former counsel Terrence Dwyer illegally obtained a confession of judgment from the defendant, just two days prior to his incarceration, against marital property in an attempt to defeat any and all my economic claims, and the minor children born of this marriage: in particular, those claims of child support CPLR 5234 (b). “Such executions for child support
shall have priority over any other assignment, levy or process”.
Dwyer violated the Court Orders by obtaining the confession of judgment after JUSTICE SWEENEY’s decision. Dwyer was not awarded attorney’s fees by this court or any other court for his representation of my husband in this matrimonial action or any other action.
The order entered in the Matrimonial matter of Judge Fred Dickenson dated 7/1/91 states: (Paragraph 3, The defendant’s, his agents, employees and representatives are restrained and enjoined, except in the regular course of business and subject to further order of the court, from concealing, dissipating, utilizing, assigning, transferring, or in any way disposing or encumbering the marital assets, unless the plaintiff, in writing consents to such action.) and Further: A second order of Justice Sweeney’s dated October 21, 1991, states:
“This court is most reluctant to award attorney’s fees where child support is outstanding. Therefore, the ‘court Sua Sponte vacates its award of attorney’s fees without prejudice to renew ‘if it is found, specifically in the Supreme Court Action, that Respondent, herein, was not in arrears.”
Upon reading the newspaper to my surprise I found that Dwyer was going to auction off my property through his confession of judgment. Dwyer is not a marital debtor; he cannot enforce judgment against a marital property without the written consent of the creditor. The marital estate is not liable for the debts incurred by husband after the separation.
Contrary to State and Federal statutes regarding child Support as well as prevailing case law authority; and his bad faith attempt to take possession and control of the marital property located in Putnam County through a Sheriff ’s Sale which was scheduled February 4,
1993 without disclosing it to me that there existed a Confession of Judgment secured by him against my husband and without notice to me “CPLR 5236(c) Requires Notice” that he intended to execute upon said judgment; violating NYCRR. 1200. 11[DR 2-106] The rules precluded Defendants Attorney Dwyer from a contingency fee agreement in a criminal matter. Dwyer proceeded knowingly to obtain marital
property although the rights to his property had not yet been determined; CPLR 5239.
Attorney Dwyer failed to provide plaintiff with any and all documents, correspondence, or agreements regarding the procurance of said judgment which he has levied against the property, my property. NYCRR 1200.11 [DR 2-106] prohibits Dwyer from obtaining an agreement upon security interest, Confession of Judgment or other lien without prior notice to the client in a signed retainer agreement which Dwyer has failed to produce to date. There is no privilege where notice has to be of an application for a security interest to the other spouse; A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect:
(1) A contigent fee for representing my husband in a criminal case; or
(2) Any fee in a Domestic relations matter to which Part 1400 of the joint rules of the Appellate Division is applicable,
(a) The payment or amount of which is Contingent upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of maintenance, support, equitable distribution, or property settlement; or
(b) Unless a written retainer agreement is signed t the lawyer and the client setting forth in plain language the nature of the relationship and the details of the fee arrangement.
(c) Based upon a security, interest, Confession of Judgment or other lien without prior notice to the, client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from the Court after NOTICE to the Adversary.
Dwyer proceeded knowingly and unlawfully to obtain a security interest in the marital estate via Confession of Judgment without presenting to the lower court any documents which demonstrates that a fee agreement existed; and that I had been given notice, the adversary in this action; or that the court had granted approval for the “security interest,” after submission of an application for counsel fee [NYCRR
1400.5 a) (1).(2) and (3)].
(A) An attorney may obtain a confession of judgment or promissory note, take a lien on real property, or otherwise obtain a security interest to secure his or her fee only where:
(1) the retainer agreement provides that a security interest may be sought;
(2) Notice of an application for a security interest has been given to the other spouse;
(3) The court grants approval for the security interest after submission of an application for counsel fee
(B) Unless a written retainer agreement is signed by the lawyer and the client etting forth in plain language the ature of the relationship and the details o the fee arrangement.
(C) Based upon a security, interest, confession of Judgment or other lien ithout prior notice to the, client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from the Court after NOTICE to the Adversary
In addition to Defendant and, by his previous counsel, falsifying statements of net worth; dated 8/5/91 defendant and by his counsel failed to include the property in question that was owned by my husband and myself. DRL 236 Pt B, Subd. 1 c provides marital property is all property acquired by either or both parties during, the marriage and before the execution of a separation agreement or the commencement
of a matrimonial action. Defendants counsel executed upon the confession of judgment in Westchester County with full knowledge that said property was the subject to the equitable distribution laws of this state. Further defendants counsel was not a creditor of the marital estate
and his contempt of court orders dated July 3, 1991 and the Honorable Justice Sweeney Dated 10/21/91
Defendant’s former attorney Dwyer attempted to foreclose on me and from attaching any interest in this property his attempts violated my rights to deprive me of my property and to defeat Equitable Distribution. The support issues must be addressed and come before Dwyer’s action but what counsel tried to do was screw you. Courts, I am getting my money.
Foreclosure
Judge O’ Rourke continued to allow an appraisal for my children’s house and property when it was foreclosed on years ago when I continued to object to each and every time on any and all statements made. The defendant, as well as I are FOREVER BARRED.
Judge O’ Rourke is trying to collect half of what the house was worth at foreclosure knowing that the defendant and I were forever barred in an attempt to deduct that from the child support the defendant owes the plaintiff. One would question why there was a span of 20 years and over 30 Judges, in one divorce action.
Maria Gkanios, Mahopac
Citizens Need A Direct Vote On Critical Issues
Dear Editor:
The state produces nothing. It gets all of its money from the disorganized majority and gives it to the organized unions, non-profits, and large corporations. Other state-dependent, un-elected organizations are the public authorities, such as the MTA, the Empire State Development Corporation, and the Dormitory Authority, which sell billions of dollars of bonds without taxpayer approval even though the taxpayers have the responsibility to pay them back, with interest.
Every year when the state budget rip-off is being decided, the MTA’s highly-paid executives and their huge staffs distract the citizens by declaring transit, bus and train fares, and tolls, will face a dramatic increase, but when the budget process is completed, the MTA miraculously finds another billion dollars in its own budget. The distraction is successful, and the fare increases are minimal or postponed.
One difficult solution to the corruption and financial mess in Albany would be to allow citizens to collect the required number of signatures,
and then put critical issues on the ballot for voters to accept or reject (the initiative process), or to give voters the right to reject all
or parts of legislation passed by the politicians, by direct ballot after signatures have been collected (the referendum process).
Acceptable initiative and referendum legislation, introduced by Senator Ranzenhofer (S3525), is extremely difficult to pass because virtually every politician, union, non-profit, and corporation opposes it. Only taxpayer groups support the legislation. Politicians consider themselves upperclass royalty and despise the hardworking citizens since legislators get their power from special interest groups, not the voters. They are arrogant and corrupt as witnessed by indictments for DWI, sex with interns, assault, bribery and kickbacks, and misuse of funds.
Meanwhile, the teachers and health care unions and non-profits suck billions of dollars from these compliant politicians who jam
needles into the veins of taxpayers day after day to satisfy the needs of their blood-thirsty patrons.
Opponents of initiative and referendum legislation, and a state Constitutional amendment, claim it isn’t necessary in a democracy because citizens are represented by elected legislators. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a democratic government in Albany in many decades. The
State Legislature goes to the highest bidder, and the public be damned. Types of legislation that could be passed by the initiative process
include: term limits; court reform; public authority bond debt must be approved by the voters; corporations receiving tax subsidies must
guarantee worker employment and no plant closings/relocations; property tax reform; “sunlight” on all state union contracts, contractor
biddings/awards, and non-profit contracts; all contracts and audited financial reports of non-profits must be online within three months
after agreements are signed; right to cut health benefits for families of state workers; and right to cut the salaries, perks, travel, pensions,
staff, and health care for legislators.
Tell your state senator and assembly member to support the initiative and referendum bill S3525, and not any other useless, smokescreen
bills.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
Reader Endorses Candidate For New Rochelle School Board
Dear Editor:
I was glad to learn that Vincent Malfetano has become a candidate for the New Rochelle School Board. With the present School Board proposing a budget that approaches a quarter of a billion dollars, it is urgent that we elect some new people to the Board who have a more reasonable stance on school budgets.
As a parent, homeowner, lawyer and instructor, Mr. Malfetano is well-qualified to serve on the Board. He understands the need to
properly educate all of our children. But he also understands this must be done in a cost-conscious manner that will stop the constant
increases in taxes of double and triple the rate of inflation that is causing many home owners to flee the city.
In addition, Mr. Malfetano would bring a much needed balance to the Board. He is a resident of the South end of the city and would
give the parents of children attending Trinity, Jefferson, Columbus and Isaac E. Young schools a stronger voice on the Board that has too
often been dominated by North end residents.
Ines Candrea, New Rochelle
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore Announcement Fiasco Underscores Her
Unfitness To Be Westchester’s District Attorney
DA Staff Member Cautions Guardian Publisher To Be
Careful Of Frame-Up, Or Other Dirty Tricks
Last Thursday at noon was clearly a defining moment for the People of Westchester, and particularly for those who are genuine Democrats.
What they witnessed was a charade, an attempt by the Fat Cats of the Democratic Party, Andy Spano, Reggie LaFayette, Tim Idoni, and all
those greedy hacks, Bill Ryan included, to shove their unfit candidate, their Counterfeit Democrat, down everybody’s throat. Their problem
was, the People weren’t biting.
The charade, put on by some 200 individuals, more than half of whom were Assistant DAs, investigators, and support staff compelled to be
there; and, the rest mostly the same $155,000-a-year politicos who tried to grab outrageous pay raises from taxpayers last Fall, could not have been more defining with respect to why Janet DiFiore is not, and never has been, the District Attorney of the decent, hard-working citizens of Westchester. The event clearly demonstrated why the recent News12 poll of 999 viewers came back:
• Tony Castro ...............55%
• Dan Schorr ................27%
• Janet DiFiore .............18%
Janet, and her politically connected crowd, weren’t fooling anybody. The People know her for who she really is; a mean-spirited, vindictive
opportunist, who for years used the people and the financial resources of the Republican Party in race after race against the choice of rank
and file Democrats, only to throw her old supporters under the bus and suddenly declare herself a Democrat.
But the People of Westchester, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, and Working Families, were not fooled for even
a minute. They know her for the counterfeit she truly is; counterfeit Democrat, counterfeit DA.
The People know that no self-respecting Democrat, and surely no District Attorney worthy of the Office, would ever conduct herself as
Janet DiFiore has for the past three years. They have witnessed her prosecuting the innocent victims of rogue police brutality; Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, and scores of others in Yonkers. And, they haven’t forgotten the three young boys beaten and mauled in Mount Vernon, nor the victims of excessive force in Sleepy Hollow. Each time she covered up the rogue cops involved, compelling the federal government, the Justice Department, to step in and protect the safety and rights of Westchester citizens.
Several individuals who have been wrongfully handled by her, or whose family have been, showed up carrying signs, calling for her firing,
showing photos of Irma Marquez in an effort to speak Truth to Power.
During the event, a staff person from the DA’s Office, attempting not to be noticed by others from the Office, approached Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, standing at the event, and warned him, in a caring tone, to be both cautious and on the lookout for dirty tricks from DiFiore operatives rumored about in the Office. If, in fact, that possibility should materialize, it would simply be one of several vindictive
and retaliatory acts already carried out by Janet DiFiore in fulfillment of threats she made two years ago.
Perhaps the most defining moment came when Party Boss, and part-time $155,000-a-year Election Commissioner, Reggie LaFayette,
rattled by sign-carrying protesters, declared, “This isn’t about these people; it’s about Janet DiFiore.” He was so right; for Janet, it’s never been about the People at all.
Janet’s only comfort to be drawn from the fiasco was the fact that News 12 was the only television coverage that she got. All of the major
networks stayed away, apparently deciding she was a low-level priority.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore Announcement Fiasco Underscores Her
Unfitness To Be Westchester’s District Attorney
DA Staff Member Cautions Guardian Publisher To Be
Careful Of Frame-Up, Or Other Dirty Tricks
Last Thursday at noon was clearly a defining moment for the People of Westchester, and particularly for those who are genuine Democrats.
What they witnessed was a charade, an attempt by the Fat Cats of the Democratic Party, Andy Spano, Reggie LaFayette, Tim Idoni, and all
those greedy hacks, Bill Ryan included, to shove their unfit candidate, their Counterfeit Democrat, down everybody’s throat. Their problem
was, the People weren’t biting.
The charade, put on by some 200 individuals, more than half of whom were Assistant DAs, investigators, and support staff compelled to be
there; and, the rest mostly the same $155,000-a-year politicos who tried to grab outrageous pay raises from taxpayers last Fall, could not have been more defining with respect to why Janet DiFiore is not, and never has been, the District Attorney of the decent, hard-working citizens of Westchester. The event clearly demonstrated why the recent News12 poll of 999 viewers came back:
• Tony Castro ...............55%
• Dan Schorr ................27%
• Janet DiFiore .............18%
Janet, and her politically connected crowd, weren’t fooling anybody. The People know her for who she really is; a mean-spirited, vindictive
opportunist, who for years used the people and the financial resources of the Republican Party in race after race against the choice of rank
and file Democrats, only to throw her old supporters under the bus and suddenly declare herself a Democrat.
But the People of Westchester, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, and Working Families, were not fooled for even
a minute. They know her for the counterfeit she truly is; counterfeit Democrat, counterfeit DA.
The People know that no self-respecting Democrat, and surely no District Attorney worthy of the Office, would ever conduct herself as
Janet DiFiore has for the past three years. They have witnessed her prosecuting the innocent victims of rogue police brutality; Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, and scores of others in Yonkers. And, they haven’t forgotten the three young boys beaten and mauled in Mount Vernon, nor the victims of excessive force in Sleepy Hollow. Each time she covered up the rogue cops involved, compelling the federal government, the Justice Department, to step in and protect the safety and rights of Westchester citizens.
Several individuals who have been wrongfully handled by her, or whose family have been, showed up carrying signs, calling for her firing,
showing photos of Irma Marquez in an effort to speak Truth to Power.
During the event, a staff person from the DA’s Office, attempting not to be noticed by others from the Office, approached Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, standing at the event, and warned him, in a caring tone, to be both cautious and on the lookout for dirty tricks from DiFiore operatives rumored about in the Office. If, in fact, that possibility should materialize, it would simply be one of several vindictive
and retaliatory acts already carried out by Janet DiFiore in fulfillment of threats she made two years ago.
Perhaps the most defining moment came when Party Boss, and part-time $155,000-a-year Election Commissioner, Reggie LaFayette,
rattled by sign-carrying protesters, declared, “This isn’t about these people; it’s about Janet DiFiore.” He was so right; for Janet, it’s never been about the People at all.
Janet’s only comfort to be drawn from the fiasco was the fact that News 12 was the only television coverage that she got. All of the major
networks stayed away, apparently deciding she was a low-level priority.
The Court Report/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, May 7,2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
District Attorney Who Repeatedly Prosecutes
Victims Of Police Brutality Recognizes
National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
Last week, motivated by the fact that it was National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, DA Janet DiFiore placed a table and poster, with literature, in the lobby of the Westchester County Courthouse, ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information to Westchester victims of crime.
Having gone to court on Thursday to cover ongoing developments in a 15-year-old murder case, this reporter spotted the table upon leaving, and wished to photograph and publicize its existence.
We were informed by court officers that we would need to obtain explicit permission from the Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai, in order to take any photographs within the courthouse. We went looking for Judge Nicolai, who was in the midst of dealing with calendar issues, with a long line of attorneys and judges awaiting his attention.
However, to his credit, when he emerged from a conference with one of those judges, he graciously took a moment to listen to our request, and granted permission within ten minutes, notifying us of his decision and informing the court officers
in control of the lobby floor through his assistant, Joe Ranieri. We were pleased with the Judge’s promptness and courtesy.
We were particularly anxious to photograph the DA’s display in light of her appalling record, over the last three years, actually prosecuting several innocent victims of police brutality such as Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Sherry Bobrowsky, Tina and Mary Bostwick, and, literally, dozens of other similarly abused victims who have come forward in Yonkers since The Guardian first began exposing cases of police brutality in that city back in September of 2006.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
District Attorney Who Repeatedly Prosecutes
Victims Of Police Brutality Recognizes
National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
Last week, motivated by the fact that it was National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, DA Janet DiFiore placed a table and poster, with literature, in the lobby of the Westchester County Courthouse, ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information to Westchester victims of crime.
Having gone to court on Thursday to cover ongoing developments in a 15-year-old murder case, this reporter spotted the table upon leaving, and wished to photograph and publicize its existence.
We were informed by court officers that we would need to obtain explicit permission from the Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai, in order to take any photographs within the courthouse. We went looking for Judge Nicolai, who was in the midst of dealing with calendar issues, with a long line of attorneys and judges awaiting his attention.
However, to his credit, when he emerged from a conference with one of those judges, he graciously took a moment to listen to our request, and granted permission within ten minutes, notifying us of his decision and informing the court officers
in control of the lobby floor through his assistant, Joe Ranieri. We were pleased with the Judge’s promptness and courtesy.
We were particularly anxious to photograph the DA’s display in light of her appalling record, over the last three years, actually prosecuting several innocent victims of police brutality such as Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Sherry Bobrowsky, Tina and Mary Bostwick, and, literally, dozens of other similarly abused victims who have come forward in Yonkers since The Guardian first began exposing cases of police brutality in that city back in September of 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
