Westchester Guardian Article/The Advocate/Richard Blassberg/Andy Spano.

Republican County Legislator George Oros Declares Spano’s Last-Minute Contracts “A Kick In The Teeth To County Taxpayers”

Last Monday afternoon, retiring Republican County Legislator, Minority Leader George Oros, held a press conference at his law office in White Plains to blast outgoing County Executive Andy Spano for what Oros called “A 2010 Budget filled with land mines and rewards for Spano’s campaign contributors, especially law firms.” He told reporters, “Republicans are calling for a moratorium.”

Oros commented paranthetically, “I’d love to see the budget that would be there if Spano had won.” He went on, “We must bring State, County and Municipal people together. We can achieve real economies of scale. People just can’t take it anymore.”

Oros stressed that, for years, he had called for “reform of the Board of Acquisition and Contract,” but that, on November 24, “the A&C Agenda included a handful of multimillion dollar, multi-year contracts.”

The so-called “11th Hour Contracts” include:

• $2.7 million to various law firms, all of which have been big contributors to Spano’s campaigns to perform of counsel legal services;

• $12 million for Westhab to operate homeless shelters;

• $4 million for security systems integration at the County Jail;

• $900,000 for a fence at Rye Playland.

The Board of Acquisition and Contract consists of three members, the County Executive, and his appointed Commissioner of Public Works, as well as the elected Chairman of the Board of Legislators. In effect, the County Executive, through his appointee, retains the power to pass any contract or long-term lease by his control of two out of three votes.

Oros told reporters, “The Spano Administration wants to tie Mr. Astorino’s hands and make it much harder to achieve the goals the overwhelming majority of voters chose him to accomplish.” He went further, stating, “This is not the way a county executive who has served 12 years should go out the door.”

Oros went on, “Voters spoke loud and clear in the last election that they were tired of business-as-usual in Westchester County government. It’s time for Mr. Spano to step aside and let a breath of fresh air come in.”

Asked if he was, in fact, still pushing for A&C reforms, Oros said he would “like to see the County Budget submitted before Election Day, as well as the use of zero-based budgeting.”

Under zero-based budgeting, every proposed expense, every purchase, every position in County Government, is re-evaluated in terms of developments since the prior budget to determine whether the position, the purchase, etc., is still justified and necessary going forward or, if, for whatever reason, that expense may need to be increased or possibly cut back, or eliminated altogether. Under such budgeting practices, the tendency to fund unneeded positions and expenses is greatly reduced, and duplication of services and acquisition of unnecessary materials and leased space are more easily identified and eliminated.

Oros went on to say, “Spano is frustrating the will and the sentiment of the taxpayers with $30-40 million of 11th hour expenses. We should put those items on hold and give the new administration a change. He owes it to the voters, but he really doesn’t care what they think.”

As if to confirm George Oros’ assertions, on Wednesday, just 24 hours after the press conference, the Guardian received a “Letter to the Editor” from a County Government employee (see page four, “Spanocrat Going to County Board of Elections.”)

We were gratified that the reader had adopted the title ‘Spanocrat’, coined by The Advocate several years ago to describe those party insiders whose attachment for financial selfenrichment, to Andy Spano and Company was much more compelling than their commitment to Democratic principles and practices.

Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Westchester County Government/Westchester County Board of Legislators.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

If This is What County Government
Has Done For The People Of Westchester, It’s
Time To Do Away With County Government

Last Tuesday morning, September 8th, we attended the third in a series of hearings at the County Legislators’ Committee Conference Room at the County Office Building dealing with the federal government’s ultimatum to Westchester to promulgate and finally comply with the rules and actions needed to bring about affordable, fair housing.

Regardless of the show that Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, continues to stage, ably assisted by attorney Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, there is no denying that Andy Spano, and his partner in crime, Larry Schwartz, have gotten Westchester taxpayers in over their heads by their reckless, incompetent misappropriation of nearly $52 million, and their deceptive accounting of its use.

Last week we suggested that Spano had let down both the legislators and taxpayers. We still believe that. However, following a discussion with Chairman Bill Ryan just prior to the start of Tuesday’s proceedings, we now believe that the legislature is every bit as culpable as Spano & Company for the predicament homeowners and taxpayers are now confronted with. When asked how it was that he and his fellow
Board Members had not retained their own attorney, Chairman Ryan indicated that he didn’t believe that the Board of Legislators needed separate legal counsel.

When we raised the issue of Separation Of Powers between the Executive and Legislative branches in County Government, Ryan saw no conflict in relying upon the legal advice of County Attorney, Charlene Indelicato, who was employed at the pleasure of the County Executive, and Stuart Gerson, outside counsel also retained by Spano, to whom Gerson expressed his “loyalty” at the first hearing, a notion Ryan quickly took issue with. We do not accept the idea that Bill Ryan could possibly be that naive. If he is trying to suggest that Andy and Larry haven’t misappropriated federal grants and misrepresented to the federal government, the Department Of Housing And Urban Development, what they did with $52 million, he is culpable before, and after, the fact, and should be held just as accountable as Spano,
Schwartz, and Tolchin, together with every other legislator who sits around that conference table never once asking where the $52
million went.

In plain English, there is no way that use of the same attorneys who, for more than two years, have worked for Spano & Company in the effort to mitigate and minimize their wrongdoing in negotiations with the Justice Department, HUD, and the Federal Court should now be advising and instructing a supposedly separate and independent body of taxpayer representatives, particularly given that those same taxpayers must now pick up the $65 million tab for all that wrongdoing.

It’s safe to say that the 17-member Legislature, the overwhelming majority of whom were campaign-financed and assisted by Spano from contributions controlled by him and Larry Schwartz, are not all that concerned about the plight of their constituents under the terms of the imposed settlement. Why else would only 12 of them show up on time and others, such as Republican Jim Maisano, miss both the first and third hearings?

Jim Johnson, a former United States Attorney, a federal prosecutor with extensive experience in the area of housing discrimination, was introduced as the appointed monitor, although Chairman Ryan was careful to describe him as “the individual proposed as monitor,” as if the County had
any choice in the matter if the Legislature accepts the settlement.

Then Ryan introduced Rose Noonan, an individual with several years of experience in housing issues in Westchester, dealing with not-for-profits, County government, as well as the City of Yonkers, and instructing at Pace University Law School; in short, someone thoroughly enmeshed
in, and dependant upon, the Westchester network of control for her bread and butter.

At that point, as if to emphasize his allegiance to, and blind obedience to, the Spano Regime, Ryan said, “We have our very own outside counsel who is acting as our consultant in this matter, Stuart Gerson.”

Nothing could be further from the truth given the manner in which this entire housing dilemma was brought into being, under the control and mismanagement of Spano & Company.

To now tell the public, the overtaxed homeowners and business-people who will have to foot the bill, that Stuart Gerson, an attorney who has
been working behind the scenes for more than two years to cover Andy’s backside, that he is the County Legislators’ legal consultant, is to deny
any independent voice, any representation of the Peoples’ interest, on the part of the so-called County Legislature.

In fact, it is a blatant admission that the Board of Legislators is simply a 17-member/50 support staff rubber stamp; and a damned expensive one at that. Readers must not lose sight of the fact that 13 out of 17 of these so-called legislators, individuals pulling down $1,000 a week plus stipends
for a part-time job, are Democrats, all of whom feel beholden to Spano and Schwartz, and, could care less about their constituents’ interests or wishes.

They proved that, unmistakeably, with the purchase of the Halpern white elephant at 450 Saw Mill River Road in Ardsley last year. They established that when Andy says “jump”, they only ask, “how high?”

The moldy old building was a commitment of $13.5 million, to possibly as much as $20 million, before it is repaired and renovated; we will never know for sure. This commitment, if approved, will be for $65 million. Not one of these legislators asks where the money went, or why Spano violated the False Claims Act by lying, yes, lying to HUD and the federal government. They don’t ask because they are culpable themselves.

If ever there was a moment when the citizens of Westchester could clearly see the dysfunction within County government; the failure to have checks and balances, the corruption with money of the Legislative Branch by the Executive, that moment is now!

The Board of Legislators is ready to sell out the People of Westchester. Not one of them apparently comes to the table with clean hands. So committed are they, Republicans included, to covering up all of the wrongdoing and double-dealing that has placed our homeowners and taxpayers
in the fix they are now in, that they are only too ready to sign off on an agreement that will cost their constituents $65 million and place control of the future growth of their communities in federal hands.

If this is what County government has done for the People of Westchester, it is time to do away with County government.

Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Andy Spano.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Rubber Stamp’ Legislators Grapple
With Spano/Schwartz Disaster

Last Tuesday morning, September 1, the committee conference room on the eighth floor of the County Office Building was filled to standing room only and spilling into the corridor when the session got underway at 10:10am; a session Bill Ryan, Chairman of the County Legislature, defined with his opening remark, “We have called this meeting of the Committee Of The Whole.”

In attendance were Susan Tolchin, Deputy County Executive, County Attorney Charlene Indelicato, County Legislators, Chairman Bill Ryan, John Nonna, Gordon Burrows, George Oros, Bernice Spreckman, Lyndon Williams, Vito Pinto, Mike Kaplowitz, Peter Harckham, Ken Jenkins, Tom Abinanti, Judy Myers, and William Burton. Additionally there was Stuart Gerson of Epstein, Becker & Greene, retained outside counsel. Absent
were Legislators Lois Bronz, who was ill, Marty Rogowski, who was “out of town”, James Maisano, working at his law office, and Jose Alvarado, in Yonkers “in his district.”

Referring to a meeting two weeks earlier, Ryan informed the packed room, “I committed that we would continue to hold meetings of the Committee of the Whole to put everyone in the best position to work with what the Committee needs to know to deal with this matter.”

There was an unmistakable sense of anticipation in the room, heightened by the unprecedented circumstances; two weeks of prior publicity and mounting anxiety over many unanswered questions.

The Spano Administration, as it turns out, had been negotiating with the federal government, the Justice Department and the Federal Court for some time, perhaps two years, in an effort to avoid getting jammed up as they now are.

Obviously, without consultation with, or revelation to, their Rubber Stamp Partners In Crime, Andy and Larry had been keeping their dealings a big secret, confident that whatever mess they made, their bought-and-paid-for legislature would simply have to go along with the consequences the Federal Court would impose on their constituents, the taxpayers and families they are supposed to represent.

Nevertheless, no one had broken from the ranks to ask the obvious question, “Where was the $52 million spent between 2000 and 2006, so wrongfully calculated and deceptively accounted for that a clique of five shrewd ‘not-for-profit’ litigants calling themselves the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York could stand in for the Justice Department under the terms of the False Claims Act and get the already-much-overtaxed, struggling homeowners and business community of “wealthy” Westchester County caught with their upper and lower body parts (depending on gender) in the wringer.

Attorney Gerson, referring to the $51.5 million that Susan Tolchin would say was “going toward the construction,” declared to the legislators very early on, “You can’t build 750 units for this amount of money, you can’t build 750 units for twice that amount of money. You will vote for it, or
you will vote against it. It is not subject to change.”

Tolchin would then acknowledge a total package of $62.5 million, supposedly including the Anti-Discrimination Center’s $2.5 million legal expenses, plus penalties, but clearly in no way accounting for the County’s past, and ongoing legal and other expenses likely to bring the cost to
taxpayers well over $65 million if the Board votes to accept.


Gerson told the Board, “The number that’s in there now is lower than the original number. It was a spirited negotiation.” he identified Assistant United States Attorney James L. Cott, Chief of the Civil Division of the Southern District of New York as the negotiator for the federal government.

Mike Kaplowitz began, “Everything seems to cut against...” but, was interrupted by Gerson, who told him firmly, “There is no opportunity for change. The Government of the United States needs a sum certain. The money that the County is spending is for the County to leverage outside
money.”

Kaplowitz was uneasy, frustrated and feeling hemmed in. Gerson came back with, “It doesn’t say the County is going to build 750 units, but that it will get 750 units built.”

Lyndon Williams then spoke up, questioning whether a cap could be established to insure that the County would not be pushed into additional expenses over time. Mr. Gerson responded to Williams’ concerns, saying, “Neither we (the Spano Administration) nor the government feels
there is any ambiguity at all!”

Vito Pinto asked about the cost of the federal monitor and his staff, and was told it would likely be $250,000 in years one and two, and $175,000 in the years that follow.

Legislator John Nonna began to question what the sources of the so-called “supplemental funds” would be, seeking specificity. Then Peter Harckham moved the discussion toward issues of zoning as they might apply to placement of affordable housing units; and, the phrase “as appropriate” in the language of the settlement, as he put it, “based upon my own experiences as a builder of affordable housing.”

Of course, the notion of zoning problems suggested litigation, and, a response came quickly from County Attorney Charlene Indelicato, who declared, “I do not anticipate litigation. It would be absolutely a last resort.”

But John Nonna now jumped back in, asking, “Who gets to determine whether a proposal is appropriate or not? It looks as though the monitor gets to determine what is appropriate.”

Now, Stuart Gerson came back into the discussion with, “Remember we wanted the monitor. Our view was that we didn’t want the Court.” He went
on to say, when pressed further by Nonna, “I’m not going to say there will never be litigation.” Then, pausing, he clarified his comment with “It’s more likely some other municipality will seek judicial review, not the County.”

To his credit, Mike Kaplowitz was becoming increasingly more uncomfortable with the legislators’ lack of options. Gerson, at one point, told the Board with reference to the impact of the settlement, “There is nothing that changes the separation of powers in County Government;” a dubious
conclusion at best.

Kaplowitz, obviously sensing just how boxed-in Spano and Schwartz had left him, and his 16 fellow legislators, next queried Gersen, “Can we wait until we know the Implemental Plan before acting on the settlement?

The devil is in the details.” But Gerson came right back, telling the Board, “You must approve the implementation.” Kaplowitz protested, “This legislation did not have sufficient input.” Then, he asked, “Once we give approval of $51.6 million, is the implementation out of our hands?”

Tom Abinanti, who earlier had expressed a great deal of apprehension, some of which had begun to upset Chairman Ryan, now asked, “What’s the process?”

To which, County Attorney Indelicato quickly responded, “We don’t know;” and, Abinanti declared, “We don’t know either.”

At that point, Chairman Ryan acknowledged the general concern that the Board would need to approve the first $21 million “for bonding purposes.” He referred to the legislators’ task as “looking at this at the eleventh hour and realizing we didn’t have a hand in it.”

The $65 million dilemma Westchester families and taxpayers are now confronted with, and County Legislators are now attempting to wrestle with, grew out of the misappropriation of $52 million in federal block grants and misrepresentations made to the federal government with respect to the use of those funds intended by the government to promulgate and promote affordable, fair housing opportunities throughout the County.

In simple language, Andy Spano, Larry Schwartz and their Administration “knowingly” took $52 million in grants from the federal government, put it into hands and purposes never intended under the terms of the grants, and then repeatedly lied to the government about their failure to do
as promised.

The Federal False Claims Act, in pertinent part, is reproduced here:

“The False Claims Act (“FCA”) provides, in pertinent part, that:

(a) Any person who (1) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; (2) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government; (3) conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government;. . . or (7) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person . . . .

(b) For purposes of this section, the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” mean that a person, with respect to information (1) has actual
knowledge of the information; (2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (3) acts in reckless disregard of
the truth or falsity of the information, and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.

31 U.S.C. § 3729. While the False Claims Act imposes liability only when the claimant acts “knowingly,” it does not require that the person submitting the claim have actual knowledge that the claim is false. A person who acts in reckless disregard or in deliberate ignorance of the truth or
falsity of the information, also can be found liable under the Act. 31 U.S.C. 3729(b).

In sum, the False Claims Act imposes liability on any person who submits a claim to the federal government that he or she knows (or should know) is false. An example may be a physician who submits a bill to Medicare for medical services she knows she has not provided. The False Claims Act also imposes liability on an individual who may knowingly submit a false record in order to obtain payment from the government. An example of this may include a government contractor who submits records that he knows (or should know) is false and that indicate compliance with certain contractual or regulatory requirements. The third area of liability includes those instances in which someone may obtain money from the federal government to which he may not be entitled, and then uses false statements or records in order to retain the money. An example of this so-called “reverse false claim” may include a hospital who obtains interim payments from Medicare throughout the year, and then knowingly files a false cost report at the end of the year in order to avoid making a refund to the Medicare program.

In addition to its substantive provisions, the FCA provides that private parties may bring an action on behalf of the United States. 31 U.S.C. 3730 (b). These private parties, known as “qui tam relators,” may share in a percentage of the proceeds from an FCA action or settlement.

Section 3730(d)(1) of the FCA provides, with some exceptions, that a qui tam relator, when the Government has intervened in the lawsuit, shall receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the FCA action depending upon the extent to which the relator substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action. When the Government does not intervene, section 3730(d)(2) provides that the relator
shall receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable and shall be not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent.

The FCA provides protection to qui tam relators who are discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment as a result of their furtherance of an action under the FCA. 31 U.S.C.
3730(h). Remedies include reinstatement with comparable seniority as the qui tam relator would have had but for the discrimination, two times the amount of any back pay, interest on any back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

Westchester Guardian/The Advocate.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Andrew Spano And David Paterson Each
Pull The Race Card To Cover Their Blunders

About a week and a half ago, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano and Governor David Paterson, each very low in public opinion polls, each having been cited for major blunders, each individually pulled the race card in their desperation to bolster their position.

David Paterson, during an interview on a talk radio show, told Daily News columnist Errol Louis, “We’re not in the post-racial period. My feeling is it’s being orchestrated, it’s a game, and people who pay attention know that.” He went on to say, “The next victim on the list, and you see it
coming, is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than try to reform a healthcare system only because he’s trying to make change.”

Paterson was attempting to explain away his poor performance and numerous blunders since assuming the Governor’s Office, as nothing more than a “media-driven racial attack.” However, his remarks were quickly rebuked, as reported by New York Post Albany Bureau Chief Fred U. Dicker, who exclusively informed his readers, “President Obama’s aides were so furious that Governor Paterson dragged him into a rant about racism
that they sent a message sharply criticizing the Governor’s comments just hours a er he made them.” Columns in the New York Times and Daily News were very critical of the Governor’s comments for several days thereafter.

Andy Spano, on the other hand, already smarting from exposure of his Administration’s violations under the False Claims Act, and more than $13 million in fines and legal expenses, in a rare appearance before the County Legislature, and then on News12’s Newsmakers program, repeatedly pulled the race card in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the $65 million debacle his misuse of federal funds and his misrepresentations to HUD since 2000 will now cost taxpayers.

There are too many unanswered questions, one of the most obvious of which is, “Where was the $52 million spent that Spano repeatedly assured the federal government was being used for the creation of affordable housing as required under the block grants from which Spano accepted the money?”

Westchester taxpayers have a right to know which developers and which brokers and property owners, tightly connected to Spano and his clique, were beneficiaries of his misappropriation. Never mind Andy’s attempt to distract taxpayers and voters with references to racism, and the notion that, as he told the County Legislators with his voice cracking, “It’s all about African-Americans and Hispanics. If you vote ‘no’, that must weigh heavily. We would become, as the City of Yonkers became the most racist city in the United States, the most racist county in the United States.”

In the course of his self-serving interview with News12’s Brian Conybeare, Spano strained to put a favorable spin where none was possible. He began one sentence, “We weren’t accused... [quickly inserting] convicted of anything.” Of course, he and his Administration stand accused, and plainly culpable of misappropriating, and misrepresenting the use of some $52 million; and, having spent another $5 million in legal fees, theirs and their non-profit opponent’s, over the last three years, they would now have County Taxpayers bail them out.

Spano had the chutzpah to tell Conybeare, “There’s minimal ongoing impact on County taxes.” Of course, there would seem to be “minimal impact” from the standpoint of a County Executive who has pushed the County’s budget up to practically $2 billion and who gives taxpayers’ money away like candy to his friends and political contributors. Making up for the $65 million called for in the settlement he’s trying to ram
through will cost each and every household in Westchester at least $200.

Andy Spano would like the People of Westchester to forget about the deal he, and Larry Schwartz, pushed through the County Legislature last
year to buy a “white elephant” of an old and moldy building at 450 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley; a building that one of his big campaign contributors couldn’t unload on anybody else; a building that will likely cost $20 million between purchase, repair, and renovation before any County agency ever occupies it.

The simple truth is that the federal government has learned that Andy Spano & Company cannot be trusted to do the right thing with their money, much less truthfully report it; and, Westchester taxpayers, the nation’s highest taxed, have learned the same. As for David Paterson’s and Andrew Spano’s individual pathetic use of the race card to distract voters’ attention from their blunders and low poll standings, readers are reminded that the chief advisor to each of them is Larry Schwartz, a political schemer and dealer whose deck is filled with nothing but jokers and marked cards.

Confirming our beliefs, with respect to Larry Schwartz’ role, the New York Post, in its Monday, Aug. 24 edition, reported, on page 13, “Obama aide Patrick Gaspard called Paterson’s First Deputy Secretary, Larry Schwartz, to air the President’s frustrations over being dragged into Paterson’s rant about racism.”

Wayne Simoes/Yonkers Police/Irma Marquez.

The Advocate

Richard Blassberg

What Were Those Jurors Thinking About?

Last Wednesday afternoon, May 27, the jury in the federal criminal trial of Wayne Simoes, Yonkers Police Officer, brought in a verdict declaring the 39-year old, nine-year veteran of the force, “Not Guilty”, within minutes of their self-imposed 4 pm deadline. Earlier, at 1 pm, they had sent out a note to Judge Karas asking, “To be willful, does the person need to have a bad or evil purpose?” After reading the note aloud in the presence of Defense attorneys and Government prosecutors, but out of the presence of the jurors, the Judge, almost spontaneously, responded, “Yes”.

There then ensued a long conversation between Karas, Defense Attorney Andrew Quinn, and Prosecutors, principally Assistant United States Attorney Torrance, assisted at one point by Cynthia Dunne, who significantly prefaced her remarks to the Judge with an apology for speaking despite having apparently promised she would not be throughout the trial. In sum and substance, Quinn would argue repeatedly that a simple “yes” answer would do just fine while Dunne kept insisting, through Torrance, that there was a need for qualification of the affirmative response. Quinn, at one point, declared, and the Judge agreed, “A bad or evil purpose is what separates this procedure from a 1983 [Civil Rights] suit, a criminal from a civil suit.”

Karas bolstered the comparison by saying, “That’s what distinguishes a 242 [federal criminal statute] from a 1983,” further stating, “An evil act isn’t necessarily a crime. Merely saying ‘yes’ is not helpful.” Quinn, however, came back, “Most respectfully, I believe a simple ‘yes’ is best.” The fact was the jury was stumbling over the notion that in order to find Wayne Simoes guilty, they would need to find that he intended the outcome, and this jury, this middle-class, sheltered jury, could not grapple with that conclusion. Never mind what horrible damage was done to Irma Marquez’ face, head and neck as she was deliberately swung like a rag doll, face-first, to the tile floor; this jury’s sympathies were with a rogue, mindless cop with an abundance of testosterone, and not with his victim.

Therein lies the significance of the very real role that Janet DiFiore played in the whole, horrible affair. By not only failing to prosecute the
rogue cop, the perpetrator, Wayne Simoes, as any honest, uncorrupted DA would have, but instead prosecuting his victim, Irma Marquez, on bogus, trumped-up charges of Disorderly Conduct and Obstructing Governmental Administration, Janet DiFiore insured the fact that Simoes would not be tried for Assault, or Reckless Endangerment, or any other offense which he would’ve been convicted of. As a result, once the
videotape repeatedly aired, the United States Attorney’s Office was virtually compelled to step in and charge Simoes with the federal charge of Denying Marquez Her Civil Rights By Use Of Excessive Force. That would require “proof of intent,” in order to obtain a conviction.

In reality, when the jurors sent out their request for clarification, they were signalling their difficulty in accepting their assignment. They were unwilling, for the most part, to acknowledge that a policeman, someone they wanted to believe was really motivated to protect them and even someone so unlike them, Irma Marquez, could possibly have purposely used such force, driving her face and head from more than seven feet in the air, to the hard tile floor, then, immediately jumping on her unconscious body to handcuff her without hesitating a second to examine
what damage had been done to her face and head.

So unwilling was this jury to think about a victim who had been out drinking in a bar in the poor side of the city, that they never stopped to ask, “If he didn’t intend to hurt her, why in Hell did he bodyslam her? And, if he didn’t intend to bodyslam her, why lift her two feet off the ground, putting her head seven feet in the air? Was he intending to slowly slide her back on her feet?”

Then there was the issue of the rogue cop’s ‘cheering squad’. Of course, his wife and parents and, perhaps, some of his buddies at work were to be legitimately expected to come to Court and support him. However, what began on the first day of trial, with about 12 Yonkers police officers, grew daily until, by Wednesday, some 37 officers, including PBA President Eddie Armour, a well-known henchman of, and apologist for, DA Janet DiFiore, filled not only the Defendant’s side of the spectator’s gallery, but much of the other side as well. These officers were clearly intimidating to the jurors. Their message went far beyond mere moral support. Theirs was a You v. Us mentality and, clearly, one of approval of what their pal had done.

There is a big difference between the kind of crowd that will come out for a wrongfully-prosecuted cop, and one that will support a rogue who got caught on tape. Simoes’ fan club was basically telling the world, “We would have done the same.” And, given the number of individuals that we are aware of, who have been subjected to Yonkers police brutality, scores and scores of them; men, women and children; witnessing some three dozen of them clapping their hands vigorously for a cop who bodyslammed a 120-lb, five-foot tall woman, and who got away with it, was no surprise at all!

The real issue now involves just what this acquittal means. There are many unanswered questions. Some enlightened observers are questioning whether the United States Attorney, in assigning two second-string prosecutors, Skotko and Torrance, to the trial, while keeping their female gladiator, Cynthia Dunne, confined to the role of advisor throughout the trial, was really serious about getting a conviction or just faking it. After all, here they had what should have been an easy conviction of someone who the world could plainly see intended to render
the little woman unconscious and helpless; someone who was damned guilty; so guilty that several police officers, including a captain, who is
now a deputy chief, committed perjury under oath at a state trial of the victim, and before Internal Affairs in their effort to cover him up.

Yet, that same United States Attorney’s Office has kept the same Cynthia Dunne working hard at harassing, trying, and wrongfully convicting an innocent former County Correction Officer, Paul Cote, in another bodyslam case where the videotape, and other Brady material, if not withheld by Dunne, would have proven Defendant Cote’s innocence and the guilt of John Mark Reimer, the Government’s key, lying, witness. Clearly, the Government’s sincerity is in question.

Along these same lines, how is it that the FBI, after years of investigating numerous documented cases of Yonkers police brutality, and the Justice Department for whom the information has been gathered, have so far failed to prosecute even a small fraction of them, and only stepped into the Simoes case because of its strong public exposure and the absurdity of DA DiFiore’s prosecution of such an obviously innocent and egregiously injured victim?

The sad reality is that the Federal Government, because of the unethical and wrongful social relationship between former United States Attorney Michael Garcia and DA DiFiore, has thus far let down the People of Westchester, particularly those in Yonkers; innocent men, women and children who have been, and continue to be, harassed and brutalized by a stubborn contingent of rogue cops whose activities we can only guess will now be stepped up and embrazoned by the outcome of the Simoes case.

In conclusion, Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes did not slip, nor accidentally drop Irma Marquez, as his Defense attorney, Andrew
Quinn, attempted to sell as alternate excuses for the outcome of his violent behavior. If that had been the case, what was he intending to do with her if he didn’t slip? He intended to do exactly what he started out to do when he grabbed her and elevated her to where her head came crashing down from some seven feet above the floor in an arc the force and velocity of which made her hair fly out as though she were sitting in an open convertible at 70 mph.

Defense counsel never offered any reasonable explanation of what Wayne Simoes was intending to do with Irma Marquez if he didn’t “slip” or she didn’t “fall”. Any pretense that Simoes hadn’t intended to bodyslam her was negated by his immediate occupation with handcuffing her upon her collision with the tile floor, that Deputy Chief Geiss testified, “sounded like the loudest slap he had ever heard, and at the same
time, like a bowling ball falling from the second floor.” No matter, this officer, who will claim for the rest of his life that he never meant to do what he did, never meant to hurt her, went right to the business of handcuffing her.

Truth be told, now that a police brutality as obvious and brazen as the one perpetrated against Irma Marquez has gone unpunished, the People of Yonkers can expect even more than they have already suffered with, so long as Janet DiFiore is the District Attorney.

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

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.

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.”

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.

Janet Difiore and Christopher Ridley Case.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Four Brave Witnesses Tell The Truth About
Murder Of Officer Christopher Ridley
DA DiFiore’s Deceitful Scheme Exposed

Last Wednesday morning, four courageous individuals came forward at a press conference called by Civil Rights Attorney Jonathan Lovett at the site on Court Street, in White Plains, where Mount Vernon Police Officer Christopher Ridley lost his life at the hands of brother officers some 15 months earlier, in an effort to reveal to the Westchester community what they had witnessed.

The tone and the content of the questions from News12 reporter Brian Conybeare and Journal News reporters Richard Liebson and Shawn Cohen were such that their pro-DiFiore bias could not have been more obvious. Conybeare insultingly asked Lovett if he had paid the witnesses to come forward.

One would have thought these three reporters were DiFiore’s legal defense team engaged in cross-examination. After all, why shouldn’t we believe her?

• This is the DA whose spouse tried to bribe Attorney Anthony DiCintio, the Right-To-Life candidate for DA to withdraw from
the race in 2005 because she was running as a Republican then, and theorized that most Right-To-Life voters would vote Republican
in the absence of their own candidate;

• This is the DA who lied and said she had prosecuted 2,000 cases as an Assistant DA when she ran for County Court against Les Adler. In truth, she had prosecuted only 12 cases, all misdemeanors;

• This is the DA who covered up rogue cop Wayne Simoes; instead prosecuting his innocent victim, Irma Marquez, who he had brutally body-slammed. She has done the same to Rui Florim, nearly beaten to death by six other rogue Yonkers cops, as well as to countless other victims of Yonkers police brutality. The United States Justice Department has stepped in to the Marquez case and is prosecuting violent Police Officer Simoes despite the DA’s attempt to cover up his criminal assault;

• This is the DA who continued to hide 376 pages, 52 boxes, and miles of secretly audio-taped conversations, all exculpatory to Anthony DiSimone until the federal courts demanded that she turn them over, and released Mr. DiSimone, who had served seven years in prison for a murder he was clearly innocent of, and to which the actual killer had confessed.

• This is the DA from whose Office 72 attorneys and investigators had resigned at last count. And, we are supposed to believe
she is telling the truth about the murder of heroic, young police officer, Christpher Ridley? We think not.

Stanley Ridley, Officer Ridley’s dad, has been very hurt by DiFiore’s cruel effort to discredit his son’s actions. Thanking
the four witnesses who unselfishly came forward to share the truth no matter what reprisal, what retaliation doing so might
bring, Mr. Ridley told them, “My son died taking care of people, and they are trying to make him look reckless. Nothing they put in my way will keep me from getting out the truth.”

One witness, John Fiumara, told reporters, “I told DiFiore shooting Officer Ridley in the head was uneccessary, and an execution; and, she told me ‘Don’t say that in Court.’” Obviously she did not want the grand jurors to know the truth.

Attorney Jonathan Lovett, who has filed federal lawsuits on behalf of Officer Ridley’s dad, Stanley Ridley, as well as on behalf of Efrem Burgos, the witness dubbed ‘The Good Samaritan’, for having gotten violent perpetrator Anthony Jacobs away from his elderly victim, told reporters, “The big lie will not stand. The truth is coming out. It was a polarizing event. A White cop shoots a Black cop.” He went on, “If the DA will release all of the footage from all of the cameras, we might see what really happened.” Each of the four eyewitnesses who came forward on Wednesday were put before a grand jury by Janet DiFiore, and, therefore, were deemed by her to be credible, trustworthy, and knowledgeable witnesses. She can not now attempt to discredit, or impeach what they are saying with respect to the manner in which Police Officer Christopher Ridley lost his life by an uneccessary shot to his head. She cannot erase what they each witnessed at close range just because when one of them, John Fiumara, told her to her face, “It was an uneccessary execution,” she told him, “Don’t say that in court.”

Neither can she brush off the fact that when asked by a grand juror directly, Efrem Burgos expressed the same opinion, that the shot to the head was uneccessary, but the Assistant DA controlling his appearance, declared, “Strike that.” Janet DiFiore cannot, now, avoid the inconvenient truth, the horrible, traumatic experience of witnessing the murder of a young man, a heroic police officer, at close range, and being compelled to keep that shocking experience bottled up for 15 months because someone who was sworn to search for the truth, used the power of her Office to keep it hidden for political and self-preserving reasons.

Each one of those four witnesses who spoke out publicly on Wednesday, David Boudreau, Kathy Allan, John Fiumara, and Efrem Burgos, expressed to this reporter their relief and their gratitude for the opportunity to publicly reveal what they, and others, have been forced to keep from the family of Officer Ridley and the Westchester community by the District Attorney and her agents.

It’s amazing what lengths certain media persons will go to in order to protect the sitting district attorney from exposure. The handling of the Ridley investigation is but one example. When you have a cable channel such as Cablevision’s News 12 that was not only granted their monopolistic franchise by the County Executive, but was also given a $22.5 million no-bid contract to their Lightpath subsidiary for a failed communication system in March 2000 by that same County Executive, you will do everything that you can, everything that Brian Conybeare and Janine Rose are now doing, to protect and promote the County Executive’s, Andy Spano’s, “partner in crime.” They did it for Jeanine Pirro, and now they’re doing it for Janet DiFiore.

Last Thursday, Conybeare spent hours on Court Street in White Plains searching for someone, anyone, who might contradict what four eyewitnesses to the murder of Police Officer Christopher Ridley revealed at a press conference the day before. They, News12, who had the images from four cameras out of nine that were in range, “exclusively” as they put it, were also in control of the particular clips from each that they showed. Of course they were; they were the only so-called news source that DiFiore knew she could trust to keep her secret.

As far as News 12’s witness, David Hess, is concerned, his claim that they did not see what happened, is totally wrong. Dave Boudreau was standing directly across the street at the time of the shooting. Kathy Allan had a clear view through the window of the van in which she was seated. John Fiumara was right there, behind Hess, outside the passenger side of the van, and Efrem Burgos, in fact, viewed the shooting by Officer Oliveri through the windows of the taxi.

Christopher Ridley Case/Janet Difiore.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Stanley Ridley, Father Of Slain Heroic
Police Officer Christopher Ridley, Declares,
“My Son Didn’t Have To Die That Way”

Last Tuesday morning, April 14th, a press conference was held at the site of the tragic shooting of Police Officer Christopher Ridley on January 25, 2008. The purpose of the press conference was to officially announce the filing of a $90 million federal lawsuit by Officer Ridley’s father,
Stanley Ridley, in United States District Court, White Plains.

The suit, which names Janet DiFiore, District Attorney of Westchester, individually and in her capacity as District Attorney, as well as the four County police officers directly involved in the shooting, together with their commissioner, Thomas Belfiore, Chief Medical Examiner Millard Hyland, and County Executive Andrew Spano, also names the County of Westchester, New York; nine Defendants in all, and seeks $10 million from each.

Stanley Ridley, the Plaintiff, is primarily motivated to uncover the truth, the whole truth, regarding what actually happened outside 85 Court Street, White Plains just minutes before 5pm on January 25, 2008. He knows, logically and instinctively, that much of what the district attorney
and her cohorts would have him, and the rest of us, believe is neither truthful nor believable; and, what’s more, that there are witnesses who insist that from their vantage point, much of what came out of the grand jury was a whitewash.

Mostly, Stanley Ridley wants to clear his son’s name, something he shouldn’t have to do except for Janet DiFiore’s demeaning fabrications that Officer Ridley would embark upon a mission to confront and apprehend a brutally violent perpetrator, Anthony Jacobs, who had just assaulted
and battered a middle-aged man, breaking both of the man’s wrists, but would carry out an arrest carrying only his service weapon, but leaving his badge, his universally-recognized symbol of police authority, behind in his car.

DiFiore would have Mr. Ridley, and all of us in Westchester with sense enough to tie our own shoelaces, believe that Christopher would first go running into the security entry area of the County Office Building seeking to enlist police assistance, with a gun in his belt, but no badge.

Witnesses very close to the action are saying it didn’t happen that way. They’re saying he was holding a badge in his right hand and his service weapon in his left hand, arms fully extended from his sides, facing three of the four County police officers standing no more than 10 feet from him when they opened fire, though his gun wasn’t pointed at any of them. Those witnesses are saying that he then dropped his badge and his gun on the sidewalk, and was going down to his knees when a fourth officer, who had taken cover behind a tree at the curb, came out and placed his gun, at point-blank range, and shot Officer Ridley in the head above his left eyebrow.

Witnesses also report seeing the entry wound with powder burns around it as Christopher Ridley’s body lay on the sidewalk, uncovered for some time; and, that the badge which lay on the sidewalk near him was quickly removed, even before White Plains police arrived on the scene.When Plaintiff Stanley Ridley went to the Westchester County Medical Examiner’s Office to identify his son’s mortal remains, he was shown Christopher’s body with his head wrapped in white bandaging from his eyebrows up.

He told reporters, “We want the truth, we want the tapes, and I want all the people involved in this brought to justice. My son didn’t have to die that way.” Responding to questions from a large contingent of newspaper and broadcast reporters, attorney Jonathan Lovett declared, “I have plenty of witnesses, but now we will have a tidal wave.” He cited District Attorney Janet DiFiore’s “repeated refusal to release the unredacted video
tapes.” Asked why the grand jury found the killing was an accident, Lovett responded, “Grand juries do what they are asked to do by the DA.”

Damon Jones, a Westchester Corrections Officer and President of the Westchester Chapter of the National Black Police Association, told reporters, “The Westchester County justice system needs an enema because it’s full of crap!” He went on to say that there were “lots of witnesses who came forward to the Mount Vernon police,” but that they were all directed to White Plains.

Jones expressed his opinion with regard to the DA’s investigation saying, “This case is a poster child for the need for a special prosecutor.”

There were no fewer than four surveillance cameras mounted on the County Office Building, and elsewhere, that took videotapes of the tragic events leading up to the killing of heroic police officer Christopher Ridley, and the shooting itself. The fact that District Attorney Janet
DiFiore has repeatedly refused to show the public the unredacted, untampered-with tapes for more than 15 months now, speaks volumes about the integrity of her investigation and the product of her grand jury.

This is the same district attorney, after all, who covered up the violence of Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes, the rogue cop who bodyslammed Irma Marquez without justification; the same district attorney who then proceeded to prosecute Ms. Marquez on totally fictitious charges even after viewing the horrific videotape of Simoes’ unprovoked attack. Likewise, this is the same district attorney who prosecuted Rui Florim, who was brutalized by six off-duty Yonkers cops, and who prosecuted numerous other victims of Yonkers police brutality, including Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky.

Janet DiFiore is the same district attorney who, upon entering office, kept concealed, for 16 months, until compelled by the federal courts, to turn over 376 pages, 52 boxes, and miles of audio tape, all of which indicate Anthony DiSimone’s innocence in the stabbing death of Louis Balancio,
in Yonkers, 15 years ago, including a confession by the actual murderer, Nick Djonovic. How can Stanley Ridley, or any intelligent and reasonable
individual, trust anything as crucial as the investigation of the killing of their only child to such an individual?

Nevertheless, before and after the press conference, The Journal News made their bias very clear. On Tuesday, the day of the press conference,
Phil Reisman, who always drank the kool aid for Jeanine Pirro, willingly did the same for Janet DiFiore. For him, the Ridley tragedy and the failure of the DA’s Office to come clean, was merely about an effort to “take down the DA.”

The simple fact is DA DiFiore has refused to reveal the unredacted, unaltered videotapes taken by several surveillance cameras of the tragic incident. If those original images supported her version of the killing, she would have shown them to the public 15 months ago, would have
released the medical examiner’s report, and turned over articles of Christopher Ridley’s clothing to his family immediately.

The Advocate/Tony Castro.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Tony Castro Speaks About Domestic Violence
At Fordham University School Of Law

Last Monday, April 6, Tony Castro, candidate for District Attorney of Westchester, appeared at Fordham University Law School in New York City for a panel discussion of domestic violence.

Castro was joined by Dr. Maria Munoz Kantha, family therapist, columnist and lecturer on issues of marriage and family, who organized the symposium, as well as Dr. Josie Diaz, youth and adolescent counselor and advisor, and Laura Cruz-Colon, domestic violence survivor,
broadcaster and lecturer.

Castro, who was an Assistant District Attorney, rising to Deputy Bureau Chief of Homicides and the Grand Jury over 14 years in The Bronx District Attorney’s Office, has been in private practice, engaged principally in criminal defense, for the past eight years. He shared, with some 50 law students in attendance, some of what he had learned on the Defense side in numerous domestic violence cases. He spoke of the importance of maintaining a fair and open-minded attitude, and, not necessarily seeking only short-term solutions to domestic violence
issues, but rather longterm, comprehensive agreements that will satisfy the needs of each partner and, more importantly, the children, if any, involved.

Castro stressed the importance of thorough investigation to determine the accuracy and veracity of all allegations and counter-claims in domestic violence cases. He pointed out the fact that people involved in alleged domestic violence “do not always have the courage to analyze the truth”. He stated, “An Order of Protection can create a false sense of security, but it does work in 90 percent of cases.”

Dr. Kantha spoke of “The cycle of power and control.” She stressed the need to understand the dynamics of the relationship in cases of domestic violence, and the need to approach such situations with empathy.

Kantha made a Powerpoint presentation displaying very graphic projected images of the severe facial and bodily injury inflicted by the domestic partner of Carolyn Thomas, a well-known Olympic athlete who lost most of her face to a gunshot by an enraged domestic partner who also killed her mother.

Dr. Josie Diaz told the aspiring lawyers, “Orders of Protection are a mixed bag.” She discussed acquaintance rape and violence between adolescents. She explained that often women “make up with a violent partner several times, essentially because they are afraid of them, and afraid of being
alone.” Dr. Diaz pointed out that we tend to raise boys and girls differently; rewarding boys for aggressive acts, but girls for being quiet. She cited instances of parents and other adult authority figures who frequently make calls to emergency mental health agencies when they discover boys playing with dolls.

Dr. Kantha reinforced the experiences revealed by Dr. Diaz, citing several instances from her own professional experience in family counseling and individual therapy, explaining the frequent tendency by misguided adults to overreact out of fears of homosexuality.

Laura Cruz-Colon, a domestic violence survivor, speaking about her former violent partner, told the students, “I didn’t want to hurt him,
I wanted to kill him,” as she detailed the emotions and thoughts that she lived with during an abusive relationship early in her adult life. She
detailed the fear and the guilt she experienced during 11 years of psychological and physical abuse.

She explained that the reality was she was, “no more abused than I allowed.” She told the students that she had to develop a plan of action which took three years to execute. Now happily married for more than 20 years, Cruz-Colon explained, “Abuse doesn’t stop on its own. It requires a re-framing of self.”

Tony Castro took the opportunity to detail the importance of cooperation between law enforcement, Police and the District Attorney’s
Office, together with community social service and health care agencies, in successfully dealing with cases of domestic violence, particularly where there are children involved. He cited a Yonkers case, the tragic outcome in the Dennis Alvarez-Hernandez/Patricia Torres relationship which ended in the death, by stabbing, of Torres and two of her four young children fathered by two other men, at the hands of Alvarez-
Hernandez during one of the couple’s many alcoholic binges.

Castro illustrated for the students how it was that two individuals, with numerous police reports of domestic violence, could nevertheless slip through the cracks, going unchecked and uncorrected, until it was too late. He said, “One organization will point a finger at another. And, then, the pendulum tends to swing the other way when you have such a notorious case.”

Castro stressed the importance of communication and cooperation between the District Attorney’s Office and all other agencies involved to prevent tragic outcomes in cases of domestic violence.

Mike Edelman.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Mike Edelman Wants It Both Ways
Republican Chair Says He Doesn’t Speak For Republicans

Mike Edelman, a former law partner and good friend of Al Pirro; an individual who calls himself “The Consultant”, playing games with facts both
on News12 and on numerous internet blogs, to which he appears addicted, is now confronted with a dilemma. As a self-proclaimed Republican election consultant, he has enjoyed substantial income from directing the campaigns of such Westchester Republican candidates as Phil Amicone, Mayor of Yonkers, and Janet DiFiore, District Attorney of Westchester.

Of course, when he is engaged as a campaign director, particularly in the race for DA, Edelman really has no legitimate business acting as the News12 Republican commentator at the same time. It’s a glaring conflict of interest, downright unethical. But, then again, truthfulness and ethical conduct haven’t always governed Mike’s behavior, particularly when a couple of hundred thousand dollars can be made directing a dirty political
campaign, a campaign such as Janet DiFiore’s for district attorney in 2005.

That campaign was complete with attempted bribery of the Right-To-Life candidate, ethnic slurs and outright lies against her Democratic opponent, Tony Castro, not to mention voting machine and voter irregularities, as well as goon squads to intimidate voters, poll-watchers and reporters, and, the destruction of her opponent’s signs.

Truth be told, Edelman would do it all again, precisely as he recently threatened to on one of the many blogs he frequents. In fact, he is back at his lying routine now that Tony Castro has announced his candidacy for DA. Mike is trying once again, by hook, and mostly by crook, to return Janet DiFiore, the worst District Attorney Westchester has known in more than 50 years, to that Office. Trouble is, she is no longer a Republican, having renounced that party and everyone associated with it by way of showing her gratitude for the fact that they supported her in four election bids. She is running, or so she says, as a Democrat, or, more accurately, as a Spanocrat.

Why, then, is Mike Edelman out tooting her horn? Why, indeed, when there is a perfectly capable young man, former ADA Dan Schorr, running for Westchester DA as a Republican?

Why is Edelman defending someone who has offended good police officers and departments up and down Westchester while covering up rogue cops and prosecuting victims of police brutality?

We must ask, “Whose interests is Edelman guarding?” Certainly not those of innocent law-abiding citizens, or honest, hard-working police officers; and, certainly not Republican interests; and therein lies his dilemma.

Even the likes of Janine Rose, who attempted to keep the results of the News12 DA poll from viewers, because Janet DiFiore received only 18
percent as compared with Tony Castro’s 55 percent, cannot permit Edelman to continue touting a “Democratic” candidate while sitting as their
Republican consultant.

The fact is Mike Edelman’s support of Janet DiFiore for DA has nothing to do with anything so much as his own self-preservation. Like Andy Spano, Nick Spano, and numerous others engaged in politics, real estate development, and business with County government, Mike Edelman,
former partner of Al Pirro, “Mr. Fixit” has his share of wheelings and dealings, sales of property, manipulations of terms, loans and forfeitures, to keep quiet; transactions in many Westchester communities such as North Castle, for openers, as evidenced by unmolested land records.

For Mike Edelman, and numerous other players, it was necessary to get Janet into the DA’s Office, and to keep her there, to keep years of unlawful activity, election fraud, deed fraud, questionable land and mortgage transactions, under wraps. Mike liked things just fine when Jeanine Pirro, spouse of Westchester’s most outrageous white-collar criminal, convicted felon Albert J. Pirro, was District Attorney of Westchester. For 12 years that arrangement suited Mike Edelman, who had been Al’s partner in law, and in numerous real estate dealings.

Edelman is a dinosaur, a political talking head who, for all of his smarts, with respect to federal and state politics and socio-economic realities, nevertheless still believes that if he proffers a lie enough times, the viewing public will be foolish enough to buy it. And, News12, with their own despicable agenda and dealings over the years with the likes of Andy Spano, Janet DiFiore, and Nick Spano, their lobbyist, will not even challenge Edelman’s lies nor his outrageous predictions about DiFiore’s political fortunes.

Despite the outcome of their own “Question of the Day” polling that showed Tony Castro is the overwhelming favorite for District Attorney by
more than three-to-one over Janet DiFiore, and two-to-one over Republican Dan Schorr, Janine Rose and Brian Conybeare permitted Edelman to make his false representations and slanderous remarks without challenging him.

Edelman knows that Janet DiFiore has made a mess of the DA’s Office with more than 70 lawyers and investigators having resigned in little more
than three years and with many of those hanging on, doing so merely to collect their pensions. He knows she is a tough sell to families and police officers, alike; and that is why he once again resorts to lies and distortions against the one candidate he fears most, Tony Castro.

However, the People of Westchester will not be fooled into accepting four more years of DiFiore’s incompetence, vindictiveness, and unlawfulness.They’re only too well aware of the fact that she is a menace to public safety, a destructive, demoralizing force bent on punishing good cops while protecting those who have engaged in brutality.

Finally, when questioned by this reporter regarding Edelman’s relationship to the Westchester Republican Committee, Party Chairman Doug Colety said, “Mike Edelman does not represent the Republican Party, nor our point of view.”

Janet Difiore and Tony Castro.

The Advocate
Richard Blassberg

Janet’s ‘Got No Juice’
Readers Cautioned To Expect ‘Consultant’ Edelman’s Dirty Tricks

Last week, in our March 26th issue, we heaped praise on News12 for running a Question of the Day viewer poll that asked the question, “At this point, who would you vote for as Westchester DA?” Viewers were offered three candidates: Janet DiFiore, the incumbent who hadn’t yet officially announced, but was presumed to be running; Tony Castro, who had just announced that he was running, that very morning, and Dan Schorr, who had officially kicked off his campaign several weeks earlier, but had been running unofficially for about a year.

In our Editorial column, we declared, “News12 must be recognized for performing a true public service.” And, in the Advocate column, we cheered, “Hats off for running a Question Of the Day poll that clearly revealed the preferences of Westchester’s voters with respect to who should be the next district attorney of their county.” Those columns were written on the same day the poll was being taken, and as the day turned to evening, and then to night, it certainly became increasingly clear, tracking the results on News12.com, that the poll was a disaster for Janet DiFiore, the incumbent DA, and a powerful endorsement of Tony Castro.

Given News 12’s very special relationships with Andy Spano and Janet DiFiore, the thought occurred that, once again, Janine Rose had misread the will and the sentiment of the People of Westchester, as she had obviously done a few weeks earlier when another Question
Of the Day poll had revealed that the overwhelming majority of Westchester Residents and taxpayers wanted to abolish County government, much to the chagrine of the County Executive, causing Rose to then do a Newsmakers program segment with Mike Edelman and Lawrence Otis-Graham that was vicious and defamatory against Sam Zherka, a very active advocate for eliminating or substantially reducing County government and County taxes.

Nevertheless, the day after that poll was run, Brian Conybeare was on the air with the results, and so we surely thought News 12 would do the right Thing and inform their viewers that their poll of 999 responding viewers, showed 55 percent would elect Tony Castro, 27 percent would vote for Dan Schorr, and only 18 percent would vote for Janet DiFiore, this time.

Sadly, we were wrong. They simply did not possess the integrity nor the courage to openly and honestly inform their viewers that the incumbent, the sitting district attorney, a woman who had abandoned the Republic Party after they had supported her through four election bids, now pretending to be a Democrat, had been so badly rejected in their poll, receiving only 18 percent, 183 votes out of 999 cast.

When it became apparent Friday morning that News12 was not making any announcement of the outcome of the prior day’s DA preference poll, we called the station sometime after 8:30am, reaching Dave Wolfe at the newsroom. We asked how it was that no mention of such a significant poll, and it's outcome, had been made; why viewers weren’t being informed. We cited the poll several days earlier, which had revealed public sentiment to abolish County government. Wolfe said he would pass my concerns along to Janine Rose.

We called again, a half hour or so later, when they still hadn’t released the results to viewers, and was told there would be a meeting to discuss it. If such a meeting ever occurred, it soon became obvious that News 12 had no intention of informing their viewers that Tony Castro, who had just officially announced his intention to run for DA the same day, had gotten more than three times the number of votes Janet DiFiore could muster. Apparently News 12 would rather protect a bad district attorney by concealing the stunning results of their own poll than level with their viewers. They would rather relegate themselves to irrelevance with managed and manipulated news, then risk upsetting Andy Spano, who gave them a $22.5 million sweetheart deal nine years ago; a no-bid contract for a failed communications system from their wholly-owned subsidiary, Lightpath.

Similarly, they would rather cover up the failings of a bad district attorney as well as the public’s rejection of her, for fear of her ruthlessness and her political connections to Andy Spano, their huge benefactor, and Nick Spano, their lobbyist. As a cable provider, Cablevision News 12 is not subject to the “Fairness Doctrine” under the rules of the Federal Communications Commission.

The simple truth is News 12, and the politicians and hacks they consistently do business with and protect, insultingly, underestimate the intelligence and the common sense of Westchester residents. It goes far beyond merely taking people for granted. It’s arrogant, as when millions of dollars are spent buying a worthless “white elephant” old building of one of Andy’s big political contributors against the protest of all quarters of public opinion. It’s criminal, as when election machines are tampered with, signs of opponents are destroyed with box cutters, and bribes are offered to remove Right To Life candidates, and people are paid to vote in the names of deceased individuals or inactive voters.

The trouble is the insiders have been getting away with such antics for so long they totally discount the will of the People, even going so far as pulling duly nominated candidates off the ballot. That’s what they did to Billy Giacomo, running for County Clerk in 2001, because they feared a ticket consisting of Andy Spano, Billy Giacomo, and Tony Castro, might have been so strong that there would have been a Democratic “sweep” and Jeanine Pirro, Republican co-conspirator, would have been defeated.

However, that was then, 2001 and 2005; a fixed race and a fraudulent race, respectively, for Westchester DA. Yet, despite the best efforts of those involved, Andy Spano, Larry Schwartz, Nick Spano, Reggie LaFayette, and, of course, Janet DiFiore herself, the truth eventually rears it's head. Some people eventually suffer from pangs of conscience. Still others decide they don’t like the conduct of the beneficiary of the conspiracy, and come forward as well. Nothing as ugly and un-American as rigging elections can be kept secret forever.

If Andy and Janet and their henchmen believe they can keep the citizens and taxpayers of Westchester in the dark by controlling the media, The Guardian is here to say, “Think again.” The Janine Roses, Mike Edelmans and Larry Grahams can conceal and spin the news all they might, but the People of Westchester will not be fooled.