WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Kerik’s Fall To Earth Sentenced By ‘Vintage’ Robinson

Kerik’s Fall To Earth Sentenced By ‘Vintage’ Robinson

Judge Sentences Kerik To Substantially More Than Upper Level Of Federal Guidelines Grants Him Three Months Before Surrendering To Prison United States District Court, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains Judge Stephen C. Robinson, Presiding Last Thursday morning, February 18th, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik appeared for sentencing before United States District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson following his plea of guilty to eight separate felony charges. Although not binding on Robinson, Kerik’s attorney, Michael Bachner, had come to an agreement several months ago with federal prosecutors Michael Bosworth, Perry Carbone and Elliot Jacobson, that his guilty plea would subject him to a sentence of between 27 to 33 months should the sentencing judge elect to follow the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Robinson opened the session at 10:11am with the statement, “We are here to sentence Mr. Kerik on his guilty pleading to eight felonies.” Addressing Kerik’s attorney, the Judge then said, “Let me first turn to you, Mr. Bachner; have you had a chance to go over the pre-sentence report?” Bachner replied, “We have,” and then indicated that any prior issues with the report were “deemed to be resolved.” Robinson then turned to Bosworth, Carbone and Jacobson, who indicated they, too, were satisfied with the report. The Judge then reviewed all of the five documents that he had read, (1) the pre-sentence probation report, (2) the sentencing memorandum from Defense Attorney Bachner, (3) the sentencing memorandum from the Government, (4) letters and statements from Kerik supporters, and (5) Kerik’s plea allocution. Robinson then said, “Let’s move forward,” signalling Attorney Bachner’s opening remarks. Bachner declared, “Bernard Bailey Kerik is before you with the deepest humility and remorse, Your Honor. He knows by his conduct that he’s let people down.” Bachner emphasized the need for the Court to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the Court’s goals.” Bachner took the opportunity to remind Robinson that his client’s plea understanding with the Government involved a sentence that would be between 27 and 33 months. He then went into an account of how Kerik, as a detective with the NYPD, had saved the life of a fellow detective, Hector Santiago, at the scene of a “drug buy gone bad.” Bachner referenced “a Talmudic” that “One who saves a life, saves the World.” He then declared, “Your Honor, Bernard Kerik has rescued the world many times over.” Robinson then broke in with, “I’m going to interrupt your statement. At the same time we have a good cop, the good commissioner, we have the man who was violating the law. Not a bad day, or bad week, or bad year, but all the time.” The Judge repeats, “At the time he is doing good things, he is also violating the law.” The Judge went on, “He had things on his website that trouble me no end; making it appear he was innocent, and prosecutors were not acting in good faith. We had Mr. Kerik violating orders of this Court, willing to violate the law and obstructing the investigation.” Bachner broke in with, “Mr. Kerik is a complicated person. He would acknowledge he was inconsistent and wrong. When you’re so high on the pedestal, your fall is very painful.” Robinson came back with, “At one point I told Mr. Kerik, ‘as you rise through the ranks of public service, you now receive but’...” The Judge was making the point that high office was not necessarily accompanied by high financial reward. He declared, “My law clerks will leave next year and make more money than I do. I can’t afford to send my daughter to the college she goes to.” He then asked rhetorically, “What is the message that is sent by this sentence today?” Bachner, as if to calm Robinson down, countered with a remark about general deterrence, and then added, “Twenty-seven months is no slap on the wrist.” But Robinson was not to be stifled. He came right back with, “I am very seriously thinking about going above the Guidelines.” Bachner then reminded him of the “27 to 33 month agreement.” Again, the Judge came right back, “That doesn’t bind me.” Bachner, going for broke, then said, “Heroism and public service must be taken into account.” Then shifting gears a bit, he declared, “Mr. Kerik is an extraordinary good person in so many ways. We have an obligation to remember the good someone has done. The good outweighs the bad he has done.” Then, assuming a sentence closer to 27 months for his 54-year-old client, Bachner said, “At age 56 there will be many people who admire him, but many more who don’t. He is remorseful and begs the Court to allow him to resume his life. His supporters are heartbroken by his conduct.” Now, Robinson began to reveal his own fears, declaring, “People will look at what happens here and it will either resonate with them or it won’t.” Bachner, who earlier spoke of the sentencing, some years earlier, of a former Connecticut governor, John Roland, now made the mistake of invoking that case again. This time Judge Robinson informed him, offering, “I was the United States Attorney who started that investigation.” (Connecticut Governor John Roland had received some $250,000-worth of renovation to his summer home from a developer doing business with the state.) All told, Kerik’s attorney argued in his client’s behalf for some 40 minutes. The Judge now offered Bernard Kerik the opportunity to speak in his own behalf. Kerik rose to his feet and told the Court, “I make no excuses, and take full responsibility for the mistakes I’ve made. I ask only that you allow me to return to my wife and our two little girls as soon as possible.” Assistant United States Attorney Bosworth now had his say, declaring, “However committed he was to enforcing the law when it came to others, he violated the law when it suited his purposes though.” He then remarked, “The Defendant alone is the architect of his public fall from grace. He committed crime after crime in service of himself over a period of a decade.” And, now Judge Robinson chimed in with, “There are multiple felonies that Mr. Kerik has pled guilty to that do not influence the Guidelines.” It was now 11:30am, an hour and twenty minutes into the sentencing, and Robinson was seriously agonizing, “As I’ve already mentioned, for me, Mr. Kerik is a complicated character. The Guidelines don’t take into account the almost operatic properties of this case. We don’t just have anyone here; we have the Police Commissioner of New York City continuing to commit crimes. I have been particularly troubled by the way Mr. Kerik, and people on his behalf, continue to behave.” Robinson continued, asking, “What is the appropriate consequence for his misconduct?” Drawing closer to a pronouncement of sentence, but still agonizing, Robinson now opined, “That Mr. Kerik would use the 9/11 event for self-aggrandisement is a dark place in the soul for me.” He then went on to sentence Kerik to 48 months; 15 months more than the high end of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, plus three years of probation. He was, however, persuaded, after much discussion, to allow Kerik to turn himself in to the designated federal prison on May 17, rather than remanding him immediately to jail. Analysis: Th e two-hour-long sentencing of Bernard Kerik was ‘vintage’ Judge Robinson, complete with much agonizing and thoughtful consideration to all aspects and individuals sure to be impacted by his decision. In imposing a 48-month incarceration, 15 months longer than suggested by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Robinson was not ignoring those Guidelines, but, rather, rejecting them because of his appropriate concerns for the message he would convey both to the Defendant and to the world of observers. However, having so lengthened Mr. Kerik’s term of incarceration, the good Judge remained reasonable and fair, allowing him to surrender to prison authorities in 90 days despite the Government’s arguments to immediately remand him.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: ‘The Last Supper’ Was It The Pivotal MomentI n A Criminal Conspiracy?

‘The Last Supper’ Was It The Pivotal MomentI n A Criminal Conspiracy?

‘The Last Supper’ Five Practiced Conspirators And Sandy Annabi Meet Hours Before Her Vote Reversal Does anyone seriously believe that any significant amount of money exchanged hands to lubricate the passage of approvals by Yonkers City Council for either the Ridge Hill development or Longfellow Senior Housing, and Phil Amicone and Nick Spano received nothing for their efforts? Of course not. Nick and Phil, between them, controlled the Republican patronage machine in Yonkers; and, as between them, Nick was clearly el Capo. On the Democratic side of the aisle, it is well known that City Chair, now Chairman of the County Legislature, Ken Jenkins, had lined up agency of the rentals in Ridge Hill for his ERA Gem Real Estate Brokerage. Let no one suggest that corruption isn’t an equal opportunity enterprise in Yonkers, with Republicans and Democrats cooperating to each grab a share. And, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Mike Spano is licensed to Ken Jenkins’ office. We are informed by an exceptionally reliable and knowledgeable source, from first-hand observation, that a certain Italian restaurant in New Rochelle was the scene of a supper meeting attended by Al Pirro, Nick Spano, Mike Spano, as well as Anthony Mangone, Zehy Jereis and Sandy Annabi on the evening before the Yonkers City Council meeting at which Annabi changed her position and voted to enable the Ridge Hill Development Project to go forward; in a sense, a Last Supper. Does such a meeting, in and of itself, prove any wrongdoing, any bribery or extortion was occurring? No, of course not. It’s possible, just possible, that all of those Yonkers players were out to celebrate because Sandy had changed her position and advised all of them that she would be voting in favor of Ridge Hill after all, because the builder, Bruce Ratner, had agreed to contribute $10 million to the Yonkers School System. Pasta and a hot antipasto, even with a little Chianti to wash it all down, does not a conspiracy make. Neither does the payment of a seriously attractive, somewhat seductive, young woman’s utility bills, mortgage payments, or car lease, by members of the opposite sex, no matter how shady their prior histories. We do not take breaches of public trust lightly, by any means, and we are only too well aware of the atmosphere of corruption engendered by a District Attorney who occupied the Office for 12 years while married to the most outrageous white-collar criminal in the County. One United States Attorney, who should have known better, MaryJo White, in fact, perpetuated the corrupt environment when she failed to include Jeanine Pirro in the original 67-count indictment that named Al, despite the fact that the case involved a 10-year-long tax fraud, 1988-1997, in which nine of those 10 years Jeanine jointly signed the tax returns. Despite having been convicted in White Plains Federal District Court on June 20, 2000, and sentenced to 29 months in federal prison, Al was out by clever canard, in only 11. Additionally, although convicted of all 38 remaining counts of a 67- count indictment, after Judge Barrington Parker redacted the 29 most egregious counts involving the rip-off of Peekskill’s Hudson Valley Hospital, together with Robert Boyle, another of George Pataki’s crooked buddies, the Appellate Division, Second Department, never disbarred Al. Instead, they waited three years to act and then merely suspended his license for three years, beginning May 12, 2003. No matter, Mr. Fixit, Al Pirro, went right on practicing law, making appearances before town boards and city planning commissions such as White Plains, and wherever he would normally appear, in direct disobedience to the specific conditions of his ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ suspension. No one can say the federal courts or state courts treated Al Pirro ‘badly’. Not only did they spare him; they also enabled him; and, now he pops up right in the middle of the Yonkers real estate development scandal. What a surprise! After all, way back in 2003, before leaving office, then-Mayor John Spencer had retained Al Pirro as Yonkers’ official lobbyist, specifically tasked with the assignment of bringing qualified real estate developers to the City to help the administration that would soon be headed by his deputy, Phil Amicone, fulfill their master plan of development. Even in a culture of corruption such as Westchester, somehow Yonkers remains a standout for sheer chutzpah. If every allegation in all 13 counts of Sandy Annabi’s federal indictment were essentially accurate, and, in fact, she benefitted to the tune of $166,000, still she would be a minor player by comparison with the likes of Al Pirro, Nick Spano, and the others at that table in New Rochelle. More likely, most of, if  not all of, that cash ended up in Anthony Mangone’s, and Zehy Jereis’, accounts, well-trained soldiers in the Nick Spano mob. As for the developers, they understand from years of doing business, that in Westchester, and particularly in Yonkers, for many decades, you don’t get the job and you don’t get through the City’s zoning, planning, and environmental approvals in a timely fashion unless you grease several palms. They simply know and accept the network of corruption as the price of doing business. We understand the difference between those developers who can legitimately be said to have been victims of extortion, and those who routinely distribute envelopes filled with cash as a vital protocol. In either case, a serious crime has been committed when a government official has been paid off and the public trust has been breached. We are reminded of the County Courthouse at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in White Plains, where, after only 20 years, the siding was falling off the building that had been constructed by a builder brought to the project by Al Pirro. The consequences of kickbacks are often inferior materials and/or workmanship. Given the $600-$800 million price tag on Ridge Hill alone, the notion that a clique composed of the Spano brothers (Nick and Mike), Al Pirro, Anthony Mangone and Zehy Jereis, would content themselves with a few hundred thousand dollars in ‘consulting fees’ is ludicrous. If Sandy Annabi did, in fact, accept some personal enrichment to alter her vote with respect either to the Longfellow, or the Ridge Hill projects – and that will take some serious proving – she was clearly a tool in the hands of the five political operatives and felons seated at that table with her in New Rochelle less than 24 hours before she cast her vote. Interestingly, both Nick and Mikey Spano have now been very quick to disown and deny any association with, or knowledge of, Jereis’ or Mangone’s activities with regard to either project. However, my source is holding steadfast to the account of who they saw, where, and when. Even 1/10th of one percent of a $600 million project would involve $600,000. The United States Attorney is talking about $166,000. Finally, Mike Edelman has been unusually talkative and ‘blogative’, even for him, since the unsealing of the Annabi Indictment. It would seem he “protesteth a bit too much”, particularly with respect to Al Pirro and the Spano brothers, not to mention Phil Amicone, also very quick to disassociate himself with strong words of denouncement. n

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Andy Shows His True Self In Defeat: Arrogant And Vindictive

Andy Shows His True Self In Defeat: Arrogant And Vindictive

Republican County Legislator George Oros Declares Spano’s Last-Minute Contracts “A Kick In The Teeth To County Taxpayers” Last Monday afternoon, retiring Republican County Legislator, Minority Leader George Oros, held a press conference at his law office in White Plains to blast outgoing County Executive Andy Spano for what Oros called “A 2010 Budget filled with land mines and rewards for Spano’s campaign contributors, especially law firms.” He told reporters, “Republicans are calling for a moratorium.” Oros commented paranthetically, “I’d love to see the budget that would be there if Spano had won.” He went on, “We must bring State, County and Municipal people together. We can achieve real economies of scale. People just can’t take it anymore.” Oros stressed that, for years, he had called for “reform of the Board of Acquisition and Contract,” but that, on November 24, “the A&C Agenda included a handful of multimillion dollar, multi-year contracts.” The so-called “11th Hour Contracts” include: • $2.7 million to various law firms, all of which have been big contributors to Spano’s campaigns to perform of counsel legal services; • $12 million for Westhab to operate homeless shelters; • $4 million for security systems integration at the County Jail; • $900,000 for a fence at Rye Playland. The Board of Acquisition and Contract consists of three members, the County Executive, and his appointed Commissioner of Public Works, as well as the elected Chairman of the Board of Legislators. In effect, the County Executive, through his appointee, retains the power to pass any contract or long-term lease by his control of two out of three votes. Oros told reporters, “The Spano Administration wants to tie Mr. Astorino’s hands and make it much harder to achieve the goals the overwhelming majority of voters chose him to accomplish.” He went further, stating, “This is not the way a county executive who has served 12 years should go out the door.” Oros went on, “Voters spoke loud and clear in the last election that they were tired of business-as-usual in Westchester County government. It’s time for Mr. Spano to step aside and let a breath of fresh air come in.” Asked if he was, in fact, still pushing for A&C reforms, Oros said he would “like to see the County Budget submitted before Election Day, as well as the use of zero-based budgeting.” Under zero-based budgeting, every proposed expense, every purchase, every position in County Government, is re-evaluated in terms of developments since the prior budget to determine whether the position, the purchase, etc., is still justified and necessary going forward or, if, for whatever reason, that expense may need to be increased or possibly cut back, or eliminated altogether. Under such budgeting practices, the tendency to fund unneeded positions and expenses is greatly reduced, and duplication of services and acquisition of unnecessary materials and leased space are more easily identified and eliminated. Oros went on to say, “Spano is frustrating the will and the sentiment of the taxpayers with $30-40 million of 11th hour expenses. We should put those items on hold and give the new administration a change. He owes it to the voters, but he really doesn’t care what they think.” As if to confirm George Oros’ assertions, on Wednesday, just 24 hours after the press conference, the Guardian received a “Letter to the Editor” from a County Government employee (see page four, “Spanocrat Going to County Board of Elections.”) We were gratified that the reader had adopted the title ‘Spanocrat’, coined by The Advocate several years ago to describe those party insiders whose attachment for financial selfenrichment, to Andy Spano and Company was much more compelling than their commitment to Democratic principles and practices.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Spano’s Misuse Of Funds Hurts Westchester Communities

Spano’s Misuse Of Funds Hurts Westchester Communities

Schorr Demands DiFiore Investigation King Andrew’s Castle Falling Down Republican DA Candidate Schorr Calls For Investigation Into Mismanagement Of Federal Housing Dollars Andrew Spano and his Svengali, Larry Schwartz, ought to be grateful they’ve made it this far; four years in the County Clerk’s Office and twelve up on the Ninth Floor, working the switches and pulling the strings. Sixteen years; one would think they’d quit while they could, while they were ahead. But stepping down isn’t easy for Spano, who actually lost 11 elections in a row until control-freak Larry came into his life. Larry; the man who would go around scaring elderly drivers who didn’t get out of his way quickly enough, telling them he was “the most powerful person in Westchester,” certainly was, and probably still is. And, if fixing the outcome of elections, controlling the purse strings of the Democratic Party, and the employment and lives of some 5,000 County employees and their families wasn’t enough, there’s the hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts over which he presided with no real oversight or veto power to worry about from his bou ht-and-paid-for County Legislators; Democrats always in the majority, the last several years a super-majority rubber stamp. Just consider some of the stunts this tag-team of con men have gotten away with; always with a mind for consolidating and strengthening their control. Not only did they buy the legislators with campaign contributions and getting out the vote; but they also bought favorable television coverage, going forward, way back in March of 2000, nearly 9-1/2 years ago, by giving Cablevision a $22.5 million no-bid gift contract for a failed communications system by their wholly-owned subsidiary Lightpath. Amazing how much silence $22.5 million will buy, and still does. Then there’s that little matter of solid waste disposal; a $70 million renewable, five-year contract with a company that was admittedly doing a “good job.” But Larry had other ideas. He would literall y twist the Legislators’ arms, one at a time, there in the hallway on the 8th floor of the County Office Building, until they okayed a new contract for $17 million dollars more; $87 million with a company “the City of New York would not do business with.” What the hell; it was only the taxpayers’ money. As badly as the mismanagement and squandering of taxpayer funds was over the past several years; worse, still, was the Spano Administration’s mishandling and misappropriation of some $52 million in federal housing aid between 2000 and 2006, failing miserably to comply with the Fair Housing mandate that accompanied the federal grants; in fact, totally misrepresenting Couny efforts to integrate. Three years ago, Th e Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York got wise to Spano and Schwartz, and commenced a legal action that will now cost the taxpayers of Westchester, the constituents who, three times, blindly put them at the controls, dearly. Because of their mismanagement and manipulation of some $52 million, we stoood to lose more than $180 million in federal funding. As it now stands, not including three years of County legal fees to defend the case which probably exceed the $2.5 million spent by the Anti-Discrimination Center, the County is compelled, under the terms of the agreement signed last week to give the federal government some $21.6 million, to then be returned for the construction of affordable units while setting aside an additional $30 million for further construction through 2016, as well as paying $8.4 million to the government in fines and opponent’s legal fees; a total of more than $65 million for the misuse of $52 million, or a constructive penalty of some $13 million. We make no overstatement in recognizing that Westchester taxpayers are very upset, not merely over the waste of money at a time when households are struggling, but more importantly over the notion that a federal monitor, much like the situation in Yonkers years ago under Federal Judge Sand, will now be in control of the placement and construction of low-income housing units across the length and width of Westchester. The monitor, of course, is deemed necessary because the federal government can no longer trust Andrew Spano and County Government to do the right thing with large sums of money. Despite Spano’s, and Chairman of the County Legislature, Bill Ryan’s immediate efforts to put a spin on it, there is no question that the homeowners and taxpayers of Westchester have been dealt a raw deal; the kind of thing likely to occur when a governmental subdivision such as a county, has been under the tight-fisted, tyrannical control of an executive office that has methodically eliminated the checks and balances of oversight and veto that ordinarily reside in the legislative branch, but have been corruptly eliminated with cash and carry politics. We can but wonder; the federal government’s civil action, having found such a vulnerable and culpable target in Westchester, can federal indictments be far behind? We intend to stay on top of this situation as well as other misdealing and mismanagement committed under the Spano Regime, but covered up by DA Janet Di-Fiore, a fact not missed by Republican DA candidate Dan Schorr. After all, one must question what motivates people entrusted with control of hundreds of millions of dollars to deliberately act against their constituents’ best interests; for example, to spend $17 million more of taxpayers’ money for solid waste disposal unnecessarily? Given the political implications of such financial recklessness, it’s not unreasonable to imagine the passing of envelopes, filled with cash, in such sweetheart deals.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN >>> Castro Serves Notice: “The People Are With Me”

Castro Serves Notice: “The People Are With Me”

Castro Files 14,073 Democratic Signatures Total Is More Than Seven Times Minimum Needed Last Thursday afternoon was a busy time at the Westchester Board of Elections in White Plains. Around noontime many candidates who hope to be running in primary contests come September 15 were coming in with their petitions for filing. Among them were Yonkers Democrats Chuck Lesnick and Sandy Annabi; Chuck seeking re-election as Yonkers City Council President and Sandy, presently Majority Leader of the Yonkers City Council, running in a primary against Jose Alvarado for County Legislator from the 17th District. At 12:30 Tony Castro, who had called a press conference, arrived with several supporters, including his wife Rose, his son Anthony and daughter Isabel, to announce the results of his campaign’s petition-gathering activities. Castro told reporters, “We’ve gathered 14,000 Democratic signatures. People were enthusiastic to sign. Rank and file Democrats recognize me as a People’s candidate, and not a candidate of the wealthy and powerful. The People want an independent prosecutor, not an embedded politician.” Given the extraordinarly large number of signatures, particularly for a single candidate, one reporter asked what he attributed the result to. Castro responded, “The message is very simple. the rank and file Democrats want a life-long Democrat and an independent prosecutor.” Robert Morabito, former Rye Town Supervisor who is challenging Tim Idoni for County Clerk in the Democratic Primary, stood beside Castro and told reporters, “Tony has overwhelming support from rank and file Democrats.” Morabito has been endorsed by the Independence Party. As the press conference went on, news was made on the spot as it was announced that Castro, who had 2,000 signatures from Independence Party members in addition to the 14,000 Democratic signatures, had just gotten word that he had been given the Working Families Party’s endorsement as well. Castro released the following official statement: “As we went door to door to ask every-day Democrats for their support, it became clearer and clearer that our message was getting through. There is only one lifelong Democrat in this race. There is only one candidate who isn’t beholden to party power brokers, and there is only one candidate who will fight for equal justice for all Westchester County residents, and that candidate is yours truly, Tony Castro. Today, we serve notice that Justice in Westchester is not the plaything of the powerful; and, the District Attorney’s Office is not a political prize to be awarded in some power sharing arrangement among the elite. The administration of Justice requires an impartial and independent District Attorney with consistent values; and that is the kind of District Attorney I will be.”

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.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Westchester’s Socio- Economic Divide

Westchester’s Socio- Economic Divide

Where Our County Tax Dollars Are Going Regional County Executives recently met with New York State Governor Patterson to request a reduction in state mandated programs and services that are not fully funded by the state. Most residents are aware that Westchester County taxes are the highest in the nation. On the County website, Andrew Spano, the Westchester County Executive, alleges, “Westchester would not have this dubious distinction if it were not for the fact that our property values are so high compared with the rest of the country”. Spano also blames much of the cost of County government on state and Federal “mandates”, such as Medicaid and school aid. However, these claims are based on dubious math and incorrect analyses and belie the real problem with our County government costs. First, it is not the “property values” that cause high taxes, as Spano would have us believe. Taxes do not necessarily have to increase in accordance with value. Some government costs are fixed, e.g., it does not cost more to collect garbage from, or run a sewer line to, a more expensive, newer home than to a lower valued older home. If the value of Westchester County homes truly affects our property taxes, then we would have the highest rates in proportion to value. But, according to the United States Census Bureau, Westchester County property tax rates, in relation to property values, do not even rank in the top 10. Second, if the New York State mandates are indeed responsible for the high cost of local property taxes, then all New York State counties would be feeling this impact. According to the Census Bureau, the median property taxes for Westchester County are $8,422, indeed making our County the highest in the nation. However, the median property tax for all New York State counties is $3,486, meaning half of the counties in New York State fall below this amount! The New York State Office of the Comptroller notes that: “Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester counties have tax burdens per household that are more than twice the statewide average. The remaining downstate suburban counties, Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan and Ulster, are also well above average. By contrast, several western and northern counties have overall burdens that are 20 percent or more below the state average”. So how can other New York State counties operate, under the same state mandates,at tax levels far below those of Westchester County? By keeping our taxes high, Spano is actually inhibiting Westchester’s ability to collect state and federal funds for programs, such as: • The Department of Agriculture which uses real estate taxes to determine which areas should receive direct multifamily loan assistance; • The Department of Health and Human Services which uses real estate taxes to assess the need for housing assistance for low-income, including elderly low-income, households. The County’s high taxes are actually one of the reasons why Westchester is not receiving more in aid for state and federal mandates. Currently, the County will receive 24.4% of its total operating revenues from New York State and the Federal government in 2009, a total of $416,506,114. But lower taxes and a lower tax rate would actually increase the aid to our County. So, if it’s not the state and federal mandates that are responsible for our high taxes, then what is the cause? The benefits received by county employees are placing a burden on overtaxed residents and creating a massive social divide in our local communities; those with government benefits, and those without. County employees receive health insurance and paid time off that extend far beyond benefits in the private sector. Among those benefits, our tax dollars fund for county employees, are: • Up to 750 paid workdays off for “employee organization leave”; • Employee representatives are granted reasonable and necessary employee organization leave, including travel time, for the investigation of claimed grievances and processing of grievances; • Employees are granted a reasonable amount of employee organization leave, including travel time, for the purpose of participating in mutually scheduled joint meetings of special committees; • Employees paid on an hourly, per diem, or annual salaried basis who work a minimum of one-quarter time, but less than half-time, during their qualifying period, receive $200; work a minimum of half-time, but less than three-quarters time, during their qualifying period, receive $400; work a minimum of three-quarters time, but less than full-time, during their qualifying period, receive $600; work the equivalent of full-time during their qualifying period receive $800 • “Inconvenience” pay of $550 per year to employees who work four hours or more between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m; • Holiday compensatory time credited for time worked on such days shall be calculated at the rate of time and one half; • $20 additional travel expense reimbursement for each weekend employees are in overnight travel status; • A supplemental mileage allowance rate for the use of personal vehicles for those persons eligible for such allowance when authorized to transport clients or residents, in addition to the standard IRS mileage reimbursement rate; • Health Insurance office visit charges by participating providers will be subject to a $12 copayment per covered individual. Office visit charges by participating providers for well child care, including routine pediatric immunizations, will be excluded from the office visit co-pays; • Maximum enrollee coinsurance out of pocket expense under the basic medical component of $900 per individual or family in any one year for County Court employees, $1,292 for most other County employees, as compared to $2,000 for many local non-government health insurance contracts; • Employees contribute $22.19 per biweekly paycheck for an individual health insurance plan as compared with many local employees who pay up to $600 a month, and more, for their own coverage; • Employees contribute $95.10 per biweekly paycheck for family health insurance coverage whereas most local companies can no longer afford to subsidize family coverage and employees must pay the cost in full, approximately $1,800. Also, since the family members do not work for the County, the question is raised as to why taxpayers should be paying the cost of health coverage for non-government employees? • Employees 50 years of age or older and their covered spouses/domestic partners 50 years of age or older are allowed up to $250 reimbursement annually towards the cost of a routine physical examination provided by are not be subject to a deductible and coinsurance, which begs the question, once again, why taxpayers are being asked to provide free physicals for spouses/domestic partners who are not government employees? • Hearing aids are reimbursed up to a maximum of $1,500 once every four years; • Free annual eye exams and free eyeglasses for every member of an employee’s family each year; • Maximum lifetime benefits for non-network substance abuse services of $250,000, compared to zero for many local non-government health insurance programs; • Provide basic medical coverage for the treatment of infertility up to a lifetime cap of $50,000 compared to zero for many local non-government health insurance programs; • Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components. Most employees of local businesses have to finance 100% of the cost of coverage for their spouses/domestic partners and children; • Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent prescription drug coverage. Many local taxpayers have no prescription coverage at all; • Part-time employees; those who work at least half of the regularly scheduled work time, are entitled to full benefits. Most local part-time workers receive no benefits, including no health insurance or paid time off; • Seasonal employees who work at least a half-time basis for at least six months, are eligible to apply for health insurance coverage as of the date of employment. Most local seasonal workers receive no health insurance or paid time off; • Continued health insurance coverage will be provided for the un-remarried spouse and other eligible dependents of employees who die in government service. Local businesses offer insurance to these individuals under Federal COBRA laws where the spouse/dependents absorb the full cost of the benefits; • The un-remarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children of a retired/ deceased employee is permitted to continue coverage on the health insurance program

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Has Congress Protected Us?

The Economic Crisis: Has Congress Protected Us?

Solving the Economic Crisis: Is It Even Possible? The recent events on Wall Street and in Congress have left many local residents wondering how it will affect them personally. But how did this mess get started in the first place? What happened to all the controls and regulations set in place after the Great Depression to prevent this type of debacle from happening again? Some of the blame lies with the deregulation of the banking industry. In 1999, pushed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act (FSMA) which allowed for the integration of banking, insurance, and stock trading companies, a segregation that had been put in place in 1933. Prior to the FSMA, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were barred from each others’ industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated. FSMA was passed after substantial industry lobbying in Congress; approximately $300 million was spent by the lobbyists in total. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee at the time, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, collected more than $1.5 million alone from the three industries involved. Opponents to the bill warned, “The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile United States stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the United States financial system.” (source: wsws.org). Regulation of the banking industry had already started disappearing in the 1980’s under President Reagan and the Savings and Loan bailouts (S&L’s). For thoseGuardian readers who purchased homes in the early 1980’s and prior, you were subject to 20% down-payments, intense credit and employment checks, and regulations limiting your mortgage and property tax payments to 28% of your gross monthly income; your total personal credit outstanding, including car loans, credit cards, and student loan payments could not exceed 33% of your monthly gross income. If you had less than a 20% down payment, you were required to take out ‘mortgage insurance’ to guarantee your payments. Foreclosures were almost unheard of except in extreme unfortunate cases. But after the Reagan deregulations, new home owners could be offered variable-rate mortgages, mortgages that were interest only for the first few years, mortgages with low introductory rates, even mortgages with no down payment. Subprime lenders bragged that no income verification or credit checks were required for their mortgages. Television infomercials boasted how individuals could make a fortune from skyrocketing housing prices on houses purchased for investment with ‘no money down’ mortgages. The mortgage companies also targeted individuals with bad credit histories and people who could not afford the debt they were taking on. In 2006, it was estimated that 60% of all new mortgages were ‘subprime’. (source: Robert Kuttner ‘The American Prospect’). With such a lack of collateral and credit supporting these mortgages, the writing was on the wall for an economic collapse. Between 2004 and 2006, Alan Greenspan, as Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, increased interest rates from 1% to 5.35%. Homeowners with low ‘teaser’ or variable rates on their mortgages faced significantly higher payments once the higher interest rates kicked in. With higher payments, default rates on sub-prime loans; high risk loans to clients with poor or no credit histories, started to rise. (source: BBC Business reports). In mid-to late 2007, mortgage companies, faced with increasing foreclosure rates, started collapsing and filing for bankruptcy. Other banks that had purchased mortgages from these companies felt the domino effect; the mortgages were worth less, or indeed, completely worthless, so the banks’ assets were in turn worth less, making it more difficult for them to borrow and lend. In July 2007, Bear Sterns announced that it could no longer borrow from other banks and its hedge funds had plunged in value. In August 2007, the European Central Bank pumped over $400 billion into the banking system to improve liquidity following the news from BNP Paribus, a European bank, that investors could not withdraw their funds due to an ‘evaporation of liquidity’, meaning that the global banks were refusing to do business with each other. The United States Federal Reserve immediately stepped in and dropped interest rates to entice lending and borrowing. It proved to be too little, too late as global banks announced major losses; several banks collapsed or were bought out by others. The remaining global banks cut back on lending to other banks based on concerns over lending to banks with risky mortgage investments, or on concerns for their own survival. Throughout the Fall of 2007 and the Spring of 2008, the Federal Reserve called several emergency sessions and continued to cut rates further to stem the worldwide hemorrhaging. By February 2008, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, was warning of an even greater threat to the global banking environment: “Decades of United States government deregulation of Wall Street has reaped a whirlwind of irresponsible speculation. It’s ending in a financial meltdown that’s being remedied by government ownership, with all the strings that come with government ownership. And it’s not even OUR government that’s holding the strings.” Reich was referring to the rash of global banks being snatched up by foreign investors. As Reich noted last February: “There’s no end in sight for the credit crisis, and Middle Eastern and East-Asian ‘sovereign wealth funds’ are in the process of owning a larger and larger portion of the global banking system” In June of this year, the Qatar Investment Authority announced plans to invest £1.7 billion in Barclay’s Bank U.K., giving them a 7.7% share in the business. One of the main reasons therefore, why Congress is considering a buyout package for the United States banking system, is to keep our banks in United States hands and out of the hands of foreign governments and foreign investors. The job losses at the banks and mortgage companies, concurrent with the job losses in the housing and construction sectors, and the domino impact on other industries has now given rise to the highest unemployment figures since 1994 – in September, the United States Department of Labor announced that over 6% of the United States population is currently out of work, this situation is actually worse since unemployment numbers are traditionally ‘low-balled’ as they only count individuals currently collecting unemployment, i.e., people actively looking for work. They do not include individuals who have given up due to lack of employment in their field, such as the banking or housing construction industries, and/or taken menial jobs in the interim. In just the past three weeks, several major banks have either filed for bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers, or have been taken over in emergency buyouts by other banks, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch, and the Benelux governments of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg did a joint takeover of the European banking and insurance giant, Fortis. In mid-September, the United States Federal Reserve stepped in again and announced an $85 billion rescue package for AIG, the largest United States insurance company, in effect, a nationalization of this company since the government would get an 80% stake in AIG in return. Britain followed suit last week with the nationalization of their major mortgage lender, Bradford & Bingley. It still was not enough. The United States Congress was forced to step forward with a $700 billion rescue plan to ‘provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure several types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, and for other purposes” (source: Emergency Economic and Stabilization Act of 2008). On September 29, the United States Congress failed to pass the rescue plan. The global banks now face a major concern regarding how individual banks can handle the mortgages they’ve absorbed from failing banks and when the global banking industry can return to ‘normal’ operations. In response, the Belgian, French, and Luxemburg governments guaranteed an additional €6.4 billion ($9 billion) to failing banks on September 30th. That same day, the Irish government voted in favor of a €400 billion ($600 billion) to guarantee all deposits, bonds and loans, in the country’s main banks for two years. The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Cowen, was quoted as saying “The option of doing nothing, of not making a move, would put at risk the entire stability of the Irish financial system.” Which begs the question, if a small country like Ireland can guarantee $600 billion for the deposits of its citizens, albeit now giving their banks a lending advantage over other global banks, including United States institutions, what is our Congress doing to protect us in this crisis? That is the question on the minds of many local residents. The purpose of the bailout plan is to protect the average individual since its aim is to prevent complete fallout of the investment and financial community. Any local resident who owns investments or a pension plan would suffer severe losses if the stock markets and banks tumble further; most pensions are heavily invested in the stock market, including bank stocks. In addition, while the bailout plan allows for Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to buy up the dubious mortgage investments held by the banks, the United States taxpayers would get a non-voting stake in the banks to act as an investment. If the banks recover from this crisis, taxpayers would make a profit. However, if they do not, then the financial services industry would absorb the costs. The bailout plan also calls for financial institutions to take insurance policies against future losses on mortgage-backed securities. Of concern to average taxpayers are the incredible bonuses doled out by the financial industry. The bailout plan places limits on salaries and golden parachutes; the huge severance payments paid executives when leaving a company, are supposed to be eliminated. Finally, as the Irish Prime Minister correctly noted, the cost of doing nothing is far worse. As the global financial markets have already seen, if the United States does not act, other countries will, further jeopardizing our banks and our economy. If the United States banks cannot borrow money to lend out to investors, those investors will turn to other sources, such as the now-solvent Irish banks, for their business, causing an even greater decline in the our banking system with a still greater loss of jobs. The $700 billion needed for this bailout would not be raised through taxes. Instead, the government had intended to borrow the money from world financial markets by granting the Treasury the authority to issue an additional $700 billion worth of Treasury notes. On the plus side, once the housing market stabilizes, the Treasury could then sell the distressed assets back into financial markets, perhaps even making a profit. However, opponents of the bailout were concerned that issuing such an amount of Treasury debt would almost double the current budget deficit and make the United States still more dependent on foreign banks as they are the biggest purchasers of Treasury securities. In short, Robert Reich’s warnings that our banking system could end up under the control of foreign governments could come to pass. Some local Congressional representatives have claimed that they are listening to their constituents when voting against this bailout. Considering that all of the members of the House are up for reelection this November, those who initially voted against the bailout were placing their jobs above the global economy and constituents’ pensions and investments. However, our local Congressional representatives do not have this dilemma. Representative Eliot Engel (Democrat, 17th District) acknowledged in his press release on September 30 what most local residents already knew; this crisis affects New Yorkers most. As Rep. Engel noted: “While this is a national and international crisis, it is magnified for New York City and State. Both Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg are already cutting their budgets because of this crisis. Wall Street is an integral part of the New York City and State economies, and both governments rely heavily on the jobs associated with it.” Rep. Engel further noted, “In order to govern effectively you must compromise. This bill was not what I would have written, but I was willing to accept it because of the compromises I received in it. These included Congressional oversight, the elimination of ‘golden parachutes’, the disbursement of funds in stages, and, most importantly, the guarantee that the American taxpayer would receive any profit that came from the sale of the loans to the financial industry”. Not every government representative or candidate is concerned about their job; some are even seeing an increase in support thanks to this crisis. Toby Heaps, the spokesperson for Ralph Nader’s Presidential campaign, stated that they have seen a significant increase in interest and support in the past week. “Nader has been fighting Wall Street and corporate corruption for his entire career and the voters know that. He represents true change here. McCain supports more spending on the war and Obama will just leave voters with the chump change in their pockets” Heaps stated. Both McCain and Obama have voiced their support of a banking bailout package. As a result “Many voters are now switching their support over to Nader,” Heaps noted. On his web site, Nader gives his position on the bailout supported by McCain, Obama, and Bush: “Here comes the MOB. With an October surprise. The MOB? That would be McCain/Obama/Bush. With the Mother Of all Bailouts. McCain/Obama/Bush are pushing hard for the bailout of Wall Street crooks. While Nader/Gonzalez stand with the American people in opposition. Why are we in this mess? As Richard Fischer, the president of the Federal Reserve in Dallas put it yesterday, we’re in this mess because of ‘a sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior.’ Why then should we bail out those who engaged in the orgy? We shouldn’t. And it’s time to stand up and speak in one loud and clear voice. No to the bailout. Vote Ralph Nader, the man who for his entire career has pushed for tough law and order regulation of Wall Street; regulation that would have prohibited the orgy of excess and reckless behavior. The bailout of Wall Street crooks will be the number one issue throughout October.” The New York Times has also noted the sudden and unexpected sources of support for Nader’s stand in this crisis. In an online blog, the chief financial correspondent for the Times and the International Herald Tribune, Floyd Norris, reported “So much for party discipline. This bill was supported by John McCain and Barack Obama, the presidential candidates who, between them, have the support of nearly every member of the House. But a majority of the House voted along with Bob Barr, the Libertarian who said, “We need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions,” and Ralph Nader, the Independent candidate who described the bill as a ‘bailout for Wall Street crooks’. I had assumed the House leadership could assure that enough members of both parties held their noses and voted yes to gain a narrow margin for passage. But what we have here is a rejection of what Mr. Nader calls the two ‘corporate candidates’.” Given their support for the bailout plan, perhaps the voters also now view both Obama and McCain as ‘corporate candidates’ and will demand a complete change in November. Congress’ nay vote on September 29th sent shockwaves around the global financial community. Given the growing economic crisis, US citizens may send out a shockwave of their own this Election Day. One thing is agreed upon by all the economists and politicians, this crisis will not resolve itself anytime soon.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Dr. Cavallo Diagnoses State of Westchester Politics “Sickly”

Dr. Cavallo Diagnoses State of Westchester Politics “Sickly”

Calls DA Janet DiFiore’s Performance One of His Greatest Disappointments Unfortunately, the state of Westchester County politics is sickly. We are in a very precarious state since the Democratic Party in Westchester County has sought to consolidate power and create a one-party, autocratic political environment. This should cause great political alarm to those citizens who are struggling to make ends meet in these difficult economic times, particularly for the middle- and working-class families who bear the heaviest proportionate burden, as well as those who care about how effectively, and how much, of our hard-earned taxpayer money is being spent without political repercussions. Let me explain what I mean. When the Republican and Democratic Party each share political power, there is a healthy system of ‘checks and balances’ which works to ensure that the citizens, and their hard-earned tax dollars, are adequately protected from waste and abuse by government officials. As it stands right now, with the County Executive, District Attorney, and 13 of 17 members of the County Legislature all Democrats, the balance of power has tipped dangerously to one side of the scale, and citizens are increasingly powerless to hold elected officials fiscally accountable. This dangerous trend severely undermines true democratic government and needs to be stopped and reversed. Otherwise, Westchester County will eventually become a place where only the super rich or the very poor live. None of us want that. Examples of the County’s egregious waste of taxpayer money abound but, as an example, Gary Kriss, who already earns a whopping $150,000 as chief advisor to Westchester County Board of Legislators Chairman Bill Ryan, was called out by the press for purchases just short of $13,000 In unnecessary high-tech computer gadgets and soft- ware, not to mention an additional $10,000 in taxpayer-reimbursed cell phone bills, and even a cigar purchase at taxpayer expense. Does this sound like a fiscally-restrained way to use taxpayer money? In an era, where people are spending $60, $70 or $80 for a single tank of gas; not to me. No wonder grassroots political movements have started to get momentum from within the Democratic Party establishment, seeking to explore whether the size of County government should be dramatically reduced or completely abolished, as it was, for example, in nearby Fairfield County, Connecticut. I do not know if this is the solution to the problem, but it certainly needs to be looked at and evaluated. Perhaps leaders such as Westchester County Board of Legislators Chairman Bill Ryan should tread lightly in this political and economic environment before seeking to ram a 90% salary increase down the throats of a now veto-proof Democratic legislative majority which spends nearly $2 billion of our money each year. Strong and well-qualified Republican candidates, in particular, are urgently needed. The Republican Party leadership should use this opportunity to run qualified candidates who advocate for and actually implement real political and cost-saving reforms to benefit all citizens of Westchester County. Talk is cheap; the people want action and should elect those candidates who are most likely to deliver. To be completely candid, one of my greatest disappointments as Chairman of the Independence Party here in Westchester County is District Attorney Janet DiFiore. As the voters in Westchester County will remember, in choosing to join with our Republican Party friends back in 2005, the Independence Party endorsement provided the margin of victory in her narrow vote margin over Tony Castro. It was really disconcerting to me that, after getting elected three times with Republican and Independence Party support, first as a County Court Judge, then Supreme Court Justice, and then Westchester County District Attorney, Ms. DiFiore showed her true colors in being a disloyal turncoat to the very people who worked so hard to support her, raised money for her, and got her elected, by changing her party registration to Democrat in the middle of her term of office. As the people may also remember, our District Attorney, during the 2005 campaign, strongly blasted her opponent, and the Democratic Party, for not knowing how to fight crime here in Westchester County. Yet, just 1-1/2 years later, last summer, out of left field, she changes her registration and tells the people back in August, “…the principles of the Democratic Party are closely aligned with my views.” The way I see it, she ran over to the Democratic Party in 2007 because she knows that her performance as District Attorney will not get her reelected if she runs on her record with Republican and Independence Party support in 2009. In case anyone was wondering, the last Democratic District Attorney to serve here in Westchester was a guy named William Platt, back in 1895, more than 100 years ago. I guess that gives some idea as to how afraid the DA was to stay a Republican! As I see it, in taking an objective look at the crime statistics so far, the DA had reason to panic, more than two years before having to stand for reelection. Despite the fact that there are well over 3,000 full-time sworn and civilian law enforcement personnel Countywide, our present District Attorney, Janet DiFiore, has been largely ineffective in combating crime, particularly violent crime, here in Westchester County, during her time in office. While she is certainly big on announcing new flowery initiatives to ensure positive public relations for her office, such as her “Prom and Graduation Safety Summit Aimed at Parents” and her “Mothers Against Violence Encouraging Responsibility in Community Kids”, they seemed to be concerted efforts to distract the citizens of Westchester County from her inability to oversee more “nuts and bolts” crime-fighting during her time in office. For example, the taxpayers of Westchester County might be surprised to know that the amount of reported murders, rapes and aggravated assaults, were all up in 2007 over 2006 levels when DA DiFiore came into office. People might also be surprised to learn that Westchester County’s per capita 2007 rate of violent crime was approximately 50 percent higher than that of our suburban neighbors in Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, almost 3½ times that of Putnam County, and just slightly better than Staten Island, one of the five counties of New York City. I think that District Attorney DiFiore has some explaining to do to her constituents. Perhaps the reason for the increase in violent crime can be explained by the amount of felony arrests, both for drug and violent felonies, which were down significantly in 2007 over 2006, as well as felony DWI arrests, which were down in 2007 almost 20 percent from the year before. Our citizens should also know that the felony arrest conviction rate here in Westchester County slipped below 80 percent, actually 79.4 percent in 2006, for the first time in recent memory, under DA DiFiore’s tenure. It is all right there, in black and white, on the Division of Criminal Justice Services website, for all to see. Aside from violent crime going up, and the conviction rate going down, here in Westchester, the DA seems to have some critical internal communication problems in her Office as demonstrated in the Ridley, Marquez, and Florim cases. It’s not me who is saying it; it is a current ADA in her office, as well as County Court Judge Rory Bellantoni in his opinion in a case called People v Schelenbach. In that case, Judge Bellantoni granted a criminal defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging multiple counts of sexual abuse and forcible touching, in the interests of justice. The motion took place after the DA’s Office had reduced an initial “D” violent felony plea offer down to the possibility of outright dismissal, over an approximately 7-1/2 month period, and then, suddenly did a complete about-face and requested an immediate trial. Judge Bellantoni said, “For the People to withdraw an offer, cease negotiations and demand a trial as charged, after months of negotiating towards a non-criminal disposition or outright dismissal, would have a negative impact on the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly where the resolution is otherwise appropriate, but is being withdrawn because of an internal breakdown in communication within the District Attorney’s Office.” Judge Bellantoni went on to say in the Schelenbach case that there is an erosion of public trust in the DA’s Office. It’s no wonder that morale at the DA’s Office is so low among the ADAs and support staff. All in all, the DA’s record of personal and professional disloyalty to her supporters, questionable competence in fighting violent crime here in Westchester County, particularly compared to other suburban counties in the New York City metropolitan area, and communication breakdowns in criminal prosecutions out of that Office, should give people cause for concern when they evaluate their choice for Westchester County District Attorney next year. During the months ahead, the Independence Party will make a concerted effort to double our current Party registration and continue to seek out highly qualified candidates who believe in the calling of public service and good government, whether in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches, candidates who will serve the people of Westchester County with dedication, enthusiasm, and the highest level of professional competence. That is my mission as a civic leader and Chairman of the Independence Party.