The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
We Must Keep Child Protection Laws From Becoming Tools of Family Harrassment
Editor’s Note: In a County and State already heavily encumbered with social legislation, at times apparently intended to protect us from ourselves, it is essential that those entrusted with such authority employ
reasonableness and common sense in sufficient measure if well-meant laws are not to become vehicles of harrassment and wrongful prosecution. Likewise, such legislation must anticipate misuse and contain the necessary preventative safeguards.
Assemblywoman Paulin’s Bill on Child Abuse Passes Assembly and Senate
A bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin to improve the procedure for reporting child abuse passed both the Senate and the Assembly and is now awaiting the signature of Governor Spitzer.
“This legislation strives to make the process as efficient as possible,” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. “The person most directly observing the abuse, or its results, is the most able person to report the claim.”
This new bill, if signed into law, will amend the current Social Service Law by requiring teachers and other professionals who interact directly with children to report suspicions of child abuse, mistreatment or neglect, directly to the state agency. After the report has been made, the reporter must inform his or her supervisor and both the reporter and the supervisor will be listed as contacts for the State’s investigation.
In the past, teachers were required to report suspicions to their principals and it was left to the discretion of the principal as to whether or not the State Central Registry was contacted.
“In attending public hearings all over the state I learned that teachers were reporting suspicions of child abuse to their supervisors but the supervisors were not necessarily reporting these incidents to the State Central Registry.” said Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. “With this new legislation teachers who have suspicions of abuse call the State directly; they see something, they report it.”
Additionally, this legislation protects professionals who report a claim under the New York State Labor Law from having retaliatory action taken against them. Also, the bill clarifies the list of professionals who would be responsible to report such claims. It specifies “school officials” to include teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists or social workers, school nurses, and administrators. Other responsible professionals outside the school district include physicians, mental health care providers, police officers, and various care givers.
Dr. Barbara Bernstein, Co-Chair of the Westchester Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, has been a strong supporter for this bill. “Mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect play a powerful role in protecting vulnerable children. By bringing to light situations of abuse, these circumstances can be investigated, and where appropriate, services and protections put into place for children. This task force has advocated for legislation to clarify the roles and responsibilities of mandated reporters and we are delighted that this bill does so while also protecting reporters. These changes should ease the process of reporting, which in the long run, will serve our children.”
A New York Mets Fan
A little boy in the Irvington school district just turned seven years old. Most seven-year-olds jump, flip, run and fall, and never worry about the outcome. However, this little boy, although physically able to, has a stress most of
us will never know. The Irvington School District has singled him out. Let me explain. Joey loves the Mets - he knows a great deal about the Mets and can easily hold his own in any conversation about them. Other than his outspoken love for the Mets he is a quiet, shy and playful child.
It all started a few months ago when Joey was playing with me (his mom), and his sisters. I went to grab for him and scratched his face accidentally. A few days later Joey told me that his teacher asked him, as he was getting on the school bus to come home, how he had gotten that scratch. He innocently replied, “Oh, my mom scratched me” and proceeded to get on the bus. Child Protective Services was soon at my home. While I was very upset, I, nevertheless, allowed them full entry and full range in speaking with all my children. I have four children who are all in the Irvington School System.
I went to the school that evening and spoke with the principal, Mr. Joseph Rodriguez. I asked what happened and why the matter was handled so poorly. His explanation was that it was a judgment call on the teacher’s part. I cried, and asked him how someone with little knowledge about my child or my family could determine abuse. It was only the beginning of the school year. They never asked Joey to explain what happened and never asked how it happened. He didn’t lie. I did do it, but purely accidentally. The shocker is that the teacher at the time, Ms. Dempsey, reported to Child Protective Services, “Joey was smacked so hard by his mother that it left open wounds on his face.” The only mark was a scratch the size of a pea, no bruising, no swelling, no welts, just a small scratch.
This was an outright lie and an absurd exaggeration by an inexperienced teacher. When I spoke with Mr. Rodriguez, I explained that I am not comfortable with Joey’s teacher. She accused me of harming my child without any facts to back it up. I wanted Joey out of her class. Mr. Rodriguez, understanding my position, switched Joey the next day to Ms. Warager. After a two month investigation, it was noted that the complaint was “unfounded” and it was dismissed. Time went by, and all through the year Joey would come home and say his
teacher would ask him questions about other scratches or booboos he had. How naive was I to think that the harassment would stop even with a new teacher? It was soon to be his 7th birthday and to no one’s surprise it was going to be a Mets theme. He wore a large Mets tattoo on his face that covered his whole right cheek.
He fussed when I told him he could not go to school with the tattoo. But, because it was his birthday, I gave in and let him wear it one more day. He went to school with it on and the teacher, as well as all of his classmates, could not have missed it. After all, if they can see a small scratch on his face, they simply could not miss this huge Mets tattoo. That day he came home from school and he was asked to wash it off and he did. He used a towel, wet the end and started scrubbing it off. He rubbed so hard he reddened his skin. It looked almost like rug burn on his cheek. When I came home from work, I asked him what happened and he said, “I scrubbed off my tattoo.” My response was “With what, sandpaper”? He said, “No, mom a towel.” I asked if it hurt. He said no and our night went on.
The next day I was at work and I received a phone call from Child Protective Services. They said they needed to come to my home again because of the mark on Joey’s face. Upon receiving this phone call I immediately called to speak with Mr. Rodriguez, the principal. I asked, “How could you do this to my child and my family again?” I was being profiled and harassed. His explanation was “a judgment call.” I asked, “Based on what? When Joey was asked about the mark what did he say?” The principal admitted Joey had told him he washed a tattoo off with a towel. So what was the problem? He also told the teacher the same thing. Are they calling Joey a liar?
Mr. Rodriguez said he didn’t see Joey the day before so he didn’t know if the tattoo was there. I replied, “Well his teacher was there. She saw it. Common sense would prove Joey’s story.” Mr. Rodriguez replied “Well I didn’t question Ms. Warager about that.” This is another example of poor communication and bad judgment on the part of both the teacher and principal. I hung up with him, finished my day of work stressed and upset, and went to pick up Joey.
Joey seemed upset when I picked him up from the after-school program. He said his teacher asked him what happened again and again, and even sent him to the principal’s office so he could see it. He told me he does not like to be sent to the principal’s office. He said he told his teacher that he washed his tattoo off with a towel but she kept asking him over and over. Child Protective Services came again that day and were allowed to go through the entire house, open every door in the home, interview every family member and again the complaint was “unfounded”.
Children and the elderly are often at risk for abuse. I am all for protecting children from harm. However, there are other factors that go into abuse and neglect. The Irvington School District and Principal Joseph Rodriguez
missed a few things. They should be mandated to routinely send inexperienced staff to attend classes on how to identify certain “flags” of child abuse. The school has a psychologist on staff. Why was she not consulted on this matter? She is a professional. Joey was never sent to see her once during the year. If it is suspected that Joey is being abused he should be sent to the psychologist for a professional opinion. This is blatant, unfounded harassment, bad judgment calls, and sheer lies. I would like an investigation that would reveal how many calls are placed by the Irvington School District, Dows Lane specifically, and what the odds are of one family being targeted twice within a few months of each other? Are other families visited when their child appears with bruises or scrapes? I have seen many children at the school with either stitches, casts or a brace. Was CPS called on these children as well?
If this is indeed the school’s policy, then the records will have to show multiple cases of abuse being reported. We cannot believe that Joey is the only 7-year-old child with a cut and scrape on his body. If the policy is to ask the child what happened and, even after the child states he did it, three times, to still report it to officials, there must be multiple records indicating this. How can the teachers decide which child is telling the truth and which child is not? They are only mandated to report, not to make a determination. So, therefore, every bruise should be reported. How do they determine which parents are abusive? Do they go by which parent they see all the time? Maybe they go by who volunteers more. Either way it’s a failing system. Either way people are given power to falsely accuse others and lie outright with no repercussions for their lies.
It’s not like Joey’s scrapes were so ‘out there’ that it should have even been considered suspicious. I believe the teachers are not trained to determine who is - so all injuries should be reported. This can be easily proven. Most importantly, what about little Joey? I watched the other day when he was at bat with his friends. He hit the ball and, while running to first base, fell and scraped his knee. He brushed it off as most 7-year-olds do. The following day it was time for school and when I took out his clothes he became upset. He refused to wear the shorts I had taken out for him. He began to cry and said he did not feel well enough to go to school. Only after a lengthy conversation did I find out he was scared that his teacher would question him and send him to the principal’s office.
He was afraid “they” (CPS) would come back and question him again and ask him if his mom hurts him. Joey said, “Why would a mommy hurt their kid? That’s so dumb. I don’t like them thinking that you hit me. You’re the best mommy.” The very system that was designed to protect children is causing them unnecessary pain and fear. I have requested a meeting with school officials because of the fear they have inflicted on Joey. You would think at the very least the school would be concerned enough to extend a phone call to the family to bridge the gap. At the very least the principal and teachers that saw fit to disrupt an entire family’s life twice would be concerned enough to follow up with a phone call or letter. How the principal and teacher are unable to make the connection that the interaction between school and family is vital to a child’s well-being and success is of great concern to us.
They have succeeded in Joey’s no longer liking school and being afraid to play because he might fall down. He worries about things like, “If I fall down and hurt myself my teacher is going to blame my mommy.”
Do you have a young child or grandchild? Just do a quick look over their bodies and ask yourself how you would like strangers coming into your home at dinner time, interrogating your entire family because inexperienced staff want to be heroes. The school’s actions have proven twice to be dysfunctional, false and not in the best interest of the child.
Natasha Clewell, Irvington
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Our Readers Respond...
Facts of War
Dear Editor:
Nations, including mid-Eastern countries, have been sending their young, uneducated and unemployed men to wars throughout history so they wouldn’t be rioting and starting revolutions at home.
Now the radical Islamic countries, funded by oil-rich billionaires, are using their young men and women as suicide bombers against the “decadent” West, especially the United States. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslims throughout the world seem paralyzed by these murderers who kill in the name of Allah while living among the moderates.
A Pew Research Center survey of Muslims, released on May 22, 2007, stated that 22 percent of them supported violence and suicide bombings. Muslim leaders do speak against these extremists but the
networks must give them access on a regular basis to denounce the use of violence, using Islam as an excuse.
This “holy war” didn’t start with the war in Iraq or on 9/11. There were attacks against the West since the 1980s but the U.S. retaliation had been mediocre and feeble. Whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not, the Bush administration decided it was time to - ght these Islamic radicals outside the United States and in
their own countries. When the troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the murderers will follow them to the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
The Iraqis were given the opportunity for freedom and an elected government with laws, an open court system, and an economy based on contracts but they chose corruption and sectarian slaughter. Millions of Iraqi men are leaving their country instead of fighting for a new way of life. Some are attending college in the West while Americans are dying in Iraq.
Americans are at a distinct disadvantage in Iraq. e U.S. hasn’t won a war since World War II* and, although victory will be claimed, success doesn’t seem achievable, according to the generals in charge.
Young Americans, in order to get a college education, will sell their “pound of flesh” to Shylock (the military) possibly after viewing a “peace-keeping, feel-good” commercial. Unfortunately, during their first day of training, these recruits find out the primary mission of the military is to kill the enemy. ey also aren’t told about the possible loss of limbs, eyes, and brain functioning, followed by inadequate medical care with long waiting periods at under-staffed Veterans Administration hospitals.
All wars end in larger governments and a greater, permanent loss of economic and personal freedoms, including illegal “stops and searches” of innocent citizens, bag searches in subways, the military with machine guns on trains and at stations, and extensive, personal humiliation at airports. Still, the public clamors for more “security.”
The solution might be an 85 percent turnout in the 2008 election, as the French recently achieved, and a vote for candidates who swear to starve this dinosaur government by cutting its food supply – TAXES.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
* Editor’s Note: e United States, in fact, accomplished its limited objective, winning the war (or Police Action, if you prefer) in Korea, having pushed the North Koreans back to the 38th Parallel.
Reader Responds to Advocate Column
Dear Editor:
Richard Blassberg asks, ‘what other choice did Officer DiGuglielmo have under the circumstances?’ He clearly did have another choice: Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, having just subdued Charles Campbell, should have attempted to subdue him again, instead of firing three shots into his chest. They were able to wrestle him to the ground once, they should have wrestled him to the ground again.
Richard Blassberg does a disservice to Officer DiGuglielmo with such biased and emotional account of an event
he did not witness. By killing Charles Campbell, Officer DiGuglielmo took the law in his own hands and applied
the punishment that he deemed appropriate.
He’s a convicted murderer and deserves to spend a long time behind bars.
Robert Brisbane
New York City
Editor’s Note: Mr. Brisbane is clearly entitled to his opinion, and we welcome it. However, he would do well
to consider that Officer DiGuglielmo’s response was precisely what he was trained to do for 12 years as a police
officer, under the circumstances.
To suggest, as he does, that Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, “were able to wrestle him to the ground
once,” and should have done that again, is to lose sight of the fact that, now, Campbell was in the act of using
a deadly weapon and, based upon the bullet entry points, as revealed at trial, was swinging at his victim when shot.
Clearly the jury that heard the case could not bring themselves to convict Officer DiGuglielmo of Intentional
Murder, or even Assault. His conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder was not supported by any evidence of that crime.
A Reader’s Well-Deserved Tribute To Doris L. Sassower
Dear Editor:
Flag Day, in which we Americans celebrate truth, honor and justice for all, was also the 16th anniversary of
the suspension of the license to practice law of Doris L. Sassower. Her contention that the Judicial Nominating
Convention as a method of choosing judges was fundamentally corrupt, has been validated as New York State must, this year, change from that method. I believe it has been deemed unconstitutional.
We have read several articles in The Westchester Guardian which detail corruption in the courts, particularly
as it pertains to women and Domestic Relations. The same is true of Putnam County.
Doris L. Sassower began her crusade to help women during her early years of law practice when she first saw
women devastated by former husbands who corrupted the process of divorce.
She later saw these same women become victims of corrupt judges, and said women, according to your articles,
suffer irreparable harm. They are continuing to suffer such harm. However, they no longer have the courageous
and ethical Doris L. Sassower to practice law on their behalf.
Ms. Sassower has been honored too many times over the years to mention. She was recently honored with the
Giraffe Award, and has been honored in the book Feminists Who Changed America 1963-1965.
Whereas, I am fully aware that many are too fearful to openly support her fight, I am also fully aware that
Doris L. Sassower is deserving of recognition for her long battle on behalf of women, ethics, and honor. Isn’t it
time we begin to redress the grievous wrongs that she has suffered? Might The Westchester Guardian honor her
achievements in some small way? To those of us who consider her a legend, and feel her life is a lesson in the
struggle for truth and honor, it would be deeply appreciated.
Eileen Redmond-White, Esq.
Facts of War
Dear Editor:
Nations, including mid-Eastern countries, have been sending their young, uneducated and unemployed men to wars throughout history so they wouldn’t be rioting and starting revolutions at home.
Now the radical Islamic countries, funded by oil-rich billionaires, are using their young men and women as suicide bombers against the “decadent” West, especially the United States. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslims throughout the world seem paralyzed by these murderers who kill in the name of Allah while living among the moderates.
A Pew Research Center survey of Muslims, released on May 22, 2007, stated that 22 percent of them supported violence and suicide bombings. Muslim leaders do speak against these extremists but the
networks must give them access on a regular basis to denounce the use of violence, using Islam as an excuse.
This “holy war” didn’t start with the war in Iraq or on 9/11. There were attacks against the West since the 1980s but the U.S. retaliation had been mediocre and feeble. Whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or not, the Bush administration decided it was time to - ght these Islamic radicals outside the United States and in
their own countries. When the troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the murderers will follow them to the U.S., Europe, and Asia.
The Iraqis were given the opportunity for freedom and an elected government with laws, an open court system, and an economy based on contracts but they chose corruption and sectarian slaughter. Millions of Iraqi men are leaving their country instead of fighting for a new way of life. Some are attending college in the West while Americans are dying in Iraq.
Americans are at a distinct disadvantage in Iraq. e U.S. hasn’t won a war since World War II* and, although victory will be claimed, success doesn’t seem achievable, according to the generals in charge.
Young Americans, in order to get a college education, will sell their “pound of flesh” to Shylock (the military) possibly after viewing a “peace-keeping, feel-good” commercial. Unfortunately, during their first day of training, these recruits find out the primary mission of the military is to kill the enemy. ey also aren’t told about the possible loss of limbs, eyes, and brain functioning, followed by inadequate medical care with long waiting periods at under-staffed Veterans Administration hospitals.
All wars end in larger governments and a greater, permanent loss of economic and personal freedoms, including illegal “stops and searches” of innocent citizens, bag searches in subways, the military with machine guns on trains and at stations, and extensive, personal humiliation at airports. Still, the public clamors for more “security.”
The solution might be an 85 percent turnout in the 2008 election, as the French recently achieved, and a vote for candidates who swear to starve this dinosaur government by cutting its food supply – TAXES.
Charles Roda, Mount Vernon
* Editor’s Note: e United States, in fact, accomplished its limited objective, winning the war (or Police Action, if you prefer) in Korea, having pushed the North Koreans back to the 38th Parallel.
Reader Responds to Advocate Column
Dear Editor:
Richard Blassberg asks, ‘what other choice did Officer DiGuglielmo have under the circumstances?’ He clearly did have another choice: Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, having just subdued Charles Campbell, should have attempted to subdue him again, instead of firing three shots into his chest. They were able to wrestle him to the ground once, they should have wrestled him to the ground again.
Richard Blassberg does a disservice to Officer DiGuglielmo with such biased and emotional account of an event
he did not witness. By killing Charles Campbell, Officer DiGuglielmo took the law in his own hands and applied
the punishment that he deemed appropriate.
He’s a convicted murderer and deserves to spend a long time behind bars.
Robert Brisbane
New York City
Editor’s Note: Mr. Brisbane is clearly entitled to his opinion, and we welcome it. However, he would do well
to consider that Officer DiGuglielmo’s response was precisely what he was trained to do for 12 years as a police
officer, under the circumstances.
To suggest, as he does, that Officer DiGuglielmo and his brother-in-law, “were able to wrestle him to the ground
once,” and should have done that again, is to lose sight of the fact that, now, Campbell was in the act of using
a deadly weapon and, based upon the bullet entry points, as revealed at trial, was swinging at his victim when shot.
Clearly the jury that heard the case could not bring themselves to convict Officer DiGuglielmo of Intentional
Murder, or even Assault. His conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder was not supported by any evidence of that crime.
A Reader’s Well-Deserved Tribute To Doris L. Sassower
Dear Editor:
Flag Day, in which we Americans celebrate truth, honor and justice for all, was also the 16th anniversary of
the suspension of the license to practice law of Doris L. Sassower. Her contention that the Judicial Nominating
Convention as a method of choosing judges was fundamentally corrupt, has been validated as New York State must, this year, change from that method. I believe it has been deemed unconstitutional.
We have read several articles in The Westchester Guardian which detail corruption in the courts, particularly
as it pertains to women and Domestic Relations. The same is true of Putnam County.
Doris L. Sassower began her crusade to help women during her early years of law practice when she first saw
women devastated by former husbands who corrupted the process of divorce.
She later saw these same women become victims of corrupt judges, and said women, according to your articles,
suffer irreparable harm. They are continuing to suffer such harm. However, they no longer have the courageous
and ethical Doris L. Sassower to practice law on their behalf.
Ms. Sassower has been honored too many times over the years to mention. She was recently honored with the
Giraffe Award, and has been honored in the book Feminists Who Changed America 1963-1965.
Whereas, I am fully aware that many are too fearful to openly support her fight, I am also fully aware that
Doris L. Sassower is deserving of recognition for her long battle on behalf of women, ethics, and honor. Isn’t it
time we begin to redress the grievous wrongs that she has suffered? Might The Westchester Guardian honor her
achievements in some small way? To those of us who consider her a legend, and feel her life is a lesson in the
struggle for truth and honor, it would be deeply appreciated.
Eileen Redmond-White, Esq.
In Our Opinion...
We are surely living through a very interesting time, a period in which some of the most fundamental principles of our democracy are being overridden daily; as one overrides, when a computer does not follow a command,
indicating that a certain desired action does not conform to established rules. On the federal level much of what is passing for “okay” is driven by, and camou aged with, the so-called “War On Terror.” We are told that it is okay to detain and imprison United States citizens, and non-citizens alike, without bringing formal charges, or indictment against them.
We are told that the use of torture, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, as pertains even to those who are labeled “enemy combatants,” is also okay. And, if it’s inconvenient, or too conspicuous to carry out torture here at home, we simply export the operation to foreign soil. In short, “ e ends justify the means.” e staunchest advocate on behalf of such unconstitutional behavior, of course, is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Here in New York we have a Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, who is now threatening to file suit, presumably against the State Legislature for not legislating pay raises for judges. Judges are taking bribes and going to prison. The
Matrimonial Part of the State Supreme Court is a scandal, with judges, law clerks, attorneys, law guardians, and forensic experts wringing every penny they possibly can out of the process, for the most part, catering to the spouse with the deepest pockets. “ The best interests of the children” be damned.
Cross the courthouse to the Criminal Part, and discover years of prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of statutes such as the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, Brady violations and malicious prosecutions, unchecked,
and unpunished. Nevertheless, Judge Kaye’s focus remains on those pay raises. Imagine threatening to go to court to sue? Pray tell, what court would not be in con ict of interest in hearing such an action?
We are surely living through a very interesting time, a period in which some of the most fundamental principles of our democracy are being overridden daily; as one overrides, when a computer does not follow a command,
indicating that a certain desired action does not conform to established rules. On the federal level much of what is passing for “okay” is driven by, and camou aged with, the so-called “War On Terror.” We are told that it is okay to detain and imprison United States citizens, and non-citizens alike, without bringing formal charges, or indictment against them.
We are told that the use of torture, in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, as pertains even to those who are labeled “enemy combatants,” is also okay. And, if it’s inconvenient, or too conspicuous to carry out torture here at home, we simply export the operation to foreign soil. In short, “ e ends justify the means.” e staunchest advocate on behalf of such unconstitutional behavior, of course, is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Here in New York we have a Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, who is now threatening to file suit, presumably against the State Legislature for not legislating pay raises for judges. Judges are taking bribes and going to prison. The
Matrimonial Part of the State Supreme Court is a scandal, with judges, law clerks, attorneys, law guardians, and forensic experts wringing every penny they possibly can out of the process, for the most part, catering to the spouse with the deepest pockets. “ The best interests of the children” be damned.
Cross the courthouse to the Criminal Part, and discover years of prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of statutes such as the Depraved Indifference Murder Statute, Brady violations and malicious prosecutions, unchecked,
and unpunished. Nevertheless, Judge Kaye’s focus remains on those pay raises. Imagine threatening to go to court to sue? Pray tell, what court would not be in con ict of interest in hearing such an action?
The Court Report
Richard Blassberg
Family Court and Supreme Court-Matrimonial Part
Judges Must Reconcile The Inequities Inherent In The Monied Litigant v. The Pro Se Litigant
Westchester County Family Court, White Plains Support Magistrate Rosa Cabanillas-Thompson Presiding
Wednesday June 13th Marc Warnock, and Suzanne Stephans, formerly Mrs. Suzanne Warnock, both of Irvington, appeared in Westchester County Family Court, White Plains, with regard to an Order To Show Cause filed by Mr. Warnock’s attorney, Clifford George Kleinbaum of White Plains. The purpose of the filing was to initiate compliance by Stephans with regard to child support payments she must now make to Mr. Warnock for their three children, ages 6,7, and 11, who are no longer in her “residential, joint legal and physical custody,” as of May 1, 2007.
The children who had resided with Stephans, their mother, for some five years, following Mr. Warnock’s departure from the marital household, and subsequent divorce, attend school in Irvington. Their residential, and joint legal and physical custody was taken from their mother, and given to their father who has remarried, as “sole legal and physical custody”, following a recent 13-day trial before State Supreme Court Justice William Giacomo. Giacomo who had initially stated from the bench, “These are great kids. They are doing great in school. They are healthy, and someone is obviously doing something right with these kids,” apparently had no problem, however, tearing them away from that “someone,” their mother, to accommodate the questionable
agenda of appointed Law Guardian Theresa Malach.
That mother, Suzanne Stephans, charged, “Malach did not have the best interest of the children, or their relationship with their father, and mother in mind when she wrongfully charged their mother with parental alienation.”
She added, “This has devastated our children.” According to Stephans the law guardian came to court with, and left with, her former husband, held private meetings with him outside the courtroom during their trial, and acted
as though she was Mr. Warnock’s private attorney, treating Stephans as the “enemy,” rather than maintaining neutrality between the opposing parents while working in the interest of the children.
Stephans, who appeared pro se, (representing herself) no longer having funds to retain an attorney, came out of last Wednesday’s court session concerned because the child support formula to which she will be held, for at
least two months before the next scheduled hearing, is outdated and inaccurate as pertains to her actual income. It was obvious to this reporter that Mr. Warnock’s high-powered attorney was behaving aggressively, almost belligerently, toward the mother of his client’s children, scarcely allowing her the opportunity to respond to his allegations. At one point when Ms. Stephans, who is employed full-time, attempted to inform the Court of the fact that she actually presently earns approximately $40,000, and not the $60,000, including bonuses, that she had once earned more than a year ago, Mr. Kleinbaum told the Court, “Perhaps she’s under-employed.”
Magistrate Cabanillas-Thompson acknowledged the financial hardship to Stephans that she was about to set in motion, but expressed her powerlessness to rectify so recent an order imposed by Supreme Court Judge William Giacomo, declaring, “I don’t have the jurisdiction or the authority to alter it.”
Richard Blassberg
Family Court and Supreme Court-Matrimonial Part
Judges Must Reconcile The Inequities Inherent In The Monied Litigant v. The Pro Se Litigant
Westchester County Family Court, White Plains Support Magistrate Rosa Cabanillas-Thompson Presiding
Wednesday June 13th Marc Warnock, and Suzanne Stephans, formerly Mrs. Suzanne Warnock, both of Irvington, appeared in Westchester County Family Court, White Plains, with regard to an Order To Show Cause filed by Mr. Warnock’s attorney, Clifford George Kleinbaum of White Plains. The purpose of the filing was to initiate compliance by Stephans with regard to child support payments she must now make to Mr. Warnock for their three children, ages 6,7, and 11, who are no longer in her “residential, joint legal and physical custody,” as of May 1, 2007.
The children who had resided with Stephans, their mother, for some five years, following Mr. Warnock’s departure from the marital household, and subsequent divorce, attend school in Irvington. Their residential, and joint legal and physical custody was taken from their mother, and given to their father who has remarried, as “sole legal and physical custody”, following a recent 13-day trial before State Supreme Court Justice William Giacomo. Giacomo who had initially stated from the bench, “These are great kids. They are doing great in school. They are healthy, and someone is obviously doing something right with these kids,” apparently had no problem, however, tearing them away from that “someone,” their mother, to accommodate the questionable
agenda of appointed Law Guardian Theresa Malach.
That mother, Suzanne Stephans, charged, “Malach did not have the best interest of the children, or their relationship with their father, and mother in mind when she wrongfully charged their mother with parental alienation.”
She added, “This has devastated our children.” According to Stephans the law guardian came to court with, and left with, her former husband, held private meetings with him outside the courtroom during their trial, and acted
as though she was Mr. Warnock’s private attorney, treating Stephans as the “enemy,” rather than maintaining neutrality between the opposing parents while working in the interest of the children.
Stephans, who appeared pro se, (representing herself) no longer having funds to retain an attorney, came out of last Wednesday’s court session concerned because the child support formula to which she will be held, for at
least two months before the next scheduled hearing, is outdated and inaccurate as pertains to her actual income. It was obvious to this reporter that Mr. Warnock’s high-powered attorney was behaving aggressively, almost belligerently, toward the mother of his client’s children, scarcely allowing her the opportunity to respond to his allegations. At one point when Ms. Stephans, who is employed full-time, attempted to inform the Court of the fact that she actually presently earns approximately $40,000, and not the $60,000, including bonuses, that she had once earned more than a year ago, Mr. Kleinbaum told the Court, “Perhaps she’s under-employed.”
Magistrate Cabanillas-Thompson acknowledged the financial hardship to Stephans that she was about to set in motion, but expressed her powerlessness to rectify so recent an order imposed by Supreme Court Judge William Giacomo, declaring, “I don’t have the jurisdiction or the authority to alter it.”
Article on Nader Sayegh:
“My Candidacy For Mayor of Yonkers Is Not About Politics, But About People”
– Dr. Nader Sayegh, Principal, PS 13
Nader Sayegh, who hopes to occupy the Mayor’s office in Yonkers City Hall this coming January, standing outside Public School 13 last thursday afternoon, declared, “My candidacy for Mayor of Yonkers is not about
politics, but about people,” as he tossed his hat into the ring.
Responding to reporters’ questions as to why he had decided to run for mayor, given his long and distinguished career in public education, Sayegh said, “Our children must respect education and law enforcement.
We must turn a new page, rejecting corruption and the politics that has been all about the highest bidder. We must refocus our priorities, recognizing that education is the key to our childrens’ future as well as the future
of our great city.”
Two years ago, the Rotary Club of East Yonkers, in bestowing the “Leadership In Education Award” upon Nader Sayegh, Principal of Public School 13, said, “Dr. Nader Sayegh, an outstanding administrator and a dedicated professional, has clearly demonstrated an incredible passion and commitment to empowerment through education. roughout his 32-year professional career as an educator and public school administrator, Dr. Sayegh’s understanding of the importance and value of a sound education has been his primary focus and motivation for the articulation of the District’s educational programs and its emphasis on curriculum and instructional
improvement.”
They went on to say, “Challenged by the diverse needs of the student population in this district, Dr. Sayegh displays a hard-driving, charismatic leadership. He is an urban educator who truly enjoys the challenges of an urban education. For Dr. Sayegh, every complex problem has a solution; triumph, in the face of adversity, is
the name of his game. Dr. Sayegh’s leadership focuses on constructive ways to solve problems inherent in every concern and issue.”
Rotary recognized Sayegh as a “proactive leader in many community based organizations,” including:
• The Spanish Foundation as a Trustee for more than 25 years;
• Helped in establishing the Yonkers Anti-Crime Initiative;
• Implementer of Drug-Free Zone policy in school communities;
• Planning the DARE program;
• Continuing Education Initiative for Adults;
• Parks Board Member over 15 years;
• Chairman of the City’s Parking Authority for 5 years;
• Member of Board of Directors, Yonkers General Hospital;
• Awarded by e March of Dimes for his service;
• Awarded by e American Red Cross for his service;
• Recognized by the Yonkers branch of the NAACP.
“My Candidacy For Mayor of Yonkers Is Not About Politics, But About People”
– Dr. Nader Sayegh, Principal, PS 13
Nader Sayegh, who hopes to occupy the Mayor’s office in Yonkers City Hall this coming January, standing outside Public School 13 last thursday afternoon, declared, “My candidacy for Mayor of Yonkers is not about
politics, but about people,” as he tossed his hat into the ring.
Responding to reporters’ questions as to why he had decided to run for mayor, given his long and distinguished career in public education, Sayegh said, “Our children must respect education and law enforcement.
We must turn a new page, rejecting corruption and the politics that has been all about the highest bidder. We must refocus our priorities, recognizing that education is the key to our childrens’ future as well as the future
of our great city.”
Two years ago, the Rotary Club of East Yonkers, in bestowing the “Leadership In Education Award” upon Nader Sayegh, Principal of Public School 13, said, “Dr. Nader Sayegh, an outstanding administrator and a dedicated professional, has clearly demonstrated an incredible passion and commitment to empowerment through education. roughout his 32-year professional career as an educator and public school administrator, Dr. Sayegh’s understanding of the importance and value of a sound education has been his primary focus and motivation for the articulation of the District’s educational programs and its emphasis on curriculum and instructional
improvement.”
They went on to say, “Challenged by the diverse needs of the student population in this district, Dr. Sayegh displays a hard-driving, charismatic leadership. He is an urban educator who truly enjoys the challenges of an urban education. For Dr. Sayegh, every complex problem has a solution; triumph, in the face of adversity, is
the name of his game. Dr. Sayegh’s leadership focuses on constructive ways to solve problems inherent in every concern and issue.”
Rotary recognized Sayegh as a “proactive leader in many community based organizations,” including:
• The Spanish Foundation as a Trustee for more than 25 years;
• Helped in establishing the Yonkers Anti-Crime Initiative;
• Implementer of Drug-Free Zone policy in school communities;
• Planning the DARE program;
• Continuing Education Initiative for Adults;
• Parks Board Member over 15 years;
• Chairman of the City’s Parking Authority for 5 years;
• Member of Board of Directors, Yonkers General Hospital;
• Awarded by e March of Dimes for his service;
• Awarded by e American Red Cross for his service;
• Recognized by the Yonkers branch of the NAACP.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice.
by Jeffrey Deskovic
Introduction
Part 1
I had heard that there was going to be a hearing on strengthening the state DNA Database, and also that there was some sort of compromise in the works that would limit 440.10 motions to one year following conviction.
Such motions are intended to bring to the Court information that was unavailable at the time of trial and conviction, which, if known, would likely have influenced the verdict. I was concerned about the one-year limit, and the limitations that it would place on other people who are currently wrongfully convicted and who are attempting to establish their innocence. I therefore decided to attend the hearing before the Assembly Codes Committee, in order to both observe what was going on, and participate in the hearing by testifying from my own personal experience about the deficiencies and cracks in the system whereby the Innocent can be wrongfully convicted and have to overcome tremendous obstacles and difficulties undoing such convictions.
I often view myself as speaking on behalf of those whom I metaphorically left behind, but who remain in prison
wrongfully, unable to speak for themselves. I viewed this opportunity as an extension of that principle. There were a variety of different proposed changes in the way the code of criminal procedure works that were under consideration, as well as a variety of other related matters that the Assembly invited commentary on.
As part of Governor Spitzer’s proposal to expand the DNA Databank, those convicted of nonviolent isdemeanor crimes would be required to submit a DNA sample. I felt that this was a welcome change which could only increase the chances of freeing the wrongfully convicted. The reason is DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice that when someone who is wrongfully
convicted requests a DNA test to compare DNA found at a crime scene with the databank, the larger the pool to compare against, the better the chances of a match, and thereby simultaneously demonstrating the innocence of the wrongfully accused, and the guilt of the real perpetrator.
When I was in prison, and was dreaming about having the DNA in my case compared against the databank,
hoping for a match, I realized just how much of a long shot it might be that the person who really committed the crime would have their sample in the Databank. I therefore wanted my lawyer to push to have the DNA not merely compared to those who were in New York’s databank, but also to those in the databanks of other
states, as well as the federal databank. My reasoning was that I wish to cast as large a net as possible to maximize my chances.
The strengthening of the DNA databank by increasing the samples available is a natural extension of this rationale. Additionally, strengthening the database can prevent wrongful convictions by increasing the chances that the real perpetrator will be arrested originally. Surprisingly, the expansion of the databank was not welcomed by all. Robert Newman, testifying on behalf of The Legal Aid Society Of New York City, although stating that including profiles from all persons convicted of crimes “would enhance to some degree the crime-solving capacity of law enforcement,” then continued, “However, we feel that in practice, this additional expansion of the Databank, following so quickly upon last year’s substantial expansion, would divert resources away from other crime-prevention efforts that promise more substantial benefits.”
My response was that anything, anything at all, which can aid in the proving of innocence as well as the prevention of a wrongful conviction, must be done. If it only saves one life, I think that, in and of itself, is well worth it. What price can we place on a man or woman’s freedom? To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to say
to someone who is wrongfully convicted, “You must stay in prison, unable to prove your innocence, because we are unwilling to spend the money needed to include samples from those convicted of misdemeanors, which could prove your innocence, because we don’t think it is worth it financially. But you understand, right?’
Also in opposition to expansion of the DNA Database was Professor Harvey Levine, of Queens College Graduate Center. His objection was two-fold: Firstly, that the nonviolent misdemeanors, most often consisting of smoking marijuana, represented crime at its lowest levels; and, secondly that African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to be arrested for non violent misdemeanors and therefore it would be mostly their DNA which
would be collected, and that therefore it’s a racist outcome.
As I see it, Levine’s arguments fail. Those who break the law and start out with low-level crimes often go
on to bigger and more serious ones. Marijuana is known as a gateway drug which can lead its users to more serious drugs, such as crack and heroin, which may then cause them to commit more serious crimes in order to support their habit. Use of the more serious drugs may cause them to commit crimes while in an altered state of mind. Steven Cunningham, for example, the perpetrator of the crime I served 16 years wrongfully for, was, in fact, a known crack user who said that he was high at the time he killed the victim. Therefore, the idea that all those who commit low level crimes are harmless and, by implication, that their samples are worthless is simply not true. Additionally, the implementation of the collection of DNA from all of those who are convicted of
nonviolent misdemeanors, is not racist because it calls for the taking of the samples from anybody, regardless of
race or ethnicity.
Robert Perry, representing the New York Civil Liberties Union, was also against the expansion of the DNA Databank. He argued that because human beings collect and analyze the samples, and because humans are fallible, the databank should not be expanded. If the crime lab does not use correct safety protocols to ensure that cross-contamination does not occur, or if mislabeling of the sample happens, this can lead to errors and false positives. He noted a couple of cases where issues such as contamination and mislabeling led to wrongful convictions, and felt therefore that if even more samples were obtained this would increase the error rate. There
are a variety of responses to this. While I agree that scientific protocols must be observed in order to obtain accurate results, this is true of any science. The occurrence, and correction I might add, through additional DNA Tests down the line which corrected the wrongful convictions, does not disprove the general theory. It merely shows that a safety feature could be built in requiring confirmatory tests by different labs in order to ensure the accuracy of results when DNA is used to prosecute defendants, just as third and sometimes fourth tests are utilized before anybody is released based on a negative showing.
Additionally, although there have been a few rare instances of false positives, there has never been a case of a
false negative, nor has there ever been a case in which defense witnesses testify to an exclusion while the prosecution testified to a match. In those couple of cases of wrongful convictions based on initial inaccurate readings, when the error was discovered, the accurate readout was confirmed by experts for the prosecution
so that there was agreement by both sides.
To not expand the DNA Databank because of a few rare false positives is to also say that DNA should never be used at all, which would have had the result of not obtaining the 2002 exonerations that have been achieved nationwide, including the approximately 30% of cases wherein DNA has not only shown innocence but has also shown the guilt of the correct party, often accompanied by admissions of guilt by the accused.
Further, if the idea to not use technology because there is a human element to it and therefore it is not perfect were applied across the board, there would be no invention or advancement ever used in any aspect of life.
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of The Innocence Project, which nationwide has helped clear 2002 wrongfully convicted people through DNA, stated, “Anytime lawmakers are weighing bills on DNA and the criminal justice system, the bottom line question is whether the reforms can prevent wrongful convictions, help people prove their
innocence more quickly, and improve public safety. Legislation introduced in the Assembly meets that test far better than the Senate proposal does. These are serious problems that demand serious action, and New York’s criminal justice system will best be served by the Assembly reforms.”
Shortcomings Of The Bill Unfortunately, there were other provisions in the bill which were very objectionable. For example, there was a one-year time limit provision, modified to three years by the time of the day of
the hearing, in which defendants would be able to file a post-conviction motion known as a 440.10, after which they would be time-barred. This rule was to apply to all non-DNA or newly discovered evidence claims. This rule is inconsistent with justice, truth, guilt and innocence. Everybody who spoke was against
this rule. Consider the following:
• In cases wherein there is misconduct by a prosecutor, a defendant would only have one year to bring this
issue forward;
• When it is discovered that a previous attorney knew about evidence but either did no investigation or else failed
to bring this to the court’s attention, such evidence would not be considered newly discovered because the prior attorney knew about it or the defendant knew about it, and therefore if the one or three years had passed, it would be too late.
• A defendant who discovers, more than a year after conviction, that the police or the prosecutor withheld evidence that by law they were supposed to disclose to the defense (Brady material), they would no longer be able to raise the issue.
• Sometimes The Court of Appeals adopts a new rule and decides that justice requires that it be applied retroactively to cases already in the system. A defendant who has already exhausted his appeals or has progressed beyond the state level, would no longer be able to raise the issue in court, thereby denying
him the benefit of the new rule.
With regard to the proposed time limit, I addressed several points before the Committee. I spoke of how being
time barred could lead to injustice, recounting how then-Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro had urged
the federal court to time bar me because my legal paperwork arrived 4 days too late, and how the court’s adopting of this position led to my continued incarceration.
I pointed out that it should make no difference how much time it has taken a defendant with scarce resources
and little, if any, legal representation to uncover that the prosecutor has illegally held back information which, by law, she should have turned over to the Defense. I then cited the case of Anthony DiSimone, who had
52 boxes of exhibits and 376 pages of statements from various witnesses indicating that another man committed
the crime other than he, would not have had a legal leg to stand on, since this was uncovered years later. I mentioned that the proposed rule was an example of putting procedure over fairness, truth, justice, guilt and innocence. Professor Bennett Gershman, of Pace University Law School, highly regarded former prosecutor, and author of the book Prosecutorial Misconduct, which is generally regarded as the definitive work on the subject, and frequent media commentator, speaking from his heart and with passion flowing from his voice, expressed how the inclusion of this time-limiting provision in a bill designed to strengthen DNA testing and access was undoubtedly the result of a compromise reached by the Governor with some prosecutors. Jonathan Gradess, of the group New York State Defenders Association, which provides research information to public defenders
who request it, when asked by the Assembly if such a time limit proposal has any place in a DNA expansion bill,
replied that it did not.
An additional problem with the bill as proposed was that it would limit defendants to the filing of only one 440.10, and that any additional motions filed would automatically have to be denied by courts without even looking at the merits of the issue. This would create several pitfalls inconsistent with justice.
First off, defendants have no right to a lawyer when filing a 440.10, therefore a lot of them have been prepared without benefit of a lawyer to argue and prepare them correctly. Defendants who have no means and are incarcerated, having no lawyer, often resort to filing petitions on their own, out of desperation. Often these
petitions are not argued correctly. If that same defendant then somehow manages to obtain a lawyer at a later date, that lawyer would be barred from filing a properly argued 440.10.
In addition, if a lawyer provided inadequate representation on a 440.10, this would kill the opportunity for a subsequent lawyer to file a new motion. Lastly, as Prof. Hellerstein, the director of The Second Look Program, which works to clear those wrongfully convicted who do not have a DNA issue, pointed out, the provision would make no distinction between frivolous and non-frivolous 440.10 motions. In other words, it would not matter how compelling the new facts or legal arguments in the second motion were, they would not even be looked at or considered by the court. Assemblyman Lentol, who chaired the hearing, chimed in, speaking to the absurdity of the rule, stated that the message being sent to those of scant legal and financial resources, if such a rule was adopted, was “You have one year, so hurry up.”
by Jeffrey Deskovic
Introduction
Part 1
I had heard that there was going to be a hearing on strengthening the state DNA Database, and also that there was some sort of compromise in the works that would limit 440.10 motions to one year following conviction.
Such motions are intended to bring to the Court information that was unavailable at the time of trial and conviction, which, if known, would likely have influenced the verdict. I was concerned about the one-year limit, and the limitations that it would place on other people who are currently wrongfully convicted and who are attempting to establish their innocence. I therefore decided to attend the hearing before the Assembly Codes Committee, in order to both observe what was going on, and participate in the hearing by testifying from my own personal experience about the deficiencies and cracks in the system whereby the Innocent can be wrongfully convicted and have to overcome tremendous obstacles and difficulties undoing such convictions.
I often view myself as speaking on behalf of those whom I metaphorically left behind, but who remain in prison
wrongfully, unable to speak for themselves. I viewed this opportunity as an extension of that principle. There were a variety of different proposed changes in the way the code of criminal procedure works that were under consideration, as well as a variety of other related matters that the Assembly invited commentary on.
As part of Governor Spitzer’s proposal to expand the DNA Databank, those convicted of nonviolent isdemeanor crimes would be required to submit a DNA sample. I felt that this was a welcome change which could only increase the chances of freeing the wrongfully convicted. The reason is DNA Expansion Proposal Considered by State Assembly Had Provisions Inconsistent With Justice that when someone who is wrongfully
convicted requests a DNA test to compare DNA found at a crime scene with the databank, the larger the pool to compare against, the better the chances of a match, and thereby simultaneously demonstrating the innocence of the wrongfully accused, and the guilt of the real perpetrator.
When I was in prison, and was dreaming about having the DNA in my case compared against the databank,
hoping for a match, I realized just how much of a long shot it might be that the person who really committed the crime would have their sample in the Databank. I therefore wanted my lawyer to push to have the DNA not merely compared to those who were in New York’s databank, but also to those in the databanks of other
states, as well as the federal databank. My reasoning was that I wish to cast as large a net as possible to maximize my chances.
The strengthening of the DNA databank by increasing the samples available is a natural extension of this rationale. Additionally, strengthening the database can prevent wrongful convictions by increasing the chances that the real perpetrator will be arrested originally. Surprisingly, the expansion of the databank was not welcomed by all. Robert Newman, testifying on behalf of The Legal Aid Society Of New York City, although stating that including profiles from all persons convicted of crimes “would enhance to some degree the crime-solving capacity of law enforcement,” then continued, “However, we feel that in practice, this additional expansion of the Databank, following so quickly upon last year’s substantial expansion, would divert resources away from other crime-prevention efforts that promise more substantial benefits.”
My response was that anything, anything at all, which can aid in the proving of innocence as well as the prevention of a wrongful conviction, must be done. If it only saves one life, I think that, in and of itself, is well worth it. What price can we place on a man or woman’s freedom? To hold otherwise would be, in effect, to say
to someone who is wrongfully convicted, “You must stay in prison, unable to prove your innocence, because we are unwilling to spend the money needed to include samples from those convicted of misdemeanors, which could prove your innocence, because we don’t think it is worth it financially. But you understand, right?’
Also in opposition to expansion of the DNA Database was Professor Harvey Levine, of Queens College Graduate Center. His objection was two-fold: Firstly, that the nonviolent misdemeanors, most often consisting of smoking marijuana, represented crime at its lowest levels; and, secondly that African-Americans and Latinos were more likely to be arrested for non violent misdemeanors and therefore it would be mostly their DNA which
would be collected, and that therefore it’s a racist outcome.
As I see it, Levine’s arguments fail. Those who break the law and start out with low-level crimes often go
on to bigger and more serious ones. Marijuana is known as a gateway drug which can lead its users to more serious drugs, such as crack and heroin, which may then cause them to commit more serious crimes in order to support their habit. Use of the more serious drugs may cause them to commit crimes while in an altered state of mind. Steven Cunningham, for example, the perpetrator of the crime I served 16 years wrongfully for, was, in fact, a known crack user who said that he was high at the time he killed the victim. Therefore, the idea that all those who commit low level crimes are harmless and, by implication, that their samples are worthless is simply not true. Additionally, the implementation of the collection of DNA from all of those who are convicted of
nonviolent misdemeanors, is not racist because it calls for the taking of the samples from anybody, regardless of
race or ethnicity.
Robert Perry, representing the New York Civil Liberties Union, was also against the expansion of the DNA Databank. He argued that because human beings collect and analyze the samples, and because humans are fallible, the databank should not be expanded. If the crime lab does not use correct safety protocols to ensure that cross-contamination does not occur, or if mislabeling of the sample happens, this can lead to errors and false positives. He noted a couple of cases where issues such as contamination and mislabeling led to wrongful convictions, and felt therefore that if even more samples were obtained this would increase the error rate. There
are a variety of responses to this. While I agree that scientific protocols must be observed in order to obtain accurate results, this is true of any science. The occurrence, and correction I might add, through additional DNA Tests down the line which corrected the wrongful convictions, does not disprove the general theory. It merely shows that a safety feature could be built in requiring confirmatory tests by different labs in order to ensure the accuracy of results when DNA is used to prosecute defendants, just as third and sometimes fourth tests are utilized before anybody is released based on a negative showing.
Additionally, although there have been a few rare instances of false positives, there has never been a case of a
false negative, nor has there ever been a case in which defense witnesses testify to an exclusion while the prosecution testified to a match. In those couple of cases of wrongful convictions based on initial inaccurate readings, when the error was discovered, the accurate readout was confirmed by experts for the prosecution
so that there was agreement by both sides.
To not expand the DNA Databank because of a few rare false positives is to also say that DNA should never be used at all, which would have had the result of not obtaining the 2002 exonerations that have been achieved nationwide, including the approximately 30% of cases wherein DNA has not only shown innocence but has also shown the guilt of the correct party, often accompanied by admissions of guilt by the accused.
Further, if the idea to not use technology because there is a human element to it and therefore it is not perfect were applied across the board, there would be no invention or advancement ever used in any aspect of life.
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of The Innocence Project, which nationwide has helped clear 2002 wrongfully convicted people through DNA, stated, “Anytime lawmakers are weighing bills on DNA and the criminal justice system, the bottom line question is whether the reforms can prevent wrongful convictions, help people prove their
innocence more quickly, and improve public safety. Legislation introduced in the Assembly meets that test far better than the Senate proposal does. These are serious problems that demand serious action, and New York’s criminal justice system will best be served by the Assembly reforms.”
Shortcomings Of The Bill Unfortunately, there were other provisions in the bill which were very objectionable. For example, there was a one-year time limit provision, modified to three years by the time of the day of
the hearing, in which defendants would be able to file a post-conviction motion known as a 440.10, after which they would be time-barred. This rule was to apply to all non-DNA or newly discovered evidence claims. This rule is inconsistent with justice, truth, guilt and innocence. Everybody who spoke was against
this rule. Consider the following:
• In cases wherein there is misconduct by a prosecutor, a defendant would only have one year to bring this
issue forward;
• When it is discovered that a previous attorney knew about evidence but either did no investigation or else failed
to bring this to the court’s attention, such evidence would not be considered newly discovered because the prior attorney knew about it or the defendant knew about it, and therefore if the one or three years had passed, it would be too late.
• A defendant who discovers, more than a year after conviction, that the police or the prosecutor withheld evidence that by law they were supposed to disclose to the defense (Brady material), they would no longer be able to raise the issue.
• Sometimes The Court of Appeals adopts a new rule and decides that justice requires that it be applied retroactively to cases already in the system. A defendant who has already exhausted his appeals or has progressed beyond the state level, would no longer be able to raise the issue in court, thereby denying
him the benefit of the new rule.
With regard to the proposed time limit, I addressed several points before the Committee. I spoke of how being
time barred could lead to injustice, recounting how then-Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro had urged
the federal court to time bar me because my legal paperwork arrived 4 days too late, and how the court’s adopting of this position led to my continued incarceration.
I pointed out that it should make no difference how much time it has taken a defendant with scarce resources
and little, if any, legal representation to uncover that the prosecutor has illegally held back information which, by law, she should have turned over to the Defense. I then cited the case of Anthony DiSimone, who had
52 boxes of exhibits and 376 pages of statements from various witnesses indicating that another man committed
the crime other than he, would not have had a legal leg to stand on, since this was uncovered years later. I mentioned that the proposed rule was an example of putting procedure over fairness, truth, justice, guilt and innocence. Professor Bennett Gershman, of Pace University Law School, highly regarded former prosecutor, and author of the book Prosecutorial Misconduct, which is generally regarded as the definitive work on the subject, and frequent media commentator, speaking from his heart and with passion flowing from his voice, expressed how the inclusion of this time-limiting provision in a bill designed to strengthen DNA testing and access was undoubtedly the result of a compromise reached by the Governor with some prosecutors. Jonathan Gradess, of the group New York State Defenders Association, which provides research information to public defenders
who request it, when asked by the Assembly if such a time limit proposal has any place in a DNA expansion bill,
replied that it did not.
An additional problem with the bill as proposed was that it would limit defendants to the filing of only one 440.10, and that any additional motions filed would automatically have to be denied by courts without even looking at the merits of the issue. This would create several pitfalls inconsistent with justice.
First off, defendants have no right to a lawyer when filing a 440.10, therefore a lot of them have been prepared without benefit of a lawyer to argue and prepare them correctly. Defendants who have no means and are incarcerated, having no lawyer, often resort to filing petitions on their own, out of desperation. Often these
petitions are not argued correctly. If that same defendant then somehow manages to obtain a lawyer at a later date, that lawyer would be barred from filing a properly argued 440.10.
In addition, if a lawyer provided inadequate representation on a 440.10, this would kill the opportunity for a subsequent lawyer to file a new motion. Lastly, as Prof. Hellerstein, the director of The Second Look Program, which works to clear those wrongfully convicted who do not have a DNA issue, pointed out, the provision would make no distinction between frivolous and non-frivolous 440.10 motions. In other words, it would not matter how compelling the new facts or legal arguments in the second motion were, they would not even be looked at or considered by the court. Assemblyman Lentol, who chaired the hearing, chimed in, speaking to the absurdity of the rule, stated that the message being sent to those of scant legal and financial resources, if such a rule was adopted, was “You have one year, so hurry up.”
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
How Have Gene Tumolo & George Bolen Lived With Themselves All These Years?
We are all so familiar with the dodge that corporations and government, at every level, are so fond of invoking when we confront them with their failure to properly deal with us. “It was the computer,” they tell us. Or, perhaps when faced with claims of injustice, as with the courts, they’ll say, “It’s the system.” We are simply expected to accept the notion that somehow no one, no flesh and blood individual, really had a hand in the failure to do the right thing by us, and therefore no one can be held accountable.
I suppose to some extent, we must accept a moderate level of de-personalization as a by-product of our computerized culture, as with calls to the phone company, insurance companies, and even the local post office.
And, to some extent, being greeted by an automated answering service with a long menu of options is tolerable for the more mundane problems of day-to-day living. But, when it really matters, only a live voice from a real
person vested with authority, and bridled with accountability, will do. Yes, accountability, that element, that commodity, we see less and less of as time goes on. When did it become less important for a man’s word to be his bond? When did it become acceptable that the contract of our democratic government, the Constitution, both federal, and state, to which those acting under Color Of Law, have sworn their allegiance, be routinely violated in the name of expedience?
What is it that makes an individual entrusted with our liberty, our very lives, by our society - police officers, and prosecutors - think that they should not be held accountable for their intentional, knowing, and maliciously cruel, acts against us? What makes Peekskill Police Chief Gene Tumolo, and former Assistant District Attorney George Bolen, think they should not be held accountable for what they did to sixteen-year-old Jeffrey
Deskovic? Their acts, individually, and in concert with each other, as well as with others, calculated to send an innocent boy, whose DNA and hair follicles clearly did not match those found in, and on, a rape and murder
victim, to prison for life, cannot be excused, cannot go unaccounted for, cannot go unpunished, if we are to prevent similar atrocities. What Tumolo, who masterminded and ran the investigation, and Bolen, who prosecuted the case, did, together with Detectives David Levine, and Thomas McIntyre, as well as former Putnam County Sheriff ’s Deputy, and Polygraph Operator Daniel Stephens, was utterly despicable and
unlawful, and each must be held accountable for their role. Each must be made to pay for the vile and inhumane scheme they worked against an innocent, defenseless child.
It is absolutely essential that Tumolo, and Bolen, the prime movers in the unconscionable injustice that robbed sixteen years of his youth from Jeffrey Deskovic, and subjected him to an unspeakably cruel and difficult fate, despite DNA, and other evidence, clearly proclaiming his innocence, not be allowed to escape without accounting for, and paying for their misdeeds. To permit otherwise would only serve to encourage further
injustices, at a time when the New York State Legislature, and Governor Spitzer, have begun to act affirmatively to remedy years of police and prosecutorial misconduct.
Tumolo and Bolen are the penultimate poster-boys for everything that is wrong with our criminal justice system. They represent everything that all law enforcement and judicial personnel must rail against, and strive to purge from our midst. Not only did their evil scheme result in sixteen years of undeserved imprisonment and punishment for an innocent boy, but also the death of Pat Morrison.
State Senators and Assemblypersons currently engaged in writing legislation intended to reverse, and combat, wrongful prosecutions and convictions, must understand, based upon the Jeffrey Deskovic case, that what is needed is a two-pronged approach. The first prong involves legislative help for those innocents already imprisoned and struggling to achieve exoneration. Enhancement of the DNA Database, and the formation of a totally independent, Permanent Commission, to investigate, make legislative recommendations, and oversee the implementation, and adherence to said legislation, would be a good start. Jeffrey Deskovic, and Pace Law Professor Bennett Gershman, and many others have already weighed in on the matter.
However, the second, and equally important, prong involves the preventative aspect; the creation of powerful disincentives to ensure that police and prosecutors are not willing to risk engaging in the type of misconduct that has put so many innocent persons behind bars, and, in many instances, on Death Row, in the first place. Such disincentives must include both significant financial and incarcerative penalties and punishment, sufficiently persuasive to control even the most self-serving and mindless in the ranks of law enforcement. After all, how have Gene Tumolo and George Bolen lived with themselves all these years?
Richard Blassberg
How Have Gene Tumolo & George Bolen Lived With Themselves All These Years?
We are all so familiar with the dodge that corporations and government, at every level, are so fond of invoking when we confront them with their failure to properly deal with us. “It was the computer,” they tell us. Or, perhaps when faced with claims of injustice, as with the courts, they’ll say, “It’s the system.” We are simply expected to accept the notion that somehow no one, no flesh and blood individual, really had a hand in the failure to do the right thing by us, and therefore no one can be held accountable.
I suppose to some extent, we must accept a moderate level of de-personalization as a by-product of our computerized culture, as with calls to the phone company, insurance companies, and even the local post office.
And, to some extent, being greeted by an automated answering service with a long menu of options is tolerable for the more mundane problems of day-to-day living. But, when it really matters, only a live voice from a real
person vested with authority, and bridled with accountability, will do. Yes, accountability, that element, that commodity, we see less and less of as time goes on. When did it become less important for a man’s word to be his bond? When did it become acceptable that the contract of our democratic government, the Constitution, both federal, and state, to which those acting under Color Of Law, have sworn their allegiance, be routinely violated in the name of expedience?
What is it that makes an individual entrusted with our liberty, our very lives, by our society - police officers, and prosecutors - think that they should not be held accountable for their intentional, knowing, and maliciously cruel, acts against us? What makes Peekskill Police Chief Gene Tumolo, and former Assistant District Attorney George Bolen, think they should not be held accountable for what they did to sixteen-year-old Jeffrey
Deskovic? Their acts, individually, and in concert with each other, as well as with others, calculated to send an innocent boy, whose DNA and hair follicles clearly did not match those found in, and on, a rape and murder
victim, to prison for life, cannot be excused, cannot go unaccounted for, cannot go unpunished, if we are to prevent similar atrocities. What Tumolo, who masterminded and ran the investigation, and Bolen, who prosecuted the case, did, together with Detectives David Levine, and Thomas McIntyre, as well as former Putnam County Sheriff ’s Deputy, and Polygraph Operator Daniel Stephens, was utterly despicable and
unlawful, and each must be held accountable for their role. Each must be made to pay for the vile and inhumane scheme they worked against an innocent, defenseless child.
It is absolutely essential that Tumolo, and Bolen, the prime movers in the unconscionable injustice that robbed sixteen years of his youth from Jeffrey Deskovic, and subjected him to an unspeakably cruel and difficult fate, despite DNA, and other evidence, clearly proclaiming his innocence, not be allowed to escape without accounting for, and paying for their misdeeds. To permit otherwise would only serve to encourage further
injustices, at a time when the New York State Legislature, and Governor Spitzer, have begun to act affirmatively to remedy years of police and prosecutorial misconduct.
Tumolo and Bolen are the penultimate poster-boys for everything that is wrong with our criminal justice system. They represent everything that all law enforcement and judicial personnel must rail against, and strive to purge from our midst. Not only did their evil scheme result in sixteen years of undeserved imprisonment and punishment for an innocent boy, but also the death of Pat Morrison.
State Senators and Assemblypersons currently engaged in writing legislation intended to reverse, and combat, wrongful prosecutions and convictions, must understand, based upon the Jeffrey Deskovic case, that what is needed is a two-pronged approach. The first prong involves legislative help for those innocents already imprisoned and struggling to achieve exoneration. Enhancement of the DNA Database, and the formation of a totally independent, Permanent Commission, to investigate, make legislative recommendations, and oversee the implementation, and adherence to said legislation, would be a good start. Jeffrey Deskovic, and Pace Law Professor Bennett Gershman, and many others have already weighed in on the matter.
However, the second, and equally important, prong involves the preventative aspect; the creation of powerful disincentives to ensure that police and prosecutors are not willing to risk engaging in the type of misconduct that has put so many innocent persons behind bars, and, in many instances, on Death Row, in the first place. Such disincentives must include both significant financial and incarcerative penalties and punishment, sufficiently persuasive to control even the most self-serving and mindless in the ranks of law enforcement. After all, how have Gene Tumolo and George Bolen lived with themselves all these years?
Our Readers Respond...
Mother Pours Her Heart Out, Revealing Court’s Destruction Of Her Family
Dear Editor:
I’m a Mother, self-represented in the Westchester County Supreme Court. For years I’ve been involved in an acrimonious divorce and recently I was before Judge La Tia Martin.
I’m compelled to express the excruciating pain I feel since my three children were abducted by their father in October 2006. I have not seen nor spoken with my children in over 235 days. The nature and extent of this occurrence clearly violates my State and Federal Constitutional rights.
Ironically, Judge Sandra Edlitz of Family Court issued a baseless temporary custody order, without any independent fact-finding or evidentiary hearing, that handed over the children to live with their abusive father, John Walter, only to be unlawfully extended again by Judge Martin, of the Supreme Court, without a hearing and absent the benefit of effective counsel to the Mother.
Over the past years, I have continued to litigate for the protection of my three children and myself under the most tumultuous conditions while permeated with fraud upon the Court that denied our procedural and substantive
rights and Equal Protection clauses. In part, I believe I am being victimized because I helped expose the improper practices by the Supreme Court Judges and referee James Montagnino which led to the “Historical
Rotation” in June 2006.
The father, John Walter, took the children from their home as a retaliatory strike only a few days after he was financially obligated by the Supreme Court under Judge John LaCava’s direction. Since that time he now claims I no longer am fit as the primary caretaker of the children. Moreover, recently Judge Martin overrode a recent Appellate Court order that financially obligates the father to greater child support and maintenance to me. However, the unlawful action taken by Judge Martin places more pressure that affects my economic stability and furthermore, erases all of the fairness that I courageously sought in the courts. The years of painful measures that I’ve undertaken to exhaust the channels of legal remedies throughout the protracted litigation, literally went up in
smoke, due to Judge Martin’s lack of judicial wisdom to view the adversarial motivation underlying the totality of the circumstances presented.
It was clear, Judge Martin was unfamiliar with any of the details of the paperwork I presented and did not exercise any judicial sense of fairness. The financial hardship that I had fought in spite of, for years, to restore and which was finally granted in part, by the Appellate Division, included substantial retroactive child support and extended maintenance to adequately provide for the children and myself.
Judge Martin’s failure to recognize the contempt order I filed in compliance to the recent Appellate Court order for retroactive non-payment of the father’s mandated child support, coupled with her unlawful order to suspend child support, has effectively given the father carte blanche to steal and obliterate the integrity within the judicial framework.
Moreover, Judge Martin improvidently acted by automatically eliminating the funds I use to pay normal and recurring expenses that maintains the VERY household I saved from imminent foreclosure. Although, the merits seemed clear, the father forced the issue, of not keeping the house, back to court before Supreme Court Judge John LaCava. In October 2006, self represented, I battled to protect against the father wanting the children out of the house because of his mistaken expectation that his obligation would cease.
After that legal defeat on October 10th, the father, John Walter, Sr., Executive of the Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society, with a W-2 for $245,000 in 2006, who resides on the Upper East side of Manhattan without the need to pay for rent nor car expense, took the children away from me on October 14th.
All rights to my children have been relinquished because of him and, clearly, he further shows no compassion, as this clever father, co-navigated by unruly attorneys, are unbelievably railroading the Court to also coerce me out of my home, jeopardizing my ability to reasonably subsist at all.
Further, both Judge Martin and Judge Edlitz have relied on the purported law guardian Gregory Salant, Esq., to advocate in the best interest of the children. Mr. Salant immediately aligned himself with the father at the time of the custodial interference in October 2006. Since then he hasn’t conferred with me on any matters concerning the children. I was suspect of this automatic alliance and learned that the alleged law guardian blatantly lied to the court about a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety I had raised as an issue in court.
Had Mr. Salant told the truth about his actual role and association with the law firm, it would absolutely have been grounds of disqualification based on his inability to render independent counsel to my children. Both Judges have failed to recognize the heart of the matter since acceptance of the truth will completely compromise the integrity of the officer of the court and likely reveal such other systemic fraud and manipulation that permeates our Westchester legal system.
Ironically, based on my frame of reference, the only distorted course of action I can take is to use the court system again, and the legal abuse is underscored by a history of relentless battering and assaulting blows through the plight of a highly tainted administration of justice. Now I am challenged with torture to continue the endless nightmare of litigation without the benefit of counsel.
Indeed, the Judges would rather obliterate the truth of my devotion to the children and my dignity to protect our
rights and the consequences of the challenges than to confront the reality that the officers of the court are dishonest and have wrongfully led my children to believe that my disappearance is in their best interest.
The law guardian’s conduct is unconscionable. Mr. Salant, Esq’s duty, as a professional, must be scrutinized for his inappropriate appointment and involvement in this matter has caused improprieties that are robbing the best interests of the children from their 24/7, loving and caring mother simply because it favors the father’s financial interests, who clearly chose to take an inactive role during the children’s lives.
Moreover, Judge Edlitz failed to recognize the significant conflict of interest that exists in the history of my case with a former counsel Donna Abrams that affects the alleged law guardian working in the same law firm to act independently of the custodial and financial issues that pertain to my three children. Only recently was it revealed that the law guardian lied outright to Judge Edlitz of Family Court and to the public about his position (website
www.familycourtlawyers.com/) and association with the law firm stating previously to the Court that he was not a partner and worked independently whereas on his website it clearly establishes he is a partner and works closely with his father, Jeffrey Salant, another partner in the firm. Judge Martin refused to recuse herself regardless of the prejudice and bias she has clearly demonstrated against me in this case.
The father has improperly conspired with the direction of opposing counsel, Carl Stahl Esq’s bad-faith litigation and the law guardian to orchestrate provoked deliberations that led to the misrepresentations and extreme fact that falsely supports the father’s position. Opposing counsel’s practices underscore a history of grossly unlawful and unethical actions.
These illegal acts need scrutiny but come by no coincidence resulting from the association on my case between Carl Stahl, Esq and my former attorney, Joel Bender of Bender, Jenson, and Silverstein, LLC and James Montagnino, the former Special Referee of the matrimonial Part in the Westchester County Supreme Court.
Back in the spring of 2006, there was public attention to Mr. Montagnino’s bias and prejudice targeting
the at-home moms. Such inequities were manifested by stripping the non-monied spouse, often the stay-home mothers of their disproportionately allocated marital assets directed by the referee that inadequately provided for the needed care of their children and the mother.
Having read the recent article in the Westchester Guardian of the Debra Weissman vs Ronald Weissman case, it
proves to be just another example of the undue improprieties that are maneuvered by the very institution we place our trust in for fairness. One would expect uniformity in the Color Of Law but beware in Westchester, as there is no rule of thumb; the application of law belies on the thumbprints that choose to stay in line or those that go astray.
Moreover, the retaliation to the unauthorized loss of custody is reminiscent of the threat tactics used by former referee James Montagnino. I went out publicly in the New York Post last April 2006 to reveal Mr. Montagnino’s mindset of bias and prejudice, regularly shown inside and outside the courtrooms. Mr. Montagnino’s punitive measure for at-home moms was to routinely impute income regardless of the need to care for their young children and of the condition of their health.
Further, Mr. Montagnino wrongfully imputed income to me which evinces his will to go beyond gender bias by his prejudice of my national origin, too. Mr. Montagnino made it known in court that among the considerations for imputing income, was his view that despite my Cuban-born nationality, I did not have a trace of an accent and thus, not speaking with an accent was a determinant factor for my instant ability to be gainfully employed, retroactively from the time the father bolted out of the house, many years prior. The Appellate Division
reversed the imputed income.It took years of litigation, to finally get fairness at the Appellate Division and
now, the Supreme Court took both the support and the kids away. I continue to be embroiled in more litigation, totally injured with much less altogether. So far I’ve witnessed our legal system being governed by foul play under the guise of fair play, and the well preconceived monied litigant always wins.
Additionally, as in many cases, my matrimonial action has been legally tainted over the years, in part; the systemic
abuse of power has been due to malicious and capricious conduct, and rulings by the o cers of the court or by
acts in excess of authority. While unsure of the current status, I learned of a Federal investigation targeting the unlawful and criminal acts by the officers of the court that have resulted in the devastating tolls destroying families.
The purported law guardian is wrongfully acting as an agent of abuse by using his unauthorized power to usurp
my rights as a woman and mother to care for my three children. The law guardian refuses to permit my contact with the children, gave sole custody to the father devoid of any authority empowering him to do so and has had no contact with me, as the primary caregiver. Judge Martin has wrongfully ignored my rights and accepted the purported law guardian’s sole representation.
Further, Judge Martin has failed to recognize the protection of my rights to maintain a parent-child relationship and to prudently ensure that some level of contact is restored, a fundamental right that is even provided by law to convicted felons.
The inappropriate and harsh measures taken by the alleged law guardian and wrongfully supported by the Judiciary has denied me my Constitutional rights and has furthered the consequential damages caused by the intentional in-action of emotional distress and unwarranted financial pressures.
The obvious irretrievable injury to my three children and myself is a constant reminder of the continuous and immeasurable hardship that this wrongful notion of equitable distribution has generated over the years.
I so desperately need pro bono counsel willing to help rectify the systemic destruction of family as in this crucial
matter.
Margarita T. Walter, Somers
Reader Blasts Letter Writer
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to the letter written by Concerned Resident, printed May 24, 2007 regarding the “truth” about Mount Vernon’s City Government. Like Concerned Resident I, too, am a resident of Mount Vernon and would like to shed some light on the Ernest Davis Administration.
Ernie Davis, whom I have personally known for many years, is not corrupt now nor has he ever been! It is time for the lies – dare I mention the despicable allegations involving the handcuff and ankle bracelet – to stop! If Concerned Resident is purportedly so concerned,why didn’t he expose the corrupt political officials while he was employed by the city? He is a coward!
I am very active in the political workings in Mount Vernon, and I am led to believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt, an attempt by Ernest Davis’ political opponents to throw dirt on his name and so conveniently
near the upcoming election. If you are truly concerned about the City of Mount Vernon, we should talk about issues rather than giving breath to unfounded rumors.
Additionally Concerned “Coward”, after reading your letter it was quite obvious to me that you really do not know Serapher Halevi. My relationship with Serapher began in 1990 when my granddaughter attended her school and continues presently as I work with her as a District leader and friend. Serapher is one of the most caring, loving and compassionate womenthat I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
To imply that one receives “payoffs” is slanderous and should be supported with actual evidence rather than egregious assumptions. To state that she receives a “payoff” after evicting tenants is a lie and, as a former Assistant Property Manager at Levister Towers, I know this first-handed. I would prefer to no longer
continue your use of the word “payoff” as you so evidently have no real understanding of the word.
If by “payoff” you mean bribe, by definition a bribe is an under-the-table money transaction meant to influence
the judgment of a person. It has never been a secret that Serapher’s daughter works for the City of Mount Vernon and that she receives a regular paycheck.
Since you were a former employee of the city, Concerned Resident, I will assume that you are familiar with the process. Furthermore, her son does not have a “no-show” job, but spends a great deal of time working at his office.
And, finally, Serapher did not give herself the nomination for the seat as County Legislator but she was encouraged to join the race by political officials, family and friends who believe in her character and know that she is qualified for the position.
I can make these statements wholeheartedly because I know and have witnessed them for myself. What I also
know is that you are gutless, too afraid to sign your name to the lies you made a conscious decision to write!
Joan K. Battle, Mount Vernon
Judges Must Not Be Litigators
Dear Editor:
Yes, scrutiny of judicial misconduct is an old story, and a long one. It has, in fact, a still growing list of culprits. Gerald Garson of Brooklyn Supreme Court, Michael Feinberg of Kings County Surrogate Court, Laura Blackburne of Queens County Supreme Court and now, with The Guardian’s reportage, it may well
appear to be growing even longer. In this adversarial system, the fight may be nasty, lengthy, and expensive, but it must be a battle between the litigants, those party to the war. This contest between the parties, in Debra C. Weissman’s recent account (Thursday, May 24, 2007), and most recently, the plaintive story of “Deepest Heart”, mother of three (Thursday, June 7, 2007) whose experience with the litigation process is fraught with blatant threat, coercion, and collusion, brings into the picture the pervasive shadow that clouds the transparency
of the process for so many, the phantom litigator, the Judge.
The judge is meant to be the referee who makes sure that the lawyers follow the rules of this war game and ultimately decides who wins and takes home the spoils. The judicial inclination to “move things along” still must be activated by the promulgated devised rules that govern the litigation process. Even the appearance of impropriety is not tolerated by this procedure and its rules. Even a decision before a hearing with “evidence”
is not tolerated by this procedure with its rules. Even the appearance of a coin flip or pocketed bribe is not tolerated by this procedure and its rules.
Public expectation and legislated Public Policy on procedure is that decisions from the Bench are based on
rules of substantive law that are “fair” and they should be made after observing a “fair” process. “Having your
day in Court” was meant to have meaning beyond front row seats in this theater of the absurd. The surreal outcome of inappropriate judicial influence by Justice Silberman mentioned in Ms. Weissman’s letter to Judge Jonathan Lippman is the tip of the iceberg.
The behind-the-scene deals brought into focus by the tried and convicted likes of Judge Garson and Judge Feinberg are felt painfully by many mothers like “Deepest Heart” and ex-spouses like Ms. Weissman.
Judge Ann T. Pfau has a full plate of bitter deals to chew on as replacement for Jonathan Lippman as Chief Administrative Judge. Sherrill Spatz, as investigator for Chief Judge Kaye, should be kept busy too.
As long as judges act as litigators in the trial process, without repercussions, the long and old and tired story will only grow more so.
Seen It All
Mother Pours Her Heart Out, Revealing Court’s Destruction Of Her Family
Dear Editor:
I’m a Mother, self-represented in the Westchester County Supreme Court. For years I’ve been involved in an acrimonious divorce and recently I was before Judge La Tia Martin.
I’m compelled to express the excruciating pain I feel since my three children were abducted by their father in October 2006. I have not seen nor spoken with my children in over 235 days. The nature and extent of this occurrence clearly violates my State and Federal Constitutional rights.
Ironically, Judge Sandra Edlitz of Family Court issued a baseless temporary custody order, without any independent fact-finding or evidentiary hearing, that handed over the children to live with their abusive father, John Walter, only to be unlawfully extended again by Judge Martin, of the Supreme Court, without a hearing and absent the benefit of effective counsel to the Mother.
Over the past years, I have continued to litigate for the protection of my three children and myself under the most tumultuous conditions while permeated with fraud upon the Court that denied our procedural and substantive
rights and Equal Protection clauses. In part, I believe I am being victimized because I helped expose the improper practices by the Supreme Court Judges and referee James Montagnino which led to the “Historical
Rotation” in June 2006.
The father, John Walter, took the children from their home as a retaliatory strike only a few days after he was financially obligated by the Supreme Court under Judge John LaCava’s direction. Since that time he now claims I no longer am fit as the primary caretaker of the children. Moreover, recently Judge Martin overrode a recent Appellate Court order that financially obligates the father to greater child support and maintenance to me. However, the unlawful action taken by Judge Martin places more pressure that affects my economic stability and furthermore, erases all of the fairness that I courageously sought in the courts. The years of painful measures that I’ve undertaken to exhaust the channels of legal remedies throughout the protracted litigation, literally went up in
smoke, due to Judge Martin’s lack of judicial wisdom to view the adversarial motivation underlying the totality of the circumstances presented.
It was clear, Judge Martin was unfamiliar with any of the details of the paperwork I presented and did not exercise any judicial sense of fairness. The financial hardship that I had fought in spite of, for years, to restore and which was finally granted in part, by the Appellate Division, included substantial retroactive child support and extended maintenance to adequately provide for the children and myself.
Judge Martin’s failure to recognize the contempt order I filed in compliance to the recent Appellate Court order for retroactive non-payment of the father’s mandated child support, coupled with her unlawful order to suspend child support, has effectively given the father carte blanche to steal and obliterate the integrity within the judicial framework.
Moreover, Judge Martin improvidently acted by automatically eliminating the funds I use to pay normal and recurring expenses that maintains the VERY household I saved from imminent foreclosure. Although, the merits seemed clear, the father forced the issue, of not keeping the house, back to court before Supreme Court Judge John LaCava. In October 2006, self represented, I battled to protect against the father wanting the children out of the house because of his mistaken expectation that his obligation would cease.
After that legal defeat on October 10th, the father, John Walter, Sr., Executive of the Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society, with a W-2 for $245,000 in 2006, who resides on the Upper East side of Manhattan without the need to pay for rent nor car expense, took the children away from me on October 14th.
All rights to my children have been relinquished because of him and, clearly, he further shows no compassion, as this clever father, co-navigated by unruly attorneys, are unbelievably railroading the Court to also coerce me out of my home, jeopardizing my ability to reasonably subsist at all.
Further, both Judge Martin and Judge Edlitz have relied on the purported law guardian Gregory Salant, Esq., to advocate in the best interest of the children. Mr. Salant immediately aligned himself with the father at the time of the custodial interference in October 2006. Since then he hasn’t conferred with me on any matters concerning the children. I was suspect of this automatic alliance and learned that the alleged law guardian blatantly lied to the court about a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety I had raised as an issue in court.
Had Mr. Salant told the truth about his actual role and association with the law firm, it would absolutely have been grounds of disqualification based on his inability to render independent counsel to my children. Both Judges have failed to recognize the heart of the matter since acceptance of the truth will completely compromise the integrity of the officer of the court and likely reveal such other systemic fraud and manipulation that permeates our Westchester legal system.
Ironically, based on my frame of reference, the only distorted course of action I can take is to use the court system again, and the legal abuse is underscored by a history of relentless battering and assaulting blows through the plight of a highly tainted administration of justice. Now I am challenged with torture to continue the endless nightmare of litigation without the benefit of counsel.
Indeed, the Judges would rather obliterate the truth of my devotion to the children and my dignity to protect our
rights and the consequences of the challenges than to confront the reality that the officers of the court are dishonest and have wrongfully led my children to believe that my disappearance is in their best interest.
The law guardian’s conduct is unconscionable. Mr. Salant, Esq’s duty, as a professional, must be scrutinized for his inappropriate appointment and involvement in this matter has caused improprieties that are robbing the best interests of the children from their 24/7, loving and caring mother simply because it favors the father’s financial interests, who clearly chose to take an inactive role during the children’s lives.
Moreover, Judge Edlitz failed to recognize the significant conflict of interest that exists in the history of my case with a former counsel Donna Abrams that affects the alleged law guardian working in the same law firm to act independently of the custodial and financial issues that pertain to my three children. Only recently was it revealed that the law guardian lied outright to Judge Edlitz of Family Court and to the public about his position (website
www.familycourtlawyers.com/) and association with the law firm stating previously to the Court that he was not a partner and worked independently whereas on his website it clearly establishes he is a partner and works closely with his father, Jeffrey Salant, another partner in the firm. Judge Martin refused to recuse herself regardless of the prejudice and bias she has clearly demonstrated against me in this case.
The father has improperly conspired with the direction of opposing counsel, Carl Stahl Esq’s bad-faith litigation and the law guardian to orchestrate provoked deliberations that led to the misrepresentations and extreme fact that falsely supports the father’s position. Opposing counsel’s practices underscore a history of grossly unlawful and unethical actions.
These illegal acts need scrutiny but come by no coincidence resulting from the association on my case between Carl Stahl, Esq and my former attorney, Joel Bender of Bender, Jenson, and Silverstein, LLC and James Montagnino, the former Special Referee of the matrimonial Part in the Westchester County Supreme Court.
Back in the spring of 2006, there was public attention to Mr. Montagnino’s bias and prejudice targeting
the at-home moms. Such inequities were manifested by stripping the non-monied spouse, often the stay-home mothers of their disproportionately allocated marital assets directed by the referee that inadequately provided for the needed care of their children and the mother.
Having read the recent article in the Westchester Guardian of the Debra Weissman vs Ronald Weissman case, it
proves to be just another example of the undue improprieties that are maneuvered by the very institution we place our trust in for fairness. One would expect uniformity in the Color Of Law but beware in Westchester, as there is no rule of thumb; the application of law belies on the thumbprints that choose to stay in line or those that go astray.
Moreover, the retaliation to the unauthorized loss of custody is reminiscent of the threat tactics used by former referee James Montagnino. I went out publicly in the New York Post last April 2006 to reveal Mr. Montagnino’s mindset of bias and prejudice, regularly shown inside and outside the courtrooms. Mr. Montagnino’s punitive measure for at-home moms was to routinely impute income regardless of the need to care for their young children and of the condition of their health.
Further, Mr. Montagnino wrongfully imputed income to me which evinces his will to go beyond gender bias by his prejudice of my national origin, too. Mr. Montagnino made it known in court that among the considerations for imputing income, was his view that despite my Cuban-born nationality, I did not have a trace of an accent and thus, not speaking with an accent was a determinant factor for my instant ability to be gainfully employed, retroactively from the time the father bolted out of the house, many years prior. The Appellate Division
reversed the imputed income.It took years of litigation, to finally get fairness at the Appellate Division and
now, the Supreme Court took both the support and the kids away. I continue to be embroiled in more litigation, totally injured with much less altogether. So far I’ve witnessed our legal system being governed by foul play under the guise of fair play, and the well preconceived monied litigant always wins.
Additionally, as in many cases, my matrimonial action has been legally tainted over the years, in part; the systemic
abuse of power has been due to malicious and capricious conduct, and rulings by the o cers of the court or by
acts in excess of authority. While unsure of the current status, I learned of a Federal investigation targeting the unlawful and criminal acts by the officers of the court that have resulted in the devastating tolls destroying families.
The purported law guardian is wrongfully acting as an agent of abuse by using his unauthorized power to usurp
my rights as a woman and mother to care for my three children. The law guardian refuses to permit my contact with the children, gave sole custody to the father devoid of any authority empowering him to do so and has had no contact with me, as the primary caregiver. Judge Martin has wrongfully ignored my rights and accepted the purported law guardian’s sole representation.
Further, Judge Martin has failed to recognize the protection of my rights to maintain a parent-child relationship and to prudently ensure that some level of contact is restored, a fundamental right that is even provided by law to convicted felons.
The inappropriate and harsh measures taken by the alleged law guardian and wrongfully supported by the Judiciary has denied me my Constitutional rights and has furthered the consequential damages caused by the intentional in-action of emotional distress and unwarranted financial pressures.
The obvious irretrievable injury to my three children and myself is a constant reminder of the continuous and immeasurable hardship that this wrongful notion of equitable distribution has generated over the years.
I so desperately need pro bono counsel willing to help rectify the systemic destruction of family as in this crucial
matter.
Margarita T. Walter, Somers
Reader Blasts Letter Writer
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to the letter written by Concerned Resident, printed May 24, 2007 regarding the “truth” about Mount Vernon’s City Government. Like Concerned Resident I, too, am a resident of Mount Vernon and would like to shed some light on the Ernest Davis Administration.
Ernie Davis, whom I have personally known for many years, is not corrupt now nor has he ever been! It is time for the lies – dare I mention the despicable allegations involving the handcuff and ankle bracelet – to stop! If Concerned Resident is purportedly so concerned,why didn’t he expose the corrupt political officials while he was employed by the city? He is a coward!
I am very active in the political workings in Mount Vernon, and I am led to believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt, an attempt by Ernest Davis’ political opponents to throw dirt on his name and so conveniently
near the upcoming election. If you are truly concerned about the City of Mount Vernon, we should talk about issues rather than giving breath to unfounded rumors.
Additionally Concerned “Coward”, after reading your letter it was quite obvious to me that you really do not know Serapher Halevi. My relationship with Serapher began in 1990 when my granddaughter attended her school and continues presently as I work with her as a District leader and friend. Serapher is one of the most caring, loving and compassionate womenthat I have ever had the pleasure to meet.
To imply that one receives “payoffs” is slanderous and should be supported with actual evidence rather than egregious assumptions. To state that she receives a “payoff” after evicting tenants is a lie and, as a former Assistant Property Manager at Levister Towers, I know this first-handed. I would prefer to no longer
continue your use of the word “payoff” as you so evidently have no real understanding of the word.
If by “payoff” you mean bribe, by definition a bribe is an under-the-table money transaction meant to influence
the judgment of a person. It has never been a secret that Serapher’s daughter works for the City of Mount Vernon and that she receives a regular paycheck.
Since you were a former employee of the city, Concerned Resident, I will assume that you are familiar with the process. Furthermore, her son does not have a “no-show” job, but spends a great deal of time working at his office.
And, finally, Serapher did not give herself the nomination for the seat as County Legislator but she was encouraged to join the race by political officials, family and friends who believe in her character and know that she is qualified for the position.
I can make these statements wholeheartedly because I know and have witnessed them for myself. What I also
know is that you are gutless, too afraid to sign your name to the lies you made a conscious decision to write!
Joan K. Battle, Mount Vernon
Judges Must Not Be Litigators
Dear Editor:
Yes, scrutiny of judicial misconduct is an old story, and a long one. It has, in fact, a still growing list of culprits. Gerald Garson of Brooklyn Supreme Court, Michael Feinberg of Kings County Surrogate Court, Laura Blackburne of Queens County Supreme Court and now, with The Guardian’s reportage, it may well
appear to be growing even longer. In this adversarial system, the fight may be nasty, lengthy, and expensive, but it must be a battle between the litigants, those party to the war. This contest between the parties, in Debra C. Weissman’s recent account (Thursday, May 24, 2007), and most recently, the plaintive story of “Deepest Heart”, mother of three (Thursday, June 7, 2007) whose experience with the litigation process is fraught with blatant threat, coercion, and collusion, brings into the picture the pervasive shadow that clouds the transparency
of the process for so many, the phantom litigator, the Judge.
The judge is meant to be the referee who makes sure that the lawyers follow the rules of this war game and ultimately decides who wins and takes home the spoils. The judicial inclination to “move things along” still must be activated by the promulgated devised rules that govern the litigation process. Even the appearance of impropriety is not tolerated by this procedure and its rules. Even a decision before a hearing with “evidence”
is not tolerated by this procedure with its rules. Even the appearance of a coin flip or pocketed bribe is not tolerated by this procedure and its rules.
Public expectation and legislated Public Policy on procedure is that decisions from the Bench are based on
rules of substantive law that are “fair” and they should be made after observing a “fair” process. “Having your
day in Court” was meant to have meaning beyond front row seats in this theater of the absurd. The surreal outcome of inappropriate judicial influence by Justice Silberman mentioned in Ms. Weissman’s letter to Judge Jonathan Lippman is the tip of the iceberg.
The behind-the-scene deals brought into focus by the tried and convicted likes of Judge Garson and Judge Feinberg are felt painfully by many mothers like “Deepest Heart” and ex-spouses like Ms. Weissman.
Judge Ann T. Pfau has a full plate of bitter deals to chew on as replacement for Jonathan Lippman as Chief Administrative Judge. Sherrill Spatz, as investigator for Chief Judge Kaye, should be kept busy too.
As long as judges act as litigators in the trial process, without repercussions, the long and old and tired story will only grow more so.
Seen It All
In Our Opinion...
Judge Nicolai Makes The Right Call
We believe Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai has made the right call involving a most contentious Westchester matter, the issuance of pistol permits. For many months Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz,
notorious for his insatiable appetite for power, has been attempting to wrestle control over the pistol permit application process from elected, accountable, County and Supreme Court Judges.
As things currently stand, applicants for handgun permits must first obtain the necessary forms, and submit them, together with the applicable fee to the County Clerk, Tim Idoni. Once received by the Clerk’s Office they are
processed and turned over to the Pistol Permit Unit of the County Department of Public Safety, an agency headed by Commissioner Tom BelFiore, an appointee under the total control of Larry Schwartz.
Ostensibly, the County Police, through their BCI unit, having access to any criminal and/or other information that might reflect negatively upon an applicant’s suitability to carry a handgun, then proceed to make their report, and possible recommendation, to the court assigned the application. Of late, Mr. Schwartz has brought a great deal of acrimony to the process, whining that some judges were supposedly granting permits without getting information from the County Police, and implying that some individuals with criminal records, and others who lied on their applications, might have been granted licenses.
The County Legislature, several months ago, refused to get behind an effort instigated, and heavily lobbied for, by Schwartz, that sought to put a legislative proposal before the State Legislature essentially designed to shift
the decision-making authority over the issuance of the permits from the Judiciary - accountable and appealable - to appointees under the control of the County Executive’s Office, essentially Larry Schwartz.
Judge Nicolai, to his credit, has shown no reluctance to take on Schwartz, stating recently he was considering the establishment of a special “Pistol Licensing Court” which would streamline the whole procedure and create consistency in decision-making. He indicated that he will be speaking with the judges who would be involved.
At issue here are two very fundamental Constitutional guarantees: Firstly, the right of citizens to bear arms under the Second Amendment, which must not be infringed upon, nor fettered by a politically-motivated machinery
the like of which Schwartz has been advocating. And, secondly, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, that would be clearly violated if the authority to issue the permits, historically vested in the Judiciary, were to be usurped
by the Executive.
Again, We applaud Judge Nicolai’s willingness to go toe-to-toe with Larry Schwartz, in defense of both the County, and State Legislatures’ wisdom in leaving the authority to issue pistol permits in the hands of elected judges. We suspect, however, based upon his past performances, that the last moan has not been heard from
Judge Nicolai Makes The Right Call
We believe Administrative Judge, Francis Nicolai has made the right call involving a most contentious Westchester matter, the issuance of pistol permits. For many months Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz,
notorious for his insatiable appetite for power, has been attempting to wrestle control over the pistol permit application process from elected, accountable, County and Supreme Court Judges.
As things currently stand, applicants for handgun permits must first obtain the necessary forms, and submit them, together with the applicable fee to the County Clerk, Tim Idoni. Once received by the Clerk’s Office they are
processed and turned over to the Pistol Permit Unit of the County Department of Public Safety, an agency headed by Commissioner Tom BelFiore, an appointee under the total control of Larry Schwartz.
Ostensibly, the County Police, through their BCI unit, having access to any criminal and/or other information that might reflect negatively upon an applicant’s suitability to carry a handgun, then proceed to make their report, and possible recommendation, to the court assigned the application. Of late, Mr. Schwartz has brought a great deal of acrimony to the process, whining that some judges were supposedly granting permits without getting information from the County Police, and implying that some individuals with criminal records, and others who lied on their applications, might have been granted licenses.
The County Legislature, several months ago, refused to get behind an effort instigated, and heavily lobbied for, by Schwartz, that sought to put a legislative proposal before the State Legislature essentially designed to shift
the decision-making authority over the issuance of the permits from the Judiciary - accountable and appealable - to appointees under the control of the County Executive’s Office, essentially Larry Schwartz.
Judge Nicolai, to his credit, has shown no reluctance to take on Schwartz, stating recently he was considering the establishment of a special “Pistol Licensing Court” which would streamline the whole procedure and create consistency in decision-making. He indicated that he will be speaking with the judges who would be involved.
At issue here are two very fundamental Constitutional guarantees: Firstly, the right of citizens to bear arms under the Second Amendment, which must not be infringed upon, nor fettered by a politically-motivated machinery
the like of which Schwartz has been advocating. And, secondly, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, that would be clearly violated if the authority to issue the permits, historically vested in the Judiciary, were to be usurped
by the Executive.
Again, We applaud Judge Nicolai’s willingness to go toe-to-toe with Larry Schwartz, in defense of both the County, and State Legislatures’ wisdom in leaving the authority to issue pistol permits in the hands of elected judges. We suspect, however, based upon his past performances, that the last moan has not been heard from
Monday Morning In Judge Scarpino’s Matrimonial Court
Westchester Supreme Court, Matrimonial Part
Judge Anthony Scarpino Presiding
Last Monday morning The Westchester Guardian was present in what some folks might have called “Tony Scarpino’s Divorce Court.” In all candor, if we visit the County Courthouse on a Monday it is usually to cover one or more of the criminal courts. However, in light of the recent letter from Debra Weissman to Judge Jonathan Lippman, reproduced on our front page a few weeks earlier, we believed that it would be appropriate to attend the next court appearance of the parties involved. As luck would have it, Weissman v Weissman was case number 24 on a calendar with nearly thirty items, and we were afforded a more extended opportunity to witness the Court than we had anticipated.
Booth v Booth
A couple divorced in 1998 involved in an apparent dispute over the financing of their seventeen-year-old son’s tuition to New York University, apparently felt they needed the wisdom and authority of the Court to resolve the matter quickly enough to permit the boy’s entrance in September. Realizing that the parents had virtually thrust their child’s educational prospects into his lap, Scarpino said, “This is your child. For you to come to me to make a decision where he goes, is not something I prefer to do. You are a team with regard to your child, though you’re apart. Remember, he may decide what nursing home you go to one day.”
To another couple each of whom were appearing pro se, and had a tendency to speak over one another Scarpino quipped, “Slow down, I’m not Judge Judy here.” To the attorney for the former wife in a later case that was more than seven years old, who asked almost rhetorically, “When does this process stop?” Scarpino remarked, “When do matrimonials stop? They never stop. They go on for years and years, sometimes fifteen
or twenty years.”
Kramer v Kramer
Predictably, case number 15 brought a quick, “Saw that one,” from the Judge, who then got serious, warning the pro se former husband that his former wife’s contempt proceeding could have incarcerative consequences for him, if successful.
White v White
After listening to the opening remarks of each attorney in what was clearly a ‘tug of war’ scenario, Scarpino attempted to redirect the litigants, coaxing, “You have two quality lawyers. It seems to me it’s more about control than about what’s best for the children.”
Weissman v Weissman
Having sat through most of the card, at last the main event; Debra Weissman, represented by Marcia Kusnetz and Carol Most, opposing Ronald Weissman, represented by Willem Gravett of Bender, Miano & Colangelo. Marcia Kusnetz would do most of the talking, informing Judge Scarpino that their client was before him with two Motions to Show Cause, and a Motion to Re-argue. There followed some discussion about a guardian ad litem, another attorney who had apparently been assigned to Debra Weissman because of cerebral injuries sustained seven years ago. With regard to the Motion to Re-argue, Scarpino said, “If I feel that I’ve made a error I will take corrective action.”
Then, in response to Mr. Gravett’s pulling out of a copy of The Westchester Guardian, featuring the Weissman v Weissman letter, Attorney Kusnetz suggested to Scarpino that the attorneys have a confab in chambers about the matter. The Judge, raising his eyebrows, as well as his voice, remarked, “If you think for one second that I am going to go into a back room to discuss this case, I would wonder what you had in your coffee.”
At one point Scarpino raised the issue of the tapes allegedly implicating judicial personnel that were referenced in Debra Weissman’s letter to Judge Lippman. Kusnetz quickly replied, “That’s between her and the Inspector General’s Office. My Client never accused Your Honor of being involved in any wrongdoing.” Continuing to advocate, and turning more passionate, she went on, “My main concern is that the house, (the marital house) be
finally sold. She cannot carry the expenses of the house for more than two and a half years. She cannot survive in this situation.” In response to another objection by Mr. Gravett to the coverage in The Guardian, Judge Scarpino assured him, “If your client wants to write to the newspaper, he can.” Turning to Debra Weissman, following her comment that she was “working with Sherrill Spatz” (the Inspector Genereal of the State Office Of Court Administration), the Judge asked, “Have the tapes been turned over to the press?” Debra Weissman responded, “No.”
Scarpino then came back with, “It would be fine with me whether Judge Pfau (the newly appointed Chief Administrative Judge of The State Court System) takes over the case or not, it’s fine with me.”
Now, Attorney Gravett, having thus far made no headway, insisted, “Mrs. Weissman is not before this Court with clean hands, Your Honor.” Pressing his point, with reference to her having given a copy of her letter to Judge Lippman to The Guardian for publication, Gravett persisted, “It is a clear and unambiguous violation of the divorce agreement.
Whatever her personal feelings may be, her contempt is egregious and atrocious.” Obviously not wishing to continue Mr. Gravett’s line of discussion, the Judge now declared, “I’m going to mark this Application for Re-argument fully submitted.”
He then addressed an application from Debra Weissman’s attorneys, and turning her way, stated, “Now I must deal with the Application to be relieved from representing you.” He then asked her if she could abide with her attorneys’ request, to which she emphatically responded, “No.”
Scarpino then inquired of her attorneys if “the mere publication of the article in The Guardian” was the reason for their desire to be relieved? Attorney Kusnetz responded, “There’s a process by which such complaints should be
made. We don’t agree with the action she has taken. We do believe that she should prevail. She hasn’t had her day in Court. But, we feel uncomfortable as a law firm.”
Then, in an obvious effort to assist Debra Weissman with a difficult circumstance, made more difficult by the expressed desire of her attorneys to separate from her case, Scarpino, once again addressing her directly, said, “You’ve already stated some very compelling reasons why you do not want your attorneys relieved. I want it in writing.”
Weissman spontaneously declared, “I want to keep these attorneys because they have been fearless, and they understand.” Judge Scarpino, perhaps sensing a need for closure on the subject, remarked, “I don’t take offense with the stuff in the press. It’s part of being a judge. I’m not offended by it; it’s one side of the story.” With that he gave Deborah Weissman two weeks to submit her objections to the relieving of her attorneys, in writing.
Westchester Supreme Court, Matrimonial Part
Judge Anthony Scarpino Presiding
Last Monday morning The Westchester Guardian was present in what some folks might have called “Tony Scarpino’s Divorce Court.” In all candor, if we visit the County Courthouse on a Monday it is usually to cover one or more of the criminal courts. However, in light of the recent letter from Debra Weissman to Judge Jonathan Lippman, reproduced on our front page a few weeks earlier, we believed that it would be appropriate to attend the next court appearance of the parties involved. As luck would have it, Weissman v Weissman was case number 24 on a calendar with nearly thirty items, and we were afforded a more extended opportunity to witness the Court than we had anticipated.
Booth v Booth
A couple divorced in 1998 involved in an apparent dispute over the financing of their seventeen-year-old son’s tuition to New York University, apparently felt they needed the wisdom and authority of the Court to resolve the matter quickly enough to permit the boy’s entrance in September. Realizing that the parents had virtually thrust their child’s educational prospects into his lap, Scarpino said, “This is your child. For you to come to me to make a decision where he goes, is not something I prefer to do. You are a team with regard to your child, though you’re apart. Remember, he may decide what nursing home you go to one day.”
To another couple each of whom were appearing pro se, and had a tendency to speak over one another Scarpino quipped, “Slow down, I’m not Judge Judy here.” To the attorney for the former wife in a later case that was more than seven years old, who asked almost rhetorically, “When does this process stop?” Scarpino remarked, “When do matrimonials stop? They never stop. They go on for years and years, sometimes fifteen
or twenty years.”
Kramer v Kramer
Predictably, case number 15 brought a quick, “Saw that one,” from the Judge, who then got serious, warning the pro se former husband that his former wife’s contempt proceeding could have incarcerative consequences for him, if successful.
White v White
After listening to the opening remarks of each attorney in what was clearly a ‘tug of war’ scenario, Scarpino attempted to redirect the litigants, coaxing, “You have two quality lawyers. It seems to me it’s more about control than about what’s best for the children.”
Weissman v Weissman
Having sat through most of the card, at last the main event; Debra Weissman, represented by Marcia Kusnetz and Carol Most, opposing Ronald Weissman, represented by Willem Gravett of Bender, Miano & Colangelo. Marcia Kusnetz would do most of the talking, informing Judge Scarpino that their client was before him with two Motions to Show Cause, and a Motion to Re-argue. There followed some discussion about a guardian ad litem, another attorney who had apparently been assigned to Debra Weissman because of cerebral injuries sustained seven years ago. With regard to the Motion to Re-argue, Scarpino said, “If I feel that I’ve made a error I will take corrective action.”
Then, in response to Mr. Gravett’s pulling out of a copy of The Westchester Guardian, featuring the Weissman v Weissman letter, Attorney Kusnetz suggested to Scarpino that the attorneys have a confab in chambers about the matter. The Judge, raising his eyebrows, as well as his voice, remarked, “If you think for one second that I am going to go into a back room to discuss this case, I would wonder what you had in your coffee.”
At one point Scarpino raised the issue of the tapes allegedly implicating judicial personnel that were referenced in Debra Weissman’s letter to Judge Lippman. Kusnetz quickly replied, “That’s between her and the Inspector General’s Office. My Client never accused Your Honor of being involved in any wrongdoing.” Continuing to advocate, and turning more passionate, she went on, “My main concern is that the house, (the marital house) be
finally sold. She cannot carry the expenses of the house for more than two and a half years. She cannot survive in this situation.” In response to another objection by Mr. Gravett to the coverage in The Guardian, Judge Scarpino assured him, “If your client wants to write to the newspaper, he can.” Turning to Debra Weissman, following her comment that she was “working with Sherrill Spatz” (the Inspector Genereal of the State Office Of Court Administration), the Judge asked, “Have the tapes been turned over to the press?” Debra Weissman responded, “No.”
Scarpino then came back with, “It would be fine with me whether Judge Pfau (the newly appointed Chief Administrative Judge of The State Court System) takes over the case or not, it’s fine with me.”
Now, Attorney Gravett, having thus far made no headway, insisted, “Mrs. Weissman is not before this Court with clean hands, Your Honor.” Pressing his point, with reference to her having given a copy of her letter to Judge Lippman to The Guardian for publication, Gravett persisted, “It is a clear and unambiguous violation of the divorce agreement.
Whatever her personal feelings may be, her contempt is egregious and atrocious.” Obviously not wishing to continue Mr. Gravett’s line of discussion, the Judge now declared, “I’m going to mark this Application for Re-argument fully submitted.”
He then addressed an application from Debra Weissman’s attorneys, and turning her way, stated, “Now I must deal with the Application to be relieved from representing you.” He then asked her if she could abide with her attorneys’ request, to which she emphatically responded, “No.”
Scarpino then inquired of her attorneys if “the mere publication of the article in The Guardian” was the reason for their desire to be relieved? Attorney Kusnetz responded, “There’s a process by which such complaints should be
made. We don’t agree with the action she has taken. We do believe that she should prevail. She hasn’t had her day in Court. But, we feel uncomfortable as a law firm.”
Then, in an obvious effort to assist Debra Weissman with a difficult circumstance, made more difficult by the expressed desire of her attorneys to separate from her case, Scarpino, once again addressing her directly, said, “You’ve already stated some very compelling reasons why you do not want your attorneys relieved. I want it in writing.”
Weissman spontaneously declared, “I want to keep these attorneys because they have been fearless, and they understand.” Judge Scarpino, perhaps sensing a need for closure on the subject, remarked, “I don’t take offense with the stuff in the press. It’s part of being a judge. I’m not offended by it; it’s one side of the story.” With that he gave Deborah Weissman two weeks to submit her objections to the relieving of her attorneys, in writing.
Article on Mike Gianatasio/Larry Schwartz:
Mike Gianatasio, Independent Candidate For County Legislator, District Three, Rejects Corrupt Larry Schwartz
Schwartz Never Saw An Election He Didn’t think He Could Fix
A little more than a week ago Mike Gianatasio, Independent candidate for County Legislator, from District ree, and resident of Armonk, received a phone call from Peter Fiumefredo, Democratic Chairman from
the Town of Mount Pleasant. Fiumefredo, carrying water for Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz, informed Gianatasio that Larry was getting John Nonna, his Democratic opponent, the Independence Party line. Fiumefredo advised him to get in contact with Nonna.
Not wishing to have anything to do with the corrupt Deputy County Executive or any of his schemes, Gianatasio said, “Tell Larry he can take a hike.”Mike, President of Michael R. Gianatasio Professional Engineering
Services of Yonkers, resides in Armonk with his wife Penny and their three children, Maria 6, Anthony 4, and Yanna, who will celebrate her - rst birthday on July 4th. Mike calls her his “Independence Baby.”
Mike, a graduate of Manhattan College, told the Guardian that he is running for the County Legislature because he believes he can make a positive difference working with the issues that confront the communities in District
three, North Castle, his own town, Mount Pleasant, West Harrison, Briarcliff Manor and North Greenburgh. He declared, “Certain issues affecting every community in Westchester, including the need for fiscal responsibility, elimination of Medicaid Fraud, cutting down the size of County Government, and many quality-of-life issues, could be dealt with more effectively.”
He acknowledged that each community has specific concerns as well, citing the anxiety of Mount Pleasant residents regarding the Valhalla Campus with its homeless shelter, inadequate neighborhood police patrols, and
traffic problems. Turning to his own town, he expressed his desire to bring about a resolution to the problems of Quarry Heights, with its failed septics, declaring, “We need a compromise, working with the Feds, the State,
and New York City Department of Environmental Protection to create a workable and affordable sewer district.” He went on, “We need to work with the State Highway Department to resolve some of the more serious problems of Route 22, particularly pedestrian and bicycle safety.”
Then, directing his attention to the southern tip of District three, Gianatasio said, “ The single biggest concern in West Harrison involves code enforcement, the many illegal two- and three-family houses, that need to
be reclassified and reassessed.” He went on to point out that in addition to the lost tax revenue that needs to be claimed for the good of the community, there are several safety issues posed by the illegal multi-family units,
needing to be addressed. Mike said that he looks forward, upon election to the County Legislature, to bringing his knowledge and experience as a professional engineer into play in assisting, and working with other legislators
to bring about needed changes and solutions.
Mike Gianatasio, Independent Candidate For County Legislator, District Three, Rejects Corrupt Larry Schwartz
Schwartz Never Saw An Election He Didn’t think He Could Fix
A little more than a week ago Mike Gianatasio, Independent candidate for County Legislator, from District ree, and resident of Armonk, received a phone call from Peter Fiumefredo, Democratic Chairman from
the Town of Mount Pleasant. Fiumefredo, carrying water for Deputy County Executive Larry Schwartz, informed Gianatasio that Larry was getting John Nonna, his Democratic opponent, the Independence Party line. Fiumefredo advised him to get in contact with Nonna.
Not wishing to have anything to do with the corrupt Deputy County Executive or any of his schemes, Gianatasio said, “Tell Larry he can take a hike.”Mike, President of Michael R. Gianatasio Professional Engineering
Services of Yonkers, resides in Armonk with his wife Penny and their three children, Maria 6, Anthony 4, and Yanna, who will celebrate her - rst birthday on July 4th. Mike calls her his “Independence Baby.”
Mike, a graduate of Manhattan College, told the Guardian that he is running for the County Legislature because he believes he can make a positive difference working with the issues that confront the communities in District
three, North Castle, his own town, Mount Pleasant, West Harrison, Briarcliff Manor and North Greenburgh. He declared, “Certain issues affecting every community in Westchester, including the need for fiscal responsibility, elimination of Medicaid Fraud, cutting down the size of County Government, and many quality-of-life issues, could be dealt with more effectively.”
He acknowledged that each community has specific concerns as well, citing the anxiety of Mount Pleasant residents regarding the Valhalla Campus with its homeless shelter, inadequate neighborhood police patrols, and
traffic problems. Turning to his own town, he expressed his desire to bring about a resolution to the problems of Quarry Heights, with its failed septics, declaring, “We need a compromise, working with the Feds, the State,
and New York City Department of Environmental Protection to create a workable and affordable sewer district.” He went on, “We need to work with the State Highway Department to resolve some of the more serious problems of Route 22, particularly pedestrian and bicycle safety.”
Then, directing his attention to the southern tip of District three, Gianatasio said, “ The single biggest concern in West Harrison involves code enforcement, the many illegal two- and three-family houses, that need to
be reclassified and reassessed.” He went on to point out that in addition to the lost tax revenue that needs to be claimed for the good of the community, there are several safety issues posed by the illegal multi-family units,
needing to be addressed. Mike said that he looks forward, upon election to the County Legislature, to bringing his knowledge and experience as a professional engineer into play in assisting, and working with other legislators
to bring about needed changes and solutions.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Our Readers Respond...
Deepest Pockets Win Over Deepest Heart
Dear Editor:
I am the aggrieved parent of three beautiful children. I have been the residential custodial parent of my children since 2002 when their father left. They were 1, 2 and 6 at that time.
I have been a loving, dedicated and devoted mother and have always put my children first. I became engaged to be remarried in 2004. The children and I were elated. We planned to move from our current apartment in Irvington to a beautiful townhome in Danbury, Connecticut.
I told my ex-spouse of these intentions in February of that year. We would be moving in late August of the same year. The children even took their father to see where their new home was being built in March. The School was notified; my ex received a report from the school stating the impending move, and a certi-fied letter was sent.
I have now lost custody of my three beautiful children. Why?
Was it drugs, abuse, neglect, alcohol? No, it was none of those. It was what happens to so many women who go to the Westchester County Supreme Court and expect the best interests of the children to be the priority.
As I write this I am plagued by warnings from the Coalition for Family Justice, my attorney, and many other sources, not to go ahead with revealing my children’s and my situation, as I will “pay the consequences for going public.” I am concerned about a system that allows a law guardian to play GOD in the lives of children she only knows in passing; a system that says, “Once you are assigned a law guardian you can never get another one
assigned to your case unless the first one dies.”
My children’s law guardian is Therese Malach. She has unilaterally torn apart the only home my children have ever known since birth. The buzz words here for her are parental alienation and personality disorder, neither of which were ever substantiated at trial before Judge William Giacomo. The reality was this law guardian coming to court with my ex-husband and leaving with him; having private meetings with him outside the courtroom; having cigarette breaks with him in the stairwell, acting as if she were his own personal attorney and treating me as the opponent, the enemy, and anything but the mother of these three children we were supposed to all be there to protect.
I have documented scores of unanswered phone calls to her and scores of unanswered emails as well. I made so many attempts at communication with this woman, almost all of which were ignored. In addition, there were clandestine meetings at her home with my ex-spouse and my children during off-business hours. This was not disclosed to the Court, and, when my ex-spouse was questioned about it at trial, he perjured himself and stated that the only place he met with her was at her office. She, in turn, suborned perjury by not correcting this on the record.
During the trial she defended my ex-spouse with more passion and ferociousness than his team of high-powered, high-charging attorneys. It was incredible to watch. She objected to any testimony that could potentially harm
him more than 300 times during the 12-1/2 day trial.
She was appointed by Judge Donovan and she then chose the forensic expert. The Matrimonial Commission clearly stated in its report to Judge Judith Kaye that there is a major need for reform in the courts, especially concerning law guardians and forensic experts. The forensic expert, by law, is to be appointed by the presiding judge, and NOT by the law guardian. This practice goes hand in hand with the ex-parte communication so prevalent with these kinds of litigations.
During my trial Judge Giacomo commented, “These are great kids. They are doing great in school. They are healthy and someone is obviously doing something right with these kids.” They had been living in my custody.
Yet, custody was flipped, and More with that my children were forced to experience what no children should
have to experience, having their lives in the hands of people who could really care less about them.
What is important here is that the law guardian has been paid by my ex-spouse tens of thousands of dollars, and she has never even tried to be impartial. She was so comfortable in her biased behavior that she would resort to such unprofessional and unethical behavior without fear of any consequence. Why don’t I report this to the Grievance Committee that oversees these court-appointed childrens’ advocates? Because I was warned about that as well. If I were to report her “...She could make my life a living nightmare and might seek supervised
visitation or worse...”.
So what can a mother do under these circumstances? She cannot go through the legal system, for that would be an exercise in futility. She cannot try to speak to the law guardian about her childrens’ new set of problems and anxieties because she might as well talk to a wall.
The real question is, how is it that in Westchester County Supreme Court deeper pockets seem to be the one sure thing that decides these issues and deeper hearts are a mere afterthought?
Who really writes these judges’ decisions? Is it the judges themselves or their clerks like Barry Swersky Judge Giacomo’s clerk? Swersky, by the way, is on quite friendly terms with this law guardian.
Who is really running our courts and making the decisions that are affecting our childrens’ lives??? It is not who you might think!
A Loving, Concerned Mother
Another Family Wrecked by Matrimonial Court
Dear Editor:
Bravo for you on the story of Weissman v. Weissman; how similar this case sounds to my own. I was the daughter-in-law of a prominent Supreme Court Judge in Manhattan who had a very long arm of connections. I was married to his son who had ongoing brain cancer and was 100% disabled for seven years following two brain operations.
The disease was heartbreaking by itself, however my husband’s abusive personality became even more profound
as the disease progressed. Although, it was documented that I was his primary caregiver, I lost custody of our three children, one of which was two years old, due to an affidavit from my father-in-law to my matrimonial judge, stating his position in life as a Supreme Court Judge on the bench for 30 years, and claiming his son was primary caregiver.
Along with his affidavit, my brother-in-law, an attorney in the county where we lived, submitted an affidavit that mirrored his father’s. My divorce case was based on a mountain of lies from the beginning. My brother-in-law, who submitted himself as a witness in the case, had a vested nancial interest, and started caring for my then-sick
husband, was admitted as co-council against my attorney’s objections. I never got nancial discovery; my children, abused while in my husband’s care, were used as pawns so that I would settle for almost nothing just to obtain custody and ensure their safety.
I lost custody of them in January of 2000 but got them back in November of 2002. Thereafter, my husband’s misbehavior continued, and he eventually got supervised visitation. I WROTE TO EVERYONE. The medical evidence subpoened to the court was overwhelming. In the end there were 12 judges in my case, and medical evidence had surfaced to my matrimonial judge who suppressed my then-husband’s mental incompetency.
I am still nancially devastated by the vast cost of ve years of litigation my case encumbered by my husband who, it has been medically documented, could not make a rational decision since 1996, since it was that part of his brain which was afflicted with cancer.
I was forced to settle with an incompetent person, who was Plaintiff in the divorce case, and by medical testimony, the divorce should not even be valid. I wrote to Jacqueline Silberman, did a grievance on four of the judges to the Commission on Judicial Conduct; wrote to the Inspector General’s office and sent 20 or more certi-fied letters to Chief Judge Judith Kaye. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE AND MY BROTHER-
IN-LAW IS STILL A PRACTICING ATTORNEY. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE CORRUPTION,
IT IS TOO MUCH TO LIST.
Debbie Blangiardo
Reader Takes Issue With Clerk Idoni
Dear Editor:
Last week’s press release by Westchester County Clerk Timothy C. Idoni, Need A Legal Record? Westchester County Clerk Idoni Invites Residents to Visit the Legal Division, baffled many of us who are litigants before the Supreme or County Courts. The office of the County Clerk accepts the fee payments for bringing the motion papers before the Court. It is not until the papers are brought to the Chief Clerk of the Westchester Supreme
and County Courts, now on the ninth floor, and stamped with an inked relief, with those exact words from there, that the motion papers are brought before the Court.
The papers are not stamped by the Westchester County Clerk until they are led there which could be soon, or
months, or even years later. A continual melodrama of liti-gants, searching for their motion and attendant papers, are folklore to those who have had the misfortune of tracking “lost” or “missing” documents from their fille.
The premises stated by County Clerk Idoni, that he protects and maintains court records while also making available appropriate court records to those who need them, is a performance of consummate public relations.
The between times, from the Court to the clerk le room or scanned documentation, is the rub.
One Who’s Been There
Court Corruption Got You Down?
Dear Editor:
On June 5, 2007 Supreme Court Justice Gerald P. Garson will be sentenced. ‘His Honor’ was convicted
of three felonies committed in the Matrimonial Part of Brooklyn Supreme Court. Assuredly, Justice Garson is not alone in his misbehavior.
An investigation, initiated by a pregnant mother named Frieda Hanimov through the Brooklyn DA, only verified hat was deemed “a fair assumption in Brooklyn”, for too long, CORRUPTION. For his misdeeds, accepting tens of thousands in cash, lavish dinners, top shelf cigars, Justice Garson’s conviction, 15 years in prison, is the maximum sentence prescribed.
Is Westchester any different than Brooklyn? - ose of us dealing with the Matrimonial Court think not! Many of us will attend the sentencing of Judge Garson. We are intent on bringing court reform to Westchester that is too long overdue, and we will be holding a one-hour demonstration on June 11, 9-10am, at the Westchester County Courthouse.
IF you’re SICK of it, hope you will join our demonstration.
Had E. Nuph
Deepest Pockets Win Over Deepest Heart
Dear Editor:
I am the aggrieved parent of three beautiful children. I have been the residential custodial parent of my children since 2002 when their father left. They were 1, 2 and 6 at that time.
I have been a loving, dedicated and devoted mother and have always put my children first. I became engaged to be remarried in 2004. The children and I were elated. We planned to move from our current apartment in Irvington to a beautiful townhome in Danbury, Connecticut.
I told my ex-spouse of these intentions in February of that year. We would be moving in late August of the same year. The children even took their father to see where their new home was being built in March. The School was notified; my ex received a report from the school stating the impending move, and a certi-fied letter was sent.
I have now lost custody of my three beautiful children. Why?
Was it drugs, abuse, neglect, alcohol? No, it was none of those. It was what happens to so many women who go to the Westchester County Supreme Court and expect the best interests of the children to be the priority.
As I write this I am plagued by warnings from the Coalition for Family Justice, my attorney, and many other sources, not to go ahead with revealing my children’s and my situation, as I will “pay the consequences for going public.” I am concerned about a system that allows a law guardian to play GOD in the lives of children she only knows in passing; a system that says, “Once you are assigned a law guardian you can never get another one
assigned to your case unless the first one dies.”
My children’s law guardian is Therese Malach. She has unilaterally torn apart the only home my children have ever known since birth. The buzz words here for her are parental alienation and personality disorder, neither of which were ever substantiated at trial before Judge William Giacomo. The reality was this law guardian coming to court with my ex-husband and leaving with him; having private meetings with him outside the courtroom; having cigarette breaks with him in the stairwell, acting as if she were his own personal attorney and treating me as the opponent, the enemy, and anything but the mother of these three children we were supposed to all be there to protect.
I have documented scores of unanswered phone calls to her and scores of unanswered emails as well. I made so many attempts at communication with this woman, almost all of which were ignored. In addition, there were clandestine meetings at her home with my ex-spouse and my children during off-business hours. This was not disclosed to the Court, and, when my ex-spouse was questioned about it at trial, he perjured himself and stated that the only place he met with her was at her office. She, in turn, suborned perjury by not correcting this on the record.
During the trial she defended my ex-spouse with more passion and ferociousness than his team of high-powered, high-charging attorneys. It was incredible to watch. She objected to any testimony that could potentially harm
him more than 300 times during the 12-1/2 day trial.
She was appointed by Judge Donovan and she then chose the forensic expert. The Matrimonial Commission clearly stated in its report to Judge Judith Kaye that there is a major need for reform in the courts, especially concerning law guardians and forensic experts. The forensic expert, by law, is to be appointed by the presiding judge, and NOT by the law guardian. This practice goes hand in hand with the ex-parte communication so prevalent with these kinds of litigations.
During my trial Judge Giacomo commented, “These are great kids. They are doing great in school. They are healthy and someone is obviously doing something right with these kids.” They had been living in my custody.
Yet, custody was flipped, and More with that my children were forced to experience what no children should
have to experience, having their lives in the hands of people who could really care less about them.
What is important here is that the law guardian has been paid by my ex-spouse tens of thousands of dollars, and she has never even tried to be impartial. She was so comfortable in her biased behavior that she would resort to such unprofessional and unethical behavior without fear of any consequence. Why don’t I report this to the Grievance Committee that oversees these court-appointed childrens’ advocates? Because I was warned about that as well. If I were to report her “...She could make my life a living nightmare and might seek supervised
visitation or worse...”.
So what can a mother do under these circumstances? She cannot go through the legal system, for that would be an exercise in futility. She cannot try to speak to the law guardian about her childrens’ new set of problems and anxieties because she might as well talk to a wall.
The real question is, how is it that in Westchester County Supreme Court deeper pockets seem to be the one sure thing that decides these issues and deeper hearts are a mere afterthought?
Who really writes these judges’ decisions? Is it the judges themselves or their clerks like Barry Swersky Judge Giacomo’s clerk? Swersky, by the way, is on quite friendly terms with this law guardian.
Who is really running our courts and making the decisions that are affecting our childrens’ lives??? It is not who you might think!
A Loving, Concerned Mother
Another Family Wrecked by Matrimonial Court
Dear Editor:
Bravo for you on the story of Weissman v. Weissman; how similar this case sounds to my own. I was the daughter-in-law of a prominent Supreme Court Judge in Manhattan who had a very long arm of connections. I was married to his son who had ongoing brain cancer and was 100% disabled for seven years following two brain operations.
The disease was heartbreaking by itself, however my husband’s abusive personality became even more profound
as the disease progressed. Although, it was documented that I was his primary caregiver, I lost custody of our three children, one of which was two years old, due to an affidavit from my father-in-law to my matrimonial judge, stating his position in life as a Supreme Court Judge on the bench for 30 years, and claiming his son was primary caregiver.
Along with his affidavit, my brother-in-law, an attorney in the county where we lived, submitted an affidavit that mirrored his father’s. My divorce case was based on a mountain of lies from the beginning. My brother-in-law, who submitted himself as a witness in the case, had a vested nancial interest, and started caring for my then-sick
husband, was admitted as co-council against my attorney’s objections. I never got nancial discovery; my children, abused while in my husband’s care, were used as pawns so that I would settle for almost nothing just to obtain custody and ensure their safety.
I lost custody of them in January of 2000 but got them back in November of 2002. Thereafter, my husband’s misbehavior continued, and he eventually got supervised visitation. I WROTE TO EVERYONE. The medical evidence subpoened to the court was overwhelming. In the end there were 12 judges in my case, and medical evidence had surfaced to my matrimonial judge who suppressed my then-husband’s mental incompetency.
I am still nancially devastated by the vast cost of ve years of litigation my case encumbered by my husband who, it has been medically documented, could not make a rational decision since 1996, since it was that part of his brain which was afflicted with cancer.
I was forced to settle with an incompetent person, who was Plaintiff in the divorce case, and by medical testimony, the divorce should not even be valid. I wrote to Jacqueline Silberman, did a grievance on four of the judges to the Commission on Judicial Conduct; wrote to the Inspector General’s office and sent 20 or more certi-fied letters to Chief Judge Judith Kaye. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN DONE AND MY BROTHER-
IN-LAW IS STILL A PRACTICING ATTORNEY. THERE IS SO MUCH MORE CORRUPTION,
IT IS TOO MUCH TO LIST.
Debbie Blangiardo
Reader Takes Issue With Clerk Idoni
Dear Editor:
Last week’s press release by Westchester County Clerk Timothy C. Idoni, Need A Legal Record? Westchester County Clerk Idoni Invites Residents to Visit the Legal Division, baffled many of us who are litigants before the Supreme or County Courts. The office of the County Clerk accepts the fee payments for bringing the motion papers before the Court. It is not until the papers are brought to the Chief Clerk of the Westchester Supreme
and County Courts, now on the ninth floor, and stamped with an inked relief, with those exact words from there, that the motion papers are brought before the Court.
The papers are not stamped by the Westchester County Clerk until they are led there which could be soon, or
months, or even years later. A continual melodrama of liti-gants, searching for their motion and attendant papers, are folklore to those who have had the misfortune of tracking “lost” or “missing” documents from their fille.
The premises stated by County Clerk Idoni, that he protects and maintains court records while also making available appropriate court records to those who need them, is a performance of consummate public relations.
The between times, from the Court to the clerk le room or scanned documentation, is the rub.
One Who’s Been There
Court Corruption Got You Down?
Dear Editor:
On June 5, 2007 Supreme Court Justice Gerald P. Garson will be sentenced. ‘His Honor’ was convicted
of three felonies committed in the Matrimonial Part of Brooklyn Supreme Court. Assuredly, Justice Garson is not alone in his misbehavior.
An investigation, initiated by a pregnant mother named Frieda Hanimov through the Brooklyn DA, only verified hat was deemed “a fair assumption in Brooklyn”, for too long, CORRUPTION. For his misdeeds, accepting tens of thousands in cash, lavish dinners, top shelf cigars, Justice Garson’s conviction, 15 years in prison, is the maximum sentence prescribed.
Is Westchester any different than Brooklyn? - ose of us dealing with the Matrimonial Court think not! Many of us will attend the sentencing of Judge Garson. We are intent on bringing court reform to Westchester that is too long overdue, and we will be holding a one-hour demonstration on June 11, 9-10am, at the Westchester County Courthouse.
IF you’re SICK of it, hope you will join our demonstration.
Had E. Nuph
In Our Opinion...
At Last, Something To Feel Good About In The NYS Court System
Last week Governor Spitzer announced a purely political appointment of someone We have never felt too good about, and yet we felt good about the appointment. The governor’s press release reported the appointment of Judge Jonathan Lippman to be the Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division, First Department, State Supreme Court. In actuality, the appointment was a step down, given the fact that Lippman was the Chief Administrative Judge of the entire New York State Court System, a position second only to Chief Judge Judith Kaye.
Nevertheless, it was a welcome reassignment, from Lippman’s point of view, as it was clearly intended to groom him to take over the seat Kaye is only keeping warm for a little more than a year, until her 70th birthday. From where we stand, she’s done little more than keeping that seat warm for the last thirteen years, anyway. But that’s another issue.
In making the appointment, Spitzer said, “Throughout his long career, Justice Lippman has displayed the strength of character and profound respect for the rule of law that make him an outstanding choice for this position.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Lippman was appointed Chief Administrative Judge in 1996, while sitting on the Court of Claims, the state’s notorious repository for political has-beens.
Two years ago, realizing that he would have to get elected to the State Supreme Court in order to align himself in time to inherit the mantle from Judith Kaye, but realizing as well that election to the Supremes in the Ninth Judicial District as a Democrat, historically wasn’t a given, he entered into a conspiracy with Judge Joseph Alessandro. Alessandro, a Republican Westchester County Court Judge had run for the Supremes the year before, and failed.
Alessandro’s failure, even as a Republican, wasn’t without good cause. When he first ran for County Court, a couple of years earlier, his signs read, “Experience Counts.” The fact was he had no experience. He was a lawyer who never attended law school, and whose legal experience was limited to real estate. The Judiciary
Committee on Credentials had labeled him “Unqualified.” Worse yet, Barbara Battista, the woman who had loaned him $260,000 to run for office, and who served as his campaign treasurer, was suing him for defrauding her by manipulating her lien off of the house he had offered her as collateral on the loan. Furthermore, it was widely suspected that Joe Alessandro wasn’t a Westchester resident, but in fact, continued to reside in the Morris Park section of the Bronx.
Despite all of the above, Jonathan Lippman conspired with Alessandro to cross endorse each other, perverting the electoral process, thus insuring their election.
“Strength of character,” and “profound respect for the rule of law;” We think not! So, why are We feeling so good about Lippman’s appointment? We are gratified because Judge Ann T. Pfau will now be the Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman never was. She was most actively involved in overseeing the recent corruption probes in the Brooklyn Courts which produced indictments and convictions, notable among them Supreme Court Justice Gerald P. Garson, who sat in the Matrimonial Part, and who was convicted of three felony counts, having accepted cash, and gifts in exchange for decisions favorable to particular litigants.
Sources in Albany believe that Judge Pfau’s elevation to Chief Administrative Judge comes with Eliot Spitzer’s and Andrew Cuomo’s blessings, not to mention Good Government and Court Reform groups throughout the state.
Some observers have speculated that Judith Kaye, increasingly concerned about her legacy, as well she ought to be, also welcomes Judge Pfau’s elevation at this time.
At Last, Something To Feel Good About In The NYS Court System
Last week Governor Spitzer announced a purely political appointment of someone We have never felt too good about, and yet we felt good about the appointment. The governor’s press release reported the appointment of Judge Jonathan Lippman to be the Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division, First Department, State Supreme Court. In actuality, the appointment was a step down, given the fact that Lippman was the Chief Administrative Judge of the entire New York State Court System, a position second only to Chief Judge Judith Kaye.
Nevertheless, it was a welcome reassignment, from Lippman’s point of view, as it was clearly intended to groom him to take over the seat Kaye is only keeping warm for a little more than a year, until her 70th birthday. From where we stand, she’s done little more than keeping that seat warm for the last thirteen years, anyway. But that’s another issue.
In making the appointment, Spitzer said, “Throughout his long career, Justice Lippman has displayed the strength of character and profound respect for the rule of law that make him an outstanding choice for this position.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Lippman was appointed Chief Administrative Judge in 1996, while sitting on the Court of Claims, the state’s notorious repository for political has-beens.
Two years ago, realizing that he would have to get elected to the State Supreme Court in order to align himself in time to inherit the mantle from Judith Kaye, but realizing as well that election to the Supremes in the Ninth Judicial District as a Democrat, historically wasn’t a given, he entered into a conspiracy with Judge Joseph Alessandro. Alessandro, a Republican Westchester County Court Judge had run for the Supremes the year before, and failed.
Alessandro’s failure, even as a Republican, wasn’t without good cause. When he first ran for County Court, a couple of years earlier, his signs read, “Experience Counts.” The fact was he had no experience. He was a lawyer who never attended law school, and whose legal experience was limited to real estate. The Judiciary
Committee on Credentials had labeled him “Unqualified.” Worse yet, Barbara Battista, the woman who had loaned him $260,000 to run for office, and who served as his campaign treasurer, was suing him for defrauding her by manipulating her lien off of the house he had offered her as collateral on the loan. Furthermore, it was widely suspected that Joe Alessandro wasn’t a Westchester resident, but in fact, continued to reside in the Morris Park section of the Bronx.
Despite all of the above, Jonathan Lippman conspired with Alessandro to cross endorse each other, perverting the electoral process, thus insuring their election.
“Strength of character,” and “profound respect for the rule of law;” We think not! So, why are We feeling so good about Lippman’s appointment? We are gratified because Judge Ann T. Pfau will now be the Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman never was. She was most actively involved in overseeing the recent corruption probes in the Brooklyn Courts which produced indictments and convictions, notable among them Supreme Court Justice Gerald P. Garson, who sat in the Matrimonial Part, and who was convicted of three felony counts, having accepted cash, and gifts in exchange for decisions favorable to particular litigants.
Sources in Albany believe that Judge Pfau’s elevation to Chief Administrative Judge comes with Eliot Spitzer’s and Andrew Cuomo’s blessings, not to mention Good Government and Court Reform groups throughout the state.
Some observers have speculated that Judith Kaye, increasingly concerned about her legacy, as well she ought to be, also welcomes Judge Pfau’s elevation at this time.
The Court Report
Richard Blassberg
United States Attorney, Working With Agents from The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives,
Interdicts Gun Trafficking Before Reaching The Streets of Westchester
Analysis: The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael J. Garcia, last Wednesday, May 30, announced the indictment of David Gonzalez of the Bronx for the unlicensed dealing in firearms. The “reverse sting” operation, carried out by agents with ATF, to interdict such gun trafficking especially by an offender in an adjacent county, the Bronx, has profound implications for the residents of Westchester, particularly Yonkers, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle which have recently seen numerous incidents involving guns.
The government operation was a “reverse sting” in that ATF agents did not buy from the perpetrator, but instead sold to him for his intended resale. As a consequence, the perpetrator’s statements of prior sales and his intention to sell what he was purchasing, were very crucial to obtaining an indictment and, ultimately, a conviction.
The actual indictment, below, details graphically the activities of the type of perpetrator who must be prevented from putting guns into the hands of our youth.
Richard Blassberg
United States Attorney, Working With Agents from The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives,
Interdicts Gun Trafficking Before Reaching The Streets of Westchester
Analysis: The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Michael J. Garcia, last Wednesday, May 30, announced the indictment of David Gonzalez of the Bronx for the unlicensed dealing in firearms. The “reverse sting” operation, carried out by agents with ATF, to interdict such gun trafficking especially by an offender in an adjacent county, the Bronx, has profound implications for the residents of Westchester, particularly Yonkers, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle which have recently seen numerous incidents involving guns.
The government operation was a “reverse sting” in that ATF agents did not buy from the perpetrator, but instead sold to him for his intended resale. As a consequence, the perpetrator’s statements of prior sales and his intention to sell what he was purchasing, were very crucial to obtaining an indictment and, ultimately, a conviction.
The actual indictment, below, details graphically the activities of the type of perpetrator who must be prevented from putting guns into the hands of our youth.
Article on Giulio Cavallo:
Cavallo, ‘Missing in Action’, Nevertheless Reappointed To County Public Safety Board
Despite being virtually AWOL from public functions, Giulio Cavallo, embattled former Chairman of
the Westchester Independence Party, was recently re-appointed as a Commissioner to the Westchester
County Public Safety Board by County Executive Andy Spano, and approved by the County Board of
Legislators.
Observers are questioning what credentials Mr. Cavallo possesses to act as an overseer of the County
Police. His relationship with Larry Schwartz and the Pistol Permit Unit have been resurfacing. Some
are asking, “How safe is the public?”
Cavallo, whose financial filings with the State Election Commission have come into question with regard to the legitimacy of expenditures and the shu ing of funds between the Independence Party and the Independence Club, has been avoiding scrutiny and accountability, both publicly and privately. Having attempted to silence The Westchester Guardian with the filing of a $25 million lawsuit several months ago, he has resisted attempts
to depose him, and has been virtually unavailable ever since.
As the result of his failure to submit to deposition, legal counsel for the Guardian has begun sending subpoenas to judges and public officials who received Cavallo’s endorsement over the past several years to determine the circumstances with regard to the exchange of funds.
Cavallo, ‘Missing in Action’, Nevertheless Reappointed To County Public Safety Board
Despite being virtually AWOL from public functions, Giulio Cavallo, embattled former Chairman of
the Westchester Independence Party, was recently re-appointed as a Commissioner to the Westchester
County Public Safety Board by County Executive Andy Spano, and approved by the County Board of
Legislators.
Observers are questioning what credentials Mr. Cavallo possesses to act as an overseer of the County
Police. His relationship with Larry Schwartz and the Pistol Permit Unit have been resurfacing. Some
are asking, “How safe is the public?”
Cavallo, whose financial filings with the State Election Commission have come into question with regard to the legitimacy of expenditures and the shu ing of funds between the Independence Party and the Independence Club, has been avoiding scrutiny and accountability, both publicly and privately. Having attempted to silence The Westchester Guardian with the filing of a $25 million lawsuit several months ago, he has resisted attempts
to depose him, and has been virtually unavailable ever since.
As the result of his failure to submit to deposition, legal counsel for the Guardian has begun sending subpoenas to judges and public officials who received Cavallo’s endorsement over the past several years to determine the circumstances with regard to the exchange of funds.
Janet Difiore.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo Never Had A Chance
Must those still suffering under Pirro-Justice, both in and out of prison, continue to suffer until Jeanine Pirro’s Federal Indictment is announced?
When Charles Campbell, a man about whom a former employer once said affectionately, “Charlie was crazy like that; he would pick a fight with anyone over anything;” decided to pull into the parking lot of the Venice Deli late that afternoon in early October 1996, to run across the street to a pizza shop, that was really a front for a drug operation, the die was cast for a double tragedy. The first tragedy would occur within minutes. Campbell would be dead, the result of three bullets having pierced his heart.
Those “three shots to center mass,” as called for in the New York City Police Department Training Manual, had been fired by New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, in response to Campbell’s beating of the officer’s unarmed father with a metal baseball bat, ironically using the service revolver of his grandfather, his father’s father, a Pleasantville Police Officer who had died in the line of duty more than fifty years earlier. The weapon, licensed to the elder DiGuglielmo, was kept under the deli counter for protection in the event of a robbery.
Campbell had insisted upon putting his latemodel Corvette directly in front of the deli, despite Officer DiGuglielmo’s middle-aged father’s request, because of a scarcity of spaces in front of the deli, that he park it in an open area of the lot while he did business across the street. The elder DiGuglielmo could not have imagined just how out of control Charles Campbell, an amateur boxer, and body builder, would become once he placed a “No Parking” sticker on the window of his Corvette, as he had been advised to do in such situations by the Dobbs Ferry Police.
Campbell, prompted by the pizza shop operator, came running across the street, fists flying, at the elder DiGuglielmo, a man with a serious heart condition. Not that it would likely have mattered; he was unaware that the older man’s son Richard, a police officer, and his son-in-law Bobby, a construction worker, were both inside the store, each having stopped by to lend a hand to the father, who was recovering from a recent hospitalization
for his heart. Richard ran out of the deli and, stepping between Campbell and his father, took several blows before he, his father and his brother-inlaw managed to wrestle the incredibly strong assailant to the ground.
Having subdued him and released him, the two younger men went back into the store to clean up, trusting that the incident was over and that Campbell would get in his car and drive off, leaving Richard’s father in the parking lot. As the elder man attempted to hand Campbell his cell phone that had been dropped in the scuffle, Campbell,
still enraged, went to the trunk of the Corvette and, removing a metal baseball bat, began swinging at Richard’s father. Looking back and seeing Campbell striking his father with the bat, and realizing the immediate danger of fatal injury his father faced, Officer DiGuglielmo reached for the gun kept beneath the counter and discharged his
sworn duty to save an innocent life.
No one could know, in that tragic moment, what is now known about DA Jeanine Pirro who, more than two years earlier, had let the confessed murderer of Louis Balancio, Nick Djonovic, escape from the country so that she could invent a more satisfactory, more Organized Crime-sounding perpetrator. No one could imagine that Pirro was about to play the “race card” and send a New York City Police Officer to prison for saving his father’s life from a bat wielding, enraged, body builder with an extensive criminal record.
No one could imagine she would succeed, given the fact that the killing was totally justifiable under two separate New York State statutes. First and foremost, DiGuglielmo was a police officer with a sworn duty to use deadly force to stop a perpetrator using deadly force against an unarmed innocent person. Secondly, even if he had been a civilian, he had the right under the Statute of Self-Defense, Defense of Others, to use deadly force against an assailant using deadly force against an innocent unarmed individual.
Perhaps that was why the jury that tried him, in the trial that never should have occurred, in fact, acquitted him of Intentional Murder, and acquitted him, his father, and his brother-in-law of Assault. But that didn’t stop DA Pirro, a district attorney who would ultimately conceal 376 pages and 52 boxes of exhibits, and numerous tape recordings, all exculpatory to Anthony DiSimone, all Brady material, in the Balancio murder case in order to achieve her self-promotional ends; from obtaining a murder conviction, even one for which there was no evidence, under the ‘turn-about’ theory of Depraved Indifference Murder.
After all, she had spent one whole year in a calculated effort to poison the jury pool, first claiming almost immediately that she had “thirteen witnesses who had heard racial epithets,” even though at trial she couldn’t produce one. To strengthen her lie, she brought in Al Sharpton, who, together with bused-in, paid demonstrators, picketed the DiGuglielmo’s deli every weekend for 52 weeks. Pirro wasn’t going to let a little thing like the truth
stand in her way when she could curry favor with minority voters right up to her fixed re-election bid in November 1997.
To be sure, she had help with her mindless, self-promotional agenda, not merely from corrupted high-level assistants like ADAs Patricia Murphy, Perry Perrone, Clem Patti, and Dobbs Ferry Police Chief George Longworth, but also from Judge Peter Leavitt, whose judicial incompetence was matched only by his obedience to Pirro’s dictates. Leavitt refused a Defense motion for change of venue despite 52 weeks of constant Prosecution media propaganda and jury pool poisoning. He insisted upon using the standard voir dire questionnaire despite the special circumstances attached to a defendant who was a police officer, not to mention a full year of publicity. He delivered a totally flawed instruction to the jury with regard to Justifiable Homicide under the Statute of Self-Defense, Defense of Others. He would not permit the introduction of any evidence regarding Charles Campbell’s long history of arrests, several of which were for violent crimes.
However, despite all of the restrictions and handicaps he imposed on the Defense, Leavitt permitted the Prosecution, once realizing they would not get an Intentional Murder conviction, to change direction 180 degrees,
very late, and argue for Depraved Indifference Murder. What was indifferent about three shots through the heart at close range?
Truth be told, it was never about race. That was a Pirro lie like so many of her lies. Mr. and Mrs. Balancio will both go to their graves insisting that their son Louis was killed by Anthony DiSimone despite a mountain of
evidence that it was Nick Djonovic. Jing Kelly has been kept from her son Tristram, now seven years old, for five years because of Pirro lies. Jeffrey Deskovic spent nearly seven more years in prison than necessary because
of repeated Pirro lies and cruelty.
Richard DiGuglielmo, former New York City Transit Police Officer, has lived in general population, in the State Prison System for more than 10 years, by choice. His fellow inmates, most of whom are people of color,
know who he is. They know he is no racist. For twelve years on the job as a police officer, he was, and still is, a ‘regular guy.’
If Charles Campbell had been White, and was assailing Richard’s father, having broken his hand and severely injured his leg with a metal baseball bat, and was swinging for his head, as originally described by three eyewitnesses, he would be just as dead, only Officer Richard DiGuglielmo would not be in prison for these last ten years. He would never have been charged with Murder in the first place.
The only racist in the equation was Jeanine Pirro who, not only played the “race card”, but years later, in her failed book, spoke of Campbell’s “swagger” and “entitlement,” as though she was present at the incident, as
she continued to defame Officer DiGuglielmo and his family for having saved his father’s life.
What other choice did Officer DiGuglielmo have under the circumstances? Should he have permitted Charles Campbell to “crush his father’s head like a watermelon” as one eyewitness originally stated he was trying to
do? Given the fury with which he had already broken his father’s hand and severely injured his leg with a swing the impact of which another eyewitness had said “could be heard a block away,” should Richard DiGuglielmo
have allowed Campbell to kill his father?
The simple truth is that Richard DiGuglielmo has already done ten years in state prison, and is facing another ten before he can even be considered for parole because he did the right thing! He did the thing he had a sworn duty to do, the only thing any right-minded individual would do under the same circumstances. That was why, immediately following the shooting, eyewitnesses declared, “It was self-defense.” Those eyewitnesses were right, too right for DA Pirro and her self-serving need to turn the incident, already tragic enough, into something it wasn’t.
For many days following the shooting, witnesses, whose original statements did not please the District Attorney, were hounded and harassed, at home and on the job, at all hours, by the Dobbs Ferry Police, who, ultimately
wore them down, and pushed them into signing statements more in keeping with what Jeanine Pirro wanted.
She had done the same to more than two dozen witnesses in the Balancio case for years, as we now know from the incredibly vast amount of Brady material her office kept hidden for 13 years. In the process, she succeeded
in convicting Anthony DiSimone, keeping him in prison for seven of those years for a crime she and her top ADAs knew, very well, had been committed, and confessed to, by Nick Djonovic.
Must those still suffering under Pirro-Justice, both in and out of prison, continue to suffer until Jeanine Pirro’s Federal Indictment is finally announced? How long must it take before State and Federal Courts in New
York open their eyes to the fact that what she did to Anthony DiSimone, she also did to Richard DiGuglielmo, Jing Kelly, Steven Nowicki, Marci Stein, Selwyn Days, and countless other victims of her self-promotional
prosecutorial misconduct? Surely, justice delayed has been justice denied; and that’s the second tragedy.
Richard Blassberg
Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo Never Had A Chance
Must those still suffering under Pirro-Justice, both in and out of prison, continue to suffer until Jeanine Pirro’s Federal Indictment is announced?
When Charles Campbell, a man about whom a former employer once said affectionately, “Charlie was crazy like that; he would pick a fight with anyone over anything;” decided to pull into the parking lot of the Venice Deli late that afternoon in early October 1996, to run across the street to a pizza shop, that was really a front for a drug operation, the die was cast for a double tragedy. The first tragedy would occur within minutes. Campbell would be dead, the result of three bullets having pierced his heart.
Those “three shots to center mass,” as called for in the New York City Police Department Training Manual, had been fired by New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo, in response to Campbell’s beating of the officer’s unarmed father with a metal baseball bat, ironically using the service revolver of his grandfather, his father’s father, a Pleasantville Police Officer who had died in the line of duty more than fifty years earlier. The weapon, licensed to the elder DiGuglielmo, was kept under the deli counter for protection in the event of a robbery.
Campbell had insisted upon putting his latemodel Corvette directly in front of the deli, despite Officer DiGuglielmo’s middle-aged father’s request, because of a scarcity of spaces in front of the deli, that he park it in an open area of the lot while he did business across the street. The elder DiGuglielmo could not have imagined just how out of control Charles Campbell, an amateur boxer, and body builder, would become once he placed a “No Parking” sticker on the window of his Corvette, as he had been advised to do in such situations by the Dobbs Ferry Police.
Campbell, prompted by the pizza shop operator, came running across the street, fists flying, at the elder DiGuglielmo, a man with a serious heart condition. Not that it would likely have mattered; he was unaware that the older man’s son Richard, a police officer, and his son-in-law Bobby, a construction worker, were both inside the store, each having stopped by to lend a hand to the father, who was recovering from a recent hospitalization
for his heart. Richard ran out of the deli and, stepping between Campbell and his father, took several blows before he, his father and his brother-inlaw managed to wrestle the incredibly strong assailant to the ground.
Having subdued him and released him, the two younger men went back into the store to clean up, trusting that the incident was over and that Campbell would get in his car and drive off, leaving Richard’s father in the parking lot. As the elder man attempted to hand Campbell his cell phone that had been dropped in the scuffle, Campbell,
still enraged, went to the trunk of the Corvette and, removing a metal baseball bat, began swinging at Richard’s father. Looking back and seeing Campbell striking his father with the bat, and realizing the immediate danger of fatal injury his father faced, Officer DiGuglielmo reached for the gun kept beneath the counter and discharged his
sworn duty to save an innocent life.
No one could know, in that tragic moment, what is now known about DA Jeanine Pirro who, more than two years earlier, had let the confessed murderer of Louis Balancio, Nick Djonovic, escape from the country so that she could invent a more satisfactory, more Organized Crime-sounding perpetrator. No one could imagine that Pirro was about to play the “race card” and send a New York City Police Officer to prison for saving his father’s life from a bat wielding, enraged, body builder with an extensive criminal record.
No one could imagine she would succeed, given the fact that the killing was totally justifiable under two separate New York State statutes. First and foremost, DiGuglielmo was a police officer with a sworn duty to use deadly force to stop a perpetrator using deadly force against an unarmed innocent person. Secondly, even if he had been a civilian, he had the right under the Statute of Self-Defense, Defense of Others, to use deadly force against an assailant using deadly force against an innocent unarmed individual.
Perhaps that was why the jury that tried him, in the trial that never should have occurred, in fact, acquitted him of Intentional Murder, and acquitted him, his father, and his brother-in-law of Assault. But that didn’t stop DA Pirro, a district attorney who would ultimately conceal 376 pages and 52 boxes of exhibits, and numerous tape recordings, all exculpatory to Anthony DiSimone, all Brady material, in the Balancio murder case in order to achieve her self-promotional ends; from obtaining a murder conviction, even one for which there was no evidence, under the ‘turn-about’ theory of Depraved Indifference Murder.
After all, she had spent one whole year in a calculated effort to poison the jury pool, first claiming almost immediately that she had “thirteen witnesses who had heard racial epithets,” even though at trial she couldn’t produce one. To strengthen her lie, she brought in Al Sharpton, who, together with bused-in, paid demonstrators, picketed the DiGuglielmo’s deli every weekend for 52 weeks. Pirro wasn’t going to let a little thing like the truth
stand in her way when she could curry favor with minority voters right up to her fixed re-election bid in November 1997.
To be sure, she had help with her mindless, self-promotional agenda, not merely from corrupted high-level assistants like ADAs Patricia Murphy, Perry Perrone, Clem Patti, and Dobbs Ferry Police Chief George Longworth, but also from Judge Peter Leavitt, whose judicial incompetence was matched only by his obedience to Pirro’s dictates. Leavitt refused a Defense motion for change of venue despite 52 weeks of constant Prosecution media propaganda and jury pool poisoning. He insisted upon using the standard voir dire questionnaire despite the special circumstances attached to a defendant who was a police officer, not to mention a full year of publicity. He delivered a totally flawed instruction to the jury with regard to Justifiable Homicide under the Statute of Self-Defense, Defense of Others. He would not permit the introduction of any evidence regarding Charles Campbell’s long history of arrests, several of which were for violent crimes.
However, despite all of the restrictions and handicaps he imposed on the Defense, Leavitt permitted the Prosecution, once realizing they would not get an Intentional Murder conviction, to change direction 180 degrees,
very late, and argue for Depraved Indifference Murder. What was indifferent about three shots through the heart at close range?
Truth be told, it was never about race. That was a Pirro lie like so many of her lies. Mr. and Mrs. Balancio will both go to their graves insisting that their son Louis was killed by Anthony DiSimone despite a mountain of
evidence that it was Nick Djonovic. Jing Kelly has been kept from her son Tristram, now seven years old, for five years because of Pirro lies. Jeffrey Deskovic spent nearly seven more years in prison than necessary because
of repeated Pirro lies and cruelty.
Richard DiGuglielmo, former New York City Transit Police Officer, has lived in general population, in the State Prison System for more than 10 years, by choice. His fellow inmates, most of whom are people of color,
know who he is. They know he is no racist. For twelve years on the job as a police officer, he was, and still is, a ‘regular guy.’
If Charles Campbell had been White, and was assailing Richard’s father, having broken his hand and severely injured his leg with a metal baseball bat, and was swinging for his head, as originally described by three eyewitnesses, he would be just as dead, only Officer Richard DiGuglielmo would not be in prison for these last ten years. He would never have been charged with Murder in the first place.
The only racist in the equation was Jeanine Pirro who, not only played the “race card”, but years later, in her failed book, spoke of Campbell’s “swagger” and “entitlement,” as though she was present at the incident, as
she continued to defame Officer DiGuglielmo and his family for having saved his father’s life.
What other choice did Officer DiGuglielmo have under the circumstances? Should he have permitted Charles Campbell to “crush his father’s head like a watermelon” as one eyewitness originally stated he was trying to
do? Given the fury with which he had already broken his father’s hand and severely injured his leg with a swing the impact of which another eyewitness had said “could be heard a block away,” should Richard DiGuglielmo
have allowed Campbell to kill his father?
The simple truth is that Richard DiGuglielmo has already done ten years in state prison, and is facing another ten before he can even be considered for parole because he did the right thing! He did the thing he had a sworn duty to do, the only thing any right-minded individual would do under the same circumstances. That was why, immediately following the shooting, eyewitnesses declared, “It was self-defense.” Those eyewitnesses were right, too right for DA Pirro and her self-serving need to turn the incident, already tragic enough, into something it wasn’t.
For many days following the shooting, witnesses, whose original statements did not please the District Attorney, were hounded and harassed, at home and on the job, at all hours, by the Dobbs Ferry Police, who, ultimately
wore them down, and pushed them into signing statements more in keeping with what Jeanine Pirro wanted.
She had done the same to more than two dozen witnesses in the Balancio case for years, as we now know from the incredibly vast amount of Brady material her office kept hidden for 13 years. In the process, she succeeded
in convicting Anthony DiSimone, keeping him in prison for seven of those years for a crime she and her top ADAs knew, very well, had been committed, and confessed to, by Nick Djonovic.
Must those still suffering under Pirro-Justice, both in and out of prison, continue to suffer until Jeanine Pirro’s Federal Indictment is finally announced? How long must it take before State and Federal Courts in New
York open their eyes to the fact that what she did to Anthony DiSimone, she also did to Richard DiGuglielmo, Jing Kelly, Steven Nowicki, Marci Stein, Selwyn Days, and countless other victims of her self-promotional
prosecutorial misconduct? Surely, justice delayed has been justice denied; and that’s the second tragedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
