Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Mayor Clinton Young: “I Think Chong
Is Doing Janet DiFiore’s Dirty Work”
Analysis:
DA Janet DiFiore’s First Amendment retaliatory abuse of her Office was vindictive and obvious. She apparently will stop at nothing in her misguided abuse of process against publisher Sam Zherka in retalitation for The Guardian’s exercise of Freedom Of The Press.
This is the same District Attorney who continues to prosecute the innocent victims of Yonkers Police brutality while covering up the rogue cops
involved; the same DA who demands the firing of veteran, dedicated cops who question her judgment; and, the same DA who prosecutes innocent
police officers without a shred of evidence.
The Mount Vernon incident clearly illustrates the contaminating influence a misguided district attorney, the likes of Janet DiFiore, will have on
the conduct of other public officials, particularly police, who are only too well aware of the damage she can do to them, and their careers, should
they refuse to “kiss her ring”. Notoriously dishonest, her stubbornness and stupidity render her a menace to public safety.
For more on this story, Link To: http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian/Jeff Deskovic.
Jeff Deskovic
Legislation To Deal With Out-Of-
Control Prosecutors Urgently Needed
The job of a prosecutor, be it an elected District Attorney, or an Assistant DA, is a position that carries a great deal of power. After all, the decisions that they make impact upon people’s lives every day. It is a prosecutor who, in theory, though rarely, in reality, in Westchester
County, is supposed to be the first level of scrutiny that a case receives when presented by the police or civilian complainant. They must decide whether or not to proceed, based upon the apparent credibility of the complaint.
A prosecutor decides the level of crime that should be charged based upon the facts presented. Although the grand jury is supposed to be an independent body, in reality the prosecutor controls it. The old expression, “You can indict a ham sandwich,” is based upon this sad reality. It is the prosecutor who decides the nature of the plea bargain agreement to be extended to a defendant. Many judges are former prosecutors,
and thus are often inclined to go along with prosecutors’ recommendations regarding bail and sentencing.
As officers of the court, as public servants, it is supposed to be their job to take most seriously the trust placed in them and to see that justice is served. In plain language, that not only means working to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the innocent, and to go about
the job of convicting the people they believe are guilty while staying within the boundaries of the law. In day to day terms, that means fulfilling their obligation to turn material over to the Defense that could be helpful to its case, and not to argue against defense objections or
motions they know to be meritorious.
History has shown, however, that there are some rogue prosecutors, many more than the general public might assume, who not only do not observe these Constitutionally-guaranteed principles, but who do not hesitate to violate rules and procedures in their all-out effort to win at all costs. For far too many prosecutors, winning is not everything, it’s the only thing.
There are different motivations for engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. Sometimes a prosecutor gets caught up in his or her zeal to ‘get the bad guy’. This is an unacceptable mindset. First of all, because, it is clearly hypocritical to be breaking the law in order to punish someone
who has allegedly broken it. Secondly, it makes the subsequent legal proceedings unreliable, with the result that innocent people are wrongfully convicted. At times, however, it is not that they are caught up in trying to convict someone who is actually innocent, it is that
they are purposely prosecuting someone who they know to be innocent. Shocking as it may seem, it is nonetheless true, and happens all too frequently. How else does one explain cases in which prosecutors have clear evidence of the innocence of a defendant and/or proof of the
real perpetrator but nonetheless continue to prosecute the innocent defendant full steam ahead. Regardless of the motivation, operating with such a mindset carries with it a terrible price: the strong possibility of convicting somebody who is innocent and the attendant perversion
of justice.
Legislation is urgently needed, particularly at the federal level, but at the state level as well, involving both incarcerative as well as financial penalties, that will serve as a deterrent to those rogue prosecutors who, regardless of their motivation, would be willing to either break
the law to win or to assist such efforts.
History has shown that mere morality alone is not enough to restrain someone from becoming a rogue prosecutor. It is outrageous that in any other walk of life, someone who breaks the law risks going to prison. e mere fact that someone makes their living as a prosecutor should in no way exempt them. If anything, they ought to be even more morally accountable because of the enormous power and public trust that they betray. It should be a crime when prosecutors intentionally withhold evidence of innocence; Brady or Rosario material, suborn perjury, permit witnesses to lie in court. Likewise, when working with experts, coroners, or other law enforcement personnel, it should be a crime similarly punishable when prosecutors encourage the filing of false reports and the working backwards of cases in which such experts state, in effect, “Tell me what you want me to prove and I’ll prove it.”
Here are some examples of out of control prosecutors, and the price that defendants paid:
A) Roy Brown was wrongfully convicted in Cayuga County NY and served 16 years in prison before being proven innocent by DNA. While he was incarcerated, using a Freedom Of Information request, Brown uncovered documents that the prosecution had withheld from the defense, identifying an alternative suspect. Subsequent DNA testing revealed that the alternative suspect was, in fact, the real perpetrator.
B) In Westchester County, the Anthony DiSimone case is one of the most egregious cases, in which the prosecution withheld 52 boxes of evidence, 376 pages of exculpatory evidence pointing to another person being responsible for the murder. His conviction was overturned
after he served 7 years in prison.
C) John Duval was convicted in 1973 of committing a murder in Rochester, NY, along with his co-defendant Betty Tyson. They were convicted based upon confessions which they stated were beaten out of them, and based upon the testimony of two teenage runaways. Later, his conviction, along with that of his co-defendant Betty Tyson was overturned because one of the witnesses recanted his testimony, saying he had lied previously. In addition, prosecutors then came across a buried synopsis of a police interview with the other teen, in which he denied seeing Duval or Tyson, contrary to what the teen had testified to in 1973.
D) Marci Stein, a former Westchester County special education teacher, was convicted of engaging in sexual relations with three teenage students. The Appellate Division ruled that she did not receive a fair trial because prosecutors failed to disclose to the defense attorneys that two of the students who accused her had led notices of claim of their intent to sue the school district. The Court further said “The failure to turn over this evidence was aggravated by the Prosecutor’s [Laura Murphy’s] argument during summation that there was no evidence that the complainants were bringing civil lawsuits as a result of the defendant’s conduct. There is a reasonable probability that this failure to disclose affected the outcome of the trial.”
E) Sami Leka served 13 years in New York before his murder conviction in Brooklyn was overturned by the United States Court Of Appeals because of the prosecutor’s offices keeping the defense from contacting an off duty police officer, who saw the killing and would have bolstered Mr. Leka’s case at trial. Moreover, the police falsely told Mr. Leka’s lawyer during plea negotiations that the off-duty officer could identify him as the gunman, the court found. “‘So there is really no question but that the government suppressed information that it was
required to turn over,’’ said the panel.
D) I, Jeffrey Deskovic, was convicted in Westchester of the murder and rape that I was proven innocent of by DNA. In connection with that wrongful conviction, I have sued several different parties. One of them is former Westchester County Medical Examiner Dr. Luis Roh, for fabricating findings. In the course of this lawsuit, it has been uncovered that Dr. Roh was in the habit of providing results tailored to what the
District Attorney’s Office was seeking to prove. I am also suing e Westchester District Attorney’s Office, seeking to prove patterns and practices.
E) Shih-Wei Su, whose case arose in Queens, NY, served 12 years for attempted murder before his attempted murder conviction was overturned. According to a New York Times article, the judge overturning the conviction, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote, “The prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony from a crucial witness,”The “prosecutor expressly (a) falsely denied before trial that an actual agreement had been reached with the Defendant and (b) falsely established on direct examination that no promises with respect to the Defendant’s sentence had been made to him either by the state or by the sentencing judge” He later was awarded $3.5 million.
F) Again, in Westchester, former police officer Richard DiGuglielmo’s murder conviction was overturned after he served 11 years. In overturning his conviction, the judge ruled that information that witnesses had been interviewed multiple times before changing their stories had not been turned over to the defense. The judge also credited witnesses’ testimony that they had been taped during those interviews, in contradiction to the prosecutions claims that there were no tapes. Those tapes, he ruled, also should have been turned over to the defense.
G) In Mississippi, Kennedy Brewer served 15 years in prison for murder before being proven innocent by DNA. Innocence Project Co-Founder Peter Neufeld, whose organization worked on the case, said, “It’s well known across Mississippi that Steven Hayne works closely with police and prosecutors to make determinations in autopsies that suit their criminal investigations and prosecutions. It’s also well known that Michael West will dispense with professionalism and objectivity to provide favorable testimony for prosecutors, even if his misrepresentations and fabrications could lead to the execution of innocent people.
H) William Brunson was arrested in Queens and spent 2 years in jail before the charges were dismissed. According to a 2007 New York Times, Justice Richard L. Buchter of State Supreme Court in Queens was troubled by the withholding of exculpatory evidence, including a security video and Mr. Khan’s own statement that he never saw the robbers’ faces “due to the fact that their faces were covered with hoods.” He sued the District Attorney’s office, listing 84 cases in which criminal convictions obtained by Queens prosecutors were overturned by higher courts for prosecutorial misconduct. William T. Martin, Mr. Brunson’s lawyer, said he wanted to demonstrate
that “this is pervasive; this is an ongoing civil rights violation in Queens.” The New York Times article further stated Brunson, in a grievance filed June 15 against the prosecutors, said, “I don’t believe these men are above the law. In this case they broke the law. They took me
from my six kids for 2 years and 44 days, when they knew all along there was no case against me.”
In addition to creating criminal liability, we need a law which would subject prosecutors to personal suit for their prosecutorial misconduct, just as those who commit crimes are subjected to criminal prosecution as well as the possibility of being sued. After all, it is by their willing hands that people suffer. Thus it gives another means of redress by victims, in addition to serving as an additional deterrent.
In terms of assessing the overall environment of prosecutorial misconduct across the country, I think that a 2003 report from The Center For Public Integrity is telling: “Local prosecutors in many of the 2,341 jurisdictions across the nation have stretched, bent or broken rules while convicting defendants, the Center has found. Since 1970, individual judges and appellate court panels cited prosecutorial misconduct as a factor when dismissing charges at trial, reversing convictions or reducing sentences in at least 2,012 cases. In 513 additional cases, appellate judges offered opinions—either dissents or concurrences— in which they found the prosecutorial misconduct serious enough to merit additional discussion; some of the dissenting judges wrote that they found the misconduct warranted a reversal. In thousands more cases, judges labeled prosecutorial behavior inappropriate, but allowed the trial to continue or upheld convictions using a doctrine called ‘harmless
error.’ The Center analyzed 11,452 cases in which charges of prosecutorial misconduct were reviewed by appellate court judges. In the majority of cases, the allegation of misconduct was ruled harmless error or was not addressed by the appellate judges, and the conviction stood. The relative rarity of reversals makes these opinions useful from an empirical standpoint: Any prosecutor who has more than one reversal to her credit belongs to a select club. Prosecutorial misconduct falls into several categories, including: Courtroom misconduct (making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments); Mishandling of physical evidence (hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records); Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Using false or misleading evidence; Harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant’s counsel (including selective or vindictive prosecution, which includes instances of denial of a speedy trial); Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.
Some of the most common allegations of prosecutorial misconduct involved improper closing arguments and excluding jurors on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or some other discriminatory grounds. In 28 cases, involving 32 separate defendants, misconduct by prosecutors led to the conviction of innocent individuals who were later exonerated, the Center found. Innocent men and women were convicted of serious charges, including murder, rape, and kidnapping and assault.”
Lastly, in order to ensure that trials are fair and that innocent defendants are not being convicted, we need legislation which would mandate our state appellate courts to grant an automatic reversal of conviction in any case in which the prosecution has engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. I reject the rationale that many courts go down in deciding whether to reverse a case in which prosecutorial misconduct has occurred: assessing whether the error was “harmless”. To me, it is obvious that if it was harmless the prosecutor would not have bothered to engage in it. Once prosecutorial misconduct has taken place, it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how a trial would have turned out, because that affects how judges and juries view a case, subsequent evidence, and/or could hamper cross examination. Defendants have a right to a fair trial, and this is essential to ensure, to the degree that we can, that verdicts are accurate. Since the right to a fair trial is interfered with when prosecutorial misconduct occurs, the only remedy which can undo what is taken from him or her is by awarding another
trial which is fair.
The New York cases that I have cited above demonstrate that many prosecutors are out of control. They are able to act with such recklessness and disregard of the law because they know that there are no penalties in place to discipline them. Although prosecutorial
misconduct is a statewide and countrywide problem, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, under the last two District Attorneys, including the current one, have a particularly unfortunate dismal record in both engaging in and defending prosecutorial misconduct.
Just as a prosecutor’s misconduct results in their victims losing years of their lives, so too should they wind up losing years of their lives.
I am sure that if additional research was done, even more cases in New York would be uncovered. As stated above, I am advocating this for clear cut intentional prosecutorial misconduct. In addition, their victims should be entitled to sue them for monetary damages. To get back on one’s feet after incarceration is not easy, and it is more than just the formerly incarcerated person who suffers from the financial loss. It is also the wives, sons, daughters, and other financial dependants who feel its affects. The right to a fair trial is basic and fundamental, and the only way to repay defendants who have this taken from them by prosecutorial misconduct is to give them a new trial, period, without regard to any other aspect of the case, because it is impossible to say with certainty how a case would have turned out. For those who would raise an objection by citing the costs that retrials would create, my response would be the solution would lie within the District Attorney’s Office.
If they stop engaging in it, there will be no costs to be borne. Taxpayers who are unhappy with their tax dollars going for retrials should vote
those District Attorneys out of office who allow such practices to go on. The report by The Center For Public Integrity illustrates that this problem is rampant across the country, and the cases that I cite should not at all be viewed as abberational. Measures need to be taken to address this crime wave. I am presently in the preliminary stages of working with various Senators and Assemblyman to enact reforms pertaining to wrongful convictions and prosecutorial misconduct. In future Guardian articles, I will write about efforts to reform the shortcomings in the criminal justice system, giving credit to the heroes and pointing out to the public which politicians are obstacles to an accurate and fair court system, as well as those who support prosecutorial misconduct. As I see it, the public has a right to know, and a right to that information, in deciding who they will or not will vote for. I served 16 years in prison for a murder and rape that I did not commit.
Prosecutorial Misconduct was a factor. I had never been arrested for so much as a violation. I was not a high school dropout. In fact, I was on my way to school when was I was intitally intercepted by the police. It happened to me, and it can happen to you, your son, your daughter,
your neighbor, or your friend.
Legislation To Deal With Out-Of-
Control Prosecutors Urgently Needed
The job of a prosecutor, be it an elected District Attorney, or an Assistant DA, is a position that carries a great deal of power. After all, the decisions that they make impact upon people’s lives every day. It is a prosecutor who, in theory, though rarely, in reality, in Westchester
County, is supposed to be the first level of scrutiny that a case receives when presented by the police or civilian complainant. They must decide whether or not to proceed, based upon the apparent credibility of the complaint.
A prosecutor decides the level of crime that should be charged based upon the facts presented. Although the grand jury is supposed to be an independent body, in reality the prosecutor controls it. The old expression, “You can indict a ham sandwich,” is based upon this sad reality. It is the prosecutor who decides the nature of the plea bargain agreement to be extended to a defendant. Many judges are former prosecutors,
and thus are often inclined to go along with prosecutors’ recommendations regarding bail and sentencing.
As officers of the court, as public servants, it is supposed to be their job to take most seriously the trust placed in them and to see that justice is served. In plain language, that not only means working to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the innocent, and to go about
the job of convicting the people they believe are guilty while staying within the boundaries of the law. In day to day terms, that means fulfilling their obligation to turn material over to the Defense that could be helpful to its case, and not to argue against defense objections or
motions they know to be meritorious.
History has shown, however, that there are some rogue prosecutors, many more than the general public might assume, who not only do not observe these Constitutionally-guaranteed principles, but who do not hesitate to violate rules and procedures in their all-out effort to win at all costs. For far too many prosecutors, winning is not everything, it’s the only thing.
There are different motivations for engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. Sometimes a prosecutor gets caught up in his or her zeal to ‘get the bad guy’. This is an unacceptable mindset. First of all, because, it is clearly hypocritical to be breaking the law in order to punish someone
who has allegedly broken it. Secondly, it makes the subsequent legal proceedings unreliable, with the result that innocent people are wrongfully convicted. At times, however, it is not that they are caught up in trying to convict someone who is actually innocent, it is that
they are purposely prosecuting someone who they know to be innocent. Shocking as it may seem, it is nonetheless true, and happens all too frequently. How else does one explain cases in which prosecutors have clear evidence of the innocence of a defendant and/or proof of the
real perpetrator but nonetheless continue to prosecute the innocent defendant full steam ahead. Regardless of the motivation, operating with such a mindset carries with it a terrible price: the strong possibility of convicting somebody who is innocent and the attendant perversion
of justice.
Legislation is urgently needed, particularly at the federal level, but at the state level as well, involving both incarcerative as well as financial penalties, that will serve as a deterrent to those rogue prosecutors who, regardless of their motivation, would be willing to either break
the law to win or to assist such efforts.
History has shown that mere morality alone is not enough to restrain someone from becoming a rogue prosecutor. It is outrageous that in any other walk of life, someone who breaks the law risks going to prison. e mere fact that someone makes their living as a prosecutor should in no way exempt them. If anything, they ought to be even more morally accountable because of the enormous power and public trust that they betray. It should be a crime when prosecutors intentionally withhold evidence of innocence; Brady or Rosario material, suborn perjury, permit witnesses to lie in court. Likewise, when working with experts, coroners, or other law enforcement personnel, it should be a crime similarly punishable when prosecutors encourage the filing of false reports and the working backwards of cases in which such experts state, in effect, “Tell me what you want me to prove and I’ll prove it.”
Here are some examples of out of control prosecutors, and the price that defendants paid:
A) Roy Brown was wrongfully convicted in Cayuga County NY and served 16 years in prison before being proven innocent by DNA. While he was incarcerated, using a Freedom Of Information request, Brown uncovered documents that the prosecution had withheld from the defense, identifying an alternative suspect. Subsequent DNA testing revealed that the alternative suspect was, in fact, the real perpetrator.
B) In Westchester County, the Anthony DiSimone case is one of the most egregious cases, in which the prosecution withheld 52 boxes of evidence, 376 pages of exculpatory evidence pointing to another person being responsible for the murder. His conviction was overturned
after he served 7 years in prison.
C) John Duval was convicted in 1973 of committing a murder in Rochester, NY, along with his co-defendant Betty Tyson. They were convicted based upon confessions which they stated were beaten out of them, and based upon the testimony of two teenage runaways. Later, his conviction, along with that of his co-defendant Betty Tyson was overturned because one of the witnesses recanted his testimony, saying he had lied previously. In addition, prosecutors then came across a buried synopsis of a police interview with the other teen, in which he denied seeing Duval or Tyson, contrary to what the teen had testified to in 1973.
D) Marci Stein, a former Westchester County special education teacher, was convicted of engaging in sexual relations with three teenage students. The Appellate Division ruled that she did not receive a fair trial because prosecutors failed to disclose to the defense attorneys that two of the students who accused her had led notices of claim of their intent to sue the school district. The Court further said “The failure to turn over this evidence was aggravated by the Prosecutor’s [Laura Murphy’s] argument during summation that there was no evidence that the complainants were bringing civil lawsuits as a result of the defendant’s conduct. There is a reasonable probability that this failure to disclose affected the outcome of the trial.”
E) Sami Leka served 13 years in New York before his murder conviction in Brooklyn was overturned by the United States Court Of Appeals because of the prosecutor’s offices keeping the defense from contacting an off duty police officer, who saw the killing and would have bolstered Mr. Leka’s case at trial. Moreover, the police falsely told Mr. Leka’s lawyer during plea negotiations that the off-duty officer could identify him as the gunman, the court found. “‘So there is really no question but that the government suppressed information that it was
required to turn over,’’ said the panel.
D) I, Jeffrey Deskovic, was convicted in Westchester of the murder and rape that I was proven innocent of by DNA. In connection with that wrongful conviction, I have sued several different parties. One of them is former Westchester County Medical Examiner Dr. Luis Roh, for fabricating findings. In the course of this lawsuit, it has been uncovered that Dr. Roh was in the habit of providing results tailored to what the
District Attorney’s Office was seeking to prove. I am also suing e Westchester District Attorney’s Office, seeking to prove patterns and practices.
E) Shih-Wei Su, whose case arose in Queens, NY, served 12 years for attempted murder before his attempted murder conviction was overturned. According to a New York Times article, the judge overturning the conviction, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote, “The prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony from a crucial witness,”The “prosecutor expressly (a) falsely denied before trial that an actual agreement had been reached with the Defendant and (b) falsely established on direct examination that no promises with respect to the Defendant’s sentence had been made to him either by the state or by the sentencing judge” He later was awarded $3.5 million.
F) Again, in Westchester, former police officer Richard DiGuglielmo’s murder conviction was overturned after he served 11 years. In overturning his conviction, the judge ruled that information that witnesses had been interviewed multiple times before changing their stories had not been turned over to the defense. The judge also credited witnesses’ testimony that they had been taped during those interviews, in contradiction to the prosecutions claims that there were no tapes. Those tapes, he ruled, also should have been turned over to the defense.
G) In Mississippi, Kennedy Brewer served 15 years in prison for murder before being proven innocent by DNA. Innocence Project Co-Founder Peter Neufeld, whose organization worked on the case, said, “It’s well known across Mississippi that Steven Hayne works closely with police and prosecutors to make determinations in autopsies that suit their criminal investigations and prosecutions. It’s also well known that Michael West will dispense with professionalism and objectivity to provide favorable testimony for prosecutors, even if his misrepresentations and fabrications could lead to the execution of innocent people.
H) William Brunson was arrested in Queens and spent 2 years in jail before the charges were dismissed. According to a 2007 New York Times, Justice Richard L. Buchter of State Supreme Court in Queens was troubled by the withholding of exculpatory evidence, including a security video and Mr. Khan’s own statement that he never saw the robbers’ faces “due to the fact that their faces were covered with hoods.” He sued the District Attorney’s office, listing 84 cases in which criminal convictions obtained by Queens prosecutors were overturned by higher courts for prosecutorial misconduct. William T. Martin, Mr. Brunson’s lawyer, said he wanted to demonstrate
that “this is pervasive; this is an ongoing civil rights violation in Queens.” The New York Times article further stated Brunson, in a grievance filed June 15 against the prosecutors, said, “I don’t believe these men are above the law. In this case they broke the law. They took me
from my six kids for 2 years and 44 days, when they knew all along there was no case against me.”
In addition to creating criminal liability, we need a law which would subject prosecutors to personal suit for their prosecutorial misconduct, just as those who commit crimes are subjected to criminal prosecution as well as the possibility of being sued. After all, it is by their willing hands that people suffer. Thus it gives another means of redress by victims, in addition to serving as an additional deterrent.
In terms of assessing the overall environment of prosecutorial misconduct across the country, I think that a 2003 report from The Center For Public Integrity is telling: “Local prosecutors in many of the 2,341 jurisdictions across the nation have stretched, bent or broken rules while convicting defendants, the Center has found. Since 1970, individual judges and appellate court panels cited prosecutorial misconduct as a factor when dismissing charges at trial, reversing convictions or reducing sentences in at least 2,012 cases. In 513 additional cases, appellate judges offered opinions—either dissents or concurrences— in which they found the prosecutorial misconduct serious enough to merit additional discussion; some of the dissenting judges wrote that they found the misconduct warranted a reversal. In thousands more cases, judges labeled prosecutorial behavior inappropriate, but allowed the trial to continue or upheld convictions using a doctrine called ‘harmless
error.’ The Center analyzed 11,452 cases in which charges of prosecutorial misconduct were reviewed by appellate court judges. In the majority of cases, the allegation of misconduct was ruled harmless error or was not addressed by the appellate judges, and the conviction stood. The relative rarity of reversals makes these opinions useful from an empirical standpoint: Any prosecutor who has more than one reversal to her credit belongs to a select club. Prosecutorial misconduct falls into several categories, including: Courtroom misconduct (making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments); Mishandling of physical evidence (hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records); Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Using false or misleading evidence; Harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant’s counsel (including selective or vindictive prosecution, which includes instances of denial of a speedy trial); Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings.
Some of the most common allegations of prosecutorial misconduct involved improper closing arguments and excluding jurors on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender or some other discriminatory grounds. In 28 cases, involving 32 separate defendants, misconduct by prosecutors led to the conviction of innocent individuals who were later exonerated, the Center found. Innocent men and women were convicted of serious charges, including murder, rape, and kidnapping and assault.”
Lastly, in order to ensure that trials are fair and that innocent defendants are not being convicted, we need legislation which would mandate our state appellate courts to grant an automatic reversal of conviction in any case in which the prosecution has engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. I reject the rationale that many courts go down in deciding whether to reverse a case in which prosecutorial misconduct has occurred: assessing whether the error was “harmless”. To me, it is obvious that if it was harmless the prosecutor would not have bothered to engage in it. Once prosecutorial misconduct has taken place, it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how a trial would have turned out, because that affects how judges and juries view a case, subsequent evidence, and/or could hamper cross examination. Defendants have a right to a fair trial, and this is essential to ensure, to the degree that we can, that verdicts are accurate. Since the right to a fair trial is interfered with when prosecutorial misconduct occurs, the only remedy which can undo what is taken from him or her is by awarding another
trial which is fair.
The New York cases that I have cited above demonstrate that many prosecutors are out of control. They are able to act with such recklessness and disregard of the law because they know that there are no penalties in place to discipline them. Although prosecutorial
misconduct is a statewide and countrywide problem, the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, under the last two District Attorneys, including the current one, have a particularly unfortunate dismal record in both engaging in and defending prosecutorial misconduct.
Just as a prosecutor’s misconduct results in their victims losing years of their lives, so too should they wind up losing years of their lives.
I am sure that if additional research was done, even more cases in New York would be uncovered. As stated above, I am advocating this for clear cut intentional prosecutorial misconduct. In addition, their victims should be entitled to sue them for monetary damages. To get back on one’s feet after incarceration is not easy, and it is more than just the formerly incarcerated person who suffers from the financial loss. It is also the wives, sons, daughters, and other financial dependants who feel its affects. The right to a fair trial is basic and fundamental, and the only way to repay defendants who have this taken from them by prosecutorial misconduct is to give them a new trial, period, without regard to any other aspect of the case, because it is impossible to say with certainty how a case would have turned out. For those who would raise an objection by citing the costs that retrials would create, my response would be the solution would lie within the District Attorney’s Office.
If they stop engaging in it, there will be no costs to be borne. Taxpayers who are unhappy with their tax dollars going for retrials should vote
those District Attorneys out of office who allow such practices to go on. The report by The Center For Public Integrity illustrates that this problem is rampant across the country, and the cases that I cite should not at all be viewed as abberational. Measures need to be taken to address this crime wave. I am presently in the preliminary stages of working with various Senators and Assemblyman to enact reforms pertaining to wrongful convictions and prosecutorial misconduct. In future Guardian articles, I will write about efforts to reform the shortcomings in the criminal justice system, giving credit to the heroes and pointing out to the public which politicians are obstacles to an accurate and fair court system, as well as those who support prosecutorial misconduct. As I see it, the public has a right to know, and a right to that information, in deciding who they will or not will vote for. I served 16 years in prison for a murder and rape that I did not commit.
Prosecutorial Misconduct was a factor. I had never been arrested for so much as a violation. I was not a high school dropout. In fact, I was on my way to school when was I was intitally intercepted by the police. It happened to me, and it can happen to you, your son, your daughter,
your neighbor, or your friend.
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Court-Approved Theft of a Disabled
Child’s Funds By a Convicted Felon!
Most parents feel that the worst thing that could happen to them would be for their child to die before them. But for a sole-surviving single parent of a disabled child, the greatest fear is that something that may happen to themselves, leaving their child uncared for and unprotected. If such a parent dies leaving no other family to care for the child, it is the duty of the state to step in and protect those who cannot protect themselves and who have no one to offer them protection.
But, what if the individuals assigned to protect your child, the lawyers and the courts, are the ones who are victimizing them? A recent Samuel Jackson movie, Lakeview Terrace, about an abusive cop living next door to a young couple asked the question “Who do you call for help when you can’t call the police?” A local mother in Westchester, Andrea Masotti, a sole-surviving single mother of a disabled child, has been asking herself a similar question for the past five years: “Who do I go to for legal recourse, when it’s the courts who are abusing my child?”
Mrs. Masotti approached the Guardian with her incredible story last week. A story that involves top political players, past and present, in Westchester County and Albany; a story that is filled with greed, deception, and plain old-fashioned criminality; a story that actually started long before Mrs. Masotti’s daughter was born; a story that started with one of the most notorious of Westchester’s politicians, Joseph Pisani, Republican ex-State Senator and State Attorney General contender from New Rochelle.
Pisani was a 20-year veteran of the New York State Senate representing New Rochelle, and the surrounding area, while Mrs. Masotti was married
to her husband, Vito. She recalls hearing his name mentioned at times in the neighborhood and among her friends and family, but never met Pisani during the duration of her marriage. “My husband was a hairdresser” she told the Guardian. “We ran in much different circles than an Albany politician”. Sadly, Mrs. Masotti’s marriage did not last. But it survived long enough for her and her husband to adopt a young child from Eastern Europe, a child who each parent loved and cared for.
Vito Masotti, being many years older than his wife, fell into declining health in the mid-1990’s, suffering kidney problems and recurring bouts
of cancer. During this timeframe, the Masotti’s daughter was also exhibiting signs of cognitive disability and several medical issues. At the initial onset of his own personal health problems, Vito approached his long-standing tax accountant, Frank Marino, a close friend and family advisor, to draft a concise will that would provide for his daughter.
This will, which Vito Masotti drafted in 2001, named several individuals as executors for his daughter’s estate, among them her godmother, an individual trusted by both the child and her mother. Vito emigrated from Italy after the Second World War and applied a hardworking, thrifty attitude towards his work and his new home. Although not highly educated, Vito amassed a sizable fortune in his lifetime, which included an apartment building that was providing $150,000 a year in income at the time his will was drawn. Vito decreed that this income should be for his daughter’s care in her lifetime. In addition, he maintained a two-bedroom apartment in the building which was to be his daughter’s home upon his demise.
Between the income from the rental apartments, and the free rent on her father’s apartment, Vito’s daughter would be well-provided for in her lifetime and would have sufficient income to cover her medical and personal needs. Such was Vito’s intent until Joseph Pisani entered the picture.
In 2004, Vito’s health took a turn for the worse with a relapse of his cancer and the loss of a kidney. At the same time, Vito’s daughter suffered several setbacks complicating her disability and increasing her medical and living costs. Although previously unknown to all the family, Joseph Pisani interjected himself into Vito’s life at this time and somehow managed to convince the dying man to alter his will, nominating Pisani as executor and trustee of a airs and as Vito Masotti’s attorney for child support matters regarding his daughter. Vito Masotti died not long afterwards, leaving Joseph Pisani in control of his entire $1.4 million estate and his daughter’s support.
Since the demise of Vito Masotti, Joseph Pisani has done nothing to assist Vito’s daughter, even refusing to provide her with the basic special education she needs for her cognitive difficulties and denying her medical treatment. Court records filed with the Surrogate’s Court in White Plains document that Joseph Pisani has vigorously opposed support applications for the young Ms. Masotti’s needs and advocated for the removal of
her own mother as her guardian.
Pisani has allowed the rents on Vito’s apartment building that he left for his daughter’s care to decline, and is in the process of trying to sell it. He has not provided any accounting whatsoever to Ms. Masotti, or her mother, as to where any, or all, of the $1.4 million estate has gone. Andrea Masotti, now in her 60’s, confided to the Guardian that she has spent her entire retirement and life savings to provide for her daughter herself and fight for her needs these past few years in an uphill battle in our local courts. Now left with limited resources of her own, Mrs. Masotti is currently
scrambling to find work to pay for the needs of herself and her daughter.
This case would be horrific enough if it were not for the fact that Joseph Pisani has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to draft any will, offer himself as an executor or trustee of an estate, or be appointed legal representative for child support issues at all, SINCE HE IS A CONVICTED FELON!
This Joseph Pisani is one and the same Joseph Pisani who was disbarred and removed from the New York State Senate in 1986 on federal charges of mail fraud, income tax evasion, the of client funds, and embezzlement.
And now he’s at it again. But this time, it’s with the Court’s blessings.The history of Pisani’s corruption is a long one. On August 1, 1984, Pisani
was sentenced to four years in prison and was fined $69,000 on fraud and tax evasion charges by the Federal District Court in Manhattan. The United States prosecutor on the case, Charles La Bella, portrayed Pisani at trial as a public official who “abused his position”.
Among the charges filed by La Bella against Pisani were Law Practice Mail Fraud, Campaign Fund Mail Fraud, Income Tax Violations, Obstruction Of Justice, Embezzlement of over $80,000, Failure To Pay Taxes, and Misleading A Grand Jury. Pisani’s second wife, Kathryn Godfrey, was also charged at the trial with committing Perjury during the grand jury’s investigation of the fraud and tax charges. Ms. Godfrey had been employed as a stenographer for a state commission headed by Pisani before his divorce and their subsequent marriage.
During the course of the trial, La Bella revealed evidence that Pisani embezzled state funds by purchasing a summer home in Washingtonville, New York from a Joseph Mallon and giving him a “no show” state job in exchange. La Bella also charged Pisani with embezzling money from his former law firm and using his campaign funds for his personal needs and those of Ms. Godfrey.
La Bella provided evidence that Pisani used these funds to buy gifts for his then-girlfriend, Godfrey, to take vacations, and invest in professional boxing, while listing these payments as campaign costs on his financial statements.
Two high ranking New York State representatives, Charles Rangel, and Robert Garcia, appeared at Pisani’s trial as character witnesses, but the Federal jury found him guilty anyway on 18 of the 39 counts in the indictment. Among the crimes Pisani was indicted for, was a Mail Fraud charge involving the funds of his former client. According to the records of that indictment, on file with the Westchester County Surrogate’s Court in White Plains for the probate of Vito Masotti’s estate: “On or about August 8, 1979, the defendant JOSEPH R. PISANI directed that $3,604.02 of funds credited to Erma Jean Gina in a client escrow account be withdrawn, charged to Erma Jean Gina, and paid to John Talaska in connection with the repayment of certain monies invested by John Talaska, at a guaranteed interest rate of 10 percent, with the defendant PISANI”. In addition,
the trial transcripts note that: “He (Pisani) forged her signatures. This was not some sort of legitimate transaction”. (emphasis added).
In 1985, Pisani won an appeal to reverse some of his 1984 conviction but the mail fraud charges have stayed. He only served one year and one day of his sentence, most of it in a Federal halfway house, Project Return, in Manhattan. However, while there, he was found in possession of an “illegal substance” and was removed. Immediately upon his release from prison, Pisani was offered a local government position in Westchester County by then-County Executive Andrew O’Rourke. O’Rourke was quoted at the time as admitting “The political system takes care of its own”.
Pisani himself had helped other political associates in the past with their political careers, notably Al and Jeanine Pirro. On the Albany Law School alumni website it notes this connection with some amusement: “Al Pirro, ALS ’74, famous lawyer (his clients include Donald Trump). Al was convicted of tax evasion in June 2000. In law school, Al worked for State Senator Joe Pisani, who was later convicted of tax fraud.”
Turning down O’Rourke’s political position, Pisani went to work initially as a salesperson but eventually became a lobbyist in 1989 for a trash-hauling firm with mob connections while it was being investigated by the New York State Assembly for illegally dumping building debris. Pisani was also accused by the Westchester County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children of establishing a fake child abuse agency in Yonkers that illegally issued detective licenses and guns. The Westchester County Society claimed in court papers that the Yonkers agency had not investigated any cases of child abuse, and had no employees but had somehow registered 34 individuals as “Peace Officers” with the state, a distinction that allows them to carry guns and identify themselves as detectives. The court petition named Pisani and the ex- Yonkers Police Commissioner, Charles Connolly, in the action.
Pisani was not without friends after his conviction. He hosted a regular call-in talk show on the local New Rochelle radio station owned by William
O’Shaughnessy. On his first radio show, Pisani was joined on the air by the mayor of New Rochelle, Leonard Paduano, who stopped by to tell him “it was an honor” to be there despite the fact that Pisani had just admitted to his listeners having plead guilty to tax evasion, being disbarred, ndulging in an extra-marital affair for 24 years, and serving time in jail. O’Shaughnessy was still listing Pisani as a “friend of Bill” in his 2004 book: More Riffs, Rants, and Raves. Despite claiming he was working as a construction industry salesperson, making only $300 a week, Pisani was also listed by renown sculptor, Arthur Glickman, as having several of Glickman’s sculptures in his “private collection” placing himself in a small group of Glickman’s collectors, among them the Estee Lauder family and the owners of Wendy’s restaurants.
Pisani also used his political connections after his release from prison to aid business owners in their tax battles with local municipalities. Despite being convicted of embezzlement and tax evasion, Pisani has been allowed to represent clients in 794 cases from 1986 through the present. He has cases scheduled before the Supreme Court this month. Pisani has used his knowledge of the system against the constituents he used to represent; most of his tax cases have been against Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, Mamaroneck, Greenburgh, and Mount Pleasant, lowering the taxes of hundreds of corporations in these towns and placing the burden on the local residents of those towns instead.
These cases are listed on the New York State Unified Court System website records for Westchester County as being handled by “Joseph R. Pisani, Esq.” Yet notably absent from these case records is a reference to the employment limitations placed upon Pisani because of his conviction and disbarment.
According to the State of New York, Certificate of Relief from Disabilities, NYSID # 0817057K, Pisani did not receive a full release from the state, “removing all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license, and privilege” until January 1, 2008. Yet, from the date of his release from prison in 1986 to the present, Pisani was allowed to handle 794 tax cases in the Westchester Supreme Court as “Joseph R. Pisani, Esq.”
Worse yet, for the past five years, Pisani was allowed to represent Ms. Masotti on child support issues in Westchester Courts despite being barred from the State of New York to do so until last year. Why did the Chief Administrative Judge of this Court, Francis Nicolai, allow a felon convicted of embezzlement of client funds, who is also a disbarred attorney prohibited from using his legal license during this period, from appearing anywhere near the family courts in his courthouse on child support and other financial issues? It’s not like Nicolai does not know who Joseph Pisani is. As an ex-New York State Senator, his face is very familiar to our local politicians, many of whom he put in their jobs. During this same period, Pisani was allowed to handle the estate of Vito Masotti in White Plains Surrogates Court before Judge Scarpino. Why did Scarpino allow a convicted felon to go anywhere near the trust funds of a disabled child? The will itself drawn up by Pisani in 2004 that Scarpino is probating is of
questionable legality since it was drafted by a convicted felon and witnessed only by Pisani’s then-wife, his ex-mistress, Kathryn Godfrey, herself a convicted felon found guilty of perjury. Scarpino and Nicolai have a fiduciary responsibility to the disabled community to protect them from abuse.
Is it too much to ask our Courts to prevent convicted embezzlers from being trustees for a disabled child’s estate? Why have Scarpino and Nicolai
never once demanded to see a full accounting for the $1.4 million that was in Ms. Masotti’s trust fund? Court rules clearly state that trustees must provide full and regular accountings to their clients and to the courts. So why isn’t there a single accounting on record with Scarpino’s court since 2004 for this trust? Mrs. Masotti sent a letter to Surrogate’s Court in December and January asking for relief for her daughter. Scarpino did not even reply to her letters, dismissing them to a mere court clerk instead of at least a court attorney, Charles Scott, for the official Surrogate response. Scott’s response to Mrs. Masotti’s pleas for aid for her daughter: “Regarding the concerns raised in your letter, the executors are accountable to all beneficiaries. At such time as they settle their account (their bills), your daughter (name withheld), and you as her guardian, will be given notice by citation and an opportunity to be heard”.
The Court is totally and utterly wrong here. As many Guardian readers are aware, this writer is a co-guardian of my disabled brother and the trustee on his Special Needs trust, which drew Mrs. Masotti to my attention. My responsibilities include not only providing a full accounting annually, but also a complete accounting whenever the co-guardian or my brother ask for one. In addition, the trust for a disabled individual over the age of 21, as Ms. Masotti now is, is governed by New York State Mental Hygiene laws and the Department of Social Services. Trustees may not spend any monies in the trusts that may affect the disabled individual’s services from DSS. Any major expenditures and changes, such as the sale of an apartment building, must be approved by DSS. According to these laws: The Department’s regulations set forth the circumstances under which it
must be given notification prior to expenditures that tend to deplete trust principal. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 360-4.5(b)(5)(iii)(c). If the proposed expenditure does not reach the level set forth in the regulations, no prior notification to the Department of Social Services is required. Moreover,
“notification” does not equal “approval”.
Nevertheless, when the Trust has been established pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the courts will likely list the Department as a person or entity entitled to notification of all proceedings, as in a “non SNT” Guardianship. Hence, the Department receives notice of applications brought by the Trustee to make expenditures that do not “tend to deplete trust principal”. The Department will thus have a forum in which to object to proposed expenditures, even if they are below the regulatory level. In other words, Pisani has had to provide accounting of his use of the funds in this trust all along to both the Courts and DSS. So where are these accountings? And why is the Court now taking the position that Ms. Masotti and her mother have to wait to even be allowed to ask for a full accounting until after the lawyers settle their bills? If Pisani gets his hands on this trust first, with his background as a convicted embezzler, what guarantees is the Court offering Ms. Masotti that any of her money will be left?
Is the law and justice being ignored here because the lawyer in question is an ex-New York State Senator who in-fluenced the political careers of many of those now in power? The Guardian intends to pursue this case.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
Court-Approved Theft of a Disabled
Child’s Funds By a Convicted Felon!
Most parents feel that the worst thing that could happen to them would be for their child to die before them. But for a sole-surviving single parent of a disabled child, the greatest fear is that something that may happen to themselves, leaving their child uncared for and unprotected. If such a parent dies leaving no other family to care for the child, it is the duty of the state to step in and protect those who cannot protect themselves and who have no one to offer them protection.
But, what if the individuals assigned to protect your child, the lawyers and the courts, are the ones who are victimizing them? A recent Samuel Jackson movie, Lakeview Terrace, about an abusive cop living next door to a young couple asked the question “Who do you call for help when you can’t call the police?” A local mother in Westchester, Andrea Masotti, a sole-surviving single mother of a disabled child, has been asking herself a similar question for the past five years: “Who do I go to for legal recourse, when it’s the courts who are abusing my child?”
Mrs. Masotti approached the Guardian with her incredible story last week. A story that involves top political players, past and present, in Westchester County and Albany; a story that is filled with greed, deception, and plain old-fashioned criminality; a story that actually started long before Mrs. Masotti’s daughter was born; a story that started with one of the most notorious of Westchester’s politicians, Joseph Pisani, Republican ex-State Senator and State Attorney General contender from New Rochelle.
Pisani was a 20-year veteran of the New York State Senate representing New Rochelle, and the surrounding area, while Mrs. Masotti was married
to her husband, Vito. She recalls hearing his name mentioned at times in the neighborhood and among her friends and family, but never met Pisani during the duration of her marriage. “My husband was a hairdresser” she told the Guardian. “We ran in much different circles than an Albany politician”. Sadly, Mrs. Masotti’s marriage did not last. But it survived long enough for her and her husband to adopt a young child from Eastern Europe, a child who each parent loved and cared for.
Vito Masotti, being many years older than his wife, fell into declining health in the mid-1990’s, suffering kidney problems and recurring bouts
of cancer. During this timeframe, the Masotti’s daughter was also exhibiting signs of cognitive disability and several medical issues. At the initial onset of his own personal health problems, Vito approached his long-standing tax accountant, Frank Marino, a close friend and family advisor, to draft a concise will that would provide for his daughter.
This will, which Vito Masotti drafted in 2001, named several individuals as executors for his daughter’s estate, among them her godmother, an individual trusted by both the child and her mother. Vito emigrated from Italy after the Second World War and applied a hardworking, thrifty attitude towards his work and his new home. Although not highly educated, Vito amassed a sizable fortune in his lifetime, which included an apartment building that was providing $150,000 a year in income at the time his will was drawn. Vito decreed that this income should be for his daughter’s care in her lifetime. In addition, he maintained a two-bedroom apartment in the building which was to be his daughter’s home upon his demise.
Between the income from the rental apartments, and the free rent on her father’s apartment, Vito’s daughter would be well-provided for in her lifetime and would have sufficient income to cover her medical and personal needs. Such was Vito’s intent until Joseph Pisani entered the picture.
In 2004, Vito’s health took a turn for the worse with a relapse of his cancer and the loss of a kidney. At the same time, Vito’s daughter suffered several setbacks complicating her disability and increasing her medical and living costs. Although previously unknown to all the family, Joseph Pisani interjected himself into Vito’s life at this time and somehow managed to convince the dying man to alter his will, nominating Pisani as executor and trustee of a airs and as Vito Masotti’s attorney for child support matters regarding his daughter. Vito Masotti died not long afterwards, leaving Joseph Pisani in control of his entire $1.4 million estate and his daughter’s support.
Since the demise of Vito Masotti, Joseph Pisani has done nothing to assist Vito’s daughter, even refusing to provide her with the basic special education she needs for her cognitive difficulties and denying her medical treatment. Court records filed with the Surrogate’s Court in White Plains document that Joseph Pisani has vigorously opposed support applications for the young Ms. Masotti’s needs and advocated for the removal of
her own mother as her guardian.
Pisani has allowed the rents on Vito’s apartment building that he left for his daughter’s care to decline, and is in the process of trying to sell it. He has not provided any accounting whatsoever to Ms. Masotti, or her mother, as to where any, or all, of the $1.4 million estate has gone. Andrea Masotti, now in her 60’s, confided to the Guardian that she has spent her entire retirement and life savings to provide for her daughter herself and fight for her needs these past few years in an uphill battle in our local courts. Now left with limited resources of her own, Mrs. Masotti is currently
scrambling to find work to pay for the needs of herself and her daughter.
This case would be horrific enough if it were not for the fact that Joseph Pisani has absolutely no legal authority whatsoever to draft any will, offer himself as an executor or trustee of an estate, or be appointed legal representative for child support issues at all, SINCE HE IS A CONVICTED FELON!
This Joseph Pisani is one and the same Joseph Pisani who was disbarred and removed from the New York State Senate in 1986 on federal charges of mail fraud, income tax evasion, the of client funds, and embezzlement.
And now he’s at it again. But this time, it’s with the Court’s blessings.The history of Pisani’s corruption is a long one. On August 1, 1984, Pisani
was sentenced to four years in prison and was fined $69,000 on fraud and tax evasion charges by the Federal District Court in Manhattan. The United States prosecutor on the case, Charles La Bella, portrayed Pisani at trial as a public official who “abused his position”.
Among the charges filed by La Bella against Pisani were Law Practice Mail Fraud, Campaign Fund Mail Fraud, Income Tax Violations, Obstruction Of Justice, Embezzlement of over $80,000, Failure To Pay Taxes, and Misleading A Grand Jury. Pisani’s second wife, Kathryn Godfrey, was also charged at the trial with committing Perjury during the grand jury’s investigation of the fraud and tax charges. Ms. Godfrey had been employed as a stenographer for a state commission headed by Pisani before his divorce and their subsequent marriage.
During the course of the trial, La Bella revealed evidence that Pisani embezzled state funds by purchasing a summer home in Washingtonville, New York from a Joseph Mallon and giving him a “no show” state job in exchange. La Bella also charged Pisani with embezzling money from his former law firm and using his campaign funds for his personal needs and those of Ms. Godfrey.
La Bella provided evidence that Pisani used these funds to buy gifts for his then-girlfriend, Godfrey, to take vacations, and invest in professional boxing, while listing these payments as campaign costs on his financial statements.
Two high ranking New York State representatives, Charles Rangel, and Robert Garcia, appeared at Pisani’s trial as character witnesses, but the Federal jury found him guilty anyway on 18 of the 39 counts in the indictment. Among the crimes Pisani was indicted for, was a Mail Fraud charge involving the funds of his former client. According to the records of that indictment, on file with the Westchester County Surrogate’s Court in White Plains for the probate of Vito Masotti’s estate: “On or about August 8, 1979, the defendant JOSEPH R. PISANI directed that $3,604.02 of funds credited to Erma Jean Gina in a client escrow account be withdrawn, charged to Erma Jean Gina, and paid to John Talaska in connection with the repayment of certain monies invested by John Talaska, at a guaranteed interest rate of 10 percent, with the defendant PISANI”. In addition,
the trial transcripts note that: “He (Pisani) forged her signatures. This was not some sort of legitimate transaction”. (emphasis added).
In 1985, Pisani won an appeal to reverse some of his 1984 conviction but the mail fraud charges have stayed. He only served one year and one day of his sentence, most of it in a Federal halfway house, Project Return, in Manhattan. However, while there, he was found in possession of an “illegal substance” and was removed. Immediately upon his release from prison, Pisani was offered a local government position in Westchester County by then-County Executive Andrew O’Rourke. O’Rourke was quoted at the time as admitting “The political system takes care of its own”.
Pisani himself had helped other political associates in the past with their political careers, notably Al and Jeanine Pirro. On the Albany Law School alumni website it notes this connection with some amusement: “Al Pirro, ALS ’74, famous lawyer (his clients include Donald Trump). Al was convicted of tax evasion in June 2000. In law school, Al worked for State Senator Joe Pisani, who was later convicted of tax fraud.”
Turning down O’Rourke’s political position, Pisani went to work initially as a salesperson but eventually became a lobbyist in 1989 for a trash-hauling firm with mob connections while it was being investigated by the New York State Assembly for illegally dumping building debris. Pisani was also accused by the Westchester County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children of establishing a fake child abuse agency in Yonkers that illegally issued detective licenses and guns. The Westchester County Society claimed in court papers that the Yonkers agency had not investigated any cases of child abuse, and had no employees but had somehow registered 34 individuals as “Peace Officers” with the state, a distinction that allows them to carry guns and identify themselves as detectives. The court petition named Pisani and the ex- Yonkers Police Commissioner, Charles Connolly, in the action.
Pisani was not without friends after his conviction. He hosted a regular call-in talk show on the local New Rochelle radio station owned by William
O’Shaughnessy. On his first radio show, Pisani was joined on the air by the mayor of New Rochelle, Leonard Paduano, who stopped by to tell him “it was an honor” to be there despite the fact that Pisani had just admitted to his listeners having plead guilty to tax evasion, being disbarred, ndulging in an extra-marital affair for 24 years, and serving time in jail. O’Shaughnessy was still listing Pisani as a “friend of Bill” in his 2004 book: More Riffs, Rants, and Raves. Despite claiming he was working as a construction industry salesperson, making only $300 a week, Pisani was also listed by renown sculptor, Arthur Glickman, as having several of Glickman’s sculptures in his “private collection” placing himself in a small group of Glickman’s collectors, among them the Estee Lauder family and the owners of Wendy’s restaurants.
Pisani also used his political connections after his release from prison to aid business owners in their tax battles with local municipalities. Despite being convicted of embezzlement and tax evasion, Pisani has been allowed to represent clients in 794 cases from 1986 through the present. He has cases scheduled before the Supreme Court this month. Pisani has used his knowledge of the system against the constituents he used to represent; most of his tax cases have been against Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, Mamaroneck, Greenburgh, and Mount Pleasant, lowering the taxes of hundreds of corporations in these towns and placing the burden on the local residents of those towns instead.
These cases are listed on the New York State Unified Court System website records for Westchester County as being handled by “Joseph R. Pisani, Esq.” Yet notably absent from these case records is a reference to the employment limitations placed upon Pisani because of his conviction and disbarment.
According to the State of New York, Certificate of Relief from Disabilities, NYSID # 0817057K, Pisani did not receive a full release from the state, “removing all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license, and privilege” until January 1, 2008. Yet, from the date of his release from prison in 1986 to the present, Pisani was allowed to handle 794 tax cases in the Westchester Supreme Court as “Joseph R. Pisani, Esq.”
Worse yet, for the past five years, Pisani was allowed to represent Ms. Masotti on child support issues in Westchester Courts despite being barred from the State of New York to do so until last year. Why did the Chief Administrative Judge of this Court, Francis Nicolai, allow a felon convicted of embezzlement of client funds, who is also a disbarred attorney prohibited from using his legal license during this period, from appearing anywhere near the family courts in his courthouse on child support and other financial issues? It’s not like Nicolai does not know who Joseph Pisani is. As an ex-New York State Senator, his face is very familiar to our local politicians, many of whom he put in their jobs. During this same period, Pisani was allowed to handle the estate of Vito Masotti in White Plains Surrogates Court before Judge Scarpino. Why did Scarpino allow a convicted felon to go anywhere near the trust funds of a disabled child? The will itself drawn up by Pisani in 2004 that Scarpino is probating is of
questionable legality since it was drafted by a convicted felon and witnessed only by Pisani’s then-wife, his ex-mistress, Kathryn Godfrey, herself a convicted felon found guilty of perjury. Scarpino and Nicolai have a fiduciary responsibility to the disabled community to protect them from abuse.
Is it too much to ask our Courts to prevent convicted embezzlers from being trustees for a disabled child’s estate? Why have Scarpino and Nicolai
never once demanded to see a full accounting for the $1.4 million that was in Ms. Masotti’s trust fund? Court rules clearly state that trustees must provide full and regular accountings to their clients and to the courts. So why isn’t there a single accounting on record with Scarpino’s court since 2004 for this trust? Mrs. Masotti sent a letter to Surrogate’s Court in December and January asking for relief for her daughter. Scarpino did not even reply to her letters, dismissing them to a mere court clerk instead of at least a court attorney, Charles Scott, for the official Surrogate response. Scott’s response to Mrs. Masotti’s pleas for aid for her daughter: “Regarding the concerns raised in your letter, the executors are accountable to all beneficiaries. At such time as they settle their account (their bills), your daughter (name withheld), and you as her guardian, will be given notice by citation and an opportunity to be heard”.
The Court is totally and utterly wrong here. As many Guardian readers are aware, this writer is a co-guardian of my disabled brother and the trustee on his Special Needs trust, which drew Mrs. Masotti to my attention. My responsibilities include not only providing a full accounting annually, but also a complete accounting whenever the co-guardian or my brother ask for one. In addition, the trust for a disabled individual over the age of 21, as Ms. Masotti now is, is governed by New York State Mental Hygiene laws and the Department of Social Services. Trustees may not spend any monies in the trusts that may affect the disabled individual’s services from DSS. Any major expenditures and changes, such as the sale of an apartment building, must be approved by DSS. According to these laws: The Department’s regulations set forth the circumstances under which it
must be given notification prior to expenditures that tend to deplete trust principal. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 360-4.5(b)(5)(iii)(c). If the proposed expenditure does not reach the level set forth in the regulations, no prior notification to the Department of Social Services is required. Moreover,
“notification” does not equal “approval”.
Nevertheless, when the Trust has been established pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the courts will likely list the Department as a person or entity entitled to notification of all proceedings, as in a “non SNT” Guardianship. Hence, the Department receives notice of applications brought by the Trustee to make expenditures that do not “tend to deplete trust principal”. The Department will thus have a forum in which to object to proposed expenditures, even if they are below the regulatory level. In other words, Pisani has had to provide accounting of his use of the funds in this trust all along to both the Courts and DSS. So where are these accountings? And why is the Court now taking the position that Ms. Masotti and her mother have to wait to even be allowed to ask for a full accounting until after the lawyers settle their bills? If Pisani gets his hands on this trust first, with his background as a convicted embezzler, what guarantees is the Court offering Ms. Masotti that any of her money will be left?
Is the law and justice being ignored here because the lawyer in question is an ex-New York State Senator who in-fluenced the political careers of many of those now in power? The Guardian intends to pursue this case.
Westchester GuardianThe Advocate/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Honest, Hard-Working Cops
Get The Shaft In Westchester
Last Thursday, February 5th, was not a good day for law enforcement in Westchester County. Two fine police officers, one a seven-
year veteran of the Harrison Police Department, Steve Heisler, the other, Steve Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the Pleasantville Police Department, each saw the end of their service as police officers in their community.
Each was removed by a cowardly means; Heisler for his failure to go along with bogus, retaliatory charges lodged against a fellow Harrison
police officer, Ralph Tancredi, by top police brass, Bonura because pressure was applied to his police chief by DA Janet DiFiore in retaliation for his justified critical comments.
District Attorney Janet Di-Fiore has created an environment in which dedicated, law-abiding police officers know that, at any moment, they can be sacrificed on the altar of political conspiracy; the deals struck between the DA and chiefs and commissioners of police departments throughout the County.
In Detective Sergeant Bonura’s case, all it took was a phone call from DiFiore telling Pleasantville Police Chief Anthony Chiarlitti to “Jump”
for him to ask, “How high?” She wanted Bonura’s head because his truthful criticism of the DA’s Office’s repeated willingness to turn loose a career criminal to again burglarize and endanger the community was more truth than she could handle. With a wife and five children
to support, the cynical and cowardly Village Board knew it would only be a short time before he would be compelled to file for retirement.
Nevermind Bonura’s brilliant 27 years of service to the Pleasantville community, senior citizens and youngsters alike. Nevermind his and his
partner, Officer DiMaio’s, excellent work as Village Youth Officers, proven, capable officers like them must come along every day to see the haste with which the Village Board couldn’t wait to gratify our vindictive, wholly incompetent, and untruthful, district attorney.
In Officer Heisler’s case, it might appear, at first glance, that his discharge was merely an in-house matter. But it was far from it. Heisler was one of the 12 members of the larger Harrison PBA who had brought complaints of unlawful audio and video recording in the locker room at
Police Headquarters as well as the confiscation of PBA funds, by Chief Hall, Captain Marraccini, and others, to the DA, only to be ignored because the chief and the captain were not only significant contributors, but organizers and spokesmen for her installation as DA in 2005.
Further-more, Heisler was unwilling to go along with the kangaroo court proceedings invoked against Officer Tancredi, then-President of the
Harrison PBA, in retaliation for his union activity. After all, DiFiore had dispatched one of her most corrupted ADAs, Barbara Egenhauser, in an attempt to suborn perjury from Tancredi’s girlfriend, as she shoved an unwanted Order Of Protection on her. Heisler’s dismissal was more a product of the political makeup of the Harrison Town Board, the vote having been three to two in favor of dismissal with all three Republican members going against Heisler as they no doubt will against Tancredi, given the chance.
Janet DiFiore, truth be told, has no regard for good cops. To her, they are merely pawns to be played and manipulated, one way or another in furtherance of her self-promotional agenda. Look at her handling of Mount Kisco Police Officer George Bubaris, following the death of homeless immigrant Rene Perez. When the pressure from the Latino community became too great, she needed a scapegoat, and George Bubaris, low man on the totem pole, was it.
Three of her top prosecutors, Jim McCarty, Perry Perone, and Michael Delohery, all experienced and accomplished liars before a jury, came to trial with their tank on empty; and, try as they may for their counterfeit boss, they couldn’t fool 12 intelligent jurors. Of course, although
the trial outcome was vindicating to Bubaris, his career was ruined and he and his wife were put through extraordinary expenses and heartache they will be years recovering from.
Let us not forget her all-out effort to defend the bogus prosecution of former New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo. She
was in the DA’s Office in October 1996 when the tragic incident that compelled Officer DiGuglielmo to “fire three shots to center mass” as a
bat-wielding assailant attacked his middle-aged father. She was in the office and knew damned well the lies and the pressure that were forced upon the three eyewitnesses to the self-defense shooting.
The wrongful conviction that emerged from the trial, finally overturned by a brilliant decision after more than 10 years, by an evidentiary hearing that lasted for eight days, continues to be mindlessly challenged by DiFiore, who knows very well just how much prosecutorial misconduct went into the wrongful conviction.
Then there is DA DiFiore’s disrespectful handling and manipulation of the tragic death of Mount Vernon Detective Christopher Ridley, who paid with his life to respond to a criminal event as we would wish every dedicated police officer would want to respond. It is becoming increasingly apparent, one year after the terrible incident, why DiFiore continues to keep the tapes of the young officer’s killing, at the hands of four County police officers, out of public view, and why she refuses to turn over his clothing and his wallet to his family.
The truth is, our District Attorney, installed by political operatives more than three years ago, had such political obligation to people such as Tom Belfiore, Nick Spano, Andy Spano, Edmund Hartnett, Phil Amicone, and so many more scoundrels that she preferred to characterize
Officer Ridley’s actions on January 25, 2008 as reckless and unprofessional. She had no problem filling in with lies about his badge where necessary, all for the purpose of keeping the damaging truth from coming out. In fact, she reasoned it was better to protect the reputations
of her co-conspirators than that of an heroic young cop, the likes of which doesn’t come along every day.
In fairness, we must point out that it’s not as though DA DiFiore is cruel and unfair toward all police officers in Westchester. There are those officers, and departments, whose actions she continues to cover up and protect. She will go all-out for the Yonkers Police Department, and officers the likes of Wayne Simoes, no matter how brutally and wrongfully they may have dealt with innocent citizens.
Not only will the Westchester DA ignore irrefutable evidence of police brutality such as the Irma Marquez tape, but she will also prosecute the innocent victims as well. It is obvious that there is an unhealthy incestuousness about the DA’s relationship with certain police Departments, and, Yonkers is a prime example. It is mind-boggling that, in light of the evidence, it required “a jury of her peers” to acquit Ms. Marquez of the charges maliciously brought against her, and it took the United States Attorney’s Office to apprehend, and prosecute,
Wayne Simoes, the rogue, violent cop.
The Guardian discovered, and publicly exposed, the violence problem in Yonkers, and the Westchester DA’s failure to protect Constitutionally-violated individuals in that city two and a half years ago. It is a simple fact that under DA Janet DiFiore, honest, hard-working police officers get the shaft in Westchester, and brutal rogues get covered up. Voters will need to deal with that problem directly
come November.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Honest, Hard-Working Cops
Get The Shaft In Westchester
Last Thursday, February 5th, was not a good day for law enforcement in Westchester County. Two fine police officers, one a seven-
year veteran of the Harrison Police Department, Steve Heisler, the other, Steve Bonura, a 27-year veteran of the Pleasantville Police Department, each saw the end of their service as police officers in their community.
Each was removed by a cowardly means; Heisler for his failure to go along with bogus, retaliatory charges lodged against a fellow Harrison
police officer, Ralph Tancredi, by top police brass, Bonura because pressure was applied to his police chief by DA Janet DiFiore in retaliation for his justified critical comments.
District Attorney Janet Di-Fiore has created an environment in which dedicated, law-abiding police officers know that, at any moment, they can be sacrificed on the altar of political conspiracy; the deals struck between the DA and chiefs and commissioners of police departments throughout the County.
In Detective Sergeant Bonura’s case, all it took was a phone call from DiFiore telling Pleasantville Police Chief Anthony Chiarlitti to “Jump”
for him to ask, “How high?” She wanted Bonura’s head because his truthful criticism of the DA’s Office’s repeated willingness to turn loose a career criminal to again burglarize and endanger the community was more truth than she could handle. With a wife and five children
to support, the cynical and cowardly Village Board knew it would only be a short time before he would be compelled to file for retirement.
Nevermind Bonura’s brilliant 27 years of service to the Pleasantville community, senior citizens and youngsters alike. Nevermind his and his
partner, Officer DiMaio’s, excellent work as Village Youth Officers, proven, capable officers like them must come along every day to see the haste with which the Village Board couldn’t wait to gratify our vindictive, wholly incompetent, and untruthful, district attorney.
In Officer Heisler’s case, it might appear, at first glance, that his discharge was merely an in-house matter. But it was far from it. Heisler was one of the 12 members of the larger Harrison PBA who had brought complaints of unlawful audio and video recording in the locker room at
Police Headquarters as well as the confiscation of PBA funds, by Chief Hall, Captain Marraccini, and others, to the DA, only to be ignored because the chief and the captain were not only significant contributors, but organizers and spokesmen for her installation as DA in 2005.
Further-more, Heisler was unwilling to go along with the kangaroo court proceedings invoked against Officer Tancredi, then-President of the
Harrison PBA, in retaliation for his union activity. After all, DiFiore had dispatched one of her most corrupted ADAs, Barbara Egenhauser, in an attempt to suborn perjury from Tancredi’s girlfriend, as she shoved an unwanted Order Of Protection on her. Heisler’s dismissal was more a product of the political makeup of the Harrison Town Board, the vote having been three to two in favor of dismissal with all three Republican members going against Heisler as they no doubt will against Tancredi, given the chance.
Janet DiFiore, truth be told, has no regard for good cops. To her, they are merely pawns to be played and manipulated, one way or another in furtherance of her self-promotional agenda. Look at her handling of Mount Kisco Police Officer George Bubaris, following the death of homeless immigrant Rene Perez. When the pressure from the Latino community became too great, she needed a scapegoat, and George Bubaris, low man on the totem pole, was it.
Three of her top prosecutors, Jim McCarty, Perry Perone, and Michael Delohery, all experienced and accomplished liars before a jury, came to trial with their tank on empty; and, try as they may for their counterfeit boss, they couldn’t fool 12 intelligent jurors. Of course, although
the trial outcome was vindicating to Bubaris, his career was ruined and he and his wife were put through extraordinary expenses and heartache they will be years recovering from.
Let us not forget her all-out effort to defend the bogus prosecution of former New York City Transit Police Officer Richard DiGuglielmo. She
was in the DA’s Office in October 1996 when the tragic incident that compelled Officer DiGuglielmo to “fire three shots to center mass” as a
bat-wielding assailant attacked his middle-aged father. She was in the office and knew damned well the lies and the pressure that were forced upon the three eyewitnesses to the self-defense shooting.
The wrongful conviction that emerged from the trial, finally overturned by a brilliant decision after more than 10 years, by an evidentiary hearing that lasted for eight days, continues to be mindlessly challenged by DiFiore, who knows very well just how much prosecutorial misconduct went into the wrongful conviction.
Then there is DA DiFiore’s disrespectful handling and manipulation of the tragic death of Mount Vernon Detective Christopher Ridley, who paid with his life to respond to a criminal event as we would wish every dedicated police officer would want to respond. It is becoming increasingly apparent, one year after the terrible incident, why DiFiore continues to keep the tapes of the young officer’s killing, at the hands of four County police officers, out of public view, and why she refuses to turn over his clothing and his wallet to his family.
The truth is, our District Attorney, installed by political operatives more than three years ago, had such political obligation to people such as Tom Belfiore, Nick Spano, Andy Spano, Edmund Hartnett, Phil Amicone, and so many more scoundrels that she preferred to characterize
Officer Ridley’s actions on January 25, 2008 as reckless and unprofessional. She had no problem filling in with lies about his badge where necessary, all for the purpose of keeping the damaging truth from coming out. In fact, she reasoned it was better to protect the reputations
of her co-conspirators than that of an heroic young cop, the likes of which doesn’t come along every day.
In fairness, we must point out that it’s not as though DA DiFiore is cruel and unfair toward all police officers in Westchester. There are those officers, and departments, whose actions she continues to cover up and protect. She will go all-out for the Yonkers Police Department, and officers the likes of Wayne Simoes, no matter how brutally and wrongfully they may have dealt with innocent citizens.
Not only will the Westchester DA ignore irrefutable evidence of police brutality such as the Irma Marquez tape, but she will also prosecute the innocent victims as well. It is obvious that there is an unhealthy incestuousness about the DA’s relationship with certain police Departments, and, Yonkers is a prime example. It is mind-boggling that, in light of the evidence, it required “a jury of her peers” to acquit Ms. Marquez of the charges maliciously brought against her, and it took the United States Attorney’s Office to apprehend, and prosecute,
Wayne Simoes, the rogue, violent cop.
The Guardian discovered, and publicly exposed, the violence problem in Yonkers, and the Westchester DA’s failure to protect Constitutionally-violated individuals in that city two and a half years ago. It is a simple fact that under DA Janet DiFiore, honest, hard-working police officers get the shaft in Westchester, and brutal rogues get covered up. Voters will need to deal with that problem directly
come November.
Westchester Guardian/In Our Opinion/Our Readers Respond.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
In Our Opinion...
Westchester Voters Must Get Involved Now
It is painfully obvious that voters in Westchester must begin to take stock of their public officials and legislative representatives early this year, much earlier than usual. That fact is particularly clear with respect to all County positions, both from the standpoint of individual performances
by current incumbents, as well as the growing movement to eliminate, or, at least, significantly reduce, the size of County Government.
County taxpayers have literally been taken for granted, frankly abused, for so many years by a Government grown fat, arrogant and, in many instances, corrupt, to the point where drastic surgery was needed, whether or not our state and national economies were as troubled as they now are. And, we all know very well that it’s not merely a matter of dollars.
As importantly, it is about truthfulness and accountability; a County Executive who has financed the campaigns of a super-majority rubber stamp legislature, many of whom do business with the County and/or have spouses, or other family members, on the County payroll.
It is about a District Attorney’s Office that has, long ago, forgotten the difference between right and wrong; and the fact that we are supposed to be a democracy, a county within a state and a nation, each of which provide Constitutional guarantees that cannot, lawfully, be violated.
There is a good reason why nearly 70 attorneys and investigators have left the DA’s Office over the past three years, and many of those who remain privately acknowledge that they are just hanging around to collect their pensions.
It’s about bloated, connected government at every level, with scandalous disregard for the clearly-expressed will of the People. And, finally, it’s about politicians who are not public servants, and never will be, and who believe they can shove things down our throats and get away with it.
Our Reader's Respond...
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to a recent article from January 8, 2008 concerning the treatment and federal prosecution of a former Westchester County corrections of-ficer Paul Cote.
There remain many disturbing questions surrounding this prosecution. The most confusing question is how did the officer who started the altercation with the inmate get immunity from prosecution and why.
There seems to be a very large quid pro quo in this case leading to the ruination of Paul Cote’s professional and personal life. Mr. Cote came to the aid of another officer who was being severely beaten by the said inmate; using department-approved physical force the inmate was subdued.
Somehow it was determined that Paul’s particular blows led to later demise of this inmate, even though he was hospitalized for over a year after the incident. I find it ludicrous that this family has been bankrupted by legal costs on top of shattering a loving family. Society never seems to remember that inmates are criminals who are incarcerated for a reason, but yet they seem to have no guilt in these cases.
Susan Lombardi
Regional YWCAs Applaud President Obama
Dear Editor:
The YWCAs of the Northeast Regional Council is celebrating the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act by President Obama. By signing this bill into law, President Obama ended years of discrimination against women in the workplace.
Lilly Ledbetter, the woman for whom the act is named, worked for Goodyear Tire for more than 20 years. She worked her way through a male-dominated workplace to a supervisory position. Ms. Ledbetter worked hard for the company for over two decades. Once she found out she was being paid less than her male counterparts, she took her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that employees cannot challenge ongoing compensation discrimination if the employer’s original discriminatory decision occurred more than 180 days before, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced.
Kelli Owens, Regional Advocacy Coordination of the YWCAs said, “Today’s law enables individuals to challenge ongoing pay discrimination
and protects workers from workplace discrimination. Unfortunately our work is not done yet.
The United States Senate needs to finish their work by passing the Pay Check Fairness Act.”The Lilly Ledbetter Act addresses the issue of legal recourse, but this additional act would put measures in place to prevent pay discrimination. The YWCAs of the Northeast Region, which encompasses 33 local associations in the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, has long been an advocate for Pay Equity. The Region will continue to advocate for state and federal laws to protect women and people of color.
The YWCA is a women’s membership movement nourished by its roots in the Christian faith and sustained by the richness of many beliefs and values. Strengthened by diversity, the YWCA draws together members who strive to create opportunities for women’s growth, leadership, and power in order to attain a common vision: peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all people. e YWCA will thrust its collective power toward the
elimination of racism, wherever it exists.
Casey Kaufman
In Our Opinion...
Westchester Voters Must Get Involved Now
It is painfully obvious that voters in Westchester must begin to take stock of their public officials and legislative representatives early this year, much earlier than usual. That fact is particularly clear with respect to all County positions, both from the standpoint of individual performances
by current incumbents, as well as the growing movement to eliminate, or, at least, significantly reduce, the size of County Government.
County taxpayers have literally been taken for granted, frankly abused, for so many years by a Government grown fat, arrogant and, in many instances, corrupt, to the point where drastic surgery was needed, whether or not our state and national economies were as troubled as they now are. And, we all know very well that it’s not merely a matter of dollars.
As importantly, it is about truthfulness and accountability; a County Executive who has financed the campaigns of a super-majority rubber stamp legislature, many of whom do business with the County and/or have spouses, or other family members, on the County payroll.
It is about a District Attorney’s Office that has, long ago, forgotten the difference between right and wrong; and the fact that we are supposed to be a democracy, a county within a state and a nation, each of which provide Constitutional guarantees that cannot, lawfully, be violated.
There is a good reason why nearly 70 attorneys and investigators have left the DA’s Office over the past three years, and many of those who remain privately acknowledge that they are just hanging around to collect their pensions.
It’s about bloated, connected government at every level, with scandalous disregard for the clearly-expressed will of the People. And, finally, it’s about politicians who are not public servants, and never will be, and who believe they can shove things down our throats and get away with it.
Our Reader's Respond...
Re: Paul Cote
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to a recent article from January 8, 2008 concerning the treatment and federal prosecution of a former Westchester County corrections of-ficer Paul Cote.
There remain many disturbing questions surrounding this prosecution. The most confusing question is how did the officer who started the altercation with the inmate get immunity from prosecution and why.
There seems to be a very large quid pro quo in this case leading to the ruination of Paul Cote’s professional and personal life. Mr. Cote came to the aid of another officer who was being severely beaten by the said inmate; using department-approved physical force the inmate was subdued.
Somehow it was determined that Paul’s particular blows led to later demise of this inmate, even though he was hospitalized for over a year after the incident. I find it ludicrous that this family has been bankrupted by legal costs on top of shattering a loving family. Society never seems to remember that inmates are criminals who are incarcerated for a reason, but yet they seem to have no guilt in these cases.
Susan Lombardi
Regional YWCAs Applaud President Obama
Dear Editor:
The YWCAs of the Northeast Regional Council is celebrating the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act by President Obama. By signing this bill into law, President Obama ended years of discrimination against women in the workplace.
Lilly Ledbetter, the woman for whom the act is named, worked for Goodyear Tire for more than 20 years. She worked her way through a male-dominated workplace to a supervisory position. Ms. Ledbetter worked hard for the company for over two decades. Once she found out she was being paid less than her male counterparts, she took her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that employees cannot challenge ongoing compensation discrimination if the employer’s original discriminatory decision occurred more than 180 days before, even when the employee continues to receive paychecks that have been discriminatorily reduced.
Kelli Owens, Regional Advocacy Coordination of the YWCAs said, “Today’s law enables individuals to challenge ongoing pay discrimination
and protects workers from workplace discrimination. Unfortunately our work is not done yet.
The United States Senate needs to finish their work by passing the Pay Check Fairness Act.”The Lilly Ledbetter Act addresses the issue of legal recourse, but this additional act would put measures in place to prevent pay discrimination. The YWCAs of the Northeast Region, which encompasses 33 local associations in the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, has long been an advocate for Pay Equity. The Region will continue to advocate for state and federal laws to protect women and people of color.
The YWCA is a women’s membership movement nourished by its roots in the Christian faith and sustained by the richness of many beliefs and values. Strengthened by diversity, the YWCA draws together members who strive to create opportunities for women’s growth, leadership, and power in order to attain a common vision: peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all people. e YWCA will thrust its collective power toward the
elimination of racism, wherever it exists.
Casey Kaufman
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Kerik Returns To Court
Seeking Dismissal
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, February 3rd, found Bernard Kerik, former Corrections Commissioner, and Police Commissioner of New York
City, back in Federal District Court, White Plains, together with his attorney, Barry Berke, a partner in the law firm of Kramer, Levin,
Naftalis & Frankel, before Judge Stephen C. Robinson, for some three and a half hours of pre-trial hearings. Kerik, who was charged in a 16-count indictment with Public Corruption, (denying the public his honest services), Tax Fraud, and making false statements to federal officials in connection with his nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security in 2004, had made two motions seeking dismissal of the charges.
Robinson opened the pre-trial hearing, asking Kerik’s attorney, “What are your strongest arguments for dismissal?” Attorney Berke responded, “The government has simply stretched too far in bringing an Honest Services indictment.” He continued, “We believe there are
clear laws that govern when the government may bring charges.”
Berke then specified, “The operative date is April 14, 2002. All of the alleged acts, and all of the alleged benefits, occurred before April 14,
2002. We have been unable to find any case in which Honest Services extend beyond one’s term in office.
Robinson responded, “Take me there. Can the statute be extended beyond the time because of concealment?”
Berke then cited Gruenwald, apparently relied upon by the government, attempting to distinguish it from his client’s circumstances. To bolster his position with respect to the Statute of Limitations, he declared, “Judge Rakoff, in Gabriel, ruled ‘someone doesn’t have to go to trial on stale charges.’ We need direct evidence of acts of agreement to conceal.”
Judge Robinson then asked, “Can it be that the acts of concealment... the allegations are that Mr. Kerik, in office, who received something for
vouching for the company.”The reference was to Interstate Industrial, a carting company owned by Peter and Frank DiTommaso, which was
seeking to do business with the City of New York.
Attorney Berke attempted to further distinguish his client with respect to the Statute of Limitations, prompting Robinson to remark, “I
get it. Mr. Kerik has already gotten whatever he was going to get.” Robinson went further, asking, “Wasn’t the value of Mr. Kerik’s participation in the crime that he would give the weight of his office, that would provide the benefits?” Turning to Berke, the Judge then asked, “When does the vouching end? Does it end when he does the vouching, or when they make the decision?”
Berke immediately answered, “When he left office, the vouching ends.” He cited Eppolito and the Continuity Of Purpose Theory. Changing gears, Robinson then stated, “Your argument is that the main objective was not concealment.” He then followed up with, “Let me ask a couple of questions. The goal of this conspiracy is get what you’re trying to get, and not get caught. He tries to get lulling letters, coverup letters.”
Robinson went on to ask, “Is it fair to say that Mr. Kerik is also still liable even though his participation has ended? Why is it that I would say that because his role has ended, but his co-conspirators continue to do what they were doing?”
Attorney Berke responded, “It’s doing the vouching, and receiving the benefits. The government is trying to put a square peg in a round
hole. The types of arguments that Your Honor raises are not appropriate here. If you dismiss the conspiracy, you must also dismiss the
substantive acts.”
Robinson simply answered, “I see what you mean.” Berke went on to discuss some cases he had cited in making his motions to dismiss; cases from the Second Circuit “where they used information obtained as the result of their relationship.”
Judge Robinson asked, “Why was the fact that they had access to insider information so significant? Didn’t Mr. Kerik use his influence
from his office? A jury could find that there was the wrongful use of his power; certainly his use of his power.”
Berke responded, “You need to be using the Sawyer Case to allow every misuse of office to be a fraud. If all you have is that a public...”
Berke continued, “You have to find whatever benefit you received impacted your performance of your official duties.”
At that point, Robinson stopped him with, “Ok, I got it. Take me to counts 12 and 13, the false statements.” Berke began, “Every year...” But Robinson cut him off, asking, “Is it your position that your question was so impermissibly vague that there was no answer that Mr. Kerik could give?”The Judge was referring to the question from federal investigators to Bernard Kerik, at the time he was being vetted for his appointment to be Secretary of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration, asking, “Is there anything in your past that might be embarrassing?”
Berke put off the question for consideration and followed by saying, “The vetting process is an imperfect one.” Robinson asked, “Doesn’t he
commit a crime?” Berke said, “It was an unsolicited misdemeanor.”
Robinson, growing a bit stern, responded, “Under any interpretation of the ambiguousness of the question, lying is not an appropriate answer.” Robinson next said, “Let me turn to the government.”
Mr. Eliot Jacobson, the Lead Assistant United States Attorney on the case, rose to his feet to declare, “I want to address the 1349 Conspiracy once it is conveyed continues into at least 2005 when the Department of Sanitation...”
Robinson then asked, “If the object of the conspiracy is to deny the public of his honest services while in office, that conspiracy must end
when he is no longer in office.” Jacobson responded, “Judge, let me talk about the subsidiary object of the conspiracy. He had a brother and
a best friend who were working for the company.” Jacobson then spoke of the briber and the bribee.
Jacobson said, “Where there is no overt act required, the effect of what he does continues after he leaves office. It would certainly continue
as the co-conspirators continue to reap benefits.” Prosecutor Jacobson went on to explain, “There is a presumption in a no-overt acts conspiracy that the defendant must prove disconnection from the conspiracy. There were a whole host of acts that were predicated on the conspiracy.”
Jacobson went on to cite Minuti and Eppolito, the former stating, “A conspiracy continues until the conspirators receive their anticipated
economic benefits,” the latter for the proposition “a briber and a bribee share a common purpose.” At that point, Judge Robinson asked, “So you are saying this is a hybrid case? An economic case, and a Deprivation of Honest Services case?”
Jacobson responded, “The whole purpose of the conferring of benefits upon Mr. Kerik was that XYZ Corporation would gain Trade Waste approvals.” He then went on to declare that the Defendant’s use of Gruenwald was totally wrong, and that there was no requirement that there be an express agreement.
Jacobson next introduced Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth, one of two other AUSAs at the Prosecution table. Attorney Bosworth told the Court, “He [Kerik] used his inside influence. He attended a meeting with people from the Department of Sanitation
as well as the Trade Waste Corporation. Middlemiss and Bush stand for Influence Peddling.”
Robinson then said, “So your answer would be Bush and Middlemiss.” Bosworth came back, “The Second Circuit typically casts a broad
net; using public office for private gain.”Robinson next turned to the part of the indictment that charges Kerik with Failing To Respond Honestly to federal probers who were questioning him by way of vetting him for appointment as Secretary of Homeland Security. Kerik’s attorney had earlier raised an objection to the use of the term ‘embarrassing’. Robinson said, “I am troubled by the use of the term ‘embarrassing.’ I believe it’s too vague.”
AUSA Jacobson was quick to respond, “This has got to be taken in context. If the White House knew he had committed crimes, even misdemeanors, it would’ve been considered serious.”
Robinson, directing his comments to Jacobson, then asked, “If I was to disclose that I find the use of the word ‘embarrassing’ to be very vague, how would you overcome that?” The Judge was moving into the area of his concerns over joinder issues, stating, “It could be fairly
said that the government is looking at the life of Mr. Kerik and including it in one indictment.” He then asked, “Why is all of this in one indictment?”
AUSA Bosworth responded, “What the Defendant is seeking is five separate trials. The Defendant says I had to beg, borrow, and steal to
get the apartment.” Mr. Berke then cited Ruiz from the Second Circuit, a move quickly shut down by the Judge, saying, “I got you.”
But Mr. Berke persisted, “They didn’t change anything, but deprivation of honest services.” Robinson came right back with, “Let’s just take the time he was the head of Corrections. Is it your position that all they are alleging here is that he had a Deprivation of Honest Services? He’s not meeting as a private citizen, he’s using his office as a commissioner.”
Defense Attorney Berke, straining to get his point across, said, “Judge, it’s not bribery, it’s not extortion, it’s not enough to use his office.
Mr. Jacobson said exactly the opposite of what Gruenwald stands for. There must be the original agreement to cover up. It must include an
agreement to cover up, to take steps to conceal.”
Attempting to reargue his original point, relative to the Statute of Limitations, Berke said, “The length of the conspiracy is determined by
the scope of the agreement; a continuation of purpose and continuation of acts.” Robinson then summarized, “Mr. Kerik gets work on his house, and, they get his influence at the table when their application was delayed.”
Analysis:
Bernard Kerik is obviously no garden variety defendant. He is an individual who would rise very quickly from a questionable background;
apparently cutting corners and showing little concern for formal protocol or possible consequences.
Unfortunately, he proved to be a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration, which was prepared to elevate him to Cabinet
status, apparently on the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, without a proper and complete vetting.
As a consequence, the government has thrown the book at him, seemingly attempting to join disconnected events in a single indictment.
Prosecutors would appear to be suggesting that when one exercises his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as Kerik obviously was doing without specifically stating so, when asked about any potentially embarrassing problems, his failure to reveal his criminal conspiracy was an additional crime.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Kerik Returns To Court
Seeking Dismissal
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Stephen C. Robinson Presiding
Last Tuesday morning, February 3rd, found Bernard Kerik, former Corrections Commissioner, and Police Commissioner of New York
City, back in Federal District Court, White Plains, together with his attorney, Barry Berke, a partner in the law firm of Kramer, Levin,
Naftalis & Frankel, before Judge Stephen C. Robinson, for some three and a half hours of pre-trial hearings. Kerik, who was charged in a 16-count indictment with Public Corruption, (denying the public his honest services), Tax Fraud, and making false statements to federal officials in connection with his nomination to be Secretary of Homeland Security in 2004, had made two motions seeking dismissal of the charges.
Robinson opened the pre-trial hearing, asking Kerik’s attorney, “What are your strongest arguments for dismissal?” Attorney Berke responded, “The government has simply stretched too far in bringing an Honest Services indictment.” He continued, “We believe there are
clear laws that govern when the government may bring charges.”
Berke then specified, “The operative date is April 14, 2002. All of the alleged acts, and all of the alleged benefits, occurred before April 14,
2002. We have been unable to find any case in which Honest Services extend beyond one’s term in office.
Robinson responded, “Take me there. Can the statute be extended beyond the time because of concealment?”
Berke then cited Gruenwald, apparently relied upon by the government, attempting to distinguish it from his client’s circumstances. To bolster his position with respect to the Statute of Limitations, he declared, “Judge Rakoff, in Gabriel, ruled ‘someone doesn’t have to go to trial on stale charges.’ We need direct evidence of acts of agreement to conceal.”
Judge Robinson then asked, “Can it be that the acts of concealment... the allegations are that Mr. Kerik, in office, who received something for
vouching for the company.”The reference was to Interstate Industrial, a carting company owned by Peter and Frank DiTommaso, which was
seeking to do business with the City of New York.
Attorney Berke attempted to further distinguish his client with respect to the Statute of Limitations, prompting Robinson to remark, “I
get it. Mr. Kerik has already gotten whatever he was going to get.” Robinson went further, asking, “Wasn’t the value of Mr. Kerik’s participation in the crime that he would give the weight of his office, that would provide the benefits?” Turning to Berke, the Judge then asked, “When does the vouching end? Does it end when he does the vouching, or when they make the decision?”
Berke immediately answered, “When he left office, the vouching ends.” He cited Eppolito and the Continuity Of Purpose Theory. Changing gears, Robinson then stated, “Your argument is that the main objective was not concealment.” He then followed up with, “Let me ask a couple of questions. The goal of this conspiracy is get what you’re trying to get, and not get caught. He tries to get lulling letters, coverup letters.”
Robinson went on to ask, “Is it fair to say that Mr. Kerik is also still liable even though his participation has ended? Why is it that I would say that because his role has ended, but his co-conspirators continue to do what they were doing?”
Attorney Berke responded, “It’s doing the vouching, and receiving the benefits. The government is trying to put a square peg in a round
hole. The types of arguments that Your Honor raises are not appropriate here. If you dismiss the conspiracy, you must also dismiss the
substantive acts.”
Robinson simply answered, “I see what you mean.” Berke went on to discuss some cases he had cited in making his motions to dismiss; cases from the Second Circuit “where they used information obtained as the result of their relationship.”
Judge Robinson asked, “Why was the fact that they had access to insider information so significant? Didn’t Mr. Kerik use his influence
from his office? A jury could find that there was the wrongful use of his power; certainly his use of his power.”
Berke responded, “You need to be using the Sawyer Case to allow every misuse of office to be a fraud. If all you have is that a public...”
Berke continued, “You have to find whatever benefit you received impacted your performance of your official duties.”
At that point, Robinson stopped him with, “Ok, I got it. Take me to counts 12 and 13, the false statements.” Berke began, “Every year...” But Robinson cut him off, asking, “Is it your position that your question was so impermissibly vague that there was no answer that Mr. Kerik could give?”The Judge was referring to the question from federal investigators to Bernard Kerik, at the time he was being vetted for his appointment to be Secretary of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration, asking, “Is there anything in your past that might be embarrassing?”
Berke put off the question for consideration and followed by saying, “The vetting process is an imperfect one.” Robinson asked, “Doesn’t he
commit a crime?” Berke said, “It was an unsolicited misdemeanor.”
Robinson, growing a bit stern, responded, “Under any interpretation of the ambiguousness of the question, lying is not an appropriate answer.” Robinson next said, “Let me turn to the government.”
Mr. Eliot Jacobson, the Lead Assistant United States Attorney on the case, rose to his feet to declare, “I want to address the 1349 Conspiracy once it is conveyed continues into at least 2005 when the Department of Sanitation...”
Robinson then asked, “If the object of the conspiracy is to deny the public of his honest services while in office, that conspiracy must end
when he is no longer in office.” Jacobson responded, “Judge, let me talk about the subsidiary object of the conspiracy. He had a brother and
a best friend who were working for the company.” Jacobson then spoke of the briber and the bribee.
Jacobson said, “Where there is no overt act required, the effect of what he does continues after he leaves office. It would certainly continue
as the co-conspirators continue to reap benefits.” Prosecutor Jacobson went on to explain, “There is a presumption in a no-overt acts conspiracy that the defendant must prove disconnection from the conspiracy. There were a whole host of acts that were predicated on the conspiracy.”
Jacobson went on to cite Minuti and Eppolito, the former stating, “A conspiracy continues until the conspirators receive their anticipated
economic benefits,” the latter for the proposition “a briber and a bribee share a common purpose.” At that point, Judge Robinson asked, “So you are saying this is a hybrid case? An economic case, and a Deprivation of Honest Services case?”
Jacobson responded, “The whole purpose of the conferring of benefits upon Mr. Kerik was that XYZ Corporation would gain Trade Waste approvals.” He then went on to declare that the Defendant’s use of Gruenwald was totally wrong, and that there was no requirement that there be an express agreement.
Jacobson next introduced Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth, one of two other AUSAs at the Prosecution table. Attorney Bosworth told the Court, “He [Kerik] used his inside influence. He attended a meeting with people from the Department of Sanitation
as well as the Trade Waste Corporation. Middlemiss and Bush stand for Influence Peddling.”
Robinson then said, “So your answer would be Bush and Middlemiss.” Bosworth came back, “The Second Circuit typically casts a broad
net; using public office for private gain.”Robinson next turned to the part of the indictment that charges Kerik with Failing To Respond Honestly to federal probers who were questioning him by way of vetting him for appointment as Secretary of Homeland Security. Kerik’s attorney had earlier raised an objection to the use of the term ‘embarrassing’. Robinson said, “I am troubled by the use of the term ‘embarrassing.’ I believe it’s too vague.”
AUSA Jacobson was quick to respond, “This has got to be taken in context. If the White House knew he had committed crimes, even misdemeanors, it would’ve been considered serious.”
Robinson, directing his comments to Jacobson, then asked, “If I was to disclose that I find the use of the word ‘embarrassing’ to be very vague, how would you overcome that?” The Judge was moving into the area of his concerns over joinder issues, stating, “It could be fairly
said that the government is looking at the life of Mr. Kerik and including it in one indictment.” He then asked, “Why is all of this in one indictment?”
AUSA Bosworth responded, “What the Defendant is seeking is five separate trials. The Defendant says I had to beg, borrow, and steal to
get the apartment.” Mr. Berke then cited Ruiz from the Second Circuit, a move quickly shut down by the Judge, saying, “I got you.”
But Mr. Berke persisted, “They didn’t change anything, but deprivation of honest services.” Robinson came right back with, “Let’s just take the time he was the head of Corrections. Is it your position that all they are alleging here is that he had a Deprivation of Honest Services? He’s not meeting as a private citizen, he’s using his office as a commissioner.”
Defense Attorney Berke, straining to get his point across, said, “Judge, it’s not bribery, it’s not extortion, it’s not enough to use his office.
Mr. Jacobson said exactly the opposite of what Gruenwald stands for. There must be the original agreement to cover up. It must include an
agreement to cover up, to take steps to conceal.”
Attempting to reargue his original point, relative to the Statute of Limitations, Berke said, “The length of the conspiracy is determined by
the scope of the agreement; a continuation of purpose and continuation of acts.” Robinson then summarized, “Mr. Kerik gets work on his house, and, they get his influence at the table when their application was delayed.”
Analysis:
Bernard Kerik is obviously no garden variety defendant. He is an individual who would rise very quickly from a questionable background;
apparently cutting corners and showing little concern for formal protocol or possible consequences.
Unfortunately, he proved to be a serious embarrassment to the Bush Administration, which was prepared to elevate him to Cabinet
status, apparently on the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, without a proper and complete vetting.
As a consequence, the government has thrown the book at him, seemingly attempting to join disconnected events in a single indictment.
Prosecutors would appear to be suggesting that when one exercises his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as Kerik obviously was doing without specifically stating so, when asked about any potentially embarrassing problems, his failure to reveal his criminal conspiracy was an additional crime.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Westchester Guardian/Jeffrey Deskovic.
Jeff Deskovic.
Everyday Objects And Concerns
Inside Versus Outside Of Prison
I spent 16 years in prison for a murder and rape which I was proven innocent of. There are many things in prison that are not understood by the average individual, and which often go unexplained. I believe there is an educational value in understanding prison life, and that there is a general curiosity about the topic. My horrific experience and the fact that despite my incarceration I have managed to gain an education,
puts me in a position where I can explain aspects of prison life in a way that most people would not have a frame of reference to understand.
Of late, I have been writing about a variety of prison-related topics, I suppose by way of motivation to remove some of the mystique for my
readers. I would like to take another step in that process of attempting to shed light on prison life. Let me begin by asking you to set aside just about everything you know about living in the outside world, the way life works, mores, and ways of interpreting and understanding individuals and events around you. For none of that will assist you in understanding prison life.
Prison is best understood as a parallel world unto itself. Many things in there take on significance quite different than that in the outside world. My aim is to try to explain some of those things, by way of enabling one to understand the way prisoners interpret otherwise everyday events. I would caution readers that some rules which I will be discussing apply only to New York.
Clothing
Clothing takes on a different significance in a variety of ways. All prisoners are issued a uniform, which consists of green pants, shirts, black
boots, and Converse flat top sneakers. Each person has their name and prison identification number on a label which is on the pants and the
shirt. The number has the impact of making the prisoner feel that he is nothing more than a number. Most rip the label off or else color it in with a black marker or pen, others cannot see it. is is done in order to prevent informants from passing on information to the prison authorities, whether true or false.
In prison, when someone dislikes you, one tactic can be to pass false information on to the authorities so as to cause an investigation. Since the investigations and “court” process in prison frequently resembles a Kangaroo court, anything can happen. Prisoners are allowed to wear personal shirts, sweatshirts, sweat hoods, and sweaters, sneakers, boots, sweatpants, and coats if they have them.
Sometimes they buy them themselves. At other times families and friends send them. These items are wanted by most prisoners because it is one of the few external ways of actualizing individuality and expression of their tastes. Thus, simply owning some personal clothing takes on significance.
When I started out my sentence, I did not have personal clothing, so I had to wear the uniform. Later on my mother sent me some items. I can tell you from experience that one psychological effect of having to wear the entire uniform is that it strips one of their identity. In addition, the absence of personal items was an indicator of whether one was poor or not, and if they had friends and family on the outside.
Amongst those who did, almost nobody would wear the state shirt. One peculiarity that I can’t ever imagine happening in the outside world
that goes on in prison is that due to scarcity involves the fact that when prisoners might receive an item that did not exactly fit them, they would not return it. Keeping it instead, as if grasping to lifeblood, whereas in the outside world someone would simply exchange it for an item that fit. Additionally, inmates disliked having to return items also because in the prison economy, which involves working for 22, 25 and 32 cents an hour, a return shipping cost of between $4-7 was hefty. Hence there was a cost benefit analysis involved as well.
Mail
Mail represents contact with the outside world, which is a precious thing to a prisoner. Mail therefore takes on a disproportionate importance that would never be duplicated in the outside world. When a guard would pass by one’s cell at the time he was passing out the mailing without giving an inmate any mail, that was known as a “drive by”, an event that would cause significant heartache.
Thus, even receiving junk mail had some value. Now that I am out, whether or not I receive mail is irrelevant with respect to how my day
unfolds or how I may feel. Occasionally the guards might accidentally give somebody mail that belonged to another inmate, particularly
when the guard was not used to a particular post. It has happened on numerous occasions that some prisoners have written to the friends
and/or family of another prisoner. I’ve always believed that such correspondence was motivated by desperation and loneliness. However, amongst the prisoners, this behavior would be considered a grimy thing to do, and often has lead to violence.
In the outside world, I can’t imagine any situation in which somebody communicating in any form with a family member would be cause for violence. Rather, communication in any form is pretty much considered a given in everyday life.
I always looked for ways to avoid violence, and also to avoid the negative perception that other prisoners would have of me if someone wrote a family member and I didn’t respond violently. Therefore, I would rip off the return address and flush it down the toilet before
throwing out envelopes.
The Phone
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to fathom people who are free ever fighting over the use of a public pay phone, much less one that you could only make collect calls on. Yet, at Rikers Island, famous for stabbings, cuttings, and other violence taking place because of the the phone, often in an attempt of an individual or a gang to maintain control over use of a phone.In terms of using the phone, sometimes the act of simply hearing somebody’s voice who was on the outside has great value.
Visitation
In keeping with the themes of mail and the phone, receiving visits was an important way of maintaining contact with the outside world, as well as helping to fight off isolation and depression. Seeing familiar people on the outside world doesn’t have the same effect.
In addition, when I was told ahead of time to expect a visit on a certain day, the day of the visit I would go stir crazy in my cell, and would obsess and stress over whether the visitor would actually show up. The later in the day it became, the more the anxiety would build because that would mean that it was becoming more and more likely that the visitor would not be coming.
This was exacerbated by the fact that would-be visitor could not simply call up and tell the prisoner that something came up and they could not make it.
Television and Radio
As I have mentioned in previous articles, I used to watch certain programs every day when the Elmira Prison allowed inmates to have televisions in their cells, so I would pretend that I was visiting with friends when familiar shows came on. In addition, it was another
means of remaining connected to the outside.
The radio, as well, was a way of staying connected as well as informed. Both were ways of keeping up with the news, especially in an environment where newspapers were sometimes hard to get. I would frequently find myself scanning newspapers, particularly USA Today which had the roundup of the nation in it, searching for information on wrongful convictions.
Perhaps I could learn of how someone was cleared, or glean a name to write to in seeking assistance to prove my innocence. Thus in a way I came to see obtaining newspapers as a part of my trying to regain my freedom.
Cigarettes And Stamps
Cigarettes and stamps are used as currency in prison, and so if one could afford the luxury, it was good to always have on standby just in
case. whereas out here cigarettes are simply for smoking. I noticed that many of the smokers, by way of supporting their unhealthy habit, would form networks and associations with other smokers. The phrase “save me some” was frequently heard. What that meant was that a smoker was requesting someone with a lit cigarette to save them a portion of the cigarette they were smoking not by breaking it off but by smoking it to a point and then handing them the rest. Some inmates’ nicotine habit was so strong and their finances so bad that they would smoke behind anybody. I have yet to see anybody share a cigarette in this fashion since I walked out of prison.
I certainly have not seen the ulterior motive of bumming cigarettes as being a hidden motivation for socializing with somebody. Stamps also represent money and were a way of contacting the outside world. When I would figure out my paltry budget every two weeks for going to the commissary (which is the prison store), I would sometimes opt to go without some food items in order to be able to purchase stamps,
which I thought of as money I was spending towards my freedom.
The Failure To Pay and Collect Debt
Contrary to many television shows and movies, every other prisoner is not some form of predator waiting to pounce on the weak. But there
are some like that in there. Therefore, when, through whatever circumstance, it happened that one prisoner owed another one, it was important that the one who was owed the money be paid. To be owed and not paid, if that circumstance were to be learned by others
in prison, would mean that the one owed would be obligated to engage in violence or else be perceived as weak, which could open the door for others to try to similarly victimize them or to think that they could steal things from them and get away with it.
Thus violence occurring in response to paltry sums of money owed was known to happen. As I mentioned earlier, one prisoner I knew beat another into a coma over a pack of cigarettes.
Food
Condiments, such as mayonnaise, mustard, and ketchup packets, as well as sugar bags, took on a bizarre significance inside prison. During mealtimes prisoners were responsible for serving out the set portions of every course, including those condiments. Prisoners would often
seek to get extra portions of those, in connection with a planned future cell-prepared meal. Failure to obtain enough of the packets for free would mean that the person would have to purchase these items at the commissary, which may or may not have placed them out of economic reach. Additionally, as some saw it, the prices of the condiments were such that they could avoid having to purchase it, they could instead buy additional food items. Thus many people were always looking to acquire these condiments for free at the serving line.
Giving somebody an extra packet or two of any of the above was considered to be doing the person a favor, and also in some context be considered to be a reaffirmation of the continuation of a previous friendly relationship. Additionally, amongst strangers, arguments, and sometimes fights could break out as a result of not giving someone extra packets.
On the other side of that equation, a prisoner slipping others extra packets was considered to be a risk-taking activity because if the wrong guard or civilian caught one doing that, he could get into trouble, including being fired. There were, however, some people who would never ask me, or anybody else, for extra because they were shy or didn’t want to unnecessarily open up lines of communication out of concern
for what that could lead to. Without being asked to, I would give them extra as a small way of trying to make things easier for them.
I had somebody that I knew for over a decade that I would sometimes collaborate with to cook meals. We would both divide up who would buy what items. He would cook the main part, I would do the items that merely required boiling, such as rice. Such meals would often be
the highlight of the month. Yet, what we prepared doesn’t measure up taste-wise to the average meal on the outside.
Certain food items, particularly amongst those with no outside support, were viewed as survival items, meaning as a backup to when the
prison food was particularly inedible. Those items were the Ramen Noodles, which sold for ten cents, and peanut butter and jelly, the latter being referred to in prison slang as a “survival kit”. Those food items out here do not stick out from others, other than perhaps amongst some as being non desirable. There were more than a few occasions when one or two Ramen Noodles served as my dinner.
Benches And Chairs
In prison, out in the yard, various groups would claim a bench as theirs. This often meant that it was a place for members of that group to gather, sit down, and have a safe place to put their coats and property which they might have brought out. There were, of course, benches that could be used for recreation, but everybody would know which benches were claimed, and by who. Groups would be willing to fight
to maintain their dominion. I always regarded the idea of claiming or fighting over a prison-owned bench as ridiculous, because when the prisoners eventually were transferred elsewhere or released, the bench remained behind. When I was transferred to Shawangunk Prison, which is in Wallkill New York, the prison was laid out differently.
There were day rooms for television viewing. There were only a certain number of seats available, and not enough to accommodate everybody. Thus inmates would claim various seats for themselves. Everybody was expected to respect these unofficially claimed seats and spaces. Failure to do so was a showing of disrespect, which could invariably prompt a fight, unless the prisoner wanted to allow the other to “walk all over him”.
Books
Not all of the prisoners read, although many did. For myself and other regulars at the prison library, reading books was a means of coping
with our cells and making them a little bit more tolerable. The library being closed therefore took on an importance not comparable to the same circumstance in the outside world. In addition, reading books out here, while beneficial, is in no way linked to survival.
Everyday Objects And Concerns
Inside Versus Outside Of Prison
I spent 16 years in prison for a murder and rape which I was proven innocent of. There are many things in prison that are not understood by the average individual, and which often go unexplained. I believe there is an educational value in understanding prison life, and that there is a general curiosity about the topic. My horrific experience and the fact that despite my incarceration I have managed to gain an education,
puts me in a position where I can explain aspects of prison life in a way that most people would not have a frame of reference to understand.
Of late, I have been writing about a variety of prison-related topics, I suppose by way of motivation to remove some of the mystique for my
readers. I would like to take another step in that process of attempting to shed light on prison life. Let me begin by asking you to set aside just about everything you know about living in the outside world, the way life works, mores, and ways of interpreting and understanding individuals and events around you. For none of that will assist you in understanding prison life.
Prison is best understood as a parallel world unto itself. Many things in there take on significance quite different than that in the outside world. My aim is to try to explain some of those things, by way of enabling one to understand the way prisoners interpret otherwise everyday events. I would caution readers that some rules which I will be discussing apply only to New York.
Clothing
Clothing takes on a different significance in a variety of ways. All prisoners are issued a uniform, which consists of green pants, shirts, black
boots, and Converse flat top sneakers. Each person has their name and prison identification number on a label which is on the pants and the
shirt. The number has the impact of making the prisoner feel that he is nothing more than a number. Most rip the label off or else color it in with a black marker or pen, others cannot see it. is is done in order to prevent informants from passing on information to the prison authorities, whether true or false.
In prison, when someone dislikes you, one tactic can be to pass false information on to the authorities so as to cause an investigation. Since the investigations and “court” process in prison frequently resembles a Kangaroo court, anything can happen. Prisoners are allowed to wear personal shirts, sweatshirts, sweat hoods, and sweaters, sneakers, boots, sweatpants, and coats if they have them.
Sometimes they buy them themselves. At other times families and friends send them. These items are wanted by most prisoners because it is one of the few external ways of actualizing individuality and expression of their tastes. Thus, simply owning some personal clothing takes on significance.
When I started out my sentence, I did not have personal clothing, so I had to wear the uniform. Later on my mother sent me some items. I can tell you from experience that one psychological effect of having to wear the entire uniform is that it strips one of their identity. In addition, the absence of personal items was an indicator of whether one was poor or not, and if they had friends and family on the outside.
Amongst those who did, almost nobody would wear the state shirt. One peculiarity that I can’t ever imagine happening in the outside world
that goes on in prison is that due to scarcity involves the fact that when prisoners might receive an item that did not exactly fit them, they would not return it. Keeping it instead, as if grasping to lifeblood, whereas in the outside world someone would simply exchange it for an item that fit. Additionally, inmates disliked having to return items also because in the prison economy, which involves working for 22, 25 and 32 cents an hour, a return shipping cost of between $4-7 was hefty. Hence there was a cost benefit analysis involved as well.
Mail represents contact with the outside world, which is a precious thing to a prisoner. Mail therefore takes on a disproportionate importance that would never be duplicated in the outside world. When a guard would pass by one’s cell at the time he was passing out the mailing without giving an inmate any mail, that was known as a “drive by”, an event that would cause significant heartache.
Thus, even receiving junk mail had some value. Now that I am out, whether or not I receive mail is irrelevant with respect to how my day
unfolds or how I may feel. Occasionally the guards might accidentally give somebody mail that belonged to another inmate, particularly
when the guard was not used to a particular post. It has happened on numerous occasions that some prisoners have written to the friends
and/or family of another prisoner. I’ve always believed that such correspondence was motivated by desperation and loneliness. However, amongst the prisoners, this behavior would be considered a grimy thing to do, and often has lead to violence.
In the outside world, I can’t imagine any situation in which somebody communicating in any form with a family member would be cause for violence. Rather, communication in any form is pretty much considered a given in everyday life.
I always looked for ways to avoid violence, and also to avoid the negative perception that other prisoners would have of me if someone wrote a family member and I didn’t respond violently. Therefore, I would rip off the return address and flush it down the toilet before
throwing out envelopes.
The Phone
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for me to fathom people who are free ever fighting over the use of a public pay phone, much less one that you could only make collect calls on. Yet, at Rikers Island, famous for stabbings, cuttings, and other violence taking place because of the the phone, often in an attempt of an individual or a gang to maintain control over use of a phone.In terms of using the phone, sometimes the act of simply hearing somebody’s voice who was on the outside has great value.
Visitation
In keeping with the themes of mail and the phone, receiving visits was an important way of maintaining contact with the outside world, as well as helping to fight off isolation and depression. Seeing familiar people on the outside world doesn’t have the same effect.
In addition, when I was told ahead of time to expect a visit on a certain day, the day of the visit I would go stir crazy in my cell, and would obsess and stress over whether the visitor would actually show up. The later in the day it became, the more the anxiety would build because that would mean that it was becoming more and more likely that the visitor would not be coming.
This was exacerbated by the fact that would-be visitor could not simply call up and tell the prisoner that something came up and they could not make it.
Television and Radio
As I have mentioned in previous articles, I used to watch certain programs every day when the Elmira Prison allowed inmates to have televisions in their cells, so I would pretend that I was visiting with friends when familiar shows came on. In addition, it was another
means of remaining connected to the outside.
The radio, as well, was a way of staying connected as well as informed. Both were ways of keeping up with the news, especially in an environment where newspapers were sometimes hard to get. I would frequently find myself scanning newspapers, particularly USA Today which had the roundup of the nation in it, searching for information on wrongful convictions.
Perhaps I could learn of how someone was cleared, or glean a name to write to in seeking assistance to prove my innocence. Thus in a way I came to see obtaining newspapers as a part of my trying to regain my freedom.
Cigarettes And Stamps
Cigarettes and stamps are used as currency in prison, and so if one could afford the luxury, it was good to always have on standby just in
case. whereas out here cigarettes are simply for smoking. I noticed that many of the smokers, by way of supporting their unhealthy habit, would form networks and associations with other smokers. The phrase “save me some” was frequently heard. What that meant was that a smoker was requesting someone with a lit cigarette to save them a portion of the cigarette they were smoking not by breaking it off but by smoking it to a point and then handing them the rest. Some inmates’ nicotine habit was so strong and their finances so bad that they would smoke behind anybody. I have yet to see anybody share a cigarette in this fashion since I walked out of prison.
I certainly have not seen the ulterior motive of bumming cigarettes as being a hidden motivation for socializing with somebody. Stamps also represent money and were a way of contacting the outside world. When I would figure out my paltry budget every two weeks for going to the commissary (which is the prison store), I would sometimes opt to go without some food items in order to be able to purchase stamps,
which I thought of as money I was spending towards my freedom.
The Failure To Pay and Collect Debt
Contrary to many television shows and movies, every other prisoner is not some form of predator waiting to pounce on the weak. But there
are some like that in there. Therefore, when, through whatever circumstance, it happened that one prisoner owed another one, it was important that the one who was owed the money be paid. To be owed and not paid, if that circumstance were to be learned by others
in prison, would mean that the one owed would be obligated to engage in violence or else be perceived as weak, which could open the door for others to try to similarly victimize them or to think that they could steal things from them and get away with it.
Thus violence occurring in response to paltry sums of money owed was known to happen. As I mentioned earlier, one prisoner I knew beat another into a coma over a pack of cigarettes.
Food
Condiments, such as mayonnaise, mustard, and ketchup packets, as well as sugar bags, took on a bizarre significance inside prison. During mealtimes prisoners were responsible for serving out the set portions of every course, including those condiments. Prisoners would often
seek to get extra portions of those, in connection with a planned future cell-prepared meal. Failure to obtain enough of the packets for free would mean that the person would have to purchase these items at the commissary, which may or may not have placed them out of economic reach. Additionally, as some saw it, the prices of the condiments were such that they could avoid having to purchase it, they could instead buy additional food items. Thus many people were always looking to acquire these condiments for free at the serving line.
Giving somebody an extra packet or two of any of the above was considered to be doing the person a favor, and also in some context be considered to be a reaffirmation of the continuation of a previous friendly relationship. Additionally, amongst strangers, arguments, and sometimes fights could break out as a result of not giving someone extra packets.
On the other side of that equation, a prisoner slipping others extra packets was considered to be a risk-taking activity because if the wrong guard or civilian caught one doing that, he could get into trouble, including being fired. There were, however, some people who would never ask me, or anybody else, for extra because they were shy or didn’t want to unnecessarily open up lines of communication out of concern
for what that could lead to. Without being asked to, I would give them extra as a small way of trying to make things easier for them.
I had somebody that I knew for over a decade that I would sometimes collaborate with to cook meals. We would both divide up who would buy what items. He would cook the main part, I would do the items that merely required boiling, such as rice. Such meals would often be
the highlight of the month. Yet, what we prepared doesn’t measure up taste-wise to the average meal on the outside.
Certain food items, particularly amongst those with no outside support, were viewed as survival items, meaning as a backup to when the
prison food was particularly inedible. Those items were the Ramen Noodles, which sold for ten cents, and peanut butter and jelly, the latter being referred to in prison slang as a “survival kit”. Those food items out here do not stick out from others, other than perhaps amongst some as being non desirable. There were more than a few occasions when one or two Ramen Noodles served as my dinner.
Benches And Chairs
In prison, out in the yard, various groups would claim a bench as theirs. This often meant that it was a place for members of that group to gather, sit down, and have a safe place to put their coats and property which they might have brought out. There were, of course, benches that could be used for recreation, but everybody would know which benches were claimed, and by who. Groups would be willing to fight
to maintain their dominion. I always regarded the idea of claiming or fighting over a prison-owned bench as ridiculous, because when the prisoners eventually were transferred elsewhere or released, the bench remained behind. When I was transferred to Shawangunk Prison, which is in Wallkill New York, the prison was laid out differently.
There were day rooms for television viewing. There were only a certain number of seats available, and not enough to accommodate everybody. Thus inmates would claim various seats for themselves. Everybody was expected to respect these unofficially claimed seats and spaces. Failure to do so was a showing of disrespect, which could invariably prompt a fight, unless the prisoner wanted to allow the other to “walk all over him”.
Books
Not all of the prisoners read, although many did. For myself and other regulars at the prison library, reading books was a means of coping
with our cells and making them a little bit more tolerable. The library being closed therefore took on an importance not comparable to the same circumstance in the outside world. In addition, reading books out here, while beneficial, is in no way linked to survival.
Westchester Guardian/Catherine Wilson.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
DTV Conversion: Upgrading Televisions
For the past four years, television systems in the United States have been preparing to switch to a digital-only broadcast format. Until last week, that transition was initially set for February 17, 2009. At present, many television channels broadcast both digital and analog versions of their programs; however, once the conversion to digital is complete, the analog programming will end entirely leaving analog-only customers literally in the dark.
Why is the country switching formats? The Federal Communications Commission explains on its website dedicated to this switch, www.dtv.gov, “Digital television will enable broadcasters to offer television with better picture and sound quality. It can also offer multiple programming choices, called multicasting, and interactive capabilities”. Multicasting computer technology enables a user to simultaneously deliver a single stream of DTV Conversion: Upgrading Televisions information to thousands of users at once. A television station broadcasting in analog on Channel 7 is only able to offer one program; a television broadcaster using multicasting can offer their viewers several channels of digital programming at once: one digital program on channel 7-1, another digital program on channel 7-2, a third on channel 7-3, etc., giving more programming choices for viewers.
But most important of all according to the FCC, converting the existing analog broadcast signals to DTV will “free up parts of the scarce
and valuable broadcast spectrum. Those portions of the spectrum can then be used for other important services, such as public and safety
services, police and fire departments, emergency rescues, and advanced wireless services”. While no one could argue against providing
emergency workers with the maximum capabilities to do their jobs, the transition from analog broadcasting to DTV will have a profound impact on those who can afford it least.
Many individuals on fixed incomes, such as the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, still receive their television broadcasts from either a
rooftop antenna or a “rabbit ears” system, old television-top antennae. These individuals only receive a handle of television stations, and those who are housebound may depend on their televisions as their only source of entertainment or connection to the outside world. For such individuals, a television broadcast is even more critical to them than the population at large. Yet these individuals are now at the greatest risk of losing that connection entirely.
In order for an analog-only television, one that needs an antenna to receive broadcast signals, to continue to receive signals after the transition, the televisions will need a convertor box to translate the new digital-only signals back to the old analog system. These convertor boxes are called “set-top convertor boxes” and, according to the FCC, “the unit sits on top of the viewer’s analog TV, receives the Digital TV signal, converts it to an analog signal, and then sends that signal on to the analog TV”.
Due to the expense of these convertor boxes, which can cost between $40 and $70 each, the FCC started providing $40 coupons to households to off-set the cost of this transition on January 1, 2008. Unfortunately, the FCC has used the entire budget allotted for these coupons; anyone who still needs to convert their systems must now either absorb the entire cost themselves, or be placed on a wait list in the hopes that more funds will become available. According to the FCC, “If you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be placed on a waiting list. If you choose to apply for your coupons today and are eligible, you will receive a reference number. You can use this reference number to return to this website periodically and check the status of your request. The website will be updated if funding becomes available, and the mailing date for your coupons will be updated at that time”.Unfortunately, those individuals most likely to still be operating their televisions with rooftop antennae or “rabbit ears” systems are also those who are most likely not to have internet access and will therefore be unable to track their wait-list status on the FCC website. Individuals without internet access may, however, call the FCC at 1-888-DTV- 2009 to be placed on the wait list for these coupons. Currently there are 2.5 million Americans on the waiting list for the $40 convertor box coupons.
However, the convertor boxes, even when available, do not always solve the problem. Jim Vinci, the owner of Berger’s Appliances in Hawthorne, spoke to the Guardian about the problems some of his customers are facing. “The convertor box should help people with antennas to get their television signals” Vinci said. “But the combination of convertor box and antenna may not be sufficient to receive some signals in some areas. Some people might need antenna boosters to help them get a television signal. They might be used to getting only a handful of stations from their antenna, but with the conversion to DTV, they could lose some of the few stations they manage to get now”.
Stations with stronger signals, such as Channel 7, may be fine, but stations that broadcast on weaker signals, such as community, non-profit,
and local stations, may not be picked up at all. A housebound senior who depends on the political debates, plays, classical concerts, and cultural performances on Channel 13 for entertainment and information may now be faced with being only able to watch teenage reality shows and entertainment industry news on Channel 7 instead.
Vinci, like the Guardian, is concerned that the individuals who depend upon their television the most are the ones who have the most antiquated equipment. “I was shocked that there are still a lot of people out there with the old rabbit ears and antennae systems,” Vinci acknowledged. “Some people even want the old tube style televisions instead of the newer digital TVs and they just don’t make those tube sets anymore.
And some of the elderly have antennas that literally date back to the 1950’s, from when they bought their house or got their first television
sets. Those antennae would need to be updated with boosters or replaced completely.” Vinci agreed that these individuals would have the least amount of money to be able to make the necessary conversions to accommodate digital transmissions, and they would be “left in the
dark”. “If they never upgraded their television systems all this time, it’s probably because they never had the money” Vinci noted.
This situation has caused concern among our local representatives. On January 15, Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland)
called for immediate assistance for those consumers, noting that: “In addition to entertainment, many consumers rely on television for critical emergency alerts. Consumers Union has reported that 19 million American households rely exclusively on the over-the-air reception, including for news and weather information.”
Congresswoman Lowey quoted Consumers Union Policy Analyst Joel Kelsey who noted, “The federal government will receive over $19
billion as a result of the DTV spectrum auction. Over seven million unprepared households are now being asked to spend their own money
to navigate this federally mandated transition. This economic climate is not the right time to ask consumers to dig deeper into their own pockets to pay for the miscalculation by the federal government”.
In her press release, Lowey also announced that she signed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, asking
that the House immediately consider legislation to aid viewers. “It is imperative that everyone have an opportunity to receive a coupon
and purchase and install a converter box before the transition date,” said Lowey. “I strongly encourage every household who needs coupons
to apply for them today by calling 1-888-DTV-2009 or going to www.dtv2009.gov. My colleagues and I are fighting to clear the backlog, but
it is important for everyone who relies on over-the-air television to apply now so that they will be eligible when and if more coupons become
available.”
Lowey also asked Congress to delay the switch past the original February 17 date to allow more households to prepare for this. With
support from the Obama administration, Congress approved a bill on January 26 to extend the transition to June 12, 2009 for consumers.
However, not everyone was happy with the proposed delay. The switch from analog to digital had been in the works for several years in the television and wireless industries and among emergency service agencies and providers. Broadcasters would have had to spend more money, assets, and staff to provide services in both digital and analog formats for another four months, items that were not in their plans for 2009, straining their fiscal budgets in this economic environment further.
On top of the added expenses and strains on equipment and staff due to this delay, it would have caused service constraints on public safety agencies and wireless companies who have been waiting for the past several years to use the airwaves that will be freed by the shutdown of
analog signals. These agencies and companies were geared to go forward on February 17 and might not have had the equipment or financing
they would have needed for the additional four months.
Many small television stations were already reporting their own difficulties with the delay. One rural station in Virginia, WSET, had crews scheduled to begin work on February 18 on the construction of a new digital broadcasting tower. Those crews would have had to seek
employment elsewhere for the next four months and might not have been available when needed for a transition in June.
Several stations in Oregon were waiting for a new transmitter from a broadcaster in El Paso, Texas. But that transmitter wouldn’t have become available until the Texas station switches channel assignments at the government deadline. So the Oregon stations would have had to
plan for an additional four months of dual analog/digital coverage of their broadcasts without a new transmitter to assist them. According
to recent broadcasting industry reports, the delay would have undone carefully mapped transition plans in regional television stations and created additional expenses for those stations to continue to broadcast using two systems. For all of the above issues and concerns, the proposed delay was overturned.
Yet other countries have already converted their broadcast systems from analog to digital without these problems. The British government
has been working with industry representatives since 2001 on this transition. According to the U.K. Department for Business Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform, the British government and industry leaders developed a detailed “Digital Television Action Plan” back in 2004 to
prepare for this transition. In accordance with this plan, the UK:
• Completed two technical trials in 2003 to give the government a better idea of the practical and social issues consumers face when switching from analog to digital television services.
• Carried out an analysis of the costs and benefits of the switchover and identified those groups that are likely to have the most difficulty during digital switchover and developed a “help scheme”, established a professional qualification for aerial installers to help consumers identify competent and trustworthy installers.
As a result of their trials and analyses, the British Government announced in September 2005 that the transition to digital systems would take four years, from 2008 to 2012. In contrast to the U.S., the U.K. is rolling out their transition by region, not nationwide.
The U.S. has not followed the lead of other countries in this transition. The British Government explains its approach as necessary to assure that, “the U.K. continues to be the world leader in broadcasting”. Given the delays and problems in the U.S. transition, the U.K. and other countries have possibly just pulled ahead of the U.S. as broadcast leaders.
Despite these delays and setbacks, most local residents have nothing to worry about. Area residents who receive their television broadcasts from a cable, satellite, or fiber-optic hookup will continue to receive service without interruption on February 17. According to Patrick McElroy, a spokesperson for Cablevision “if you are a Cablevision customer, you will not be affected by the transition”. McElroy stressed that Cablevision will be providing the equipment to convert the signals for their customers automatically. The FCC confirms this:
If you receive your local broadcast stations through a paid provider such as cable or satellite TV, you are already prepared for the DTV transition.
However, if you have an analog TV that does not receive local broadcast stations through your paid provider, you will need a “digital-to analog converter box” to watch digital broadcasts.
If you have a digital TV, a TV with a built-in digital tuner, you are ready for the switch. If your TV is more than 10 years old, it probably
is not digital. If it is less than 10 years old, check your owner’s manual or ask the manufacturer. The FCC stresses that “Only those households who have an analog TV with a rooftop antenna or “rabbit ears” on their television set(s), will not be able to watch full-power
broadcast stations after the DTV conversion unless they get a “digital-to-analog converter box.”
Anyone with broadcast services provided through a satellite, cable, or a fiber-optic network, such as Verizon FIOS, is not affected by this switch since these providers will automatically convert the analog signals to digital for their customers.
Congresswoman Lowey’s office could not tell the Guardian how many households and residents in Westchester County are still unprepared for this switch since the FCC is not reporting its numbers by County. The Guardian also could not find anyone in either the Westchester County Department of Social Services or the Department of Seniors who was following this for their clients. Westchester County appears to
have absolutely no idea how many of our neighbors will be “in the dark”.
It is therefore up to local residents to look out for their less fortunate neighbors. Most individuals who receive their television broadcasts via analog transmissions are easy to identify – they’re the ones with antennae on their rootops, rabbit ears on their television sets, and/or bulky
televisions with manual dials in their living rooms.
Th e Guardian encourages our readers to ask those neighbors if they are prepared for the switchover to digital and provide them with the
FCC phone number, 1-888-DTV-2009, to obtain the $40 coupons for the convertor boxes and guide them to experts if they need additional
equipment. Best Buy stores are providing detailed information on their website and also have a phone line, 1-877-BBY-DTV9, manned with
“DTV experts” to assist consumers with their questions and concerns from 9:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week.
Other local stores, such as Berger’s Appliances in Hawthorne, are also offering their technical assistance on this transition to area residents.
Hopefully no one, especially our housebound neighbors, will be left in the dark.
Catherine Wilson, Bureau Chief
Northern Westchester
DTV Conversion: Upgrading Televisions
For the past four years, television systems in the United States have been preparing to switch to a digital-only broadcast format. Until last week, that transition was initially set for February 17, 2009. At present, many television channels broadcast both digital and analog versions of their programs; however, once the conversion to digital is complete, the analog programming will end entirely leaving analog-only customers literally in the dark.
Why is the country switching formats? The Federal Communications Commission explains on its website dedicated to this switch, www.dtv.gov, “Digital television will enable broadcasters to offer television with better picture and sound quality. It can also offer multiple programming choices, called multicasting, and interactive capabilities”. Multicasting computer technology enables a user to simultaneously deliver a single stream of DTV Conversion: Upgrading Televisions information to thousands of users at once. A television station broadcasting in analog on Channel 7 is only able to offer one program; a television broadcaster using multicasting can offer their viewers several channels of digital programming at once: one digital program on channel 7-1, another digital program on channel 7-2, a third on channel 7-3, etc., giving more programming choices for viewers.
But most important of all according to the FCC, converting the existing analog broadcast signals to DTV will “free up parts of the scarce
and valuable broadcast spectrum. Those portions of the spectrum can then be used for other important services, such as public and safety
services, police and fire departments, emergency rescues, and advanced wireless services”. While no one could argue against providing
emergency workers with the maximum capabilities to do their jobs, the transition from analog broadcasting to DTV will have a profound impact on those who can afford it least.
Many individuals on fixed incomes, such as the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, still receive their television broadcasts from either a
rooftop antenna or a “rabbit ears” system, old television-top antennae. These individuals only receive a handle of television stations, and those who are housebound may depend on their televisions as their only source of entertainment or connection to the outside world. For such individuals, a television broadcast is even more critical to them than the population at large. Yet these individuals are now at the greatest risk of losing that connection entirely.
In order for an analog-only television, one that needs an antenna to receive broadcast signals, to continue to receive signals after the transition, the televisions will need a convertor box to translate the new digital-only signals back to the old analog system. These convertor boxes are called “set-top convertor boxes” and, according to the FCC, “the unit sits on top of the viewer’s analog TV, receives the Digital TV signal, converts it to an analog signal, and then sends that signal on to the analog TV”.
Due to the expense of these convertor boxes, which can cost between $40 and $70 each, the FCC started providing $40 coupons to households to off-set the cost of this transition on January 1, 2008. Unfortunately, the FCC has used the entire budget allotted for these coupons; anyone who still needs to convert their systems must now either absorb the entire cost themselves, or be placed on a wait list in the hopes that more funds will become available. According to the FCC, “If you would like to apply for a coupon today and are eligible, you will be placed on a waiting list. If you choose to apply for your coupons today and are eligible, you will receive a reference number. You can use this reference number to return to this website periodically and check the status of your request. The website will be updated if funding becomes available, and the mailing date for your coupons will be updated at that time”.Unfortunately, those individuals most likely to still be operating their televisions with rooftop antennae or “rabbit ears” systems are also those who are most likely not to have internet access and will therefore be unable to track their wait-list status on the FCC website. Individuals without internet access may, however, call the FCC at 1-888-DTV- 2009 to be placed on the wait list for these coupons. Currently there are 2.5 million Americans on the waiting list for the $40 convertor box coupons.
However, the convertor boxes, even when available, do not always solve the problem. Jim Vinci, the owner of Berger’s Appliances in Hawthorne, spoke to the Guardian about the problems some of his customers are facing. “The convertor box should help people with antennas to get their television signals” Vinci said. “But the combination of convertor box and antenna may not be sufficient to receive some signals in some areas. Some people might need antenna boosters to help them get a television signal. They might be used to getting only a handful of stations from their antenna, but with the conversion to DTV, they could lose some of the few stations they manage to get now”.
Stations with stronger signals, such as Channel 7, may be fine, but stations that broadcast on weaker signals, such as community, non-profit,
and local stations, may not be picked up at all. A housebound senior who depends on the political debates, plays, classical concerts, and cultural performances on Channel 13 for entertainment and information may now be faced with being only able to watch teenage reality shows and entertainment industry news on Channel 7 instead.
Vinci, like the Guardian, is concerned that the individuals who depend upon their television the most are the ones who have the most antiquated equipment. “I was shocked that there are still a lot of people out there with the old rabbit ears and antennae systems,” Vinci acknowledged. “Some people even want the old tube style televisions instead of the newer digital TVs and they just don’t make those tube sets anymore.
And some of the elderly have antennas that literally date back to the 1950’s, from when they bought their house or got their first television
sets. Those antennae would need to be updated with boosters or replaced completely.” Vinci agreed that these individuals would have the least amount of money to be able to make the necessary conversions to accommodate digital transmissions, and they would be “left in the
dark”. “If they never upgraded their television systems all this time, it’s probably because they never had the money” Vinci noted.
This situation has caused concern among our local representatives. On January 15, Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-Westchester/Rockland)
called for immediate assistance for those consumers, noting that: “In addition to entertainment, many consumers rely on television for critical emergency alerts. Consumers Union has reported that 19 million American households rely exclusively on the over-the-air reception, including for news and weather information.”
Congresswoman Lowey quoted Consumers Union Policy Analyst Joel Kelsey who noted, “The federal government will receive over $19
billion as a result of the DTV spectrum auction. Over seven million unprepared households are now being asked to spend their own money
to navigate this federally mandated transition. This economic climate is not the right time to ask consumers to dig deeper into their own pockets to pay for the miscalculation by the federal government”.
In her press release, Lowey also announced that she signed a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, asking
that the House immediately consider legislation to aid viewers. “It is imperative that everyone have an opportunity to receive a coupon
and purchase and install a converter box before the transition date,” said Lowey. “I strongly encourage every household who needs coupons
to apply for them today by calling 1-888-DTV-2009 or going to www.dtv2009.gov. My colleagues and I are fighting to clear the backlog, but
it is important for everyone who relies on over-the-air television to apply now so that they will be eligible when and if more coupons become
available.”
Lowey also asked Congress to delay the switch past the original February 17 date to allow more households to prepare for this. With
support from the Obama administration, Congress approved a bill on January 26 to extend the transition to June 12, 2009 for consumers.
However, not everyone was happy with the proposed delay. The switch from analog to digital had been in the works for several years in the television and wireless industries and among emergency service agencies and providers. Broadcasters would have had to spend more money, assets, and staff to provide services in both digital and analog formats for another four months, items that were not in their plans for 2009, straining their fiscal budgets in this economic environment further.
On top of the added expenses and strains on equipment and staff due to this delay, it would have caused service constraints on public safety agencies and wireless companies who have been waiting for the past several years to use the airwaves that will be freed by the shutdown of
analog signals. These agencies and companies were geared to go forward on February 17 and might not have had the equipment or financing
they would have needed for the additional four months.
Many small television stations were already reporting their own difficulties with the delay. One rural station in Virginia, WSET, had crews scheduled to begin work on February 18 on the construction of a new digital broadcasting tower. Those crews would have had to seek
employment elsewhere for the next four months and might not have been available when needed for a transition in June.
Several stations in Oregon were waiting for a new transmitter from a broadcaster in El Paso, Texas. But that transmitter wouldn’t have become available until the Texas station switches channel assignments at the government deadline. So the Oregon stations would have had to
plan for an additional four months of dual analog/digital coverage of their broadcasts without a new transmitter to assist them. According
to recent broadcasting industry reports, the delay would have undone carefully mapped transition plans in regional television stations and created additional expenses for those stations to continue to broadcast using two systems. For all of the above issues and concerns, the proposed delay was overturned.
Yet other countries have already converted their broadcast systems from analog to digital without these problems. The British government
has been working with industry representatives since 2001 on this transition. According to the U.K. Department for Business Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform, the British government and industry leaders developed a detailed “Digital Television Action Plan” back in 2004 to
prepare for this transition. In accordance with this plan, the UK:
• Completed two technical trials in 2003 to give the government a better idea of the practical and social issues consumers face when switching from analog to digital television services.
• Carried out an analysis of the costs and benefits of the switchover and identified those groups that are likely to have the most difficulty during digital switchover and developed a “help scheme”, established a professional qualification for aerial installers to help consumers identify competent and trustworthy installers.
As a result of their trials and analyses, the British Government announced in September 2005 that the transition to digital systems would take four years, from 2008 to 2012. In contrast to the U.S., the U.K. is rolling out their transition by region, not nationwide.
The U.S. has not followed the lead of other countries in this transition. The British Government explains its approach as necessary to assure that, “the U.K. continues to be the world leader in broadcasting”. Given the delays and problems in the U.S. transition, the U.K. and other countries have possibly just pulled ahead of the U.S. as broadcast leaders.
Despite these delays and setbacks, most local residents have nothing to worry about. Area residents who receive their television broadcasts from a cable, satellite, or fiber-optic hookup will continue to receive service without interruption on February 17. According to Patrick McElroy, a spokesperson for Cablevision “if you are a Cablevision customer, you will not be affected by the transition”. McElroy stressed that Cablevision will be providing the equipment to convert the signals for their customers automatically. The FCC confirms this:
If you receive your local broadcast stations through a paid provider such as cable or satellite TV, you are already prepared for the DTV transition.
However, if you have an analog TV that does not receive local broadcast stations through your paid provider, you will need a “digital-to analog converter box” to watch digital broadcasts.
If you have a digital TV, a TV with a built-in digital tuner, you are ready for the switch. If your TV is more than 10 years old, it probably
is not digital. If it is less than 10 years old, check your owner’s manual or ask the manufacturer. The FCC stresses that “Only those households who have an analog TV with a rooftop antenna or “rabbit ears” on their television set(s), will not be able to watch full-power
broadcast stations after the DTV conversion unless they get a “digital-to-analog converter box.”
Anyone with broadcast services provided through a satellite, cable, or a fiber-optic network, such as Verizon FIOS, is not affected by this switch since these providers will automatically convert the analog signals to digital for their customers.
Congresswoman Lowey’s office could not tell the Guardian how many households and residents in Westchester County are still unprepared for this switch since the FCC is not reporting its numbers by County. The Guardian also could not find anyone in either the Westchester County Department of Social Services or the Department of Seniors who was following this for their clients. Westchester County appears to
have absolutely no idea how many of our neighbors will be “in the dark”.
It is therefore up to local residents to look out for their less fortunate neighbors. Most individuals who receive their television broadcasts via analog transmissions are easy to identify – they’re the ones with antennae on their rootops, rabbit ears on their television sets, and/or bulky
televisions with manual dials in their living rooms.
Th e Guardian encourages our readers to ask those neighbors if they are prepared for the switchover to digital and provide them with the
FCC phone number, 1-888-DTV-2009, to obtain the $40 coupons for the convertor boxes and guide them to experts if they need additional
equipment. Best Buy stores are providing detailed information on their website and also have a phone line, 1-877-BBY-DTV9, manned with
“DTV experts” to assist consumers with their questions and concerns from 9:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week.
Other local stores, such as Berger’s Appliances in Hawthorne, are also offering their technical assistance on this transition to area residents.
Hopefully no one, especially our housebound neighbors, will be left in the dark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
