WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Mayor’s Shocking Confession Exposes Police Commissioner & DA

Mayor’s Shocking Confession Exposes Police Commissioner & DA

Mayor Clinton Young: “I Think Chong Is Doing Janet DiFiore’s Dirty Work” NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, proximately resulting from conduct jointly engaged in by Clinton Young with the Defendants named in Zherka v. Robinson, 08 Civ. 9647 (SCR)(hereinafter “Zherka I”) while acting in concert and under color of the laws of the State of New York, for violations of Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C §1983. A copy of the complaint in Zherka I is annexed and incorporated herein. JURISDICTION 2. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343. THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff SELIM ZHERKA is a male Caucasian citizen of the United States, a domiciliary of the State of New York, and a resident of the Northern Counties. He is the owner of The Westchester Guardian (hereinafter “Guardian”), a free weekly newspaper having a substantial circulation within the County of Westchester. Since August 2006 the Guardian has published a number of articles critical of incumbent Westchester County District Attorney Janet DiFiore (hereinafter “DiFiore”). In that connection and on Tuesday October 28, 2008, the Guardian sported a picture of DiFiore on its front page with the headline: “A Stubborn, Stupid, And Dishonest DA – A ‘Toxic Cocktail” For Justice” (boldface and capitalizations in original). The article regarding DiFiore is annexed to and incorporated in this complaint. 4. Defendant CLINTON YOUNG (hereinafter “Young”), who is sued in his individual and personal capacities only, at all times relevant to this complaint was the duly elected Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon, New York (hereinafter the “City”). THE FACTS 5. On October 31, 2008, Plaintiff entered Mount Vernon City Hall at approximately 11:04 a.m. for the purpose of attending a public auction for the sale of public properties, which auction was to be conducted in a room of public assembly. Prior to October 31, 2008, he was registered with the City to attend the auction - - which was scheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m. - - for the purpose of bidding on certain of the properties to be offered for sale. 6. Knowing that Plaintiff had registered for and intended to participate in the auction, Defendant’s so-called Chief of Staff (Yolanda Robinson, a friend of DiFiore): a. Arranged through Mount Vernon Police Commissioner (David Chong, a friend of DiFiore) to have a female, African-American Police Officer (Morris) in uniform, posted in City Hall at the second floor entrance to the room where the auction was to occur, and, b. Defendant, Robinson, Chong and Morris agreed to set up a confrontation with Plaintiff by having Morris arbitrarily bar Plaintiff from entering the room where the sparsely attended auction was being conducted on inter alia the following grounds: i) the color of his skin; ii) his gender; iii) his ownership of The Guardian; and iv) his responsibility for publication of the annexed article and the other articles referencedsupra critical of DiFiore. 7. As planned by Young, Robinson, Chong and Morris: a. When Plaintiff attempted to enter the door to access the public auction, Morris without any lawful authority forbade him from doing so on the calculatedly false premise - - supposedly dictated by the City’s Comptroller and/or Deputy Comptroller - - that no one was allowed to enter the auction room after 11:00 a.m. Despite that supposed dictate, and seconds before Plaintiff sought entry, an African-American male with dreadlocks - - who was not even registered to participate in the auction - - was permitted to enter the room by Morris after 11:00 a.m. - - an event witnessed by real estate broker Sam Rivers. In fact neither the Comptroller nor the Deputy Comptroller had issued the directive falsely attributed to them by Morris. b. In that connection Morris was intentionally surly, rude, and offensive to Plaintiff for the Defendants’ agreed-upon objective of provoking a confrontation with respect to which Robinson would then insinuate herself, falsely characterize the incident as racial and sexist in nature, disrupt City Hall business operations, and by pre-arrangement with Young, Chong and Morris have Plaintiff arrested and incarcerated. 8. Once Morris had precipitated the staged confrontation with Plaintiff - - who non-disruptively and correctly advised her that he had a right to participate in the auction - - he removed a mini-recording device from his clothing and recorded the incident. 9. As a proximate result of the commotion caused by Robinson, Assistant to the Mayor John Boykin (hereinafter “Boykin”) an African American male, exited the room where the auction was being conducted and attempted to calm Robinson down. Robinson initially responded by advising Boykin: “Mind your business!” 10. Undeterred, Boykin continued his effort to calm Robinson down. She in turn began screaming racial and sexist accusations at Boykin: “What kind of a Black man are you to let a White man [Zherka] talk that way to a Black woman [Morris]?” 11. When Boykin persisted in his attempt to defuse the situation, Robinson immediately cautioned him: “If you don’t shut up, you’re going in [to jail] with him [Plaintiff]”. 12. Continuing her racist and gender-predicated rantings, Robinson loudly proclaimed to Robert DeBenedictis (hereinafter “DeBenedictis”) - - a prominent business man and friend of Mayor Young, that Zherka “spoke to us [Morris and Robinson] like that cause he[’s] a man and we are Black women”. 13. Appreciating that Robinson was out of control Plaintiff descended the stairs to the first floor of City Hall while Robinson continued screaming, in reference to him: “This white mother fucker [Plaintiff] fucked with the wrong one [Morris]”). Plaintiff without further incident exited the building while Robinson and Morris trailed behind him but remained in the lobby. 14. Having engineered a totally pretextual racial and sexist incident, as pre-arranged Robinson instructed Morris to call a “10-13”, to summon the assistance of other police officers as if she (Morris) were at risk of injury from Plaintiff. Morris complied and within seconds a large number of police officers rushed into City Hall - - passing Plaintiff - - to “assist” Morris. 15. Apparently in response to the “10-13” Chong entered City Hall, briefly spoke with Morris and Robinson, and then intercepted Plaintiff on the steps to City Hall. There Chong advised Plaintiff that he would have to walk across the street and enter the Police Department in order to receive a desk appearance ticket (hereinafter “DAT”) accusing him of “Disorderly Conduct” with respect to the incident staged by Morris and Robinson. 16. In that connection Chong intentionally and falsely advised Plaintiff that he would be permitted to leave the Police Department within a matter of minutes after receiving the DAT. When Plaintiff invited Chong to listen to the tape recording of the incident involving Robinson, Morris, and amongst others himself to learn what actually had occurred, Chong refused. 17. In fact, as pre-arranged by Young, Chong, Robinson, and Morris, Plaintiff: a. Was not given a DAT, b. Was handcuffed and arrested by members of Chong’s Department, c. Was jailed by those same members for in excess of six hours where he (unlike any of the other prisoners in holding cells) was chained to a bench and not afforded access to a toilet and, d. In an unprecedented legal maneuver a City Court Judge [Gross]was summoned by Chong to arraign Plaintiff in City Court on two violations - - that wrongfully attributed to Plaintiff, on the basis of the intentionally false report rendered by Morris [Penal Law §240.50(3)(Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree); Penal Law §195.00(1)(Official Misconduct)], the disruptive, obscenity-laced diatribe [Penal Law §240.20(1, 2, 3, 4)(Disorderly Conduct); Penal Law §240.25 (Harassment in the First Degree); Penal Law §485.05(1)(“Hate Crimes”); Penal Law §240.26(3)(Harassment in the Second Degree)] that in fact Robinson had publicly staged. 18. While Plaintiff remained locked in the City jail, Chong falsely advised DeBenedictis that the extended duration of that incarceration was not the City’s fault, but rather was attributable to New York State’s failure to timely generate a criminal history or “NYSPIN” report regarding Plaintiff following the City’s submission to the State of Plaintiff’s fingerprint data. In fact Plaintiff was not fingerprinted, no fingerprint data was sent to the State by the City, no NYSPIN report could have been generated under the circumstances, and as a matter of law persons charged in New York State with mere violations are not fingerprinted. 19. Also while Plaintiff remained incarcerated a real estate broker, Peter Bruni (hereinafter “Bruni”), was in Police Headquarters and overheard a conversation between two, African-American, male Police Officers: i) one officer referenced Plaintiff and advised the second officer in words or substance that Yolanda Robinson “did not know who that guy [Zherka] is”, in response to which; ii) the second officer exclaimed in words or substance that Robinson “knows exactly who he is and that’s why she did this”. With the benefit of a photo array, Bruni will identify both officers. 20. With respect to Plaintiff’s arrest and incarceration there was neither probable cause nor arguable probable cause since the “factual” basis for that arrest was a complete and deliberate fabrication by Morris as planned by Young, Robinson and Chong. In that connection Plaintiff at all times was fully aware of his imprisonment, did not consent to same, and it was not otherwise authorized and/or privileged. 21. Subsequent to Plaintiff’s release from jail he and Mayor Young engaged in a number of conversations about Robinson, Morris, and amongst others Chong’s conduct on October 31, 2008, during  which Young made inter alia the following recorded admissions against interest: i) “I won’t even embarrass myself with trying to defend this bull shit”, ii) “Chong is a fucken’ liar”, iii) “I was told [by a member of my staff] it was bad, really bad. . .I just can’t defend this bull shit. . .it was fucked up, real fucked up, there was no need for what happened. There was no need for what happened. It was fucked up, Sammy. I’m not gonna sit here and bullshit you. It was fucked up”, iv) “[City Court Judge] Mark Gross said Chong lied. He was not on a four hour lunch break [an assertion by Chong as to why Plaintiff was kept in jail as long as he was]”, v) “Gross said you never should have been put in handcuffs and kept for hours on a DAT”, vi) “I think Chong is doing Janet [DiFiore’s] dirty work”, vii) “Robinson took it to a level with her mouth that it should not have gone to”, viii) “Even if It’s Sam Zherka or John Q. Public you just can’t do shit like that”, ix) “Sammy let’s go to Memorial Field, let me show you what I’m talking about. . .I can’t jeopardize Memorial Field, Sammy”, x) “Fuckin’ Chong lied to me, Sammy”, xi) “Chong blamed Gross”, xii) “You know Chong is trying to get the fuck out of Mt. Vernon. . . Chong is trying to score points with Janet [DiFiore]” xiii) “I believe Chong is trying to get brownie points with DiFiore” xiv) “In this case I think she’s [Robinson] trying to score points with Janet [DiFiore]”, xv) “She [Robinson] turned a perfectly regular conversation into a racial incident” xvi) “What ever you and Lovett decide to do, do what you have to”, xvii) “Something in Yolanda’s head should have told her to shut the fuck up”, xviii) Chong “has been trying to get the fuck out of Mt. Vernon, looking to go to Florida and anywhere, even Port Chester. . .I want to get Chong the fuck out of Mt. Vernon”, xix) “I’m sorry you got railroaded. It was fucked up”, xx) “The motive was to take down someone big and powerful”, xxi) “I don’t think it started out as a conspiracy, but being it was you, it became one”, xxii) “Yolanda is blaming Chong. She said she never asked to have you arrested”, xxiii) “Chong said it’s not me [Chong], it’s [Judge] Gross”, xxiv) “Judge Gross said everything that happened was wrong, it was dead wrong. Judge Gross said he was in shock”, xxv) “The Judge had nothing to do with it. . .Gross said he doesn’t understand why you were kept in jail for six hours”, xxvi) “Gross said someone is fucking with you [Plaintiff]”, xxvii) “I can’t fire them [Chong, Robinson]. I just can’t do it. It won’t look good because I’d be firing them because of Sam Zherka, and that won’t look good”, xxviii) “Look, I was promised $10,000,000 from the County for Memorial Field, Sammy”, xxix) “Anyone else, any Joe Citizen, but not Sam Zherka. It won’t look right and it won’t be good, not good, for Mount Vernon”, xxx) “Yeah, I think the bitch [Janet DiFiore] was involved. . .she had to be involved”, xxxi) “I told you there is no fucken way we can defend this, no way, whatever you want”, 22. In fact despite Young’s admissions against interest he deliberately took no remedial and/or disciplinary action with respect to Robinson, Morris, and/or Chong - - a circumstance communicated by Young to each of them. By his willful inaction Young intended to and in fact affirmatively endorsed, ratified, condoned, and approved those codefendants’ actions as set forth supra. 23. As a proximate result of Defendant’s conduct Plaintiff was forced to suffer: retaliation for his exercise of his right to free speech and freedom of the press; false arrest/imprisonment premised upon reverse race discrimination and First Amendment retaliation; false arrest/imprisonment by reason of his gender; a violation of his right to Equal Protection; damages by reason of Defendants’ execution of their conspiratorial plan to deny him Equal Protection; a denial of his right to substantive due process; pecuniary losses by reason of his exclusion from the public auction; public humiliation; public embarrassment; anxiety; emotional upset; shame; public disgrace; and he has otherwise been rendered sick and sore. AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM 24. Repeats and realleges as if fully set forth the allegations of fact contained in paragraphs “1” to “23”, inclusive. 25. Under the premises Defendant’s conduct and/or retaliatory conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983. AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM 26. Repeats and realleges as if fully set forth the allegations of fact contained in paragraphs “1” to “23”, inclusive. 27. Under the premises Defendant’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983. AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM 28. Repeats and realleges as if fully set forth the allegations of fact contained in paragraphs “1” to “23”, inclusive. 29. Under the premises Defendant’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM 30. Repeats and realleges as if fully set forth the allegations of fact contained in paragraphs “1” to “23”, inclusive. 31. Under the premises Defendant’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). AS AND FOR A FIFTH, ALTERNATIVE CLAIM 32. Repeats and realleges as if fully set forth the allegations of fact contained in paragraphs “1” to “23”, inclusive. 33. Under the premises Defendants’ outrageous and shocking conduct violated Plaintiff’s right to substantive due process as guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983. WHEREFORE a judgment and order should be granted: a. Awarding against the Defendants punitive damages in a sum no less than $10,000,000. b. Awarding against Defendant compensatory damages in a sum no less than $10,000,000, c. Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and, d. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper. Dated: White Plains, N.Y. February 5, 2009 ____________________ Jonathan Lovett (4854) Attorney for Plaintiff 222 Bloomingdale Road White Plains, N.Y. 10605 Analysis: DA Janet DiFiore’s First Amendment retaliatory abuse of her Office was vindictive and obvious. She apparently will stop at nothing in her misguided abuse of process against publisher Sam Zherka in retalitation for The Guardian’s exercise of Freedom Of The Press. This is the same District Attorney who continues to prosecute the innocent victims of Yonkers Police brutality while covering up the rogue cops involved; the same DA who demands the firing of veteran, dedicated cops who question her judgment; and, the same DA who prosecutes innocent police officers without a shred of evidence. The Mount Vernon incident clearly illustrates the contaminating influence a misguided district attorney, the likes of Janet DiFiore, will have on the conduct of other public officials, particularly police, who are only too well aware of the damage she can do to them, and their careers, should they refuse to “kiss her ring”. Notoriously dishonest, her stubbornness and stupidity render her a menace to public safety.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: When Will They Level With Us?

When Will They Level With Us?

One Year Later, Serious Doubts Remain Regarding DA DiFiore’s Handling Of Ridley Killing Failure To Release Videotapes And Turn Over Clothing And Personal Effects To Family Point To Coverup Sunday, January 25, 2009 brought a bitter cold afternoon in White Plains; so cold that holding a camera was very uncomfortable, even with gloves on. Equally painful, and uncomfortable to experience, were the faces viewed through the lens, Janet DiFiore, Andy Spano, David Chong, Clinton Young, Ken Jenkins, clearly there attempting to appear to be showing profound respect for the memory of Mount Vernon Police Detective Christopher Ridley, and concern for his family and loved ones. Once again, as is so often the case with Westchester County Government, it was a matter of image v reality. It had been precisely one year to the day since Christopher, a 23-year-old Mount Vernon police officer, with two years on the job, was killed by four Westchester County police officers while he was in the act of trying to apprehend and arrest one Anthony Jacobs, a psychiatrically disturbed individual in his 30s who Ridley, off-duty and visiting White Plains, had seen brutally assaulting a middle-aged man on the street, breaking both of his wrists for not giving him a cigarette on demand. The attempt to single-handedly bring Jacobs under control, despite having moments earlier reached out for help from County police officers within the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue, would prove fatal as those officers, together with two who came out of 85 Court Street, would shoot him to death. The precise manner by which that killing occurred remained unresolved in the minds of those gathered Sunday to pay their respects. Officer Ridley’s mother would briefly approach the podium in tears. His dad, Stanley Ridley, spoke of having given his son to the community and of how very much he was missed before he, too, broke into tears before the crowd of more than 150 friends and relatives who had come, not only to pay their respects, but to show their unwavering support for the saddened and still griefstricken family. The event was, essentially, built around the unveiling of a plaque in what would henceforth be known as “Christopher Ridley Plaza”, the area in front of, and immediately adjacent to, 85 Court Street, site of the tragic incident that claimed the young police officer’s life. Stanley Ridley, his father, could not hold back his tears, and paused to compose himself three times as he told those gathered, “This has been a very hard year. To even think about not being with him is hard, let alone thinking I won’t be able to see him get married or see grandchildren. He was my only son, and it’s been hard.” The event was complete with a color guard and statements by Reverend W. Franklyn Richardson, pastor of Mount Vernon’s Grace Baptist Church, Stanley Ridley’s employer, as well as County Executive Andy Spano. Richardson’s remarks seemed somehow very restrained in light of his prior anguish over the secrecy that surrounds the case. There was a candlelight ceremony and prayer offering. Everything had been orchestrated and choreographed by Larry Schwartz, who was careful to check things over, and then disappear before too many media arrived. Therein lay the rub. From the moment of Christopher Ridley’s tragic death, Larry Schwartz and Janet DiFiore have been working overtime to conceal the truth and to put a spin on the official account designed to limit the County’s liability and responsibility, even to the point of making the actions of a young heroic cop come off looking reckless and unprofessional. As usual, they will stop at nothing to cover their backsides, even resorting to the suborning of perjury. Those in the crowd with whom we spoke were not particularly convinced by the DA’s version of the shooting death. Furthermore, DiFiore’s absolute refusal to turn over Christopher’s clothing and personal effects, including his wallet, to his family, has irritated his parents and caused many to openly question her version of events. Many are put out with DA DiFiore’s refusal to release the videotapes. Some have pointed to the release of the cell phone video of the January 28, 2006 shooting of off duty New York City Police Officer Eric Hernandez, at a White Castle restaurant in The Bronx, by a fellow police officer who mistook him for an assailant when he refused to drop his gun, and shot him, inflicting severe leg injuries that ultimately took his life 11 days later. They point to the fact that Bronx DA Robert Johnson, and the New York City Police Department, released the tape of that tragic shooting slightly less than two years to the day prior to Officer Ridley’s death, leaving absolutely no doubt as to what had actually occurred, and serving to corroborate DA Johnson’s, and the grand jury’s, findings. DiFiore’s refusal to release the video surveillance tapes, taken by as many as six cameras, bought, installed, and maintained with County taxpayers’ funds, is seen as just one more indicator that her account of events, the report released by her grand jury, who listened to witnesses whose accounts were closely controlled by her office would not, in fact, be borne out. Given their unbearable suffering and loss, the parents and loved ones of Detective Christopher Ridley are entitled to know the truth about the tragic events that took him from them forever. The People of Westchester who rely upon a District Attorney and a County Executive to carry out their sworn duties to protect and inform them, are likewise entitled to know the truth.