Jeff Deskovic
Advocating For Prisoner Re-Entry
Issues And Prison Conditions
The Community Service Society (CSS) is an organization with a 160-year history representing the needs of low income New Yorkers. Their mission statement states the following, “We recognize the challenges facing residents who return to their families and communities after
periods of incarceration. Most striking is the concentration of this population in a handful of neighborhoods in the city. As the rate of incarcerations has increased and recidivism has undermined family stability, it has become clear that these individuals and their families fall within the universe of New Yorkers whose life chances are limited by their lack of economic opportunity and political voice. As a result of our research, we initiated a series of roundtables called the New York Reentry Roundtable, which resulted in a successful Reentry Advocacy
Day in May 2007. CSS recognizes the importance of playing a more direct role in challenging systematic barriers to civic participation facing formerly incarcerated persons. On June 7, 2006, Governor Pataki signed into law a monumental change affecting sentencing in New York, amending the Penal Law to add ‘promotion of successful and productive reentry and reintegration into society’ to the four traditional
goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, and incapacitation.
This change re-flected a broader movement by advocates, family and community members, and formerly incarcerated individuals who understand that removing unfair barriers faced by people with criminal records trying to meet their most basic needs is crucial to increasing public safety while decreasing public spending on jails and prisons. In a time of budget shortfalls, the following proposals address costly and ineffective sentencing policies, unnecessary criminal justice expenditures, and counter-productive obstacles faced by individuals who have had criminal justice involvement”.
It then goes on to list a variety of proposals, which I will discuss further on. Their primary focus is prisoner re-entry, with some prison condition issues included. Every month, a reentry roundtable meeting is held, in which both concerned citizens, advocates, and organizations,
discuss issues related to the above. Free discussion of ideas, viewpoints, and strategies is encouraged, as is networking.
I became aware of the New York Reentry Roundtable through reading an email flyer about it. I have always wanted to get involved in trying to bring about changes in prison conditions. But because my life has gotten so hectic I haven’t had a chance to do so.
There is a lot of work I have had to do on all fronts since being released after serving the 16 years for a crime I was innocent of, in terms of getting my life in order. Some of those issues include readjustment to being back in the free world, coping with what I went through, trying to re-establish family relations, catching up on technology, and continuing my formal education which was interrupted when Gov. Pataki
cut the funding for college education for prisoners. Additionally, I needed to prepare for the LSATS in an attempt to get into law school, and of course there is my continuing effort to try to develop some social life, while constantly dealing with the financial pressures that many of us face even without having been incarcerated.
I have spent a lot of time working against wrongful convictions and the death penalty, to date having made over 40 presentations and written over 40 articles on related subjects, not to mention numerous television, radio, and print media interviews by means of raising public awareness. Additionally, I have engaged in lobbying activity with numerous State Senators and Assembly persons in an effort to bring about legislation to help prevent wrongful convictions.
The fact I have not had more time to work on prison reform troubles me, because I cannot forget the horrendous conditions that I endured in prison, nor the people that I left behind. People are people, and whether guilty or innocent, they should not be mistreated. I have never believed that people who are guilty of crimes should not be punished, but rather that society has elected to punish by means of depriving people of freedom, not the mistreatment, abuse, lack of Constitutional rights, human rights, and basic human dignity that goes on daily in prison.
Since I am now free and am able to speak about things that I witnessed, and in many cases experienced, and now have a public voice and some credibility because of what happened to me, I feel a moral obligation to try to bring about changes and to eliminate the injustices that I witnessed, even if it is nothing more than by simply exposing things.
When I learned that the Community Service Society deals with some prison issues, I reasoned that I could be one of the voices. I thought that the perspective of someone who saw, first-hand, life in prison would be valuable to lawmakers.
I, too, have experienced the difficulty of reintegrating into society. It is tough enough for me as an exoneree. However, I know that it would be even harder if I had a criminal record to overcome, as do those who are on parole. Nevertheless, many of the difficulties parolees face are
the same as I face. Thus, being involved in advocacy relative to prisoner re-entry issues is a natural extension of the work that I do. In addition to helping the group with the issues at hand, I was looking forward to networking with others who would be willing to float the idea to colleges, universities, high schools, and other community organizations that might permit me to make presentations about wrongful convictions and the death penalty.
On May 20, 2008, I traveled to Albany with members of the Society. Taking public transportation was not only more economical than driving to Albany myself, but provided an opportunity to become acquainted with several members of the organization as well as many other groups.
The groups included: Rights for Imprisoned People With Psychiatric Disabilities, represented by Carlos Sabater, Bronx Defenders, represented by Kate Rubin; Covenant House, represented by Nancy Downing; Center for Employment Opportunities, represented by Mara
Nelson; e Fortune Society, represented by Glenn Martin; Women’s Prison Association, represented by Brenda Pearson; Angus Community, represented by Dianna Diaz; Civic Association, represented by Robert Kinnery; MFY Legal Services, represented by Bernadette Jentsch; Sociology Department at New School for Social Research, represented by Westerly Donahue; Brooklyn Public Library, represented by Nicholas Higgins; Community Access, represented by Judith Gittens; Fifth Avenue Committee, represented by Julia Duvall; Riverside Church Empire Prison, Empire State Pride, represented by Gary Paul Gilbert; Interfaith Coalition of Advocates for Reentry and Employment, represented by Susan Manereck; Prisons in Action Network, represented by Judith Brink; Citizens United for Rehabilitation
of Errants, represented by Amy S. James Oliveras; Correctional Association, Drop the Rock: represented by Caitlin Dunklee. Representing Community Service Society and coordinating Advocacy Day was Gabriel Torres Rivera, himself a former prisoner who is making great contributions to society through the program.
We were given breakfast, and then we were greeted with a short presentation by Assembyman Jeffrion Aubry, which was designed to set the tone for the day. He expressed how important the work was that we were here to do, and that we should not get upset if some lawmakers were not amenable to what we wanted them to do, but instead should remain dignified.
The Issues
Specific issues and proposals were put together. These issues and proposals were what we went to Albany to advocate for. The issues were a combination of prisoner re-entry matters, prison conditions, and incarceration itself. I cannot list all of the issues that we advocated for, due to space constraints. Instead, I will simply go over some of the proposals whose conditions give rise to the need for legislative action in that they are most shocking, and the public is most unlikely to be aware of.
Issues Related To Successful Prisoner Reintegration
When a prisoner returns to prison, everybody loses. There is often another victim and victim’s family who are affected; Society has to bear the burden of the $40,000 a year it takes to incarcerate someone; the offender themselves along with their family. There is the matter of
the loss of tax dollars that the re-offender would otherwise have to pay if they remained free and employed. It therefore makes sense to make the way as easy as possible for the former prisoner to successfully reintegrate. The following issues were advocated for:
• Restoration of Rights of individuals with prior criminal convictions through the passage of the Restoration of Rights Act, which amends Corrections Law 701 and 703 to replace the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities and Certificate of Good Conduct with a Certificate of Restoration with all of the same effects and functions of the existing certificates: The Certificate of Restoration overcomes automatic bars
to voting, employment, licensing, public housing, and any other civil disabilities imposed as a result of a criminal conviction.
It would also amend New York State Human Rights Law (Subdivision 16 of section 296 of the Executive Law) to prohibit a prospective employer from making any inquiry about an applicant’s criminal record until a conditional offer of employment has been made contingent upon a satisfactory criminal background check. The offer could then be withdrawn only if, consistent with Correctional Law, the applicant’s
criminal conviction record bears direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position or hiring the individual poses and unreasonable risk to person’s or property.
• We also advocated for amending existing laws prohibiting individuals with criminal records from working in restaurants, arenas, and convention centers, and to restore discretion in hiring decisions to individual employers.
• We advocated for supporting the Re- Entry Tax Credit (Senate Bill 2956) which would establish a re-entry employment incentive tax credit, providing a $10,000 tax credit to employers who hire individuals released from New York correctional facilities in full time jobs at 140% of the state minimum wage
• We advocated for passage of Assembly bill 5555, which would extend the right to register and vote in any election to individuals who have been released from prison on parole.
• We advocated for legislation prohibiting colleges and universities from banning the applications of formerly incarcerated persons solely based on the criminal record, or to have blanket policies of refusing to consider applications from students with criminal records.
• We advocated for an amendment to the Family Court Act and Domestic Relations Law in relation to setting or modifying child support obligations of incarcerated non-custodial parents so that incarceration is no longer defined as “willful unemployment.”
There must, at some point, come a time at which it is acknowledged by all that an offender has paid their debt to society and that they should be able to fully put it behind them. That means being allowed to work and obtain housing. It is essential to put protections in place, because
there are some who will not do the right thing morally and thus require a law, with teeth to enforce it.
Fully being able to participate in society necessarily means voting. To strip a person of their ability to get housing, work, and to vote is in many ways to render them powerless. To permanently disenfranchise people, simply because of one mistake, seems an excessive punishment, particularly when someone has remained crime free for a long time.
Issues Related To Prison Conditions
Most prisoners will eventually return to society. If they are mistreated when they are incarcerated, rehabilitation is less likely, and it is probable that they will return to society full of rage, which makes their committing a crime more likely. In addition, mistreating people and not giving them basic human dignity while they are in prison makes society in many ways no better than the offender. Therefore, our
agenda involved improving prison conditions.
The following issues were therefore advocated for:
• Assembly Bill 3787, which would require the New York State Department of Health to oversee and monitor HIV and Hepatitis C care in prison. As I witnessed myself personally while in prison, the medical care allotted is substandard, and therefore oversight is needed.
• Restoration of eligibility of prisoners for financial aid for college education
• Study and develop a plan for improving education in state prison
Issues Related To Incarceration
Incarcerating prisoners cost $40,000 a year. Therefore, when it is not necessary, or the length of a sentence is not necessary, it should be avoided. The issues we advocated for in this arena included: Assembly bill 04342A, which includes:
• Restoration of judicial discretion in all drug cases
• Expansion of community based drug treatment and other alternative to incarceration programs
• Reduction in lengths of sentences for all drug cases;
• Retroactive sentencing relief for all prisoners currently incarcerated under the Rockefeller era Drug Laws
It is absurd when those who are imprisoned for drug offenses-whether as users or sellers, while not excusable, should not result in sentences greater than that given to people who commit violent crime. Drug use is a disease which requires treatment in drug rehabs, not imprisonment. The Rockefeller Drug Law, which I wrote about in prior articles, is particularly draconian.
• We also advocated for S.3164, which would extend merit time release eligibility to domestic violence survivors incarcerated for committing violent crimes. Being a victim of domestic abuse certainly should be a mitigating circumstance. The abuse often has the effect of turning law abiding spouses into traumatized, desperate women who perceive violence to be their only way out. There should be a contrast of them with those who commit murder under different circumstance, and that difference should be reflected in the law.
The Way Forward
I found becoming involved in these issues very rewarding. I want to see people successfully reintegrate into society, and lead productive, crime-free lives. Re-entering society after a long period of incarceration is not easy, particularly with the obstacles that being on parole and having a criminal record present.
If we, as a society, place unreasonable barriers to reintegration and the ability to get meaningful employment, we are setting the stage for ex-offenders to give up trying to lead a law-abiding life and instead resorting back to crime. That often results in more victims, and the financial
cost to incarcerate, and all of the human costs associated thereto.
What legitimate interest does society have in preventing employment or placing barriers to obtaining housing? Therefore, on a legislative level, the laws should be changed. On an individual level, I encourage business owners, employers, and managers to give deserving ex-inmates
who have demonstrated by education and good conduct that they have turned their lives around, a chance by offering them meaningful jobs at a sustainable wage.
In that sense, we all have a moral obligation. If that approach is rejected, and businesses have a blanket policy of not hiring ex-prisoners, then they have a small hand, morally, when an ex-offender succumbs to temptation and returns to crime. Alternatives to incarceration, whenever
possible, should be sought, and when incarceration is deemed necessary, it should be the minimal amount needed to promote justice. Giving drug offenders Draconian sentencing, such as in the Rockefeller Drug Law, only serves to promote rage, thus destroying lives that could otherwise be crime-free and productive, and destroys families. Similarly, allowing abuse in prison and providing substandard medical care, both of which I witnessed on a regular basis, only serves to create resentment and rage, while morally lowering society to beneath the level of the very lawbreakers they seek to punish, while at the same time holding out a very poor role model.
I have long advocated for a restoration of college in prison, and I renew that call, because the recidivism rate is much lower for those who are allowed such education. It sets the stage for a future that includes hope, and being able to get jobs other than the dead-end variety. Vocational programs should be upgraded to include the current methods of doing things in various trades, taught by instructors who care. Similarly,
when released, former prisoners should not be denied college education.
The next roundtable discussion is scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, 2008, from 1-3pm. The address is 105 East 22nd Street, and Park Avenue. The guest speaker is, Lynn Goodman, Statewide Director of Reentry Services. The roundtable discussions are open to anyone who wants to attend. I personally encourage regular, everyday citizens, to attend, and get involved to the extent that you are comfortable.
You never know, one day it could be a family member, who, in a moment of bad judgment, breaks the law, ends up in prison, and then must face the reintegration issues. Wouldn’t you want the transition from prison to successful re-entry to be as easy as possible?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
What Does the County
Board of Legislators Do?
As part of our series on how local corporations, organizations, and government agencies are addressing the tightening economic and ecological
problems facing our community, The Guardian asked the Westchester Board of Legislators what steps they were taking. We wanted to know if the Board setting a good example for our County and local residents to follow?
The Guardian attended a recent meeting of the Board on May 27, and spoke with several members about the issues they are addressing on behalf of local residents.
The agenda for the May 27th meeting listed eighty items, from commission reports to proposed legislation to County Board and Commission appointments. However, over half of the Board’s agenda for this meeting consisted of appointments: six reappointments to the County’s Airport Advisory Board, six reappointments to the County’s Hispanic Advisory Board, six reappointments and one new appointment to the County’s Council for Seniors, two reappointments each to the Human Rights Commission, the Domestic Violence Council, as well as the Electrical Licensing Board, three reappointments to the Fire Advisory Board, five reappointments to the Youth Board, and one reappointment each to the Board Of Plumbing Examiners, the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the Professional Prequalification Board, the Traffic Safety Board, the Transportation Board, the African American Advisory Board, and the Board of Ethics. Only two of the appointments on the Board’s agenda were not for other boards and commissions – appointing the Chief Information Officer for Westchester County and reappointing the Commissioner for the Department of Social Services.
Almost all of the appointments, both to County jobs and to the boards and commissions, were for individuals proposed by the County Executive’s Office. Only one appointment, for two members to the Fish and Wildlife Board, was actually initiated by a member of the Board Of Legislators. Therefore, half of the issues before the County Board at this meeting were to approve selections submitted by the County Executive’s Office.
Of the forty-five appointments on the Board’s agenda, only one of those appointments was briefly discussed at the meeting in our presence. Many of the other appointments had been on the Board’s agenda for months – some dating as far back as January of this year. Not only was half of the Board’s official agenda devoted to appointments to other boards, but they are appointments that had already been selected by the County Executive’s Of-fice, and had languished, in some cases, for months.
Political scientists argue that this process represents the checks and balances of government. However, Westchester County now has the distinction of having the highest property taxes in the nation. Therefore, local taxpayers could reasonably argue that the existence of all of these commissions, boards, and councils, and the duplicate levels of approvals and multiple meetings needed to adopt the plethora of these appointments, cost far more than what county residents can afford.
The other thirty-five items on the agenda were a mixed bag of issues. Of the total, fifteen merely addressed correspondence from other sources. One board member, George Oros, submitted correspondence “requesting the Board use the New York State Penal Law with regard to the issuance of bad checks as a guide to establish a Westchester County Law”.
Despite the fact that the New York State laws governing this issue would render any county law moot and superfluous, this item has been on the Board’s official agenda since March. Some of the correspondence before the Board came from constituents and local groups – such
as the North White Plains Fire Company, with regard to tax credits for local volunteer firefighters. And some correspondence came
from the Board itself – such as the request from the Committee on Legislation for prompt action on a proposed countywide property revaluation.
Ironically, that item has been on the Board’s agenda since May 5th. Given that the Board is simultaneously considering the establishment of
a Westchester County Property Valuation Commission, and other boards and commissions are awaiting appointments for several
months, the request for “prompt” action here may need to be defined.
However, the remainder of the issues before the Board did address serious concerns of County residents. In response to the floods in Mamaroneck last year, the Board was seeking to establish a Drainage and Flood Management District and Agency. The Board has addressed
other flooding and storm-water issues before. In 2006 it adopted an intermunicipal agreement with New York City for a watershed management plan for the Bronx River.
The Board is also currently proposing developing a “silver alert” system for missing senior citizens, similar to the Amber alerts for missing children. As The Guardian noted in December, 2007, the number of individuals with memory-related problems in our area is dramatically increasing as our population ages.
On March 17, the Board’s Committee on Environment and Energy considered a proposal by the County Executive to “establish a program to allow reimbursement for pumpout and inspection of septic systems”. That proposal was discussed at the May 27th meeting. The Board
is proposing setting aside $1,099,000 per year for the next four years for reimbursements to local owners of specific properties for routine
septage removal and inspection services. Legislator Judith Myers noted that “residents who have septics can no longer say they are getting nothing from their sewer taxes.” The Environment and Energy Committee noted that the program will also address properties with failed septic systems.
Thomas Abinanti, the chair of the Environment and Energy Committee, provided The Guardian with a list of the issues the committee is currently addressing. These issues include:
• Motor Vehicle Idling Law – addresses both environmental and energy issues by limiting idling time of motor vehicles.
• Lawn Fertilizer Application and Sale – to establish regulations for lawn fertilizer application and sale.
• Green Building Requirements – require certain county public works projects to conform to green building requirements.
• Plastic Bags Recycling Program – proposed law to establish an at-store recycling program for plastic bags.
However, like the Board of Legislator’s Agenda, many of the items referred by the Environment and Energy Committee, on their recent report, were correspondence and newspaper articles. Under the caption of “Flooding”, the committee forwarded an article entitled “
Counties Worry About Funding For Stormwater Cleanup.” Yet the Committee noted in its report for the 2006 – 2007 term that it had already “approved legislation to accept New York State grant monies” for its stormwater programs, indicating no such funding difficulties. Of the forty items on the Committee’s active list for May, 2008, over 20 items were either correspondence, newspaper articles, or copies of reports or resolutions from local municipalities or agencies.
Given the ongoing scrutiny of the financial affairs of the County Board of Legislators, it is reasonable for local residents to ask if he Board
should be spending time forwarding correspondence and reapproving appointments selected by the County Executive or proposing legislation that is better addressed, or even already addressed, at the state level.
Does Westchester County really need to spend time and money to enact a local law to “prohibit the sale of shark n soup and other shark-derived products” as proposed by Mr. Abinanti, when issues concerning these products are handled at the Federal level by the Food and Drug Administration?
Do we need additional laws at the county level “prohibiting, and establishing fines for, hosting, allowing, entertaining, organizing, permitting,
or suffering a party, gathering or event where minors are present and alcoholic beverages are being consumed by a minor” as proposed by both James Maisano and Vito Pinto when New York State already has laws governing alcohol and minors?
New York State has 62 counties – do we really want 62 different laws on each and every legal issue? If so, then what do we need Albany for? Should Westchester County be making any laws at all? In the kick-off of this series of articles, The Guardian asked “What Sacrifices Our Leaders Should Be Making”, reasoning that local residents should not be making sacrifices to deal with the energy, environmental, and economic issues facing our communities, if the leaders in our midst were not doing likewise. Most local residents make extreme sacrifices to pay the extraordinarily high level of local property taxes; taxes that are used to pay the salaries of county employees, including the Board of Legislators and their staff.
Given the high level of our local property taxes, one of the issues the Board should be addressing is its own existence. Does Westchester County really need 17 legislators? Can that number be cut in at least half and the support staff and office space reduced accordingly? Before any issues are addressed by the Board, shouldn’t they be reviewed to determine if they are already covered by other state and federal laws?
Even the issue of the “silver alert” system could be handled by one of the County’s Albany representatives so that it could be established statewide using the same system already in place for the Amber alerts? Recent events have also revealed that a member of the Board’s support staff charged considerable personal expenses to the county and its taxpayers. This development demonstrates a disturbing lack of internal controls by both the Board and the County government.
Where were the County auditors? Why did no one perform this basic audit of the Board and its staff? Every major business and organization
reviews the expense reports of their personnel in detail before they are reimbursed in accordance with Federal laws, notably Sarbanes-Oxley.
In addition, businesses and organizations are also required to conduct regular audits of their finances, including their expense reimbursements to check for fraud, collusion, and plain stupidity. Yet the Board of Legislator’s employee’s expense reports were allegedly submitted without proper documentation. How can an expense report for a County employee be approved without receipts and supporting documentation justifying the expenses as necessary and reasonable?
And if those expenses are approved within one branch of our County government, why isn’t another branch, like the financial department within the County Executive’s Office, reviewing and auditing those reimbursements? Where are the “Checks and Balances” (what auditors refer to as “internal controls”)? If the Board of Legislators has to approve the appointments of the County Executive as a double-check of
powers, then why isn’t the County Executive double-checking the Board’s spending of our tax dollars?
The Guardian is currently attempting to uncover exactly how the taxdollars of local residents are accounted for at all levels of our county government. On May 14th, we made a Freedom of Information (FOIL) request to the County’s Budget Office for copies of all expense reports and budgets for all department heads. Despite New York State laws that state that all such requests must be acknowledged within
5 business days, The Guardian has yet to receive such an acknowledgement of our request from the County.
Why? What else is the County covering-up? What else don’t they want the taxpayers to see? How many other county employees are charging personal expenses to the taxpayers, or using county equipment and resources for their personal needs? And, who is looking out for the hard-earned tax dollars of local residents? If non-business expenses can get approved and reimbursed by the County, it raises the question of what else is going on. Are there “no-show employees” on the books? Do county employees have conflicts-of-interest with organizations/
individuals they are doing official business with? Are county employees receiving or awarding kickbacks, gifts, or other benefits as a result of their of-ficial positions?
The Guardian is therefore expanding the scope of this series of articles to go beyond the environmental, energy, and economic issues we initially raised to include these questions. We will now expand our FOIL request to Westchester County government to include requests for copies of all recent audit reports.
The focus of this series will be the same: why should local residents have to struggle with their finances, rising gas prices and lowering property values, local environmental and flooding concerns, and conserving energy, if none of our leaders (in business, government) are doing likewise? Why should local residents have to struggle just to support “business as usual” from our leaders?
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
What Does the County
Board of Legislators Do?
As part of our series on how local corporations, organizations, and government agencies are addressing the tightening economic and ecological
problems facing our community, The Guardian asked the Westchester Board of Legislators what steps they were taking. We wanted to know if the Board setting a good example for our County and local residents to follow?
The Guardian attended a recent meeting of the Board on May 27, and spoke with several members about the issues they are addressing on behalf of local residents.
The agenda for the May 27th meeting listed eighty items, from commission reports to proposed legislation to County Board and Commission appointments. However, over half of the Board’s agenda for this meeting consisted of appointments: six reappointments to the County’s Airport Advisory Board, six reappointments to the County’s Hispanic Advisory Board, six reappointments and one new appointment to the County’s Council for Seniors, two reappointments each to the Human Rights Commission, the Domestic Violence Council, as well as the Electrical Licensing Board, three reappointments to the Fire Advisory Board, five reappointments to the Youth Board, and one reappointment each to the Board Of Plumbing Examiners, the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the Professional Prequalification Board, the Traffic Safety Board, the Transportation Board, the African American Advisory Board, and the Board of Ethics. Only two of the appointments on the Board’s agenda were not for other boards and commissions – appointing the Chief Information Officer for Westchester County and reappointing the Commissioner for the Department of Social Services.
Almost all of the appointments, both to County jobs and to the boards and commissions, were for individuals proposed by the County Executive’s Office. Only one appointment, for two members to the Fish and Wildlife Board, was actually initiated by a member of the Board Of Legislators. Therefore, half of the issues before the County Board at this meeting were to approve selections submitted by the County Executive’s Office.
Of the forty-five appointments on the Board’s agenda, only one of those appointments was briefly discussed at the meeting in our presence. Many of the other appointments had been on the Board’s agenda for months – some dating as far back as January of this year. Not only was half of the Board’s official agenda devoted to appointments to other boards, but they are appointments that had already been selected by the County Executive’s Of-fice, and had languished, in some cases, for months.
Political scientists argue that this process represents the checks and balances of government. However, Westchester County now has the distinction of having the highest property taxes in the nation. Therefore, local taxpayers could reasonably argue that the existence of all of these commissions, boards, and councils, and the duplicate levels of approvals and multiple meetings needed to adopt the plethora of these appointments, cost far more than what county residents can afford.
The other thirty-five items on the agenda were a mixed bag of issues. Of the total, fifteen merely addressed correspondence from other sources. One board member, George Oros, submitted correspondence “requesting the Board use the New York State Penal Law with regard to the issuance of bad checks as a guide to establish a Westchester County Law”.
Despite the fact that the New York State laws governing this issue would render any county law moot and superfluous, this item has been on the Board’s official agenda since March. Some of the correspondence before the Board came from constituents and local groups – such
as the North White Plains Fire Company, with regard to tax credits for local volunteer firefighters. And some correspondence came
from the Board itself – such as the request from the Committee on Legislation for prompt action on a proposed countywide property revaluation.
Ironically, that item has been on the Board’s agenda since May 5th. Given that the Board is simultaneously considering the establishment of
a Westchester County Property Valuation Commission, and other boards and commissions are awaiting appointments for several
months, the request for “prompt” action here may need to be defined.
However, the remainder of the issues before the Board did address serious concerns of County residents. In response to the floods in Mamaroneck last year, the Board was seeking to establish a Drainage and Flood Management District and Agency. The Board has addressed
other flooding and storm-water issues before. In 2006 it adopted an intermunicipal agreement with New York City for a watershed management plan for the Bronx River.
The Board is also currently proposing developing a “silver alert” system for missing senior citizens, similar to the Amber alerts for missing children. As The Guardian noted in December, 2007, the number of individuals with memory-related problems in our area is dramatically increasing as our population ages.
On March 17, the Board’s Committee on Environment and Energy considered a proposal by the County Executive to “establish a program to allow reimbursement for pumpout and inspection of septic systems”. That proposal was discussed at the May 27th meeting. The Board
is proposing setting aside $1,099,000 per year for the next four years for reimbursements to local owners of specific properties for routine
septage removal and inspection services. Legislator Judith Myers noted that “residents who have septics can no longer say they are getting nothing from their sewer taxes.” The Environment and Energy Committee noted that the program will also address properties with failed septic systems.
Thomas Abinanti, the chair of the Environment and Energy Committee, provided The Guardian with a list of the issues the committee is currently addressing. These issues include:
• Motor Vehicle Idling Law – addresses both environmental and energy issues by limiting idling time of motor vehicles.
• Lawn Fertilizer Application and Sale – to establish regulations for lawn fertilizer application and sale.
• Green Building Requirements – require certain county public works projects to conform to green building requirements.
• Plastic Bags Recycling Program – proposed law to establish an at-store recycling program for plastic bags.
However, like the Board of Legislator’s Agenda, many of the items referred by the Environment and Energy Committee, on their recent report, were correspondence and newspaper articles. Under the caption of “Flooding”, the committee forwarded an article entitled “
Counties Worry About Funding For Stormwater Cleanup.” Yet the Committee noted in its report for the 2006 – 2007 term that it had already “approved legislation to accept New York State grant monies” for its stormwater programs, indicating no such funding difficulties. Of the forty items on the Committee’s active list for May, 2008, over 20 items were either correspondence, newspaper articles, or copies of reports or resolutions from local municipalities or agencies.
Given the ongoing scrutiny of the financial affairs of the County Board of Legislators, it is reasonable for local residents to ask if he Board
should be spending time forwarding correspondence and reapproving appointments selected by the County Executive or proposing legislation that is better addressed, or even already addressed, at the state level.
Does Westchester County really need to spend time and money to enact a local law to “prohibit the sale of shark n soup and other shark-derived products” as proposed by Mr. Abinanti, when issues concerning these products are handled at the Federal level by the Food and Drug Administration?
Do we need additional laws at the county level “prohibiting, and establishing fines for, hosting, allowing, entertaining, organizing, permitting,
or suffering a party, gathering or event where minors are present and alcoholic beverages are being consumed by a minor” as proposed by both James Maisano and Vito Pinto when New York State already has laws governing alcohol and minors?
New York State has 62 counties – do we really want 62 different laws on each and every legal issue? If so, then what do we need Albany for? Should Westchester County be making any laws at all? In the kick-off of this series of articles, The Guardian asked “What Sacrifices Our Leaders Should Be Making”, reasoning that local residents should not be making sacrifices to deal with the energy, environmental, and economic issues facing our communities, if the leaders in our midst were not doing likewise. Most local residents make extreme sacrifices to pay the extraordinarily high level of local property taxes; taxes that are used to pay the salaries of county employees, including the Board of Legislators and their staff.
Given the high level of our local property taxes, one of the issues the Board should be addressing is its own existence. Does Westchester County really need 17 legislators? Can that number be cut in at least half and the support staff and office space reduced accordingly? Before any issues are addressed by the Board, shouldn’t they be reviewed to determine if they are already covered by other state and federal laws?
Even the issue of the “silver alert” system could be handled by one of the County’s Albany representatives so that it could be established statewide using the same system already in place for the Amber alerts? Recent events have also revealed that a member of the Board’s support staff charged considerable personal expenses to the county and its taxpayers. This development demonstrates a disturbing lack of internal controls by both the Board and the County government.
Where were the County auditors? Why did no one perform this basic audit of the Board and its staff? Every major business and organization
reviews the expense reports of their personnel in detail before they are reimbursed in accordance with Federal laws, notably Sarbanes-Oxley.
In addition, businesses and organizations are also required to conduct regular audits of their finances, including their expense reimbursements to check for fraud, collusion, and plain stupidity. Yet the Board of Legislator’s employee’s expense reports were allegedly submitted without proper documentation. How can an expense report for a County employee be approved without receipts and supporting documentation justifying the expenses as necessary and reasonable?
And if those expenses are approved within one branch of our County government, why isn’t another branch, like the financial department within the County Executive’s Office, reviewing and auditing those reimbursements? Where are the “Checks and Balances” (what auditors refer to as “internal controls”)? If the Board of Legislators has to approve the appointments of the County Executive as a double-check of
powers, then why isn’t the County Executive double-checking the Board’s spending of our tax dollars?
The Guardian is currently attempting to uncover exactly how the taxdollars of local residents are accounted for at all levels of our county government. On May 14th, we made a Freedom of Information (FOIL) request to the County’s Budget Office for copies of all expense reports and budgets for all department heads. Despite New York State laws that state that all such requests must be acknowledged within
5 business days, The Guardian has yet to receive such an acknowledgement of our request from the County.
Why? What else is the County covering-up? What else don’t they want the taxpayers to see? How many other county employees are charging personal expenses to the taxpayers, or using county equipment and resources for their personal needs? And, who is looking out for the hard-earned tax dollars of local residents? If non-business expenses can get approved and reimbursed by the County, it raises the question of what else is going on. Are there “no-show employees” on the books? Do county employees have conflicts-of-interest with organizations/
individuals they are doing official business with? Are county employees receiving or awarding kickbacks, gifts, or other benefits as a result of their of-ficial positions?
The Guardian is therefore expanding the scope of this series of articles to go beyond the environmental, energy, and economic issues we initially raised to include these questions. We will now expand our FOIL request to Westchester County government to include requests for copies of all recent audit reports.
The focus of this series will be the same: why should local residents have to struggle with their finances, rising gas prices and lowering property values, local environmental and flooding concerns, and conserving energy, if none of our leaders (in business, government) are doing likewise? Why should local residents have to struggle just to support “business as usual” from our leaders?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Effort To Eliminate County
Last Monday night, June 2, about 85 Westchester taxpayers showed up at Greenburgh Town Hall to discuss specific ways in which the movement to abolish County Government, and with it probably half of a nearly $2 billion budget, might move forward, as well as how they might assist. Approximately 40 individuals signed up to serve on one, or more, of the six committees proposed and approved by a majority of those present.
Those committees include:
1. A Bi-Partisan Budget Committee, to study the County Budget, specifically searching for duplication of services otherwise provided by municipal and/or state government;
2. A Research Committee, to discover and evaluate what it was that Connecticut residents did to eliminate County government some 40 years ago;
3. A Legal Committee, consisting mainly of lawyers who will advise the group as to what legislative action would be needed to abolish Westchester County government;
4. A Marketing Committee, to carry the group’s message out to the community;
5. A Website Committee, to establish an Internet website;
6. A Funding Committee, to engage in fundraising and other activities to insure the solvency of the operation.
Reached the following day, Paul Feiner indicated that he was very pleased with the turnout, but especially pleased with the number of individuals who enthusiastically volunteered to put their professional experience and energy to work on the various committees.
Asked about a published report that County Executive Andy Spano was amused by news of the group’s second meeting, Feiner responded, “The County Executive’s Office may not be taking this movement very seriously right now, but momentum is building; people are not very happy with the abuses of taxpayer dollars and the public trust. In time, County politicians will be taking us very seriously.”
Feiner was alluding to disclosures of abusive spending by Gary Kriss, a $149,000-per-year “aide” to the County Legislature’s Chair, Bill
Ryan. He said, “We will be moving forward our Committees, creating a website, distributing lawn signs, and holding fundraising events
over the next few months.”
Contacted Wednesday, Joan Gronowski summarized her thoughts on the group’s second gathering with, “We had a very good night, particularly the formation of committees staffed with enthusiastic people.” Asked what she considered the three highest priority tasks, Gronowski said, “We must research and evaluate Connecticut’s experience 40 years ago. There were similarities, and some differences.” She continued, “Fundraising is very important, as well as setting up a website and getting our message out.”
Of those who attended last Monday night, many had been at the first gathering, at the Will Library in Yonkers, and their focus was clearly on getting the process rolling. Upcoming meetings will involve committees engaged in the nuts and bolts of their assignments.
Effort To Eliminate County
Last Monday night, June 2, about 85 Westchester taxpayers showed up at Greenburgh Town Hall to discuss specific ways in which the movement to abolish County Government, and with it probably half of a nearly $2 billion budget, might move forward, as well as how they might assist. Approximately 40 individuals signed up to serve on one, or more, of the six committees proposed and approved by a majority of those present.
Those committees include:
1. A Bi-Partisan Budget Committee, to study the County Budget, specifically searching for duplication of services otherwise provided by municipal and/or state government;
2. A Research Committee, to discover and evaluate what it was that Connecticut residents did to eliminate County government some 40 years ago;
3. A Legal Committee, consisting mainly of lawyers who will advise the group as to what legislative action would be needed to abolish Westchester County government;
4. A Marketing Committee, to carry the group’s message out to the community;
5. A Website Committee, to establish an Internet website;
6. A Funding Committee, to engage in fundraising and other activities to insure the solvency of the operation.
Reached the following day, Paul Feiner indicated that he was very pleased with the turnout, but especially pleased with the number of individuals who enthusiastically volunteered to put their professional experience and energy to work on the various committees.
Asked about a published report that County Executive Andy Spano was amused by news of the group’s second meeting, Feiner responded, “The County Executive’s Office may not be taking this movement very seriously right now, but momentum is building; people are not very happy with the abuses of taxpayer dollars and the public trust. In time, County politicians will be taking us very seriously.”
Feiner was alluding to disclosures of abusive spending by Gary Kriss, a $149,000-per-year “aide” to the County Legislature’s Chair, Bill
Ryan. He said, “We will be moving forward our Committees, creating a website, distributing lawn signs, and holding fundraising events
over the next few months.”
Contacted Wednesday, Joan Gronowski summarized her thoughts on the group’s second gathering with, “We had a very good night, particularly the formation of committees staffed with enthusiastic people.” Asked what she considered the three highest priority tasks, Gronowski said, “We must research and evaluate Connecticut’s experience 40 years ago. There were similarities, and some differences.” She continued, “Fundraising is very important, as well as setting up a website and getting our message out.”
Of those who attended last Monday night, many had been at the first gathering, at the Will Library in Yonkers, and their focus was clearly on getting the process rolling. Upcoming meetings will involve committees engaged in the nuts and bolts of their assignments.
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore’s Incestuousness With Yonkers
Police Sacrifices Victims Of Police Brutality
Tony Castro Predicts, “It Will Come Back To Haunt Law Enforcement”
Nearly two years ago, in our September 21, 2006 issue, The Guardian blew the lid off years of Yonkers Police brutality, revealing an incident in 2005 in a front-page story entitled Mother, 72, Daughter, 49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. That story, which detailed the serious civil rights violations the Yonkers Police Department committed when they roughed up a middle-aged woman and her elderly mother, up behind Saunders High School, opened the floodgate to reports by residents, all over the City, and caused the sudden resignation and retirement of Police Commissioner Robert Taggart.
Within a week of the appearance of that story, President Karen Edmonson and Attorney Mike Sussman, of the Yonkers chapter of the NAACP, held a speak-out session at the Riverfront Library, attended by more than 125 persons, many of whom told about their own, and
their family’s, including mother’s and children’s, brutal encounters with the Yonkers Police, involving little or no provocation or justifi-
cation. Attorneys and law students from Pace Law School’s Criminal Justice Center, recorded their accounts which ultimately came to the attention the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI.
More than a year ago, the FBI, in response, announced that they were conducting a “formal investigation into allegations of police brutality in Yonkers.” The Guardian is aware of visits by FBI special agents to a number of victim/complainants, including Tina and Mary Bostwick, the mother and daughter subjects of our first report. To date, we are not aware of any reports having been issued, or af-firmative action having been taken by the United States Attorney’s Of-fice, or the FBI, that might impact the continuing, unlawful brutality, and false criminal charges routinely worked against innocent men, women and children by, perhaps, 20 or so rogue, violent police offi-cers out of a force of some 670.
Last fall, a second speak-out was held at the Riverfront Library; this time in the auditorium, a few weeks prior to the mayoral election. Mayor Amicone, who had been campaigning nearby, came in to the auditorium in an ill-advised attempt to whitewash and dilute the concerns of the diverse, but mostly minority, audience. He was quickly booed and jeered, and literally chased from the auditorium.
In case after case, the routine has been the same; Yonkers Police beating up innocent citizens, then charging them with Disorderly Conduct, Obstruction of Governmental Administration, Resisting Arrest, Assault Upon A Police Of-ficer, or any combination thereof, both to cover and provide justifi-cation for their own criminal, civil rights violations, and as “bargaining chips” intended to discourage civilian victims from lodging criminal and/or civil complaints.
The practice has been going on for many years; DA Jeanine Pirro, for the most part, looking the other way. However, DA Janet DiFiore
has literally become a co-conspirator with Police Commissioner Hartnett and Mayor Amicone in case after case, as in the Irma Marquez
case. Marquez, all but killed by a totally unjustified body slam delivered by Yonkers Police Of-ficer Wayne Simoes, on March 3, 2007, was charged and prosecuted by DA DiFiore for Obstruction Of Governmental Administration and Disorderly Conduct, an absolutely absurd response by the DA given the clear, indisputable evidence provided by a security camera videotape at the scene.
Those who might wonder why Janet DiFiore repeatedly abandons her sworn duty to protect innocent citizens in her rush to aid and assist
rogue Yonkers cops, while covering up the Department’s serious civil rights violations, need to understand that she has a deep indebtedness
to the Yonkers Police, given the circumstances surrounding her race for District Attorney against Tony Castro in 2005. In point of fact, Di-
Fiore, whose husband attempted to bribe Right-To-Life candidate Anthony DiCintio off the ballot, was nonetheless publicly endorsed by
the Yonkers Police Department.
They were the host department at the Yonkers Polish Center within days of the election at a rally by police brass from Harrison, Dobbs
Ferry and other departments. But, more importantly, and more suspect, they were the department assigned to secure the warehouse storage
facility on Saw Mill River Road, where more than 300 voting machines were impounded at DiFiore’s request; a request filed three days
before the election was even held. This writer, who was reporting at the time for Martinelli Publications, witnessed the recanvas of those machines.
Having been Tony Castro’s campaign director when, as a total unknown he came close to defeating Jeanine Pirro four years earlier, I quickly recognized the peculiar voting patterns revealed in the 2005 Yonkers recount, not to mention numerous machines with broken seals. Despite the so-called “Non- Aggression Pact” of 2001, where Andy Spano and Larry Schwartz, and Reggie Lafayette, and all their henchmen, were actually part of the “fix” to reelect Jeanine Pirro, I never doubted that she won by six points, actually receiving more votes than my candidate. I have never enjoyed that lack of doubt with respect to Janet DiFiore. Given the totality of the circumstances, what reasonably
intelligent individual could?
Finally, speaking of Tony Castro, exposure of Irma Marquez’ case, less than two weeks ago, with its shocking videotape, brought to mind his client, Rui Florim, now approximately 23, who was beaten by six Yonkers police officers approximately 2 years ago. The facts of his encounter are no less outrageous and egregious.
Florim, who had gotten off work at 10:30pm from O’Porto Restaurant in the Village of Hartsdale, Town of Greenburgh, was being driven home by a female friend, having just crossed Central Avenue when they were pulled over by flashing lights in a dark area of the roadway. Six Yonkers Police Officers, including one female, all dressed in civilian clothing, pulled Florim from his friend’s car. And, forcing him into their unmarked car, four of them beat him about the face and head mercilessly.
He was then taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital, opposite Yonkers Police Headquarters, a hospital repeatedly used as the depository for victims of Yonkers Police brutality. He required 70 stitches and staples and five days in the Intensive Care Unit to recover. While he was in St. Joseph’s, Yonkers Police physically barred his family, and his attorney, from any contact with him.
Tony Castro represents Mr. Florim in State Court because, as with Irma Marquez, DA DiFiore is prosecuting him on trumped-up charges. Florim, will, no doubt, also be bringing an action in Federal Court. Castro told The Guardian, “The District Attorney’s routine response to Yonkers Police brutality is very short-sighted. She is not looking ahead to the long-term implications for juries and verdicts.
Jurors will learn what has been taking place. And, what has happened in The Bronx is what will happen in Yonkers, and all over
Westchester.” Castro went on, “It will come back to haunt law enforcement all across Westchester in the near-future. Their jury service is where citizens express their feelings about what they experience with police.”
Tony Castro, a former Bronx Assistant District Attorney, with 14 years experience, who trained hundreds of prosecutors, and who was
Deputy Bureau Chief of Homicides and the Grand Jury, was referring specifically to the preferential treatment DA DiFiore has repeatedly
shown the Yonkers Police Department at the expense of innocent citizens, as she has consistently been unwilling to investigate and prosecute their brutality against men, women and children. He is concerned that grand juries and trial juries will become so cynical and jaded that they will refuse to indict, or convict, in cases that are dependent upon police accounts.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore’s Incestuousness With Yonkers
Police Sacrifices Victims Of Police Brutality
Tony Castro Predicts, “It Will Come Back To Haunt Law Enforcement”
Nearly two years ago, in our September 21, 2006 issue, The Guardian blew the lid off years of Yonkers Police brutality, revealing an incident in 2005 in a front-page story entitled Mother, 72, Daughter, 49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. That story, which detailed the serious civil rights violations the Yonkers Police Department committed when they roughed up a middle-aged woman and her elderly mother, up behind Saunders High School, opened the floodgate to reports by residents, all over the City, and caused the sudden resignation and retirement of Police Commissioner Robert Taggart.
Within a week of the appearance of that story, President Karen Edmonson and Attorney Mike Sussman, of the Yonkers chapter of the NAACP, held a speak-out session at the Riverfront Library, attended by more than 125 persons, many of whom told about their own, and
their family’s, including mother’s and children’s, brutal encounters with the Yonkers Police, involving little or no provocation or justifi-
cation. Attorneys and law students from Pace Law School’s Criminal Justice Center, recorded their accounts which ultimately came to the attention the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI.
More than a year ago, the FBI, in response, announced that they were conducting a “formal investigation into allegations of police brutality in Yonkers.” The Guardian is aware of visits by FBI special agents to a number of victim/complainants, including Tina and Mary Bostwick, the mother and daughter subjects of our first report. To date, we are not aware of any reports having been issued, or af-firmative action having been taken by the United States Attorney’s Of-fice, or the FBI, that might impact the continuing, unlawful brutality, and false criminal charges routinely worked against innocent men, women and children by, perhaps, 20 or so rogue, violent police offi-cers out of a force of some 670.
Last fall, a second speak-out was held at the Riverfront Library; this time in the auditorium, a few weeks prior to the mayoral election. Mayor Amicone, who had been campaigning nearby, came in to the auditorium in an ill-advised attempt to whitewash and dilute the concerns of the diverse, but mostly minority, audience. He was quickly booed and jeered, and literally chased from the auditorium.
In case after case, the routine has been the same; Yonkers Police beating up innocent citizens, then charging them with Disorderly Conduct, Obstruction of Governmental Administration, Resisting Arrest, Assault Upon A Police Of-ficer, or any combination thereof, both to cover and provide justifi-cation for their own criminal, civil rights violations, and as “bargaining chips” intended to discourage civilian victims from lodging criminal and/or civil complaints.
The practice has been going on for many years; DA Jeanine Pirro, for the most part, looking the other way. However, DA Janet DiFiore
has literally become a co-conspirator with Police Commissioner Hartnett and Mayor Amicone in case after case, as in the Irma Marquez
case. Marquez, all but killed by a totally unjustified body slam delivered by Yonkers Police Of-ficer Wayne Simoes, on March 3, 2007, was charged and prosecuted by DA DiFiore for Obstruction Of Governmental Administration and Disorderly Conduct, an absolutely absurd response by the DA given the clear, indisputable evidence provided by a security camera videotape at the scene.
Those who might wonder why Janet DiFiore repeatedly abandons her sworn duty to protect innocent citizens in her rush to aid and assist
rogue Yonkers cops, while covering up the Department’s serious civil rights violations, need to understand that she has a deep indebtedness
to the Yonkers Police, given the circumstances surrounding her race for District Attorney against Tony Castro in 2005. In point of fact, Di-
Fiore, whose husband attempted to bribe Right-To-Life candidate Anthony DiCintio off the ballot, was nonetheless publicly endorsed by
the Yonkers Police Department.
They were the host department at the Yonkers Polish Center within days of the election at a rally by police brass from Harrison, Dobbs
Ferry and other departments. But, more importantly, and more suspect, they were the department assigned to secure the warehouse storage
facility on Saw Mill River Road, where more than 300 voting machines were impounded at DiFiore’s request; a request filed three days
before the election was even held. This writer, who was reporting at the time for Martinelli Publications, witnessed the recanvas of those machines.
Having been Tony Castro’s campaign director when, as a total unknown he came close to defeating Jeanine Pirro four years earlier, I quickly recognized the peculiar voting patterns revealed in the 2005 Yonkers recount, not to mention numerous machines with broken seals. Despite the so-called “Non- Aggression Pact” of 2001, where Andy Spano and Larry Schwartz, and Reggie Lafayette, and all their henchmen, were actually part of the “fix” to reelect Jeanine Pirro, I never doubted that she won by six points, actually receiving more votes than my candidate. I have never enjoyed that lack of doubt with respect to Janet DiFiore. Given the totality of the circumstances, what reasonably
intelligent individual could?
Finally, speaking of Tony Castro, exposure of Irma Marquez’ case, less than two weeks ago, with its shocking videotape, brought to mind his client, Rui Florim, now approximately 23, who was beaten by six Yonkers police officers approximately 2 years ago. The facts of his encounter are no less outrageous and egregious.
Florim, who had gotten off work at 10:30pm from O’Porto Restaurant in the Village of Hartsdale, Town of Greenburgh, was being driven home by a female friend, having just crossed Central Avenue when they were pulled over by flashing lights in a dark area of the roadway. Six Yonkers Police Officers, including one female, all dressed in civilian clothing, pulled Florim from his friend’s car. And, forcing him into their unmarked car, four of them beat him about the face and head mercilessly.
He was then taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital, opposite Yonkers Police Headquarters, a hospital repeatedly used as the depository for victims of Yonkers Police brutality. He required 70 stitches and staples and five days in the Intensive Care Unit to recover. While he was in St. Joseph’s, Yonkers Police physically barred his family, and his attorney, from any contact with him.
Tony Castro represents Mr. Florim in State Court because, as with Irma Marquez, DA DiFiore is prosecuting him on trumped-up charges. Florim, will, no doubt, also be bringing an action in Federal Court. Castro told The Guardian, “The District Attorney’s routine response to Yonkers Police brutality is very short-sighted. She is not looking ahead to the long-term implications for juries and verdicts.
Jurors will learn what has been taking place. And, what has happened in The Bronx is what will happen in Yonkers, and all over
Westchester.” Castro went on, “It will come back to haunt law enforcement all across Westchester in the near-future. Their jury service is where citizens express their feelings about what they experience with police.”
Tony Castro, a former Bronx Assistant District Attorney, with 14 years experience, who trained hundreds of prosecutors, and who was
Deputy Bureau Chief of Homicides and the Grand Jury, was referring specifically to the preferential treatment DA DiFiore has repeatedly
shown the Yonkers Police Department at the expense of innocent citizens, as she has consistently been unwilling to investigate and prosecute their brutality against men, women and children. He is concerned that grand juries and trial juries will become so cynical and jaded that they will refuse to indict, or convict, in cases that are dependent upon police accounts.
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
In Our Opinion...
Westchester’s Culture Of Corruption
Not only are we the most heavily-taxed county in the nation, we also rank very highly in terms of public corruption and taxpayer abuse. Does anyone doubt that Gary Kriss and his recently-exposed abuses of trust and unauthorized expenditure of our taxpayer dollars is merely the “one”? You know, the one exterminators are referring to when they tell us “When you see one, there’s 20, or 30”. And, it doesn’t matter
whether it’s rats or roaches; it’s enough to turn your stomach.
But, what should we expect, having elected one district attorney three times whose spouse was one of the most outrageous white collar criminals in the County; Pataki’s “best friend and fundraiser.” Most so-called savvy people, when asked why they voted for her, or contributed to her; those who were not on her payroll or direct beneficiaries, or fearfully vulnerable players, would often shrug their shoulders and laugh.
Intelligent observers in neighboring counties were laughing, too, but not with us, at us. Few realized the network that it required to support the proposition, Al and Jeanine Pirro, “Westchester’s Power Couple”, and all that jazz.
It took an enormous network of larcenous, greedy, essentially criminally-corrupt, lawyers, politicians, police, prosecutors, and judges; yes, judges, right up into the Appellate Division. Could Nick Spano have stolen the election of 2004 had his buddy, and former attorney, Judge Robert Spalzino not been appointed to the Appellate Division, Second Department? Jeanine and her cohorts, Larry Schwartz, and Schwartz’s front-man, Andy Spano, needed Nick in the State Senate, for one thing, so they could get their nominees on the County and Supreme Courts. You know, winners like Larry Horowitz, Andy’s “Sonny Liston” in the election of 2001.
Of course, Jeanine knew the handwriting was on the wall when Tony Castro, a virtual unknown, came within six points of her. It had nothing to do with her unwillingness to have to abandon the DA’s Office to run, as she thought she would in 2006, against Hillary. She never meant to leave the DA’s office unless it was for a higher post. However, her expensive polling operation in the spring of 2005 convinced her that she could not defeat Castro a second time.
In her stead, we have Janet DiFiore, a vindictive, arrogant; some believe protege of hers. Not really. Oh, there are similarities, each with a spouse fond of cutting corners and influence-peddling. And, neither of them have the moral authority to be Dogcatcher, much less Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a county of nearly a million residents.
When Michael Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, published his hotline telephone number 25 months ago, and received a deluge of information about public corruption, few anticipated that so much time, more than two years, would go by with so little in the way of indictments for public integrity violations, given how blatant and notorious the corruption truly is.
Many citizens are becoming discouraged and disillusioned with the Federal Government’s apparent lack of production given the abundance of public integrity violations, virtually in all of our faces. Consider the following conservative, partial listing:
• The County Executive’s Solid Waste $17-million-and-climbing giveaway;
• The fixed County-wide Elections of 2001;
• The 2000, 2002, and 2004 Nick Spano contests for State Senate;
• Police brutality in Yonkers;
• Police brutality and scandal in Harrison;
• Police coercion and subornation of perjury in Dobbs Ferry;
• The RICO-type enterprise in the Matrimonial Part of State Supreme Court;
• The District Attorney’s Office’s numerous civil rights violations;
• The $22.5 million giveaway by the County Executive’s Office to Cablevision;
• The oppressive, unlawful, Amicone Regime in Yonkers.
Given what has been accomplished in New Jersey, New York City and Connecticut to combat failures of public integrity, just how much are we, the hard-working people of Westchester, expected to tolerate before the Federal Government puts some teeth into our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, free from interference by organized government gangsters?
Our Readers Respond...
Reader Tries Humor On Serious Concern
Dear Editor:
So, a car full of County workers stops at a bar…no, wait, wrong joke. The car is stopped at an entrance to a park. When asked the purpose of the visit, the answer is the Health Department employees are looking for mosquitoes. When advised of a chronic pooling water problem at another facility, the drivers says he’ll tell his boss. Who is? Name given. The Deputy Commissioner of Mosquitoes?
Of course, the knowing reply. Not so funny when you consider the number of superfluous Administrators in County government, and lack of background required. Then again, they don’t need any because they are told what to do and there needs to be a lot of them so no individual
has to be decisive or responsible. Depending on who you know, no experience is required, one can begin at management level. Full-time workers at seasonal jobs, generating paperwork that “justifies” more nonessential jobs. Folks often say that these wasteful practices happen everywhere. Then don’t complain about your taxes, or feel Westchester County is causing your relocation.
On that point, shouldn’t County employees at management level and above be required to live here and not Connecticut or Pennsylvania?
Knowledgeable And Disgusted
In Our Opinion...
Westchester’s Culture Of Corruption
Not only are we the most heavily-taxed county in the nation, we also rank very highly in terms of public corruption and taxpayer abuse. Does anyone doubt that Gary Kriss and his recently-exposed abuses of trust and unauthorized expenditure of our taxpayer dollars is merely the “one”? You know, the one exterminators are referring to when they tell us “When you see one, there’s 20, or 30”. And, it doesn’t matter
whether it’s rats or roaches; it’s enough to turn your stomach.
But, what should we expect, having elected one district attorney three times whose spouse was one of the most outrageous white collar criminals in the County; Pataki’s “best friend and fundraiser.” Most so-called savvy people, when asked why they voted for her, or contributed to her; those who were not on her payroll or direct beneficiaries, or fearfully vulnerable players, would often shrug their shoulders and laugh.
Intelligent observers in neighboring counties were laughing, too, but not with us, at us. Few realized the network that it required to support the proposition, Al and Jeanine Pirro, “Westchester’s Power Couple”, and all that jazz.
It took an enormous network of larcenous, greedy, essentially criminally-corrupt, lawyers, politicians, police, prosecutors, and judges; yes, judges, right up into the Appellate Division. Could Nick Spano have stolen the election of 2004 had his buddy, and former attorney, Judge Robert Spalzino not been appointed to the Appellate Division, Second Department? Jeanine and her cohorts, Larry Schwartz, and Schwartz’s front-man, Andy Spano, needed Nick in the State Senate, for one thing, so they could get their nominees on the County and Supreme Courts. You know, winners like Larry Horowitz, Andy’s “Sonny Liston” in the election of 2001.
Of course, Jeanine knew the handwriting was on the wall when Tony Castro, a virtual unknown, came within six points of her. It had nothing to do with her unwillingness to have to abandon the DA’s Office to run, as she thought she would in 2006, against Hillary. She never meant to leave the DA’s office unless it was for a higher post. However, her expensive polling operation in the spring of 2005 convinced her that she could not defeat Castro a second time.
In her stead, we have Janet DiFiore, a vindictive, arrogant; some believe protege of hers. Not really. Oh, there are similarities, each with a spouse fond of cutting corners and influence-peddling. And, neither of them have the moral authority to be Dogcatcher, much less Chief Law Enforcement Officer in a county of nearly a million residents.
When Michael Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, published his hotline telephone number 25 months ago, and received a deluge of information about public corruption, few anticipated that so much time, more than two years, would go by with so little in the way of indictments for public integrity violations, given how blatant and notorious the corruption truly is.
Many citizens are becoming discouraged and disillusioned with the Federal Government’s apparent lack of production given the abundance of public integrity violations, virtually in all of our faces. Consider the following conservative, partial listing:
• The County Executive’s Solid Waste $17-million-and-climbing giveaway;
• The fixed County-wide Elections of 2001;
• The 2000, 2002, and 2004 Nick Spano contests for State Senate;
• Police brutality in Yonkers;
• Police brutality and scandal in Harrison;
• Police coercion and subornation of perjury in Dobbs Ferry;
• The RICO-type enterprise in the Matrimonial Part of State Supreme Court;
• The District Attorney’s Office’s numerous civil rights violations;
• The $22.5 million giveaway by the County Executive’s Office to Cablevision;
• The oppressive, unlawful, Amicone Regime in Yonkers.
Given what has been accomplished in New Jersey, New York City and Connecticut to combat failures of public integrity, just how much are we, the hard-working people of Westchester, expected to tolerate before the Federal Government puts some teeth into our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, free from interference by organized government gangsters?
Our Readers Respond...
Reader Tries Humor On Serious Concern
Dear Editor:
So, a car full of County workers stops at a bar…no, wait, wrong joke. The car is stopped at an entrance to a park. When asked the purpose of the visit, the answer is the Health Department employees are looking for mosquitoes. When advised of a chronic pooling water problem at another facility, the drivers says he’ll tell his boss. Who is? Name given. The Deputy Commissioner of Mosquitoes?
Of course, the knowing reply. Not so funny when you consider the number of superfluous Administrators in County government, and lack of background required. Then again, they don’t need any because they are told what to do and there needs to be a lot of them so no individual
has to be decisive or responsible. Depending on who you know, no experience is required, one can begin at management level. Full-time workers at seasonal jobs, generating paperwork that “justifies” more nonessential jobs. Folks often say that these wasteful practices happen everywhere. Then don’t complain about your taxes, or feel Westchester County is causing your relocation.
On that point, shouldn’t County employees at management level and above be required to live here and not Connecticut or Pennsylvania?
Knowledgeable And Disgusted
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Deskovic Civil Action Continues
In Preliminary Pre-Trial Mode
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
Judge Karas was his usual frank and perceptive self, addressing Plaintiff Jeffrey Deskovic’s attorney, Nick Bruskin, who had filed a Motion To Amend since his last appearance. Plaintiff ’s Attorney Jennifer Loren, who had attended the first pre-trial hearing on April 10, also was present, but Barry Scheck was not.
Karas opened the proceedings announcing the fact that Assistant Attorney General John Knudson, representing the State of New York and the Department of Corrections, “still wants to change venue.” Attorney Stuart Kahan, representing the County of Westchester, former Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Luis Roh, and former Westchester Assistant DA George Bolen, spoke up, “I’m the only party opposing the motion to amend the complaint, if the effort to amend involves ADA George Bolen. It does not set forth a potential claim
in line with the Russo case. We are not dealing with the withholding of exculpatory information.”
Judge Karas responded, “It is not just a withholding of DNA information.” Mr. Kahan: “Whatever Bolen may have done, it was in his prosecutorial function.”
Judge Karas: “The Brady obligation is ongoing forever.”
Mr. Kahan tried to argue the point with the Judge, but discovered a well-informed jurist who actually took the time to fully familiarize
himself with the facts and allegations of the case. Karas advised Kahan, “It’s what Bolen conscripts Roh to do; to explain away the DNA
evidence.”
The Judge then followed up with, “You think that if an ADA gets a doctor to make up information that explains away exculpatory information, that act is not malice?”
Kahan responded, “There’s all kinds of things prosecutors investigate after indictments.”
Karas then asked, “What do you do with Plaintiff ’s effort to fit this case under Buckley? It’s like shopping for a witness.” He continued,
telling Attorney Kahan, “What we have here is ADA Bolen saying Dr. Roh, see what you can do.” Jeffrey Deskovic’s attorney, Nick Bruskin, then jumped in, in response to a nod from the Judge, saying, “I can’t put it any better than you have, Your Honor. Probable
Cause is vitiated.”
Karas then inquired of Bruskin, “Your theory is he didn’t have beyond a reasonable doubt,” referring to Bolen’s case.
Bruskin responded, “I don’t see how the Prosecutor is immune.”
Bolen’s attorney, Mr. Kahan, was trying to make the argument that his client’s conspiring, and scheming, with another of his clients, Dr.
Luis Roh, fully eight months before bringing a 16-year-old whose DNA and hair follicles did not match the man who raped and murdered 15-
year-old Angela Correa, to trial, anyway, was by way of “trial preparation.”
But Karas just wasn’t buying into it. So, the attorney decided to change gears, arguing that Deskovic’s use of three medical experts did not conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 26.
Attorney Bruskin quickly responded, “We think the facts are not in dispute, and are most unusual.” Judge Karas, at that point, teasing,
turned to Bruskin and suggested, “If it turns out that Dr. Roh is really bad at what he does, then you wouldn’t have a case against Roh or
Bolen.”
Attorney Brian Sokolov, representing the City of Peekskill, Police Chief Eugene Tumolo, and Detectives McIntyre and Levine, spoke
up, declaring, “The Plaintiff ’s use of other incidents that go back to 1980 go to Monell.”
Karas immediately picked up on Sokolov’s statement, saying, “Plaintiffs get accused all the time with, you have made conclusory claims;
you haven’t stated a claim for which the Court can bring about relief.” Turning to Sokolov, Karas went on, “You can make a claim that Roh’s
statements were based on lack of knowledge.”
At that point, Sokolov took some liberty and told the Judge, “Speaking for all Defense counselors, our complaint is not so much substantive
as it is style.”
Analysis:
The seven Defense attorneys in Judge Karas’ Court last Monday must continue to cope with the unenviable task of having to defend numerous individuals whose acts, with respect to Jeffrey Deskovic, an innocent 16-year-old boy, wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of
rape and murder, were, and are, indefensible. As a consequence, in an effort to mitigate and minimize the damages for which their clients
will be held liable, they are attempting to cover over the ugly facts, by which the Plaintiff was robbed of 17 years of his life, by using arguments involving procedural matters and questions of so-called “prosecutorial immunity.”
Attorney Bruskin advised the Court that Plaintiffs anticipate 50 to 60 depositions. Accordingly, the Judge laid out a tentative schedule,
over the next 12 months, with a Case Management Conference scheduled for May 8, 2009. Having grasped the seriousness with which Judge Karas viewed the allegations against the Defendants, most of whom were demonstrably acting in concert, and having had a taste of the narrowness of the Judge’s interpretation of those prosecutorial activities possibly eligible for immunity, Attorney Sokolov took the opportunity to inform the Court that he intends to interplead Deskovic’s trial attorney into the case.
Forced By Federal Court To Cough
Up A Mountain Of Evidence Of His
Innocence, Vindictive DA DiFiore
Wants To Retry Anthony DiSimone
Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore knows perfectly well that Anthony DiSimone is totally innocent in the killing of Louis Balancio outside the Strike Zone Bar in Yonkers February 4, 1994. She even knows who the actual murderers were, Darin Mazzarella, previously charged in two other unrelated murders, who held Balancio in place, while Nick Djonovic stabbed him to death 13 times. She knows the
truth because when she took office in January 2006, she inherited a mountain of exculpatory evidence that her predecessor, Jeanine Pirro, had kept hidden from DiSimone for nearly 12 years.
DiFiore, not at all unlike Pirro, upon becoming District Attorney, made a conscious decision to continue to unlawfully withhold 376 pages, 52 boxes and miles of audiotaped live and telephone conversations, some with the United States Attorney’s Office, all of which support
Mr. DiSimone’s innocence, and point to Djonovic and Mazzarella.
For 16 months, until the point in Di-Simone’s federal appeals process, when District Court Judge Charles L. Brieant was about to gavel open, what would have been a very revealing and embarrassing Evidentiary Hearing process for her of-fice, perhaps over several weeks, DiFiore kept the evidence, including Djonovic’s confession six days after the killing, as well as his blood-covered leather jacket, from the Court and the Defense. Only when faced with certain slow and painful exposure, did she relent and cough up evidence kept concealed for 13 long years, seven of which DiSimone spent wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.
All throughout the appeals process, her Assistant District Attorney, Valerie Livingston, boldly, and incredibly, lied to District Court Judge Brieant and to three-judge panels of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The presiding judge of one such panel, in August
2006, Judge Calabresi, not yet even fully aware of quite all of the evidence being concealed, described the extreme unlawful conduct of the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, saying, “In twelve years on this Court I have never seen such a Brady violation.”
More than a year ago, the Federal Court released Mr. DiSimone on a Writ of Habeus Corpus. After seven years of wrongful imprisonment, he has managed to find employment and has attempted to resume some semblance of a normal life with his wife and young son.
Analysis:
Under the circumstances, last Thursday’s activity in Supreme Court Justice Les Adler’s courtroom in which a $500,000 bail was set, and the preliminary activity needed to retry DiSimone were set in motion, one can only conclude that what we are now witnessing is but the latest chapter in the extreme prosecutorial misconduct that has driven the response to Louis Balancio’s death for some 14 years now.
Despite any suggestion to the contrary, District Attorney DiFiore cannot try Anthony DiSimone, either for Second Degree Intentional Murder, a charge for which he was originally acquitted at trial, nor for Depraved Indifference Murder, for which he was wrongfully, and unlawfully, convicted because the State’s highest court has many times, since that conviction, explained that killings such as Balancio’s,
involving multiple stab wounds, do not fall under the Depraved Mind Theory.
DA DiFiore is well aware of those facts, and she is equally well aware of the fact that irrespective of all of the above, no jury, which will be made aware of all of the exculpatory evidence she was compelled to turn over, could ever convict Mr. DiSimone. Therefore, we can only conclude that her present course of action is both by way of the most malicious form of harassment, and a blatant attempt to frighten an innocent man into negotiating an unnecessary plea deal in order to prevent his civil action anticipated as a result of all of the civil rights violations he and his family have been made to endure for more than 14 years.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Deskovic Civil Action Continues
In Preliminary Pre-Trial Mode
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
Judge Karas was his usual frank and perceptive self, addressing Plaintiff Jeffrey Deskovic’s attorney, Nick Bruskin, who had filed a Motion To Amend since his last appearance. Plaintiff ’s Attorney Jennifer Loren, who had attended the first pre-trial hearing on April 10, also was present, but Barry Scheck was not.
Karas opened the proceedings announcing the fact that Assistant Attorney General John Knudson, representing the State of New York and the Department of Corrections, “still wants to change venue.” Attorney Stuart Kahan, representing the County of Westchester, former Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Luis Roh, and former Westchester Assistant DA George Bolen, spoke up, “I’m the only party opposing the motion to amend the complaint, if the effort to amend involves ADA George Bolen. It does not set forth a potential claim
in line with the Russo case. We are not dealing with the withholding of exculpatory information.”
Judge Karas responded, “It is not just a withholding of DNA information.” Mr. Kahan: “Whatever Bolen may have done, it was in his prosecutorial function.”
Judge Karas: “The Brady obligation is ongoing forever.”
Mr. Kahan tried to argue the point with the Judge, but discovered a well-informed jurist who actually took the time to fully familiarize
himself with the facts and allegations of the case. Karas advised Kahan, “It’s what Bolen conscripts Roh to do; to explain away the DNA
evidence.”
The Judge then followed up with, “You think that if an ADA gets a doctor to make up information that explains away exculpatory information, that act is not malice?”
Kahan responded, “There’s all kinds of things prosecutors investigate after indictments.”
Karas then asked, “What do you do with Plaintiff ’s effort to fit this case under Buckley? It’s like shopping for a witness.” He continued,
telling Attorney Kahan, “What we have here is ADA Bolen saying Dr. Roh, see what you can do.” Jeffrey Deskovic’s attorney, Nick Bruskin, then jumped in, in response to a nod from the Judge, saying, “I can’t put it any better than you have, Your Honor. Probable
Cause is vitiated.”
Karas then inquired of Bruskin, “Your theory is he didn’t have beyond a reasonable doubt,” referring to Bolen’s case.
Bruskin responded, “I don’t see how the Prosecutor is immune.”
Bolen’s attorney, Mr. Kahan, was trying to make the argument that his client’s conspiring, and scheming, with another of his clients, Dr.
Luis Roh, fully eight months before bringing a 16-year-old whose DNA and hair follicles did not match the man who raped and murdered 15-
year-old Angela Correa, to trial, anyway, was by way of “trial preparation.”
But Karas just wasn’t buying into it. So, the attorney decided to change gears, arguing that Deskovic’s use of three medical experts did not conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 26.
Attorney Bruskin quickly responded, “We think the facts are not in dispute, and are most unusual.” Judge Karas, at that point, teasing,
turned to Bruskin and suggested, “If it turns out that Dr. Roh is really bad at what he does, then you wouldn’t have a case against Roh or
Bolen.”
Attorney Brian Sokolov, representing the City of Peekskill, Police Chief Eugene Tumolo, and Detectives McIntyre and Levine, spoke
up, declaring, “The Plaintiff ’s use of other incidents that go back to 1980 go to Monell.”
Karas immediately picked up on Sokolov’s statement, saying, “Plaintiffs get accused all the time with, you have made conclusory claims;
you haven’t stated a claim for which the Court can bring about relief.” Turning to Sokolov, Karas went on, “You can make a claim that Roh’s
statements were based on lack of knowledge.”
At that point, Sokolov took some liberty and told the Judge, “Speaking for all Defense counselors, our complaint is not so much substantive
as it is style.”
Analysis:
The seven Defense attorneys in Judge Karas’ Court last Monday must continue to cope with the unenviable task of having to defend numerous individuals whose acts, with respect to Jeffrey Deskovic, an innocent 16-year-old boy, wrongfully prosecuted and convicted of
rape and murder, were, and are, indefensible. As a consequence, in an effort to mitigate and minimize the damages for which their clients
will be held liable, they are attempting to cover over the ugly facts, by which the Plaintiff was robbed of 17 years of his life, by using arguments involving procedural matters and questions of so-called “prosecutorial immunity.”
Attorney Bruskin advised the Court that Plaintiffs anticipate 50 to 60 depositions. Accordingly, the Judge laid out a tentative schedule,
over the next 12 months, with a Case Management Conference scheduled for May 8, 2009. Having grasped the seriousness with which Judge Karas viewed the allegations against the Defendants, most of whom were demonstrably acting in concert, and having had a taste of the narrowness of the Judge’s interpretation of those prosecutorial activities possibly eligible for immunity, Attorney Sokolov took the opportunity to inform the Court that he intends to interplead Deskovic’s trial attorney into the case.
Forced By Federal Court To Cough
Up A Mountain Of Evidence Of His
Innocence, Vindictive DA DiFiore
Wants To Retry Anthony DiSimone
Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore knows perfectly well that Anthony DiSimone is totally innocent in the killing of Louis Balancio outside the Strike Zone Bar in Yonkers February 4, 1994. She even knows who the actual murderers were, Darin Mazzarella, previously charged in two other unrelated murders, who held Balancio in place, while Nick Djonovic stabbed him to death 13 times. She knows the
truth because when she took office in January 2006, she inherited a mountain of exculpatory evidence that her predecessor, Jeanine Pirro, had kept hidden from DiSimone for nearly 12 years.
DiFiore, not at all unlike Pirro, upon becoming District Attorney, made a conscious decision to continue to unlawfully withhold 376 pages, 52 boxes and miles of audiotaped live and telephone conversations, some with the United States Attorney’s Office, all of which support
Mr. DiSimone’s innocence, and point to Djonovic and Mazzarella.
For 16 months, until the point in Di-Simone’s federal appeals process, when District Court Judge Charles L. Brieant was about to gavel open, what would have been a very revealing and embarrassing Evidentiary Hearing process for her of-fice, perhaps over several weeks, DiFiore kept the evidence, including Djonovic’s confession six days after the killing, as well as his blood-covered leather jacket, from the Court and the Defense. Only when faced with certain slow and painful exposure, did she relent and cough up evidence kept concealed for 13 long years, seven of which DiSimone spent wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.
All throughout the appeals process, her Assistant District Attorney, Valerie Livingston, boldly, and incredibly, lied to District Court Judge Brieant and to three-judge panels of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The presiding judge of one such panel, in August
2006, Judge Calabresi, not yet even fully aware of quite all of the evidence being concealed, described the extreme unlawful conduct of the Westchester District Attorney’s Office, saying, “In twelve years on this Court I have never seen such a Brady violation.”
More than a year ago, the Federal Court released Mr. DiSimone on a Writ of Habeus Corpus. After seven years of wrongful imprisonment, he has managed to find employment and has attempted to resume some semblance of a normal life with his wife and young son.
Analysis:
Under the circumstances, last Thursday’s activity in Supreme Court Justice Les Adler’s courtroom in which a $500,000 bail was set, and the preliminary activity needed to retry DiSimone were set in motion, one can only conclude that what we are now witnessing is but the latest chapter in the extreme prosecutorial misconduct that has driven the response to Louis Balancio’s death for some 14 years now.
Despite any suggestion to the contrary, District Attorney DiFiore cannot try Anthony DiSimone, either for Second Degree Intentional Murder, a charge for which he was originally acquitted at trial, nor for Depraved Indifference Murder, for which he was wrongfully, and unlawfully, convicted because the State’s highest court has many times, since that conviction, explained that killings such as Balancio’s,
involving multiple stab wounds, do not fall under the Depraved Mind Theory.
DA DiFiore is well aware of those facts, and she is equally well aware of the fact that irrespective of all of the above, no jury, which will be made aware of all of the exculpatory evidence she was compelled to turn over, could ever convict Mr. DiSimone. Therefore, we can only conclude that her present course of action is both by way of the most malicious form of harassment, and a blatant attempt to frighten an innocent man into negotiating an unnecessary plea deal in order to prevent his civil action anticipated as a result of all of the civil rights violations he and his family have been made to endure for more than 14 years.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Wrongful Convictions Just
Keep Coming Out, Part II
Jeff Deskovic
Several issues ago, I wrote an article entitled “Wrongful Convictions Just Keep Coming Out.” In this issue, I will do a follow-up to that article, further illustrating that theme, with the purpose in mind of trying to raise the awareness of society to the problem of wrongful convictions. People will come to realize, with each passing instance, that wrongful convictions are not rare, that this really can happen to anyone, and does. Furthermore, there is no geographical location which is immune from it happening. The thought “That could never
happen here”, or “that could never happen to me”, are unfortunately myths that we as a society cannot afford to have.
It is also my intention to raise the awareness of those who are in a position to directly do something about it: state senators and assemblypersons in passing bills to protect the innocent; policemen and others in law enforcement, to be sure not to coerce confessions, to be careful when conducting lineups and photo arrays so as not to taint them, with the result of a misidentification occurring, tunnel vision and overzealousness; prosecutors in being on the lookout for the possibility of the police having engaged in the aforementioned, as well as not engaging in prosecutorial misconduct and playing things straight in the courtroom, knowing that defendants are not immune from being wrongfully convicted if they are innocent; and judges in ensuring that trials are fair, and in ruling on the merits of appeals.
Periodically, as more cases are exposed, I will write follow-up articles. The following are major cases of wrongful convictions that have come out since the first installment of this series.
James Woodard was released on April 29, 2008, after spending more than 27 years in prison in Texas for a 1980 murder he has been cleared of by DNA. Woodard was sentenced to life in prison in July 1981 for the murder of a 21-year-old Dallas woman found sexually assaulted and strangled near the banks of the Trinity River. The 27 years he served wrongfully make him the longest-serving wrongly convicted man in the nation to be exonerated by DNA testing.
He is also the 18th person in Dallas County to have his conviction overturned by DNA, which is a figure unmatched by any county in the United States, according to The Innocence Project.
Overall, 31 people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high. at does not include Woodard and at least three others whose exonerations will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally accepts the ruling of lower courts that have already recommended exoneration.
The following report was filed by Schuyler Dixon, of the Associated Press, on Woodard’s case: He was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from two eyewitnesses, said Natalie Roetzel, the executive director of the Innocence Project of Texas. One has since recanted in an af-fidavit. As for the other, “We don’t believe her testimony was accurate,” Roetzel said. Like nearly all the exonorees, Woodard has maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison.
But after filing six writs with an appeals court, plus two requests for DNA testing, his pleas of innocence became so repetitive and routine that “the courthouse doors were eventually closed to him and he was labeled a writ abuser,” Roetzel said.
“On the first day he was arrested, he told the world he was innocent ... and nobody listened,” Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, said during Tuesday’s hearing. “James Lee Woodard stepped out of the courtroom and raised his arms to a throng of photographers. Supporters and other people gathered outside the court erupted in applause. “No words can express what a tragic story yours is,” state District Judge Mark Stoltz told Woodard at a brief hearing before his release. “I thank God for the existence of the Innocence project,” Woodard, 55, told the court. “Without that, I wouldn’t be here today. I would be wasting away in prison.”
Walter Swift was exonerated on May 21, 2008 by DNA after serving 26 years in Michigan for rape. The Innocence Project, which represents
Swift, released the following report about the case:
For 26 long years, Walter Swift has held onto hope that the truth would finally come out and he would be exonerated. Today, his unimaginable nightmare is ending but he is just beginning the long road to rebuild his life,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project. “He was convicted based on a deeply awed and completely unreliable eyewitness identification. Even at the time of his trial in 1982, there was convincing evidence that he was innocent, but his court-appointed attorney failed to present that evidence. ”
The case stems from a September 1982 home-invasion rape and robbery in Detroit. The victim was a pregnant white woman who was at home with her seven-month old child. She described her attacker as a 15-to-18-year-old African-American man with unusual braids and “poofs of hair” on his head, but no facial hair. After the crime, police asked her to look through hundreds of photos. She selected the photos of seven men who she said resembled the assailant, and the police officer handling the case randomly decided that the next person the victim selected would be brought in for a live lineup.
That person was Walter Swift, who was several years older than the victim’s description of her attacker, had a pronounced black eye at the time of the crime (which was not part of the victim’s description), had a mustache and long sideburns at the time of the crime, and always had closely cropped hair with no braids. Swift - but none of the other seven men whose photos were selected by the victim – was brought in for a lineup, and the victim was told that the eighth man she selected would be in the lineup.
She selected Swift in the lineup, saying that she “believed” he was her attacker. The police officer who initially investigated the case and handled the photo identification believed that the victim’s identification was uncertain and unreliable – but at Swift’s trial, the jury heard only that she selected his photo and his photo alone, that she identi-fied him in a lineup, and that she was certain he was the assailant.
In addition to the flawed and unreliable eyewitness identification, forensic testing before Swift’s trial supported his claims of innocence – but the jury never heard that forensic evidence. An analyst who tested semen from the perpetrator determined that if the sample she was testing was clean enough (meaning it was predominately semen from the perpetrator, which it likely was), Swift could not have been the perpetrator based on his blood type.
That analyst was never called to the stand at Swift’s trial, and she was shocked to learn in recent years that Swift had been convicted.
Swift’s court-appointed trial attorney, Lawrence R. Greene, did not adequately pursue the identification procedure during the trial and did not present the exculpatory forensic evidence. Greene has been suspended from practicing law several times in just the last decade based on misconduct and inadequate representation in other cases.
From the first time police questioned Swift about the crime, he had an airtight alibi from a woman he was dating at the time. The woman, whose relationship with Swift ended two decades ago, maintains that she was with Swift when the crime was committed, and she had documentation at the time of trial (shopping receipts) corroborating her story of their whereabouts. She has been a law enforcement officer for 24 years and has no motive to fabricate an alibi for Swift. Swift had been denied parole five times since 2000 because he would not admit to a crime he didn’t commit.
The Innocence Project accepted Swift’s case 10 years ago, hoping to conduct DNA testing on crime scene evidence that could prove his innocence. The evidence had all been lost or destroyed – but the Innocence Project began to uncover evidence about the eyewitness
identi-fication procedure, the forensic testing, Swift’s alibi and the depths of his inadequate defense counsel at trial. “Over the course of a decade, each layer we pulled back led to more evidence that Walter Swift is innocent,” said Innocence Project Staff Attorney Olga Akselrod.
“We also began to work with people throughout the criminal justice system, some of whom were directly involved in convicting Mr. Swift, who were becoming increasingly convinced of his innocence. It’s highly unusual to have the original prosecutor, the police officer who investigated the case and the lab analyst who handled the case all come forward to support an innocent prisoner – but that’s exactly what happened in this case.”
In an extraordinary development, the prosecutor who convicted Swift, and the police officer who initially investigated the case, both assisted the Innocence Project in seeking to vacate Swift’s conviction. Both filed formal affidavits, as did the alibi witness. The Innocence Project presented all of the evidence in the case to Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy, whose office investigated it thoroughly.
“The Prosecuting Attorney’s office looked at this case carefully and closely. Each piece of evidence needed to be analyzed on its own and in combination with the other evidence, and the Prosecuting Attorney was extraordinarily thoughtful and reached the right conclusion,” Scheck said. Barry Scheck said, “Walter Swift wasn’t the first person in Michigan who was wrongfully convicted based on eyewitness misidentification, and he won’t be the last. A bill is pending in the Michigan Legislature that would make sure photo arrays and lineups
are conducted properly, based on what decades of scientific research and practical experience shows can reduce misidentifications.
The Legislature should make this bill a priority and pass it promptly,” Scheck said. The following account of the Levon Jones case is taken from an article written by Titan Barksdale of The News And Observer: In 1993, a Duplin County jury convicted Jones, now 49, of first-degree murder in the 1987 shooting death of Leamon Grady, a local bootlegger. The jury also convicted him of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy.
District Attorney Dewey Hudson, the top prosecutor in a district including Duplin, dismissed all of the charges against Jones on Friday, saying his star witness’ recent recantation of trial testimony was the main reason for his decision. The recantation of Lovely Lorden, Jones’ then-girlfriend, left Hudson with little evidence to put before a jury again. The big break in Jones’ bid for freedom came from a federal judge in 2006.
U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle handed down a strongly worded order, taking Jones off death row and calling for a new trial. Boyle called the case against Jones weak and was critical of the performance of Jones’ trial attorneys, Graham Phillips Jr. and Charles C. Henderson. “Jones received two appointed attorneys that spent virtually no time or effort investigating the offense or his background,” Boyle wrote in the order. Jones has maintained his innocence, and members of his close-knit family, many of whom live in Duplin County, said they believed him without a doubt. Friday, they all wanted a piece of Jones during his first minutes of freedom. Emerging from a back hallway at the Duplin County jail, Jones, smiling widely, was met with an ovation. One by one, family members hugged Jones tightly.
Reporters could detain him only briefly before he whisked past them to get outside of the jail. “I’m ready to go,” Jones said. “I’ve been here too long.”
Jones said he expected to be a free man someday, although the N.C. Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 1996. Jones’ 15 years on death row is the longest stint of any condemned inmate in North Carolina who has been freed. During a news conference, Hudson defended his prosecution of Jones, laying blame on the court system. “Any time the court system takes so long to resolve these important legal issues, the [district attorney’s] office is placed in a tough position,” Hudson said.
Hudson is not convinced that Jones is an innocent man, though his attorneys and supporters say otherwise. Jone’s time spent on death row is followed closely by that of Glen Chapman, who was cleared and recently released from death row after 14 years there.
Commentary
Each of these cases brings a variety of thoughts to my mind. I will discuss them in the order in which the cases are mentioned. The Woodard case illustrates that no matter how long a conviction may have stood, that is no indication of it’s reliability. It simply means that no evidence as yet has come out regarding innocence. I say this being well aware that there are guilty people in prison, and that there are some who falsely claim innocence. Thus, courts need to continue to provide a forum from which those who are alleging innocence can have their claims heard and viewed objectively, regardless of the amount of time that has passed or the so-called “Finality Of Convictions”, and the denial of appeals based upon procedure, particularly when innocence as raised, is going in the opposite direction of guilt and innocence being the bedrock of the criminal justice system. We need more review mechanisms for the wrongfully convicted, as I have advocated in the petition on my website, http://www.jeffrey-deskovicspeaks.org/
In my view, while it can clearly be said that Texas has had a big problem with wrongful convictions often occurring there, currently leading the country in the number of exposed cases, that by no means indicates that other states do not have a similar, or as severe a problem. It merely means that Texas has had a lot of them exposed. Since DNA is only available in 10% of all serious felony cases, and it is hard for wrongfully convicted prisoners to obtain quality legal representation, there is no telling how many people have been wrongfully convicted or which states are truly the worst at that. The fact that a state has not yet had an exoneration doesn’t mean it has been infallible. It merely means that they have not, as yet, been uncovered.
The case reaffirms the unreliability of identification testimony, which to date has accounted for 75% of the now 216 DNA exonerations, as well as the insufficiency of the appellate process in protecting society. The need for legislation increasing the accuracy of identifications remains urgent. I find the two denials of requests for DNA testing to be particularly reprehensible, and very reminiscent of former Westchester District Atttorney Jeanine Pirro’s actions in blocking requests for DNA Testing in my case. We need legislation granting each
prisoner the unequivocal right to DNA Testing whenever there is material to test.
The level of deficient representation that Walter Swift received serves as an important illustration of the need for each state’s government to adopt a standardized system of public defense to allow for more streamlining, quality control, and oversight, as well as the need to properly fund the public defender’s office, and to limit the amount of cases that lawyers are allowed to take at one time. In the Bronx, it is not unusual for a public defender to simultaneously represent 120 defendants at one time. It is also important to weed out bad attorneys who continue to
be employed as public defenders, thus setting the stage for future inadequate legal representation and with it more wrongful convictions.
I have mixed feelings regarding the original prosecuting attorney and the police officer. In order to learn best the lessons of this case, the good should be seized upon and emulated, and the bad should not be repeated. On that note, I laud the prosecutor and the policeman for being willing to admit an error and assist in an exoneration that they had directly participated in. It is far too rare. Prosecutors and policemen all
over should take note and follow them in this whenever the facts and circumstances in a case warrant it, rather than fighting tooth and nail to preserve a bad conviction at any cost.
On the other had, both the policeman and prosecutor were aware of how shaky the identification of Swift was, and this should have set off red flags, as should have the other evidence of innocence. The fact that they could ignore alibi evidence of a law enforcement officer, is mindboggling. Additionally, in general, alibi evidence being discounted by police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and appellate judges on the state and federal level, seems to be a common theme in many cases.
Lastly, the wrongfully convicted being denied parole based upon continuing to maintain innocence, also shows up often. We need to have a law in New York, and across the country, that parole applicants cannot be denied parole based upon maintaining innocence, because to do otherwise is not to take into account the reality that innocent people are wrongfully convicted. To extend a stay of incarceration due to
maintaining innocence is to add insult to injury, and to continue an injustice. My stay in prison for a crime I was later proved innocent of by DNA, was extended for a year by the parole board because I would not make an admission of guilt.
The Levon Jones case is further evidence that innocent people will be sentenced to death if we have a death penalty, and therefore the need to keep it out of New York, and have it repealed across the country is paramount if we don’t want to execute innocent people. The theme of bad lawyering raises it’s head, as it did in the Swift case. The prosecutor expressing doubt regarding Jones’ innocence, is reminiscent of the habit of many prosecutors and policemen: not wanting to admit their error or acknowledge that an innocent man was wrongfully incarcerated.
For the prosecutor to then try to blame the court system is disingenuous, because a prosecutor has responsibility in the decisions that the court makes, because they are arguing positions in front of it. Rather than trying to shift blame, maybe they should apply introspection to their actions in fighting against Levon Jones.
I do think that courts should take a lesson and be more careful in reviewing appeals, because it really should have never gotten to the point that Jones was incarcerated for 15 years on death row. Lastly, the movement back in 1997, when the United States Congress passed, and the President signed into law, a procedure cutting down the length of time that someone on death row could spend on appeals, can safely be said to be foolhardy, as has procedures limiting appeals.
Keep Coming Out, Part II
Jeff Deskovic
Several issues ago, I wrote an article entitled “Wrongful Convictions Just Keep Coming Out.” In this issue, I will do a follow-up to that article, further illustrating that theme, with the purpose in mind of trying to raise the awareness of society to the problem of wrongful convictions. People will come to realize, with each passing instance, that wrongful convictions are not rare, that this really can happen to anyone, and does. Furthermore, there is no geographical location which is immune from it happening. The thought “That could never
happen here”, or “that could never happen to me”, are unfortunately myths that we as a society cannot afford to have.
It is also my intention to raise the awareness of those who are in a position to directly do something about it: state senators and assemblypersons in passing bills to protect the innocent; policemen and others in law enforcement, to be sure not to coerce confessions, to be careful when conducting lineups and photo arrays so as not to taint them, with the result of a misidentification occurring, tunnel vision and overzealousness; prosecutors in being on the lookout for the possibility of the police having engaged in the aforementioned, as well as not engaging in prosecutorial misconduct and playing things straight in the courtroom, knowing that defendants are not immune from being wrongfully convicted if they are innocent; and judges in ensuring that trials are fair, and in ruling on the merits of appeals.
Periodically, as more cases are exposed, I will write follow-up articles. The following are major cases of wrongful convictions that have come out since the first installment of this series.
James Woodard was released on April 29, 2008, after spending more than 27 years in prison in Texas for a 1980 murder he has been cleared of by DNA. Woodard was sentenced to life in prison in July 1981 for the murder of a 21-year-old Dallas woman found sexually assaulted and strangled near the banks of the Trinity River. The 27 years he served wrongfully make him the longest-serving wrongly convicted man in the nation to be exonerated by DNA testing.
He is also the 18th person in Dallas County to have his conviction overturned by DNA, which is a figure unmatched by any county in the United States, according to The Innocence Project.
Overall, 31 people have been formally exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, also a national high. at does not include Woodard and at least three others whose exonerations will not become official until Gov. Rick Perry grants pardons or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals formally accepts the ruling of lower courts that have already recommended exoneration.
The following report was filed by Schuyler Dixon, of the Associated Press, on Woodard’s case: He was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from two eyewitnesses, said Natalie Roetzel, the executive director of the Innocence Project of Texas. One has since recanted in an af-fidavit. As for the other, “We don’t believe her testimony was accurate,” Roetzel said. Like nearly all the exonorees, Woodard has maintained his innocence throughout his time in prison.
But after filing six writs with an appeals court, plus two requests for DNA testing, his pleas of innocence became so repetitive and routine that “the courthouse doors were eventually closed to him and he was labeled a writ abuser,” Roetzel said.
“On the first day he was arrested, he told the world he was innocent ... and nobody listened,” Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, said during Tuesday’s hearing. “James Lee Woodard stepped out of the courtroom and raised his arms to a throng of photographers. Supporters and other people gathered outside the court erupted in applause. “No words can express what a tragic story yours is,” state District Judge Mark Stoltz told Woodard at a brief hearing before his release. “I thank God for the existence of the Innocence project,” Woodard, 55, told the court. “Without that, I wouldn’t be here today. I would be wasting away in prison.”
Walter Swift was exonerated on May 21, 2008 by DNA after serving 26 years in Michigan for rape. The Innocence Project, which represents
Swift, released the following report about the case:
For 26 long years, Walter Swift has held onto hope that the truth would finally come out and he would be exonerated. Today, his unimaginable nightmare is ending but he is just beginning the long road to rebuild his life,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project. “He was convicted based on a deeply awed and completely unreliable eyewitness identification. Even at the time of his trial in 1982, there was convincing evidence that he was innocent, but his court-appointed attorney failed to present that evidence. ”
The case stems from a September 1982 home-invasion rape and robbery in Detroit. The victim was a pregnant white woman who was at home with her seven-month old child. She described her attacker as a 15-to-18-year-old African-American man with unusual braids and “poofs of hair” on his head, but no facial hair. After the crime, police asked her to look through hundreds of photos. She selected the photos of seven men who she said resembled the assailant, and the police officer handling the case randomly decided that the next person the victim selected would be brought in for a live lineup.
That person was Walter Swift, who was several years older than the victim’s description of her attacker, had a pronounced black eye at the time of the crime (which was not part of the victim’s description), had a mustache and long sideburns at the time of the crime, and always had closely cropped hair with no braids. Swift - but none of the other seven men whose photos were selected by the victim – was brought in for a lineup, and the victim was told that the eighth man she selected would be in the lineup.
She selected Swift in the lineup, saying that she “believed” he was her attacker. The police officer who initially investigated the case and handled the photo identification believed that the victim’s identification was uncertain and unreliable – but at Swift’s trial, the jury heard only that she selected his photo and his photo alone, that she identi-fied him in a lineup, and that she was certain he was the assailant.
In addition to the flawed and unreliable eyewitness identification, forensic testing before Swift’s trial supported his claims of innocence – but the jury never heard that forensic evidence. An analyst who tested semen from the perpetrator determined that if the sample she was testing was clean enough (meaning it was predominately semen from the perpetrator, which it likely was), Swift could not have been the perpetrator based on his blood type.
That analyst was never called to the stand at Swift’s trial, and she was shocked to learn in recent years that Swift had been convicted.
Swift’s court-appointed trial attorney, Lawrence R. Greene, did not adequately pursue the identification procedure during the trial and did not present the exculpatory forensic evidence. Greene has been suspended from practicing law several times in just the last decade based on misconduct and inadequate representation in other cases.
From the first time police questioned Swift about the crime, he had an airtight alibi from a woman he was dating at the time. The woman, whose relationship with Swift ended two decades ago, maintains that she was with Swift when the crime was committed, and she had documentation at the time of trial (shopping receipts) corroborating her story of their whereabouts. She has been a law enforcement officer for 24 years and has no motive to fabricate an alibi for Swift. Swift had been denied parole five times since 2000 because he would not admit to a crime he didn’t commit.
The Innocence Project accepted Swift’s case 10 years ago, hoping to conduct DNA testing on crime scene evidence that could prove his innocence. The evidence had all been lost or destroyed – but the Innocence Project began to uncover evidence about the eyewitness
identi-fication procedure, the forensic testing, Swift’s alibi and the depths of his inadequate defense counsel at trial. “Over the course of a decade, each layer we pulled back led to more evidence that Walter Swift is innocent,” said Innocence Project Staff Attorney Olga Akselrod.
“We also began to work with people throughout the criminal justice system, some of whom were directly involved in convicting Mr. Swift, who were becoming increasingly convinced of his innocence. It’s highly unusual to have the original prosecutor, the police officer who investigated the case and the lab analyst who handled the case all come forward to support an innocent prisoner – but that’s exactly what happened in this case.”
In an extraordinary development, the prosecutor who convicted Swift, and the police officer who initially investigated the case, both assisted the Innocence Project in seeking to vacate Swift’s conviction. Both filed formal affidavits, as did the alibi witness. The Innocence Project presented all of the evidence in the case to Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney Kym Worthy, whose office investigated it thoroughly.
“The Prosecuting Attorney’s office looked at this case carefully and closely. Each piece of evidence needed to be analyzed on its own and in combination with the other evidence, and the Prosecuting Attorney was extraordinarily thoughtful and reached the right conclusion,” Scheck said. Barry Scheck said, “Walter Swift wasn’t the first person in Michigan who was wrongfully convicted based on eyewitness misidentification, and he won’t be the last. A bill is pending in the Michigan Legislature that would make sure photo arrays and lineups
are conducted properly, based on what decades of scientific research and practical experience shows can reduce misidentifications.
The Legislature should make this bill a priority and pass it promptly,” Scheck said. The following account of the Levon Jones case is taken from an article written by Titan Barksdale of The News And Observer: In 1993, a Duplin County jury convicted Jones, now 49, of first-degree murder in the 1987 shooting death of Leamon Grady, a local bootlegger. The jury also convicted him of robbery with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy.
District Attorney Dewey Hudson, the top prosecutor in a district including Duplin, dismissed all of the charges against Jones on Friday, saying his star witness’ recent recantation of trial testimony was the main reason for his decision. The recantation of Lovely Lorden, Jones’ then-girlfriend, left Hudson with little evidence to put before a jury again. The big break in Jones’ bid for freedom came from a federal judge in 2006.
U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle handed down a strongly worded order, taking Jones off death row and calling for a new trial. Boyle called the case against Jones weak and was critical of the performance of Jones’ trial attorneys, Graham Phillips Jr. and Charles C. Henderson. “Jones received two appointed attorneys that spent virtually no time or effort investigating the offense or his background,” Boyle wrote in the order. Jones has maintained his innocence, and members of his close-knit family, many of whom live in Duplin County, said they believed him without a doubt. Friday, they all wanted a piece of Jones during his first minutes of freedom. Emerging from a back hallway at the Duplin County jail, Jones, smiling widely, was met with an ovation. One by one, family members hugged Jones tightly.
Reporters could detain him only briefly before he whisked past them to get outside of the jail. “I’m ready to go,” Jones said. “I’ve been here too long.”
Jones said he expected to be a free man someday, although the N.C. Supreme Court upheld his conviction in 1996. Jones’ 15 years on death row is the longest stint of any condemned inmate in North Carolina who has been freed. During a news conference, Hudson defended his prosecution of Jones, laying blame on the court system. “Any time the court system takes so long to resolve these important legal issues, the [district attorney’s] office is placed in a tough position,” Hudson said.
Hudson is not convinced that Jones is an innocent man, though his attorneys and supporters say otherwise. Jone’s time spent on death row is followed closely by that of Glen Chapman, who was cleared and recently released from death row after 14 years there.
Commentary
Each of these cases brings a variety of thoughts to my mind. I will discuss them in the order in which the cases are mentioned. The Woodard case illustrates that no matter how long a conviction may have stood, that is no indication of it’s reliability. It simply means that no evidence as yet has come out regarding innocence. I say this being well aware that there are guilty people in prison, and that there are some who falsely claim innocence. Thus, courts need to continue to provide a forum from which those who are alleging innocence can have their claims heard and viewed objectively, regardless of the amount of time that has passed or the so-called “Finality Of Convictions”, and the denial of appeals based upon procedure, particularly when innocence as raised, is going in the opposite direction of guilt and innocence being the bedrock of the criminal justice system. We need more review mechanisms for the wrongfully convicted, as I have advocated in the petition on my website, http://www.jeffrey-deskovicspeaks.org/
In my view, while it can clearly be said that Texas has had a big problem with wrongful convictions often occurring there, currently leading the country in the number of exposed cases, that by no means indicates that other states do not have a similar, or as severe a problem. It merely means that Texas has had a lot of them exposed. Since DNA is only available in 10% of all serious felony cases, and it is hard for wrongfully convicted prisoners to obtain quality legal representation, there is no telling how many people have been wrongfully convicted or which states are truly the worst at that. The fact that a state has not yet had an exoneration doesn’t mean it has been infallible. It merely means that they have not, as yet, been uncovered.
The case reaffirms the unreliability of identification testimony, which to date has accounted for 75% of the now 216 DNA exonerations, as well as the insufficiency of the appellate process in protecting society. The need for legislation increasing the accuracy of identifications remains urgent. I find the two denials of requests for DNA testing to be particularly reprehensible, and very reminiscent of former Westchester District Atttorney Jeanine Pirro’s actions in blocking requests for DNA Testing in my case. We need legislation granting each
prisoner the unequivocal right to DNA Testing whenever there is material to test.
The level of deficient representation that Walter Swift received serves as an important illustration of the need for each state’s government to adopt a standardized system of public defense to allow for more streamlining, quality control, and oversight, as well as the need to properly fund the public defender’s office, and to limit the amount of cases that lawyers are allowed to take at one time. In the Bronx, it is not unusual for a public defender to simultaneously represent 120 defendants at one time. It is also important to weed out bad attorneys who continue to
be employed as public defenders, thus setting the stage for future inadequate legal representation and with it more wrongful convictions.
I have mixed feelings regarding the original prosecuting attorney and the police officer. In order to learn best the lessons of this case, the good should be seized upon and emulated, and the bad should not be repeated. On that note, I laud the prosecutor and the policeman for being willing to admit an error and assist in an exoneration that they had directly participated in. It is far too rare. Prosecutors and policemen all
over should take note and follow them in this whenever the facts and circumstances in a case warrant it, rather than fighting tooth and nail to preserve a bad conviction at any cost.
On the other had, both the policeman and prosecutor were aware of how shaky the identification of Swift was, and this should have set off red flags, as should have the other evidence of innocence. The fact that they could ignore alibi evidence of a law enforcement officer, is mindboggling. Additionally, in general, alibi evidence being discounted by police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and appellate judges on the state and federal level, seems to be a common theme in many cases.
Lastly, the wrongfully convicted being denied parole based upon continuing to maintain innocence, also shows up often. We need to have a law in New York, and across the country, that parole applicants cannot be denied parole based upon maintaining innocence, because to do otherwise is not to take into account the reality that innocent people are wrongfully convicted. To extend a stay of incarceration due to
maintaining innocence is to add insult to injury, and to continue an injustice. My stay in prison for a crime I was later proved innocent of by DNA, was extended for a year by the parole board because I would not make an admission of guilt.
The Levon Jones case is further evidence that innocent people will be sentenced to death if we have a death penalty, and therefore the need to keep it out of New York, and have it repealed across the country is paramount if we don’t want to execute innocent people. The theme of bad lawyering raises it’s head, as it did in the Swift case. The prosecutor expressing doubt regarding Jones’ innocence, is reminiscent of the habit of many prosecutors and policemen: not wanting to admit their error or acknowledge that an innocent man was wrongfully incarcerated.
For the prosecutor to then try to blame the court system is disingenuous, because a prosecutor has responsibility in the decisions that the court makes, because they are arguing positions in front of it. Rather than trying to shift blame, maybe they should apply introspection to their actions in fighting against Levon Jones.
I do think that courts should take a lesson and be more careful in reviewing appeals, because it really should have never gotten to the point that Jones was incarcerated for 15 years on death row. Lastly, the movement back in 1997, when the United States Congress passed, and the President signed into law, a procedure cutting down the length of time that someone on death row could spend on appeals, can safely be said to be foolhardy, as has procedures limiting appeals.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
What Sacrifices Are Our Leaders Making
To Alleviate the Crises In Our Midst?
Part 1 of a Series
Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the House in Congress from 1977 to 1987, famously said “All politics is local”. O’Neill was wrong. The issues
of our local communities these days are global issues – the environment, the energy crisis, food shortages, and economic declines. We now realize that the actions of one individual or community affect other individuals and communities.
Our problems are also often interrelated: oil shortages led to the use of corn for ethanol which led to global food shortages. Wasteful economic acts, such as the misuse of energy, have contributed to our environmental crisis. The crises we face, from dangerous weather patterns, to economic struggles, are shared, and caused by people throughout the world. Environmental scientists have devised programs to calculate the impact of our daily activities upon our planet – this impact is referred to as our “carbon footprint”. Every time we drive, turn on a light, wash clothes, or cook food, we leave an energy/environmental footprint.
But depending on the car we drive and the distance, the amount and type of lights we use, the volume of clothes to be washed, and the
method of cooking our meals, the footprint we leave on our planet can vary widely. Therefore, is it reasonable to ask that those who have left the greatest carbon footprints all along now be those who make the greatest sacrifices?
A major source of the causes of our environmental, energy, economic, and even food crises can be found locally – in the actions of our
corporations and leaders. The behavior of our business and government leaders has contributed more to global warming and economic
disparities than the daily activities of average local citizens.
The “Climate Crisis” website (http://www.climatecrisis.org/), Vice-President Al Gore’s site, has a calculator for individuals to determine their
annual energy/environmental impact. According to their scientists, the average individual’s use of energy impacting our environment
is 7.5 tons per year. e following activities/household would produce the same average energy impact:
• Four individuals per household
• 12,000 miles driven per year, minivan ownership
• $300 – 400 per month electricity/ heat
• No plane Flights taken
The above activities represent those of many Westchester middle class families. The good news is that their activities are not causing greater harm on our planet than those of their average middle-class neighbors.
Many local residents impact our energy and our environment even far less – for those who drive compact cars, rather than minivans, their energy use falls below average to 6 tons per year. Those who drive small, manual transmission vehicles have even a smaller impact on our
environment – less than 5 tons of energy use per year. But compare that to those local residents who are essentially “environmental terrorists”, cruising around town in a be-hemoth Cadillac Escalade or Land Rover: their energy use is in excess of 10 tons per year, or twice the annual consumption of their environmentally-conscious neighbors.
Therefore, the conservation efforts by local responsible citizens are essentially erased by their Hummer/McMansion neighbors. The same environmental calculations can be applied to the impact of plane travel on our energy resources. Most local Westchester residents cannot afford to travel by plane on a regular basis so their environmental impact from this type of travel is minimal.
But what of corporate executives, local entertainment individuals, and government leaders who fly regularly? Environmental scientists have determined that one of the greatest negative impacts on our climate is the use of airplanes for “short hauls” – i.e. trips of 500 miles or less.
These short flights require the same energy for take-offs and landings as long-haul flights. Plus many shorthaul flights utilize smaller aircraft,
thereby carrying fewer passengers causing a greater per capita energy impact.
Despite this negative environmental impact, area executives regularly take short haul flights, instead of the train, to Washington D.C. and Boston. Worse, many corporate executives and entertainment personnel eschew commercial flights altogether in favor of private jets creating an even greater negative per capita impact on our environment. Westchester County Airport owes its existence to short-haul and medium-length commercial and corporate flights. Executive Flightways operates out of the Westchester County airport. It advertises a variety of corporate jets in its fleet, from a King Air B200 that can carry only 6 to 7 passengers, to a Gulfstream IV that can carry 14 passengers.
Compare that to a commercial long-haul flight on an AirBus 350 aircraft that can carry 350 passengers. Gulfstream would need 25 of their jets to fly the same amount of executives. Executives who also arrive at the airport via limousines, often traveling solo, in stark contrast to the carpool/public transportation methods employed by local residents who fly coach.
So, given our energy/environmental crises, why aren’t our local executives now flying commercial and taking the bus to the airport? It’s not just corporate executives who are guilty of such excesses. According to a May 25, 2008 entry in the “Westchester Real Estate Blog”, Beyonce Knowles and Jay-Z, two rock/rap singers, are moving to Scarsdale. The blog gushes that their house is “15,000 square feet, new construction and on about 2 acres of property”, as if this is a good thing. The average Westchester middle-class home is less than 2,000 square feet, houses approximately four people and a variety of pets, is old construction with average amenities, and sits on less than a half-acre of land. Compare that to Beyonce and Jay-Z who are buying a house that will use at least seven times more energy to run for half the amount of people. Plus, chances are this house comes with a pool, a hot tub, a Jacuzzi, a sauna, a theater room, several ovens and oversized
refrigerators and freezers, and a host of other extravagant amenities that will consume more than their fair share of our costly energy resources, their energy estimate of seven times greater than average could actually be far higher.
Given that Beyonce and Jay-Z are only two people, shouldn’t they be moving into a home that is half the size of an average family home?
Not one seven times greater? And given that they will now be consuming at least seven times the energy, if not more, to operate this extravagant home (one of probably several that they own), what sacrifices will they be making elsewhere to atone for their excessive depletion of our energy resources? Or do they expect their neighbors to conserve for them so that they may continue to live extravagantly?
The Guardian posed this question to the Pace University Law School, Environmental Department. We asked what sacrifices we should expect from our local leaders, corporations, executives, and the “rich and famous” to atone for their excessive lifestyles which have disproportionably contributed to our current crises.
Jaime Van Nostrand, the Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center, asked his students and staff to prepare a list of questions
for The Guardian to pose to our local business, community, government, and entertainment leaders on this topic. Pace recommended the following overall goals for local organizations:
1. Recognize sustainability at the highest levels of the organization, such as by appointment of an officer in charge of sustainability;incorporating sustainability as an integral part of major corporate actions and procurement policies; tracking of corporation’s CO2 emissions or carbon footprint with identified goals for CO2 reductions over time.
2. Consider feasibility of on-site generation, such as Combined Heat & Power (CHP) or cogeneration, solar, geothermal heating and cooling. Considering sustainability in all corporate buildings; obtaining energy audits of existing facilities and implementing recommended energy conservation measures; requiring LEED-certified construction for all new corporate buildings; capturing and re-using rainwater; installing “green” rooftops.
3. Adopt a corporate philosophy encouraging recycling; establishing collection points throughout corporate facilities for collecting paper, cans, bottles, plastics for recycling; avoid unnecessary waste by eliminating use of disposable cups, plates and silverware in cafeteria facilities; use of food composting practices for turning food waste into landscaping compost for use on corporate campuses.
The Pace Students and staff also developed the following specific list of questions for our local leaders regarding the energy/environmental
crises:
1. Switching fleet to hybrid cars including cars for all executives? [Implementing phase-in of lower-emission cars into fleet, including compressed natural gas (CNG)-powered vehicles and electric cars]
2. Substituting public transportation where possible – no car rentals for business trips in urban areas and mandating the use of public transportation, prohibiting limousines for airport trips, mandating carpooling for business events? Reimbursements for business travel limited to the cost of the bus/train travel?
3. Using energy efficient equipment, light bulbs? [Including use of compact fluorescent bulbs]
4. Reducing energy use – 70 degrees for air conditioners, 66 degrees for heating, reducing number of lights used? Using motion-sensitive
lighting systems that turn lights off in unused rooms and hallways; turning off computers and monitors after hours
5. Installing parking racks for bicycles and scooters? Subsidizing use of mass transit by employees to discourage use of personal cars for commuting; implementing vanpool programs for employees; facilitating voluntary use of carpooling by employees
6. Prohibiting using air travel for short hops (Boston, D.C.) and mandating using trains, buses instead?
7. Minimizing overseas conventions/business meetings and considering whether meeting objectives could be accomplished by using video-conferencing or teleconferencing? Minimize golf meetings, especially golf trips to Arizona, Bermuda, Hawaii, and other locales only reachable by plane? Focus golf outings to only courses using sustainable/pesticide-free lawn treatments. Eliminate use of golf carts that require fuel.
8. Instituting sustainable, chemical-free practices in landscaping and maintenance of all corporate property.
9. Using only chemical free cleaners in offices, restrooms?
10. Using chemical free paper products made from recycled materials – including copier/fax paper, toilet paper?
11. Using automatic shut-off valves for water in restroom sinks, toilets, etc?
12. Minimize the use of corporate jets, and use only when cost effective (considering environmental costs) or necessary due
to unavailability of commercial flights?
13. Prohibit the use of perfumed products and wearing of perfumes/colognes in offices? (to alleviate breathing difficulties of asthma victims allergic to perfumes – increase in asthma victims due to weather/environmental changes)
14. Using remanufactured products to reduce/eliminate packaging?
15. Purchasing in bulk packages, and from local producers?
16. Minimizing use of mailings, brochures, flyers if electronic distribution of information can be used; minimizing use of paper by setting printers for 2-sided copies as default?
The Pace Students and staff also developed the following specific list of questions regarding the local economy and food issues:
1. Revamp T&E policies to stimulate local economy by purchasing NYS wines/beers for events and dinners?
2. Ditto – for beef entrees? No steak/beef/hamburgers may be ordered at business meals/events; not served in cafeterias? (to reduce methane gases and in recognition of carbon footprint associated with livestock production)
3. Purchase food from NYS farmers to reduce carbon footprints?
4. Eliminate the sale of bottled water/ canned sodas in cafeterias and replace with water fountains, etc. (if accompanied with the use of non-disposable cups)?
5. Eliminated the sale of one-serve packages in cafeterias? [Oneserve packages could be eliminated during hours when cafeteria is in operation, determine feasibility to eliminate one-serving packaging in after-hours vending machines]
6. Purchase only organicallygrown produce? (to eliminate chemicals in the environment) [May be cost considerations involved, and must also consider the carbon footprint associated with transporting organic produce over long distances; should be locally grown produce]
The Guardian has already presented these questions to the Westchester County Board of Legislators as to how our local government is
leading the fight on these issues. In upcoming weeks The Guardian will be approaching local corporations (Pepsi, IBM, etc.), businesses
(stores, restaurants), developers (Trump, Cappelli, etc.), and leaders (local representatives, courts, etc.), including entertainment figures and
sports teams; with these questions and asking them what sacrifices they are making to alleviate our problems.
The Guardian is asking our readers to become involved. What steps are your businesses/communities/organizations taking? What should our neighbors do? What other questions should we pose to our leaders? What sacrifices should we expect them to make on our behalf?
Next week: the County Board of Legislator’s response
Our thanks to the following students and staff members of the Pace University Energy and Climate Center: Alison Reynolds, Christopher
Riti, Ethan Spaner, Kavitha Mukund, Nathan Markey, Jamie Van Nostrand
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
What Sacrifices Are Our Leaders Making
To Alleviate the Crises In Our Midst?
Part 1 of a Series
Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the House in Congress from 1977 to 1987, famously said “All politics is local”. O’Neill was wrong. The issues
of our local communities these days are global issues – the environment, the energy crisis, food shortages, and economic declines. We now realize that the actions of one individual or community affect other individuals and communities.
Our problems are also often interrelated: oil shortages led to the use of corn for ethanol which led to global food shortages. Wasteful economic acts, such as the misuse of energy, have contributed to our environmental crisis. The crises we face, from dangerous weather patterns, to economic struggles, are shared, and caused by people throughout the world. Environmental scientists have devised programs to calculate the impact of our daily activities upon our planet – this impact is referred to as our “carbon footprint”. Every time we drive, turn on a light, wash clothes, or cook food, we leave an energy/environmental footprint.
But depending on the car we drive and the distance, the amount and type of lights we use, the volume of clothes to be washed, and the
method of cooking our meals, the footprint we leave on our planet can vary widely. Therefore, is it reasonable to ask that those who have left the greatest carbon footprints all along now be those who make the greatest sacrifices?
A major source of the causes of our environmental, energy, economic, and even food crises can be found locally – in the actions of our
corporations and leaders. The behavior of our business and government leaders has contributed more to global warming and economic
disparities than the daily activities of average local citizens.
The “Climate Crisis” website (http://www.climatecrisis.org/), Vice-President Al Gore’s site, has a calculator for individuals to determine their
annual energy/environmental impact. According to their scientists, the average individual’s use of energy impacting our environment
is 7.5 tons per year. e following activities/household would produce the same average energy impact:
• Four individuals per household
• 12,000 miles driven per year, minivan ownership
• $300 – 400 per month electricity/ heat
• No plane Flights taken
The above activities represent those of many Westchester middle class families. The good news is that their activities are not causing greater harm on our planet than those of their average middle-class neighbors.
Many local residents impact our energy and our environment even far less – for those who drive compact cars, rather than minivans, their energy use falls below average to 6 tons per year. Those who drive small, manual transmission vehicles have even a smaller impact on our
environment – less than 5 tons of energy use per year. But compare that to those local residents who are essentially “environmental terrorists”, cruising around town in a be-hemoth Cadillac Escalade or Land Rover: their energy use is in excess of 10 tons per year, or twice the annual consumption of their environmentally-conscious neighbors.
Therefore, the conservation efforts by local responsible citizens are essentially erased by their Hummer/McMansion neighbors. The same environmental calculations can be applied to the impact of plane travel on our energy resources. Most local Westchester residents cannot afford to travel by plane on a regular basis so their environmental impact from this type of travel is minimal.
But what of corporate executives, local entertainment individuals, and government leaders who fly regularly? Environmental scientists have determined that one of the greatest negative impacts on our climate is the use of airplanes for “short hauls” – i.e. trips of 500 miles or less.
These short flights require the same energy for take-offs and landings as long-haul flights. Plus many shorthaul flights utilize smaller aircraft,
thereby carrying fewer passengers causing a greater per capita energy impact.
Despite this negative environmental impact, area executives regularly take short haul flights, instead of the train, to Washington D.C. and Boston. Worse, many corporate executives and entertainment personnel eschew commercial flights altogether in favor of private jets creating an even greater negative per capita impact on our environment. Westchester County Airport owes its existence to short-haul and medium-length commercial and corporate flights. Executive Flightways operates out of the Westchester County airport. It advertises a variety of corporate jets in its fleet, from a King Air B200 that can carry only 6 to 7 passengers, to a Gulfstream IV that can carry 14 passengers.
Compare that to a commercial long-haul flight on an AirBus 350 aircraft that can carry 350 passengers. Gulfstream would need 25 of their jets to fly the same amount of executives. Executives who also arrive at the airport via limousines, often traveling solo, in stark contrast to the carpool/public transportation methods employed by local residents who fly coach.
So, given our energy/environmental crises, why aren’t our local executives now flying commercial and taking the bus to the airport? It’s not just corporate executives who are guilty of such excesses. According to a May 25, 2008 entry in the “Westchester Real Estate Blog”, Beyonce Knowles and Jay-Z, two rock/rap singers, are moving to Scarsdale. The blog gushes that their house is “15,000 square feet, new construction and on about 2 acres of property”, as if this is a good thing. The average Westchester middle-class home is less than 2,000 square feet, houses approximately four people and a variety of pets, is old construction with average amenities, and sits on less than a half-acre of land. Compare that to Beyonce and Jay-Z who are buying a house that will use at least seven times more energy to run for half the amount of people. Plus, chances are this house comes with a pool, a hot tub, a Jacuzzi, a sauna, a theater room, several ovens and oversized
refrigerators and freezers, and a host of other extravagant amenities that will consume more than their fair share of our costly energy resources, their energy estimate of seven times greater than average could actually be far higher.
Given that Beyonce and Jay-Z are only two people, shouldn’t they be moving into a home that is half the size of an average family home?
Not one seven times greater? And given that they will now be consuming at least seven times the energy, if not more, to operate this extravagant home (one of probably several that they own), what sacrifices will they be making elsewhere to atone for their excessive depletion of our energy resources? Or do they expect their neighbors to conserve for them so that they may continue to live extravagantly?
The Guardian posed this question to the Pace University Law School, Environmental Department. We asked what sacrifices we should expect from our local leaders, corporations, executives, and the “rich and famous” to atone for their excessive lifestyles which have disproportionably contributed to our current crises.
Jaime Van Nostrand, the Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center, asked his students and staff to prepare a list of questions
for The Guardian to pose to our local business, community, government, and entertainment leaders on this topic. Pace recommended the following overall goals for local organizations:
1. Recognize sustainability at the highest levels of the organization, such as by appointment of an officer in charge of sustainability;incorporating sustainability as an integral part of major corporate actions and procurement policies; tracking of corporation’s CO2 emissions or carbon footprint with identified goals for CO2 reductions over time.
2. Consider feasibility of on-site generation, such as Combined Heat & Power (CHP) or cogeneration, solar, geothermal heating and cooling. Considering sustainability in all corporate buildings; obtaining energy audits of existing facilities and implementing recommended energy conservation measures; requiring LEED-certified construction for all new corporate buildings; capturing and re-using rainwater; installing “green” rooftops.
3. Adopt a corporate philosophy encouraging recycling; establishing collection points throughout corporate facilities for collecting paper, cans, bottles, plastics for recycling; avoid unnecessary waste by eliminating use of disposable cups, plates and silverware in cafeteria facilities; use of food composting practices for turning food waste into landscaping compost for use on corporate campuses.
The Pace Students and staff also developed the following specific list of questions for our local leaders regarding the energy/environmental
crises:
1. Switching fleet to hybrid cars including cars for all executives? [Implementing phase-in of lower-emission cars into fleet, including compressed natural gas (CNG)-powered vehicles and electric cars]
2. Substituting public transportation where possible – no car rentals for business trips in urban areas and mandating the use of public transportation, prohibiting limousines for airport trips, mandating carpooling for business events? Reimbursements for business travel limited to the cost of the bus/train travel?
3. Using energy efficient equipment, light bulbs? [Including use of compact fluorescent bulbs]
4. Reducing energy use – 70 degrees for air conditioners, 66 degrees for heating, reducing number of lights used? Using motion-sensitive
lighting systems that turn lights off in unused rooms and hallways; turning off computers and monitors after hours
5. Installing parking racks for bicycles and scooters? Subsidizing use of mass transit by employees to discourage use of personal cars for commuting; implementing vanpool programs for employees; facilitating voluntary use of carpooling by employees
6. Prohibiting using air travel for short hops (Boston, D.C.) and mandating using trains, buses instead?
7. Minimizing overseas conventions/business meetings and considering whether meeting objectives could be accomplished by using video-conferencing or teleconferencing? Minimize golf meetings, especially golf trips to Arizona, Bermuda, Hawaii, and other locales only reachable by plane? Focus golf outings to only courses using sustainable/pesticide-free lawn treatments. Eliminate use of golf carts that require fuel.
8. Instituting sustainable, chemical-free practices in landscaping and maintenance of all corporate property.
9. Using only chemical free cleaners in offices, restrooms?
10. Using chemical free paper products made from recycled materials – including copier/fax paper, toilet paper?
11. Using automatic shut-off valves for water in restroom sinks, toilets, etc?
12. Minimize the use of corporate jets, and use only when cost effective (considering environmental costs) or necessary due
to unavailability of commercial flights?
13. Prohibit the use of perfumed products and wearing of perfumes/colognes in offices? (to alleviate breathing difficulties of asthma victims allergic to perfumes – increase in asthma victims due to weather/environmental changes)
14. Using remanufactured products to reduce/eliminate packaging?
15. Purchasing in bulk packages, and from local producers?
16. Minimizing use of mailings, brochures, flyers if electronic distribution of information can be used; minimizing use of paper by setting printers for 2-sided copies as default?
The Pace Students and staff also developed the following specific list of questions regarding the local economy and food issues:
1. Revamp T&E policies to stimulate local economy by purchasing NYS wines/beers for events and dinners?
2. Ditto – for beef entrees? No steak/beef/hamburgers may be ordered at business meals/events; not served in cafeterias? (to reduce methane gases and in recognition of carbon footprint associated with livestock production)
3. Purchase food from NYS farmers to reduce carbon footprints?
4. Eliminate the sale of bottled water/ canned sodas in cafeterias and replace with water fountains, etc. (if accompanied with the use of non-disposable cups)?
5. Eliminated the sale of one-serve packages in cafeterias? [Oneserve packages could be eliminated during hours when cafeteria is in operation, determine feasibility to eliminate one-serving packaging in after-hours vending machines]
6. Purchase only organicallygrown produce? (to eliminate chemicals in the environment) [May be cost considerations involved, and must also consider the carbon footprint associated with transporting organic produce over long distances; should be locally grown produce]
The Guardian has already presented these questions to the Westchester County Board of Legislators as to how our local government is
leading the fight on these issues. In upcoming weeks The Guardian will be approaching local corporations (Pepsi, IBM, etc.), businesses
(stores, restaurants), developers (Trump, Cappelli, etc.), and leaders (local representatives, courts, etc.), including entertainment figures and
sports teams; with these questions and asking them what sacrifices they are making to alleviate our problems.
The Guardian is asking our readers to become involved. What steps are your businesses/communities/organizations taking? What should our neighbors do? What other questions should we pose to our leaders? What sacrifices should we expect them to make on our behalf?
Next week: the County Board of Legislator’s response
Our thanks to the following students and staff members of the Pace University Energy and Climate Center: Alison Reynolds, Christopher
Riti, Ethan Spaner, Kavitha Mukund, Nathan Markey, Jamie Van Nostrand
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Harrison Police Chief Fiddles, Hopes
Supervisor Walsh Dances To His Tune
She's Calling For An Independent Investigation
Last Wednesday afternoon, May 28, The Guardian received word from Harrison residents that there was apparently a press conference
about to be conducted at Police Headquarters because they had seen several network broadcast vans and television cameras being
set up there. The Guardian quickly responded and arrived at precisely 1:00pm to discover the camera crews taking down their tripods, and reporters lining up outside the entrance to Headquarters in order to enter individually for “one-on-one interviews” as insisted upon by Police Chief David Hall. We took a place in line, permitting a few reporters who came after us, who were under tighter deadlines, to go ahead. One of Hall’s staff persons controlled the door, identifying and permitting one reporter at a time, with camera person, to enter.
At 1:40pm, with only RNN, who had just arrived, behind us, we were motioned in. At 1:23pm, as we were waiting, Supervisor Joan
Walsh and an unidentified assistant had arrived in a large white SUV. Entering the lobby while Hall was being interviewed, she emerged within two minutes and took off.
As we entered the lobby, Police Chief Hall, appearing somewhat agitated, displayed the 9mm Glock hand gun, in a transparent evidence
bag, that had been confiscated in a raid on the Joseph Porto family home, together with a quantity of marijuana, for which Joseph Porto,
Jr., is currently serving eight months in the Westchester County Jail.
Asked what it was that he wished to say, the Chief first said, “There’s nothing to say.” But then, he quickly remarked, “He’s reached the bottom of the barrel; Mr. Lovett is totally wrong. It was a legally warranted raid.”
Hall apparently preferred to discuss the warranted purpose of the raid, claiming that Captain Marraccini and Officers Light and Lucas had done nothing wrong in his view, and that there was “no reason to bring them up on any charges.”
Given several other actions currently pending in Federal Court against Captain Marraccini, including the brutal beating of John Carollo, a 21-year old Town employee, outside Al Dente Bar and Restaurant on Halstead Avenue, in the pouring rain on April 12, at 1:30am by Marraccini and his brother-in law, Robert Luiso, Chief Hall would seem beleagured and unwilling to face and deal with reality; the mounting charges against certain members of his department.
However, Hall has been all too willing to lodge retaliatory charges against rank and file police officers, the former President of the Harrison
PBA, Ralph Tancredi, and PBA members who have been compelled to go to Federal Court because of District Attorney Janet DiFiore’s
unwillingness to investigate documented criminal actions, and civil rights violations engaged in by Chief Hall and Captain Marraccini.
Because of published reports that Harrison Town Supervisor Joan Walsh had attempted to hold an emergency Town Board meeting last Wednesday evening, and her statement to The Journal News, “We just can’t ignore this,” referring to mounting allegations and lawsuits
against the Harrison Police Department, The Guardian attempted to speak with her and grant her the opportunity to inform readers of
her present intentions, particularly in light of the reported failure of the three Republican majority members of the Town Board to meet or
even to acknowledge or contact her. However, three messages left with her assistant went unanswered.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Harrison Police Chief Fiddles, Hopes
Supervisor Walsh Dances To His Tune
She's Calling For An Independent Investigation
Last Wednesday afternoon, May 28, The Guardian received word from Harrison residents that there was apparently a press conference
about to be conducted at Police Headquarters because they had seen several network broadcast vans and television cameras being
set up there. The Guardian quickly responded and arrived at precisely 1:00pm to discover the camera crews taking down their tripods, and reporters lining up outside the entrance to Headquarters in order to enter individually for “one-on-one interviews” as insisted upon by Police Chief David Hall. We took a place in line, permitting a few reporters who came after us, who were under tighter deadlines, to go ahead. One of Hall’s staff persons controlled the door, identifying and permitting one reporter at a time, with camera person, to enter.
At 1:40pm, with only RNN, who had just arrived, behind us, we were motioned in. At 1:23pm, as we were waiting, Supervisor Joan
Walsh and an unidentified assistant had arrived in a large white SUV. Entering the lobby while Hall was being interviewed, she emerged within two minutes and took off.
As we entered the lobby, Police Chief Hall, appearing somewhat agitated, displayed the 9mm Glock hand gun, in a transparent evidence
bag, that had been confiscated in a raid on the Joseph Porto family home, together with a quantity of marijuana, for which Joseph Porto,
Jr., is currently serving eight months in the Westchester County Jail.
Asked what it was that he wished to say, the Chief first said, “There’s nothing to say.” But then, he quickly remarked, “He’s reached the bottom of the barrel; Mr. Lovett is totally wrong. It was a legally warranted raid.”
Hall apparently preferred to discuss the warranted purpose of the raid, claiming that Captain Marraccini and Officers Light and Lucas had done nothing wrong in his view, and that there was “no reason to bring them up on any charges.”
Given several other actions currently pending in Federal Court against Captain Marraccini, including the brutal beating of John Carollo, a 21-year old Town employee, outside Al Dente Bar and Restaurant on Halstead Avenue, in the pouring rain on April 12, at 1:30am by Marraccini and his brother-in law, Robert Luiso, Chief Hall would seem beleagured and unwilling to face and deal with reality; the mounting charges against certain members of his department.
However, Hall has been all too willing to lodge retaliatory charges against rank and file police officers, the former President of the Harrison
PBA, Ralph Tancredi, and PBA members who have been compelled to go to Federal Court because of District Attorney Janet DiFiore’s
unwillingness to investigate documented criminal actions, and civil rights violations engaged in by Chief Hall and Captain Marraccini.
Because of published reports that Harrison Town Supervisor Joan Walsh had attempted to hold an emergency Town Board meeting last Wednesday evening, and her statement to The Journal News, “We just can’t ignore this,” referring to mounting allegations and lawsuits
against the Harrison Police Department, The Guardian attempted to speak with her and grant her the opportunity to inform readers of
her present intentions, particularly in light of the reported failure of the three Republican majority members of the Town Board to meet or
even to acknowledge or contact her. However, three messages left with her assistant went unanswered.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
In Our Opinion...
Predictable Melodrama At The Expense Of Yonkers’ Schoolchildren
It’s been an acknowledged, and much regretted, fact, for many years, that the Yonkers Public Schools, and the 23,000 youngsters who attend them, have been getting the short end of the stick, financially, from the State. Under New York State’s Public Education Funding Formula, the City of Yonkers receives barely half the funds per student that cities such as Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester, receive.
Certainly, throughout John Spencer’s eight-year regime, and for more than four years under his disavowed sidekick, Mayor Amicone, a total of more than a dozen years, teachers, parents, and most importantly, the kids, have had to put up with the insecurity and humiliation of never knowing, from one year to the next, whether sports, music, art, and a host of other activities that youngsters in other cities, other school districts, in New York State, could take for granted, would be available to them.
Nick Spano, for all his supposed political clout in the State Senate, Republican #3, somehow could not reverse the inequity in ten terms. Each year though, he played Santa Claus, apparently saving the day at the 11th hour, as though, for some reason, Yonkers kids were “the poor relatives” who had to go begging. It became a very tired act.
Some believed, with the introduction of video gaming at Yonkers Raceway, a giant step had been taken that would insure Yonkers Public Schools’ solvency. Not so. At last Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, May 27th, the latest in a series of political maneuvers and posturings, “full of sound and fury”, nothing productive with respect to the school funding problem was accomplished.
The Mayor had requested to speak to the Council, a rare request, particularly in light of his recent State Of The City Address. An air of mystery somehow attached as though the purpose of his request was unknown. Nevertheless, the Democratic majority, and the three Republican members, of the Council, had all come armed with their individual responses to Amicone’s brief statement, which called for passage of a resolution put before the Council, by him, weeks earlier, that demanded action in Albany to fix the funding formula.
Prior to the Mayor’s brief remarks, Teacher’s Union President Pat Puleo had made a reasonable presentation pointing out, among other things, that a city of 200,000, with a $1 billion budget, ought not be cutting $22 million from the repair and construction of school buildings. She declared, “No security officers, no guidance counselors; there’s no place to cut the schools’ budget!” Council President Chuck Lesnick laid out the Majority position, declaring, “We differ with the Mayor on strategy and not substance. The Majority will not sign this
resolution.”
Explaining it would be better if the resolution could pass 7-0, Majority Leader Sandy Annabi, claiming that the language of the resolution needed to be reviewed, then called upon Lesnick to explain what had been said by local state legislators behind the scenes. Lesnick explained, “It’s not the right time and place is what our state legislators have said. Having said that we wanted their advice, we feel we ought to follow it.”
All three Republican councilmembers fully availed themselves of the opportunity to ventilate and selfpromote on the subject. Dee Barbado, urging passage of the resolution immediately, stated she didn’t think it was “antagonistic.” John Murtaugh, referred to the Majority’s resistance to act immediately as a “tap dance.” Liam McLaughlin took the position that the resolution wasn’t too critical of the powers in
Albany, and urged, “We have a serious issue right now.”
A vote was taken with all four members of the Democratic Majority voting “No”; and the three Republicans “Yes”. Irrespective of the political motives and mileage, the predictable melodrama certainly did nothing to advance the cause of quality education in Yonkers. For the moment, the Mayor and his minority Party brethren on the City Council, came off more concerned about the City’s public school children while Council President Lesnick and company appeared far too concerned with offending their legislative representatives in Albany.
Reader Complains Of Yonkers Ticketing
Dear Editor:
It seems that Yonkers PD have nothing better to do on a Saturday evening/early morning than to give out parking tickets on Bronx River Road. On 5/25 at 12:02am I received a ticket for parking less than 30 feet from a crosswalk, a crosswalk with no sidewalk and led to nowhere but the fence to the parkway. Why are crosswalks put in locations that led to nowhere? You would think YPD would be paying more attention to car burglaries, destruction of owners vehicles, muggings, need I go on rather than sitting in their cars rolling down their windows and slapping bogus traffic summons on taxpayers’ vehicles just to fill their quotas. It’s bad enough on Bronx River Road there is a parking
problem to begin with, but this type of ticketing is ridiculous especially at that hour of the morning.
This type of policing does not re-flect the high standards that Chief Hartnett expects or should tolerate from his officers.
P.J. O’Meara
Reader Exposes County Police Conflict Of Interest
Dear Editor:
Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Gatto is in charge of the “Environmental Enforcement Unit” for Westchester County Police, yet he has his subordinate making a “Consumer Affairs” arrest and subsequent vehicle impounding of a garage door installer? All the while Ron Gatto’s wife owns a garage door installation company and that the arrested party is the number one competitor of Ron Gatto’s wife’s company, Whitaker Overhead Garage Door.
Is it more than coincidence that both garage door companies are from Yorktown, further proving that this was more personal than professional? Are there no more environmental violators for Gatto’s unit to focus on? I’m sure the Guardian can take it from here...
A Concerned County Resident
In Our Opinion...
Predictable Melodrama At The Expense Of Yonkers’ Schoolchildren
It’s been an acknowledged, and much regretted, fact, for many years, that the Yonkers Public Schools, and the 23,000 youngsters who attend them, have been getting the short end of the stick, financially, from the State. Under New York State’s Public Education Funding Formula, the City of Yonkers receives barely half the funds per student that cities such as Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester, receive.
Certainly, throughout John Spencer’s eight-year regime, and for more than four years under his disavowed sidekick, Mayor Amicone, a total of more than a dozen years, teachers, parents, and most importantly, the kids, have had to put up with the insecurity and humiliation of never knowing, from one year to the next, whether sports, music, art, and a host of other activities that youngsters in other cities, other school districts, in New York State, could take for granted, would be available to them.
Nick Spano, for all his supposed political clout in the State Senate, Republican #3, somehow could not reverse the inequity in ten terms. Each year though, he played Santa Claus, apparently saving the day at the 11th hour, as though, for some reason, Yonkers kids were “the poor relatives” who had to go begging. It became a very tired act.
Some believed, with the introduction of video gaming at Yonkers Raceway, a giant step had been taken that would insure Yonkers Public Schools’ solvency. Not so. At last Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, May 27th, the latest in a series of political maneuvers and posturings, “full of sound and fury”, nothing productive with respect to the school funding problem was accomplished.
The Mayor had requested to speak to the Council, a rare request, particularly in light of his recent State Of The City Address. An air of mystery somehow attached as though the purpose of his request was unknown. Nevertheless, the Democratic majority, and the three Republican members, of the Council, had all come armed with their individual responses to Amicone’s brief statement, which called for passage of a resolution put before the Council, by him, weeks earlier, that demanded action in Albany to fix the funding formula.
Prior to the Mayor’s brief remarks, Teacher’s Union President Pat Puleo had made a reasonable presentation pointing out, among other things, that a city of 200,000, with a $1 billion budget, ought not be cutting $22 million from the repair and construction of school buildings. She declared, “No security officers, no guidance counselors; there’s no place to cut the schools’ budget!” Council President Chuck Lesnick laid out the Majority position, declaring, “We differ with the Mayor on strategy and not substance. The Majority will not sign this
resolution.”
Explaining it would be better if the resolution could pass 7-0, Majority Leader Sandy Annabi, claiming that the language of the resolution needed to be reviewed, then called upon Lesnick to explain what had been said by local state legislators behind the scenes. Lesnick explained, “It’s not the right time and place is what our state legislators have said. Having said that we wanted their advice, we feel we ought to follow it.”
All three Republican councilmembers fully availed themselves of the opportunity to ventilate and selfpromote on the subject. Dee Barbado, urging passage of the resolution immediately, stated she didn’t think it was “antagonistic.” John Murtaugh, referred to the Majority’s resistance to act immediately as a “tap dance.” Liam McLaughlin took the position that the resolution wasn’t too critical of the powers in
Albany, and urged, “We have a serious issue right now.”
A vote was taken with all four members of the Democratic Majority voting “No”; and the three Republicans “Yes”. Irrespective of the political motives and mileage, the predictable melodrama certainly did nothing to advance the cause of quality education in Yonkers. For the moment, the Mayor and his minority Party brethren on the City Council, came off more concerned about the City’s public school children while Council President Lesnick and company appeared far too concerned with offending their legislative representatives in Albany.
Reader Complains Of Yonkers Ticketing
Dear Editor:
It seems that Yonkers PD have nothing better to do on a Saturday evening/early morning than to give out parking tickets on Bronx River Road. On 5/25 at 12:02am I received a ticket for parking less than 30 feet from a crosswalk, a crosswalk with no sidewalk and led to nowhere but the fence to the parkway. Why are crosswalks put in locations that led to nowhere? You would think YPD would be paying more attention to car burglaries, destruction of owners vehicles, muggings, need I go on rather than sitting in their cars rolling down their windows and slapping bogus traffic summons on taxpayers’ vehicles just to fill their quotas. It’s bad enough on Bronx River Road there is a parking
problem to begin with, but this type of ticketing is ridiculous especially at that hour of the morning.
This type of policing does not re-flect the high standards that Chief Hartnett expects or should tolerate from his officers.
P.J. O’Meara
Reader Exposes County Police Conflict Of Interest
Dear Editor:
Does anyone find it interesting that Ron Gatto is in charge of the “Environmental Enforcement Unit” for Westchester County Police, yet he has his subordinate making a “Consumer Affairs” arrest and subsequent vehicle impounding of a garage door installer? All the while Ron Gatto’s wife owns a garage door installation company and that the arrested party is the number one competitor of Ron Gatto’s wife’s company, Whitaker Overhead Garage Door.
Is it more than coincidence that both garage door companies are from Yorktown, further proving that this was more personal than professional? Are there no more environmental violators for Gatto’s unit to focus on? I’m sure the Guardian can take it from here...
A Concerned County Resident
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Prosecutor Perry Perrone, Presenting A Case Without A
Scintilla Of Forensic Evidence, Declared,
“The Evidence Will Be Powerful, Compelling, And Overwhelming”
Westchester Supreme Court, White Plains
Judge Lester B. Adler Presiding
Friday, May 23, the trial of George Bubaris, former Mount Kisco Police Officer, charged with Manslaughter In The Second Degree, Unlawful Imprisonment, and Official Misconduct in the April 28, 2007 death of homeless, undocumented alien Rene Javier Perez, got underway. Bubaris is the only individual charged in the death despite the fact that Perez had been involved in an incident in the Town
of Bedford prior to being “borderdumped” by Bedford police back into Mount Kisco, and despite the fact that two other Mount Kisco cops, Lieutenant Dunnigan and Officer Dwyer, had had contact with Perez, who had dialed 911 from a laundromat in Mount Kisco complaining
of stomach pain and asking to be brought to the hospital.
Assistant District Attorney Perry Perrone began his opening statement by describing Byram Lake Road, and specifi-cally the area where Perez was found, near death, as “a place of darkness one would not associate with Westchester County.” He then quickly told the jury of nine men and three women, “The evidence will show one thing and one thing only about Rene Perez. He was a victim of Officer George Bubaris. It will show that George Bubaris recklessly caused the death of Rene Perez.” Perrone went on, “The only person who could have inflicted the bluntforce trauma was George Bubaris, and George Bubaris alone.” Perrone went on to give a very loosely-hung-together, one-hour and-twenty-two-minute account, designed to plant the notion in jurors’ minds, that only George Bubaris, out of more than six billion
people on planet Earth, “could have inflicted the blunt-force trauma.” He then said, “You will not hear any forensic evidence in this case. The Defendant is excluded; but that doesn’t matter.”
Analysis:
For ADA Perrone, a veteran of any number of bad, fictionalized cases over the years, cases such as Richard DiGuglielmo, in which he and ADA Patricia Murphy turned a self-defense, justifiable killing, in which all three eyewitnesses who initially reported the same truthful
account that Charles Campbell was swinging a metal bat at the head of Officer DiGuglielmo’s father the moment he was killed, needed to
be coerced and worn down until they were saying what the District Attorney wanted them to. For such a prosecutor, truth and justice are
totally irrelevant. Obtaining a conviction is all that matters.
Defense Attorney Andrew Quinn, of White Plains, approached the jury, stating, “We will present to you what the evidence will not
prove.” He wanted to focus the triers of fact as early as possible, explaining to them, “They need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
George Bubaris was responsible for Rene Perez’ death, and that they cannot do!”
Referring to Perez, he told the jurors matter-of-factly, “He got injured a lot because he got drunk a lot, and fell down.”Then Quinn took the gloves off, declaring, “We’re going to learn that this investigation was not quite what the District Attorney has told you.” Quinn went further, “A cardinal rule of police investigation is Don’t start at the end. And, that is exactly what was done. Even though he is complaining of stomach pain and asking for a hospital at 10:42pm, the Prosecution wants you to believe.”
Quinn then, standing before the jurors, calmly told them, “There’s not a shred of forensic evidence that ties my client to Rene Perez. The
Prosecution says, “We have a ton of evidence. But, none of it has to do with George Bubaris.” Then, getting down to specifics, Attorney Quinn declared, “The DA says the injury occurred after 11pm. at is wrong. You will learn that this was an injury that can be caused by a punch or a kick, or by falling down.”
Changing gears, he alerted the jurors with, “Wait till after you hear me cross-examine Officer Dwyer. He has demons of his own and reasons
to testify as he will.” He then followed up with, “There is absolutely no way that was a police car you will see on the Peltz Tape. They
can bring in all of the evidence they want, but it’s irrelevant.”
Analysis:
What we are witnessing at the Bubaris trial is a classic Janet DiFiore politically-motivated prosecution. A life has been lost. The alleged victim, a homeless, hopelessly alcoholic immigrant, whose reckless daily lifestyle involved many self-inflicted injuries and trips to the hospital over more than 10 years, could have died at any time under similar circumstances.
However, his death was, in fact, preceded by contact with at least five police officers from two different departments, Bedford and Mount Kisco, that we are aware of. In DiFiore’s calculations, someone needs to be sacrificed; the Latino Community will not accept the notion that he merely injured himself. And, therefore, the low man on the totem pole, George Bubaris, must be sacrificed, even though everything we know, the actual facts of the case, suggest whatever abdominal injury Rene Perez died from, occurred before Of-fi-cer George Bubaris was with him.
The presentation of the District Attorney’s fiction requires three Assistant DAs, Jim McCarty and Perry Perrone delivering the presentation, assisted by ADA Michael Delohery handling the computer and television equipment. Delohery, incidentally, is no choir boy. He committed his share of prosecutorial misconduct in the Paul Wicht case, intentionally withholding a critical email and lying to the same judge who presides in this case. Prosecutors lie routinely because even when caught, they pay no penalty, a fact that perpetuates the injustice and cries out for corrective legislation.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Prosecutor Perry Perrone, Presenting A Case Without A
Scintilla Of Forensic Evidence, Declared,
“The Evidence Will Be Powerful, Compelling, And Overwhelming”
Westchester Supreme Court, White Plains
Judge Lester B. Adler Presiding
Friday, May 23, the trial of George Bubaris, former Mount Kisco Police Officer, charged with Manslaughter In The Second Degree, Unlawful Imprisonment, and Official Misconduct in the April 28, 2007 death of homeless, undocumented alien Rene Javier Perez, got underway. Bubaris is the only individual charged in the death despite the fact that Perez had been involved in an incident in the Town
of Bedford prior to being “borderdumped” by Bedford police back into Mount Kisco, and despite the fact that two other Mount Kisco cops, Lieutenant Dunnigan and Officer Dwyer, had had contact with Perez, who had dialed 911 from a laundromat in Mount Kisco complaining
of stomach pain and asking to be brought to the hospital.
Assistant District Attorney Perry Perrone began his opening statement by describing Byram Lake Road, and specifi-cally the area where Perez was found, near death, as “a place of darkness one would not associate with Westchester County.” He then quickly told the jury of nine men and three women, “The evidence will show one thing and one thing only about Rene Perez. He was a victim of Officer George Bubaris. It will show that George Bubaris recklessly caused the death of Rene Perez.” Perrone went on, “The only person who could have inflicted the bluntforce trauma was George Bubaris, and George Bubaris alone.” Perrone went on to give a very loosely-hung-together, one-hour and-twenty-two-minute account, designed to plant the notion in jurors’ minds, that only George Bubaris, out of more than six billion
people on planet Earth, “could have inflicted the blunt-force trauma.” He then said, “You will not hear any forensic evidence in this case. The Defendant is excluded; but that doesn’t matter.”
Analysis:
For ADA Perrone, a veteran of any number of bad, fictionalized cases over the years, cases such as Richard DiGuglielmo, in which he and ADA Patricia Murphy turned a self-defense, justifiable killing, in which all three eyewitnesses who initially reported the same truthful
account that Charles Campbell was swinging a metal bat at the head of Officer DiGuglielmo’s father the moment he was killed, needed to
be coerced and worn down until they were saying what the District Attorney wanted them to. For such a prosecutor, truth and justice are
totally irrelevant. Obtaining a conviction is all that matters.
Defense Attorney Andrew Quinn, of White Plains, approached the jury, stating, “We will present to you what the evidence will not
prove.” He wanted to focus the triers of fact as early as possible, explaining to them, “They need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
George Bubaris was responsible for Rene Perez’ death, and that they cannot do!”
Referring to Perez, he told the jurors matter-of-factly, “He got injured a lot because he got drunk a lot, and fell down.”Then Quinn took the gloves off, declaring, “We’re going to learn that this investigation was not quite what the District Attorney has told you.” Quinn went further, “A cardinal rule of police investigation is Don’t start at the end. And, that is exactly what was done. Even though he is complaining of stomach pain and asking for a hospital at 10:42pm, the Prosecution wants you to believe.”
Quinn then, standing before the jurors, calmly told them, “There’s not a shred of forensic evidence that ties my client to Rene Perez. The
Prosecution says, “We have a ton of evidence. But, none of it has to do with George Bubaris.” Then, getting down to specifics, Attorney Quinn declared, “The DA says the injury occurred after 11pm. at is wrong. You will learn that this was an injury that can be caused by a punch or a kick, or by falling down.”
Changing gears, he alerted the jurors with, “Wait till after you hear me cross-examine Officer Dwyer. He has demons of his own and reasons
to testify as he will.” He then followed up with, “There is absolutely no way that was a police car you will see on the Peltz Tape. They
can bring in all of the evidence they want, but it’s irrelevant.”
Analysis:
What we are witnessing at the Bubaris trial is a classic Janet DiFiore politically-motivated prosecution. A life has been lost. The alleged victim, a homeless, hopelessly alcoholic immigrant, whose reckless daily lifestyle involved many self-inflicted injuries and trips to the hospital over more than 10 years, could have died at any time under similar circumstances.
However, his death was, in fact, preceded by contact with at least five police officers from two different departments, Bedford and Mount Kisco, that we are aware of. In DiFiore’s calculations, someone needs to be sacrificed; the Latino Community will not accept the notion that he merely injured himself. And, therefore, the low man on the totem pole, George Bubaris, must be sacrificed, even though everything we know, the actual facts of the case, suggest whatever abdominal injury Rene Perez died from, occurred before Of-fi-cer George Bubaris was with him.
The presentation of the District Attorney’s fiction requires three Assistant DAs, Jim McCarty and Perry Perrone delivering the presentation, assisted by ADA Michael Delohery handling the computer and television equipment. Delohery, incidentally, is no choir boy. He committed his share of prosecutorial misconduct in the Paul Wicht case, intentionally withholding a critical email and lying to the same judge who presides in this case. Prosecutors lie routinely because even when caught, they pay no penalty, a fact that perpetuates the injustice and cries out for corrective legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
