Quantcast
Channel: COURTBEAT: NYCOURTS- NEW YORK AND U.S. COURT CORRUPTION
Viewing all 171 articles
Browse latest View live

New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is Arrested For Corruption

$
0
0
Now it's time for Andrew Cuomo, too.
Sheldon Silver

Sheldon Silver, Speaker of New York Assembly, Is Arrested in Corruption Case
LINK
The powerful speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, was arrested on federal corruption charges on Thursday, sending shock waves through the political establishment and upending the new legislative session.
 
Mr. Silver, a Democrat from the Lower East Side of Manhattan who has served as speaker for more than two decades, surrendered to F.B.I. agents early Thursday morning in Lower Manhattan.
Mr. Silver, before entering 26 Federal Plaza, said, “I hope I’ll be vindicated.”
The investigation of Mr. Silver began after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in March abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he had created in 2013.
The federal inquiry, led by the United States Attorney for the Southern District, focused on payments that Mr. Silver received from a small law firm that specializes in seeking reductions of New York City real estate taxes.

READ MORE »

 

Sheldon Silver to be arrested

Sheldon Silver, the longtime speaker of the New York state Assembly, is expected to be arrested on corruption charges by federal authorities on Thursday after prosecutors subpoenaed records in a probe of undocumented payments he received from a law firm, sources said.
Silver, a Manhattan Democrat who has served as speaker for more than 20 years, is expected to be charged following an investigation sparked when Gov. Cuomo abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he had created in 2013, sources said.
The specific details of the charges were not clear, but sources said that it was related to money Silver received from a small real-estate tax law firm.
The firm, Goldberg & Iryami PC, made the payments over about a decade, but Silver failed to list the income on his financial-disclosure forms, sources told The Post.
As speaker, Silver controls which legislation can be voted on, and has broad powers over the state budget.
Silver, 70, has been criticized by opponents for wielding too much power, and has been ensnared in controversy.
The FBI and prosecutors from Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara’s office began an investigation into the undisclosed money in December.
The prosecutors were looking into exactly what Silver did to earn the money, sources told The Post in December.
The probe came after an investigation by Cuomo’s Moreland Commission panel, which was looking into corruption in Albany when the governor shut it down.
One of the issues that the panel was looking into was how state lawmakers earn income from their non-government jobs.
Silver is a personal-injury lawyer associated with the high-profile law firm Weitz and Luxenberg.
Goldberg & Iryami specializes in an arcane form of law known as “tax certiorari,’’according to the New York Times.
That involves challenging real-estate tax assessments and seeking reductions for developers who own residential or commercial property.
The firm appears to have only two lawyers, according to the Times.
The newspaper said, that since 2001, the firm and its principals have made six donations to Silver, totaling $7,600.
The most recent was in February, when it gave him $1,800, according to the report.
The Times added that the law firm has sought tax reductions for many properties on the Lower East Side, which is the area Silver represents.
In addition the financial controversies, Silver also became entangled in the Vito Lopez sex-harassment case when it became public that the speaker had hired two firms to defend the disgraced former assemblyman, spending nearly $700,000 in public funds.
Silver — who could not be reached for comment early Thursday — was nearly ousted as Assembly speaker by his fellow Democrats in 2000, when they unexpectedly challenged his leadership position. The coup failed.

Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, Details the Reopening of the Hilary Email Scandal Lawsuit

$
0
0
I highly recommend Tom Fitton's Book The Corruption Chronicles. He compiled an amazing amount of research on the corrupt regimes of the Clintons and Barack Obama.

A must read.

Also check out Judicial Watch's website, and the Clintons

Betsy Combier

Tom Fitton
 
 
Last Friday, a federal court judge did something we had never seen before - U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton reopened a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.  The lawsuit had sought documents about an advertisement intended to air in Pakistan entitled "A Message from the President of the United States Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
Judge Walton issued the ruling on Friday, May 8, in response to a joint motion by Judicial Watch and the State Department.  This is historic.  My attorney colleagues at Judicial Watch tell me they are aware of no precedent of another FOIA lawsuit being reopened by a federal court.
Judicial Watch filed suit in December 2012, after the State Department failed to respond to a September 24, 2012, FOIA request for all records concerning the advertisement produced by the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad intended to air in Pakistan.  The advertisement was an absurd and dishonest "apology" for the Internet video that President Obama, then-Secretary of State Clinton, and other administration officials falsely blamed for inspiring "spontaneous demonstrations" resulting in the attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya.  The disgusting ad was a misuse of tax dollars and part of the cover-up of the truth about the Benghazi terrorist attack. 
That being said, we ended the lawsuit after we were told that the State Department searched Hillary Clinton's office but found no records.  In November 2014, JW agreed to dismiss the suit based, in part, upon the State Department's claim that its search "of the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Executive Secretariat, and the U.S. Consulate General in Peshawar have been completed and have resulted in the retrieval of no documents responsive to your request." 
We had our suspicions, but at that time we did not know about Clinton's secret email cache that the State Department was covering up.  The least the State Department could do was not to oppose our case to go back to court for justice. 
In the compromise joint motion, JW and the State Department asked Judge Walton to reopen the lawsuit under a federal court rule allowing for consideration of "newly discovered evidence:"
In March 2015, media sources reported that former Secretary Clinton, and possibly other senior State Department officials, used non-"state.gov" email account to conduct government business. Thereafter, [Judicial Watch] informed the Department that based on this information, which was previously unknown to [Judicial Watch], it would seek to reopen the case.
Now that the lawsuit is reopened, the State Department has promised the court, at a minimum, to search the email records allegedly turned over by Clinton to the State Department last year.
This court ruling, once again, shows that Judicial Watch's various litigation is the last, best chance to make public any secret emails of Hillary Clinton and her appointees at the compromised State Department.  I told you last week about JW's massive new court push, which included the filing of seven new FOIA lawsuits about the Clinton email scandal, including emails of her top aide Huma Abedin and records about the Benghazi and Clinton Foundation scandals.  We also just filed a lawsuit for records on Hillary Clinton's use of an iPad and iPhone.
There are approximately 18 other lawsuits, 10 of which are active in federal court, as well as about 160 Judicial Watch FOIA requests that could be affected by Clinton and her staff's use of secret email accounts to conduct official government business.  In Judicial Watch's various FOIA lawsuits, lawyers for Judicial Watch have informed attorneys for the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton's and any other secret accounts used by State employees should be secured, recovered, and searched.  Judicial Watch's litigation against the State Department has already exposed key documents about both the Benghazi and Clinton cash scandals.
While we are opening new avenues inquiry and new lawsuits, we are still awaiting word from another court on a separate bid to reopen a FOIA lawsuit over records about Clinton aide Huma Abedin's controversial work arrangements. 
Our team is asking the court to reopen a case under a rule that allows a party to reopen a case due to "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party":
The State Department had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to properly preserve, maintain, and make available for retrieval records of its official functions. In fact, it is the obligation of the head of every federal agency to do so.  Secretary Clinton plainly violated her own legal obligations.  Doing so was misconduct.
The State Department did not originally oppose the idea that Clinton's misconduct justified reopening this other case.   
This decision by a federal judge to reopen our Clinton-Benghazi lawsuit is an extraordinary legal development that spells real trouble for Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.
There is also no precedent for Hillary Clinton's stealing, hiding, and destroying State Department records.  Rather than defend its and Hillary Clinton's fraud on the courts overseeing this and other FOIA lawsuits, the State Department stood down and joined Judicial Watch in asking for the lawsuit to be reopened.  The Clinton machine may run rings around Congress and much of the media, but I suspect this cover-up effort won't work as well on federal judges in Judicial Watch's two dozen lawsuits.
Our big victory garnered national headlines and coverage from outlets such as Fox News.  You can see a special JW Fox News interview on the topic here.
Thanks to your support, JW is able to act and get what you and almost every other American want done -someone, indeed anyone, to do something effective about politicians like Hillary Clinton who think they are above the law.  In this case, we are so effective that we even forced the Obama administration to take action!
 
Obama's IRS Targets Candidate Who Ran Against Him

If you have the courage of your convictions, and you're inclined to run at the national level as a candidate who is critical of big government schemes, you should expect criticism under the First Amendment from those who may not share your values. But you shouldn't have to worry about being audited by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the behest of vindictive government officials. Just ask Wayne Allyn Root, who ran as a vice-presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2008.  He's a proponent of constitutional, limited government, a tireless critic of President Barack Obama, and a victim of IRS abuse. Here's how Root describes his ordeal in an article appearing in TheBlaze:
"I was targeted and persecuted by the IRS in an over-the-top attack coordinated at the highest levels of government and the Democratic Party," he wrote. "I can now prove it - with FACTS direct from my IRS files obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch...my own IRS tax files not only implicate the IRS, but a leading Democrat U.S. senator in a criminal conspiracy to silence a critic of the president."
How can he prove it?  Your Judicial Watch worked with Mr. Root to obtain his files from a stonewalling Obama IRS that substantiates Root's suspicions about the audits he received.  It took over a year of diligent pursuit by JW expert investigators just to get Mr. Root's own IRS files!  Here are the specifics of our investigative analysis, which we have shared with investigators in Congress.  You can see why we conclude it appears likely that the treatment of Mr. Root by the IRS was motivated by his political activities:
1. The IRS re-audited Mr. Root immediately after a Tax Court ruling in his favor. Mr. Root was initially audited by the IRS in 2011. Substantively, the basis for this audit was the agency's determination to re-classify non-employee compensation earned by Mr. Root as an independent contractor as wage income. This determination resulted in an alleged tax deficiency of $69,217 (inclusive of interest and penalties) for tax years 2007 and 2008. After an expensive battle to dispute this determination, Mr. Root petitioned the U.S. Tax Court on September 15, 2011. On July 31, 2012, Chief Judge Michael B. Thornton found in Mr. Root's favor, ruling that the re-classification was unjustified and that no deficiency was owed.
Five days later, the IRS notified Mr. Root that he was being audited again for tax years 2009 and 2010.
2. An IRS Revenue Agent conducted research regarding Mr. Root's political activities and included his findings in the investigative record. The records we obtained include an Examining Officer's Activity Record documenting the agency's investigation of Mr. Root between May 27, 2010 and July 11, 2011. This document includes a case log entry dated December 29, 2011, that reads in pertinent part, "RA [Revenue Agent] researched the internet about TP/Wayne Root. Wayne Root is a public figure whose career includes working as a (1) columnist for the Las Vegas Review Journal and Newsmax.com (2) guest commentator on Fox News, CNBC, CNN, and MSNBC, and (3) his being a guest host on nationally syndicated radio shows (i.e. - The G. Gordon Liddy Show, The Jerry Doyle Show, etc.)." The tax issues for which Mr. Root was audited are entirely unrelated to any income he may have earned as a result of this media activity.
3. The IRS considered the audit of Mr. Root to be a "sensitive case." A handwritten notation on an IRS Special Handling Notice for Examination Processing dated May 23, 2013 identifies his as a "Sensitive Case." Nowhere in the records is it articulated exactly what made his case "sensitive," but it's logical to conclude that the reference is to his political activity and public profile.
 
4. The second audit was closed on May 23, 2013. Notably, the document identifying the audit of Mr. Root as a "sensitive case" is dated May 23, 2013. The document abruptly closed the audit on that date with a finding of "no change" (i.e., that no delinquency was owed). This is the very day that Lois Lerner was suspended from her position as Director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS for her involvement in targeting conservative organizations for disparate treatment by the agency. The day before, former Director Lerner had testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. While the timing of the closing of the agency's audit of Mr. Root on that date could be unrelated to those events, it strikes us as a remarkable coincidence warranting further investigation. An Examining Officer's Activity Record documenting the processing of this second audit indicates that investigative activity was being conducted as late as May 20, 2013, just three days before the case was closed.
 
An entry on a separate IRS worksheet documenting the closing of the case identifies the agency's final determination as, "No adjustment to contributions for the prior years 2007 and 2008 resulted in no change from appeals division so repetitive audit procedures apply and per manager's approval this issue was accepted as filed." In other words, the IRS determined that the audit was unjustified because of the court's finding in favor of Mr. Root that resolved the earlier audit. This explanation, however, is highly dubious. The agency was certainly aware of its 2007 - 2008 audit when it initiated the second audit. In addition, on August 29, 2012, Mr. Root's attorney wrote to the IRS advising the agency that, "the taxpayers have just recently completed an audit for the 2007 and 2008 tax years . . . the examination resulted in a 'No Change.' As such, a subsequent audit for the 2009 and 2010 tax years may be deemed abusive as the audit issues appear to be largely consistent." The fact that the IRS justified closing the second audit on May 23, 2013 by citing information of which it was made aware in August 2012 is further supportive of the theory that it was closed in response to the IRS targeting scandal.
 
5. An unidentified Senator queried IRS officials about the status of the audit of Mr. Root. On November 26, 2012, IRS Senior Operations Advisor Tom Franke e-mailed Senior Program Analyst Ann Underland to inquire whether Mr. Root was under examination. The e-mail notes that the request for that information originated from the office of a Senator representing Oregon. The subsequent e-mail conversation, some of which has been redacted pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(5), indicates that the effort to respond to this inquiry involved a number of senior IRS officials in California, including Los Angeles Territory Manager Anna Hom and California Examination Area Director Linda J. Petrillo. There is no indication what prompted the inquiry, nor did we receive a record documenting the agency's response to the Senator's office. Mr. Root is not a resident of Oregon and has no knowledge of why the inquiry was made.
According to Fox News, the IRS files obtained through the JW FOIA request implicate not just the Obama IRS, but also a U.S. senator. Mr. Root is outraged:
"An IRS audit that required researching my political views clearly wasn't a "normal random audit." I was targeted for my political views.  My civil rights were clearly violated. 
The reason it may have taken the IRS fourteen months to turn my IRS files over to Judicial Watch is that they state a United States senator from Oregon was involved. At the time both senators from Oregon were Democrats. But only one, Ron Wyden, was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee with oversight over ... the IRS. Could Ron Wyden have been the Democrat senator involved in my case?
If so, why was a U.S. senator involved in a "normal random audit?" Why was an Oregon Senator involved in the audit of a Nevada small businessman? Since when do United States Senators get involved in IRS audits? 
Could someone have asked the Oregon Senator to get involved? The dots are not hard to connect. Was he asked by someone in the White House to initiate an IRS attack on Wayne Root? After all, I'm not just any conservative critic of President Obama. I'm the former Columbia college classmate of Obama. With about 6,000 media appearances on Fox News and conservative talk radio and other outlets since Obama became president, it's not a stretch to think I caught the attention of the Obama White House."
I think you would agree that the Obama gang would have noticed one of two men (even from a "third" party) opposing Obama's election in 2008! But unlike many Republicans, Root is also someone who favors putting the federal government back inside a constitutional box and that's a no-no in Obama's America. The coordinated assault against Root began with a phone call in 2011 that an IRS official claimed in Wall Street Journal article could never have taken place.  Why?  Because the IRS supposedly never directly calls taxpayers. 
"The IRS agent left a voicemail, and then took another unheard-of step and called my accountant, who had my power of attorney and told the agent he was forbidden to ever contact me again," Root wrote in his piece for Fox News. "Yet the IRS agent called me again, only minutes later, telling me all about my political views. How did an IRS agent know about my political views? Why was he telling me my political views? I felt like I was being stalked."
I encourage you to review Mr. Root's account of his IRS battles, in partnership with your JW, on TheBlaze and on the Fox News websites.  JW's take?  Here is our quote for the record:
The Obama IRS obstructed the release of Wayne Root's tax documents. The abuse of process Judicial Watch and Wayne suffered through to get these documents is scandalous.  Now we know why the Obama IRS was hesitant to give Wayne his own IRS files.  These documents show the Obama IRS scandal was more than just suppressing the Tea Party, it was also about auditing critics of President Obama.  Richard Nixon had to resign from office for less. The first order of business for United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be to appoint a special counsel who can convene a grand jury to look into the Obama IRS outrages.
We're not finished here yet, not by a long shot. The Obama IRS scandal continues.  Stay tuned....
Fed Employees Sexually Assault Airline Passengers?
If you thought that the agent with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was getting a little too close and personal, and even a little offensive, it may not have been your imagination running wild.  After obtaining 58 pages of records from the TSA that detail alleged sexually-related assaults on passengers by TSA personnel at three major U.S. international airports, we can tell you that it is well past time for reform. The documents were released in response to a July 2014 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that was filed after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wouldn't turn over documents to our investigators who were looking into passenger complaints for the year 2013 at Dulles International Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Denver International Airport, Miami International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport.
The TSA documents show that passengers strenuously objected to the alleged sexually-related assaults, repeatedly saying they were "shocked,""violated," and "humiliated." In one incident, a passenger reported that TSA officers, and "even the Supervisor ... began to roar with laughter at the alleged sexual assault." In other incidents, a breast cancer survivor reported she felt as if she had been raped. And an elderly passenger with a colostomy bag said she felt violated after being informed by a TSA agent that she had to "touch her bag so I could then touch her hands."
That we had to fight and sue in court to get the TSA to disclose these shocking complaints demonstrates that the agency is more interested in a cover-up than in addressing the problem that its employees violate innocent travelers too often, sexually or otherwise. With more than 56,000 employees and a $7.7 billion budget, the TSA can't be trusted to do its job of securing air travel.  American simply trying to board a plane should not have to worry about being assaulted by federal employees working for the TSA.
To quote the TSA:
At approximately 14:10 hours on the South Checkpoint, near lane 4 a passenger complained that he sustained an injury resulting from the aggressive actions of the the [sic] TSO [Transportation Security Officer] conducting a pat down search...The passenger stated during the pat-down search he was struck very hard in the groin area, which caused him pain to his left testical [sic].
She [TSA agent] then placed full palms squarely on my breasts and then moved around my breasts again. She then placed both palms against my breasts and I was shocked, humiliated, alarmed and assaulted and said 'Stop! What are you doing? That's not ok.'... I reported this to TSA Supervisor ... She got the manager [redacted] and he said he would look at the video and TSA would send me a letter but it would not tell me the resolution and that I did not have a right to view the video... I will not be sexually assaulted at the airport. As a taxpayer, I pay for the TSA."
The female TSO then proceeded to roughly feel of [sic] her breast including her nipples. The TSO didn't go under her arms or along her sides. She indicated that she did not receive a proper pat down. The search was limited to her breast... Two other individuals came over to where the supervisor and gentleman were and they began laughing. The caller indicated that the incident was not the business of the other two officers and not a show for them. The caller indicated that even the Supervisor, along with the others, began to roar with laughter.
Caller indicates that her mother feels as though she was singled out because she was a breast cancer survivor and the caller feels as though this is extremely discriminatory. Caller indicates that the breast is an extremely intimate place that should not be rubbed in the manner that it was. Caller expressed that her mother feels extremely violated and the caller feels that being violated in this manner is on the same level as rape. Caller has indicated that her mother will never travel again because of the pat down that she received.
The person began to tell me how TSO [redacted] stuck his hands down his pants and grabbed the top of his penis and placed his fingers in his butt crack... The person was sure that he was violated and wanted to talk to a supervisor.... He said he is going to file a police report with Chicago Police Department and file a lawsuit against TSA and Officer [redacted] and walked away."
Though not a sexually related complaint, included in the records is a document with the subject line "Likely Passenger Complaint - Discrimination because of Medical Condition:"
•           September 21, 2013, O'Hare Airport:
I led the way and the passenger followed, stating all the while that she was no terrorist; she was a woman of (68? - I do not remember precisely but it was an age in the 60s which pinpointed for me that she was not eligible for a modified pat down) and a U.S. citizen.... I then asked if there were any medical devices other than the bag - she interrupted me to say 'It's only poop. I can't blow up a plane with poop! ... I managed to clear her legs and feet and then [redacted]. [Redacted] I needed her to touch her bag so I could then test her hands.
Last month, CBS4 in Denver reported "that two Transportation Security Administration screeners at Denver International Airport have been fired after they were discovered manipulating passenger screening systems to allow a male TSA employee to fondle the genital areas of attractive male passengers."
I can't find much evidence that we are made safer by the all the hassle and extra costs imposed on us by the TSA "security" bureaucracy.  In fact, it is in dispute whether the TSA ever has stopped a terrorist attack - or is competent to do so.  Just this month, the DHS inspector general testified to Congress about the TSA's potentially catastrophic failures.  The Washington Times summed up the IG's warnings:
The Transportation Security Administration has vulnerabilities that continue to put airline travelers at risk, despite being notified of its shortcomings through more than 100 federal audit and inspection reports...
The above parade of horribles tells you why the TSA only released the information about sexually-related assault issues after we forced them into federal court.  Our investigations will continue.
Until next week...

Tom Fitton
President

NYPD Boss Bill Bratton Caught Making Racial Slurs Against African American Men Being Hired as Police Officers

$
0
0
From Betsy Combier:

 A few things we all must remember when reading the story about NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton's comments:

Bratton created "Stop and Frisk", the out-of-control practice of stopping people because they "looked" dangerous (mostly Latino and black men).

Bill Bratton, Stop-And-Frisk Architect, Takes Over Nation's Biggest Police Force
      
and, he was not liked in Los Angeles. LA got rid of him:
 NYPD Chief: Recruiting Black Cops Is Hard Due to Criminal Histories
LINK

Black male recruits account for 6.86% of this year's police academy class

Bringing more diversity into New York City’s police force is a challenge, the city’s police commissioner said recently, claiming that criminal records of the would-be recruits get in the way.
“We have a significant population gap among African American males because so many of them have spent time in jail,” Bill Bratton told the Guardian, “and, as such, we can’t hire them.” Black male recruits account for 6.86% of this year’s police academy class, down even from 7.3% in 1970.
Explaining why the pool of prospective officers lacked more non-white candidates, aside from already tense relations between minority communities and law enforcement in the wake of several high-profile police killings of unarmed black men, Bratton acknowledged the impact of the “stop-and-frisk” policy that a federal judge overturned in 2013, saying it overly targeted black and Latino men.
Read more at the Guardian.
        
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton
Bratton Demands Retraction After Interview on Hiring
Black Cops: Report
NBC New York

New York City's top cop is reportedly demanding a retraction after he was quoted by a news article saying the NYPD has a hard time hiring black officers because "so many of them have spent time in jail."
The Daily News reports that Commissioner Bill Bratton has called on the Guardian to retract the story -- which bears the headline "NYPD chief Bratton says hiring black officers is difficult: ‘So many have spent time in jail,’ -- because his comments were taken out of context from another story published by the British news outlet about the difficulties of being a black police officer.
“We’re asking, we’re not even asking we’re demanding, a retraction and a correction because the story was a total misrepresentation of the original story,” Bratton told the News.
 
Bratton is quoted in the Guardian articles, both published Tuesday, as saying, "We have a significant population gap among African American males because so many of them have spent time in jail and, as such, we can’t hire them." In the Guardian articles, Bratton attributed the "unfortunate consequences" to the maligned stop-and-frisk policies of past commissioner Ray Kelly.

But in statements to the News, he said that he was simply stating facts and added that the disparity can't be blamed on stop-and-frisk alone.

“It’s an unfortunate fact that in the male black population, a very significant percentage of them, more so than whites or other minority candidates, because of convictions, prison records, are never going to be hired by a police department. That’s a reality. That’s not a byproduct of stop-and-frisk,” Bratton said.

He said the NYPD eliminated candidates with felony convictions, but that many summonses that result from stop-and-frisk incidents are not considered in the hiring process, which was the point missed by the Guardian, the News reports. The commissioner told the News that every police department in America was having trouble hiring black officers.

The Guardian did not comment on Bratton's request for a retraction.

Only 15 percent of the NYPD’s 34,631 officers is black and only 10 percent of its most recent graduating class is black.
 
NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton
Bill Bratton: You Can’t Police Without Stop-And-Frisk
February 25, 2014
Bill Bratton ran the New York City Police Department (NYPD) from 1994 to 1996 under the Giuliani administration. He is credited with helping to bring down crime in that city during his short tenure.

Bratton is now back in New York City after a stint running the police department in Los Angeles. He has vowed to make the changes that his boss — new Mayor Bill de Blasio — wants, including the overhaul of the controversial stop-and-frisk practice, which has been criticized for unfairly targeting minorities.

Still, Bratton defends stop-and-frisk, which he calls “stop, question and frisk.”

“You cannot police without it,” Bratton tells Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson. “If you did not have it, then you’d have anarchy.”

Interview Highlights: Bill Bratton

On how he plans to improve the relationship between residents and police
“We’re going about it in several ways. One of the most significant directions we’re going is to reduce the number of ‘stop, question and frisk’ stops by the members of the department. This is a campaign commitment by the newly elected mayor Bill de Blasio. And his selection of me as his police commissioner was that we both believed that there were too many stops in years past and that the city would be better off with fewer stops.”
On the need for ‘stop, question and frisk’
“Stop, question and frisk is a basic tool of policing — not only American policing, around the world. But in United States, it’s defined by the Terry vs. Ohio Supreme Court decision back in the 1960s, which articulated when police can stop and for what purpose. So every police department in America every day does it.”
“The way it was practiced here for the last number of years is that it was overused. And it’s the overuse that then created the negative reaction to the basic policy itself. And the confusion about whether you can police with or without it. You cannot police without it, I’m sorry. It’s — if you did not have it, then you’d have anarchy, being quite frank with you.”
On what went wrong with ‘stop, question and frisk’ in New York City
“A system was devised where twice a year when we graduate our recruit classes, which number in excess of 1,000 officers, that those officers would be surged or assigned into the 10 or 12 highest crime neighborhoods, effectively to make up for the fact that those precincts had lost a lot of full-time officers that normally would have been assigned there when the department had almost 41,000. The problem with that is that those officers, while the most recently trained, were the least experienced. And they were put into neighborhoods where they were, from my perspective, inadequately supervised — there’d be one sergeant covering 10 to 12 of these officers, who were assigned in pairs. And so if they were making stops — and they were encouraged to be very active in making stops — if they were doing it incorrectly, if they were not doing it according to the law, if they were not doing it according to policies and procedures, very often there would be nobody there to correct that inappropriate or incorrect behavior. And so the habits of a 20-year career form very quickly in that first year. So I think that policy, while it’s a sound policy, in its implementation was where the flaws occurred.”
On translating New York City’s success in lowering crime to other major U.S. cities
“There is no one-size-fits-all. It’s a combination of things. Much the same as a doctor looking at patients, each patient is different — how much medicine you use for what illness. So that’s where good mayors and good police chiefs come in to play, in terms of what is the appropriate level of the size of the police force, what is the appropriate activities they engage in. Essential in all instances is to get community cooperation, support and trust. So that’s one of the reasons why in New York there’s so much attention being focused on reducing the stop, question and frisk activities, because particularly in the minority neighborhoods of the city — and unfortunately those areas of the city that have the highest crime rates are some of our minority neighborhoods — that you need the trust, cooperation and collaboration of community residents to really have an impact on crime. Police can’t do it alone. You can’t arrest your way out of the problem.”

Guest

Transcript

JEREMY HOBSON, HOST:
Well, a study out today from the ACLU of New Jersey finds that only a quarter of police stops in Newark end in an arrest or a summons. In other words, three-quarters of the people who are stopped and perhaps frisked have done nothing wrong. The study will no doubt renew the debate over stop-and-frisk in Newark.
That debate is also raging, as we've heard, in New York City, where the new Mayor Bill de Blasio has vowed to reduce the use of the practice. His new police commissioner, Bill Bratton, will be on the front lines of that effort. Bratton has a long history leading major police forces in this country. He was the commissioner of the LAPD from 2002 to 2009. He ran the Boston Police Department for years before that. And he had a short stint as commissioner of the NYPD under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Now he's back, and Bill Bratton joins us from his office in New York. Welcome to HERE AND NOW.
COMMISSIONER BILL BRATTON: Pleasure to be with you, thank you.
HOBSON: Well, let me talk about what you have said in your first days on the job. You said that you want to re-establish a better trust, a better relationship with the citizens of New York, especially in the minority community. And I wonder how you plan to do that.
BRATTON: Well, the term we're talking about is legitimacy; the idea that if the public does not support the police, no matter how good your efforts to reduce crime, that the element of trust is essential to having that reduction in crime felt and appreciated.
So we're going about it in several ways. One of the more significant directions we're going is to reduce the number of stop, question and frisk stops by the members of the department. This is a campaign commitment by the newly elected mayor, Bill de Blasio. And his selection of me as his police commissioner was that we both believed that there were too many stops in years past and that the city would be better off with fewer stops.
HOBSON: Fewer but not zero stop, question and frisks.
BRATTON: That's correct. Stop, question and frisk is a basic tool of policing, not only American policing, around the world. But in United States, it's defined by the Cherry versus Ohio Supreme Court decision back in the late 1960s, which articulated when police can stop and for what purpose. So every police department in America every day does it.
HOBSON: Although as you know, even some stop, question and frisks in mostly minority neighborhoods in New York City are going to bother a lot of people there. There are many people who think the whole policy is flawed.
BRATTON: Well, that's because the way it was practiced here for the last number of years is that it was overused. And it's the overuse that then created the negative reaction to the basic policy itself, and the confusion about whether you can police with or without it. You cannot police without it, I'm sorry. It's - if you did not have it, then you'd have the anarchy, being quite frank with you.
HOBSON: Well, you have pointed the finger at new recruits as part of the problem, that you want to put these new recruits with seasoned officers in these cases.
BRATTON: That's correct. In New York City, as part of the effort to deal with the fact that the department lost over 6,000 officers over the last number of years, that's the equivalent of about 50 or 60 police officers for each of the city's 77 precincts, that a system was devised where twice a year when we graduate our recruit classes, which number in excess of 1,000 officers, that those officers would be surged or assigned into the 10 or 12 highest-crime neighborhoods, effectively to make up for the fact that those precincts had lost a lot of full-time officers that normally would have been assigned there when the department had almost 41,000.
The problem with that is that those officers, while the most recently trained, were the least experienced. And they were put into neighborhoods where they were, from my perspective, inadequately supervised. There'd be one sergeant covering 10 to 12 of these officers, who were assigned in pairs. And so if they were making stops, and they were encouraged to be very active in making stops, if they were doing it incorrectly, if they were not doing it according to the law, if they were not doing it according to policies and procedures, very often there would be nobody there to correct that inappropriate or incorrect behavior.
And so the habits of a 20-year career form very quickly in that first year. So I think that policy, while it's a sound policy, in its implementation was where the flaws occurred, in that those officers were not adequately supervised. And putting your least experienced officers into your highest-crime neighborhoods, in retrospect, I don't think that's the way to go, and we are in the process of attempting to change that.
HOBSON: One of the other big initiatives that the administration has been pushing is to reduce traffic deaths in New York City. Of course, it has been noted that after that announcement was made, the mayoral caravan was caught going over the speed limit and also driving through stop signs in a residential neighborhood of Queens. Do you think that people will follow stricter enforcement of these traffic laws and even of jaywalking in New York City? Is that possible?
BRATTON: The public will support the idea of stricter enforcement, more enforcement of the speeding, red light violations, that type of activity. The issue of jaywalking is more complex in a city as populated, as you will, as New York is, with eight and a half million people. So the effort is being focused on the activity that causes most of the serious injuries and deaths, and that is right-hand turns and right light and speeding violations in the city.
So you can't police everywhere all of the time. So you try to focus on where the problems are, the most significant. And in New York City, it's right turns on red that - because unlike many cities where you have all stops all directions at pedestrian lights, in New York City you'd have traffic chaos if you tried to do that.
So cars turning right on even a green signal are going into a walk sign for pedestrians. So it requires an extra degree of caution as you are making right turns. And then speed and stoplight violations have been seen as a factor in a lot of our accidents, our serious accidents here in New York City.
HOBSON: We're speaking with Bill Bratton, New York City's new police commissioner. A lot more to talk about, including the debate over whether we're giving up too much privacy in the name of security. Stay tuned. This is HERE AND NOW.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
HOBSON: It's HERE AND NOW, and let's get back to our conversation with Bill Bratton, the new commissioner of New York City's police department. Before the break we were talking about Mayor Bill de Blasio's new initiative to reduce traffic accidents in the city. Here he is announcing that plan, which is called Vision Zero.
MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO: I want to emphasize that we are making this statement just two weeks into this administration because we think there is an epidemic here. There's been an epidemic of traffic fatalities, and it can't go on, and the time to start change is now.
HOBSON: Now Commissioner Bratton, you were right behind the mayor when he made that announcement. But as we talked about, there has also been a call for an increase in tickets for jaywalking. But when it comes to reducing traffic deaths in New York, don't you think it's mostly about the drivers rather than the pedestrians?
BRATTON: A combination of both, being quite frank with you. But the driver has the advantage of he's in a two-ton vehicle, versus the pedestrian has really no protection. And under our laws, the pedestrian has that right of way in those crosswalks. And so that's the effort on the driver, driver education, driver enforcement. And so far this year we're experiencing a decrease in fatalities, which is a good sign to start the year off with.
HOBSON: Commissioner Bratton, I have lived in all of the cities that you have been police commissioner in, and I have to say that when you look at Boston, Los Angeles and New York, I felt by far the safest in New York. I felt absolutely safe walking around that city even at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. I did not think I was going to be mugged or anything would happen to me. Why is that? Why is New York, why does it feel so much safer than those other cities?
BRATTON: I think one is the police presence. Two is the sheer numbers of people on the street or in the subway systems at all hours of the day and night, that the city also made a concerted effort to address issues that cause fear, the so-called broken windows, the aggressive panhandling, street-level drug narcotic dealing, prostitution.
So a lot of the things that if left undeterred, as they were in New York in the '70s and '80s but were finally addressed in the '90s, that if you can reduce not only the actual crime but the so-called signs of crime or broken windows, you can have a very significant effect on the way people feel about their personal safety.
And you are correct that New York is proportionally safer than either Boston or L.A., two cities, which like New York have seen significant declines in crime, and in fact all three cities among the safest in the United States.
HOBSON: But why hasn't that worked in, let's say, L.A.? Why doesn't it feel as safe as New York? Wouldn't the practices that you've just talked about that have happened in New York translate well to Los Angeles?
BRATTON: Well, they would. I have a high degree of intimacy with Los Angeles, where gang crime is down 60 percent, gang homicides, from what it was. But L.A. has the issue of gang crime that New York does not have. New York has smaller issues with what we call crews, but the levels of violence don't approach some of the levels that you see and read about in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles also has a very small police force, with 9,700 officers. To have the equivalent of what I get to work with here in New York every day, you'd need 18,000. So it's a city where the visibility of police is much less apparent than it is here in New York.
Similarly for Boston, even though Boston has proportionally a good size police force for its population, the visibility of police still does not equal what you would see routinely here in New York.
HOBSON: Well, so is that the answer for cities that at least can afford to do that, just bump up the size of the police force?
BRATTON: No, there is no one-size-fits-all. It's a combination of things. Much the same as a doctor looking at patients. Each patient is different; how much medicine you use for what illness. So that's where good mayors and good police chiefs come in to play in terms of what is the appropriate level of the size of the police force? What is the appropriate activities they engage in.
Essential in all instances is to get community cooperation, support and trust. And so that's one of the reasons why in New York there's so much attention being focused on reducing the stop, question and frisk activities because particularly in the minority neighborhoods of the city, and unfortunately those areas of the city that have the highest crime rates are some of our minority neighborhoods, that you need the trust, cooperation and collaboration of community residents to really have an impact on crime.
Police can't do it alone. You can't arrest your way out of the problem. We have clearly come to understand that community policing, with its emphasis on partnership between police and community, its focus on the problems that are creating fear and disorder. And lastly, it's a strong embrace of the idea that the goal of police should be to prevent crime, not the measure of success on how they respond to it. All those things come into play.
HOBSON: What do you think is the matter with Chicago, then, which had 415 homicides last year, which was well more than New York City, which has a population three times the size?
BRATTON: Well, you take a look at Chicago this year, that their crime rates are going down dramatically. The gang violence in Chicago, like Los Angeles, has strongly entrenched gangs that are very violent. But if you look beyond the aberration of that year or two where they were in the front page of most American papers, I think you'll find that Garry McCarthy, the superintendent out there, is doing a great job of turning that around.
The media reporting of that hasn't caught up to the media reporting of the increase they had the previous year, but even the previous year increase seemed more dramatic because in the previous years to that, the crime had been down dramatically in Chicago. So you really need to take it in the totality of context. You can't just take one year at a time. You need to look at the trending, and you need to look at the broader picture, if you will, rather than the snapshot.
HOBSON: What are your thoughts on the debate that's going on right now over surveillance versus safety? And you're obviously in a city that is probably the primary terrorist attack target in this country. Where do you see that balance between surveillance and privacy?
BRATTON: Well, in public space that you have no expectation of privacy, according to the Supreme Court, and in cities like New York, you're going to see more and more camera systems put in place both by the public sector, as well as the private sector. Those systems are phenomenally helpful in solving crime and in preventing it.
The issues of what police can survey, as they relate to terrorism, increasingly we're seeing more court guidance on those issues, the idea being that even in that area, there is a need to have some degree of surveillance, but you need to do it in a way that it is always operating within the law and never outside the law.
HOBSON: Commissioner, if we talk to you in a year, what would you like to say you've accomplished in New York?
BRATTON: One, that the city has remained free of a terrorist attack and that the low crime rates that the city has now experienced for 20 years are continuing. And my expectation is that's what we will be able to report.
HOBSON: You miss anything about L.A.?
BRATTON: L.A. in the sense of miss the department, certainly, great organization, miss a lot of the friends and relatives and miss my son and his wife and the two grandkids, who are still living out there.
HOBSON: I thought you would say the weather, but apparently not.
BRATTON: Oh no, I like the four seasons. As long as I don't have to shovel it, I'm very happy back here in the East Coast.
HOBSON: Bill Bratton, the new police commissioner for New York City. Thank you so much for joining us.
BRATTON: Thank you, pleasure being with you.
HOBSON: So Meghna, I guess that means that the commissioner of the NYPD gets somebody to shovel the snow for him.
MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI, HOST:
He's getting his dose of winter this year.
HOBSON: Well a lot there to talk about. You can weigh in at hereandnow.org. What do you think of stop, question and frisk? And do you think it's possible to get New Yorkers to stop jaywalking? You can let us know at hereandnow.org. You can also tweet us @hereandnow. I am @jeremyhobson.
CHAKRABARTI: I'm @meghnawbur.
HOBSON: And this is HERE AND NOW. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


Dismantling the Myth of Bill Bratton’s LAPD

The Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline To Hold Hearings on NY State's Attorney Disciplinary System

$
0
0

Public Hearings

LINK


Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman created the Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline to conduct a comprehensive review of the state’s attorney disciplinary system to determine what is working well and what can work better, and offer recommendations to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of New York’s attorney discipline process. In connection with its responsibility, the Commission will hold three public hearings to receive the views of interested individuals, organizations and entities.
 
The hearings will take place as follows:
  • July 28, 2015 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., New York State Court of Appeals, 20 Eagle Street, Albany, N.Y. 12207
  • Aug. 4, 2015 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Erie County Ceremonial Courtroom,  92 Franklin Street, Buffalo, N.Y. 14202
  • Aug. 11, 2015 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., New York County Lawyers' Association, 14 Vesey Street, New York, 10007
Among the issues under consideration by the Commission are whether New York’s departmental-based system leads to regional disparities in the implementation of discipline; if conversion to a statewide system is desirable;  the point at which disciplinary charges or findings should be publicly revealed; and how to achieve dispositions more quickly in an effort to provide much-needed closure to both clients and attorneys.
The Commission will consider both oral testimony and written submissions. All testimony is by invitation only. If you are interested in being invited to testify at the hearing, please send an e-mail to AttorneyDiscipline@nycourts.gov no later than 14 days in advance of the scheduled hearing at which you propose to testify. Proposed testimony should not exceed 10 minutes in length.
If requesting an invitation, please (1) identify yourself and your affiliation; (2) attach a prepared statement or a detailed outline of the proposed testimony, and specify which, if any, of the topics described above will be addressed, and; (3) indicate at which of the hearings you would like to deliver the testimony. In advance of the hearing, invitations to testify will be issued and will include an approximate time for each presenter's testimony. For those not invited to present oral testimony, the proposed testimony will be deemed a written submission for consideration by the Commission.
Persons unable to attend a hearing or interested in only making a written submission may submit their remarks by e-mail to AttorneyDiscipline@nycourts.gov at least seven days in advance of the hearing, or by mailing the submission to the Commission at:
Commission on Statewide Attorney Discipline
c/o The Honorable A. Gail Prudenti, Chief Administrative Judge 
25 Beaver Street
Eleventh Floor
New York, N.Y. 10004-2310
Please note that any materials, submissions or statements provided to the Commission are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Law and subject to publication by the Office of Court Administration.
For further information and updates, please visit the Commission’s webpage atwww.nycourts.gov/attorneys/discipline/

Former New York State Senate Leader Malcolm Smith is Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for Bribery

$
0
0
Malcolm Smith, finally.
Malcolm Smith

Former State Senate Leader Malcom Smith and Former Queens GOP Leader Vincent Tabone Sentenced in White Plains Federal Court on Bribery and Fraud Charges Connected to 2013 New York City Mayor’s Race 
LINK

U.S. Attorney’s OfficeJuly 01, 2015
  • Southern District of New York(212) 637-2600
Malcolm Smith

Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that former New York State Senate leader MALCOM SMITH was sentenced today to seven years in prison for bribing New York City Republican Party leaders, including Queens County Republican Party Vice Chairman VINCENT TABONE, as part of a scheme to allow SMITH, a Democrat, to run as a Republican candidate for New York City Mayor in 2013 and for his role in obtaining New York State funding for a real estate project in Spring Valley, New York, in exchange for cash bribes paid on his behalf to the New York City Republican Party officials. TABONE was sentenced to 42 months in prison for receiving bribes and witness tampering. Both were convicted after a three-and-a-half week jury trial before U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Karas, who imposed today’s sentences.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “Bribes and kickbacks should never play a role in the selection of candidates for public office. By attempting to buy and sell a spot on New York City’s Mayoral ballot, Malcolm Smith and Vincent Tabone corrupted one of the most fundamental tenets of the democratic process, that candidates cannot bribe their way onto a ballot. Today’s sentences make clear that the cost of violating the public trust in this way will be measured in years in a federal prison.”

According to the Complaint and the Indictment filed in federal court and the evidence presented at trial:

The Bribery and Extortion Schemes

SMITH was first elected to the New York State Senate in November 2000, and represented a district within Queens, New York. He was chairman of the Independent Democratic Conference of the State Senate and, among other positions, has served as the State Senate’s minority leader, majority leader, and acting lieutenant governor. From about November 2012, through April 2, 2013, SMITH agreed with former New York City councilman Daniel Halloran, who was convicted in a separate trial, and an undercover FBI agent posing as a wealthy real estate developer (the “UC”), and a cooperating witness (“CW”) to bribe New York City Republican Party county leaders, including TABONE, in exchange for their authorization for SMITH to appear as a Republican candidate for New York City Mayor in 2013, even though SMITH is a registered Democrat.

SMITH participated in two overlapping criminal schemes that involved the payment of bribes to obtain official action. First, SMITH, a registered Democrat, authorized the payment of $110,000 in cash bribes to be paid to leaders of the New York City Republican Party, including TABONE, so that they would allow SMITH to run for mayor on the Republican Party’s ballot line. Second, SMITH agreed to use his influence to help steer at least $500,000 in New York State transportation funding to a real estate project the UC and CW had proposed to develop in Spring Valley, New York, in exchange for the UC and CW paying bribes on SMITH’s behalf to the New York City Republican Party Chairs.

In furtherance of the scheme, SMITH authorized the UC and the CW to meet TABONE, the Executive Vice Chairman of the Queens County Republican Party, Joseph Savino, the Chairman of the Bronx County Republican Party, and other party leaders. During a meeting with the UC, TABONE accepted a $25,000 cash bribe in a dimly lit SUV parked in front of a Manhattan restaurant and agreed to accept another $25,000 after his committee authorized SMITH to compete in the Republican primary. Savino similarly accepted a $15,000 cash bribe and agreed to accept another $15,000 after he voted to authorize SMITH to compete for the Republican ballot line. In return for his efforts in negotiating the bribes, Daniel Halloran accepted $15,500 as a down payment on a “broker’s” fee of at least $75,000 and expected to be appointed First Deputy Mayor if Smith was elected mayor.

Witness Tampering

Shortly before the start of a previously scheduled trial, the Government sought permission from the Court to take the deposition of Philip Ragusa, the former Chairman of the Queens County Republican Party. Ragusa, who was gravely ill at the time, was expected to testify favorably to the Government. Over TABONE’s objections, the Court ordered the deposition to take place. TABONE unexpectedly appeared at Ragusa’s home an hour before the scheduled start of the deposition and attempted to pressure Ragusa not to testify against him.

* * *

SMITH, 58, of Queens, was also sentenced to two years of supervised release. TABONE, 48, of Queens, was sentenced to one year supervised release and ordered to forfeit $25,000. SMITH was ordered to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on September 21, 2015. TABONE was ordered to surrender October 1, 2015.

Mr. Bharara praised the outstanding investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office.

This case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division and Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Douglas B. Bloom, Justin Anderson and Perry Carbone are in charge of the prosecution.


Attorney Peter F. Anderson is Disbarred

$
0
0


Matter of Anderson
2015 NY Slip Op 05597
Decided on June 30, 2015
Appellate Division, First Department
Per Curiam
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 30, 2015 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department 
John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, 
Karla Moskowitz 
Leland G. DeGrasse 
Darcel D. Clark 
Barbara R. Kapnick,Justices.

M-1646 

[*1]In the Matter of Peter F. Anderson (admitted as Peter Floyd Anderson, Jr.), a suspended attorney: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Peter F. Anderson, Respondent.



Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Peter F. Anderson, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on July 26, 1982.



Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental
Disciplinary Committee, New York
(Kevin M. Doyle, of counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.



PER CURIAM
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 26, 1982, under the name Peter Floyd Anderson Jr. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order, pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4(g), disbarring respondent from the practice of law, because he was suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), and did not appear or apply to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement within six months from the date of the order of suspension. Respondent was suspended based upon substantial admissions under oath of misconduct and other uncontested evidence of professional misconduct that he misappropriated and/or converted third-party funds, improperly made ATM cash withdrawals from his account, and commingled personal funds with client funds while $200,000 in tax liens had been entered against him.
The Committee served its suspension motion upon respondent and the notice of motion included the following warning:

"PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), an attorney who is suspended and who has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the date of the order of suspension, may be disbarred without further notice."

Notwithstanding being served with the interim suspension motion, respondent did not appear on the motion.
By order entered on October 7, 2014, this Court granted the Committee's motion and suspended respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(ii), and (iii), and until further order of the Court (123 AD3d 86 [1st Dept 2014]). On October 14, 2014, the Committee served respondent with notice of entry enclosing a copy of the Court's order of suspension sending it by first class mail and certified mail, and it was received by respondent on October 27, 2014, as evidenced by the signed return receipt.
Although respondent was served with the motion to disbar by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, no response has been received.
Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court's October 7, 2014 suspension order, and respondent has failed to appear or contact the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), should be granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Ayu, 123 AD3d 44 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Cohen, 102 AD3d 55 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Bambury, 91 AD3d 141 [1st Dept 2011]).
All concur.
Order filed [June 30, 2015].
Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Clark, and Kapnick, JJ.
Respondent disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof. Opinion Per Curiam. All concur.

Corruption By Cuomo: Spiralling Out Of His Control

$
0
0
From Betsy Combier:

Why would anyone in NY State want this man to be re-elected Governor? Let's hope the fix is not in yet.

Betsy

A situation Cuomo can’t control anymore

By Blake Zeff 5:34 a.m. | Jul. 25, 2014
The New York Times A-1 blockbuster that Andrew Cuomo’s team was dreading finally landed on Wednesday, and it wasn’t pretty. It painted a picture of the governor’s dealings—including allegations his administration quashed an anti-corruption panel’s subpoenas to his allies—that even his supporters privately admit doesn’t look so hot. 
And with a primary and general re-election campaign and an investigation by the U.S. attorney all looming, this saga has only just begun.  
The question now is: How will all this play out for the governor, in terms of both the politics and the law?
On the former, the first place to look is the governor’s response. You can always get a sense of how fearful of a breaking story a politician is by his public schedule immediately afterward. 
In this case, Cuomo was slated to appear at the Bronx County Democratic dinner on Wednesday night. But, an insider tells Capital, he quietly backed out in an effort to avoid public attention. Similarly, the source says the governor—who is sitting on a massive campaign warchest and an insurmoutable-looking lead in the polls—had planned events for Thursday, but they, too, were removed before a public schedule went out. (Could we hear from Cuomo today? It would be less surprising, as he knows that comments made on a Friday end up in less-well-read Saturday editions of the paper.)
Another intriguing element of Cuomo’s reaction is the 13-page statement his team provided theTimes in response to its questions. One particularly memorable passage began like this (with emphasis added): "The Governor claimed the Commission ultimately had independent investigative authority through the Co-chairs. The Governor did not and could not mean that the Commission as an entity was legally independent from him."
It’s not every day that your own defense characterizes your public statements as mere "claims" which it then sets out to debunk immediately afterwards. But such is the spot Cuomo is in.
A key issue is whether in fact the Moreland Commission appointed by Cuomo to investigate public corruption was a mere instrument of the governor—with which he could do whatever he pleased—or an independent entity.
When the commission was announced, of course, the governor had publicly trumpeted its independence.  As the Times notes, Cuomo said upon its launch that it would be "totally independent," adding in August that "anything they want to look at, they can look at—me, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, any senator, any assemblyman." 
But when allegations of interference by Team Cuomo first surfaced earlier this year, the governor’s characterization of the commission changed. Now his contention was that he couldn’t possibly "interfere" with any investigations because the commission was in fact not independent, but controlled by him.  
"It’s not a legal question," he told the Crain’s editorial board back in April. "It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission (see picture from the Broadway Show - oops, from the Commission, below - Editor). I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow… So, interference? It’s my commission. I can’t 'interfere' with it, because it is mine. It is controlled by me."
Leaders of the Moreland Commission, front row, from left: Kathleen M. Rice, Milton L. Williams Jr. and
William J. Fitzpatrick, the panel's co-chairs, and Regina M. Calcaterra, its executive director.Credit 
           Michael Nagle  for The New York Times        
 
That was a few months ago. In the lengthy statement to the Times Wednesday, still another shift in the characterization of the commission was detectable. Not only was this no longer an independent commission, but now Team Cuomo added that the Moreland Commission couldn’t possibly investigate Cuomo’s dealings because "it would have been a major problem, " claiming that "a commission appointed by and staffed by the executive cannot investigate the executive."
To do so, Cuomo’s team added, would constitute "a pure conflict of interest and would not pass the laugh test."
If that’s true, someone better tell Mario Cuomo.  
Back in 1987, a spate of ethics scandals led the first Governor Cuomo to appoint a Moreland Commission of his own, which he called the New York State Commission on Government Integrity, but later came to be known as the Feerick commission (after the Fordham law dean who chaired it). As Jerry Goldfeder and Myrna Perez noted in theNew York Law Journal:
"The Feerick commission could and did subpoena witnesses; it held public hearings throughout the state; and issued 20 reports prior to its final set of recommendations. Looking to have as broad an impact as possible, the seven-person panel tackled a wide swath of issues. These included campaign finance reform; election of judges; fairer personnel practices; liberalized ballot access rules; neutral contracting procedures; protection for whistleblowers; and forfeitures of pensions."
It also did something else: "After a 40-month, comprehensive and thorough investigation, including scrutiny of campaign finance filings of Cuomo and other statewide officials, a unanimous panel concluded in 1990 that New York’s campaign finance laws were a ‘disgrace and embarrassment’ and the state had ‘not yet demonstrated a real commitment to ethical reform in government.’"
In other words, a Moreland commission appointed by Mario Cuomo investigated the executive and lived to tell the tale. But don’t just take the Law Journal’s word for it.
"The rare appearance of a Governor before a commission looking into campaign financing had all the drama of a preseason game," the Times reported back in 1989 on the commission’s investigation of Albany fund-raising practices. "One item of evidence was a document with shorthand codes for lists of potential contributors drawn up by Mr. [Mario] Cuomo's chief fund-raising assistant, Lucille Falcone."
The commission would go on to castigate the elder Cuomo’s practices, with the AlbanyTimes Union reporting later in 1990 that "Gov. Mario M. Cuomo is still soliciting contributions of up to $25,000 and is well on his way to having a $10 million campaign kitty despite criticism of such fund-raising practices by the Cuomo-created State Commission on Government Integrity."
It appears the younger Cuomo’s story may need some tightening.  
But the most obvious source of potential harm to Cuomo’s political fortunes would be legal trouble. And here’s where key bits of the story have remained particularly elusive. However hypocritical and unseemly the behavior by the governor and aide Larry Schwartz may have been, there has been no serious explanation yet about how any of it was illegal. Legal experts differ on whether federal prosecution is even a possibility.
But as I’ve previously written on this site, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara poses potential trouble here for Team Cuomo. He’s smart, politically experienced (he was a senior Capitol Hill aide with me a decade ago), and will not be intimidated by the moment, or by the governor. If the results of his investigation into the disbanding of Moreland suggest that there’s a prosecution to be done, he’ll do it.  
In one sense, it would be a stretch: The commission was a state entity, and Bharara’s job is to prosecute federal crimes. He won’t want to stretch and lose.
But while a person typically can’t be charged with federal obstruction of justice for interfering with a state entity, a determined prosecutor could make an argument that the federal rule applies here. 
The federal witness-tampering statute (18 U.S. code 1512), for example, applies to "[w]hoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to … influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding" or "cause or induce any person to—"
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process …
The "official proceeding" language here refers to a federal proceeding. But if any of the entities the Cuomo administration reportedly shielded from the Moreland commission’s questions are under investigation by or of interest to any federal office, it could theoretically provide an opening for the U.S. attorney.
That's far from a slam dunk. But the very threat of such legal action could be enough to get people at the bottom and middle of the chain to share what they know, so prosecutors can work their way up.  
Bharara may have already offered clues to his intentions.
If a prosecutor is laying the groundwork for possible action, the first step would be to get all relevant Moreland Commission documents (and based on those, see what others are needed), which Bharara has done. Once all the documents are collected, the prosecutor’s office would start at the bottom of the chain, perhaps with an assistant to the commission’s executive director—which Bharara has also just done.  (Regina Calcaterra’s assistant Heather Green was subpoenaed and will appear before a grand jury on Monday.)
Lower-level witnesses like Green would be asked to provide any information they might have, including communications, whether they remember any meetings between major players at specific times. The information gleaned would then be waved at players up the chain in an effort to get them to talk, and implicate bigger fish. Obvious subsequent steps would include going to Calcaterra and Schwartz, with the ultimate goal being to nail the most senior target possible.
Depending on the severity of their potential charges, ability to cooperate and relevant knowledge, they could get immunity or a potential reduced sentence to help nab a bigger player.   
Of course, the prosecutor could determine there’s not enough to proceed, and, in what would be a best-case scenario for the governor, dissolve the investigation entirely. Another, middle-ground scenario would be the issuance of a grand jury report (a highly unusual occurrence) that lays out for the public an excoriation of the conduct as reprehensible but not criminal.
Whatever happens, one thing is clear: Unlike the Moreland commission’s work, the outcome of Bharara’s investigation is out of Cuomo's hands.

Greg Fischer Puts His Hat In The Ring To Win NY State Governorship And Unseat Corrupt Cuomo

$
0
0
Greg Fischer


EQUAL PARENTING TICKET LOOKS TO CHALLENGE CUOMO IN NOVEMBER
MEDIA ADVISORY…………………………….………….…………..August 11, 2014
CONTACT ADAM WEISS………………………………….…………..917-863-1155
 
Governor Cuomo has yet another worry in his bid for reelection: A third party ticket that’s picking up steam to challenge him in November.
 
The Equal Parenting Party will give parents a greater voice in child custody matters, as well as press the governor on key issues including:
 
·         Albany corruption and the botched Moreland Commission
·         New York’s standing as the highest taxed state with the worst business climate
·         Cuomo’s raid of Hurricane Sandy recovery funds to promote himself
·         Disastrous Common Core roll out
 
“The Equal Parenting Party will be a powerful platform for reform not just on family issues, but the many other ills Governor Cuomo has perpetuated in our once great state,” said Greg Fischer, a Calverton resident and the new party’s candidate for governor. “A very large segment of the state’s population has been affected by child custody issues and other state government problems and are mobilizing under our banner.”
 
According to Fischer, over 1,000 volunteers statewide are circulating nominating petitions and should have more than enough to place a full slate on the November ballot, including candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and comptroller.
 
A father of two, Fischer’s eyes were opened to the injustice of state law when he was embroiled in a child custody case. He’s been an advocate of pending legislation that would require judges to seriously consider giving guardianship to both parents in custody disputes, instead of only one or the other as current law mandates. "This way, extended family ties are more likely to be preserved," Fischer said, adding that states adopting equal parenting are discovering a reduction in crime and government costs as a result.

“In fighting for changes in the child custody law, we found that tens of thousands of residents are impacted by the same issues,” Fischer explained. “These voters are tired of the way Albany operates to the detriment of the taxpayers and have organized to draw attention to any number of issues that are plaguing our state. Unless you have a team of lobbyists in Albany, it’s clear that the only way you’re going to get any attention is at the ballot box.” 

Adam Matthew Weiss Public Relations
Office 212-542-3146
Mobile 917-863-1155
www.amwpr.com
222 Broadway Street
New York, NY

LONG ISLAND, N.Y., July 1, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ --
  • Over 1,000 volunteers stand ready to petition for STATEWIDE NYS Candidates
  • Parent's group to run a Third Party Line for NYS Governor to draw attention to New York State Family Court crisis
  • With a strategy in place, over 1,000 NYS voters are organizing a new political party to focus on Family Law reform. The group known as THE EQUAL PARENTING PARTY NYS ("EPP") seeks to introduce its own statewide balloting petitions to put Governor, Lt. Governor, Comptroller, and Attorney General candidates up on it's own ballot line for the November 2014 elections. 
  • The EPP has a central platform issue: the presumption that both parents are equal (especially upon marital separation, divorce, or child custody decisions). In law, NYS currently has a sole-custody presumption --- in the event of any Family Court litigation a judge MUST award sole-custody even if it is against a child's best interest. Judges may, however, "So Order" joint parenting if the parties stipulate to it.
  • Equal Parenting (a/k/a: "co-parenting", "shared parenting") is a mainstream issue with a slight majority of national equal parenting organizations now led by women. 
  • NYS Equal Parenting legislation has a long history. "Shared Parenting" legislation was passed in the 1980's but was vetoed by then Governor Hugh Carey.
  • The current 2013 NYS Bills at hand are:  S5316 and A6457
  • "We are a serious effort with a very basic Civil Rights EQUALITY issue. We have every intention of achieving ballot access", said Greg Fischer, one of the original EPP organizers, "We ran a judicial candidate, and if you multiply out the numbers to statewide, we will get more than enough votes to become a statewide official party".
  • The EPP asserts that "shared parenting" is an issue which is paramount to a large untapped NYS constituency that may number in the millions; they are the divorced, separated, custody-battle victims that may be litigant parents, grandparents, children, or other sensitized family. This is a political issue to awaken a significant "sleeping constituency" of disenfranchised voters to become active. The EPP claims to attract members that are severely emotionally damaged and who are now finding their recovery and self-expression through a channeled and lawful participation in the grassroots political process. 
  • The EPP plans to ask incumbents and challengers to become its cross-endorsed candidates. If any of the incumbent or challenger candidates reject or ignore EPP endorsement offers, the EPP intends to use that rejection in public forums around the state. 
  • The group is being organized on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/EqualParentingParty/ and by "word-of-mouth". Its own website is planned. The EPP also has a candidate's pledge card and plans to publish and praise the names of the politicians that pledge to support parental equality and lambaste those that refuse.
  • "Strategically, what we are doing is no different than what the Right to Life Party did; we have a central issue but we also support related legislation. We also want to aid grandparent's and other extended family in child access, create better judicial review, have cameras in the court rooms, improve attorney disciplinary procedures, improve oversight of Child Protective Services, and more." said an EPP member. 
  • Press contacts:
  1. Scott Lewis, r.scott.lewis@greenspacepros.com or call 888-653-6204
  2. Andrea Zeledon-Mussio, cleanapothecaries@gmail.com or call 516-637-3832 
(Release 1, Version 1.4)
Media Contact:Greg Fischer, The Equal Parenting Party, NYS, 6317279637, perfect100@hotmail.com
News distributed by PR Newswire iReach: https://ireach.prnewswire.com

SOURCE The Equal Parenting Party

A Culture of Violence Against Teen Inmates at Rikers' Island Jail Brings In the US Attorney To Investigate

$
0
0
Preet Bharara
Rikers: Where Mental Illness Meets Brutality in Jail

Andre Lane talks about a confrontation he had with correction officers at Rikers. This incident
is one of 129  documented cases of beatings that resulted in severe injuries to inmates

Corruption Sweep at Rikers Island Leads to 22 Arrests

Rikers Island

 Rikers Island Struggles With a Surge in Violence and Mental Illness

Inmate Who Fought With Another at Rikers Island Dies After Leaving Hospital
 
Mentally Ill, and Jailed in Isolation at Rikers Island
 
Rikers Island Guards Are Found Not Guilty in Prisoner Assault Case

U.S. Inquiry Finds a ‘Culture of Violence’ Against Teenage Inmates at Rikers Island

In an extraordinary rebuke of the New York City Department of Correction, the federal government said on Monday that the department had systematically violated the civil rights of male teenagers held at Rikers Island by failing to protect them from the rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force by correction officers.
The office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, released its findings in a graphic 79-page report that described a “deep-seated culture of violence” against youthful inmates at the jail complex, perpetrated by guards who operated with little fear of punishment.
The report, addressed to Mayor Bill de Blasio and two other senior city officials, singled out for blame a “powerful code of silence” among the Rikers staff, along with a virtually useless system for investigating attacks by guards. The result was a “staggering” number of injuries among youthful inmates, the report said.
 
The report, which comes at a time of increasing scrutiny of the jail complex after a stream of revelations about Rikers’s problems, also found that the department relied to an “excessive and inappropriate” degree on solitary confinement to punish teenage inmates, placing them in punitive segregation, as the practice is known, for months at a time.
 
 
Although the federal investigation focused only on the three Rikers jails that house male inmates aged 16 to 18, the report said the problems that were identified “may exist in equal measure” in the complex’s seven other jails for adult men and women.
In just one measure of the extent of the violence, the investigation found that nearly 44 percent of the adolescent male population in custody as of October 2012 had been subjected to a use of force by staff members at least once.
Correction officers struck adolescents in the head and face at “an alarming rate” as punishment, even when inmates posed no threat; officers took inmates to isolated areas for beatings out of view of video cameras; and many inmates were so afraid of the violence that they asked, for their own protection, to go to solitary confinement, the report said.
Officers were rarely punished, the report said, even with strong evidence of egregious violations. Investigations, when they occurred, were often superficial, and incident reports were frequently incomplete, misleading or intentionally falsified.
Among more than a dozen specific cases of brutality detailed in the report was one in which correction officers assaulted four inmates for several minutes, beating them with radios, batons and broomsticks, and slamming their heads against walls. Another inmate sustained a skull fracture and was left with the imprint of a boot on his back from an assault involving multiple officers. In another case, a young man was taken from a classroom after falling asleep during a lecture and was beaten severely. Teachers heard him screaming and crying for his mother.
“For adolescent inmates, Rikers Island is broken,” Mr. Bharara said at a news conference announcing the findings. “It is a place where brute force is the first impulse rather than the last resort, a place where verbal insults are repaid with physical injuries, where beatings are routine while accountability is rare.”
 
 
 
Rikers Island emergency services entering the jail's juvenile detention facility.Credit Julie Jacobson/Associated Press   
 
 

 
The federal investigation was conducted by the civil division of the United States attorney’s office. Officers involved in specific incidents were not identified by name. But the report listed more than 10 pages of remedial measures, and it warned that if the city did not work cooperatively to develop new policies and procedures, the Justice Department could bring a federal lawsuit asking a judge to order the imposition of remedies. Mr. Bharara said the city had 49 days to respond to the findings.
Joseph Ponte, the city’s new correction commissioner, said in a statement that his agency had “cooperated fully” with the Justice Department, and would work with it to carry out whatever changes were “appropriate and feasible.”
The report, which covers 2011 through the end of 2013, touched on many of the same issues raised in an investigation by The New York Times into violence by guards at Rikers, particularly against inmates with mental illnesses, published last month.
The Times article documented 129 cases in which inmates of all ages were seriously injured last year in altercations with correction officers, including several attacks that were also singled out in the report.
New York is one of just two states in the country that automatically charge people aged 16 to 18 as adults. That population, which averages close to 500 inmates at Rikers Island, is among the most difficult at the jail complex, the report said. In the 2013 fiscal year, about 51 percent received a mental illness diagnosis, compared with about 38 percent for the overall population. And nearly two-thirds were charged with felonies.
Even so, the report found that adolescents were overseen by the least experienced correctional staff members, who, often out of frustration or malice, lashed out violently against them. The violence against teenage inmates has steadily increased year by year, the report found. In the 2013 fiscal year alone, inmates younger than 18 sustained 1,057 injuries in 565 reported uses of force by correctional staff members.   

 
Moreover, the report found, many violent episodes go unreported.
Officers and supervisors used coded phrases like “hold it down” to pressure inmates into not reporting beatings. “Inmates who refuse to ‘hold it down’ risk retaliation from officers in the form of additional physical violence and disciplinary sanctions,” the report said.
One inmate said that he was continually harassed by the correctional staff after reporting that he was raped by a guard and that he was warned by guards not to speak about the episode in an interview with a consultant on the investigation.
The report also found that civilian staff members, including doctors and teachers, also failed to report abuse and faced retaliation when they did.
One teacher told an investigator that when abuse occurs, civilian employees know “they should turn their head away, so that they don’t witness anything.”

Even when abuse was reported, the report found, the investigations typically went nowhere. The federal inquiry was highly critical of the Correction Department’s investigative division, which is overseen by Florence Finkle. The report described the investigative division as overwhelmed, understaffed and reliant on archaic paper-based record keeping. Investigations, which are supposed to take up to five months to complete, often take more than a year.
Photo
            

Attorney Ben D. Manevitz Threatens Betsy Combier After New York Court Corruption Posts the Picture of Attorney Wally Bock, Now Being Investigated For Criminal Misconduct

$
0
0
I received a letter on August 12 or 13th, certified, from Attorney Ben Manevitz. This is my reply.

August 24, 2014
Dear Mr. Manevitz,
You have ordered me to reply to you within 14 days of your letter dated August 11, 2014, and as I returned late last night from an upstate arbitration, I am posting my letter and yours so that we all know I replied in a timely manner to your demands, which in my opinion are reckless, unthethical, and legally unsound. I will explain.

 You sent your demands for money to a  private Foundation, The E-Accountability Foundation, a  non-profit which assists people who have been wronged by corrupt politicians, judges and lawyers, or....anyone. We do not have a website. The Foundation, of which I am President, has no legal attachment at all to a blog called New York Court Corruption.

As you seem to be linking the Foundation to the blog's use of a photo that has no link whatsoever to the Foundation or to Parentadvocates.org (the Sadowski photo of Attorney Wally Bock is not on the website), you obviously are reckless in your search for money from anyone and decided it should be me..

Again, the E-Accountability Foundation has no connection or liability for anything posted on the blog New York Court Corruption.

Additionally, Parentadvocates.org. is not the website of the E-Accountability Foundation. These are two completely different entities.

Finally, your reckless actions can be seen on the fact that the picture by Christopher Sadowski of Attorney Wally Bock leaving court is, as I stated above, not on the website Parentadvocates.org. There is no connection between the website Parentadvocates.org and the blog New York Court Corruption .

I am theEditor of this blog and Parentadvocates.org and I am an investigative news reporter. As such, I post news stories under "Fair Use". Please see the disclaimer on Parentadvocates.org. As a news reporter, I can, and do, use my rights to publish newsworthy articles from news organizations, TV, magazines, etc., on the internet. As you know, Mr. Sadowski's picture of Wally Bock was published by NBC News on 9/1/2010 by Bill Dedman. I re-posted the article on my blog as a news article of interest, particularly because Wally Bock was the Attorney who did my mom's Will in 1989, and encouraged the Associate Pastor and the music Director of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, John Weaver, to get the Will written and stored at his office, filed, before I filed the last Will of my mom in March 1998. Four years later you are threatening me with a lawsuit, and, you will have to prove that my copying of NBC news led to a loss of income to Mr. Sadowski. I have never been paid a penny for any article on this blog or on my website. I hope you have the data you need to pursue this, if you decide to do so.

Of course I will sue you back as well as Mr. Sadowski for the damages incurred by the writing of the letter published below, your reckless behavior, and demand for money. I was never given any notice about my infringement and I am not an attorney.

I have removed the photo on my blog as a courtesy for now. Anyone may go to the link on my blog to see the original article published by NBC and photo of Wally Bock. Should I find out that your demands and your ordering me to give you $450.00 is indeed arbitrary and capricious, not only will I put the picture back up but I will take legal action against you and Mr. Sadowski.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Betsy Combier
Editor and news reporter for New York Court Corruption.


Attorney Ben Manevitz

MANEVlTZLAwFIRMLLC
IntellectualPropertyCounseling,Prosecution,EnforcementandLitigation

805CliftonAvenue

Clifton,NJ07013-1815

tel:973-594-6529

fax:973-689-9529


                                                                                                     August11, 2014
The E-AccountabilityFoundation/ParentAdvocates.org Attn:BetsyCombier
315East65thStreetSuite4C
NewYork,NY10021
 
by:USPSCert/returnreceipt
 
Re:Unauthorizeduseofphotographs; Referencenumber39140-1156
 
ToWhomitMayConcern:
 
Thisfirm representstheprofessionalphotographerMr.ChristopherSadowski.IthascometoourattentionthatyouareusinganimageorimagesownedbyMr.Sadowskionyourwebsite,withoutauthorizationandwithouthavinglicensedsame.  Attachedforyourreference is  a  copy   of  the  image  in  question   as  used   on  your   website,   found  at  the  url(s):
I
[http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/    2012/07Inyc-public-administrator-ethel-
griffin.html].
 
Asyoumaybeaware,youruseofMr.Sadowski'screativeworkwithoutavalidlicenseisaclear copyrightinfringementinviolationofUnitedStatesCodeTitle17(TheCopyrightAct).Statutorypenaltiesforcopyrightinfringement(whereavailable)rangefrom$200to$150,000perworkinfringed,andundernormalcircumstancesarerarelylessthan$750perwork infringed.Ofcourse,undercertainconditionsdamagesforcopyrightinfringementcanruntoamountssignificantlyhigher.Further,wherestatutorydamagesareawarded,thecourtsalsohavethepowertoorderthatyoupayMr.Sadowski'slegalfeesaswell. 
 
 Thisletterisademandletterrequiringyourresponse,andfurtherrequiringyourimmediatecomplianceasfollows.   Within  14daysofthedateofthisletter,wedemand:
(a)              Youmustprovideprooftotheseofficesofavalidlicenseoftheimageorimagesinquestion,byemailingproofofsametoPhotoLicense@manevitzlaw.com.Pleasemakesuretoincludeyourcompanynameandthereferencenumberaboveinthesubjectline.
(b)              If youcannotprovidesuchproofofavalidlicense,thenyoumaycontinuetousetheimagesbyimmediatelyremittingtheongoing­licensefeeof$1125.Thelicenseisfor exactlytheusethatyouarecurrentlymakingoftheimage,andisnottransferableorsubjecttosub-license.Wewillprovideyouwiththeappropriatesettlementandreleaseagreementatyourrequest.
(c)              Inthealternative,ifyoucannotprovideproofofavalidlicense,andyoudonotwishtocontinuetousetheimages,youmust immediatelyceaseanddesistuseoftheimages.Inaddition,you mustremitthetermination-licensefeeof$450.Merelyceasinguseoftheimagesdoesnoteliminateliabilityforpaymentoffeesdue.Wewill  provideyouwiththeappropriatesettlementand releaseagreementatyourrequest.
Mr.Sadowski'slivelihoodisbasedonhisofferoftheseimagesforlicense,andyourinfringementiscausinghimdirectandimmediateharm.ThelicensefeesquotedhereinarecalculatedbasedonMr.Sadowski'snormalchargesforalicenseforyourtypeofuseandthenumberofimagesyouhaveimproperlyused.
Inanticipationofsomeofthecommonobjectionsand responsesthisfirmhasencountered,itmaybeworthwhiletomakeclearcertainpointsoflaw:
  Undertherelevantstatute,copyrightinfringementisastrictliabilityoffense,whichistosaythatitisnotadefensetosaythatyouinfringedtheimages"byaccident,"orbyautomatedsystem,orwithoutknowledge.

                     •  Resizingthepicturedoesnotmakeyouruse"fairuse."

  Neithercorrectattributiontothephotographernorlinkingbacktotheoriginalsourcelessenstheseverityofthecopyrightinfringement.Infact,itmayservetodemonstrateyourknowledgethat theimagewasnotrightfullyyourstouse.

  Thefactthattheimageisonlylinkedfromyoursiteandisnotstoredonyourserverisnotadefense.

  Animageisnotinthepublicdomainmerelybecauseitisontheinternet.

 
Pleasebeintouchwiththeseofficesandconfirmyourcompliancewiththedemands herein.Ifwedonothearfromyoupromptly,myclientwillbeforcedtoconsiderallofhisoptionsforfurtherenforcementofhisrights.Wewouldstronglyprefertoresolvethismatterwithoutresorttothemorecostlyandtime-consumingmechanismofbringingsuitinfederal court.
Ifyoufeelthatyouhavereceivedthisletterinerror,pleasecontactmebyemailatPhotoLicense@manevitzlaw.com.Pleasemakesuretoincludeyourcompanynameandthereferencenumberaboveinthesubjectline.Nothinginthisshallbedeemeda waiverofanyofMr.Sadowski'srightsorremediesinconnectionwiththismatter,whetheratlaworinequity,allofwhichrightsandremediesareherebyexpresslyreserved.

                                                                  Sincerely

                                                                                                   Ben D. Manevitz

After Allegedly Raping a Woman Attorney Sanford Rubenstein Will Not Face Charges

$
0
0
Sanford Rubenstein
Sanford Rubenstein won't face rape charges, DA Vance decides
The Manhattan district attorney announced Monday he will not pursue rape charges that were lodged against prominent personal injury lawyer Sanford Rubenstein by a top aide to his one-time patron, activist Rev. Al Sharpton.
The allegations by an executive at Sharpton's National Action Network against the lawyer, who has sued on behalf of police violence victims such as Abner Louima and Eric Garner, made tabloid headlines late last year, but prosecutors said they couldn't be proved.

The woman, who has not been publicly identified, claimed that Rubenstein, 70, assaulted her at his Manhattan apartment after a night of drinking at Sharpton's 60th birthday bash in October. Rubenstein claimed the sex was consensual.

District Attorney Cyrus Vance's office noted the complaint came 36 hours later and could not be corroborated despite a "thorough" investigation that included interviews with 48 witnesses and reviews of video surveillance at Rubenstein's apartment building.
"Neither the provable facts nor the applicable law support a prosecution," said a spokeswoman for Vance, citing among problems the "degree of the complainant's recollection of what happened."
Kenneth Montgomery, the woman's lawyer, said she was "upset" at Vance's decision but the outcome was predictable given Vance's history of declining to file charges, including the high-profile case in 2011 when a hotel maid accused French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape.
"When they've got a powerful suspect, they're going to do everything in the world to punt the case," said Montgomery, who added that he believed there was enough evidence to present to a grand jury indicating that Rubenstein slipped a marijuana cookie to his client.
Montgomery said he filed a civil suit against Rubenstein in Brooklyn immediately after learning there would be no prosecution.
Rubenstein, in a news conference, said he was "pleased" he had been "fully cleared," and his defense lawyer, Ben Brafman, warned that he would file a countersuit for defamation if the woman pursues a civil suit.
"The woman in question was not drunk, she was not drugged and she was not raped," Brafman said. "Rape is undoubtedly a serious offense. To falsely accuse someone of rape is however equally offensive."
After the allegations surfaced against Rubenstein last fall, Sharpton severed ties with him, accusing him of being "disrespectful" toward his organization. Garner's family, whom Sharpton advised, hired Montgomery to replace Rubenstein as their lawyer.
Brafman Monday called on Sharpton to apologize, but Sharpton said he had no plans to do so because he never accused Rubenstein of committing a crime. 
"I don't think anyone doing business with an organization they respect will party with a member of the board of directors," he said. "That's my opinion. I think it's presumptuous for someone to call on me to apologize for my opinion."

Michael C. Dorf: Civilian Control of the Police

$
0
0
Re-posted from VERDICT and National Public Voice:

Friday, January 16, 2015

Michael C. Dorf: Civilian Control of the Police


Civilian Control of the Police 

in NYC

LINK

Roman emperors formally staked their power on Senate recognition, but in practice their authority depended on support from the legions and the Praetorian Guard. Despite its republican traditions, in its imperial phase, Rome was a dictatorship—sometimes a benevolent one, but a dictatorship nonetheless—because truly representative government demands civilian control of state force. For that reason, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes the President, a civilian, Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

As with the nation, so with its parts. Thus, recent actions by a not inconsiderable number of New York Police Department (NYPD) officers to challenge the authority of Mayor Bill de Blasio by refusing to enforce the law should raise loud alarms. Police officers are entitled to express pointed disagreement with their civilian leaders, but when that disagreement crosses the line into defiance, democracy itself is threatened.

The Underlying Dispute

In considering where to draw the line between permissible protest and mutiny, it is important to set aside the substance of the underlying disagreement. That may bedifficult to do in this instance, because the position of protesting NYPD officers is, not to put too fine a point on it, ugly.

Consider the now-infamous statement of NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch that Mayor de Blasio had “blood on his hands” for the murder of officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by a man who may have drawn some inspiration from anti-police-brutality protesters but was clearly a dangerous and deranged criminal.

What, exactly, did de Blasio do to render himself culpable in the killing of Ramos and Liu in the eyes of Lynch and his supporters? In the wake of a Staten Island grand jury’s failure to issue an indictment for the choking death of Eric Garner, de Blasio had the temerity to speak the indisputable truth that young African American men like his own son are at elevated risk in encounters with the police. De Blasio has repeatedly acknowledged the difficult and dangerous work that police do, but that was not enough to satisfy Lynch, who sees police–civilian interactions in Manichean terms: Because de Blasio does not offer all NYPD officers 100 percent backing in everything they do, Lynch denounces him.

Legitimate Speech

Police Chief William Bratton and some supporters of Mayor de Blasio have criticized the NYPD officers who turned their backs on the mayor at the funerals for Ramos and Liu on the ground that they were exploiting a tragedy to make a political point. That is a legitimate criticism of the officers’ judgment, but the officers were within their rights to exercise bad judgment or even to give offense. Although not entirely analogous, the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in Snyder v. Phelps underscores the proposition that the First Amendment protects offensive speech, even offensive speech that aims to use a funeral for political purposes.

More broadly, police officers have a right to speak out on matters of public concern, even if doing so could be seen as somewhat undermining the authority of their civilian leaders.

As a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in the 1892 case of McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford that a plaintiff who had been fired from his position as a police officer “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Yet constitutional law long ago rejected the Holmesian view that the state may, as a condition of employment, suppress otherwise protected speech.

Under the modern employee speech doctrine, public employees do not forfeit their right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern simply by virtue of accepting a government job. Government may not suppress such speech by its employees unless doing so is necessary to the effective provision of services.

The NYPD officers who turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio were expressing an odious view, but they were nonetheless “speaking” as citizens on a matter of public concern. And while the incidents caused embarrassment to the mayor, the police commissioner, and others, they did not interfere with the provision of police protection in any clear way.

To see why the First Amendment protects NYPD officers in expressing their displeasure with the mayor, imagine that they were making a different point. Suppose that in the wake of the Garner non-indictment, the mayor gave a public speech praising the NYPD for its aggressive use of force, and that some officers turned their backs at that speech. Surely many of the people who now condemn the NYPD officers for their treatment of Mayor de Blasio would praise the hypothetical officers for their courage in confronting their leaders, for speaking truth to power.

An Illegal Strike

Police officers also have a legal right to another kind of speech. They can organize to form a union that, in turn, can collectively bargain on their behalf. Some of the issues that are legitimately subject to collective bargaining are also matters of public policy. For example, whether police must be outfitted with body cameras is both a matter of working conditions for the police and civil rights of the public.

But New York law generally denies to public employees the right to strike. Whatever the merits of the general provision, the reason for the prohibition of police strikes is obvious. A strike in some other sector may cause financial losses and public inconvenience, but a strike by the police threatens the very foundation of government.

The NYPD are not formally on strike, but over the last several weeks, the number of arrests and tickets for relatively minor offenses as well as some not-so-minor offenses (such as gun possession and drunk driving) reportedly declined substantially. Although there is no clear evidence of a coordinated refusal by police to enforce the law, the same report (a New York Timesstory) indicates at least informal coordination. Call it a stealth strike.

Whether overt or covert, a police strike is dangerous and illegal. Where, as appears to be true here, the tacit strike threatens the public safety unless elected leaders give in to the strikers’ policy demands, democracy itself is under attack. There is no place in New York or America for a Praetorian Guard.

[ 6:42 ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download (76)
Michael C. Dorf, a Justia columnist, is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School and the principal author of The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Constitutional Law. He blogs atDorfonLaw.org.

- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2015/01/14/civilian-control-police-nyc#sthash.UhfuNImG.dpuf


Jonathan Turley: Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is Sued For Defamation in the Epstein "Sex Slaves" Scandal

$
0
0
Dershowitz Threatens To Sue Victim’s Attorneys For Defamation . . . Attorneys Respond By Suing Him First

image.hml
Paul Cassell
 
AlanDershowitz2
Alan Dershowitz

We previously discussed the threat of retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz to sue Utah Law Professor and former federal judge Paul Cassell(and his co-counsel Bradley Edwards) for defamation for papers mentioning him in revelation to the sex trafficking scandal of Florida financier Jeffrey Epstein. The lawyers sought unsuccessfully to depose Dershowitz who has been accused of being one of the men who were given underaged girls to sleep with by Epstein. At the time, I wrote that Dershowitz’s statements themselves could be viewed as defamatory and actionable. It appears that Cassell and Edwards were thinking the same thing. They have now sued Dershowitz for defamation.

Dershowitz also made a rare threat of a bar complaint over his representation of a client in the notorious case of billionaire and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Even more rare is the source of the threatened complaint: retired law professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School. Epstein is good friends with Bill Clinton and Duke of York Prince Andrew, 54, who have been mentioned in litigation over allegations of the use of underaged “sex slaves” and Epstein’s alleged penchant for watching (and filming) people having sex with these girls.

Dershowitz says that the sex claims are a “completely, totally fabricated, made-up story” and that he is an “innocent victim of an extortion conspiracy.” I noted that the reference to extortion itself could be viewed as defamatory since it makes the lawyers active participants in such extortion and any such statements made in public would be unprotected by privilege governing statements in court.

Cassell and Edwards however did not respond in kind and said that they would confine their statements to court filings “out of respect for the court’s desire to keep this case from being litigated in the press.” They noted however that they have “tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects, although he has avoided those deposition requests. Nevertheless, we would be pleased to consider any sworn testimony and documentary evidence Mr. Dershowitz would like to provide which he contends would refute any of our allegations.”

As I mentioned, it is hard to see how it is a disbarring offense or defamation for these attorneys to reference the allegations of their client in court papers, particularly given the immunity protection afforded from allegations in court. However, in addition to the extortion reference, Dershowitz said “I’m planning to file disbarment charges against the two lawyers who signed this petition without even checking the manifests of airplanes or travel itineraries, et cetera.” Thus, he has made public comments (outside of protected court statements) linking the lawyers to extortion and unprofessional conduct, both per se categories of defamation. He is also quoted as calling Cassell and Edwards “sleazy, unprofessional, unethical lawyers” who should have known that their client is “lying through her teeth.” Once again, the reference to being “unethical” can be alleged to be more than opinion. It is stating something that can be challenged as factually false and per se defamatory.
Jeffrey_Epstein_at_Harvard_UniversityDershowitz claims to be “thrilled” by the lawsuit but I would be less excited.
It would have been better to try to sue for an out-of-court statement for defamation in his own
right. After all, Dershowitz is insisting that he only went to Epstein’s island home once and was
with his family the whole time. That is the type of claim that makes for a serious defamation
action if the flight manifests and other documents support him.
Jane Doe #3 alleges that Epstein ordered her to have “sexual relations” with Mr. Dershowitz on
the businessman’s private plane and on his private Caribbean island. However, she also says
that she was ordered to have sex with Dershowitz at Epstein’s homes in New York City and Palm
Beach.
Now, instead of fighting of the stronger ground of his own claimed innocence, he will have to
defend against raw and frankly ill-considered statements about counsel for the accuser. Moreover, Cassell and Edwards will go get what they long sought: Dershowitz in deposition under oath.
As expected the complaint (below) zeros in on out-of-court (and unprotected) statements,
particularly in a CNN interview. Notably, the complaint takes a minimalist approach and does
not go into detail on the specific statements. While many lawyers prefer to state the minimum,
this is a bit more of a bare bones complaint than most would file in this type of case. The
complaint references the public comments generally as part of Dershowitz’s “a massive public
media assault on the reputation and character” of counsel.”
A review of the CNN interview shows a target rich environment for a defamation action
against Dershowitz. Indeed, I may be playing this interview in this year’s torts class on both
attorney privilege and per se defamation. Here are some highlights (the highlights are my own:

 
Well, Dershowitz has the “legal forum” that he was seeking, but he will be on defense. There is a material difference in how you attacks such statements and I think this is not the ideal context for Dershowitz. However, it is likely to get rougher before it gets better. Dershowitz will likely feel obligated to follow through with a bar complaint, creating a three-front battle between the original civil action, the new civil action, and the bar action.
Both Cassell and Dershowitz would be considered public figures under New York Times v.
Sullivan. Public officials are placed under a higher standard for defamation in the case: requiring
a showing of actual malice or knowing disregard of the truth. This constitutional-based standard
is designed to protect free speech, particularly when directed against powerful politicians. Of
course, these people are not public figures in the United States and some do not hold public
offices. However, the same standard applies to public figures.

The public figure standard was established in Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967). The case involved
a March 23, 1963 edition of The Saturday Evening Post alleging that former University of Georgia football coach Wallace Butts conspired with University of Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant to
fix a 1962 football game in Alabama’s favor. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Warren wrote a concurrence that extended the ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan on public officials to public figures. He found the same reasons for applying the higher standard to public officials as present
in cases involving public figures:
 
Indeed, the case is filled with public figures and one (Epstein) who could be viewed as so
notorious and sleazy as to be “libel proof” — or someone who has no reputation to lose.
Ironically, Bill (and by extension Hillary) Clinton and Prince Andrew are likely the least thrilled by the new development. These actions mean more depositions and more investigation when they thought that the generous immunity deal had effectively tied off or limited their exposure in this case.
Here is the defamation lawsuit.

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited
multiple times
LINK

Jeffrey Epstein

  • The former president was friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was arrested in 2008 for soliciting underage prostitutes
  • A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex slaves'
  • Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
  • He hasn't cut ties with that woman, however, and invited her to Chelsea's wedding
  • Comes as friends now fear that if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, all of their family's old scandals will be brought to the forefront
  • Epstein has a host of famous friends including Prince Andrew who stayed at his New York mansion AFTER his arrest
A new lawsuit has revealed the extent of former President Clinton's friendship with a fundraiser who was later jailed for having sex with an underage prostitute. Bill Clinton's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who served time in 2008 for his illegal sexual partners, included up multiple trips to the onetime billionaire's private island in the Caribbean where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves.
The National Enquirer has released new details about the two men's friendship, which seems to have ended abruptly around the time of Epstein's arrest.
Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.
It is unclear what the basis of the suit is, but they go on to call witness testimony from some of the frequent guests at Epstein's island to talk about the wild parties that were held there in the early 2000s. Flight logs pinpoint Clinton's trips on Epstein's jet between the years 2002 and 2005, while he was working on his philanthropic post-presidential career and while his wife Hillary was a Senator for their adopted state of New York.
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind fo thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,' one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal backstories were never revealed.
At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly, as the suit identifies a woman as Jane Doe 102.
She 'was forced to live as one of Epstein's underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with... politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc,' the lawsuit says according to The Enquirer.
Epstein's sexual exploits have been documented since 2005, when a woman in Palm Beach contacted police saying that her 14-year-old daughter had been paid $300 to massage him and then have sex.
The claim prompted a nearly year-long investigation that led to the eventual charge of soliciting prostitution which came as part of a plea deal. He spent 13 months of a 18-month sentence in jail and remains a registered sex offender. 




 



New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is Arrested For Corruption

$
0
0
Now it's time for Andrew Cuomo, too.
Sheldon Silver

Sheldon Silver, Speaker of New York Assembly, Is Arrested in Corruption Case
LINK
The powerful speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, was arrested on federal corruption charges on Thursday, sending shock waves through the political establishment and upending the new legislative session.
 
Mr. Silver, a Democrat from the Lower East Side of Manhattan who has served as speaker for more than two decades, surrendered to F.B.I. agents early Thursday morning in Lower Manhattan.
Mr. Silver, before entering 26 Federal Plaza, said, “I hope I’ll be vindicated.”
The investigation of Mr. Silver began after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in March abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he had created in 2013.
The federal inquiry, led by the United States Attorney for the Southern District, focused on payments that Mr. Silver received from a small law firm that specializes in seeking reductions of New York City real estate taxes.

READ MORE »

 

Sheldon Silver to be arrested

Sheldon Silver, the longtime speaker of the New York state Assembly, is expected to be arrested on corruption charges by federal authorities on Thursday after prosecutors subpoenaed records in a probe of undocumented payments he received from a law firm, sources said.
Silver, a Manhattan Democrat who has served as speaker for more than 20 years, is expected to be charged following an investigation sparked when Gov. Cuomo abruptly shut down an anticorruption commission he had created in 2013, sources said.
The specific details of the charges were not clear, but sources said that it was related to money Silver received from a small real-estate tax law firm.
The firm, Goldberg & Iryami PC, made the payments over about a decade, but Silver failed to list the income on his financial-disclosure forms, sources told The Post.
As speaker, Silver controls which legislation can be voted on, and has broad powers over the state budget.
Silver, 70, has been criticized by opponents for wielding too much power, and has been ensnared in controversy.
The FBI and prosecutors from Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara’s office began an investigation into the undisclosed money in December.
The prosecutors were looking into exactly what Silver did to earn the money, sources told The Post in December.
The probe came after an investigation by Cuomo’s Moreland Commission panel, which was looking into corruption in Albany when the governor shut it down.
One of the issues that the panel was looking into was how state lawmakers earn income from their non-government jobs.
Silver is a personal-injury lawyer associated with the high-profile law firm Weitz and Luxenberg.
Goldberg & Iryami specializes in an arcane form of law known as “tax certiorari,’’according to the New York Times.
That involves challenging real-estate tax assessments and seeking reductions for developers who own residential or commercial property.
The firm appears to have only two lawyers, according to the Times.
The newspaper said, that since 2001, the firm and its principals have made six donations to Silver, totaling $7,600.
The most recent was in February, when it gave him $1,800, according to the report.
The Times added that the law firm has sought tax reductions for many properties on the Lower East Side, which is the area Silver represents.
In addition the financial controversies, Silver also became entangled in the Vito Lopez sex-harassment case when it became public that the speaker had hired two firms to defend the disgraced former assemblyman, spending nearly $700,000 in public funds.
Silver — who could not be reached for comment early Thursday — was nearly ousted as Assembly speaker by his fellow Democrats in 2000, when they unexpectedly challenged his leadership position. The coup failed.

New Jersey RICO cases Will Name Chris Christie as a Defendant

$
0
0
 I hope this starts a radical overhaul of family courts around the country. I had a matter in the Manhattan Surrogate's Court which led to my heart almost failing on July 22, 2006. As I did not die (obviously), I decided I would help anyone fight the RICO in ALL the Courts.
Convicted Late Senator Guy Velella
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them

Betsy Combier

Chris Christie named in two lawsuits alleging violations by Family Courts

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Chris Christie has been named as a defendant in two cases that are part of series of lawsuits across the country where serious concerns about violations of citizens’  rights in family courts are under scrutiny.
CALIFORNIA
An upcoming civil RICO lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the watchdog group Family Court Accountability Coalition (FCAC) will allege that a feeder system created by the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Division, in conjunction with several powerful judges, creates a racket which chooses favored divorce lawyers and makes sure those lawyers get favorable rulings in Sacramento County family court rooms.
In 1991, Judges Vance Raye and Peter McBrien, formed the Family Law Executive Committee (FLEC) to help deal with family law cases in Sacramento County family courts. This FLEC would be a group of lawyers, according to the upcoming suit, chosen by the Sacramento County Bar Association’s family law division which would act as judge pro temp on certain family law cases and in exchange, the suit will allege, the lawyers chosen for this task would be given favorable rulings, deserved or not, when they appeared in divorce court in their regular roles.
One of the most high profile case examples of this scheme which will be featured in the suit is that of Ulf Carlsson who appeared in front of Judge McBrien and whose story received significant media attention culminating with a lengthy feature in the documentary Divorce Corp.
Carlsson told RebelPundit his judge was McBrien and that not only did he lose every single motion and hearing in his divorce but the judge awarded his ex-wife all their marital assets.
About five years ago, an appeals court reversed the decision but only because during one hearing the judge simply left the court room while Carlsson’s side was presenting their case, a blatant violation of due process.
Carlsson said while everyone told him the decisions themselves were egregious, the appellate court didn’t have the power to overturn them and only overturned his case on due process violations.
Carlsson said he was forced to move back to Sweden, where he was born, after thirty years in the USA and receiving multiple “credible threats” on his life.
Carlsson said he’s developed PTSD as a result of the corrupt court process.
NEW JERSEY
In New Jersey two concurrent RICO lawsuits will allege systemic bias against women in two counties of that state and Governor Chris Christie will be a named defendant in both cases.
First, in Bergen County a lawsuit led by Karin Wolf, including more than forty women, will allege that courts ignore abuse on a widespread basis–be it sexual, physical, verbal, or emotional–and instead label women making these allegations as parental alienators or as having a variety of mental illnesses or defects.
Wolf told RebelPundit that the purpose of these false diagnoses is to goad protective mothers like herself to fight false allegations in court, creating a perpetual legal process and a plethora of legal fees.
Wolf’s lawsuit will allege that Christie has culpability because he appointed a number of the judges implicated and because he’s been made aware of the widespread abuse but failed to act.
Kevin Roberts, Governor Christie’s Press Secretary, directed all calls to the state’s Attorney General’s (AG) office, which declined comment.
In nearby Monmouth County, another lawsuit, led by Rachel Alintoff will include seven women in total–five of whom spoke with RebelPundit. Alintoff was featured in a 2012 New York Post article in which nine women made allegations of gender bias against Monmouth County Family Court Judge, Paul Escandon. Judge Escandon will be a named defendant in the upcoming lawsuit and his office declined to comment when reached by phone.
In each case the women described a phenomenon psychologists refer to as Gaslighting, based on a 1944 film which won an Academy Award for Ingrid Bergman.
Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer
 Gaslighting is “a form of mental abuse where information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.”
Karen Welch told RebelPundit that starting in 1997 and continuing until 2010, she was stalked by an individual associated with her ex-husband. The court, rather than accepting her allegations, said she was making it up because of a mental illness.
In Alintoff’s case, she was diagnosed by the court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Patricia Baszczuk, with “cyclical outbursts” disorder, a disorder which appears to have been coined by Basczcuk and has never been used widely. This so-called diagnosis was used to take custody Alintoff’s son away from her.
Alintoff said that Dr. Baszczuk will be a named defendant and she didn’t respond to an email for comment. Alintoff said she had a one-on-one meeting with Governor Christie about a year ago–about her case–in which Christie promised to examine her case personally; Christie’s Press Secretary Roberts didn’t respond for comment on this meeting.
Wolf and Alintoff told RebelPundit they have also both spoken with the FBI.
All of the women interviewed for both New Jersey lawsuits said they believe they suffered from PTSD as a result of their experience.
Susan Skipp, whose story was featured in a previous RebelPundit expose, is the only litigant not to file a RICO suit. She told RebelPundit that based on her research of precedent she didn’t believe it was feasible to prove RICO, and instead filed a civil suit, which alleges civil rights and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations and is seeking $300 million in damages.
Skipp, who has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which she developed as a result of the stress of the legal process, said rather than having those ailments be accepted and receive accommodations, the judge in her case, Lynda Munro, and the Guardian ad Litem, Mary Brigham, accused her in open court of having an unspecified and untreated mental illness.
“The defendant testified that she looked forward to this counseling. If the court takes her at her word then she cannot help herself in her conduct and this is an unaddressed mental health concern,” Judge Munro said of Skipp during one court hearing.
Rather than allowing her to continue treatment with her own therapist, Skipp said that Judge Munro told her that if she saw a psychologist of Munro’s choosing–at a cost of about $3,000 monthly–she’d be allowed to see her children for a few hours a month.
“This is a common scam,” Skipp told RebelPundit, “Order litigant to buddy, buddy gets 175 a week or more- can’t claim on insurance because no diagnosis.” Skipp said, “(It) goes on for years because it’s an order, and also violates ADA law because a person has a right to have a trusting relationship with her therapist.”
Skipp hasn’t seen her children since the end of 2012.
Judge Munro, who retired from the bench in 2014, didn’t respond to an email at her current employer, the Pullman and Comley Law Firm. Ms. Brigham also didn’t respond to an email for comment.
CONNECTICUT AND PENNSYLVANIA
The allegations made by Alintoff and Wolf are similar to an expose in 2012 by Keith Harmon Snow, that included Susan Skipp’s case in which he alleged that Connecticut family courts painted mothers as crazy in an attempt to feed children into a pedophile ring; Snow believes his expose also uncovered a criminal enterprise:
The family court system in Connecticut, as around the country, involves multiple corrupt organizations where profit motives and personal connections dictate how and why decisions are made, and these are decisions that have altered and ruined the lives of many families, esp. many children in custody cases. A racket is ‘a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket were not to exist’ and this is exactly the case with court-related organizations such as Department of Children and Families; National Council of Children’s Rights; the court-sanctioned institution of Guardian Ad Litemand all its related training offices.

Sheldon Silver, Arrested For Corruption, Still Makes a Deal Assembly Democrats Cannot Refuse

$
0
0
Errol Louis

Sheldon Silver’s army of enablers 

Excuses and more excuses from Assembly Democrats

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
 
Monday, January 26, 2015, 6:53 PM

LINK

Far more alarming than the evidence of dedicated, long-term sneak-thievery by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is the haplessness of his liberal Democratic enablers — and their inability over many years to denounce shifty, unprincipled behavior even when a loud chorus of public voices has done just that.

Nearly all of state’s editorials boards are crystal clear: Strong calls for Silver’s resignation have been voiced by the News, along with the city’s other major dailies, the Staten Island Advance and papers in Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester. In public opinion polls dating back to 2013, a majority of New Yorkers have said they’d like to see Silver gone.

And that was before his arrest.

But to their lasting shame, many of those who claim the mantle of political leadership have lost their political and ethical bearings, stumbling and grasping in every direction except the right and obvious one: not only deposing Silver as speaker but also swiftly enacting reforms to prevent any repeat of the shame that engulfs the capital.

I recently asked one longtime assemblyman what he thought of the 35-page criminal complaint filed against Silver, which is replete with detailed, credible allegations of extortion and bribery gathered and sworn to by the FBI. We all know that Silver is innocent until proven otherwise, I said; but don’t the accusations bother you?

“I'm not a legal expert,” said the pol, who has spent more than a decade writing laws for the rest of us to follow.

That sad cop-out was scarcely better than the comment from Assemblyman David Weprin of Queens — the son of former Speaker Saul Weprin — who might not have actually read the complaint before offering a novel theory. “In my opinion, it seems to be a financial disclosure mistake,” he told a newspaper.

Give Assemblyman Dick Gottfried of Manhattan credit for at least reading the charges before reaching an equally preposterous conclusion. “I’ve read the complaint,” Gottfried said to City and State newspaper. “To me, it’s distressing that in this country you can end up in handcuffs based on these kinds of flimsy, unsubstantiated allegations.”

Gottfried hinted that Silver is the victim of an unspecified conspiracy. “Many of us, based on decades of political observation, think not only Speaker Silver, but his predecessors, are often easy targets because they challenge entrenched power in New York, whether it’s entrenched economic power or political power,” he added.

Keep in mind that Gottfried and Weprin are concocting defenses that neither Silver nor his attorneys have offered. Silver never claimed to make a “financial disclosure mistake” in explaining why a law firm paid him $3.8 million in referral fees.

Whenever asked about it over the years, the speaker claimed he represented simple folk who needed legal help from time to time — which, according to the U.S. attorney, was a brazen lie; investigators combed a decade’s worth of cases and could find exactly one person represented by Silver.

As for challenging entrenched power: It hardly needs mentioning that Silver is only one year shy of becoming the longest-serving Assembly speaker in New York history, and that he has, from his lofty perch as one of the famed “three men in a room” who negotiate state budgets, personally overseen passage of well over $1 trillion in spending.

Gottfried’s insinuations echo the fanciful notion — put forth by statements of support from the Working Families Party and Mayor de Blasio — that Silver is so indispensable to the protection and advancement of liberal political causes that left-leaning New York simply cannot do without his leadership.

Nonsense. As the old saying goes: The graveyards are full of indispensable people.

More to the point, Silver’s liberal armor has some noteworthy dents. He appears to have worked to keep a 30-acre site, the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area, undeveloped for half a century, after more than 1,000 low-income families, mostly Latino, had been removed.

As a New York Times investigation concluded, actually building long-promised affordable housing on the site “would have altered the demographics of the neighborhood and put Mr. Silver’s political base in question.” So he stalled it.

And there's the infamous deal in which Silver killed the commuter tax in pursuit of a minor political win upstate. Since the 1999 repeal, New York City has lost an estimated $10.6 billion — money that would come in handy to fund public schools and other programs cherished by his liberal supporters.

If ever there was a time to call your local Assembly member and sound off, this is it. They badly need to hear some voices outside the bubble of Albany, where cowardice and confusion reign.

Louis is political anchor at NY1 News.

Andrew Cuomo's Hyperbole and Gimmickry

$
0
0
Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo’s two fiscal faces



LINK

Gov. Cuomo’s combined State of the State message and Executive Budget rollout this week showcased the governor at his best — and worst.
At best, there was Cuomo the fiscal fundamentalist, whose proposed budget for fiscal 2016 would allow state operating funds spending to rise by just 1.7 percent. If he holds his ground, the inflation-adjusted budget trend will be close to flat across his first five years in office.
The governor also pledged to stand behind his signature accomplishment on behalf of local taxpayers — by seeking permanent enactment of the historic 2011 cap on property tax levies outside New York City.
The 2 percent tax-growth cap is due to sunset in June 2016 under a provision linked to the extension of New York City’s rent control laws, which expire this June.
That awkward arrangement reflects the baneful influence of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was the main obstacle to Cuomo’s original proposal for a permanent property tax limit four years ago.
Silver’s arrest Thursday on federal corruption charges could strengthen the governor’s ability to leverage a truly enduring tax cap out of this legislative session.
On a different front, the governor was in fine rhetorical fettle when it came to challenging the notion that pumping more money into the nation’s best-funded public schools will automatically produce better results.
The state aid formula gives significantly more money to “high needs” districts, so the Buffalo system gets double the aid of the average district — yet remains a chronic failure, Cuomo noted.
“So don’t tell me that if we only had more money, it would change,” he added, calling for reform of teacher-evaluation and -tenure laws.
He followed that up by advocating other reforms: more charter schools and a new Education Tax Credit to promote contributions to nonprofit scholarship funds and public schools.
Yet, moments later, Cuomo proposed a further expansion — to cover children as young as 3 — of the state’s dubious and costly commitment to publicly-funded universal pre-kindergarten.
And in the area of tax policy, the governor’s proposed $1.7 billion in “property tax relief” wasn’t really a tax cut but a subsidy, in the form of a credit that would flow to less than half of homeowners.
Once again, he avoided proposing meaningful reforms of collective-bargaining laws and other state mandates that drive up local costs, and so push up local taxes.
This was Cuomo at his worst: pushing hyperbole and gimmickry over substance.
The cynical, political side of Cuomo’s approach to budgeting was exemplified by his plans for the $5.4 billion windfall from bank settlements.
Cuomo announced this month that he’d set aside $1.5 billion in windfall money for an upstate economic development competition.
This is premised on the notion that he can repeat the (as yet unproven) “model of success” of his “Buffalo Billion” package of subsidies to businesses willing to expand or locate in upstate’s largest city.
In reality, the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metro area has been adding jobs at less than half the national pace, and upstate as a whole is barely growing at all.
The governor said he’d deposit another $3 billion of windfall cash into a “new special infrastructure account.”
But barely half that amount — most of it targeted to the Thruway Authority — would be committed to transportation infrastructure, where capital needs are greatest. He’d scatter the rest in smaller pieces among lower-priority projects, including $500 million in matching funds for broadband Internet access.
Cuomo painted this as innovative, saying, “Infrastructure today is less about roads and bridges, in my opinion, and it is more about broadband.” Really? Try driving a car or truck down the information highway.
Speaker Silver’s legal troubles have shaken the state Capitol to its foundations, and this may well strengthen the governor’s hand in the coming budget negotiations. But Cuomo will produce better results if he ditches gimmickry and refocuses on fundamentals.
E.J. McMahon is president of the Empire Center and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow.

Tim Hoefer: Corruption Cauldron: To fix Albany — Term Limits

$
0
0
Tim Hoefer
EMPIRE CENTER

LINK

The corruption case against Speaker Sheldon Silver has prompted more calls for reform of the Legislature, which has seen two dozen-plus members (and counting) leave office under ethical or criminal clouds in the past 15 years.
With US Attorney Preet Bharara hinting that more state officials may be in hot water, the bandwagon is likely to gain even more momentum.
But what, exactly, would effective “reform” entail? Good-government groups such as Citizens Union have a standard checklist, including more thorough disclosure of outside incomes, greater transparency in state grant-making, a ban on the use of campaign funds for legal fees and other personal purposes and tougher penalties for violations of the public trust.
Taxpayer financing of political campaigns is another hobby-horse in some quarters, though campaign contributions had virtually nothing to do with the Silver allegations or with most of the other recent high-profile cases of state legislators who left office accused of some wrongdoing.
Far less attention is given to a reform already embraced by 15 other states: term limits for legislators.
First elected to the Assembly in 1976 and speaker since ’94, Silver owes much of his power to sheer longevity.
If New York had adopted a reasonable term-limits law back in the ’70s — say, limiting legislative service to no more than six terms in either house, or a total of 20 years combined — Silver’s legislative career would’ve ended decades ago.
Term limits would also strike at a problem more pervasive in Albany than corruption: legislative careerism. The longer they serve, the more many Assembly and Senate members naturally seek to preserve their positions.
This, combined with the power of legislative leaders, gives rise to an insular culture that makes individual lawmakers overly reluctant to advance new ideas, challenge entrenched special interests or demand higher ethical standards.
To combat careerism and empower rank-and-file members, term limits should be introduced, along with three other changes:
  • Close the taxpayer-guaranteed (and longevity-rewarding) defined-benefit public pension for legislators and other elected officials; instead, offer them a defined-contribution plan, such as the one sponsored by the State University of New York.
  •  Eliminate the leader-controlled pay stipends now received by three-quarters of legislators.
  •  Equalize members’ staff budgets.
Of course, there will never be a way to outlaw greed and dishonesty. Term limits alone certainly won’t do it; three term-limited, full-time state senators in California recently became faced criminal charges in the past two years.
But in seeking to minimize public corruption in New York, would-be reformers should remember the famous maxim of 19th-century Tammany pol George Washington Plunkitt: “I seen my opportunities and I took ’em.”
Plunkitt would’ve marveled at the vastly greater “opportunities” created by the huge and complex regulatory state New York lawmakers (and the governor) now control.
For example, some of the most damaging allegations against Silver stem from his power to shape or reshape rent control — a policy that doesn’t even exist in most of America.
Investigators also have focused on the granting of lucrative tax abatements for Manhattan luxury apartment buildings, whose developers promise to set aside a quota of units for “affordable housing.”
This kind of tax break only exists in places where government regulation — controlled, again, largely out of Albany — has distorted housing markets.
Silver is also charged with steering $500,000 in state research grants to an oncologist, who in turn allegedly became a source of lucrative asbestos-lawsuit referrals to Silver’s law firm.
The federal criminal complaint also alleges that the speaker directed a state grant to a nonprofit whose board members include the oncologist’s wife, and that he helpedfind a job for the doctor’s son at one of the countless other social-services groups that perennially benefit from the Legislature’s budgetary largesse.
The bottom line is that New York’s propensity for big-government overreach has helped create and sustain what Bharara has called a “cauldron of corruption” in the state Capitol.
Federal charges aside, Sheldon Silver undeniably had been the leading champion of New York’s worst tax-and-spend habits.
If his successor adopts similar positions — translating into a continuing proliferation of legislatively generated red tape, special preferences, carve-outs, subsidies and pork-barrel grant-making — the cauldron won’t stop simmering.

Sheldon Silver
 
If Sheldon Silver remains a rank-and-file legislator rather than retiring after stepping down as Assembly speaker, he will be losing money on the deal,according to the Empire Center’s pension calculator.
Based on his 38 years as a state assemblyman and the speaker’s salary of $121,000, Silver is now eligible for a pension of $87,120 — $7,620 more than the base pay he will collect as a mere Assembly member with no leadership title. As the calculator shows, Silver’s pension benefit has a net present value of $1.15 million, meaning a 70-year-old man in the private sector would need that much to purchase an annuity yielding the same annual income.
But Silver’s pensionable “service credits” may add to that amount. If he was enrolled as a full-time member of the New York City pension system when he began working as a Civil Court clerk in 1971, he could have Tier 2 Tier 1 status, boosting his benefit to as much as $98,010. TheTier 2 Tier 1 benefit would cost about $1.3 million to replicate as an annuity. (Further details on Silver’s employment status in Civil Court from 1971 to 1976 are not available from biographies posted online.)
Both of these figures assume Silver chooses the “single life option” and doesn’t owe the system money for loans against his pension.
Under current state law, Silver can continue to collect his pension even if he is convicted on the charges filed against him by federal prosecutors last week.

Comments

9 comments

Sheldon Silver and His Friend Judge Jonathan Lippman Have Destroyed The Rule of Law in New York State, and De Blasio Continues The Tradition

$
0
0
First Sheldon Silver, Now.....PLEASE let it be Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman who gets arrested.

Betsy Combier

Without a Prayer For Relief: The NY State Supreme Court is Bought By Guide One Insurance Company and a Church, Madison Avenue Presbyterian
RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them

Trish Lynch Loses Custody of Her 5-Year Old Daughter To Vincent "Vinny" Velella, Her Former Boyfriend, In Westchester County Family Court

Feds investigating Silver’s influence over civil court

Sheldon Silver
 
 NY POST, February 1, 2015

LINK
The country’s most important civil court is under federal investigation, an insider says.
The probe is focusing on the state Supreme Court’s civil division at 60 Centre St. in lower Manhattan, where many tentacles reach to disgraced Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the court source said.
Silver was arrested last month on corruption charges, and Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara warned the public to “stay tuned” for more developments.
The case against Silver centers on his freelance legal “work” and the millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks he hauled in from real-estate and asbestos claims, the feds say.
Many of these cases landed in the courtrooms at 60 Centre St., presided over by judges with ties to Silver and his lifelong pal, Jonathan Lippman, the chief judge of the state Court of Appeals.
Both men grew up on the Lower East Side, and Silver has been Lippman’s political godfather, pushing him to reach New York’s top judicial post.
“The appointment of Sheldon Silver’s childhood friend, Jonathan Lippman, as the state’s chief judge based on his administrative experience made about as much sense as the Yankees making their accountant the manager of the team,” said Charles Compton, former president of the Supreme Court Officers Association. He added that Lippman was appointed “to protect and promote Silver’s interests.”
At least three judges at 60 Centre St. are connected to Silver from the Lower East Side.


Judge Martin Shulman

Judge Martin Shulman is a former president of Silver’s synagogue, and the two are neighbors in a Grand Street co-op complex. In 1999, the judge was appointed an acting Supreme Court justice by Lippman, then the state’s chief administrative judge.
Shulman has been handling tax-reduction claims at the Centre Street courthouse for at least a dozen years and now presides over most of these cases. Many of these cases were filed by the Goldberg & Iryami law firm.


Judge Jonathan LippmanPhoto: AP

Silver stands accused of raking in $700,000 in secret kickbacks from Goldberg & Iryami. Firm principal Jay Arthur Goldberg had worked for Silver in the Assembly as his counsel.

The indictment accuses Silver of steering billionaire developerLeonard Litwin, pictured at left, the state’s largest political donor, to the firm, along with another unnamed developer. In exchange, Silver reaped referral fees.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20141103/POLITICS/141039941/cuomos-biggest-donor-is-also-the-oldest


Jay Arthur GoldbergPhoto: Gregory P. Mango

The Goldberg firm handled tax appeals for 15 buildings owned by Litwin’s organization, Glenwood Management, and its limited liability companies, prosecutors said.
Court records show that in one case that landed in Shulman’s court — involving a high-rise building on York Avenue — Glenwood won a $3.4 million reduction in the building’s assessment, which is used to determine its taxes.


Judge Sherry Klein Heitler

It was settled before trial, and Shulman signed off on the agreement in 2010.

David Bookstaver, a court system spokesman, denied there were conflicts of interest in Shulman’s court.

“The issue of conflict really doesn’t exist as most of these cases in the tax part settle and the ones that go to trial are jury trials. Furthermore, Judge Shulman has no knowledge whatsoever of any compensation to Mr. Silver,” Bookstaver said.

But the apparent ties do not end in Shulman’s courtroom.

Litwin owns a rental building, The Fairmont — the same high-rise where Lippman and his wife rented a one-bedroom apartment between 2007 and 2010, The Post found. And Lippman’s son, Russell, a Harvard-educated lawyer, rented an apartment there between 2003 and 2005, public records show.

Lippman, who earned $156,000 in 2010, moved into the rent-stabilized building in 2007 shortly after he was appointed presiding justice of the Appellate Division in Manhattan and was required to live in The Bronx or Manhattan. He had lived in Westchester.

Bookstaver said Lippman paid market-rate rent of $3,195 for the apartment. He said Lippman rented at the Fairmont because he needed to move quickly and knew of the building because his son had lived there.

He said Lippman did not know Litwin owned the property.

“He has no idea who this guy is,” Bookstaver told The Post.
Silver’s influence was also apparent in another part of the iconic civil courthouse on Foley Square, where the grand entrance has been used as a backdrop for movies including “The Godfather” and
“12 Angry Men” and countless episodes of “Law & Order.”

Weitz & Luxenberg, the law firm where Silver was “of counsel” until he was dumped last week, practically rules a special section of the court dealing with complex asbestos litigation.

Critics say the firm gets the “red-carpet treatment” including a fast track, “better judges” and first dibs on jurors to hear its cases.

Sherry Klein Heitler, the chief asbestos judge, as well as the top administrative judge at 60 Centre
St., has handled dozens of the firm’s cases in what is called New York City Asbestos Litigation or NYCAL.

Last year, at Weitz & Luxenberg’s request, Heitler reversed a 20-year rule barring punitive damages in asbestos cases, paving the way for much bigger jury awards.

Another judge, Joan Madden, consolidated unrelated asbestos cases, which resulted in huge increases in jury verdicts — from an average of $7 million to $24 million per plaintiff between 2010 and 2014, data collected by Bates White Economic Consulting show. In one consolidated case, Silver’s firm won a $190 million award.

Of 15 mesothelioma verdicts in the last four years, Silver’s firm won $273.5 million of $313.5 million awarded by NYCAL juries.

The average award for an NYCAL asbestos case — nearly $16 million per plaintiff between 2010 and 2014 — is reportedly two to three times larger than those in other courts nationwide.

The American Tort Reform Association last year called the asbestos court the nation’s top “judicial hellhole” where plaintiffs’ lawyers are “brazenly favored by the judges.” Silver has been blocking tort-reform bills for decades in Albany.

It’s unclear whether any individual judge is being targeted by the investigation. The US Attorney’s Office said it could neither confirm nor deny any probe. An FBI spokesman would not comment.

“We are not aware of any federal investigation,” Bookstaver said.

 De Blasio picks Silver pal to help with city’s 2016 DNC bid

NY POST
NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio


A week after he defended Sheldon Silver following the disgraced Assembly speaker’s arrest on corruption charges, Mayor Bill de Blasio on Thursday officially named a developer at the center of that scandal to help the city’s bid for the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
Big-time political donor Leonard Litwin was on Hizzoner’s 119-member list for the convention host committee, even though Litwin’s luxury apartment-rental company, Glenwood Management, is tied to Silver’s alleged dirty deals.
According to the feds, Silver steered two developers, including 100-year-old Litwin, toward the law firm Goldberg & Iryami, so Silver could rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in referral fees.
Litwin agreed to hire the two-person firm to curry favor with the influential Silver, Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara has charged.
“And that is not surprising, because Silver is a powerful political leader in the state who holds sway over so many laws and policies near and dear to the developers’ bottom lines,” the prosecutor said.
Glenwood hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing — but Litwin found out about the fee-sharing arrangement in January 2012, when the firm sent him a new retainer agreement, court papers say.
Litwin refused to sign the new agreement, although he later signed a “side letter” acknowledging the deal.
De Blasio’s decision to keep Litwin on his list could spell more trouble for the mayor’s bid to hold the convention in the city. It reportedly has already taken a hit among national Democrats because of the mayor’s ongoing feud with cops.
Last August, the Sergeants Benevolent Association took out full-page newspaper ads saying it could not “in good conscience” support his bid to bring the convention to the Barclays Center.
Litwin, who donated $4,950 to de Blasio’s mayoral campaign, was first named a member of de Blasio’s host committee last November.
He is known as one of the top political donors in New York state — and has skirted around caps on campaign contributions by funneling millions of dollars in donations through more than 20 limited-liability companies controlled by Glenwood.



 


 When asked about Litwin’s continued inclusion on the committee, City Hall officials would only say they were proud of all the people chosen.
In the press release, de Blasio also announced his 10 host committee co-chairs, including Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, Vogue editor Anna Wintour and tech giant Sean Parker, who recently gave $250,000 to the mayor’s nonprofit Campaign for One New York.
“As we head into the final weeks of the selection process, it’s more critical than ever that we show the DNC that New Yorkers are enthusiastic and united in our desire to bring the convention back to New York City,” the mayor said in the statement.
As of Thursday, de Blasio’s host committee had raised $20 million in pledges, with $6.5 million in cash on hand, according to the statement.


The Opinion Pages| Op-Ed Columnist

New York’s Real Scandal

LINK
 “The scandal isn’t what’s illegal,” goes one of Michael Kinsley’s best-known sayings. “The scandal is what’s legal.” I offer you l’affaire Sheldon Silver as a case in point.
Silver, who for two decades was the all-powerful speaker of the New York Assembly, was indicted last Thursday for a variety of alleged illegal actions. Chief among them was his failure to list outside income on his financial disclosure forms, and his steering $500,000 from a state slush fund he controlled to a doctor who specialized in mesothelioma — a rare, deadly cancer — in return for client referrals. Silver says he’ll be vindicated, but Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney who indicted him, has won the cooperation of a number of key participants, including said doctor, whose name is Robert Taub. We’ll return to him in a minute.
Despite the rather obvious potential for conflict of interest, it’s perfectly legal for a New York legislator to earn outside income. Few took fuller advantage of this than Silver, who for more than a decade was paid millions of dollars by two law firms. One of them was Weitz & Luxenberg, a big-time New York plaintiffs’ firm that specializes in bringing lawsuits on behalf of people with mesothelioma, which results primarily from exposure to asbestos.
Though Silver is a lawyer, he knew nothing about asbestos litigation — nor did he ever do any actual lawyering for the firm. So what did he do? The firm now says it brought him on — at a base salary of $120,000 a year — purely to lend it prestige. But in truth, Silver did much more than that. As speaker of the Assembly he could ensure that the legislature did nothing to clip the wings of the plaintiffs’ bar, like setting a cap on damages.

He could also solicit client referrals, for which he would receive a piece of the action. This is where Taub comes in. Many doctors who specialize in mesothelioma have a pretty explicit tit-for-tat: They refer patients to firms that help fund their research. A legal bribe, you might call it. Before Taub and Silver began doing business, the doctor asked for funding from Weitz & Luxenberg. The firm said no. So instead, Silver instructed the Department of Health to make two $250,000 grants to fund Taub’s research. (In a statement, Weitz & Luxenberg said it had no knowledge of Silver’s quid pro quo.)
When the grant money ran out, Taub began referring most of his patients to Simmons Hanly Conroy, a big asbestos firm in Illinois. But he still made the occasional referral to Weitz & Luxenberg to curry favor with Silver. In return, Silver got Taub’s son a job, and directed $25,000 in state funds to his wife’s charity. Perfectly legal.

There is one other thing Silver could do for Weitz & Luxenberg. He could help make sure that the New York judiciary would look favorably on asbestos cases. The chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, Jonathan Lippman, is a childhood friend of Silver’s. And, in 2008, Lippman placed Silver’s good friend Arthur Luxenberg — yes, the same Luxenberg who was paying Silver $120,000, plus referral fees — on a committee that recommends judicial appointments. Six months later, a judge named Sherry Klein Heitler was assigned to lead New York City’s dedicated asbestos court.
Defense lawyers say that since then, the asbestos court has become the plaintiffs’ bar’s best friend. Prior to Heitler’s appointment, the court had deferred punitive damages claims indefinitely for the sensible reason that since companies stopped making asbestos products decades earlier there was no behavior to correct. But after Weitz & Luxenberg requested that this deferral be lifted, Heitler brought punitive damages back. Mesothelioma cases that had very little in common were consolidated, which pressured defendant companies to settle and, when they didn’t, could lead to huge jury awards. According to a 2013 report by the American Tort Reform Association, the average jury award for an asbestos claim in New York City since 2007 is $21.7 million. That is “roughly seven times the $3.1 million average award in courts throughout the rest of New York State.”

And no firm has had more success than Weitz & Luxenberg. According to the economic consulting firm Bates White, it handles some 53 percent of the city’s mesothelioma filings. The court itself acknowledged Weitz & Luxenberg cases take precedence over others. It has also won the most money. In July 2013, it won $190 million for five plaintiffs, the most awarded in a New York City asbestos case.
 
Weitz & Luxenberg insists that the judiciary treats everyone fairly, and that it reaps the biggest awards because it does the best job. That may be so. But it couldn’t hurt that Silver also played an important role in setting judicial pay, and that in 2011 his commission appointee cast the deciding vote in getting the state judges a 27 percent raise.
Which, of course, is perfectly legal.

Eric Schneiderman, Andrew Cuomo, Carl Heastie, et al., Fight Campaign Finance Money, But Are Willing To Take It When it is Offered

$
0
0
Eric Schneiderman

Lovett: Eric Schneiderman benefits from campaign finance loophole that he opposes
Kenneth Lovett, NY Daily News
July 20, 2015
LINK
ALBANY — State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations over the past six months — through a loophole he has said should be closed.
Since January, Schneiderman has received a combined $267,850 from more than 40 different limited-liability companies, his latest campaign disclosure filings show.
The LLC money was a hefty 13% of the $2 million Schneiderman raised in the first half of 2015.
The attorney general, who has been mentioned as a possible gubernatorial candidate in 2018, has been highly critical in recent months of the failure of Gov. Cuomo and the Legislature to enact a comprehensive campaign finance reform package.
Schneiderman also in April wrote a letter to the state Board of Elections calling on the body to close what is known as the LLC loophole, which allows wealthy campaign donors to skirt contribution limits by creating an unlimited amount of subsidiaries that have substantially higher donation limits than regular businesses.
“The so-called ‘LLC Loophole’ has made a mockery of the campaign finance rules enforced by the Board of Elections,” he wrote.

Gov. Cuomo has also made use of the LLC loophole by receiving $1.4 million for his campaign.

Schneiderman is far from the only politician who has called for closing the loophole while benefiting from it. Cuomo is the biggest beneficiary, having received $1.4 million of the $5.2 million he raised in the past six months from LLCs.
“We always wish that our reform-minded officials lead by example by starting to not take money that they’re pushing to end,” said Citizens Union’s executive director, Dick Dadey.
Team Schneiderman said he is not about to put himself at a competitive disadvantage by turning down LLC donations as long as they’re legal.
“Nothing would make enemies of reform happier than for Eric Schneiderman to unilaterally disarm,” a spokesman said. “He has no intention of doing so, just as he has no intention of letting up in his fight for the dramatic change necessary.”
**********
State Controller Thomas DiNapoli has never been known as a fund-raising powerhouse, but the $264,372 he received the past six months was particularly paltry.
It was his lowest July filing since 2008, when he had taken over the scandal-scarred office just months earlier and did virtually no fund-raising.
DiNapoli, who actually was the leading vote-getter in last year’s state elections, has just $350,036 on hand. He’ll need a lot more than that if he really wants to run for governor in 2018, a possibility some have raised.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie is headed north to meet with Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, a foe of Cuomo.
Carl Heastie
Mike Groll/AP

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie is headed north to meet with Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner, a foe of Cuomo.

**********
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) will kick off his maiden upstate tour Tuesday by meeting with one of Cuomo’s harshest Democratic critics — Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner.
“She’s the mayor of a major city and it’s a good chance to learn about the needs of the city,” said Heastie spokesman Michael Whyland.
Miner, who was Cuomo’s hand-picked party co-chairwoman, had a falling-out with the governor after she repeatedly publicly criticized one of his policies.
**********
Jennifer Rainville, a one-time city TV reporter who once made headlines as the mistress of disgraced news anchor Rob Morrison, is out as communications director for the Senate Independent Democratic Conference.
Rainville, who was on the public payroll since April 2014 and was making more than $150,000 a year, fell out of favor with conference leader Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx), sources said.
In a statement, spokeswoman Candice Giove said the conference “decided to go in a different direction with their press operation.”
Rainville took the high road, calling Klein “a good man, one of the last true public servants who cares deeply about his constituents.”
Viewing all 171 articles
Browse latest View live