Banker Busted - Ripping Of TARP.
Former New York Bank President First Charged With Attempting To Defraud TARP
Bank Seized To Protect $500 Million In Deposits.
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, NEIL M. BAROFSKY, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”), JAMES T. HAYES, JR., the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), RICHARD H. NEIMAN, the Superintendent of the Banks of New York (“NYSBD”), GEORGE VENIZELOS, the Acting Assistant Director in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”),and JON T. RYMER, Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC-OIG”), announced the arrest of CHARLES J. ANTONUCCI, SR., the former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Park Avenue Bank, on allegations of self-dealing, bank bribery, embezzlement of bank funds, and fraud, among others. ANTONUCCI also was alleged to have attempted to fraudulently obtain more than $11 million worth of taxpayer rescue funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. ANTONUCCI is the first defendant ever charged with attempting to defraud TARP. Additionally, ANTONUCCI was alleged to have used the Park Avenue Bank in a scheme to defraud two pastors of a Florida congregation out of more than $100,000 set aside to build a new church.
ANTONUCCI was arrested in Fishkill, New York. He is expected to appear in Manhattan federal court.
On the evening of Friday, March 12, 2010, the NYSBD seized The Park Avenue Bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver; FDIC has arranged for the sale of The Park Avenue Bank.
According to the Complaint unsealed in Manhattan federal court:
The Park Avenue Bank
The Park Avenue Bank was a federally insured bank headquartered at 460 Park Avenue, New York, New York, with retail branches in Manhattan and Brooklyn. The bank’s clients consisted primarily of small businesses, for whom the bank made loans, extended lines of credit, and maintained depository accounts. As of the end of 2009, the bank had approximately $500 million on deposit, and over $520 million in assets. ANTONUCCI served as President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of The Park Avenue Bank from June 2004 to October 2009, and also served on its Board of Directors.
The Park Avenue Bank was federally-insured and regulated by the FDIC. Also, as a bank chartered under the laws of New York State, The Park Avenue Bank was regulated by the NYSBD. The bank was required to make certain regular disclosures to these regulators demonstrating that it was financially sound and that it had adequate capital.
FDIC and NYSBD regulations require banks such as The Park Avenue Bank to maintain certain levels of capital, as a percentage of the bank’s total assets. Banks that do not maintain appropriate levels of capital are subject to various restrictions on their activities, and may be required by regulators to raise additional capital. Banks which do not meet minimum capital requirements can be closed by the NYSBD or the FDIC.
The Park Avenue Bank was also an applicant to the Capital Purchase Program of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). The purpose of TARP was to provide funds to stabilize and strengthen the nation’s financial system by increasing the capital base of viable institutions, enabling them to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers. TARP funds were made available to qualifying banks; one of the critical elements of the TARP qualification process was the capital position of the applicant bank.
Self-Dealing, Bank Bribery, And Embezzlement
The Complaint alleges that ANTONUCCI engaged innumerous instances of self-dealing while President and CEO of The Park Avenue Bank, including authorizing extensions of credit and overdrafts to customers with whom he had financial relationships; authorizing extensions of overdraft credit to a customer in exchange for the use of the customer’s private plane; and causing the bank to make improvements on, lease, and pay expenses for properties owned by ANTONUCCI.
The Easy Wealth Line Of Credit
ANTONUCCI used a company he owned, Easy Wealth Group, Ltd. (“Easy Wealth”), to fraudulently obtain funds from _ e Park Avenue Bank. ANTONUCCI could not authorize the extension of credit by The Park Avenue Bank to his own company without violating the bank’s rules against self-dealing.
Accordingly, to mask his interest in Easy Wealth, in early 2006, ANTONUCCI approached an associate and offered to make him president of Easy Wealth (the “Easy Wealth president”), with the understanding that his first order of business would be to apply for a line of credit from _ e Park Avenue Bank.
The Easy Wealth president applied for a line of credit from The Park Avenue Bank in the amount of $300,000. ANTONUCCI personally approved the line of credit and later increased it to$400,000. ANTONUCCI even assisted the Easy Wealth president in preparing the line of credit application documents. The application as submitted contained numerous misrepresentations, including false statements concerning the Easy Wealth president’s personal assets and a fabricated business plan that contained false information about Easy Wealth’s financial condition and earnings. After the Easy Wealth president had drawn down the line of credit, ANTONUCCI approached him and demanded that he pay$70,000 to ANTONUCCI in the form of interest-free loans. ANTONUCCI only repaid $50,000 of the money. Easy Wealth ultimately defaulted on the fraudulently obtained line of credit, causing a loss to The Park Avenue Bank of $400,000.
The Oxygen Overdrafts
ANTONUCCI also approved approximately $8.5 million worth of over- drafts at The Park Avenue Bank to companies (the “Oxygen-related entities”) controlled by a co-conspirator(“CC-1”), who was a close associate of ANTONUCCI’s. Through the Oxygen-related entities, CC-1 brought numerous deposit accounts to The Park Avenue Bank, and submitted, or caused to be submitted applications for numerous loans from the bank.
On more than ten occasions in 2008 and 2009, ANTONUCCI used CC-1’s private plane to fly for free to, among other places, Florida, Panama, Arizona (so that ANTONUCCI could attend the Super Bowl), and Augusta, Georgia (so that ANTONUCCI could attend the Masters golf tournament). All the while, ANTONUCCI approved over $8 million in overdrafts for the Oxygen-related entities’ various accounts at The Park Avenue Bank. On one occasion in 2009, when a check issued by an Oxygen-related entity bounced,CC-1 communicated to ANTONUCCI that he would not be allowed to use CC-1’s private plane.
Showing posts with label The Court Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Court Report. Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Westchester Guardian Article/The Court Report.
Judge Sentences Kerik To Substantially More Than Upper Level Of Federal Guidelines.
Grants Him Three Months Before Surrendering To Prison United States District Court, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains Judge Stephen C. Robinson, Presiding.
Last Thursday morning, February 18th, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik appeared for sentencing before United States District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson following his plea of guilty to eight separate felony charges. Although not binding on Robinson, Kerik’s attorney, Michael Bachner, had come to an agreement several months ago with federal prosecutors Michael Bosworth, Perry Carbone and Elliot Jacobson, that his guilty plea would subject him to a sentence of between 27 to 33 months should the sentencing judge elect to follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Robinson opened the session at 10:11am with the statement, “We are here to sentence Mr. Kerik on his guilty pleading to eight felonies.” Addressing Kerik’s attorney, the Judge then said, “Let me first turn to you, Mr. Bachner; have you had a chance to go over the pre-sentence report?”
Bachner replied, “We have,” and then indicated that any prior issues with the report were “deemed to be resolved.”
Robinson then turned to Bosworth, Carbone and Jacobson, who indicated they, too, were satisfied with the report.
The Judge then reviewed all of the five documents that he had read, (1) the pre-sentence probation report, (2) the sentencing memorandum from Defense Attorney Bachner, (3) the sentencing memorandum from the Government, (4) letters and statements from Kerik supporters, and (5) Kerik’s plea allocution.
Robinson then said, “Let’s move forward,” signalling Attorney Bachner’s opening remarks. Bachner declared, “Bernard Bailey Kerik is before
you with the deepest humility and remorse, Your Honor. He knows by his conduct that he’s let people down.” Bachner emphasized the need for the Court to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the Court’s goals.”
Bachner took the opportunity to remind Robinson that his client’s plea understanding with the Government involved a sentence that would be between 27 and 33 months. He then went into an account of how Kerik, as a detective with the NYPD, had saved the life of a fellow detective, Hector Santiago, at the scene of a “drug buy gone bad.” Bachner referenced “a Talmudic” that “One who saves a life, saves the World.” He then declared, “Your Honor, Bernard Kerik has rescued the world many times over.”
Robinson then broke in with, “I’m going to interrupt your statement. At the same time we have a good cop, the good commissioner, we have the man who was violating the law. Not a bad day, or bad week, or bad year, but all the time.” The Judge repeats, “At the time he is doing good things, he is also violating the law.”
The Judge went on, “He had things on his website that trouble me no end; making it appear he was innocent, and prosecutors were not acting in good faith. We had Mr. Kerik violating orders of this Court, willing to violate the law and obstructing the investigation.”
Bachner broke in with, “Mr. Kerik is a complicated person. He would acknowledge he was inconsistent and wrong. When you’re so high on the pedestal, your fall is very painful.”
Robinson came back with, “At one point I told Mr. Kerik, ‘as you rise through the ranks of public service, you now receive but’...” The Judge was making the point that high office was not necessarily accompanied by high financial reward. He declared, “My law clerks will leave next year and make more money than I do. I can’t afford to send my daughter to the college she goes to.”
He then asked rhetorically, “What is the message that is sent by this sentence today?”
Bachner, as if to calm Robinson down, countered with a remark about general deterrence, and then added, “Twenty-seven months is no slap on the wrist.”
But Robinson was not to be stifled. He came right back with, “I am very seriously thinking about going above the Guidelines.”
Bachner then reminded him of the “27 to 33 month agreement.”
Again, the Judge came right back, “That doesn’t bind me.”
Bachner, going for broke, then said, “Heroism and public service must be taken into account.” Then shifting gears a bit, he declared, “Mr. Kerik is an extraordinary good person in so many ways. We have an obligation to remember the good someone has done. The good outweighs the bad he has done.”
Then, assuming a sentence closer to 27 months for his 54-year-old client, Bachner said, “At age 56 there will be many people who admire him, but many more who don’t. He is remorseful and begs the Court to allow him to resume his life. His supporters are heartbroken by his conduct.”
Now, Robinson began to reveal his own fears, declaring, “People will look at what happens here and it will either resonate with them or it won’t.”
Bachner, who earlier spoke of the sentencing, some years earlier, of a former Connecticut governor, John Roland, now made the mistake of invoking that case again. This time Judge Robinson informed him, offering, “I was the United States Attorney who started that investigation.” (Connecticut Governor John Roland had received some $250,000-worth of renovation to his summer home from a developer doing business with the state.)
All told, Kerik’s attorney argued in his client’s behalf for some 40 minutes.
The Judge now offered Bernard Kerik the opportunity to speak in his own behalf. Kerik rose to his feet and told the Court, “I make no excuses, and take full responsibility for the mistakes I’ve made. I ask only that you allow me to return to my wife and our two little girls as soon as possible.”
Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth now had his say, declaring, “However committed he was to enforcing the law when it came to others, he violated the law when it suited his purposes though.” He then remarked, “The Defendant alone is the architect of his public fall from grace. He committed crime after crime in service of himself over a period of a decade.”
And, now Judge Robinson chimed in with, “There are multiple felonies that Mr. Kerik has pled guilty to that do not influence the Guidelines.”
It was now 11:30am, an hour and twenty minutes into the sentencing, and Robinson was seriously agonizing, “As I’ve already mentioned, for me, Mr. Kerik is a complicated character. The Guidelines don’t take into account the almost operatic properties of this case. We don’t just have anyone here; we have the Police Commissioner of New York City continuing to commit crimes. I have been particularly troubled by the way Mr. Kerik, and people on his behalf, continue to behave.”
Robinson continued, asking, “What is the appropriate consequence for his misconduct?”
Drawing closer to a pronouncement of sentence, but still agonizing, Robinson now opined, “That Mr. Kerik would use the 9/11 event for self-aggrandisement is a dark place in the soul for me.”
He then went on to sentence Kerik to 48 months; 15 months more than the high end of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, plus three years of probation. He was, however, persuaded, after much discussion, to allow Kerik to turn himself in to the designated federal prison on May 17, rather
than remanding him immediately to jail.
Analysis:
The two-hour-long sentencing of Bernard Kerik was ‘vintage’ Judge Robinson, complete with much agonizing and thoughtful consideration to all aspects and individuals sure to be impacted by his decision.
In imposing a 48-month incarceration, 15 months longer than suggested by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Robinson was not ignoring those Guidelines, but, rather, rejecting them because of his appropriate concerns for the message he would convey both to the Defendant and to the world of observers.
However, having so lengthened Mr. Kerik’s term of incarceration, the good Judge remained reasonable and fair, allowing him to surrender to prison authorities in 90 days despite the Government’s arguments to immediately remand him.
Grants Him Three Months Before Surrendering To Prison United States District Court, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains Judge Stephen C. Robinson, Presiding.
Last Thursday morning, February 18th, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik appeared for sentencing before United States District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson following his plea of guilty to eight separate felony charges. Although not binding on Robinson, Kerik’s attorney, Michael Bachner, had come to an agreement several months ago with federal prosecutors Michael Bosworth, Perry Carbone and Elliot Jacobson, that his guilty plea would subject him to a sentence of between 27 to 33 months should the sentencing judge elect to follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Robinson opened the session at 10:11am with the statement, “We are here to sentence Mr. Kerik on his guilty pleading to eight felonies.” Addressing Kerik’s attorney, the Judge then said, “Let me first turn to you, Mr. Bachner; have you had a chance to go over the pre-sentence report?”
Bachner replied, “We have,” and then indicated that any prior issues with the report were “deemed to be resolved.”
Robinson then turned to Bosworth, Carbone and Jacobson, who indicated they, too, were satisfied with the report.
The Judge then reviewed all of the five documents that he had read, (1) the pre-sentence probation report, (2) the sentencing memorandum from Defense Attorney Bachner, (3) the sentencing memorandum from the Government, (4) letters and statements from Kerik supporters, and (5) Kerik’s plea allocution.
Robinson then said, “Let’s move forward,” signalling Attorney Bachner’s opening remarks. Bachner declared, “Bernard Bailey Kerik is before
you with the deepest humility and remorse, Your Honor. He knows by his conduct that he’s let people down.” Bachner emphasized the need for the Court to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the Court’s goals.”
Bachner took the opportunity to remind Robinson that his client’s plea understanding with the Government involved a sentence that would be between 27 and 33 months. He then went into an account of how Kerik, as a detective with the NYPD, had saved the life of a fellow detective, Hector Santiago, at the scene of a “drug buy gone bad.” Bachner referenced “a Talmudic” that “One who saves a life, saves the World.” He then declared, “Your Honor, Bernard Kerik has rescued the world many times over.”
Robinson then broke in with, “I’m going to interrupt your statement. At the same time we have a good cop, the good commissioner, we have the man who was violating the law. Not a bad day, or bad week, or bad year, but all the time.” The Judge repeats, “At the time he is doing good things, he is also violating the law.”
The Judge went on, “He had things on his website that trouble me no end; making it appear he was innocent, and prosecutors were not acting in good faith. We had Mr. Kerik violating orders of this Court, willing to violate the law and obstructing the investigation.”
Bachner broke in with, “Mr. Kerik is a complicated person. He would acknowledge he was inconsistent and wrong. When you’re so high on the pedestal, your fall is very painful.”
Robinson came back with, “At one point I told Mr. Kerik, ‘as you rise through the ranks of public service, you now receive but’...” The Judge was making the point that high office was not necessarily accompanied by high financial reward. He declared, “My law clerks will leave next year and make more money than I do. I can’t afford to send my daughter to the college she goes to.”
He then asked rhetorically, “What is the message that is sent by this sentence today?”
Bachner, as if to calm Robinson down, countered with a remark about general deterrence, and then added, “Twenty-seven months is no slap on the wrist.”
But Robinson was not to be stifled. He came right back with, “I am very seriously thinking about going above the Guidelines.”
Bachner then reminded him of the “27 to 33 month agreement.”
Again, the Judge came right back, “That doesn’t bind me.”
Bachner, going for broke, then said, “Heroism and public service must be taken into account.” Then shifting gears a bit, he declared, “Mr. Kerik is an extraordinary good person in so many ways. We have an obligation to remember the good someone has done. The good outweighs the bad he has done.”
Then, assuming a sentence closer to 27 months for his 54-year-old client, Bachner said, “At age 56 there will be many people who admire him, but many more who don’t. He is remorseful and begs the Court to allow him to resume his life. His supporters are heartbroken by his conduct.”
Now, Robinson began to reveal his own fears, declaring, “People will look at what happens here and it will either resonate with them or it won’t.”
Bachner, who earlier spoke of the sentencing, some years earlier, of a former Connecticut governor, John Roland, now made the mistake of invoking that case again. This time Judge Robinson informed him, offering, “I was the United States Attorney who started that investigation.” (Connecticut Governor John Roland had received some $250,000-worth of renovation to his summer home from a developer doing business with the state.)
All told, Kerik’s attorney argued in his client’s behalf for some 40 minutes.
The Judge now offered Bernard Kerik the opportunity to speak in his own behalf. Kerik rose to his feet and told the Court, “I make no excuses, and take full responsibility for the mistakes I’ve made. I ask only that you allow me to return to my wife and our two little girls as soon as possible.”
Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth now had his say, declaring, “However committed he was to enforcing the law when it came to others, he violated the law when it suited his purposes though.” He then remarked, “The Defendant alone is the architect of his public fall from grace. He committed crime after crime in service of himself over a period of a decade.”
And, now Judge Robinson chimed in with, “There are multiple felonies that Mr. Kerik has pled guilty to that do not influence the Guidelines.”
It was now 11:30am, an hour and twenty minutes into the sentencing, and Robinson was seriously agonizing, “As I’ve already mentioned, for me, Mr. Kerik is a complicated character. The Guidelines don’t take into account the almost operatic properties of this case. We don’t just have anyone here; we have the Police Commissioner of New York City continuing to commit crimes. I have been particularly troubled by the way Mr. Kerik, and people on his behalf, continue to behave.”
Robinson continued, asking, “What is the appropriate consequence for his misconduct?”
Drawing closer to a pronouncement of sentence, but still agonizing, Robinson now opined, “That Mr. Kerik would use the 9/11 event for self-aggrandisement is a dark place in the soul for me.”
He then went on to sentence Kerik to 48 months; 15 months more than the high end of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, plus three years of probation. He was, however, persuaded, after much discussion, to allow Kerik to turn himself in to the designated federal prison on May 17, rather
than remanding him immediately to jail.
Analysis:
The two-hour-long sentencing of Bernard Kerik was ‘vintage’ Judge Robinson, complete with much agonizing and thoughtful consideration to all aspects and individuals sure to be impacted by his decision.
In imposing a 48-month incarceration, 15 months longer than suggested by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Robinson was not ignoring those Guidelines, but, rather, rejecting them because of his appropriate concerns for the message he would convey both to the Defendant and to the world of observers.
However, having so lengthened Mr. Kerik’s term of incarceration, the good Judge remained reasonable and fair, allowing him to surrender to prison authorities in 90 days despite the Government’s arguments to immediately remand him.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Former Manhattan Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Owner
Extradited From Canada Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy To Defraud
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ARTHUR KISSEL, a/k/a “Arthur Froom,” a former cosmetic surgery clinic owner, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to a scheme to defraud health insurance companies of more than $900,000.
According to the Indictment to which KISSEL pleaded guilty; the evidence at the 2000 trial of KISSEL’s wife, SONIA LAFONTAINE, in the case; and statements made during KISSEL’s September 2008 bail hearing and the guilty plea proceeding before United States District Judge DENNY CHIN: KISSEL and LAFONTAINE owned and operated LaFontaine Rish Medical Associates, a cosmetic surgery clinic located at 315 West 57th Street in Manhattan. LAFONTAINE -- who had no medical license and was not acting under a physician’s supervision - performed procedures which were billed as having been performed by licensed physicians. KISSEL and LAFONTAINE’s clinic also billed cosmetic procedures, such as “tummy-tucks” and liposuction, in the guise of medically necessary procedures, such as hernia repairs and lesion removals. They also submitted claims to insurance companies for procedures that were never performed, and exaggerated insurance claims by increasing the number and complexity of procedures that were actually performed.
KISSEL and LAFONTAINE were originally indicted in March 1998. At that time, KISSEL was in Canada where he and his wife ran another cosmetic surgery clinic. LAFONTAINE was arrested in the United States in 1998 and was found guilty on all charges on July 12, 2000, following a six-week jury trial. She was ultimately sentenced to ten years in prison. The United States initiated extradition proceedings against KISSEL in 2000, which resulted in his August 2008 return from Canada on these charges.
KISSEL, 55, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud, and one count of mail fraud. He faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison on each count; a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the crime on each count; and forfeiture of the proceeds of his crimes. KISSEL is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge CHIN on December 15, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Mr. BHARARA praised the outstanding investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Major Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorney ROBIN W. MOREY is in charge of the prosecution.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Former Manhattan Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Owner
Extradited From Canada Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy To Defraud
PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ARTHUR KISSEL, a/k/a “Arthur Froom,” a former cosmetic surgery clinic owner, pleaded guilty in Manhattan Federal Court to a scheme to defraud health insurance companies of more than $900,000.
According to the Indictment to which KISSEL pleaded guilty; the evidence at the 2000 trial of KISSEL’s wife, SONIA LAFONTAINE, in the case; and statements made during KISSEL’s September 2008 bail hearing and the guilty plea proceeding before United States District Judge DENNY CHIN: KISSEL and LAFONTAINE owned and operated LaFontaine Rish Medical Associates, a cosmetic surgery clinic located at 315 West 57th Street in Manhattan. LAFONTAINE -- who had no medical license and was not acting under a physician’s supervision - performed procedures which were billed as having been performed by licensed physicians. KISSEL and LAFONTAINE’s clinic also billed cosmetic procedures, such as “tummy-tucks” and liposuction, in the guise of medically necessary procedures, such as hernia repairs and lesion removals. They also submitted claims to insurance companies for procedures that were never performed, and exaggerated insurance claims by increasing the number and complexity of procedures that were actually performed.
KISSEL and LAFONTAINE were originally indicted in March 1998. At that time, KISSEL was in Canada where he and his wife ran another cosmetic surgery clinic. LAFONTAINE was arrested in the United States in 1998 and was found guilty on all charges on July 12, 2000, following a six-week jury trial. She was ultimately sentenced to ten years in prison. The United States initiated extradition proceedings against KISSEL in 2000, which resulted in his August 2008 return from Canada on these charges.
KISSEL, 55, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and health care fraud, and one count of mail fraud. He faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison on each count; a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the crime on each count; and forfeiture of the proceeds of his crimes. KISSEL is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge CHIN on December 15, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Mr. BHARARA praised the outstanding investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Major Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorney ROBIN W. MOREY is in charge of the prosecution.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Dan Schorr/Janet Difiore.
Thursday. September 10, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Dan Schorr Refutes DA DiFiore’s Statements
Victim Issued Letter To The Court Denouncing Minimal Sentence
Last Tuesday, September 1st, Dan Schorr, Republican candidate for Westchester District Attorney, stepped up his criticism of the handling of David Sanchez by that Office under Janet DiFiore. Schorr had previously strongly criticized DiFiore on August 17th for having offered Sanchez, who had been charged with Attempted Murder and Assault for savagely beating his ex-girlfriend nearly to death for more than five hours, holding her hostage in her car, a plea-bargained minimal sentence of five years in State prison.
Following Schorr’s remarks on August 17th, the DA’s Office issued a written response claiming that there had been no plea deal, and that the Court had made the sentence determination, and not the District Attorney’s Office.
At his press conference on Tuesday, Mr. Schorr said, “The Court record clearly indicates that the sentencing Mr. Sanchez received was a result of a negotiated plea bargain that was orchestrated by the DA’s Office.”
He went on, “Not only did Janet DiFiore offer another lenient plea bargain to a violent felon, but she then issued false statements to the media in order to cover up her complicity.”
The victim, Stephanie Vedovino also criticized the plea deal, issuing a letter to the Court denouncing the minimal sentence and Sanchez’ return to
society in five short years after his horrific crimes.
Again, your Honor, these are the words of Stephanie Vedovino. The following documentation is to inform the Courts of New York State, regarding the case of David Sanchez, of the events and occurrences which took place on May 29, 2008.
There was a force in Mr. Sanchez that I had never before experienced. It was a violent nature that terribly frightened me. The experiences that followed were traumatic and violent and very definitely, life-threatening.
I was beaten unconscious several times. It is difficult to remember some specific details. However, for six-and a-half hours, Mr. Sanchez held me as a prisoner in my own vehicle, turning it into a live torture chamber, where he violently attacked me and beat me viciously, threatening my life. I suffered from a fractured left eye orbit, a broken nose, facial distortion, skull and cranial contusions, contusions between my two scapula, contusions to my upper forearms, a slight concussion, a ruptured left eardrum, a blood filled eye, due to many broken blood vessels, lost hair, a
bruised trachea, visible strangulation marks around my neck and burns to my skin on my left arm caused by cigarette burns.
Mr. Sanchez told me in no uncertain terms that he was going to torture me the entire night and that I would be awake to see it all, until he would finally take my life. Mr. Sanchez is an extremely strong and athlete individual, and it was clearly impossible for me to escape from him. My vehicle became bloodbath, with splatters of blood including having spotted the interior roof of the vehicle, and strands of loose hair. My life was spared only through a miraculous intervention of a phone call.
At this point another party heard almost incoherent, terrified sounds. Mount Pleasant Police were then phoned and they searched and located my vehicle on Lilac Place in Hawthorne, New York, about a quarter mile down from my actual job site. The details are fuzzy as I was unconscious part of the time but Mr. Sanchez drove the vehicle himself to that location. Mount Pleasant police officers approached the vehicle.
Mr. Sanchez apparently told the police officer that I was his girlfriend and I had fallen down the stairs. At that point? while waiting for an additional officer, they took him into custody.
Mr. Sanchez then turned and shouted very loudly that he was just going to sit in the back of the cop car and everything was going to be all right.
Mr. Sanchez was then placed in custody in the back of the patrol vehicle. In my condition, I was required to go to headquarters to try to give a verbal deposition. There I finally was transferred to an ambulance and received medical attention at Westchester Medical Center. I was housed in a shelter for battered women. I am in constant and enormous pain both physically and emotionally. I receive therapy twice a week and group therapy once a week and am living in constant fear.
Following these truly terrifying events, I have come to realize that there is no greater fear than the fear of knowing that your own life may at any moment be taken by another so-called human being in your own society. The realization of awaiting the day, or having knowledge that there is a day to come where this individual will be once again in the arms of society, among the innocent, is a day wanted forbidden to come.
The face of justice, would that be the face of an incomplete woman, or is it not to ever see the face of the nemesis again. Does a stranger hold any
significance in this case, to those who have defeated the strangest individual. This is to all who consider society to be as a whole, for it is not a whole with those who cut through it. Please consider the truth of justice. The truth of justice which is one’s justice and freedom in society, we belong to society, not belong running from society. How can one call themselves to be one, when they can torture another one with no remorse, no reason, no cause, and be set free, to prey once again on society.
How can there be such justice for the individual who is capable of causing such harm to another, perhaps taking a life of another. Following the
release of a criminal from their sentenced time of imprisonment, the victim will indefinitely continue to find themselves still serving time.
Your Honor, that being said the People acknowledge, as does the victim, that this is a negotiated plea, that the Court’s promise to the defendant is a sentence of five years state prison and we’d ask your Honor to abide by the negotiations.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Dan Schorr Refutes DA DiFiore’s Statements
Victim Issued Letter To The Court Denouncing Minimal Sentence
Last Tuesday, September 1st, Dan Schorr, Republican candidate for Westchester District Attorney, stepped up his criticism of the handling of David Sanchez by that Office under Janet DiFiore. Schorr had previously strongly criticized DiFiore on August 17th for having offered Sanchez, who had been charged with Attempted Murder and Assault for savagely beating his ex-girlfriend nearly to death for more than five hours, holding her hostage in her car, a plea-bargained minimal sentence of five years in State prison.
Following Schorr’s remarks on August 17th, the DA’s Office issued a written response claiming that there had been no plea deal, and that the Court had made the sentence determination, and not the District Attorney’s Office.
At his press conference on Tuesday, Mr. Schorr said, “The Court record clearly indicates that the sentencing Mr. Sanchez received was a result of a negotiated plea bargain that was orchestrated by the DA’s Office.”
He went on, “Not only did Janet DiFiore offer another lenient plea bargain to a violent felon, but she then issued false statements to the media in order to cover up her complicity.”
The victim, Stephanie Vedovino also criticized the plea deal, issuing a letter to the Court denouncing the minimal sentence and Sanchez’ return to
society in five short years after his horrific crimes.
Again, your Honor, these are the words of Stephanie Vedovino. The following documentation is to inform the Courts of New York State, regarding the case of David Sanchez, of the events and occurrences which took place on May 29, 2008.
There was a force in Mr. Sanchez that I had never before experienced. It was a violent nature that terribly frightened me. The experiences that followed were traumatic and violent and very definitely, life-threatening.
I was beaten unconscious several times. It is difficult to remember some specific details. However, for six-and a-half hours, Mr. Sanchez held me as a prisoner in my own vehicle, turning it into a live torture chamber, where he violently attacked me and beat me viciously, threatening my life. I suffered from a fractured left eye orbit, a broken nose, facial distortion, skull and cranial contusions, contusions between my two scapula, contusions to my upper forearms, a slight concussion, a ruptured left eardrum, a blood filled eye, due to many broken blood vessels, lost hair, a
bruised trachea, visible strangulation marks around my neck and burns to my skin on my left arm caused by cigarette burns.
Mr. Sanchez told me in no uncertain terms that he was going to torture me the entire night and that I would be awake to see it all, until he would finally take my life. Mr. Sanchez is an extremely strong and athlete individual, and it was clearly impossible for me to escape from him. My vehicle became bloodbath, with splatters of blood including having spotted the interior roof of the vehicle, and strands of loose hair. My life was spared only through a miraculous intervention of a phone call.
At this point another party heard almost incoherent, terrified sounds. Mount Pleasant Police were then phoned and they searched and located my vehicle on Lilac Place in Hawthorne, New York, about a quarter mile down from my actual job site. The details are fuzzy as I was unconscious part of the time but Mr. Sanchez drove the vehicle himself to that location. Mount Pleasant police officers approached the vehicle.
Mr. Sanchez apparently told the police officer that I was his girlfriend and I had fallen down the stairs. At that point? while waiting for an additional officer, they took him into custody.
Mr. Sanchez then turned and shouted very loudly that he was just going to sit in the back of the cop car and everything was going to be all right.
Mr. Sanchez was then placed in custody in the back of the patrol vehicle. In my condition, I was required to go to headquarters to try to give a verbal deposition. There I finally was transferred to an ambulance and received medical attention at Westchester Medical Center. I was housed in a shelter for battered women. I am in constant and enormous pain both physically and emotionally. I receive therapy twice a week and group therapy once a week and am living in constant fear.
Following these truly terrifying events, I have come to realize that there is no greater fear than the fear of knowing that your own life may at any moment be taken by another so-called human being in your own society. The realization of awaiting the day, or having knowledge that there is a day to come where this individual will be once again in the arms of society, among the innocent, is a day wanted forbidden to come.
The face of justice, would that be the face of an incomplete woman, or is it not to ever see the face of the nemesis again. Does a stranger hold any
significance in this case, to those who have defeated the strangest individual. This is to all who consider society to be as a whole, for it is not a whole with those who cut through it. Please consider the truth of justice. The truth of justice which is one’s justice and freedom in society, we belong to society, not belong running from society. How can one call themselves to be one, when they can torture another one with no remorse, no reason, no cause, and be set free, to prey once again on society.
How can there be such justice for the individual who is capable of causing such harm to another, perhaps taking a life of another. Following the
release of a criminal from their sentenced time of imprisonment, the victim will indefinitely continue to find themselves still serving time.
Your Honor, that being said the People acknowledge, as does the victim, that this is a negotiated plea, that the Court’s promise to the defendant is a sentence of five years state prison and we’d ask your Honor to abide by the negotiations.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Court Report.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
Indicted In False Statements Case In District Of Columbia
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that BERNARD KERIK, a former New York City Police Commissioner and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia on charges of making false statements to White House officials during his vetting for the position of Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. According to the Indictment: KERIK, in 1999 and 2000--when he was the New York City Commissioner of Corrections and then the City’s Police Commissioner--spoke to City regulators on behalf of contractors who were seeking one or more permits to do business in and with the City. The contractors then spent more than $255,000 renovating KERIK’s apartment in Riverdale, New York. Thereafter, in 2004, when KERIK was under consideration by the White House for the
position of Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, KERIK gave false and misleading answers to questions by White House officials about his relationship with the contractors.
In particular, and among other things, the Indictment alleges that KERIK falsely denied that there was any possible concern the President should have about KERIK’s relationship with the contractors, and that as a public official he had had any financial dealings with individuals seeking to do business with the City; and that KERIK sent an e-mail to a White House official containing false and misleading statements concerning the renovations to the apartment in Riverdale.
Charges similar to those in today’s indictment were initially brought as part of an indictment returned in the Southern District of New York in November 2007 but were dismissed from that indictment because the crimes are alleged to have occurred in the District of Columbia and not in the Southern District of New York.
If convicted, KERIK faces a maximum prison sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000 on each of the two false statement charges in the Indictment.
Mr. DASSIN praised the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service for their
efforts during the investigation, and thanked the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for its assistance in the transfer of this matter.
Assistant United States Attorneys ELLIOTT B. JACOBSON and MICHAEL S. BOSWORTH are in charge of the prosecution and have been designated as Special Assistant United States Attorneys in the District of Columbia for the purpose of prosecuting this Indictment.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
Indicted In False Statements Case In District Of Columbia
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that BERNARD KERIK, a former New York City Police Commissioner and Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia on charges of making false statements to White House officials during his vetting for the position of Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security. According to the Indictment: KERIK, in 1999 and 2000--when he was the New York City Commissioner of Corrections and then the City’s Police Commissioner--spoke to City regulators on behalf of contractors who were seeking one or more permits to do business in and with the City. The contractors then spent more than $255,000 renovating KERIK’s apartment in Riverdale, New York. Thereafter, in 2004, when KERIK was under consideration by the White House for the
position of Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, KERIK gave false and misleading answers to questions by White House officials about his relationship with the contractors.
In particular, and among other things, the Indictment alleges that KERIK falsely denied that there was any possible concern the President should have about KERIK’s relationship with the contractors, and that as a public official he had had any financial dealings with individuals seeking to do business with the City; and that KERIK sent an e-mail to a White House official containing false and misleading statements concerning the renovations to the apartment in Riverdale.
Charges similar to those in today’s indictment were initially brought as part of an indictment returned in the Southern District of New York in November 2007 but were dismissed from that indictment because the crimes are alleged to have occurred in the District of Columbia and not in the Southern District of New York.
If convicted, KERIK faces a maximum prison sentence of five years and a maximum fine of $250,000 on each of the two false statement charges in the Indictment.
Mr. DASSIN praised the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Investigations Division of the Internal Revenue Service for their
efforts during the investigation, and thanked the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for its assistance in the transfer of this matter.
Assistant United States Attorneys ELLIOTT B. JACOBSON and MICHAEL S. BOSWORTH are in charge of the prosecution and have been designated as Special Assistant United States Attorneys in the District of Columbia for the purpose of prosecuting this Indictment.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Court Report.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky Returns
To Federal Court
United States District Court, White Plains
Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, May 12, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, a podiatric surgeon whose medical practice was brought to an abrupt halt by a severe auto accident from which she is left with bouts of intolerable pain and the need to often wear a corrective collar, appeared in United States District Court, White Plains, before Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith. Bobrowsky, the Plaintiff, appearing pro se, had hauled the City of Yonkers represented by Assistant Corporate Counsel Neal E. Kumar, Judicial Title Company, represented by Attorney Angelo Delli Carpini, and Attorney Herbert N. Posner, not admitted to Federal Court, acting pro se, into Smith’s Court.
Judge Smith opened the session declaring, “Judge Robinson referred this case to this Court for either motion, trial, or settlement. There’s been
a Motion to Dismiss by the City of Yonkers; another Motion to Dismiss by Judicial; and the request by Mr. Posner for permission to make a Motion to Dismiss.”
Posner told the Court, “The complaint rambles; there is a complaint in State Court.” He went on to briefly review his role and representation
with respect to Lillian and Jacques Bobrowsky, the doctor’s mother and brother, respectively, currently residing in Florida, telling
the Judge that although they had discharged him, he still had an obligation to keep their address confidential.
Bobrowky began by telling Judge Smith, “The City of Yonkers has refused to send me my tax bills. This is my home that I was removed
from. This is a travesty of justice to not even get a copy of my tax bill.” She went on to tell Smith, “Mr. Posner’s notary license was revoked
for mortgage fraud. He was disbarred for fraud in 1987. The case in State Court is finished, because Mr. Posner failed to show up.”
Bobrowsky went on to inform the Court that the following day, last Wednesday, her house was scheduled to be sold by the City of Yonkers
at auction for back taxes, and that she desperately needed a stay of that tax sale. She began to lay out, in detail, the manner by which Attorney Posner, in concert with the Yonkers Police Department, the Tax Assessor’s Office, and Yonkers Corporate Counsel had conspired
over a three-year period to put her out of her home on Fanshaw Avenue, to isolate her from her mother and brother, and to cause her to be
vulnerable to loss of her rightfully-owned house.
Judge Smith, who at points seemed somewhat impatient with yet another pro se litigant, and, at the same time, appeared quite empathetic
to her plight, broke into an ‘echo’ of, “I do not have the power. I do not have the power. I do not have the power.” She went further, “You’ve made an application to Judge Robinson.”
Posner now said, “Alot of things have been said about me.” He went on to discuss his relationship with Dr. Bobrowsky’s mother and brother, and the obligation he believed he had to each of them to keep their address in Florida secret.
Analysis:
Of course, having been involved in the coverage of Dr. Bobrowsky’s struggles with the City of Yonkers as well as with Attorney Posner for a few years, and having been at various city, state, and federal courts in the presence of her mother Lillian and brother Jacques, accompanied by
Posner on numerous occasions, this reporter believes their personal vulnerability and their manipulation as portrayed by Plaintiff Bobrowsky to the Court, to be quite accurate and on-the-mark as opposed to the benevolent spin offered by Posner.
Magistrate Judge Smith, attempting to keep the proceedings on course and consistent with her assignment from District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson, told the parties, “The question is, what motions I should permit.”
Dr. Bobrowsky, under the imminent threat of wrongfully losing her home in a tax lien sale the next day, the home that was declared rightfully hers in State Supreme Court by Judge Richard Liebowitz many months earlier, now launched a counter-attack against the portrayal laid out by Attorney Posner.
She informed the Court of a “pattern of interference” in the conduct of her life, not only involving receipt of her mail, and continuation of her
disability insurance payments but, more importantly, her relationship with her mother and brother.
She spoke of the actions taken by the New York State Department of State in revoking the notary license of Attorney Posner for fraudulent
acts in connection with her home and property. She repeated a quote from Westchester County Clerk Tim Idoni about that County agency’s
dependence upon the honesty of filers of documents, intending to show the Court how little protection she, and others similarly situated, have from those who would fraudulently seize, or financially encumber, their homes and other property.
The doctor’s presentation was sufficiently effective that it motivated Assistant Corporate Counsel Kumar to offer to remove her home
from the tax sale. Again, Magistrate Smith was compelled to bring the proceedings back on course, back within the limited scope of her jurisdiction and assignment in the matter, despite the anguish and urgency being justifiably felt by Plaintiff Bobrowsky, and the emotional thread that ran through an otherwise well-stated pro se presentation. Smith declared, “I’m not the fact-finder. You’ve gotten the
immediate remedy that you wanted from the City of Yonkers.”
The Judge then set up a series of deadlines for receipt of motions and responses from the parties between mid-June and early August, with a
next conference scheduled before her to occur on October 2.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky Returns
To Federal Court
United States District Court, White Plains
Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, May 12, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, a podiatric surgeon whose medical practice was brought to an abrupt halt by a severe auto accident from which she is left with bouts of intolerable pain and the need to often wear a corrective collar, appeared in United States District Court, White Plains, before Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith. Bobrowsky, the Plaintiff, appearing pro se, had hauled the City of Yonkers represented by Assistant Corporate Counsel Neal E. Kumar, Judicial Title Company, represented by Attorney Angelo Delli Carpini, and Attorney Herbert N. Posner, not admitted to Federal Court, acting pro se, into Smith’s Court.
Judge Smith opened the session declaring, “Judge Robinson referred this case to this Court for either motion, trial, or settlement. There’s been
a Motion to Dismiss by the City of Yonkers; another Motion to Dismiss by Judicial; and the request by Mr. Posner for permission to make a Motion to Dismiss.”
Posner told the Court, “The complaint rambles; there is a complaint in State Court.” He went on to briefly review his role and representation
with respect to Lillian and Jacques Bobrowsky, the doctor’s mother and brother, respectively, currently residing in Florida, telling
the Judge that although they had discharged him, he still had an obligation to keep their address confidential.
Bobrowky began by telling Judge Smith, “The City of Yonkers has refused to send me my tax bills. This is my home that I was removed
from. This is a travesty of justice to not even get a copy of my tax bill.” She went on to tell Smith, “Mr. Posner’s notary license was revoked
for mortgage fraud. He was disbarred for fraud in 1987. The case in State Court is finished, because Mr. Posner failed to show up.”
Bobrowsky went on to inform the Court that the following day, last Wednesday, her house was scheduled to be sold by the City of Yonkers
at auction for back taxes, and that she desperately needed a stay of that tax sale. She began to lay out, in detail, the manner by which Attorney Posner, in concert with the Yonkers Police Department, the Tax Assessor’s Office, and Yonkers Corporate Counsel had conspired
over a three-year period to put her out of her home on Fanshaw Avenue, to isolate her from her mother and brother, and to cause her to be
vulnerable to loss of her rightfully-owned house.
Judge Smith, who at points seemed somewhat impatient with yet another pro se litigant, and, at the same time, appeared quite empathetic
to her plight, broke into an ‘echo’ of, “I do not have the power. I do not have the power. I do not have the power.” She went further, “You’ve made an application to Judge Robinson.”
Posner now said, “Alot of things have been said about me.” He went on to discuss his relationship with Dr. Bobrowsky’s mother and brother, and the obligation he believed he had to each of them to keep their address in Florida secret.
Analysis:
Of course, having been involved in the coverage of Dr. Bobrowsky’s struggles with the City of Yonkers as well as with Attorney Posner for a few years, and having been at various city, state, and federal courts in the presence of her mother Lillian and brother Jacques, accompanied by
Posner on numerous occasions, this reporter believes their personal vulnerability and their manipulation as portrayed by Plaintiff Bobrowsky to the Court, to be quite accurate and on-the-mark as opposed to the benevolent spin offered by Posner.
Magistrate Judge Smith, attempting to keep the proceedings on course and consistent with her assignment from District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson, told the parties, “The question is, what motions I should permit.”
Dr. Bobrowsky, under the imminent threat of wrongfully losing her home in a tax lien sale the next day, the home that was declared rightfully hers in State Supreme Court by Judge Richard Liebowitz many months earlier, now launched a counter-attack against the portrayal laid out by Attorney Posner.
She informed the Court of a “pattern of interference” in the conduct of her life, not only involving receipt of her mail, and continuation of her
disability insurance payments but, more importantly, her relationship with her mother and brother.
She spoke of the actions taken by the New York State Department of State in revoking the notary license of Attorney Posner for fraudulent
acts in connection with her home and property. She repeated a quote from Westchester County Clerk Tim Idoni about that County agency’s
dependence upon the honesty of filers of documents, intending to show the Court how little protection she, and others similarly situated, have from those who would fraudulently seize, or financially encumber, their homes and other property.
The doctor’s presentation was sufficiently effective that it motivated Assistant Corporate Counsel Kumar to offer to remove her home
from the tax sale. Again, Magistrate Smith was compelled to bring the proceedings back on course, back within the limited scope of her jurisdiction and assignment in the matter, despite the anguish and urgency being justifiably felt by Plaintiff Bobrowsky, and the emotional thread that ran through an otherwise well-stated pro se presentation. Smith declared, “I’m not the fact-finder. You’ve gotten the
immediate remedy that you wanted from the City of Yonkers.”
The Judge then set up a series of deadlines for receipt of motions and responses from the parties between mid-June and early August, with a
next conference scheduled before her to occur on October 2.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Court Report/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, May 7,2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
District Attorney Who Repeatedly Prosecutes
Victims Of Police Brutality Recognizes
National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
Last week, motivated by the fact that it was National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, DA Janet DiFiore placed a table and poster, with literature, in the lobby of the Westchester County Courthouse, ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information to Westchester victims of crime.
Having gone to court on Thursday to cover ongoing developments in a 15-year-old murder case, this reporter spotted the table upon leaving, and wished to photograph and publicize its existence.
We were informed by court officers that we would need to obtain explicit permission from the Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai, in order to take any photographs within the courthouse. We went looking for Judge Nicolai, who was in the midst of dealing with calendar issues, with a long line of attorneys and judges awaiting his attention.
However, to his credit, when he emerged from a conference with one of those judges, he graciously took a moment to listen to our request, and granted permission within ten minutes, notifying us of his decision and informing the court officers
in control of the lobby floor through his assistant, Joe Ranieri. We were pleased with the Judge’s promptness and courtesy.
We were particularly anxious to photograph the DA’s display in light of her appalling record, over the last three years, actually prosecuting several innocent victims of police brutality such as Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Sherry Bobrowsky, Tina and Mary Bostwick, and, literally, dozens of other similarly abused victims who have come forward in Yonkers since The Guardian first began exposing cases of police brutality in that city back in September of 2006.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
District Attorney Who Repeatedly Prosecutes
Victims Of Police Brutality Recognizes
National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
Last week, motivated by the fact that it was National Crime Victims’ Rights Week, DA Janet DiFiore placed a table and poster, with literature, in the lobby of the Westchester County Courthouse, ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information to Westchester victims of crime.
Having gone to court on Thursday to cover ongoing developments in a 15-year-old murder case, this reporter spotted the table upon leaving, and wished to photograph and publicize its existence.
We were informed by court officers that we would need to obtain explicit permission from the Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai, in order to take any photographs within the courthouse. We went looking for Judge Nicolai, who was in the midst of dealing with calendar issues, with a long line of attorneys and judges awaiting his attention.
However, to his credit, when he emerged from a conference with one of those judges, he graciously took a moment to listen to our request, and granted permission within ten minutes, notifying us of his decision and informing the court officers
in control of the lobby floor through his assistant, Joe Ranieri. We were pleased with the Judge’s promptness and courtesy.
We were particularly anxious to photograph the DA’s display in light of her appalling record, over the last three years, actually prosecuting several innocent victims of police brutality such as Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Sherry Bobrowsky, Tina and Mary Bostwick, and, literally, dozens of other similarly abused victims who have come forward in Yonkers since The Guardian first began exposing cases of police brutality in that city back in September of 2006.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Chappaqua Accountant Pleads Guilty To
Stealing Client Tax Refund Checks.
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and RAFAEL PRIETO, the Resident Agent in Charge of the White Plains Office of the United States Secret Service, announced that RANDAL L. KASE pleaded guilty in White Plains Federal Court to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of his clients’ tax refund checks.
According to the Information to which KASE pled guilty, statements made in Court, and other documents publicly filed in the case: From approximately 1998 through February 2009, RANDAL L.KASE, a licensed certified public accountant in New York State, prepared tax returns for his clients. During this time, KASE diverted the tax refund checks of numerous clients to his address in Chappaqua, New York, without the knowledge or permission of these clients.
After the Internal Revenue Service mailed his clients’ tax refund checks to KASE, KASE forged his clients’ endorsements and falsely represented
that his clients had signed the refund checks over to him. KASE then deposited his clients’ tax refund checks into his own bank accounts or used the checks to pay off his credit card bills. In total, KASE misappropriated at least 60 tax refund checks from his clients, totaling more than $320,000.
KASE was arrested on February 2, 2009, and pleaded guilty to one count of forging endorsements on United States Treasury checks and one count of mail fraud before United States District Judge CATHY SEIBEL.
KASE faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison; a fine on the forgery count of $250,000 and on the mail fraud count of $1 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and the imposition of restitution.
KASE, 55, resides in Chappaqua, New York. Judge SEIBEL set sentencing for July 28, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.
Mr. DASSIN praised the efforts of the Secret Service.
This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorney JASON P.W. HALPERIN is in charge of
this prosecution.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Chappaqua Accountant Pleads Guilty To
Stealing Client Tax Refund Checks.
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and RAFAEL PRIETO, the Resident Agent in Charge of the White Plains Office of the United States Secret Service, announced that RANDAL L. KASE pleaded guilty in White Plains Federal Court to stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of his clients’ tax refund checks.
According to the Information to which KASE pled guilty, statements made in Court, and other documents publicly filed in the case: From approximately 1998 through February 2009, RANDAL L.KASE, a licensed certified public accountant in New York State, prepared tax returns for his clients. During this time, KASE diverted the tax refund checks of numerous clients to his address in Chappaqua, New York, without the knowledge or permission of these clients.
After the Internal Revenue Service mailed his clients’ tax refund checks to KASE, KASE forged his clients’ endorsements and falsely represented
that his clients had signed the refund checks over to him. KASE then deposited his clients’ tax refund checks into his own bank accounts or used the checks to pay off his credit card bills. In total, KASE misappropriated at least 60 tax refund checks from his clients, totaling more than $320,000.
KASE was arrested on February 2, 2009, and pleaded guilty to one count of forging endorsements on United States Treasury checks and one count of mail fraud before United States District Judge CATHY SEIBEL.
KASE faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison; a fine on the forgery count of $250,000 and on the mail fraud count of $1 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; and the imposition of restitution.
KASE, 55, resides in Chappaqua, New York. Judge SEIBEL set sentencing for July 28, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.
Mr. DASSIN praised the efforts of the Secret Service.
This case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorney JASON P.W. HALPERIN is in charge of
this prosecution.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Mount Vernon City Hall, Janet Difiore and Sam Zherka.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
DA Presents A Very Weak Case
Against Publisher Sam Zherka
Mount Vernon City Court
Judge Adam Seiden Presiding
Last Thursday, Guardian publisher Sam Zherka appeared in Mount Vernon City Court for a bench trial before Judge Adam Seiden, charged with Disorderly Conduct, a violation. The charge grew out of an incident outside the chambers of the City Council on
the second floor in City Hall October 31, 2008.
ADA Alexis Celestin told Judge Seiden, sitting as the trier of fact, “The People intend to prove that on Halloween, Friday, October 31st, the City of Mount Vernon conducted an auction of properties foreclosed for tax liens, and, that the Defendant got into an altercation with Police Officer Morris, and that he became loud and he became irate. He said, ‘I pay your salary, and you shouldn’t even be a cop’. Yolanda Robinson, Mount Vernon Chief of Staff, tried to calm the Defendant down, but he
paid no attention to her and went on yelling, screaming and cursing at Police Officer Morris. At the end of the trial, the Court will find that the Defendant is guilty of Disorderly
Conduct.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Sam Zherka, declined to
make an opening statement.
The Prosecution’s first witness was Mount Vernon Police Officer
Morris, a woman who has spent two and a half years in the Patrol Division.
Asked what she was doing on the date in question, she told the
Court that she was working an 8 am - 4 pm tour of duty, and was called to City Hall to relieve Police Officer Pasqua.
Officer Morris claimed early in her testimony that she was instructed not to let anybody else into the auction before Sam Zherka, pre-registered, arrived a few minutes after the scheduled 11am starting time.
She claimed that she turned someone else away.
Morris said, “The Defendant said, ‘I pay your f---ing salary. You shouldn’t be a cop.’”
ADA Celestin asked, “What did you say?”
Police Officer Morris: “I told him to stop yelling at me and using bad language.”
ADA Celestin: “Did anyone approach you?”
Officer Morris: “Yolanda Robinson; she began to talk to the Defendant.”
ADA Celestin: “Do you recall what she said?”
Officer Morris: “No.”
ADA Celestin: “What happened with Officer Pasqua?”
Officer Morris: “We escorted the Defendant downstairs.”
Jonathan Lovett then cross-examined Officer Morris. He started
with, “On October 31, 2008, when were you told by Central what time you arrived earlier outside the doors at City Council Chambers at City Hall? What were you told?”
Morris answered, “Respond to City Hall Council Chambers.” Morris
said that PO Pasqua told her “We’re going to stand here to keep
order and peace.”
Responding to a statement by Morris on direct examination that
she had been told by Second Deputy Controller Valentine not to let anybody else into the auction, Lovett asked, “So before Mr. Zherka got there she told you nobody else was allowed to go in?
Did anyone else go in? Did anyone else go in or out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “Didn’t you see John Boykin come out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “What was the first thing the Defendant said to you?”
Morris: “He asked why he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “What did you say?”
Morris: “I told him he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “Did Mr. Zherka say anything about being registered to
attend the auction?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “How close were you to the door?”
Morris: “About a foot.”
Lovett: “What time did you call for backup?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Mr. Zherka pulling out a tape recorder?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Yolanda Robinson calling Mr. Zherka
a White mother f---er?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
At this point, ADA Celestin began a continuing overruled objection.
Lovett: “Did anyone come out of the auction to say what was going on in the hall was interrupting the auction?”
Lovett then asked if at any point after the incident Officer Morris told Mayor Young, “in words or substance,” that she wanted to apologize to Mr. Zherka; but, Morris denied it.
Morris claimed that she and Mr. Boykin, and Officer Pasqua, accompanied Mr. Zherka down to the first floor.
Lovett then asked Officer Morris a series of questions with regard to what happened when she got down to the first floor:
• If she told the sergeant on duty about Zherka;
• If she told the squad of cops who responded to her call, when
they arrived, and passed her as they ran upstairs;
• If she recalled being with Police Commissioner Chong just inside the front door to City Hall;
• If she checked to see if the auction was still going on on the second floor? All of which she responded to negatively.
Lovett followed up with, “Did John Boykin say anything in your
presence?”
Morris responded, “Yes,” without elaborating.
He then asked the same question with respect to Police Commissioner Chong, to which Officer Morris responded that Chong had said there would be a summons issued.
Lovett then asked, “Do you remember the Defendant’s holding
up his tape recorder and offering to play what had occurred for Commissioner Chong?” Morris denied remembering it.
He then asked, “Are you aware that the entire incident was recorded by Mr. Zherka?”
Morris responded, “No.”
Finally, Lovett asked Morris, “In light of that fact, are there any statements you made here, today, that you might wish to change?”
Morris again said, “No.”
ADA Celestin, at that point, made an application for Judge Seiden to listen to the tape. The Judge reserved decision.
The Prosecution then presented Mount Vernon Police Officer Vincent J. Pasqua, Thomas Rejalla, First Deputy Controller, Susan Valentine, Second Deputy Controller, and Rudy Persaud,
Public Works Supervisor, none of whom had anything particularly supportive of the charges against Mr. Zherka to say.
If anything, their recollection of events suggested that the incident occurring right outside the door to City Council Chambers was in no way audible inside and did not interrupt the auction going on in that room. Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud’s testimony was particularly exculpatory to Zherka in
that Attorney Lovett established, with his testimony, on cross-examination, that neither John Boykin nor Yolanda Robinson were spoken to offensively by Zherka in his presence.
As if to confirm the fact, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “When
you got to the top of the stairs, was Robinson with you?”
Persaud responded, “Yes,” and indicated that he remained for a few minutes outside Council chambers.
The sixth Prosecution witness was Yolanda Robinson, who took
the witness stand declaring, “I am Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff of the City of Mount Vernon.” Robinson, responding to ADA Celestin’s inquiry about her whereabouts at the time in question, said, “I was walking upstairs with Rudy Persaud.
When I reached the top of the stairs, I heard a commotion.”
Celestin asked, “Did you know who the Defendant was?”
Robinson said, “No.”
Asked what she did next, Robinson said, “I identified myself.”
Celestin then asked, “Did he pay attention to you?”
Robinson responded, “No, he didn’t.”
Prosecutor Celestin then asked, “Who was standing there?”
Robinson replied, “I saw Police Officer Morris, Mr. Zherka, and Rob DiBenedictis.”
ADA Celestin asked what Robinson said to Zherka, to which Robinson responded, “I said if you do not behave, you will be escorted out.”
Probed further by Celestin, she indicated, “A crowd had gathered
and I became alarmed for the people gathered.”
Celestin asked, “Did you accompany Mr. Zherka out?”
Robinson responded, affirmatively, following up with, “I saw
Commissioner Chong and identified myself.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett then proceeded to cross-examine the witness.
Mr. Lovett asked, “Why did you leave your office?”
Robinson replied, “I went to see the auction,” and then said she
was having a Department of Public Works issue.
At that point, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “Do you have any
recollection of what you discussed with Mr. Persaud?” Robinson did not recall.
Lovett then asked, “From the point at which you approached the
Chamber door, until you left the area, how much time elapsed?”
Robinson responded, “About 20 to 25 minutes.”
Lovett then asked, “What did the Defendant yell at the officer?”
Robinson responded, “You are not fit to wear the uniform. I pay
your salary.”
Robinson had no recollection of her conversation about a key, a car, or New Jersey, all of which the previous witness, Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud, had explained to the Court were the reasons he was with her, looking for John Boykin, and accompanied her to the area outside City Council Chambers.
Lovett went on, “Do you recall telling John Boykin, ‘mind your own business?’” Robinson said she did not.
Lovett pursued the matter further, “Did you say to Mr. Boykin, ‘What kind of Black man allows a White man to talk to a Black woman like that?’”
Robinson did not recall having said that. However, she did admit to telling Boykin, “If you don’t stop interfering, you’re going down with him.”
Speaking further of Boykin, Robinson said, “I recall him trying
to interfere as the police officers were trying to remove him.” Lovett came back with, “Do you recall saying, ‘This White motherf---er f---ed with the wrong f---er.’”
ADA Celestin immediately objected, and was sustained. Lovett then asked, “How long was Mr. Zherka outside the chambers?”
Robinson responded, “Ten minutes.”
Judge Seiden then said, “What we are trying to get at here are the exact words that you used.”
To that, Robinson responded, “I told Commissioner Chong that I
told him [Zherka] who I was, and he kept doing what he was doing.”
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
DA Presents A Very Weak Case
Against Publisher Sam Zherka
Mount Vernon City Court
Judge Adam Seiden Presiding
Last Thursday, Guardian publisher Sam Zherka appeared in Mount Vernon City Court for a bench trial before Judge Adam Seiden, charged with Disorderly Conduct, a violation. The charge grew out of an incident outside the chambers of the City Council on
the second floor in City Hall October 31, 2008.
ADA Alexis Celestin told Judge Seiden, sitting as the trier of fact, “The People intend to prove that on Halloween, Friday, October 31st, the City of Mount Vernon conducted an auction of properties foreclosed for tax liens, and, that the Defendant got into an altercation with Police Officer Morris, and that he became loud and he became irate. He said, ‘I pay your salary, and you shouldn’t even be a cop’. Yolanda Robinson, Mount Vernon Chief of Staff, tried to calm the Defendant down, but he
paid no attention to her and went on yelling, screaming and cursing at Police Officer Morris. At the end of the trial, the Court will find that the Defendant is guilty of Disorderly
Conduct.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Sam Zherka, declined to
make an opening statement.
The Prosecution’s first witness was Mount Vernon Police Officer
Morris, a woman who has spent two and a half years in the Patrol Division.
Asked what she was doing on the date in question, she told the
Court that she was working an 8 am - 4 pm tour of duty, and was called to City Hall to relieve Police Officer Pasqua.
Officer Morris claimed early in her testimony that she was instructed not to let anybody else into the auction before Sam Zherka, pre-registered, arrived a few minutes after the scheduled 11am starting time.
She claimed that she turned someone else away.
Morris said, “The Defendant said, ‘I pay your f---ing salary. You shouldn’t be a cop.’”
ADA Celestin asked, “What did you say?”
Police Officer Morris: “I told him to stop yelling at me and using bad language.”
ADA Celestin: “Did anyone approach you?”
Officer Morris: “Yolanda Robinson; she began to talk to the Defendant.”
ADA Celestin: “Do you recall what she said?”
Officer Morris: “No.”
ADA Celestin: “What happened with Officer Pasqua?”
Officer Morris: “We escorted the Defendant downstairs.”
Jonathan Lovett then cross-examined Officer Morris. He started
with, “On October 31, 2008, when were you told by Central what time you arrived earlier outside the doors at City Council Chambers at City Hall? What were you told?”
Morris answered, “Respond to City Hall Council Chambers.” Morris
said that PO Pasqua told her “We’re going to stand here to keep
order and peace.”
Responding to a statement by Morris on direct examination that
she had been told by Second Deputy Controller Valentine not to let anybody else into the auction, Lovett asked, “So before Mr. Zherka got there she told you nobody else was allowed to go in?
Did anyone else go in? Did anyone else go in or out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “Didn’t you see John Boykin come out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “What was the first thing the Defendant said to you?”
Morris: “He asked why he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “What did you say?”
Morris: “I told him he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “Did Mr. Zherka say anything about being registered to
attend the auction?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “How close were you to the door?”
Morris: “About a foot.”
Lovett: “What time did you call for backup?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Mr. Zherka pulling out a tape recorder?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Yolanda Robinson calling Mr. Zherka
a White mother f---er?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
At this point, ADA Celestin began a continuing overruled objection.
Lovett: “Did anyone come out of the auction to say what was going on in the hall was interrupting the auction?”
Lovett then asked if at any point after the incident Officer Morris told Mayor Young, “in words or substance,” that she wanted to apologize to Mr. Zherka; but, Morris denied it.
Morris claimed that she and Mr. Boykin, and Officer Pasqua, accompanied Mr. Zherka down to the first floor.
Lovett then asked Officer Morris a series of questions with regard to what happened when she got down to the first floor:
• If she told the sergeant on duty about Zherka;
• If she told the squad of cops who responded to her call, when
they arrived, and passed her as they ran upstairs;
• If she recalled being with Police Commissioner Chong just inside the front door to City Hall;
• If she checked to see if the auction was still going on on the second floor? All of which she responded to negatively.
Lovett followed up with, “Did John Boykin say anything in your
presence?”
Morris responded, “Yes,” without elaborating.
He then asked the same question with respect to Police Commissioner Chong, to which Officer Morris responded that Chong had said there would be a summons issued.
Lovett then asked, “Do you remember the Defendant’s holding
up his tape recorder and offering to play what had occurred for Commissioner Chong?” Morris denied remembering it.
He then asked, “Are you aware that the entire incident was recorded by Mr. Zherka?”
Morris responded, “No.”
Finally, Lovett asked Morris, “In light of that fact, are there any statements you made here, today, that you might wish to change?”
Morris again said, “No.”
ADA Celestin, at that point, made an application for Judge Seiden to listen to the tape. The Judge reserved decision.
The Prosecution then presented Mount Vernon Police Officer Vincent J. Pasqua, Thomas Rejalla, First Deputy Controller, Susan Valentine, Second Deputy Controller, and Rudy Persaud,
Public Works Supervisor, none of whom had anything particularly supportive of the charges against Mr. Zherka to say.
If anything, their recollection of events suggested that the incident occurring right outside the door to City Council Chambers was in no way audible inside and did not interrupt the auction going on in that room. Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud’s testimony was particularly exculpatory to Zherka in
that Attorney Lovett established, with his testimony, on cross-examination, that neither John Boykin nor Yolanda Robinson were spoken to offensively by Zherka in his presence.
As if to confirm the fact, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “When
you got to the top of the stairs, was Robinson with you?”
Persaud responded, “Yes,” and indicated that he remained for a few minutes outside Council chambers.
The sixth Prosecution witness was Yolanda Robinson, who took
the witness stand declaring, “I am Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff of the City of Mount Vernon.” Robinson, responding to ADA Celestin’s inquiry about her whereabouts at the time in question, said, “I was walking upstairs with Rudy Persaud.
When I reached the top of the stairs, I heard a commotion.”
Celestin asked, “Did you know who the Defendant was?”
Robinson said, “No.”
Asked what she did next, Robinson said, “I identified myself.”
Celestin then asked, “Did he pay attention to you?”
Robinson responded, “No, he didn’t.”
Prosecutor Celestin then asked, “Who was standing there?”
Robinson replied, “I saw Police Officer Morris, Mr. Zherka, and Rob DiBenedictis.”
ADA Celestin asked what Robinson said to Zherka, to which Robinson responded, “I said if you do not behave, you will be escorted out.”
Probed further by Celestin, she indicated, “A crowd had gathered
and I became alarmed for the people gathered.”
Celestin asked, “Did you accompany Mr. Zherka out?”
Robinson responded, affirmatively, following up with, “I saw
Commissioner Chong and identified myself.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett then proceeded to cross-examine the witness.
Mr. Lovett asked, “Why did you leave your office?”
Robinson replied, “I went to see the auction,” and then said she
was having a Department of Public Works issue.
At that point, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “Do you have any
recollection of what you discussed with Mr. Persaud?” Robinson did not recall.
Lovett then asked, “From the point at which you approached the
Chamber door, until you left the area, how much time elapsed?”
Robinson responded, “About 20 to 25 minutes.”
Lovett then asked, “What did the Defendant yell at the officer?”
Robinson responded, “You are not fit to wear the uniform. I pay
your salary.”
Robinson had no recollection of her conversation about a key, a car, or New Jersey, all of which the previous witness, Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud, had explained to the Court were the reasons he was with her, looking for John Boykin, and accompanied her to the area outside City Council Chambers.
Lovett went on, “Do you recall telling John Boykin, ‘mind your own business?’” Robinson said she did not.
Lovett pursued the matter further, “Did you say to Mr. Boykin, ‘What kind of Black man allows a White man to talk to a Black woman like that?’”
Robinson did not recall having said that. However, she did admit to telling Boykin, “If you don’t stop interfering, you’re going down with him.”
Speaking further of Boykin, Robinson said, “I recall him trying
to interfere as the police officers were trying to remove him.” Lovett came back with, “Do you recall saying, ‘This White motherf---er f---ed with the wrong f---er.’”
ADA Celestin immediately objected, and was sustained. Lovett then asked, “How long was Mr. Zherka outside the chambers?”
Robinson responded, “Ten minutes.”
Judge Seiden then said, “What we are trying to get at here are the exact words that you used.”
To that, Robinson responded, “I told Commissioner Chong that I
told him [Zherka] who I was, and he kept doing what he was doing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
