Esther Yang, is an Indonesian immigrant of Chinese descent college educated in New York (B.S., SUNY, 1989). She is a community activist and ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to represent New York’s 74 Assembly District in 2006.
Esther lost custody of her daughter as the result of a 2002 divorce. She has also lost her life savings and two real properties in decisions rendered by Judge Joan Lobis, Supreme Court, District 1.
According to a Jan. 16, 2006 article in The World Journal, an ethnic language newspaper serving the Chinese community.
“…she did not drink, did not use drugs, had no prior record and had lawful income, but the judge awarded the custody of her six year old daughter to her unemployed white ex-husband and divided their properties equally. Only for three weekends a month could she see her daughter for three days and had to pay child support in the amount of more than $700.
“Esther must prove that she is living within a 30 minute car ride of her daughter’s school. In contrast, the judge allowed her ex-husband to move anywhere within a 100 miles of New York City.
“Esther, as the president of the PTA of her daughter’s school, said she had been living in Manhattan even before the birth of her daughter and now her ex-husband had moved to Staten Island. To meet the requirement of the 30-minute car ride, she has to spend $75 dollars in taxi fare.
“…her ex had applied to the federal government for welfare subsidies on account of his capacity as a veteran with psychiatric problems and put her and her daughter as dependants. These facts were not admitted by her ex-husband in the divorce lawsuit. Even though she informed the judge of this evidence, the judge would not take them seriously.”
Esther was awarded custody briefly after her ex-husband, in violation of court orders, absconded with their daughter to Ulster County. In a subsequent motion, custody was reverted back to the father while the court “noted its extreme displeasure with the father’s recent unauthorized move”.
Esther’s daughter, now 7 years old, tested in the top 8 percentile in ERB testing. Judge Lobis has granted Esther’s ex-husband the right to make all education decisions. Currently their daughter is attending a Title 1 failing school.
Esther has submitted evidence that her daughter is domiciled in a residence that does not have a certificate of occupancy. Judge Lobis is not concerned.
Last year Esther requested she be allowed to celebrate the Chinese New Year with her daughter. Her request was denied. In a fax to Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, the presiding judge in all these decisions, attorney Adam Edelstein wrote that the proposed schedule “does not include Chinese New Year because my client has informed me that the mother is not Chinese”. Why are her ex-husband and his attorney allowed to dictate what ethnicity she is? Esther has offered DNA testing as proof. The court continues to ignore her.
Esther has been forced into bankruptcy. She can no longer afford legal representation. She will however, never give up the fight.
Judge Lobis has threatened to incarcerate Esther Yang for nonpayment of child support. Her next court appearance is scheduled for Friday, Feb. 9, 2007 at 9:30 A.M. The hearing will be in Part 20, Courtroom 345, NYS Supreme Court, 60 Centre St., New York. Anyone who would like to bear witness and/or lend moral support is urged to attend.
This is not the first time Judge Lobis has raised a few eyebrows.
In a May 30, 2004 New York Post article regarding the Casale vs. St Clement child custody battle, Brad Hamilton reported,
“In March, an appeals court ruled that the new judge in the case, Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, reconsider the custody question. But Lobis refused to take up the custody issue, denied the evaluation request and rejected the recommendation for a child guardian, spurring a motion in which the mother slammed Lobis for "abdicating her role as judge."
In a subsequent article (New York Post, Oct. 2, 2005) on the subject of judicial misconduct, Mr. Hamilton writes,
“…the Commission on Judicial Misconduct which says it's so overworked that it can't investigate many of its cases dismissed 73 percent of its 1,546 complaints. Dozens of complaints were dropped against a handful of Manhattan Supreme Court justices now under investigation by the FBI.
“Complaints in 2004 were dismissed against Gerald Garson, the Brooklyn judge charged with fixing divorces, and against Manhattan Supreme Court justices Marylin Diamond, Shirley Kornreich, Judith Gische, Joan Lobis and John Stackhouse. That group is being probed by the FBI for allegedly favoring companies to which they have financial ties.”
Adam Edelstein represents Esther’s ex-husband, on child custody matters. Adam Edelstein is a member of The Edelsteins, Faegenburg, & Brown law firm. They maintain offices in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. In a subsequent posting we will examine political campaign contributions made by the firm and the firm’s individual members.
OUR REASON FOR BEING
2007 could be a significant year in the history of New York State jurisprudence. A Federal District Court has ruled that the process of selecting New York State Supreme Court judges is unconstitutional. However, if history is any guide the New York State Legislature, whose job it will be to propose a constitutional amendment, will kick it around, come to no agreement, wait for a Federal mandate, litigate it to death, and spend the next several election cycles pointing fingers at each other. This is how things don’t get done in New York State.
The selection/election(?) of Supreme Court judges in New York State is laughable. The Daily Gotham hit the nail on the head when an 11/7/06 NYS Supreme Court candidates list submitted by Liza Sabater was prefaced with the comment,
“Here's the last list: The infamous list of "who the hell are these people" running for Supreme Court Justice. Yah. We're supposed to entrust our rights and freedoms to people we have no idea if they've even passed the bar.”
Voters are expected to vote for these candidates on the blind in virtually uncontested races.
Over the last several years the process of selecting judges has been microscoped from within. Panels have been appointed, commissions convened and here we are business as usual. The primary qualification of a good portion of our bad judges is party loyalty.
There are unfortunately many, many New Yorkers whose lives have been utterly destroyed by the “stench on the bench”. Kings County has afforded us a peek inside a cesspool of bribes, kickbacks, fraud, extortion, cronyism, incompetence, civil rights violations, racial discrimination, etc. Does any one think this only happens in Brooklyn?
The only recourse is to go right back to the same judicial system to seek redress which is akin to beating one’s head against a wall.
According to Citizens for Judicial Accountability,
“The ineffective self regulation of the Bench and Bar is self evident from the dismissal of, 97% of the complaints against lawyers, 99% of the complaints against state court judges, 100% of the complaints against federal court judges, that less than 2% of the cases are tried and the practice of rubber stamping without explanation over 65% of the appeals.”
The purpose of this site is to be a clearing-house of information. If you believe you are a victim of the courts anywhere in New York State, tell your story. Be as specific as possible. Name the judge(s) involved, as well as the attorneys and even the law clerk. Here’s your chance. It is impossible for the mainstream media to cover every story about junk justice. But here someone is listening. Here we can all compare notes.
Let’s see if a pattern emerges, how often the same names pop up, are there dots to connect, campaign contributions to scrutinize?
Every New York State legislator will be notified of the existence of this site. Hopefully it will save the taxpayers the expense of another convened commission or appointed panel. Yes, a certain portion of posts can be dismissed as rants from disgruntled litigants, but a good portion will be verifiable.
What happened to all the victims of legal abuse in Brooklyn? Were they granted new trials?
Let’s also hear about the fair, wise, and impartial judges. These are the ones we need to keep on the bench.
From time to time this site will feature stories like the two below. Both involve sitting Supreme Court Judges. The first exposes a bully abusing his power to toss a 93-year-old neighbor out of his home. The second features extremely peculiar judicial decisions based of the evidence (or at the very least that which was allowed into evidence) in a child custody case.
The selection/election(?) of Supreme Court judges in New York State is laughable. The Daily Gotham hit the nail on the head when an 11/7/06 NYS Supreme Court candidates list submitted by Liza Sabater was prefaced with the comment,
Voters are expected to vote for these candidates on the blind in virtually uncontested races.
Over the last several years the process of selecting judges has been microscoped from within. Panels have been appointed, commissions convened and here we are business as usual. The primary qualification of a good portion of our bad judges is party loyalty.
There are unfortunately many, many New Yorkers whose lives have been utterly destroyed by the “stench on the bench”. Kings County has afforded us a peek inside a cesspool of bribes, kickbacks, fraud, extortion, cronyism, incompetence, civil rights violations, racial discrimination, etc. Does any one think this only happens in Brooklyn?
The only recourse is to go right back to the same judicial system to seek redress which is akin to beating one’s head against a wall.
According to Citizens for Judicial Accountability,
The purpose of this site is to be a clearing-house of information. If you believe you are a victim of the courts anywhere in New York State, tell your story. Be as specific as possible. Name the judge(s) involved, as well as the attorneys and even the law clerk. Here’s your chance. It is impossible for the mainstream media to cover every story about junk justice. But here someone is listening. Here we can all compare notes.
Let’s see if a pattern emerges, how often the same names pop up, are there dots to connect, campaign contributions to scrutinize?
Every New York State legislator will be notified of the existence of this site. Hopefully it will save the taxpayers the expense of another convened commission or appointed panel. Yes, a certain portion of posts can be dismissed as rants from disgruntled litigants, but a good portion will be verifiable.
What happened to all the victims of legal abuse in Brooklyn? Were they granted new trials?
Let’s also hear about the fair, wise, and impartial judges. These are the ones we need to keep on the bench.
From time to time this site will feature stories like the two below. Both involve sitting Supreme Court Judges. The first exposes a bully abusing his power to toss a 93-year-old neighbor out of his home. The second features extremely peculiar judicial decisions based of the evidence (or at the very least that which was allowed into evidence) in a child custody case.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
681 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 681 Newer› Newest»Gary Greenwald (J.D., Brooklyn Law School, 1970; B.A., Harpur College, 1966) leads our firm with his seasoned litigation skills. His unique mastery of legal concepts and ability to analyze complex issues is garnered from his considerable experience. As one of the most well known and widely recognized lawyers in the Hudson Valley, Mr. Greenwald attracts a wide variety of civil and criminal clients. Moreover, Mr. Greenwald is the corporate attorney to many highly successful businesses, who depend on him for his experience and solid legal acumen.
Mr. Greenwald has received the highest civil monetary verdicts in various counties, and has effectively handled countless criminal cases. In addition, Mr. Greenwald has argued successfully before both the New York State and Federal Appellate Courts, including the New York State Court of Appeals. During his more than thirty years of legal experience, he has set many precedents, attracting the attention of his peers in the legal community throughout the state.
Mr. Greenwald has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles and profiles. He frequently is asked to serve on or lead discussion panels, symposiums and legal conferences. His contributions to the community are significant, as well. He has been an Associate Professor at Sullivan County Community College and was elected as Mayor of Wurtsboro for fifteen years. He consistently uses that experience to serve our municipal clients. Mr. Greenwald has been a political columnist for the Times Herald Record and often writes for the Independent Republican. He has been a host and commentator on Cable 6 Television's Political Forum and a talk show host on WALL radio. Gary Greenwald is admitted to practice in both New York and Massachusetts.
Oh Yeah!!! he attracts the attention of his peers they all agree he is corrupt attorney.
Erno C. Poll (J.D., Brooklyn Law School, 1985; B.A., Bar Ilan University, 1978) Greenwald Law Office
is the head of our Family/Matrimonial Department, one of the largest in the region. His practice concentrates on divorce and equitable distribution issues, prenuptial, separation and reconciliation agreements, annulments, custody and guardianship, including trials and appeals. He currently is serving his fifth term on the Surrogate Decision-Making Committee of New York State. Mr. Poll has served as Vice Chair of the American Bar Association's General Practice Family Law Section and on the Committee on Mental Health and Physical Disability of the New York State Bar Association. Mr. Poll is admitted to practice in all Federal Districts and State Courts of New York.
Another crook in the firm
Suicide or Murder you decide :
Rockland County New York right next to Orange County
Husband gets probation for wife's suicide plunge off Bear Mountain
June 06, 2007
New City (AP) — A year after he watched his suicidal wife drive off a cliff at a scenic overlook, Victor Han said today he wants a chance to be a good father to their two little girls, who somehow survived the plunge.
Han avoided prison time in the suicide by pleading guilty to child endangerment and was sentenced today in Rockland County Court to three years of probation. He admitted he knew he was putting his daughters at risk when he stepped out of the family minivan on Bear Mountain last June 14, leaving them with their mother, 35-year-old Hejin Han.
She then drove the Honda Odyssey off a 300-foot drop, killing herself. Her husband was originally charged with promoting suicide and reckless endangerment, but those charges were dropped in the plea bargain. Prosecutors acknowledged that the suicide case would have been difficult to prove.
In his first public comment on the case, Han told state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly he wished he could "go back and change things."
"I realize I should have been more concerned and careful," he said in a steady voice. "I can only say how sorry I am and that I hope for a chance to rebuild my relationship with my children and be a good father to them."
Han, who was a Staten Island resident at the time of the crash and now lives in Queens, is trying to win custody of the girls, 5-year-old Ariana and 3-year-old Itana, in New York City Family Court. They are living with their mother's sister, the judge said, and Han gets supervised visits.
Han's attempt to win back his children may be complicated by a report from the Rockland County investigator who examined Han's computers after the suicide. The Staten Island Advance reported Tuesday that the investigator said he found 527 images of child pornography and that his findings have been turned over to the FBI.
Han has not been charged in connection with the porn and his lawyer, William Goldman, said Wednesday he knew of no current investigation of Han. He said Han "adamantly denies that he ever viewed or saw child pornography in his life."
Goldman noted that the pornographic images were said to be in "temporary" Internet files and claimed they could have resulted from unwanted pop-ups or e-mails, but the Advance said the investigator reported that the images could only be "downloaded purposely."
Prosecutor Louis Valvo refused to comment on the report. Lt. John Gould of the county task force on computer crime said he could not release the report but confirmed it had been turned over to federal investigators. A call to the FBI was not immediately returned.
Los hombres se dividen en dos bandos, los que aman y construyen y los que odian y destruyen.
Autor Jose Martí.
Translation:
The men are divided into two edicts, the ones that love and they build and the ones that hate and they destroy.
Author Jose Martí
rom ra bottom of my deepest rart rester..when will u start paying child support u deadbeat
esther u lost custody...ha ha
esther u owe child support...ha ha
esther fathers rights won rest until u go to jail
and u will go..we just waiting to start nother ontempt in another county
how does it feel mama to lose custody to round eye
ha ha Anonymous we know father's right group is run by pedophiles, mentally ill fathers and abusers.
ha ha Anonymous is just a matter of time before the Federal Funding for father's right group stops.
ha ha Anonymous People are finding out what the real agenda of the father's right group is all about.
ha ha Anonymous soon there is going to be another case like disgraced ex Judge Gerald Garson, can't tell you where I wouldn't want to spoil the surprise.
ha ha Anonymous I'll make sure when the case comes out that Esther's Case is mention as another example of corruption.
ha ha Anonymous anybody can father a child but it takes a REAL MAN to be a father.
ha ha Anonymous soon he will no longer be call round eye, he'll be renamed crying eye like disgraced ex Judge Gerald Garson that was crying like a little girl.
ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha what happened can't laugh anymore?
ha ha I know I touched a sensity nerve.
ha ha I can't understand why? I spent the night laughing ha ha ha ha.
ha ha I got up this morning and still couldn't stop laughing ha ha ha.
ha ha ha ha ha still can't stop laughing.
ha ha ok I thing I'll laugh all day.
ha ha speaking about round eye, I fell like buying an round eye steak and cook it in the grill with some potatoes ha ha ha ha.
ha ha took a break from collecting documentation and evidence to nail the next Judge, attorneys and law guardian and the involvement of the Father's Right Group.
ha ha can't stop laughing.
ha ha for real can't stop laughing.
ha ha really can't stop laughing.
ha ha I will laugh until I die.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
esther give me a call...i know who bribed the judge...thats why u lost custody right? couldnt be cause your a LOONY?
To Anonymous:
We know about the Father's Right Group and their dirty tricks.
We know the Judge is getting money on the side.
Looney we know the Father's Right Group members are filled with Looneys, Pedophiles and wife beaters.
I don't know why you keep saying the same things that we already know about.
Remember is best to keep quiet and look like a fool. Than to speak out and remove all doubt.
But if you feel like writting can it be constructive adult dialogue. We know you kind like to abuse children but there are no children here for your sick pleasure. Only responsible adults.
ha ha still laughing while eating my round eye steak with potatoes.
ha ha what do you call a group of Father's Right Group members and their new wives?
ha ha future litigants.
ha ha once a pedophile, child abuser and wife beater, always a pedophile, child abuser and wife beater.
ha ha what goes around comes around ha ha ha ha.
adults? baby baby stick ur head s in gravy..this is a site for socipoaths in thier culture of complaint.." i lost custody and i am a gret gal"...well maybe u r not a great gal....maybe he was a bteer guy..."I lost custody an somebody bribed the jugde o dint do thier job"...bullshit u whiner freaks..u need to move on and pay your child support and get a life...the sick part is that most of u belive ur on bullshit...hess u fat nazi goebells pig...yang u master con artist....GET A LIFE FOR GODS SAKE
Anonymous
ha ha gravy is that for my turkey and mashed potatoes.
ha ha does it bother you what we write about?
ha ha I think it does.
ha ha good our efforts are paying off.
ha ha oops I wrote about paying off.
ha ha I wonder if a Judge, a lawyer, law guardian, clerk of the court may call me thinking I will give them some money for a favor.
ha ha sorry not a member of the pedophile, child abuser, wife beater fathers right group.
ha ha a little secret I think Anonymous if either Esther ex husband or one of his looney supporters like him, or one of the unethical Court Official's of the Court.
ha ha you wrote at 4:14 AM your psychotic meds not working. Tell VA to increase the dosage.
ha ha ha ha ha ha
i have cstody of my kids e.y....u et up and check blog because ur whole rife is consumed by ur fantasy of being activits...i mean con artisit...like my mom said...cheaters never prosper...also ancienct proverd....move over mason, garson make room for e.y she deadbeat coming soon
Anonymous
"my mom said...cheaters never prosper"
ha ha Is your mom sending you a message, that you are such a cheater that you can prosper to buy a dictionary to learn how to spell.
ha ha ha ha
oh so sorry
ha ha I am not
ha ha ha ha ha
I must tell you is people like you that makes me realize that your creepy pedophile, wife beater, child abuser behavior is not contagious. You were abuse and now are passing along to your children what your daddy did to you. Which makes you what you hated about your father the pain machine.
I got more let me know I can laugh all day and night. Remember you only have control over the weak ones. Me,I can take you anytime, I am not a little boy or little girl that you can abuse and manipulate to keep quiet.
ha ha ha ha ha ha
meet me a tudy city at 2pm and we fight it out
oh so srry,,,cANT Go i have custody so i stay with my daughter...just let me know when ur visitation is over and u have to send kid back to custody parent...and we meet
Anonymous
ha ha I don't meet with criminals, child abuser, pedophiles, wife beaters, looney tunes like you. That hears the phrase I can take you and right away think physical confrontation. Typical reaction of a mentally disturb violent freak, don't forget your med and make sure the VA has you right address. I heard psychos like you tend to have looney episodes.
ha ha I don't use my hands to fight; I use my brain, my words and the truth.
ha ha I am too busy to meet with an abuser, see finishing an investigation to nail the next judge and a couple of court officials members of the group of pedophiles, child abusers, wife beater, mentally ill aka Father's Right Group.
ha ha But don't worry I'll make sure to post everything here. Just don't forget to have your daddy put you in his lap like old times and read the posting to you.
just got bak from nice day with my daughter as the CUSTODIAL PARENT....thank god i bribed the judge and screwed my ex out of custody..its good to be the king!
Anonymous
ha ha Keep praying to your God who ever it may be. When your luck run out you will be king but of your new companion in jail.
ha ha You know what happens to freaks like you who abuse a child once they go to jail.
I was surfing online and came across this site. After reading all the posting I became so sad to read how these sexual predators are getting custody of the children. What is wrong with our courts. But one I think is clear I will send emails to all my friends and I am going to sent this site to the media and people in the Veterams Affair Deparment to take a look at this guy who recieves services from the VA's office. My taxes are not going to be use to feed this parasite.
Hi to all I just got an email in regard of this blog and decided to chek out. I can't believe that these type of crimes against families are taken place in United States. The people that had posted messages admitting to their insane behavior and abusive ways show people like me not inolve in any litigations that the victims are telling the truth. I will pass the email and I am too sending this blog to the Deparment of Veterans Affairs to investigate this individual who it appears has been scamming the Federal Goverment. It is time to put a stop to the fraud, I am sick and tired of people like this that take advantage, and I have to pay when my taxes go up.
Hello, I have a couple of military friends and I am going to investigate where does someone make a formal complaint and where exctaly it has to be send and I will post it and we should all write and make a complaint. I think it is despicable what this group of so called "Father's Right Group" is doing. I don't have any kids but anybody can see that these abusers do not care about their children, they only care about loosing control. I will sending emails to the media about this blog. New York is filled with criminals and they should be put in jail an away from children. I grew up going to my grand parent's farm and saw a lot of pigs. But these man are another kind of pigs oink oink oink you poor pieces of animal waste.
Esther, Baby - call someone on your ex and also his attorneys and their witnesses
Heard about Jeff Ragsdale and the cops? call his brother -
Exclusive
War crime: FBI targets fake heroes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY THOMAS ZAMBITO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, May 6th 2007, 4:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Email Suggest a Story
The FBI is using a new law to nab phonies like Georgia's Richard Thibodeau, who was outed as a fake marine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agents are taking aim at phony war heroes who tell tall tales of battlefield valor and pin bogus medals upon their chests, the Daily News has learned.
The FBI's Washington headquarters receives at least 15 tips a week about fake heroes - and most of the information comes from veterans who are furious that the scam artists are demeaning real sacrifices, said FBI Special Agent Michael Sanborn.
Sanborn said the charlatans are an insult to the nearly 200,000 veterans who have perished in faraway battles and earned their medals posthumously.
"These guys gave their lives for their medals," he said. "These other guys bought theirs off eBay."
The FBI investigates all the tips and, on average, more than a hundred each year lead to pretenders who tout their bogus heroics at Memorial Day rallies and other military galas, said Sanborn, a Marine Corps captain who has been hunting impostors for a decade.
The latest to be accused is Louis Lowell McGuinn, a 62-year-old Vietnam vet from Flushing, Queens. Prosecutors say he promoted himself from private to lieutenant colonel and wore the Army's highest medals for valor on his dress blues during an October gala at the Hotel Pierre.
McGuinn became the first person in the nation to be prosecuted under a new law, the Stolen Valor Act, which exposes convicted fakers to a year in prison.
McGuinn's lawyer says he plans to defend his client by attacking the merits of the law.
"They're going to be sitting in the jury box waiting to hear about the crime that was committed," said attorney Paul Dalnoky. "He served and this is how the government thanks him?"
Dalnoky would not acknowledge that his client broke the law. But the lawyer added, "We all do it. With women. Applying for a job. It's all puffery."
Authorities say McGuinn wrongly parlayed his medals into lucrative security consulting contracts.
"This is a problem that has gone on as long as there have been soldiers," said Doug Sterner, a military historian who keeps track of medal winners and helps the FBI ferret out the phonies. "Soldiers tell war stories."
Hello again here is the Information for the Inspector General of the Deparment of Veterans Affairs in Washington DC.
I think is time to cut down on unnecesary benefits and have him pay back what he stole and charges of fraud upon a Federal Goverment Agency should follow.
VAOIG Hotline toll-free at 1-800-488-8244
8:30am–4:00pm Eastern Time Monday–Friday excluding Federal holidays
VA INSPECTOR GENERAL HOTLINE (53E)
P.O. BOX 50410
WASHINGTON, DC 20091-0410
E-mail VAOIG Hotline vaoighotline@va.gov
I am waiting for more information, I should get it by tommorow. I also have to contact another guy that knows a lot about the Department of Veterans Affairs and should help me provide you Ms. Yang with some valuable information.
Our taxes are not going to waste with this oink oink oink excuse for a man.
What's in store for corrupt judges who get caught?????
Read on.....
From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Sunday, June 10, 2007 11:50 a.m. EDT
Hillary Names Impeached Judge as Co-Chair
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has appointed two national co-chairs for her presidential campaign -- including a former U.S. District Court judge who was impeached.
U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats, will be two of several co-chairs who will help direct Clinton's effort to win the White House in 2008.
"We need a leader with a clear vision and sound judgment, who can work with a Democratic Congress to renew the promise of America. Hillary is that leader," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.
Hastings said a second Clinton in the White House would make the country "a much better place for the African-American community, Floridians and all Americans."
Hastings was U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida from 1979 to 1989, until he was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He was only the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history. He ran successfully for the U.S. House in 1992.
From Liz Richards - google National Alliance families for Justice
OCSE Responsible
Fatherhood Programs
Early Implementation Lessons
[or how to switch custody,
end child support enforcement
& click here for DHHS original report: provide cover for pedophiles]
Even though this evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects revealed that although the interventions had only limited success in solving access problems among extremely disputatious and highly conflicted couples, they did assist many noncustodial parents in the resolution of their access problems, they continue to fund this custody switching scam. Fully 65 to 70 percent of those who attempted to mediate reached an agreement; mediation and other access interventions garnered high levels of user satisfaction from both custodial and noncustodial parents. [No doubt this is the 65 to 70 percent of abusers who win sole or joint custody -- cited by the American Judges Association.] Despite these positive outcomes, access interventions had only limited impact on child support payment patterns, which tended to track with the financial resources of the noncustodial parent rather than his access situation (Price, et al., 1994; Pearson, et al., 1996; Pearson and Thoennes, 1997; Pearson and Thoennes, 1999).
Grants
$$$
How our money is misused to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm
Jessica Pearson, Ph.D.
Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.
Center for Policy Research
1570 Emerson Street
Denver, Colorado 80218
303/837-1555
David Price, Ph.D.
Jane Venohr, Ph.D.
Policy Studies Inc.
999 18th Street Suite 900
Denver CO 80202
303/863-0900
June 2000
This report was prepared for the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, and
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, D.C., under Contract No. HHS-100-98-0015 with Policy Studies Inc. In addition to support from
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Multi-site Evaluation and Synthesis of Responsible Fatherhood
Projects is supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Center for Policy Research. The findings and
conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of
the Department of Health and Human Services or its agencies nor the views of the Ford Foundation.
Executive Summary
In late 1997, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded Responsible
Fatherhood Demonstration Projects in eight states. All of these programs attempt to improve the
employment and earnings of under- and unemployed noncustodial parents, and to motivate them to
become more financially and emotionally involved in the lives of their children. Although the
projects share common goals, they do not follow a single format or a specific model of service
delivery. [When they mention noncustodial, they mean fathers --not the thousands of mothers losing
custody of their children to abusers – this is gender specific. The main motivation is money. These programs,
designed by the father’s rights leaders, protect violent men from criminal prosecution by giving them sole or
joint custody, as you will see in the following report.] http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/guidance01/ch6.htm
Future reports will focus on the outcomes the projects achieve with respect to employment, earnings,
parent-child contact, and the payment of child support. This report is an early implementation
analysis of the programs focusing on: (1) how they are administered; (2) the types of services they
deliver; (3) the coalitions they created with community-based organizations and state and local
service agencies; (4) how they recruit program participants; and (5) how they monitor client progress.
Below, we summarize some of the key lessons to be learned from the early experiences of the
projects with implementation and operation.
[When they refer to “parent-child contact,” they are insinuating that fathers who get lots of visitation
with their children in the form of “shared parenting” or “joint custody” will be more willing to pay their
child support. Their real agenda, is to obliterate child support payments through court ordered custody
switching away from the primary caretaker, usually the mother, to a “joint” situation so that neither parent
owes the other any money. Mom still gets the brunt of expenses and Dad gets reimbursed for instigating
a custody fight. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/cswaivers.htm
The coalitions they build refer to attorney/evaluator associations in the form of an array of expensive programs:
guardian ad ltem, Cooperative Parenting, Collaborative Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, mediation, reunification
and threat therapy, which are paid by the parties into the court administrator’s account and funded through government
programs.] http://www.collabgroup.com/group.htm
Questions Raised About Court-Appointed Psychologist
Reporter: Valeri Williams | WFFA.com
Updated: Feb 16, 2000 at 05:47PM
DALLAS — Some parents involved in bitter child custody cases allege that they have been victims of biased and erroneous reports that make them appear to be unfit -- or even crazy. The costs of most court-ordered evaluations start at about $1,500 to $2,000 for each parent, and can easily escalate from there.
Pasadena Star News, Judges Comeback Assailed, Watchdog group says Gold's lucrative work deal, conduct in cases improper, July 16, 2001, By Howard Breuer, Staff Writer
And John Clark of Topanga Canyon, the ex-husband of actress Lynn Redgrave, who spent his 68th birthday in jail after Gold, 69, complained Clark took too long to share his evidence with the other side. And officials at the San Marino office of Judicial Watch, who are compiling a lengthy complaint documenting what they say are multiple examples of inappropriate judicial conduct by Gold. On May 22, hours before the champagne was uncorked at Gold's retirement dinner at the Omni Los Angeles Hotel, California Chief Justice Ronald M. George assigned Gold to return to hearing cases, effectively putting Gold back to work at $490 a day in addition to retirement income. The wage represents 90 percent of a judge's pay but doesn't include benefits. Retirement also has enabled Gold to advertise his services as a private mediation and arbitration judge at an hourly wage comparable to the daily government wage. Gold says he's yet to be hired for a private gig.
Lesson 1: It is important for architects of programs seeking to increase income
and stimulate responsible fatherhood to serve a broad group of participants, be flexible
about program design and recruitment, and generate services that match the needs
of participants.
No matter how extensive the planning process is, there are always elements of surprise in
implementing a responsible fatherhood program. Targeted populations fail to materialize; others
appear. Services that are popular at some sites and with some participants are unappealing to others.
Programs that define the target population too narrowly or are rigid about the mix of services that
they offer experience problems with recruitment and attendance. Program architects should be
receptive to serving a wide range of participants, adapting services to accommodate their needs and
interests, and creating new services to fill in service gaps in the broader community.
[“Program Architects” are the fathers rights guys responsible for protective parents, primary caretakers, usually mothers losing custody to abusers.
http://www.calib.com/peerta/policies/pdf/aboutgui.pdf Their premise is, based on their own studies, that children need a father in their life. There are a vast array of independent studies that refute this showing children need consistency and financial support, that obliteration of child support and moving in and out of homes every other week produces instability, but these program architects prefer to ignore this.]
Lesson 2: Programs should take advantage of collaborations with other community
agencies, but must be knowledgeable about eligibility restrictions imposed by other
programs and funding sources.
While all eight projects have stretched their resources by collaborating with a variety of public and
private agencies to recruit participants and provide services, they have problems with restrictive
eligibility requirements for some funding streams like Welfare-to-Work and TANF. It is important
for programs to know the eligibility rules for various programs so that they steer participants
appropriately, and to explore the feasibility of widening of program requirements so that more
participants can be served.
[They have problems with programs that can’t be easily twisted and wrenched from mothers and children. This from the National Fatherhood Initiative, Don Eberley and Wade Horn, former President George Bush cronies, who were hiding out during the Clinton Administration, scarfing up federal funds and proselytizing against needy mothers and children getting welfare funds. Now his son, President George Bush has reinstated them, in the Faith Based Initiative and the Department of Health and Human Services overseeing programs designed to help women and children.]
[There Must Be Fifty ways To Start A Family: Social Policy and the Fragile Families of Low-Income, Noncustodial Fathers, Ronald B. Mincy and Hillard Pouncy in The Fatherhood Movement; A Call to Action edited by Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Mitch Pearlstein and Don Eberley, (Posted 10/06/1999) Technical Amendment to Welfare-toWork (WtW), Elgibility Criteria for Noncustodial Parents, Guidance from the Employment and Training Administration, DOL, Sept. 21, 1998, (Posted 10/06/1999)]
Lesson 3: It is important to "customize" and "personalize" services provided to
project participants by outside agencies to ensure that they receive adequate
attention and appropriate treatments.
While it makes sense for projects to refer participants to existing employment and community
services and thus avoid service duplication, participants often need more personal attention and
assistance than is normally given to the general public. Some programs hire staff to be present at
public employment agencies or use case managers to make sure participants do not get lost in the
general flow of agency cases. There is a need for personalized outreach when it comes to recruiting
and retaining program participants and cultivating potential employers.
CRC’s http://www.vix.com/crc/conf/ How to Obtain Access/Visitation Grants--David Arnaudo, administrator of the $10 million in annual federal access grants to the states, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CRC chapter heads administering grants in IL, NY, MD, NE and D.C., and state officials, How to Present a Court Case & more--Gerald Solomon and Ron Milko, domestic relations attorneys, Maryland
Lesson 4: Programs serving low-income fathers have identified important gaps in
employment services to be filled - apprenticeships, on-the-job training
opportunities, and jobs with wage growth. Parents with a history of incarceration
and other barriers face particular difficulties.
Although there are many employment programs that offer "soft" skills training like résumé writing
and interviewing skills, the programs are generally lacking in opportunities for paid apprenticeships
or more substantial training programs that lead to the acquisition of marketable skills. Programs also
need to develop employment opportunities for participants with a criminal background, limited
education, sporadic or limited work history, and other barriers. Developing marketable skills and
employing project participants at livable wages is central to the success of responsible fatherhood
programs.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/7347 Wade Horn’s Incarcerated Fathers Initiative & Marketing Plan
http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/pr060801.htm J Titled "Tarzan," the television PSA utilizes footage cut from classic 1939 Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan Finds a Son, to increase awareness of the critical importance of fathers. Set to upbeat music, the viewer sees Tarzan and his son, Boy, engaged in various father-son activities - Tarzan and Boy riding an elephant, swimming through a tropical lagoon and swinging on a vine.
Pennsylvania Fatherhood Initiative, Tom Ridge, Governor, V. P. Cheney’s next best friend, seen here with his two out of shape kiddos touting bogus stats and federally funded ads scarfed up by Wade Horn via his National Fatherhood Initiative during his pendency of his Senate approval as Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Can we say conflict of interest???
http://www.policyexperts.org/insider/2000/feb00/ofnote.html Development Director Sought by National Fatherhood Initiative
The National Fatherhood Initiative, a six year old national civic organization, is looking for a Director of Development. The candidate must have at least 5 prior years of development experience in a comparable organization and have the proven capacity to organize a professional fundraising department that can generate rapid financial growth. Salary negotiable. CONTACT: National Fatherhood Initiative, 101 Lake Forest Blvd, Suite 360, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, 301/948-0599, fax 301/948-4325, http://www.nfi.org/.
http://wch.dhhs.state.nc.us/2001man2.htm Third Annual Fatherhood Conference
The Renaissance of Fatherhood: Connecting with the Vision
Men Are Nurturers, Too!
June 14-15, 2001
Miller-Morgan Health Sciences Building, North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC
Georgians For Children -- 2002 Children's Agenda Ballot
This Survey Ends on September 14, 2001.
Increase funding for programs designed to support fatherhood including expanding the Fatherhood Initiative statewide.
Assist families transitioning from welfare to work into the job market upon leaving the TANF rolls including job skills training, transportation, childcare, etc.
Lesson 5: Programs are collaborating with child support agencies in new ways to
educate parents about the child support program, understand their cases, and
explore their options. Staff at the programs would like the child support system to
be even more responsive to participants' needs and financial limitations.
All the programs have developed links with child support agencies that enable them to help
participants understand their child support situation, remedy errors in their case records, and pursue
requests to adjust their child support orders. These are welcome developments but may not go far
enough in addressing the limited income and other financial obligations of program participants and
their motivational needs. Four of the programs have adopted more substantial accommodations,
including suspending current child support orders during job training and job search, reducing
monthly arrears payments, avoiding license suspensions and bench warrants, and reducing child
support orders to below guideline levels. Without minimizing the financial needs of children and
the importance of personal responsibility, case managers would like child support agencies to
consider adopting more flexible policies for low-income noncustodial parents. As it is now, case
managers at several sites must follow child support policies that leave them with a limited range of
incentives to offer participants.
[They can’t get more flexible than this, bending themselves into a court-ordered pretzel. Don’t
want to pay child support? Don’t want to pay for an attorney? Don’t worry, turn your divorce
into a contested custody case and profit. “In my case, my ex's lawyer in Texas told the judge
that my ex's lawyer in CA said, if my ex didn't pay him that United Father's of America would...”
e-mail from a noncustodial mother.]
http://www.aaml.org/Articles/2000-6/Custody%20increasingly%20contentious.htm
Lesson 6: Legal information and assistance on access, visitation, and child support
has proven to be extremely popular at every site where it is offered.
With the rise in pro se divorce, the decline in government-funded legal services (especially for
noncustodial parents), and the growth in out-of-wedlock births, many parents have never had access
to a lawyer and are mystified about where they stand with respect to child support, custody,
visitation, and parenting time. Pro se filings are frequently too complicated for participants to
complete on their own. Furthermore, many participants have had negative experiences with the
criminal justice system, which makes them reluctant to view court staff as potential sources of help.
Every program that has offered participants legal information and assistance with legal filings has
found this service to be greatly appreciated and utilized.
[They’re giving free legal help to fathers, but not to mothers.]
Federal Funded Custody Switch Hitting, DA nasty fathers rightster made a mistake and talked too much. He says the Pittsburgh fatherhood initiative grants deadbeats $5,000 support forgiveness if they reestablish relations with their children (go for custody). In a message dated 7/24/01 5:22:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athompson3@cfl.rr.com writes: << Studies in Pittsburgh and elsewhere have shown that a large percentage of these fathers simply go underground. They work odd jobs and try to keep one step ahead of the law. Is this the society we want? Fathers driven from their children by divorce and a bureaucracy that makes them a criminal simply for being a DAD? Fortunately in Pittsburgh there is a fatherhood initiative that grants $5,000 forgiveness on back child support if the fathers will reestablish a relationship with their children. >>
http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/docs/fathers.htm North Carolina’s Responsible Fatherhood Initiative Program is a voluntary mediation program designed to help noncustodial/absent fathers establish or improve access and visitation privileges with their child(ren).
North Carolina - CSBG and Child Support Enforcement funds are being used to support the activities of the Helping Dads Initiative. The goals of this initiative are to increase public awareness on the importance of the father's role in the family, promote father-friendly workplace policies, link unemployed fathers with job training and placement services, provide parenting education to incarcerated fathers, and assist local areas to implement fatherhood initiatives. (posted 11/16/00)
Family Outreach & Counseling center, Inc. (FOCC)
in partnership with
Responsible Fatherhood Access & Visitation Program
”MALES ONLY”
Free Dinner|
Child-care will not be provided
Dates: Saturday, May 12, 19th, 26th, & June 2nd
Time: 10:00 AM –12:00 (noon)
Where: Greater Mt. Sinai Baptist Church –1243 West Boulevard
FREE Continental Breakfast will be served at each workshop session
Workshop fee is based on your involvement with the Responsible Fatherhood Access and Visitation Program:
$15-20 per workshop depending on level of involvement
$50 per workshop if not involved with the program
**Please call (704) 358-6239 or (704) 333-2033 to determine the fee amount
Lesson 7: Peer support and case management help to cultivate the sense of
concern and dignity that participants appreciate experiencing.
Responsible fatherhood programs help participants overcome their isolation and marginalization by
helping individuals realize that they are not alone, by listening and according respectful treatment
to participants, and by demonstrating genuine concern for and trying to help participants. These are
new experiences for many participants, and they are powerful because they contrast so starkly with
the disrespectful treatment participants have often experienced in their normal interactions with
bureaucracies. Peer support and case management help programs communicate concern, help
participants overcome their isolation, and motivate participants to make pro-social changes in their
attitude and behavior.
["Dan Quayle Was Right," ? This was posted by “Manny Festo” no doubt John Knight aka Danial Amneus of the anti-Semitic Fathers Manifesto, and written by Rev. James Dobson. “The long-awaited report from the U.S. Census Bureau was released May 15, reflecting population trends and living patterns during the 10 year period ending in the year 2000….and those led by single fathers grew by almost 62 percent…"Nuclear Family in Meltdown."… There are a few bright spots on this dark landscape, of course. For example, the president recently nominated Dr. Wade Horn to a top position in the Department of Health and Human Services. Some of you may recognize Dr. Horn as the president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, an organization that has long proclaimed the importance of the two-parent household and warned of the increased risks that children face without a father in their lives. If confirmed as assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Horn would have authority over welfare policy, child care, child support, foster care, adoption, Head Start and refugee services.22 Not surprisingly, however, the National Organization for Women has already trained its guns on Dr. Horn, erroneously suggesting that, by supporting the view that stable families with two parents are vital to child development, he will actually be pressuring women to "stay married to men who abuse them.".
Children, of course, will be the first to suffer. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, writing in her acclaimed article "Dan Quayle Was Right," said this about the stresses experienced by children when their families fall apart:
All this uncertainty [in a single-parent home] can be devastating to children. Anyone who knows children knows that they are deeply conservative creatures. They like things to stay the same. So pronounced is this tendency that certain children have been known to request the same peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich for lunch for years on end. Children are particularly set in their ways when it comes to family, friends, neighborhoods, and schools. Yet when a family breaks up, all these things may change. The novelist Pat Conroy has observed that "each divorce is the death of a small civilization." No one feels this more acutely than children.]
Father's Manifesto massive federal funding and their anti-Semitic tripe http://fathersmanifesto.org/ ,
signatories include CRC and ACFC's Stuart Miller, http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1994/12-dec94/page9.html]
Lesson 8: There is no single formula for recruitment and retention; many strategies need to be used to attract various populations. Referrals from child support agencies and mandatory referrals are important sources and should not be overlooked.
Recruiting program participants takes a lot of energy, time, and initiative. Programs should use many strategies to attract different populations, including the use of mass media and referrals from public agencies. Even sites that actively cultivate community referrals rely heavily on referrals from child support technicians. The projects help technicians as well by giving them a new, more humane "enforcement" remedy. Mandatory referrals from child protective agencies, courts, jail diversion programs, and criminal justice agencies are also important at most of the sites and are believed to promote cohesion by ensuring a group of regular attendees. The dichotomy between "voluntary" and "mandatory" participants may be less meaningful than expected, with some mandatory clients becoming eager and whole-hearted participants and some voluntary clients dropping out. The key appears to be triggering an individual's internal commitment to the program and the plan of action it inspires.
Wade Horn and he National Fatherhood Initiative has received a $500,000 grant award to finance a targeted public education campaign throughout the year 2001. Funds will be utilized to write, produce, distribute, and market two new television public service announcements and to facilitate marketing, distribution, tracking, and follow-up activities conducted by the Ad Council and a prominent ad agency for the entire 2001 public education campaign. (posted 4/19/01) He got this $$$money$$$ while awaiting Senate approval for Assisitant Director of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Lesson 9: Recruiting young or new fathers has not been easy. Efforts based at hospitals have not been successful where they have been tried; programs are experimenting with school-based referrals.
To date, only two sites have aggressively pursued referrals from hospitals and other health facilities that serve newly delivering, unmarried parents. Despite considerable staff energy dedicated to recruitment, however, there have not been many referrals. Several factors make it difficult to do outreach in hospital settings: brief hospital stays, rival goals and concerns, and high staff turnover on maternity floors are but a few. Some of the same factors also affect outreach at postpartum settings, with fathers tending not to be on scene, and visiting nurses and other public health personnel being extremely preoccupied with immunizations, nutrition, and effective baby care. Some programs are exploring alternative ways to reach young fathers, and have begun to teach classes at local high schools and deploy younger staff members to do one-on-one recruiting at youth groups and churches.
http://www.fatherhood.org/psa_tv.htm
Lesson 10: Programs need to have dedicated and energetic staff who know about community services and are good at identifying resources.
The success of the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects appears to be tied to the commitment of the staff. Reaching alienated and disenfranchised populations and convincing them to change their attitudes and behaviors is hard work. It takes time, persistence, repeated contacts, fast action, patience, firmness, and endless resourcefulness. Programs need to recruit key program staff who are inspired and inspiring. They also need to be knowledgeable about community services in order to maximize opportunities for participants. First-hand knowledge is key. The best referrals are not made out of directories, but result from long-standing familiarity with community services, eligibility requirements, available resources, and relevant personnel. Dedicated, knowledgeable, and energetic staff can better counsel and steer parents into a course of action that makes them more financially and emotionally responsible for their children.
http://www.fatherhood.org/psa_radio.htm
sick - sick - sick - fathers -
Dr. Richard Gardner: A Review of His Theories and Opinions
on Atypical Sexuality, Pedophilia, and Treatment Issues
by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP
Reference: Dallam, S. J. (1998). Dr. Richard Gardner: A review of his theories and opinions on atypical sexuality, pedophilia, and treatment issues. Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23.
Introduction
Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is a prominent forensic expert with an extensive career of evaluating children, especially during custody disputes between parents. He is considered a leading authority in the field and has even been described as the "guru" of child custody evaluations (Quinn, 1991). Gardner has developed numerous theories and instruments on issues related to children and his work continues to serve as a basis for decisions affecting the welfare of children in courtrooms across the nation. In 1992, an article in The National Law Journal described Gardner "as one of the most prominent--some say dangerous--voices espousing the 'backlash' theory that there is an epidemic of vindictive women falsely accusing fathers of child sex abuse to gain leverage in child-custody disputes" (Sherman, 1993, p. 1). While Gardner 's theories about mass sexual abuse hysteria have been widely criticized, his views on bona fide child sexual abuse and his treatment recommendations for working with incestuous families have largely been ignored. This article provides an in-depth exploration of Gardner 's views on pedophilia and his therapeutic approach to working with families in which a child has been molested by a parent.
Gardner 's Background
Gardner is a practicing child psychiatrist, adult psychoanalyst, and clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He has authored more than 250 books and articles with advice directed towards mental health professionals, the legal community, divorcing adults and their children (Sherman, 1993, p. 45). Gardner 's private publishing company, Creative Therapeutics, publishes his many books, cassettes, and videotapes. Gardner also has his own agent and maintains a website [1] which advertises his materials. Information available on Gardner 's website indicates that he has been certified to testify as an expert in approximately 300 cases, both criminal and civil, in more than 24 states. Gardner typically testifies for the defense in child sexual abuse cases.
Gardner 's Theory of Atypical Sexuality
"The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity ..."
Gardner (1992, pp. 18-32) has developed his own theory concerning the evolutionary benefits of deviant sexual practices or paraphilias. Gardner proposes that many different types of human sexual behavior, including pedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia (sex with corpses), zoophilia (sex with animals), coprophilia (sex involving defecation), klismaphilia (sex involving enemas), and urophilia (sex involving urinating), can be seen as having species survival value and thus do "not warrant being excluded from the list of the `so-called natural forms of human sexual behavior.'" Such paraphilias may serve nature's purposes by their ability to enhance the general level of sexual excitation in society and thereby increase the likelihood that people will have sex, which then contributes to the survival of the species (Gardner, 1992, p. 20).
As part of his theory, Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) proposes that pedophilia serves procreative purposes. Although the child cannot become pregnant, a child who is drawn into sexual encounters at an early age is likely to become highly sexualized and thus will crave sexual experiences during the prepubertal years. Such a "charged up child" is more likely to transmit his or her genes in his or her progeny at an early age. Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) states: "The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity, and the greater the likelihood the individual will create more survival machines in the next generation."
Gardner 's Views on Pedophilia
"The sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim," though the child may initiate sexual encounters by "seducing" the adult.
Despite Gardner 's emphasis on false allegations of sexual abuse, he admits that genuine sexual abuse of children is widespread and that the vast majority ("probably over 95%") of all sex abuse allegations are valid (Gardner, 1991, p. 7, 140). In fact, Gardner (1992, p. 670) considers sexual activities between adults and children to be a universal phenomenon which exist to a significant degree in every culture in the world. Similarly, "intrafamilial pedophilia (that is, incest) is widespread and ... is probably an ancient tradition" (Gardner, 1991, p. 119).
Gardner (1991, p. 118) suggests that Western society's is "excessively moralistic and punitive" toward pedophiles. Gardner maintains that "the Draconian punishments meted out to pedophiles go far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime." The current prohibition of sex between adults and children is an "overreaction" which Gardner traces to the Jews.
It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles. Early Christian proscriptions against pedophilia appear to have been derived from the earlier teachings of the Jews, and our present overreaction to pedophilia represents an exaggeration of Judeo-Christian principles and is a significant factor operative in Western society's atypicality with regard to such activities (Gardner, 1992, pp. 46-7).
Gardner (1992, p. 15) states: "There is good reason to believe that most, if not all, children have the capacity to reach orgasm at the time they are born." In addition, some children experience "high sexual urges in early infancy" and "the normal [italics in original] child exhibits a wide variety of sexual fantasies and behaviors, many of which would be labeled as `sick' or `perverted' if exhibited by adults" (Gardner, 1991, p. 12). Gardner (1986, p. 93) notes that "the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim," though the child may initiate sexual encounters by "seducing" the adult. Gardner (1986, p. 93) suggests that if the sexual relationship is discovered, "the child is likely to fabricate so that the adult will be blamed for the initiation."
The view that pedophilia is a sickness and a crime is a reflection of Western society's present position on this subject. As a product of Western culture, Gardner (1992, p. 49) states: "I too have come to believe that sexual activity between an adult and a child is a reprehensible act. However, I do not believe that it is intrinsically so; in other societies and other times it may not be psychologically detrimental." "The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters" (Gardner 1992, pp. 670-1).
Gardner 's Treatment Recommendations for Sexually Abused Children
Gardner (1991, p. 66) notes that he does not conduct therapy for sex abuse, unless he is "100 percent convinced that the abuse has indeed taken place." In addition, Gardner (1992, p. 535) states: "It is extremely important for therapists to appreciate that the child who has been genuinely abused may not need psychotherapeutic intervention" [italics in the original].
There is a whole continuum that must be considered here: from those children who were coerced and who gained no pleasure (and might even be considered to have been raped) to those who enjoyed immensely (with orgastic responses) the sexual activities. (Gardner, 1992, p. 548).
Treatment is only warranted if the child is symptomatic in important areas of his or her life, such as in home, school or in relationships with peers (Gardner, 1992, p. 536). If treatment is needed, Gardner (1992, p. 536) recommends that a single therapist should be used and the whole family (including the perpetrator) should be included in the therapy. Gardner (1992, p. 528) warns against choosing a therapist who assumes that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child will necessarily cause the child to suffer severe psychiatric disturbances, as such a therapist will be "compromised in the treatment of these children."
Of relevance here is the belief by many of these therapists that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child--no matter how short, no matter how tender, loving, and non-painful--automatically and predictably must be psychologically traumatic to the child. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 670-1)
According to Gardner : "The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters" (Gardner, 1992, pp. 670). Although children should be protected from further abuse, Gardner (1992, p. 537) recommends that special care should be taken by the therapist to not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile" (Gardner, 1991, p. 119). Even pedophiles who abuse children outside of the home should first be given the opportunity for community treatment. "If that fails then and only then should some kind of forced incarceration be considered" (Gardner, 1991, p. 119). Conversely, Gardner (1992, p. 590) notes that people who have exhibited an ongoing pattern of pedophilia are not likely to be cured, and that meaningful therapy cannot occur with either the child or the father if there is a high risk of recurrence.
Therapy with the Child
Gardner (1992, p. 535) views post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as "nature's natural form of systemic desensitization." Gardner recommends that the mother be discouraged from involving herself with litigation [2] as "it will interfere with the natural desensitization process and will subject the child to a wide variety of interrogations that will inevitably be damaging" (Gardner,1992, p. 577). Moreover, legal and psychiatric investigation of the trauma may cause more psychological damage to the child than that done by the abuse (Gardner, 1988, p. 75). The PTSD-desensitization process involves repetition of the trauma verbally, emotionally, and during fantasy play (Gardner, 1992, p. 532). The child becomes preoccupied with thoughts and feelings about the trauma. Each time the child relives the experience, it becomes a little more bearable (Gardner 1988, p. 75). Over time "the preoccupations diminish often to the point where they may be entirely forgotten" (Gardner, 1992, p. 536). Eventually, the process may help the child to "bury the whole incident" (Gardner, 1988, p. 75). According to Gardner (1992, p. 536): the goal of therapy should be to "facilitate the desensitization process, not artificially prolong it" with psychotherapeutic "muckraking."
If the child feels guilt about participating in the sexual activities with adults, Gardner (1992, p. 549) recommends that the child be told that in other societies such behavior is considered normal and that our society has an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters.
Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who said, "Nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Gardner, 1992, p. 549)
Gardner notes that the child may exhibit strong sexual urges when the abuse discontinues. These children should be encouraged to masturbate (1992, pp. 580, 585).
Therapy with the Mother
"Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children."
Treatment for the mother should center around defusing her anger at her husband and helping her to become more sexually responsive to him.
If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and "sober her up".... Her hysterics ... will contribute to the child's feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father. One has to do everything possible to help her put the "crime" in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, such behavior was ubiquitous, and this is still the case. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 576-7)
According to Gardner (1992, p. 584-5), mothers of sexual abuse victims are often passive, masochistic, social isolates who were often themselves sexually molested during childhood. As a result, residual anger toward her sexual molester may be interfering with her relationship with her husband. Gardner suggests that the therapist should help her to reduce such residual anger. Gardner (1992, p. 585) states: "Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children." In addition, the mother is likely to have sexual problems and may consciously or unconsciously sanction the abuse because of her own sexual inhibitions.
She may never have achieved an orgasm--in spite of the fact that she was sexually molested, in spite of the fact that she had many lovers, and in spite of the fact that she is now married. (Gardner, 1992, p. 585)
Gardner (1992, pp. 585) suggests that the therapist should help her achieve sexual gratification. Gardner notes that "verbal statements about the pleasures of orgastic response are not likely to prove very useful. One has to encourage experiences, under proper situations of relaxation, which will enable her to achieve the goal of orgastic response." Gardner (1992, p. 585) suggests that vibrators can be extremely useful in this regard, and "one must try to overcome any inhibition she may have with regard to their use." Gardner (1992, p. 585) states: "Her own diminished guilt over masturbation will make it easier for her to encourage the practice in her daughter, if this is warranted. And her increased sexuality may lessen the need for her husband to return to their daughter for sexual gratification."
Therapy with the Pedophilic Father
"He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people."
Gardner (1992, p. 588) does not believe in doing therapy with fathers who deny committing sexual molestation. If father desires treatment, the therapist should focus on enhancing his self-esteem. This is accomplished by helping him to appreciate that "there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us" and that "pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world" (Gardner 1992, pp. 592-3).
He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, it is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people. He has to appreciate that in our Western society especially, we take a very punitive and moralistic attitude toward such inclinations. He has had a certain amount of back (sic) luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. (Gardner, 1992, p. 593)
In addition to feeling sorry for his own misfortune, the father should be helped to feel pity for the child for having been "a victim in a society that considers his [the father's] behavior a heinous crime and/or a mortal sin" (Gardner 1992, p. 592). If the father feels no guilt, then the therapeutic goal is to increase it. Gardner (1992, p. 594) notes that the father may rationalize that pedophilia is an ancient tradition, a worldwide practice, and that there is nothing at all to be guilty about.
Such fathers have to be helped to appreciate that although what they say on this point is true, this does not justify its practice in our [italics in original] society, even though our society overreacts to it. It is because our society overreacts to it that children suffer. (Gardner, 1992, p. 594-5)
Despite the molesting father's "bad luck" regarding the place and time he was born, he "must learn to control himself if he is to protect himself from the Draconian punishments meted out to those in our society who act out their pedophilic impulses" (Gardner 1992, p. 594). However, therapy with the father should not be spent focusing on the primary problem --sexual molestation. Instead, therapy should be spent "talking about other things" as the goal of therapy is "to help people forget about their problems" (Gardner, 1992, p. 592).
Case Example: The Girl and the Bus Driver
". . . except for a certain amount of sexual frustration that was not gratified … the 4-year-old had not been significantly traumatized by these encounters."
In his book, True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse , Gardner (1992, pp. 608-12) provides a case example of his treatment of a 4-year-old child ("Jane") who was the victim of extra-familial child sexual abuse. Jane's mother consulted Gardner because her daughter was sexually acting out. The child later revealed to her mother that she was being molested by her nursery school bus driver. The driver had rearranged her route so that the little girl was the last child dropped off. Prior to taking the child home, the bus driver would park in an abandoned parking lot and sexually molest the child. The mother brought the situation to the attention of the school authorities and the bus driver reluctantly admitted that she had indeed molested the child. The school dismissed the driver. The mother sought Gardner 's opinion on whether she should report the bus driver to the police.
Gardner strongly discouraged reporting the child molester to the police. (According to Gardner , this event happened in the late 1970s -- before mandated reporting.) Gardner states: "I discouraged the mother from doing so with the argument that the child would be subjected to a series of police investigations and might possibly be involved in a criminal trial. Although such reporting might be of some benefit to society, there was no question that Jane herself would be psychologically damaged. Furthermore, I told the mother that it would make it much more difficult for me to treat Jane because such exposures would interfere with the natural desensitization process, would be likely to enhance guilt, and would have other untoward psychological effects." The mother complied and the bus driver was not reported.
Gardner determined that the child had been molested at a frequency of two to three times a week over a period of two to three months. The bus driver would masturbate Jane, but not to orgasm. Gardner (1992, p. 612) concluded that "except for a certain amount of sexual frustration that was not gratified, the 4-year-old had not been significantly traumatized by these encounters."
Comparison of Gardner 's Views with Those of NAMBLA
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a political, civil rights and educational organization that advocates sex between adult males and male children. Mary De Young (1989), associate professor of sociology at Grand Valley State University , outlined the arguments used by NAMBLA to justify, normalize, and/or rationalize sex between adults and children. NAMBLA members were found to utilize four major strategies: denial of injury; condemnation of the condemners; appeal to higher loyalties; and denial of the victim. Although literature by NAMBLA is not cited by Gardner , similar strategies are mirrored throughout his writings (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: How Gardner 's Views Compare with Those of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
NAMBLA
GARDNER
1. Denial of Injury
Redefines adult sexual behavior with children in positive terms. Contrary to popular belief, no injury or harm is incurred by children from engaging in sex with adults. Any harm that follows is due to the inappropriate and prejudicial reactions of ignorant people and society.(De Young, 1989).
Sexual activities between adults and children are a universal phenomenon which may be part of the natural repertoire of human sexual activity. Such encounters are not necessarily traumatic; the determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 1-43; 1992, p. 525; 1992 pp. 670-71).
2. Condemnation of the Condemners
Redirects the condemnation and censure it has received from larger society back on the society itself. Thus, those who condemn sex between adults and children are characterized as hypocritical and deserving of condemnation themselves. Professionals in the field of child sexual abuse, criminal justice and mental health systems are mocked and accused of engaging in the same or even more victimizing or exploitative acts as those for which NAMBLA members are accused. The "protectors" of children are the real perverts, the real child abusers, who take advantage of the innocence and inexperience of children to spread guilt and fear of sex with adults. (De Young, 1988; 1989).
Therapists and lawyers are motivated by a combination of money, sex and power to fuel a national sexual abuse hysteria. Professionals who do child sexual abuse evaluations are portrayed as poorly trained, ill-qualified, and incompetent people who ask leading questions and utilize coercive techniques which are likened to physical torture. Many unlicensed therapists are "charlatans, and/or psychopaths, and/or incompetents." Investigation of sexual abuse claim may cause greater damage than that done by the abuse. (Gardner, 1988, p. 75; 1991, p. 126; 1991, pp. 45-89; 1992, p. 526 ).
3. Appeal to Higher Loyalties
Normalizes pedophilia by insisting that the interests of a higher principle are being served. This higher principle is the liberation of children from what it characterizes as the repressive bonds of society. NAMBLA portrays itself as an organization that promotes the freedom of children to live and love as they please. (De Young, 1989).
Gardner claims pedophilia is the norm in most cultures and our Western culture is excessively inhibited. Gardner believes that, in the history of the world, men who sexually abuse their children have "probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children." Gardner theorizes that pedophilia is a natural phenomenon which may enhance the survival of the species. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 1-43; 585).
4. Denial of the Victim
The child is reconceptualized as having deserved or brought on the deviant behavior. Children are viewed as seducing adults and thus the responsibility of offending individuals for their behavior and its consequences is diminished. (De Young, 1989).
"Normal children exhibit a wide variety of sexual fantasies and behaviors, many of which would be labeled as 'sick' or 'perverted' if exhibited by adults." Gardner believes that most children have the capacity to reach orgasm at the time they are born, and may develop strong sexual urges during the first few years of life and initiate sexual encounters with adults. "At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim," though the child may initiate sexual encounters by "seducing" the adult. If the sexual relationship is discovered, "the child is likely to fabricate so that the adult will be blamed for the initiation." (Gardner, 1986, p. 93; 1992, p. 12; 1992, p.15).
Conclusion
Dr. Richard A. Gardner is a prominent forensic expert whose work has served as a basis for courtroom decisions affecting the welfare of children across the nation. His theories regarding pedophilia and paraphila as well as his recommendations regarding therapeutic treatment for the sexually abused child, the child's mother, and the pedophiliac father are unique and do not appear to fall within the mainstream of generally accepted clinical practice.
ENDNOTES
1. http://www.rgardner.com
2. Gardner is an ardent critic of mandated reporting and has lobbied Congress to abolish mandated reporting and immunity for those who report abuse (Gardner, 1993).
REFERENCES
De Young, Mary. (1988). The indignant page: Techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(4), 583-91.
De Young, M. (1989). The world according to NAMBLA: Accounting for deviance. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 16(1), 111-126.
Gardner, R.A. (1986). Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals . Cresskill , NJ : Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R.A. (1988). Clinical evaluation of alleged child sex abuse in custody disputes. In P.A. Keller & S.R. Heyman (Eds). Innovations in Clinical Practice, Vol. 7. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc., pp. 61-76.
Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and false accusations of child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R.A. (1993) Revising the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: Our best hope for dealing with sex-abuse hysteria in the United States . Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 5(1), 25-27.
Quinn, K.M. (1991). Family evaluation in child custody mediation, arbitration, and litigation (Book Review). Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 19(1), 101-02.
Sherman, R. (1993, August 16) Gardner 's law. The National Law Journal, pp. 1, 45-46.
AUTHOR NOTE
Stephanie Dallam, R.N., M.S.N., is a Family Nurse Practitioner and Legal Nurse Consultant. She is currently an officer and researcher for the Leadership Council of Mental Health, Justice and the Media, a nonprofit organization that promotes the ethical application of psychological science to the public welfare. She worked in pediatric intensive care for 10 years at University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, and is a former nursing instructor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has written numerous articles on issues related to the welfare of children.
Judge Scott and Judge Gould with Judge Joan Lobis ???
Hey _ what's up with Judge Lobis?
Complaints Against Housing Court Judges
www.tenant.net/Tengroup/Metcounc/May99/judges.html - [Cached]
Published on: 3/15/2002 Last Visited: 7/20/2006
Several years ago, the bribery charges against Judge Scott and the misconduct charges against Judge Bruce Gould supposedly led OCA to set up a mechanism to refer serious complaints against Housing Court judges to Hon. Joan Lobis, a well-respected Civil Court judge.
...
Judge Lobis confirmed that she she is in charge of hearing complaints but only on referral through OCA. She would not comment on whether she has actually heard any complaints.
Jeff Ragsdale and the 17th precinct and other police stations
find his brother, and other family members especially the sister in law - they will talk and eager to talk
I know a father rights leader who slept with another member of the fathers group's girlfriend and was caught in the act
can someone guess?
he had many order protections against him - had 2 wives, children from different mothers
also a former law enforcement
Brooklyn Democratic Clubs - I wonder which club the Edelsteins Faegenburg and Brown associate themselves with????
AD
ED’s
Club Name
Address
Phone
40 (coming soon) Ronald Brown Democratic Club [2] 718-257-8538
41 (coming soon) 41st AD Democratic Club [3] 2953 Ave. P 718-241-9330
42 (coming soon) Flatbush Regular Democratic Club [4] 1565 Nostrand Ave. 718-399-3090
43 (coming soon) Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club [5] 1218 Union St. 718-771-3667
44 (coming soon) Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats [6] 718-788-7221
45 (coming soon) Kings Highway Democratic Club [7] 246 Avenue U 718-743-4078
46 (coming soon) Shorefront Democratic Club [8]
47 (coming soon)
48 (coming soon) United NY Democratic Club [9] 4813 13th Ave. 718-853-9616
49 (coming soon)
50 (coming soon)
51 (coming soon) SPIDA [10] PO Box 320511 718-492-6334
52 (coming soon) Independent Neighborhood Democrats [11] 489 Court St. 718-492-6334
53 (coming soon)
54 (coming soon)
55 (coming soon) 55th AD Democratic CD [12] 1747 Pitkin Ave. 718-284-0184
56 (coming soon) Vanguard Independent Democratic Association [13] 1424 Fulton St. 718-604-9723
57 (coming soon) Partners of Progress [14]
58 (coming soon) New Era Community Democratic Club [15] 1404 Brooklyn Ave. 718-306-6166
59 (coming soon)
60 (coming soon) Brooklyn Democrats for Change [16] 718-492-0461
CD 11 (coming soon) New Brooklyn Leadership [17]
ALL (coming soon) Caribbean American Political Association [18]
ALL (coming soon) Lambda Independent Democrats of Brooklyn [19] 279 Wyckoff Ave. 718-418-4425
“These fundraisers are very intimate affairs. A small room in a hotel maybe, with 50 or so people. It’s very easy meet everybody in the room. If a judge tells you they don’t know who contributed, then they are full of crap,” she [Catherine Wilson] said.
Guardianship Juggling Act
By Jason Boog
Posted 06-08-07
The systems governing both the appointment of law guardianships and the oversight of judicial campaign donations are replete with often demanding protocols. But the recent conviction of an ex-judge and the intimacy of relationships in the small jurisdiction of Staten Island raise questions about the precision and effectiveness of those regulations.
During the sentencing of disgraced Supreme Court justice Gerald Garson earlier this week, one divorcee blasted the jurist for accepting bribes from her ex-husband’s divorce attorney. “Money and cigars are what determined your custody decisions,” Sigal Levy told the court in her angry victim’s statement.
Levy had told the Brooklyn District Attorney about Garson’s bribery and ex parte conversations with Paul Siminovsky — her ex-husband’s attorney and one of Garson’s favorite appointees for lucrative private law guardianships — during her divorce proceedings in 2003. Her testimony initiated a sting operation that landed Garson a three-to-ten-year prison term.
It also generated tougher public scrutiny of court arrangements in the Second Judicial District, which comprises Brooklyn and Staten Island courts.
In an interview after the trial, Levy alleged that other private court appointed law guardians were wrapped up in webs similar to the one that ensnared Garson and Siminovsky. “The law guardians and everybody else are part of the system,” she said. “They wanted to appease him because he referred cases to them. People pay a lot of money to private law guardians.”
And, as the campaign coffers of at least on Staten Island justice reveal, law guardians donate more than a bit of money to judges.
GUARDIAN'S KNOT
Law guardians are attorneys hired by the court to advocate for the children during contentious divorces — ideally to give an unbiased perspective to the judge about the needs and wishes of the kids stuck between warring parents. Judges keep two lists of such advocates, one for couples that can afford higher-priced, private counsel, another for those who qualify for state-subsidized counsel, somewhat similar to the public defender system.
In both cases, the judge approves hourly fees based on what the family can pay and what the judge deems appropriate. If any advocate earns $50,000 or more in one year for such appointments (including various other assignments, though not including public defender appointments), he or she is taken off the list for the next calendar year.
Although Garson is no longer part of that system, at least two of his former staffers now oversee such cases in the Second Judicial District.
And a disturbing number of political donations in that district match up with those plum guardianship assignments, according to the "Part 36 of the Rules of the Chief Judge database" — the digital warehouse where the court system stores the names and fees earned by "all persons and entities appointed by each appointing judge."
The problem is most visible in Richmond County. Out of the $204,000 of private law guardianship assignments made in Staten Island Supreme Court since 2003, well over $184,000 of those fees went to attorneys who had contributed to the campaigns of one or more of the Supreme Court justices who dole out the jobs.
Harriet Weinberger is the law guardian director in the department that includes Brooklyn and Richmond Counties. While she wouldn't speculate on why judges pick one law guardian over another, she explained that the judges select them from a list of approved candidates.
"[The judges] should check the list of eligible private pay law guardians maintained by the OCA [Office of Court Administration]. They should also check the list of certified law guardians maintained by the Appellate Divisions," she said.
One of the state’s most prominent family court reform activists strongly disagreed. “It’s too easy for there to be a cozy relationship. They know that if they don’t play ball they won’t get appointed again,” said Patricia Duff, founder of the court reform group, Families for Justice.
Duff became an activist following her highly publicized divorce from cosmetics magnate Ronald Perelman. In the following years, she has publicly criticized the lack of regulations for private law guardians.
“For many of them, their entire practice is built on these assignments. It’s unseemly that they are allowed to give the judges political contributions,” Duff concluded.
RICHMOND COUNTY: A CLOSER LOOK
Since 2003, two judges have handed out private law guardian assignments in Richmond County, and one was a key player in Garson’s courtroom.
The first (the one not affiliated with Garson) is acting Supreme Court Justice Barbara Panepinto. Since 2003, Justice Panepinto has doled out more than $68,000 in law guardian assignments — and every assignment went to an attorney who donated to Panepinto’s 2006 re-election campaign fund.
(To see a spreadsheet of her assignments, click here.)
Panepinto shares these responsibilities with acting Supreme Court Justice Rachel Amy Adams, who was Garson’s former law secretary. Although Adams’s last race for Civil Court occurred in 1999, just before new campaign finance disclosure rules kicked in, records do reveal that out of the $136,600 in law guardian whom Adams has appointed since 2003, $116,600 worth of those assignments went to attorneys who had donated to her colleague Panepinto's campaign.
Although the donation wasn’t sizable, Adams did receive $100 from matrimonial attorney Rosa Pannitto in a failed bid for the Democratic Party’s Supreme Court endorsement in 2002.
(To see a spreadsheet of Adams's assignments, click here.)
While Acting Justice Panepinto did not respond to an interview request, Adams offered a glimpse into her law guardian selection process.
The judge categorically denied that political considerations played any part in her law guardianship assignments: “I kept a written list of my [private law guardian] assignments. I wrote on a board in my chambers who was assigned and what date so I was mindful of who I assigned — so I could rotate through the list."
Adams also explained that she sometimes looks for law guardians with special skills — anything from language abilities to social work experience — depending on specific cases. “If there are allegations of sex abuse, a young girl might be more comfortable speaking with a woman,” the judge said as an example.
“I look at the quality of their work: whether they are punctual and prepared and an effective advocate for their client. I look at all those factors,” she concluded.
Adams was recently reassigned to New York City Family Court, and Supreme Court Justice Karen B. Rothenberg replaced her. Justice Rothenberg worked at Gerald Garson’s former law firm, Gerber & Garson, for two years.
MURKY WATER
Even though these assignments fall into an ethical gray area, neither judge has broken campaign finance law.
According to The 2006 Judicial Campaign Ethics Handbook, judges are permitted to raise money for election bids during a window period commencing nine months prior to the earliest of the following dates: the date of formal nomination; the date of a party meeting at which the candidate would be endorsed; or the date that the petition process begins.
Last year, the window period opened in December — nine months prior to the September primary. Both Panepinto and Adams received their contributions within this timeframe during their respective judicial races.
Campaign donations are generally solicited during fundraisers, in the hopes of insulating the judge from donors. Supporters usually pay for tickets that range $100-to-$500 and attend a dinner with a few carefully placed ringers — designed to insure that the judge doesn’t realize who contributed and who didn’t.
Catherine Wilson is a judicial activist and the ex-wife of the law secretary for Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella in the Ninth Judicial District. She disagreed with the assumption that judges are sufficiently insulated from the political process, recalling some fundraisers she attended with her ex-husband.
“These fundraisers are very intimate affairs. A small room in a hotel maybe, with 50 or so people. It’s very easy meet everybody in the room. If a judge tells you they don’t know who contributed, then they are full of crap,” she said.
Out of the 13 attorneys assigned private law guardianships in Richmond County since 2003, three earned the lion’s share of the assignments. None of these attorneys answered calls for comment for this article.
Private attorney Valerie J. Camacho topped the list with 43 assignments, earning $37,000 for her work since 2003. She donated $750 to Justice Panepinto’s campaign.
In second place was Anthony J. Morisano, who collected 20 assignments and earned $55,000 in that same time period. He donated $450 to Panepinto’s campaign and $250 to the Richmond County Democratic Committee.
Attorney Veera V. Konka rounded out the list, receiving 15 assignments that earned her $42,000 since 2003. Konka donated $100 to Panepinto’s 2006 campaign.
Whether the donations were known to their recipient is almost impossible to tell. And untangling the dynamic is even harder in such an intimate locale.
Explained Nancy Erickson, a staff attorney at the Brooklyn branch of Legal Services for New York City who has been involved with Richmond County guardian cases:
“Staten Island is very insular. It’s its own little community, and everybody knows each other, even more so than the other boroughs. . . . I was certainly aware that I was an outsider. I felt like a carpetbagger in the South after the Civil War.”
Garson Sentenced to Three to 10 Years
by Charles Sweeney
published online 06-07-2007
Former Judge Apologizes for Case’s Damage to Judiciary and his Family
By Charles Sweeney
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
JAY STREET — Orange County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Berry yesterday sentenced former Brooklyn matrimonial Supreme Court justice Gerald Garson to a total of three to 10 years in prison. This sentence represented one to four years for bribe receiving, one to three years for receiving a reward for official misconduct, and one to three years for another count of receiving a reward. Garson’s defense attorney, Michael Washor, had asked for lenience because of Garson’s health. Garson, 74, recently suffered from cancer, has heart disease and is suffering from recently diagnosed alcoholism.
But Berry rejected the pleas for leniency. “You should have been beyond reproach,” he said. “The people of Brooklyn deserve more from you. You are not some bum. You’re an intelligent man. You went to Penn and Penn Law School.”
Prosecutor Michael Vecchione had asked for a maximum sentence of five to 15 years. He said, “Twelve citizens, using the law fairly and squarely, found Gerald Garson guilty. You were given what you never gave Segal Levy, and that’s a fair trial.”
Ms. Levy gave a victim impact statement at the start of the hearing, charging that Garson “stole my children” in a matrimonial court proceeding to which some of Garson’s charges were related. He was convicted of giving improper advice to her husband’s attorney, Paul Siminovsky, who later was the chief witness against Garson.
“I wish and hope that God will give you what you deserve for the irreparable harm you’ve done to me and my family,” said Levy.
“There’s nothing worse than a person who abuses authority for their own benefit. I hope you get the maximum penalty under the law,” she continued, as the gallery erupted in applause.
Washor, in his rebuttal to Levy’s remarks, stressed that Garson was never convicted of fixing a case, a legal technicality that did not spare him jail time.
He criticized Levy and charged that she failed to see her own part in the breakup of her marriage. Before his sentence was pronounced, Garson addressed the court. Through choked-back sobs and tears, he apologized for putting his family through the pain of his trial.
“I am profoundly sorry for the public scrutiny visited upon the judiciary as a whole,” he said. “I wish to apologize to my family — my wife, children and grandchildren. Their love and support has sustained me for these four years. And for any pain that I caused you, I’m sorry.”
He addressed members of his family, including his wife, Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Robin Garson, who were seated behind him when Berry pronounced his sentence.
ummm getting paid after setting his estranged wife up, to sabotage the child custody case by placing drugs and a gun in her car. A CPS employee of course we would want this criminal to lose his job and actually get what he deserves. I wonder who his attorney is going to be and who is going to pay for it, I bet you is going to be the tax payers.
State employee gets paid leave after arrest
By Oliver Mackson
June 12, 2007
Goshen – An aide at a state home for juvenile delinquents is on paid leave, awaiting the resolution of charges that he planted a gun and a bag of crack in his estranged wife’s car.
Anthony Campbell, 44, of Kiamesha Lake, was placed on “administrative leave” after Middletown police arrested him on June 1, said a spokesman for the state Office of Children and Family Services. Campbell’s annual salary is $40,681.
Campbell’s accused of planting a .38-caliber revolver and a bag of crack in his estranged wife’s car while they were attending their daughter’s recital at Truman Moon Elementary School.
Campbell is free on $7,500 bond while Orange County prosecutors evaluate the case. He’s due back in Middletown City Court on July 18.
Anyone has this criminal??? OCA - office of cocky adults
COURTS HIRED A CRIMINAL
NY Post By DAVID SEIFMAN
June 12, 2007 -- Investigators are looking into $61,000 worth of questionable bills submitted by an "expert" who was hired by the court system - even though he had a criminal record.
Richard Gottfried served time for federal wire fraud in 1996 and was bounced from a court job in Philadelphia in 2002, the city Department of Investigation said.
Yet even though his criminal record was a matter of public record, two administrators for the city-funded Assigned Counsel Plan allowed Gottfried to sign on as an independent "mitigation specialist," helping lawyers who defend indigent suspects.
Officials said the administrators never asked Gottfried about a statement on his application referring to "the time I have spent inside the prison walls"
From July 2004 to September 2005, Gottfried collected $160,000, officials said. DOI contends that about $61,000 was for work he never performed. ________________________________________
Legal ace accused of program bilk
________________________________________
Tuesday, June 12th 2007, 4:00 AM
________________________________________
•
A city court program is undergoing a shakeup after one of its sentencing experts allegedly bilked it out of thousand of dollars in bogus fees, authorities said yesterday.
The city Department of Investigation released a report yesterday charging Richard Gottfried, a mitigation expert for the Assigned Counsel Plan, with submitting $61,000 in false claims and billing an additional $97,000 in fees that "substantially overstated" his role in those cases.
The Assigned Counsel Plan provides experts to act on behalf of indigent criminal defendants to make the case for sentencing leniency.
Gottfried is also accused of lying about his background on his application by failing to disclose a felony conviction in 1996.
As a result of the investigation, the Counsel Plan has removed two people who supervise the program and is examining its hiring and screening practices, officials said.
Gottfried's case has been turned over to Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson for prosecution.
Frank Lombardi
From Judicial Reports by jason Boog - Judge Panepinto law guardians assignement - you know like Garson to crooked attorney Paul Simonovsky - check out the names and the victims
Got Judge Panepinto???
Your ex's attorney gave $$$ to Judge Panepinto???
Connect the dots - folks
Appointee Appointing Judge Action or Proceeding Approved Fee Year Assigned Committee Donated To: Donation size Year of Donation
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O C. PATRIZIO VS. R. PATRI $4,818.32 2006 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O C WARD VS ROSEANNE WARD $1,949.98 2006 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O JOYCE VS JOYCE $2,533.31 2007 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O M. FRUSTACI VS ALANA FRU $3,566.64 2006 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O VEGA VS VEGA $2,399.99 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O LEYSON VS LEYSON $449.99 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O ZAHRIYEH VS ZAHRIYEH $3,392.96 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O MASUCCI VS MASUCCI $666.66 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J PANEPINTO, B. M/O FLEMMING VS FLEMMING $3,399.98 2006 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
COHEN, FRANCINE P PANEPINTO, B. M/O C. KAPLAN VS CRAIG KAPLA $910.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $125 2006
COHEN, FRANCINE P PANEPINTO, B. M/O A. L GARCIA VS WANDA GAR $1,750.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $125 2006
GARRIGAN, KATHLEEN M PANEPINTO, B. M/O L. KASZUBSKI VS M. CARLS $1,972.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $125 2006
KONKA, VEERA V PANEPINTO, B. M/O GARBARINO VS GARBARINO $7,960.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V PANEPINTO, B. M/O QUATRONE VS QUATRONE $2,220.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V PANEPINTO, B. M/O QUATRONE VS QUATRONE $2,740.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V PANEPINTO, B. M/O GARBARINO VS GARBARINO $640.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V PANEPINTO, B. M/O GARBARINO VS GARBARINO $2,000.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R PANEPINTO, B. M/O AMOROSE VS AMOROSE $3,012.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R PANEPINTO, B. M/O CIPRIANI VS CIPRIANI $1,400.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R PANEPINTO, B. M/O FALJEAN VS FALJEAN $2,210.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $250 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O J TENAGLIA VS D. TENAGLI $2,580.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O SEAMAN VS SEAMAN $3,460.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O PACE VS PACE $1,900.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O CIRIANO VS CIRIANO $2,060.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O CUOCO VS CUOCO $2,100.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O TILLMAN VS TILLMAN $2,380.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O RIGNOLA VS RIGNOLA $440.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J PANEPINTO, B. M/O CENNAMO VS CENNAMO $1,120.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
NEWMAN, MITCHELL P PANEPINTO, B. M/O D. MULLIGAN VS R. MULLIG $2,000.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $125 2006
Folks - see below - Judge Rachel Adams was the convicted disgraced judge Gerald Garson's law clerk
Anyone has Judge Rachel Adams - know the names below?
Find the players or where they are hiding....
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O SEZER VS SEZER $3,028.03 2006 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O KASANA VS KASANA $512.50 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $300.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O GALLO VS GALLO $189.58 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O GALLO VS GALLO $233.33 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O PFEIFFER VS PFEIFFER $343.76 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O PFEIFFER VS PFEIFFER $229.16 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O PFEIFFER VS PFEIFFER $239.58 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O GALLO VS GALLO $612.51 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O PFEIFFER VS PFEIFFER $250.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O PFEIFFER VS PFEIFFER $718.76 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O PFEIFFER VS PFEIFFER $166.67 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $175.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $187.50 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $400.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O VALENTINO VS VALENTINO $225.97 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $75.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $697.50 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. MCPOLIN VS MCPOLIN $791.67 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. M/O VALENTINO VS VALENTINO $83.33 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $917.25 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $25.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $512.50 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. MCPOLIN VS MCPOLIN $395.83 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $462.50 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $364.94 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. DESIMONE VS. YODICE $37.50 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. MCPOLIN VS MCPOLIN $20.83 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. OMDAHL VS OMDAHL $383.34 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. OMDAHL VS OMDAHL $100.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. OMDAHL VS OMDAHL $500.01 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. MCPOLIN VS MCPOLIN $166.67 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. OMDAHL VS OMDAHL $416.67 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CAMACHO, VALERIE J ADAMS, R. MCPOLIN VS MCPOLIN $125.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $750 2006
CONIGATTI, THOMAS R ADAMS, R. M/O CENTANZO VS CENTANZO $945.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $125 $375 2006
GARRIGAN, KATHLEEN M ADAMS, R. KIMBERLY J. NICASTRO VS. JAM $1,531.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $125 2006
GARRIGAN, KATHLEEN M ADAMS, R. M/O FIGUEROA VS FIGUEROA $1,620.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $125 2006
GARRIGAN, KATHLEEN M ADAMS, R. A CORRIERE VS C. CORRIERE $2,435.11 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $125 2006
GARRIGAN, KATHLEEN M ADAMS, R. S. LANZA VS A. LANZA $2,841.37 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $125 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. M/O K. SQUILLARO VS G. SQUIL $6,450.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. M/O K. SQUILLARO VS G. SQUIL $6,450.00 2007 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. GDNP ROMANO VS BENJAMIN $2,887.75 2006 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. M/O LOGATTO VS LOGATTO $1,875.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. M/O RIVERA VS ROMAN $1,522.50 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. M/O EUGENE VS EUGENE $1,837.50 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. MIGNOSI VS ROMAN $2,000.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. M/O LICATA VS. LICATA $1,582.50 2004 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. DEXTER VS DEXTER $1,537.50 2003 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
KONKA, VEERA V ADAMS, R. DEXTER VS DEXTER $727.50 2003 Barbara Panepinto $125 $100 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R ADAMS, R. SIDNEY RUBINFELD VS. NAN RUB $5,410.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $125 $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R ADAMS, R. SIDNEY RUBINFELD VS. NAN RUB $100.00 2003 Barbara Panepinto $125 $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R ADAMS, R. V. CARDIERI VS S. CARDIERI $1,090.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $125 $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R ADAMS, R. V. CARDIERI VS S. CARDIERI $390.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $125 $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R ADAMS, R. BENNETT VS BENNETT $349.50 2004 Barbara Panepinto $125 $250 2006
LEDERMAN, PHYLLIS R ADAMS, R. BENNETT VS BENNETT $724.50 2003 Barbara Panepinto $125 $250 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. M/O MILDRED AZRAK VS C. AZRA $930.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. M/O L. PALUMBO VS SAL PALUMB $795.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. M/O BLENDER VS SORKIN $2,595.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. M/O SMITH VS SMITH $3,630.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. M/O PRINCIPE VS PRINCIPE $2,500.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. J. RUANE VS P. RUANE $10,326.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. IANNUZZO VS. IANNUZZO $3,675.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. TUMMINIA VS. TUMMINIA $6,280.00 2004 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. VITACCO VS VITACCO $2,216.60 2004 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. J. RUANE VS P. RUANE $2,266.00 2003 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
MORISANO, ANTHONY J ADAMS, R. M/O RAVKIN VS. RAVKIN $3,885.00 2005 Barbara Panepinto $450 2006
NEWMAN, MITCHELL P ADAMS, R. M/O KEANE VS KEANE $2,587.50 2006 Barbara Panepinto $125 2006
PANNITTO, ROSA A ADAMS, R. M/O K SANTIAMO VS PEGGY A GA $1,380.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
PANNITTO, ROSA A ADAMS, R. M/O K SANTIAMO VS PEGGY A GA $4,140.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
PANNITTO, ROSA A ADAMS, R. M/O GALLO VS GALLO $3,442.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
PANNITTO, ROSA A ADAMS, R. M/O P F SMITH VS N H. SMITH $510.00 2006 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
PANNITTO, ROSA A ADAMS, R. PRINZI VS. TARANTO $4,066.65 2004 Barbara Panepinto $100 2006
SAMPEL, JAMES J ADAMS, R. CASTELLOTI VS. CASTELLOTI $3,250.00 2003 Barbara Panepinto $125 2006
BERK, MARC A ADAMS, R. M/O DIAZ VS DIAZ $9,570.00 2006 none $0
BERK, MARC A ADAMS, R. M/O GRANBERG VS. GRANBERG $7,282.50 2006 none $0
LEE, CYNTHIA A ADAMS, R. M/O KERRI DICERBO VS DEAN DI $1,500.00 2006 none $0
O'HALLORAN, BRIAN S ADAMS, R. M/O PAK VS PAK $1,665.00 2005 none $0
pst pst look Benadette Lupinetti's husband.
The case was handled for the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit by Special Assistant Attorney General Patrick Lupinetti.
Be afraid....be very afraid.
Maybe Hillary Clinton has a job for Gerald Garson. She just appointed disgraced and disrobed federal judge Alcee Hastings as her national campaign co-chair. Voice your disgust and sisters think long and hard when it comes time to vote.
Please read below.
Senate Removes Hastings
By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 1989; Page A01
U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted by the Senate yesterday of engaging in a "corrupt conspiracy" to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him, marking the first time a federal official has been impeached and removed from office for a crime he had been acquitted of by a jury.
In a solemn and tense session, the Senate voted 69 to 26 -- five votes more than needed for conviction -- to find Hastings guilty of the major charge against him and strip the 53-year-old jurist of his lifetime, $89,500-a-year position.
Hastings, Florida's first black federal trial judge, sat facing the senators as the lawmakers rose, one by one, to render their verdicts on the charge that he conspired with disbarred Washington lawyer William A. Borders Jr. to obtain the bribe.
The outcome of the proceeding -- eight years after Hastings was first accused and five years after a jury found him not guilty -- was unclear until nearly the end of the first roll call. Both the chairman, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and the vice chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), of the 12-member panel that heard the evidence in the case voted for acquittal. The 12 members of the panel voted 7 to 5 for conviction.
When he left the Senate after the vote on the second article of impeachment, Hastings, besieged by reporters on the Capitol steps, said, "I have no choice but to accept their judgment." But, he said, "I'm in thorough disagreement with their decision and that's all."
He said his conviction violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. And he criticized the process under which only 12 of the 100 senators heard the witnesses against him. Hastings also announced his plans to open a private law practice and to run as a Democratic candidate for governor of Florida next year.
"My momma had a man," Hastings, who was named to the bench by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, said of his plans to remain in the public eye. "She did not have anybody that was afraid of the system."
The Senate, in two hours of roll calls, voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment. It convicted Hastings of eight of the 11 articles, finding that he engaged in the bribery conspiracy and repeatedly lied under oath at his trial and forged letters in order to win acquittal.
Hastings was acquitted on one of the perjury charges and an umbrella count that accused him of "bringing disrepute on the federal courts" through his actions. He was unanimously cleared, by 95 to 0, of a separate charge of leaking confidential information from a wiretap that he had authorized as a judge. The Senate did not vote on six of the 17 articles because it had already decided to remove Hastings from office.
Four senators did not vote yesterday because they were members of the House when it voted 413 to 3 in August 1988 to impeach Hastings. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) was not present. Under the Constitution, conviction required the votes of two-thirds of the senators present, or at least 64 in this case.
Shortly after noon yesterday, Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) announced the result. With Hastings convicted of eight high crimes and misdemeanors, Byrd said, "it is therefore ordered and adjudged that said Alcee L. Hastings be and he is hereby removed from office."
The vote on Hastings did not break down along ideological, regional, or other identifiable lines.
The 26 senators -- 21 Democrats and five Republicans -- who voted to acquit him of the major charge included some of the Senate's most conservative members -- William L. Armstrong (R-Colo.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) -- and some of its most liberal -- Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) and Alan Cranston (D-Calif.).
Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), a former prosecutor on the trial committee, voted for conviction and Specter, another former prosecutor on the panel, voted to acquit.
Hastings is the sixth federal official, all judges, impeached by the House and removed from office after conviction by the Senate. The case proved a particularly anguishing decision for the senators, who deliberated behind closed doors for 7 1/2 hours Thursday, because of the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the earlier jury verdict to acquit and the charges of racism.
In an eloquent plea for acquittal on the floor Wednesday, Hastings said that he did not think race was a factor in the case, and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), a member of the House prosecution team, agreed. However, a number of Hastings supporters have cast the case in those terms.
The Senate found that Hastings had arranged with Borders, his close friend and a prominent Washington lawyer, to solicit a bribe from an FBI undercover agent posing as one of two brothers who were defendants in a racketeering case before Hastings. In return for the $150,000 -- $25,000 of which was given to Borders as a down payment -- Hastings was to sentence the Romano brothers to probation rather than prison and to return $845,000 in forfeited property.
There was circumstantial evidence that Hastings was part of the scheme, including a pattern of telephone calls between Hastings and Borders at key junctures in the Romano case, Borders's successful promise to an FBI agent to have Hastings turn up for dinner at the Fontainebleau Hotel at a specified time and a key, cryptic telephone conversation between Borders and Hastings that prosecutors contended was a coded discussion of the bribe arrangements.
But Hastings's lawyers argued that these actions, while seemingly suspicious, had other, innocuous explanations, and portrayed Hastings as the innocent victim of a scam perpetrated by Borders. There was no direct evidence of Hastings's participation in the conspiracy because the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Borders before money could be traced to Hastings.
Borders, who was convicted of the bribery conspiracy charges in a separate trial in 1982, refused to testify -- despite a grant of immunity -- before the grand jury or the House and Senate panels. He was jailed on contempt charges from Aug. 22 until yesterday for refusing to testify before the Senate committee.
Some senators said after the verdict that they found the evidence insufficient and were troubled by the earlier jury acquittal, while others took the opposite view. Senators could choose whatever standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, or another measure -- they deemed appropriate.
"The facts simply led me to the inference that Judge Hastings quite clearly was involved in a scheme with Bill Borders," said Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), a member of the trial panel.
But committee Chairman Bingaman said that "the evidence, although furnishing grounds for investigation and trial, does not provide a sound basis upon which I can vote for conviction."
© Copyright 1989 The Washington Post Company
Read on……From the National Review
Clinton Pardoned Hastings’s Co-Conspirator
The convicted felon who went to jail rather than testify against Alcee Hastings.
By Byron York
William Borders was a prominent Washington, D.C. lawyer when, in 1981, he was charged with conspiring with his good friend, federal judge Alcee Hastings, to solicit bribes from defendants seeking lenient treatment in Hastings’s courtroom. Hastings was charged, too, though the men were tried separately. When it was all over, Borders was convicted, disbarred, and sentenced to five years in jail. Hastings was acquitted, but later impeached and removed from office.
In addition to his sentence, Borders went to jail two other times as a result of the Hastings matter, both times when he refused to testify against his friend. In the first instance, after his sentencing in 1982, Borders was ordered to cooperate with the continuing grand jury investigation into Hastings’s conduct. Borders refused to talk, was cited with contempt, and sent to jail. He served about six weeks before being released at the end of the grand jury’s term.
Later, in 1989, after the House passed articles of impeachment against Hastings, Borders was called to testify at the Senate trial. He was given immunity for his testimony but again refused to talk. The Senate threatened him with contempt. Borders would not budge. Finally, the Senate referred the matter to a federal judge, who ordered Borders to testify. Borders again refused, and the judge sent him to jail.
“Borders has refused to testify in this impeachment proceeding as well as in all other proceedings in which, if Judge Hastings’ version of the facts is true, Borders could have established Judge Hastings’ innocence,” House impeachment manager Rep. John Bryant told the Senate on October 18, 1989. “Borders is in jail today at this moment and will be until this body votes, and he is in jail for refusing to testify before the impeachment trial committee despite a grant of immunity. I ask you, on behalf of the House managers, why would he go to jail, again, if by his testimony he could honestly vindicate his close friend of so many years?”
The answer to that question, Bryant concluded, was that Hastings was guilty, and Borders knew it. “The fact is that Borders will not talk, because if he tells the truth he must acknowledge Judge Hastings’ role in the conspiracy, and if he does not tell the truth he risks placing himself in violation of the law again,” Bryant argued. “And that is why he refused to testify, and that is why the judge did not call Borders to testify at his own trial.”
Borders never talked. He was behind bars for about eight weeks, and was released when the trial ended, after the Senate had voted to remove Hastings from office.
At various times over the years, Borders has tried to have his license to practice law in the District of Columbia restored. But his episodes of contempt, in addition to his original conviction for bribery, led the legal bodies involved to conclude that, even though he had done his time, he did not feel remorse for his actions nor a respect for the law under which he was punished. He remains disbarred today.
None of that, however, stopped President Bill Clinton from granting Borders a full and unconditional pardon as part of the flurry of controversial pardons Clinton issued during his last hours in office. The pardon documents listed Borders’s crime this way: “Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge (Alcee L. Hastings), and to defraud the United States in connection with the performance of lawful government functions; corruptly influencing, obstructing, impeding and endeavoring to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, and aiding and abetting therein; traveling interstate with intent to commit bribery.” The document did not mention Borders’s contempt. (That same day, Clinton also pardoned another contemnor, Whitewater figure Susan McDougal, who went to jail rather than reveal whether the president testified truthfully at her trial.)
Borders’s pardon surprised some of those who were most familiar with the Hastings case. “Some [names on the pardon list] will raise eyebrows,” Reid Weingarten, who as a Justice Department attorney prosecuted Hastings and Borders, told the Washington Post. “For example, I was Bill Borders’ prosecutor and, while I have sympathy for the man, I thought his crimes were unpardonable.”
The entire Borders/Hastings issue would not be coming up now but for the fact that Hastings, who ran for and won a seat in Congress in 1992, is in line to become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, one of the most sensitive posts on Capitol Hill. Republicans who would like to see Hastings passed over, and nervous Democrats who would like to see the same thing, are poring through old records of the impeachment, trying to reconstruct what happened in the case and how it might reflect on Hastings’s fitness for the chairmanship.
The issue is so sensitive that some observers have questioned whether Hastings, given his impeachment and removal from office for conspiring to take bribes, would qualify for the security clearances needed to serve as chairman. The answer, according to sources on the Hill, is yes.
According to those sources, if you’re a member of the House of Representatives, you’ve already got the clearance you need. “The best way to understand it is that, by virtue of having been elected by their constituents, members are already granted the privilege of access to classified government information,” says Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the Intelligence Committee. “Members are given access to the classified information they need to carry out their job.”
Ware explains that members of Congress sign an oath pledging not to reveal classified information, and that members who join the Intelligence Committee sign a second oath specific to work on the committee. The first, more general, oath is not mandatory — indeed, there are a few members who refuse to sign — but it, along with the second oath, is required for service on the Intelligence Committee. In any event, Hastings, despite his record, would not be barred from becoming chairman.
keep it up u freaks...and we fathers will keep bribing and stealing ur kids...love getting away with...catch us if u can...duff yang all deadbeat pychos....chears mates!!!! ...and keep on whining ad spinning ur wheels..do u reaaly think enforcement takes u fruitcakes seriously? bloggers? give me a break u sore losers...keep suckin ur thumbs...by by gotta go fulfill my ill gotten custodal duties
That post from slick sal about Hillary is even more disturbing than the post from that wierdo anonymous that came after it.
Posted Friday, March 31, at 7:56 am by: JT Thompson
Top donor seeks to expose ‘Hillary’s Chappaquiddick’
WorldNetDaily Exclusive - Claiming Hillary Clinton pulled off the biggest campaign-finance fraud in history, business mogul Peter Franklin Paul is preparing to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging the Democratic senator with submitting a false report – for a fourth time – that hides his personal donation of a multi-million dollar Hollywood gala and fund-raiser that helped put her in office.
Calling the case "Hillary's Chappaquiddick," Paul is trying to air his charges – amid virtually no media coverage – by producing three different documentaries, including a theatrical release planned for the third quarter of 2007 that aims to have the kind of election-season buzz generated by Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." A website, the "Hillary Clinton Accountability Project," documents his accusations.
"I am exposing the frauds Hillary directed, and I witnessed, that won her seat in the Senate on her march to the White House," Paul told WorldNetDaily. "It has become my penance to warn the American people of the real threat to our republic posed by this power-hungry sociopath."
Paul insists Clinton's new amended report finally acknowledged his contributions but falsely classified them as being from his companies and from his business partner, Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee, instead of from him as personal gifts. Clinton should have refunded the money according to federal law, he contends, because it was intended for her national senatorial campaign, and the limit for such donations is $25,000.
Clinton's Senate office did not follow up WND's request to respond to Paul's claims.
Represented by the public-interest law firm U.S. Justice Foundation, Paul also alleges, in a civil suit, former President Bill Clinton reneged on a $17 million deal to promote Paul's Internet businesses, causing one of his public companies to collapse by diverting his Japanese partner's investments.
Paul claims he was asked to fund the Hollywood event in exchange for the former president agreeing to be his "rainmaker."
CREW RELEASES LATEST CORRUPTION REPORT - CRIMINALS AND SCOUNDRELS: The 25 Most Corrupt Bush Administration Officials
7 Feb 2007 // Washington, D.C. -- Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a new report on the most corrupt officials in the Bush administration entitled "Criminals and Scoundrels: The 25 Most Corrupt Bush Administration Officials." For the first time, the report chronicles the criminal activities and misconduct of high level officials in the current administration. Using public and court records, CREW developed a comprehensive list of government officials who have abused the public trust.
CREW found and documented more than more than 160 cases of misconduct over the last six years and then narrowed the list based on type of offense, the official's level of responsibility and the impact on the public trust. The majority of the officials in the report have been convicted of crimes, are currently under criminal investigation, or are being investigated by the inspector generals of their respective agencies. CREW's website, www.citizensforethics.org, provides summaries of each case as well as accompanying exhibits.
"High level government officials, acting without oversight, have plenty of opportunity to commit crimes," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, "It is clear from CREW's report, 'Criminals and Scoundrels,' that a system that rewards political cronyism over competence may actually increase government corruption," Sloan said today.
Some of the egregious behavior detailed in the "Criminals and Scoundrels" report includes: personal trips on the taxpayer dime, directing contracts to benefit family and friends, using a computer to seduce a child, lying to the U.S. Senate, unauthorized possession of classified materials and taking a bribe from a defense contractors to pay a mortgage.
Sloan continued, "Some of the officials named in the report were allowed to remain in their positions -- or were even promoted -- despite clear indications that they were running amok. One question the report can't answer is why the Bush administration didn't act more quickly to stop some of these officials."
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Criminals and Scoundrels: The 25 Most Corrupt Officials of the Bush Administration
Claude Allen
White House
Exhibits
Margaret Burnette
Food and Drug Administration
Exhibits
Lurita Doan
General Services Administration
Exhibits
Darleen Druyun
U.S. Air Force
Exhibits
Kyle "Dusty" Foggo
Central Intelligence Agency
Exhibits
Andrea Grimsley
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Exhibits
John Korsmo
Federal Housing Finance Board
Exhibits
Jose Miranda
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Exhibits
Janet Rehnquist
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Exhibits
Robert Schofield
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Exhibits
David Smith
Department of Interior
Exhibits
Robert Stein
Coalition Provisional Authority
Exhibits
Kenneth Tomlinson
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Exhibits
Eric Andell
U.S. Department of Education
Exhibits
Lester Crawford
Food and Drug Administration
Exhibits
Brian Doyle
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Exhibits
Frank Figueroa
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Exhibits
J. Steven Griles
U.S. Department of the Interior
Exhibits
Donald Keyser
U.S. Department of State
Exhibits
Kevin Marlowe
U.S. Department of Defense
Exhibits
William Myers
U.S. Department of Interior
Exhibits
David Safavian
White House and General Services Administration
Exhibits
Thomas Scully
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Exhibits
Jeffrey Stayton
U.S. Department of the Army
Exhibits
Roger Stillwell
U.S. Department of the Interior
Exhibits
No Consensus Yet for Ethics Task Force
Source:
Susan Davis // Roll Call
13 Jun 2007 // The eight-member House ethics task force remains unable to agree on the scope of a proposed independent body tasked with filtering ethics complaints as a meeting of the group Monday night failed to produce a final proposal, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to raise concerns.
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Mike Capuano, who is leading the task force, said Tuesday that it is not yet scheduled to meet again this week and declined to say when the task force ultimately will complete its work. A Democratic leadership aide said they were hopeful the proposal would be rolled out next week.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Capuano’s Republican counterpart on the task force, said Tuesday that it was in “no rush” to offer its proposal and said there are still a number of specifics to nail down.
For example, Smith said one of the biggest sticking points is how and whether to require outside advocacy groups that may file complaints to disclose their funding sources to make sure they are not front groups for political entities. “There’s a question of what that threshold should be” for disclosure, Smith said.
The Texas lawmaker said he has not yet briefed the full House Republican Conference on the details of the provision. He said the task force is working well together to reach a final agreement, and he lauded Capuano for leading a “truly bipartisan” effort.
Capuano has said he expects the bill will pass on the floor, and even Members — particularly freshmen — with concerns about the proposal acknowledge that it is expected to pass. When asked if he would support the effort in its current form, first-term Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) said he likely would.
“People are really concerned that there will be unethical people that will file ethics complaints merely for political motivation,” Ellsworth said. “Honest people are going to be accused of things regardless of any merit. ... That’s the only real concern, how to deal with that.”
At least one sitting member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), said he supports the creation of the outside entity. The task force is expected to recommend the creation of a four-person outside panel made up of former judges or former Members who are not lobbyists to screen ethics complaints and make recommendations to the House ethics committee, which is not required to take up the recommendations.
It also would — for the first time since the chamber’s rules were changed in 1997 at the urging of a similar bipartisan task force — allow outside groups and individuals the ability to file complaints, but Capuano said they also would put in place safeguards in an effort to restrict potential frivolous complaints.
The proposal is not expected to affect the ethics committee, and Green said outside screening could be beneficial. “Somehow we have to have some way for the ethics committee to get information other than coming from the Member,” Green said. “So this is a way that we get that but without just getting inundated.”
Green said he believed the task force’s work was nearly complete and the key now is to give Democratic leaders time to explain the proposal and give the rank and file the ability to air their concerns.
“They’re still trying to let folks vent on either side,” Green said. “You don’t want to run over people.”
Saw in the NY Daily News that Esther Yang's judge, Joan Lobis gave disgraced ex-judge, Reynold Mason a break and cut his child support responsibility. Funny, I recall Judge Lobis increasing the ammount of Esther's payments when she couldn't even afford the original amount. Another striking example of the Lobis bias against women and mothers.
6-Year-Old Boy Raised by Homosexuals Wants to Kill Himself
New York Post | May 30 2004
An ugly tug of war is raging over the fate of a 6-year-old boy being raised by a gay couple who won custody of the child in a landmark decision in 2000.
Gays hailed the ruling as a major victory for same-sex couples, but the boy has since become a troubled kid who punches his teachers and repeatedly says he wants to kill himself, according to an expert's report requested by his school.
The report has spurred the mother to fight for increased access to her son, who has lived with the two men since the ruling - the first time a New York court awarded custody to a gay couple over a woman they claimed to be a surrogate.
The mother says she was never a surrogate and that she, the father - once a close friend who worked for her - and his live-in lover intended to raise the child as a parental trio.
"I just hadn't met the right guy yet," said Courtney St. Clement, 52, who had never been identified in the press or spoken out about her experiences.
"They held out that they had a lot of money, and at the time, I felt like I was marrying a doctor. They said, 'We're a family.' We were supposed to all live together, but we didn't get that far."
St. Clement, who runs her own marketing and consulting firm and lives on the Upper West Side, had no inkling of how badly things would go for her son, whose name is being withheld by The Post.
He punches and kicks his teachers, hits and bites himself, curses and says he wants to kill himself as often as twice a month, according to the new report, completed in January by NYU's Child Study Center.
It also says he repeatedly kisses and touches classmates inappropriately and once ran around naked.
"[He] is exhibiting significant behavioral problems at school," said the report, which was based on a personal evaluation of the boy by two experts, along with interviews with his teachers and both parents and their spouses.
It blames his unruliness in part on the "hostility" between his parents.
"His mother and father have always lived apart and have had remarkably significant disputes regarding custody and visitation from very early on," said the report, which recommended that the boy be appointed a law guardian.
He was previously kicked out of PS 116 as a kindergartner in 2002 after just two weeks there and placed in a private special-needs school on the Upper East Side.
St. Clement says the family arrangement broke down after the father, part-time substitute teacher Gerald Casale, 47, and his partner, a trusts and estates lawyer, Ernest Londa, 46, stopped her from seeing the 6-month-old infant in April 1998. She then sued for custody.
The partners claimed they struck a deal with St. Clement in which she agreed to carry Casale's child to term, then step back and allow them to be sole parents.
"I think Ms. Clement has a certain bent," said Phyllis Levitas, Casale's lawyer.
"My client and I have given this some very careful consideration, and we believe that it's not in the child's best interest to discuss this case with the media."
Last December, St. Clement challenged the custody ruling - made by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond - in light of the boy's disturbing behavior at school, and the boy's pediatrician requested a follow-up evaluation by a court-appointed specialist.
In March, an appeals court ruled that the new judge in the case, Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, reconsider the custody question.
But Lobis refused to take up the custody issue, denied the evaluation request and rejected the recommendation for a child guardian, spurring a motion in which the mother slammed Lobis for "abdicating her role as judge."
Lobis' office did not respond to The Post's request for comment.
The mother is part of the Alliance for Judicial Justice, a group of 200 litigants who suspect their cases were tainted by judges' personal interests, led by activist Anthony DeRosa.
N.Y. Court Reverses Distribution of Townhouse in Divorce
Cordula Bartha v. Nicholas Bartha
January 27, 2005
15 A.D.3d 111: 789 N.Y.S. 2d 13; 2005 N.Y. App.Div. Lexis 566 (1st Dept.)
A New York appellate court's 2005 decision reversing part of the trial court's property distribution in the divorce case of the couple whose townhouse was destroyed in an explosion and fire on July 10, 2006 in New York City.
The court found that Dr. Nicholas Bartha's wife, Cordula Bartha was entitled to a portion of the couple's New York City marital residence on East 62nd Street in Manhattan, finding the trial judge's "conclusion that [Mrs. Bartha] had no right to any portion of the marital residence or its appreciation in value was contrary to fundamental principles of equitable distribution."
Their townhouse was purchased for $395,000 in 1980, and according to the court, valued by a neutral appraiser in 2002 at $5 million.
Cordula Bartha, Respondent-Appellant,
v
Nicholas Bartha, Appellant-Respondent.
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2005
Cross appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.) entered May 9, 2003, which inter alia granted plaintiff wife a divorce, provided for a distributive award to the wife, awarded her maintenance for a period of three years and denied her application for attorney's fees.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Ira E. Garr, P.C., New York City (Jane R. Slavin and Ira E. Garr of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Polly N. Passonneau, P.C., New York City (Donna E. Bennick and Polly N. Passonneau of counsel), respondent-appellant.
Judges: John T. Buckley, P.J. Peter Tom Richard T. Andrias, David B. Sqxe, George D. Marlaow, JJ. All concur.
to weirdo anonymous:
Are you sure you have to attend to your custodial duties? aren't you single angry white male?
white supremacy club perhaps?
Better be weirdos than criminal bunch like your friends.
Once a criminal always a criminal - and they will catch you
FBI - newyork@fbi.gov
212 384 1000
They will take any leads
Article Orange County Social Services' computer system still full of glitches
1 of 2 Curtis Bailey, a Senior Case Worker, demonstrates to the computer system problems at Orange County Department of Social Services in Goshen.TH-R/DOMINICK FIORILLE By Chris McKenna
Times Herald-Record
June 18, 2007
Goshen — It was supposed to free social service workers from paperwork and help protect vulnerable children from abuse and neglect.
But Connections, the state-run computer system launched in 1996 to keep track of abuse reports and foster-care placements, remains incomplete and plagued with problems almost 10 years after it was supposed to be finished.
Costs — already double or triple the original price tag of $113.6 million by 2001 — continue to mount.
And, most alarmingly, Connections and its reporting requirements are so unwieldy that case workers now spend almost a third of their work hours keeping records — or about triple the time it took in pen-and-paper days.
Far from saving time, Connections consumes it.
And what that means for social service workers in the Hudson Valley and Catskills is more time at their desks instead of in the field, meeting in person with families and the children they are charged with protecting.
The pent-up frustration is almost palpable as a group of case workers and supervisors at the Orange County Department of Social Services let loose on the computer network that has confounded them for so long. They say it's slow, confusing, difficult to learn, difficult to edit and unable to perform functions most computer users take for granted, like copying and pasting blocks of text.
No one doubts they must keep meticulous records, for legal and other reasons. But is it really necessary, the workers wonder, to type a new "progress note" after every phone call?
Sure, clicking on a few boxes and typing in a line or two for each document takes only a minute or so. But multiply that by 100, and there goes a good chunk of the day.
"For the hundreds of little things that we do constantly, it's very cumbersome," says Debbie Pesola, a senior case supervisor involved with foster care.
It wasn't supposed to be this way.
There were high hopes in February 1996 when then-Gov. George Pataki announced plans for a computer network that would link social-service offices in New York City and the 57 counties outside the city, plus more than 350 nonprofit agencies with child welfare services.
The system would pool records so that workers in one county would know, for instance, if a child-abuse suspect faced similar accusations elsewhere. Officials also hoped to reduce paperwork so workers could devote more time to crucial face-to-face visits.
As Pataki pledged: "Our new system will allow child welfare caseworkers to spend less time shuffling paper and more time directly helping thousands of children in New York State who are vulnerable to abuse, neglect and abandonment."
Instead, the shuffling increased.
Back in pen-and-paper days, workers spent 9 percent to 13 percent of their time keeping records, Orange County officials say. Today, that figure has risen to a statewide average of around 31 percent, according to a child welfare workload report released in November.
And in Orange County, where a case worker juggles an average of 7.5 new abuse investigations each month, employees insist they spend an even greater amount of their time on the computer — maybe more than 50 percent.
Much of that work is unavoidable, they admit. But they say much is squandered on unnecessary and repetitive tasks, courtesy of Connections.
"I would say at least 15 percent of our time is wasted," said Faith Aprilante, a senior case worker in the foster care unit.
The spiralling cost of the project has also been a bone of contention.
In 1996, the state hired Accenture to design the system and an IBM subsidiary to supply and maintain the equipment and provide support and training. The two contracts totalled $113.6 million.
What was supposed to have been a five-step installation, to be wrapped up by September 1997, evolved into a never-ending series of upgrades, the most recent of which was called "Build 18.9.2."
Five years later, only three stages were done, complaints were rampant and expenses had soared. Two state Assembly committees wrote a scathing report that put the cost at $362.6 million. Another report that year estimated it would cost another $53.7 million to finish the work.
The state Office of Children and Family Services, the agency that oversees Connections, on Friday provided an updated cost for the Times Herald-Record: $389.3 million.
OCFS is now designing what might be the final stage, "Build 19." That work will bring the records for child support and adoption into the system and finally render Connections complete under the standards of the federal government. No completion date has been announced.
Critics acknowledge that the state has become more responsive to complaints and that the system has improved. And they appreciate the benefits of linking case records across the state in a consistent format.
And yet enough problems remained for the state to convene a two-day conference with case workers in January to hear their complaints.
The resulting report ran for 17 legal-size pages. Among the many grievances: a search function so inflexible it might overlook the name of a known child-abuser if it was entered into the system with just one letter incorrect.
Orange County workers are optimistic about the proposed platform change. They say they were told the new system will be installed in 2008 and will behave like Microsoft Windows — much easier to navigate than what they have now.
"It needs to be friendly to the end user, which right now it is not," Pesola said.
umm I wonder if this the reason why CPS in Goshen New York makes false reports against mothers and children victims of Domestic Violence?
For some PAS made them do it for CPS the Glitches made them not do their job and the computers spits out the report backwards.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
this is wierdo custodial anonomous broadcoasting to u form the enaretst fathers rights station...yang is still the numebr one con artisit int he world thank god her judge took the kid away from her and wll never give her back..yangs case never got reveresed by the app court!!wonder why? case yang elvator dotn stop at all floors...cheers to judge lobis for taking that envelope full of cash from the father!!!!
The lord works in mysterious ways
Woman injured in crash with trooper's car
June 18, 2007
White Lake — The wife of a prominent Orange County lawyer was seriously hurt Sunday night when their car and a state police car collided on Route 17B in White Lake.
Gary Greenwald, 62, and Diane Greenwald, 58, of Goshen had just visited their daughter and son-in-law's new restaurant, Bubba's, in White Lake. As they left the parking lot in their Mercedes Benz driven by Gary Greenwald, state police said, Trooper Peter Bizjak was heading west on 17B.
State police Sgt. Keith Hocker said Bizjak saw the Mercedes pull into the road in front of him and tried to avoid it, veering into the oncoming lane. The Mercedes kept pulling out, Hocker said, and Bizjak couldn't avoid it. The troopers' 2006 Crown Victoria hit the front quarter panel on the Mercedes' driver's side.
The impact spun the Mercedes back into the Bubba's parking lot, where it slammed into three parked cars.
Police said Diane Greenwald suffered a broken hip in the crash. She was taken by ambulance to Catskill Regional Medical Center in Harris, and then flown to Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla.
Police said charges are pending.
There is limited sight distance on the 17B corridor that's home to Bubba's, several other restaurants and a boat rental business. The speed limit on the strip is 40 mph.
Hocker said state police are doing a full reconstruction of the crash to determine speed. He said that's standard when a trooper is involved in a serious crash.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
Judge tosses sheriff's attempt to dodge lawsuit
GOSHEN: A state Supreme Court judge rejected Sheriff Frank Bigger's request to dismiss the attorney general's lawsuit. Bigger's lawyer, Gary Greenwald, vows to try again.
By Timothy O'Connor
The Times Herald-Record
toconnor@th-record.com
A state judge has slapped down Sheriff H. Frank Bigger's attempt to have the state attorney general's lawsuit thrown out of court.
Acting state Supreme Court Justice James Pagones said there are "ample allegations to sustain" Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's lawsuit against Bigger, former head of the Orange County reserve deputies Harry Ryttenberg, and five others – four of whom served as directors on the boards of two nonprofit foundations.
Spitzer sued in September saying that the sheriff knew about and ignored fraud and corruption in nonprofit groups associated with the Sheriff's Office. The lawsuit charged that Bigger benefited politically from fund-raising scams that bilked the public and volunteer sheriff's deputies of $117,549.
In December, Bigger moved to have the suit thrown out, arguing that the attorney general's lawsuit failed to lay out a "cause of action" against Bigger. His lawyer, Gary Greenwald of Chester, argued that Bigger was not part of any scheme to defraud since he did not solicit any funds, that he was just a director on the board.
But Pagones' ruling knocked down those arguments, saying "Bigger's arguments are unavailing."
"Additionally, the claim thatØ…ØBigger has no liability by virtue of his status as a director is specious," Pagones wrote in the decision inked Feb. 14.
Yesterday, Greenwald said Pagones erred in making his ruling.
"We believe that the court did not apply the appropriate facts," he said. His office will draw up another motion to dismiss the case, he said.
Deputy Attorney General Peter Pope said the judge's decision is "a complete affirmation of our legal position in this matter."
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
Judge scolds Greenwald firm on fatal crash case
By Oliver Mackson
Times Herald-Record
omackson@th-record.com
Newburgh – A judge has scolded one of the area's best-known law firms, saying it acted "against the best interests" of a client who was charged with failure to keep right after a fatal accident last year.
The client, Deborah Palminteri of Walden, got a new lawyer last week. In a three-page decision, Newburgh Town Justice Richard Clarino said the Chester-based Greenwald Law Offices didn't show enough of a basis to justify being relieved from the case, but Clarino allowed the change because Palminteri "lost faith and confidence in said firm by virtue of the attempt it made, literally on the day of trial, to unilaterally withdraw as counsel."
Gary Greenwald, the firm's founder and chief lawyer, took umbrage at the decision, saying that "the judge, in making his determination, was not aware of all the facts by a long shot."
Palminteri, 51, was ticketed by town police after a Nov. 15 accident on Route 52 that killed 27-year-old Christian Benben of Newburgh. She was scheduled for trial on July 19.
That morning, Clarino wrote, the court got a faxed notice from Greenwald's office, saying the firm was withdrawing from the case. Clarino ordered the firm to send someone to that night's court session to explain why.
Ariana Antonelli, a lawyer in Greenwald's office, explained that "when the firm became aware that the charge against (Palminteri) resulted from a fatal accident, the firm determined that it didn't have an attorney with sufficient skills to handle the defense," according to Clarino's decision.
Greenwald said his firm, which handles some of the area's most high-profile criminal cases, has five lawyers specializing in criminal law. But at the time Palminteri's case was headed for trial, he said, all the criminal lawyers were engaged in other cases. Antonelli, who was in the courtroom, called the judge's statement "out of context."
Greenwald said Palminteri was refunded her $500 retainer and the firm notified the court as soon as possible that it would no longer be defending Palminteri.
He also said the firm had "significant issues" with Palminteri, but those weren't presented to the judge and weren't cited in his decision. Greenwald wouldn't explain the issues, citing lawyer-client privilege.
Clarino, like all judges in New York, is prohibited from discussing cases while they're pending.
Palminteri and her new lawyer, Steve Sherlock, are due back in Town Court on Oct. 11 for trial.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
August 03, 2002
Judge rules against secret tape in 9/11 donations theft trial
By Bianca Sausa
Times Herald-Record
bsausa@th-record.com
Goshen – A judge ruled yesterday against admitting a secretly taped conversation into the trial of a man accused of stealing cash donated to the widow of a firefighter who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Brian Lynch, 28, is charged with second-degree burglary and third-degree grand larceny. He is accused of taking $8,000 from the home of his neighbor, Heloiza Asaro. Asaro's husband, Carl, a New York City firefighter, died at the World Trade Center.
Yesterday, the second day of the trial in Orange County Court, Judge Stewart Rosenwasser denied a request from Lynch's lawyer, Gary Greenwald, to admit a recording of a conversation between Heloiza Asaro, a private investigator and a paralegal from Greenwald's office. The conversation occurred July 26 in a supermarket parking lot.
Asaro did not know she was being recorded.
Yesterday, Asaro testified that the investigator told her he was a retired firefighter; the paralegal said she was a nurse at Ground Zero.
Some of the statements Asaro made to the paralegal and private investigator were inconsistent with her prior testimony, Greenwald argued.
Earlier in the proceeding, Asaro, the first witness called, was cross-examined. It was her second day on the stand.
Greenwald played a conversation between the 911 dispatcher and Asaro from Oct. 5, the day she discovered the money missing from her dresser drawer. Greenwald tried to show that the last time Mrs. Asaro checked the drawer was Oct. 4, a day before the call.
But in the 911 tape, Asaro says no such thing; it remains unclear when she checked the drawer.
Greenwald also brought up the fact that there were many people in Asaro's home and bedroom on Oct. 4. Police say Brian Lynch went into Mrs. Asaro's bedroom Oct. 5 and took the cash.
Those who were in the home Oct. 4 included Asaro's sons, two of their friends, and the mother of one of those boys. The mother, Greenwald pointed out, was upstairs for an extended period of time while Asaro was in New York City with Lynch.
"Is it fair to say that a multitude of people between Oct. 4 and Oct. 5...were in your house?" Greenwald asked.
"Yes," Asaro said.
The trial continues Monday.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
smells like a rat to me between the pedohile Anonymous and the corrupt attorney. But I know that Judge Lobis should save the bribes she had gotten for her special judgements in the courtroom, she may need them soon for her own legal.
To Anonymous:
Do you mean broadcasting from pedophile city?
Tell me when the elevator goes down and your hoping it does not stop in Esther Yang's floor do you get scared?
You should be scared when it does stops you won't know if the elevator is going up or down. There will be not enough money in the world or an evelop to hold the money to bribe a Judge.
Yesterday, the second day of the trial in Orange County Court, Judge Stewart Rosenwasser denied a request from Lynch's lawyer, Gary Greenwald
what's up with Gary Greenwald?
there must be more...
who else - players more players - is that boy up to something?
weirdos anonymous - little boys, a bunch of whinny little boys.
Esther's ex attorney who contributed to many judges - can't wait for someone to post attorneys, campaign $$$ and appointments and winning cases. who are they again - rats and more rats
I love this country - weidos anonymous - watch your computer - remember nothing can be deleted from your computer and those coffee places that you visited can be track down....
I would watch your cell phone and your phone - think surveillance tapes
and don't forget - the state and federal law enforcement read lips.
careful to be accessory to commit a crime - it's one thing to joke around but it is another thing to NOT report a crime
and if you are an attorney - kiss your license good bye
smells like a rat to me Gary Greenwald likes to falsify court orders for fraud purposes. he not only screws other litigants he likes to screw his own clients. Apparently he has multiple complaints but so far nothing sticks according to an attorney from Rockland County. He is a prominent attorney in Orange County and many of his own peers, law clerks and and judges can't stand him.
Gary Greenwald is a crook and somebody should check if he is charging the county for services he does not provides, or if he is overcharging. A crook is a crook and will always be a crook
look what I found in a blog
Hope Mrs. Greenwald gets better....but knowing how Gary Greenwald operates, he'll probably sue the bartender at Bubba's for serving him drinks, sue his daughter because she owns the bar, sue his son-in-law because he's married to his daughter, sue the eye doctor for incorrect prescription to his glasses, sue the town for the "blind spot" pulling out of the parking lot, sue NYS for the trooper that hit him, sue the trooper for hitting him and so on and so on. He will do anything to get anything....he's got connections...he will do what he has to to get what he wants, just like he was doing to be with his mistress on his trips to Vegas several years ago while his wife was busy running around doing his dirty work. Gary likes to have a few "cocktails" alright!!! I am all for the Trooper!!
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
No doubt fat Gary (aka Andre the Giant; aka fat blowhard) will bill $400 per hour for his time at the accident, and milk the system for another $1000 per hour because three of his associates utilized office time to check on his well being. After all, they could have used their valuable time to soak another poor sap for his last nickel! He brags about his "connections" but nobody likes him or even returns his calls!His wife is a nice lady and speedy recovery.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
Trooper Bizjak is a vertern trooper, with over 10 years in the agency. He had his emergency lights flashing, and I have heard from a few sources that Mr. Greenwald had a couple "cocktails" at the restaurant. So "RRB", I highly doubt that Trroper Bizjak's career is over. Do yourself a favor and get the facts straight next time before you start making assumptions.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
There was a blog on the record online page in orange County New York where people where telling the truth about Gary Greenwald one of the most corrupt, piece of human garbage spit on this earth and the record took it down. I wonder why, could be that the truth hurts or that he was afraid people will get together and filled a massive complaint. Gary Greenwald is a criminal and corrupt attorney in Orange county
Gary Greenwald - has messed up?
think penal code, think of anything to prosecute him.
Please
LV U and hang in there
esther...esther......esther.....esther.....esther.....know any judges i can bribe
Supreme Court justice says he's quitting
June 20, 2007
Goshen - A state Supreme Court justice said yesterday that he's leaving the bench before his term ends.
Justice Lawrence I. Horowitz, who was elected to a 14-year term in 2003, told lawyers who appeared in a civil case in his court today that he won't set a trial date because he won't be around to conduct the trial.
"...I hesitated saying this but I'm going to say it now," Horowitz said, according to a transcript. "I think it is appropriate at this point. I am not setting a trial date because I am leaving the bench."
One of the lawyers, James Harris of Goshen, told Horowitz, "Sorry to hear that, judge."
Horowitz replied, "Me, too. Sort of."
He didn't say when he'd be leaving his $136,700-a-year job. Nor did he say why. And by late this afternoon, the state Office of Court Administration hadn't received a resignation letter or any other formal notice of Horowitz's intentions.
Horowitz lives in Westchester County, but a shortage of Supreme Court justices in Goshen caused the region's administrative judge to assign Horowitz here when he took office in January 2004.
Earlier this year, Horowitz was threatened with a contempt-of-court proceeding because of a dispute that developed during his own divorce case.
Oliver Mackson
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
Gary Greenwald can read straight from the bible and I will still say he is a liar.
Cops reconstruct accident
By Heather Yakin
Times Herald-Record
June 20, 2007
White Lake — The trooper was speeding, lawyer Gary Greenwald says.
But this time, Greenwald isn't defending a client. He's talking about the Sunday night collision between his car and a state trooper's car. The crash sent Greenwald's wife, Diane, to Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla with a broken hip. She had surgery yesterday. Greenwald said the doctors told him she won't be able to walk for at least six months.
The Greenwalds had Father's Day dinner at Bubba's, the restaurant their daughter and son-in-law recently opened on Route 17B, overlooking White Lake.
At 7:49 p.m., Greenwald, who owns Greenwald Law Offices, pulled out of the exit to head home to Goshen. "I looked to my left, There's nobody there," Greenwald said. "No cars left or right."
Then, he says, as he got to the center line, he saw a westbound car crest the hill about 150 yards to his left, coming at him. "He pulls into the other lane, and I tried to pull to the right," Greenwald said. They collided.
The 2006 Crown Victoria, driven by veteran Trooper Peter Bizjak, hit the driver's side front quarter panel of Greenwald's 1999 Mercedes SL500 convertible. The Mercedes spun into three parked cars.
On the patio at Bubba's, Jonnie Wesley-Krueger of Pine Bush and her family had just finished dinner, too.
"I saw this trooper come flying," she said. She heard the crash, saw the smoke and ran to help. "Regardless of what the posted speed limit is," she said, "you can't do more than 30."
Greenwald said other witnesses also told him they believe the trooper was speeding.
State police Sgt. Raymond Walter acknowledged that several of the witnesses interviewed so far have said the trooper was speeding. But one witness said Greenwald was backing up, and one said the trooper had his emergency lights flashing; neither was true, Walter said.
"Their perceptions of how fast the trooper was going may not be correct, or they may be," Walter said. Police will rely on the measurements and physics of the reconstruction to determine Bizjak's speed.
State police often investigate crashes involving their own members, Walter said.
Greenwald is angry that Bizjak hasn't contacted him. "This man has yet to call or even say 'I'm sorry,'" Greenwald said. "I have only the highest respect for the state police. I don't believe the actions of this police officer reflects on the rest of the state police."
Anyone who witnessed the crash is asked to call state police at 292-6600
I wonder if the cops check to see if Gary Greenwald was driving drunk. Either way he is a corrupt attorney and a liar and deserves to have charges brought against him for endagering the life of others with his careless driving.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
Greenwald is angry that Bizjak hasn't contacted him. "This man has yet to call or even say 'I'm sorry,'" Greenwald said. "I have only the highest respect for the state police. I don't believe the actions of this police officer reflects on the rest of the state police."
What a hyprocrate this Gary Greenwald I wonder when he gets caught for his tricks in the courtromm if he is going to state that his criminal actions do not reflects on the rest of the attorneys in the state.
Believe the pedophile and blame the children. Attorneys pro pedophilia
Lawyer: Sodomy suspect framed
MONTICELLO: Barry Greene's lawyer says the sex abuse charges against his client were fabricated.
By Heather Yakin
The Times Herald-Record
hyakin@th-record.com
The man charged with bringing four Bronx boys to his weekend home near Jeffersonville to molest them is the victim of a frame-up, his lawyer said yesterday in Sullivan County Court.
Barry Greene, 56, of the Bronx, faces a 27-count indictment that include first- and second-degree sodomy and sexual abuse charges. Prosecutors say Greene lured four boys, ages 10 to 13, to his home on John Dietz Road in the Town of Callicoon with promises of a weekend cave-exploration camp. Instead, prosecutors say, he sexually abused them.
Greene's new lawyer, Gary Greenwald of Wurtsboro, said in a bail hearing that one of the boys had done "something" criminal, and the boys made up sex abuse stories as a cover.
"The children had motivation to make up those charges," Greenwald said.
Greenwald downplayed Greene's mid-1980s misdemeanor sexual abuse conviction, and asked for "realistic" bail. On Friday, Greenwald said, the Bronx County Court judge lowered Greene's bail there to $100,000 cash or $200,000 bond.
"We believe it's going to be shown that he (the first boy to come forward) is not telling the truth," Greenwald told Judge Frank LaBuda. "I could have the room filled with children, and families of children, who could testify about the goodness of this man."
As Greenwald spoke, District Attorney Steve Lungen hunched over the prosecution table. He stood when Greenwald ended.
"I guess there are always two sides," Lungen snapped. "Mr. Greenwald wants to paint these children as criminals. These kids, they can barely see over the table. These are little kids."
The boys' stories corroborated each other, he added.
Lungen waved Greene's "Subway Spelunkers" club flier, and said Greene displays classic pedophile characteristics.
"He hands out these little fliers," Lungen said. "When the defendant was arrested, we were called by a (man), who called us up from Texas, unsolicited, and said 'Yeah, he sodomized me too.'"
Lungen said the man said he was abused 20 years ago, at a Boy Scouts of America outing.
LaBuda said he'll set bail by tomorrow. Greene is being held at Rikers Island. His local case could go to trial in early May.
"The Public Information Lobbyist"
for Goshen New York
We live in Amerika with a K.
Filled with pedophiles,child abusers, criminals with a license to practice law, Judges with black robes and a gavel to punish innocent victims and demanding a raise increase as apparently the pay off's and kick backs are not enough.
With Forensic Evaluators that should be placed in mental institutions. Law Guardians who should be given the dead penalty for their crimes against children.
With CPS selling the children instead of protecting them. Slavery was never abolished,this time instead of selling African Americans, they are selling children and Justice.
I wonder how much do Judges charge in New York State for selling the childhood dreams.
The Judicial System in New York State is nothing but organized crime from the top to the bottom. Our Goverment is nothing but a big supporter of child abuse, pedophilia and Family Violence.
We the People living in Amerika with a K. Where criminals are buying dream catchers to bring to reality their sexual,perverted and abusive dreams.
greenwald is married to someone> find the connection between his wife, his wife's family.
Greenwald's father - all their siblings - find the connection and how deep...
then find out who is who (college friends)
None of them wants to do anything wth him - connect the dots
and who is his mentor
Lawyer's 'Lies' Sent Me To Bad Pa
Complaint Vs. Kids' Charity
By Brad Hamilton
11-13-06 -- A 16-year-old Manhattan student says a court-appointed lawyer badly botched her parents' custody case, convincing a judge to send her to an abusive father by falsely testifying about how she felt toward her mom. . . . April Soler, who attends a prestigious Upper East Side private school on a scholarship for underprivileged kids, said lawyer Hal Silverman misrepresented her when he told a Family Court judge she was resentful about her mother's failed suicide try. . . . "That was blatantly not true," said Soler, who claims Silverman, a senior member of the high-profile charity Lawyers for Children and a social worker with the group, never told the judge what she had made clear: that she wanted to live with her mother and she feared her dad's temper. . . . In March 2004, Manhattan Family Court Judge George Jurow awarded custody to Soler's father, Pedro, the super of a building on West End Avenue, tearing April and her 10-year-old sister from their stay-at-home mom, Debora. . . . On Feb. 21, 2005, the father was arrested for hurling a hunk of ham and a peanut butter jar at April. . . . April was returned to her mother after her father's violent outburst. Debora had found work as a paralegal and moved into her own apartment in Spanish Harlem. . . . But the mother and the siblings are still in court trying to get the younger sister, whose name they asked not to be used, back in her mom's custody. . . . Soler's complaints are among several being leveled at Lawyers for Children, a not-for-profit group that gets $2.2 million a year from the state court system and $1.2 million more in private funds to help foster-care kids and those facing abuse or neglect.
NEW YORK
NY Judge's Children's Book on Illegal Aliens Angers Defense Bar, Gardeners
New York Lawyer, By Thomas Adcock, New York Law Journal
12/5/2006 -- A Brooklyn judge who wrote a children's book in which he appears to compare illegal immigrants to weeds choking the life out of society has come under fire from criminal defense attorneys concerned that immigrants might not be receiving a fair shake in his courtroom. . . . "We are concerned about the judge's capacity to act impartially," said Steven Banks, chief attorney for the Legal Aid Society, yesterday. "We are requesting an inquiry by the [state Commission on Judicial Conduct] which is the proper body to address this matter." . . . The controversy raises the question of how far a judge can go in voicing his personal opinions without compromising his ability to act fairly in the courtroom. . . . Judge John H. Wilson (See Profile), who sits in Criminal Court, insisted that he is only exercising his First Amendment rights. . . . "I have the right to free expression. I thought I was exercising that by writing a work of fiction," he said in an interview. "I find it ironic that the Legal Aid Society, the guardian of freedoms, would express such concern. But it's their right to do so."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OpEd - Judges Excuse Sexual Solicitation Of Children
By Tom Chandler
Recently four New York judges decided soliciting sex from children is not a crime unless photos and/or images depicting sexual acts are involved, given the way New York's laws are written. . . . From the Monday Aug. 7 O'Reilly Factor Flash; Unresolved Problems Segment, “Child predator acquitted on appeal” - Guests: Fox News chief judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano & attorney Wendy Murphy. . . The Factor explained a strange case we've been following: "In July 2005, lawyer Jeffrey Koslow was convicted of giving explicit sexual material to what he thought was a 14-year old boy. Cops nailed Koslow through an Internet sting. He was sentenced to five years probation, labeled a sex offender. But on appeal, four judges in the appellate court here in New York said Koslow committed no crime because he didn't send the imaginary 14-year old any pictures. The judge then tossed out the conviction.". . . Attorney Wendy Murphy said, "The silliness is so obvious to me because the law says you can't send material that 'depicts' sexual conduct. Way back in 1913 Webster's says 'depicts' includes words that vividly describe something. So there is no question that the legislature intended this to cover the dissemination of both images and words." . . . FNC Chief Judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano disputed Murphy's contention: "The Supreme Court has ruled many times that depiction means a photograph or an image. If a legislature wanted to prohibit words it would have said words. And we all know that if a statute is ambiguous the defendant wins and the government loses."
One hundred men with guns can steal just as much as one lawyer with a briefcase.
August 06, 2001
Bigger's campaign fund paid legal bills
CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Sheriff Frank Bigger's books show a network of financial support, much of it from the men and women he oversees.
By John-Henry Doucette
The Times Herald-Record
jdoucette@th-record.com
Orange County wouldn't cover Sheriff Frank Bigger's legal tab, but he has had help from some people who work for him and others who oversee his office.
An analysis of public documents shows that donors such as these helped turn the elected lawman's campaign coffers into a legal defense fund last year.
Citizens for H. Frank Bigger recently opened its books after an investigation by The Times Herald-Record showed lapses in records dating back to 1998.
Expanded financial disclosure statements show a machine that steadily collected money when Bigger faced legal trouble.
Both county elections commissioners have said using campaign funds for personal use may be at odds with state election law. At their request, the county attorney's office is studying whether Bigger is violating state law.
For now, no one has made a case that it isn't legal. And for their part, donors don't seem to mind.
"I've known the man a long time," said Lewis Tedaldi, a contractor. "He's a tremendous guy – a tremendous administrator. He gets the job done."
Tedaldi has given $1,130 to Bigger's campaign through a company, Rick-Lynn Enterprises, since 1998. He has no problem with Bigger using some of it for legal bills.
"Whatever he thought would be appropriate," Tedaldi said.
Bigger has raised more than $45,000 since April 2000. That was shortly before he paid the first of several legal bills, which total at least $40,000.
During that time, unions serving correction officers and deputies gave $900. Most of that money came from the Orange County Correction Officers Benevolent Association.
Deputies have also helped with fund-raisers. Bigger's campaign reimbursed two deputies for supplies the day of a fund-raiser that raised $14,000. The campaign then cut an $8,000 check to Greenwald Law Offices, which represents Bigger.
Individuals who work for Bigger have contributed at least $4,500 to their boss's coffers, including $150 from Theodore Catletti, the jail administrator who was recently fired.
Last week, Bigger settled a civil suit filed by state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Bigger admitted he should have known about a charity scam run by volunteer deputies. He agreed to pay $15,000 in damages.
Some politicians expressed relief that the suit is settled, among them Republicans who contributed to Bigger's campaign. The total amount given by politicians was $1,800; that sum includes $235 from Legislator Steve Brescia, R-Montgomery, who is chairman of the committee that oversees Bigger's office.
"I think a lot of people feel sorry for him," Brescia said. "I don't have a problem with him using contributions that way."
Brescia is not the only legislator who has contributed.
Among others, Legislature Majority Leader Edward Diana, R-Goshen, and Legislature Chairman Richard Hansen, R-Unionville, made modest donations. It is not unusual for politicians to make such contributions.
Some of Bigger's other donors gave cash. It's not illegal for a campaign to collect cash, as long as campaign officials try to keep track of who gave what. If cash came through a raffle, for example, that would be difficult.
Still, this means voters don't know the source of $5,000 in cash the sheriff has raised since he started paying legal bills. Records show he has $3,000 left for next year's campaign – or bills.
There's one place the money won't go, according to the lawyer whose firm benefited from Bigger's fund-raising prowess.
Gary Greenwald says his client will not use campaign donations to pay his $15,000 civil debt.
Contribution sources aiding Sheriff Bigger
Campaign contributions reported in financial disclosure statements by Citizens for H. Frank Bigger total $45,207 since April 2000.
Citizens for H. Frank Bigger has paid $40,454 to Greenwald Law Offices of Chester for legal services since April 2000.
$5,002 came in cash.
$4,545 came from individuals who work for the sheriff.
$1,820 came from Republican politicians.
$1,070 came from the Village of Montgomery Police Benevolent Association, which Undersheriff John E. Thompson helped found.
$900 came from the unions that represent those who work for the sheriff.
July 27, 2002
New Wallkill board inherits old legal woes
By Nathan Hegedus
Times Herald-Record
nhegedus@th-record.com
Town of Wallkill – Oh, to be a lawyer for the Town of Wallkill.
From the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2001, the town paid out more than a million dollars in legal fees.
In January, a new supervisor and three new councilmen took over, vowing to cut the bills.
Through mid-June of this year, the town had spent $203,749.65 on lawyers, just slightly off the pace of the past two years.
About $115,000 went to the town's new legal representative, Greenwald Law Offices, which took over for former Town Attorney Monte Rosenstein.
However, Supervisor John Ward says that two-thirds of this general legal work came from "outstanding" cases that the new Town Board inherited.
The town is trying to rid itself of the old cases with settlements "any way we can," said Ward. The board pays close attention to the bills, with quarterly reports on every case, he said.
Councilman Eric Valentin was the only Democrat on the old board and the only holdover on the new one.
"I try to watch every penny that comes out of the town," he said, acknowledging the legal fees are very high. "We do watch the bills."
He worried that, where the old board refused to settle, the new one might settle too often.
"I'd like to see them come and say, 'we can win this,'" Valentin said of Greenwald. "We haven't seen that. There has to be a balance. I don't want an easy paycheck for whoever sues us."
The police continue to be the big-ticket item for the Greenwald Law Offices.
Police matters have driven the town's legal fees for years, with a slew of lawsuits, civil service hearings and contentious labor negotiations.
This year the town has spent about $25,000 defending itself against an appeal from former police Chief James Coscette.
He claims the town did not properly represent him in a federal trial brought by police Officer Ari Moskowitz.
And the law firm of Hitsman, Hoffman and O'Reilly has earned nearly $30,000 this year for its work on labor issues, mostly police-related. However, this is far less than the nearly $500,000 it got in 2000.
The rest of the town legal bills come from the other two law firms that represent the town on zoning and assessment matters.
Town of Wallkill
- A decorated Town of Wallkill cop suspended without pay files a federal lawsuit against the town. Officer Dennis Rolon alleges in the lawsuit that his supervisors in the police department brought him up selectively on charges over the past few years and then illegally suspended him. Gary Greenwald, whose Chester-based law firm represents the town, called Rolon's lawsuit bogus and said the litigation is an attempt to avoid getting fired. Rolon was a central figure in the Wallkill police troubles nearly five years ago that culminated in a suit against the town brought in federal court by state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
- Convicted felon Anthony Russo, a one-time Democratic candidate for town justice in the Town of Wallkill, is indicted by an Orange County grand jury. The 64-year-old Russo had an arsenal in his Scotchtown home that included several shotguns, rifles, pistols, ammunition, a machete, a crossbow and blow-dart gun. State police say Russo confronted Wallkill cops on Christmas Eve morning with a loaded rifle, ignoring warnings before they shot him.
pst pst look Benadette Lupinetti's husband.
The case was handled for the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit by Special Assistant Attorney General Patrick Lupinetti.
I wonder if this is the reason she thinks she can get away with her dirty deals
Hey that Carl Scheuering his brother is a Police Officer in Walkill in Orange County and the brother got promoted in the Police Department I think in 2004 and guess what Gary Greenwald is the attorney for the town of Walkill. Connect the dots favor to make police records dissapear for a promotion.
Town of Wallkill Police Department's dirty laundry aired
TOWN OF WALLKILL: About one-third of the department was implicated by the Police Commission's findings.
By Letitia M. Campbell and Timothy O'Connor
The Times Herald-Record
lcampbell@th-record.com
toconnor@th-record.com
The police department is out of control.
A Police Commission report released late Monday found a poorly trained department whose hostility toward other law enforcement agencies and blatant disregard for the rules hindered investigations and put residents at risk.
"There is a lawlessness in our department that is simply intolerable," said Commission Chairman Oscar Dino. "The things that went on in that department had to be dealt with."
The report found that officers were paid off-the-books to do private security work in uniform. The chief stacked a plainclothes investigative unit with his friends, then offered them the best shifts, lots of overtime and a long leash. A Wallkill cop threatened to arrest an investigator from the District Attorney's Office.
And cops bullied the commissioners charged with investigating them.
"We didn't break the laws," said Dino Monday night, leaning over a bound copy of the report and peering over his glasses. "We discovered who did."
In all, about a third of the department was implicated by the commission's findings.
In the course of the investigation, one officer was fired, three were served with disciplinary charges and two resigned from the department. Two police sergeants and Chief James Coscette were suspended without pay.
The commission will recommend additional charges to Acting Chief Sgt. Robert Henneman.
Town Board members got the commission's 33-page report Monday night during a two-hour secret meeting at the town golf course clubhouse.
"(The meeting) was just an organization of some of the stuff we generally knew about," said Town Supervisor Tom Nosworthy yesterday. He declined to comment on the report. "They've had it for half a year, I've had it for half a day."
A year ago, police commissioners were designing the department's new patrol cars and watching the bottom line. The five-member civilian board worked 20 hours a month, on average.
A multiple-felony last October changed things.
On Halloween night, Harold "Danny" Mitchell, 66, and his wife, Cathleen, were beaten with baseball bats at their Fair Oaks home.
The masked assailants also took large sums of cash from the couple's safe.
The Wallkill cops got the call and were first to arrive on the scene.
State Police investigators arrived shortly afterward.
"We offered whatever assistance we could offer, as we always do," said Capt. John Melville, who heads the State Police Troop F Bureau of Criminal Investigation "We were told that our assistance wasn't needed."
The department was "in over its head," Wallkill police commissioners said. Wallkill cops didn't contact District Attorney Frank Phillips about the crime and didn't collaborate with his office on the investigation.
In November, Phillips met with Dino and Nosworthy to lay down the law, commissioners said. "He said the department was out of control," Dino said. "The community's public safety was at stake."
The commission ordered Wallkill cops to turn the case over to State Police. And they started watching the day-to-day workings of the police department.
Their report blames the department's woes on weak leadership and bad management at the highest levels of the department.
Chief James Coscette, who was suspended without pay on May 18, could not be reached yesterday for comment.
Coscette's lawyer, Benjamin Ostrer of Chester, said the commission was making his client the scapegoat for the department's problems.
"You can't blame Mr. Coscette for the ills of the department which have their origin decades ago," he said.
"Nor can you blame him for the low morale which is a direct result of the witch hunt mentality of the Police Commission."
Ostrer said he had not seen a copy of the report.
"I'm sure it's rather short on specifics," he said. "It's undoubtedly a report of unique feces."
Orange County District Attorney Frank Phillips declined to comment on the report or any matter surrounding the report.
"I haven't read the report," he said.
"I wasn't aware that they were writing a report."
The police union disputed the commission's findings.
"In the past six months, they've put each of us through our own private hell and totally disrupted the running of the police department," said union President Darrell Algarin.
Copies of the report sat on desks yesterday as cops and dispatchers glanced at pages between answering phones and filing reports.
Short-staffed, many said they hadn't had time yesterday afternoon to read the document.
Others took the time.
"We're laughing at the Police Commission report," said one Town of Wallkill police officer who spoke on the condition of being unnamed. "It's a joke. You know what's lawlessness? What they're trying to do, that's lawlessness."
Wallkill hires deputy chief for cleanup
By Greg Cannon
Times Herald-Record
gcannon@th-record.com
Town of Wallkill – The police department's new second in command used the occasion of his swearing-in ceremony yesterday to ask the public for the chance to let the agency prove it's worthy of their trust and pride.
"The majority of cops in the department, I know are good cops," said George Tyndall, 50, the town's newest cop.
A 20-year NYPD veteran who worked most recently in the private sector, protecting corporate clients against terrorism, Tyndall begins his second police career as the town's first deputy chief.
In making his appeal, Tyndall alluded to the department's troubled past of mismanagement and fumbled civilian complaints that continue to define much of what happens there today.
Tyndall is in Wallkill largely as a result of the federal monitor who oversees the department. In a report last year, the monitor, Dean Esserman, recommended hiring a deputy chief because "no one person can get everything done that should be done."
Tyndall and Town of Wallkill Chief of Police Robert Hertman, a fellow NYPD vet, worked together for a time in the department's Organized Crime Control Bureau.
Hertman said Tyndall's experience set him apart from the seven other candidates who were interviewed. The hire, Hertman said, is another step toward "professionalizing" the department.
The department got in trouble when unsupervised officers were found to be harassing drivers and retaliating against critics.
Tyndall has supervisory and training experience. One of Tyndall's many postings, as an integrity control supervisor, had him investigating civilian complaints.
Tyndall is a graduate of Wagner College. He and his wife, Beth, have three children. He and his family are in the process of moving to Wallkill from Staten Island.
Wallkill Town Board OKs monitoring of cops
TOWN OF WALLKILL: The town police will serve under a court-appointed monitor for up to four years.
By Nathan Hegedus
The Times Herald-Record
nhegedus@th-record.com
The Town Board last night approved a plan that will regulate every aspect of the embattled Wallkill Police Department.
The move ends almost three months of legal wrangling between the town and state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
It sets off a four-year process that should end with state accreditation for the department.
"This is the smartest move the Town of Wallkill can make," said Spitzer. "This gives us the capacity to ensure the police department lives up to the standards that policing requires."
Spitzer first presented Wallkill with the consent decree in November, then when the board declined to sign, sued the town in federal court in January. Spitzer charged that town cops sexually harassed women and that the Town Board tried to cover up the violations.
In a motion to dismiss the case, Town Attorney Monte Rosenstein called the suit "absurd" and "selective enforcement at its worst."
Three Town Board members signed the 31-page decree on Wednesday in New York City. Pending approval by a federal judge, the state's lawsuit will be dropped, said Spitzer.
The Town Board resolution to approve the decree said they wanted to "avoid any unnecessary legal expenses ... and correct any deficiencies in the Police Department so that all Wallkill residents can have restored faith and confidence in the Town Police Department."
Spitzer called the decree the "strictest" nationwide. It mandates new rules and regulations, including video cameras in police cars, a civilian complaint procedure and annual evaluations from the chief on down.
"It looks at the entire department holistically – traffic stops, interaction with civilians and with other police departments," said Andrew Celli, Spitzer's Civil Rights Bureau chief.
A court-appointed monitor, most likely a former prosecutor or lawman, will keep tabs on the department's progress. The monitor could be in place within 60 days, said Spitzer. The monitor's cost will be capped at $250,000 over four years.
The board's resolution states that the town has already adopted many of the recommended rules and regulations. Since January, the board has also disbanded the Police Commission and hired a new temporary police chief, former state trooper John Beairsto.
Beairsto said that he had no trouble complying with the consent decree and its restrictions.
Anthony Solfaro, president of the New York State Union of Police Associations, which represents Wallkill cops, said the decree was a good step only if the town follows through on its commitments and doesn't revert to "business as usual."
Councilman Eric Valentin said the delay in signing had cost the town unnecessary legal fees and "helped destroy our reputation."
"For once I wish they (the other board members) would make a decision based on the betterment of the town instead of their political likes and dislikes," he said.
The other board members were either unavailable for comment or referred to the board resolution.
The decree validated a controversial July Police Commission report that initiated Spitzer's investigation, said two former commissioners.
"The community has to wonder if the board's failure to act has been the result of a political agenda, bad advice or a combination of both," said ex-commission George Green.
His colleague, Jay Anthony, said, "This signing should finally start to move our police department forward toward creditability, respect ... and state accreditation."
Rosenstein is fired in Wallkill
By Nathan Hegedus
The Times Herald-Record
nhegedus@th-record.com
Town of Wallkill – Change is coming to Wallkill.
Last night, a new supervisor and three new councilmen held their first public meeting.
Their first big move? Firing Town Attorney Monte Rosenstein, who served the town for more than 20 years.
Rosenstein was a fixture at town and planning board meetings, a one-man repository of Wallkill legal knowledge.
But Wallkill has grown beyond a one-man show, said Supervisor John Ward. The sprawling town needs expertise in many areas. So the board wanted to hire a law firm, and, after several interviews, it chose Greenwald Law Offices of Chester, run by Gary Greenwald.
"We (the board) liked the diversity of the firm, the size of the firm," said Ward. "We walked away (from a meeting) and said, 'This is the guy.'"
Rosenstein held center stage during much of the town's recent legal troubles. He represented the town in federal court on several police-related lawsuits, including one brought, and won, by police Officer Ari Moskowitz, which indirectly led to a state investigation of the troubled town police.
Rosenstein fiercely attacked state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's subsequent lawsuit, even long after the town had signed a state decree.
Rosenstein has extensive municipal-law experience across Orange County. He is notorious for not returning phone calls. He is always friendly and respectful, said Councilman Eric Valentin.
Yet in the past year, Rosenstein's skills and motives came under attack, especially from the former Police Commission. Also, ex-police Chief James Coscette filed a motion claiming that Rosenstein did not properly defend him during the Moskowitz trial.
Rosenstein did not return a phone call asking for comment.
Ward said Rosenstein's performance was not a factor in the decision to drop him.
"But if everybody was totally satisfied, it might have been a little different," he said.
Ward is trying hard to get off to a smooth start. He met with all town employees Wednesday and he's delivering the mail to get to know everybody.
He plans to redecorate his office, which should be easy because former Supervisor Tom Nosworthy left behind mostly bare walls and basic furniture.
The board retained Town Attorney Joseph A. Owen for Zoning Board issues. The town will also continue to work with the firm of Hitsman, Hoffman and O'Reilly, which has handled labor matters, including police Civil Service hearings.
Ward chose Valentin as deputy supervisor and Councilman Charles McLean as his second deputy.
A Republican, Ward isn't sticking to party lines. Greenwald is a prominent county Democrat and Valentin was the only Democrat on the previous Town Board. Ward says each decision was made without regard for party affiliation.
March 22, 2004
Talk on the Street
Executive reorder
If you need a scorecard to figure out who's who in the Orange County Executive's Office lately, you're not alone. The last two weeks of transfers, resignations and appointments seem like County Executive Edward Diana and county Republican Chairman Bill DeProspo have been rehearsing their own version of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?"
Anyway here's a recap:
Chris Dunleavy was chief administrative officer (that's like the county executive's vice president) before Diana was elected. Then Dunleavy became director of operations and cost control. That is, until two weeks ago when Diana made him deputy health commissioner.
Dunleavy's old job (director of operations, remember) has been filled by former Metropolitan Transportation Authority police Chief Jim O'Donnell. To him, it's "the No. 3 job in the county."
Meanwhile, Diana's No. 2, Joe Vespo, who was Dunleavy's successor as chief administrative officer, has resigned to spend more time with the marketing firm he founded. Stepping into Vespo's shoes will be Diana's real No. 2, County Attorney Catherine Bartlett, who is also DeProspo's wife. To get the job, she'll be resigning from the county attorney's post and quitting her run for state Supreme Court.
Whew. Now who gets to be county attorney
Jenkins-Kiedaisch won't repeat
What with all the fuss over the Orange County Republican candidates for state Supreme Court, Talk has been neglecting the Democrats. So here goes:
Family Court Judge Debra Jenkins-Kiedaisch won't run again for the state's highest trial court. She was a candidate last year. The names of two other potential candidates are floating around in county courthouse circles: Chester lawyer Gary Greenwald, the founder of Greenwald Law Offices, a good-sized firm with officers in Chester, Manhattan, New Jersey and Wurtsboro; and Highland Mills barrister David Levinson, who's had a long, colorful career as a town justice in Woodbury.
July 20, 2001
Did Bigger break campaign laws?
CAMPAIGN FINANCE: The sheriff's campaign fund foots his legal bills, but his financial reports don't show who is giving the money.
By John-Henry Doucette
The Times Herald-Record
jdoucette@th-record.com
and John Milgrim
Ottaway News Service
jmottaway@aol.com
Orange County Sheriff Frank Bigger's campaign organization may be in violation of state election law because not a single contributor to the nearly $90,000 raised during the past three years is named.
That means there's no telling who gave how much to Bigger, though state law requires contributions of $100 or more to be itemized in public records.
The sheriff said his campaign financial disclosure reports lack names because all the contributions were under $100.
However, at least five other elected Republicans – from state Sen. William J. Larkin, R-C-Cornwall-on-Hudson, to county Legislator Steve Brescia – contributed between $100 and $300 to Citizens for H. Frank Bigger, according to their own campaign disclosure reports.
A review of records at the county Board of Elections in Goshen also shows that Citizens for H. Frank Bigger has spent more $40,000 of his campaign war chest as a legal defense fund.
Lee Daghlian, a spokesman for the state Board of Elections, said yesterday it is a violation not to itemize at all. Each violation carries a $500 fine.
Orange County's election commissioners, Republican David C. Green and Democrat Susan Bahren, sent a letter yesterday to Bigger's wife and campaign treasurer, Alice C. Bigger, to seek additional information on "incorrectly completed" statements. Should the Bigger campaign redo these filings, the commissioners said they would not audit them.
Cross-referencing other public records to those filed by Bigger's campaign shows a number of high-profile politicians contributed $100 or more to him.
For example, Brescia, the county lawmaker from Montgomery, contributed to or purchased tickets for Bigger campaign events at costs of $70, $60 and $70, according to one of his own financial disclosures.
Individually, these donations are less than $100, but the aggregate or sum total is $200. State law says Brescia's contributions should have been reported as such.
New York election law instructs campaigns to keep track of even small donations, then report contributors once they top $100. If this wasn't so, a company that gave a $1,000 check to a campaign would be reported, while another which gave 20 checks of $50 would not. Companies or those who seek to influence politicians could, in effect, hide their support.
Brescia, who chairs the committee which oversees the sheriff's budget, also contributed $100 by check, according to his records. This contribution is not shown in Bigger's records.
Other GOP officeholders who reported contributions to Bigger's campaign on their own disclosure forms include Larkin, Assemblywoman Nancy Calhoun, R-C-I-Blooming Grove, Assemblyman Howard Mills, R-C-I-Town of Wallkill, and state Sen. John Bonacic, R-C-Mount Hope..
These are not reported in the sheriff's campaign reports.
Meanwhile, Bahren and Green asked the county attorney's office yesterday to review whether Bigger's use of campaign funds for personal legal services is allowable under election law.
Alice Bigger confirmed yesterday that more than $40,000 has been spent for the sheriff's defense in a civil lawsuit brought by the state attorney general on charges he should have known about a charity scam. She also said her husband had checked with the state elections commission before spending his campaign funds this way.
Bigger had wanted taxpayers to pay for his legal defense, but the county refused. Bigger's attorney is Gary Greenwald of Chester and his firm.
The case will go to trial later this summer.
Bigger has spent about $120,000 since his re-election, but only a third on legal bills.
The rest went to other politicians, charities and to pay for fund-raisers. The financial report filed this week shows less than $3,000 left in the bank.
Payments
Payments by Citizens for H. Frank Bigger to Greenwald Law Offices in Chester:
$8,000, June 21, 2001
$2,449.60, Feb. 2, 2001
$3,083.26, Dec. 27, 2000
$1,207.66, Dec. 27, 2000
$6,209.54, Nov. 25, 2000
$2,459.77, Nov. 25, 2000
$3,050, Oct. 5, 2000
$7,464.25, Oct. 5, 2000
$811.11, Aug. 17, 2000
$5,719.40, April 6, 2000
Total: $40,454.59
Source: Campaign finance disclosure report for Citizens for H. Frank Bigger
Aggregate contributions of $100 or more not reported in the campaign finance disclosure report for Citizens for H. Frank Bigger revealed through scrutiny of officeholders' financial disclosures by the Times Herald-Record and Ottaway News Service.
-- $300 from Orange County Legislator Steve Brescia, R-Montgomery, chairman of the committee which oversees the sheriff's office.
-- $240 from Assemblywoman Nancy Calhoun, R-C-I-Blooming Grove.
-- $125 from Assemblyman Howard Mills, R-C-Wallkill.
-- $100 from state Sen. William Larkin, R-C-Cornwall-on-Hudson.
-- $100 from state Sen. John Bonacic, R-C-Mount Hope.
Sources: state Board of Elections campaign disclosure reports for each of the state legislators and for the Committee to Elect Brescia.
Gary Greenwald likes to falsify orders for fraud purposes.
GARY GREENWALD, ESQ
Date : 10/3/2005
Subject: RIP OFF ARTIST Topic: Unethical
Complainant: unethical, overcharges
Used the law firm for a divorce - one year later and $60,000,
still not divorced. I was
passed off to 3 different lawyers within the firm, overcharged
and double billed by all. I
was told by a staff member at the firm to seek another lawyer
and to pursue fee
mediation. They even gave me the name of a new lawyer.
The new lawyer settled the
divorce for $3,000 in just 1 month. Now I hear from other
people and lawyers that he has
a terrible reputation and has had numerous complaints
through the bar. A former lawyer
in his office now tells me that he directs his lawyers to run up
a clients bill. Until I was in
another law office and started to hear horror stories, I didnt
realize he had such a bad
reputation locally. I took him to task and did pursue fee
mediation - guess what, he tried
to charge me an additional $10,000 for "fee mediation prep".
Gary Greenwald should be
taken to task by the bar - stop protecting a lawyer who has no
morals and does not abide
by the ethical code of attorney conduct.
GARY GREENWALD, ESQ
GARY GREENWALD, ESQ Date : 9/5/2005
Subject: RIP OFF Topic: Overcharge
Complainant: WILLIAM B.
THIS SLEAZEBAG IS A RIP OFF TO THE HIGHEST EXTREME. HE
MAKES UP CASES
CLAIMING THEY APPLY TO YOUR CASE, THAT DONT EXIST. HE
CLAIMS THAT HE CAN PULL
STRINGS WITH THE JUDGES, BUT THEY CANT STAND HIM. HE
INSTRUCTS HIS FIRM TO
OVERCHARGE CLIENTS. MY NEICE WORKED FOR HIM, AND
VERIFIED THIS HAPPENED
DAILY. IF YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT YOUR BILL, THIS CON MAN
INTIMIDATES YOU AND
THROWS YOU OUT OF HIS OFFICE. HE IS A PATHOLOGICAL
LIAR AND AN EMBARASSMENT
TO THE PROFESSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Judge Abruptly Resigns Amid Reports of Ethics Probe
New York Lawyer, By Daniel Wise, New York Law Journal
6-22-07 -- Supreme Court Justice Lawrence I. Horowitz abruptly resigned from the bench yesterday, according to Ninth Judicial District Administrative Judge Francis A. Nicolai. . . . Justice Horowitz, 56, who has reportedly been under investigation for intervening in a friend's traffic ticket, made his resignation effective as of today. . . . His lawyer, Deborah Scalise, a specialist in professional discipline matters at Jones Garneau in White Plains, said the judge resigned for "personal reasons" and declined to elaborate. . . . Justice Horowitz was appointed to an interim vacancy on the Westchester County Court in 2003, and elected to the Supreme Court in the Ninth District, which covers the five suburban counties north of New York City, later that year. For the past two years he was been sitting in Orange County.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Judge Cries 'Sue!'
Kaye's Silly Threat Exposes Disorder In N.Y. Courts
By Jim Copland
6-15-07 -- NEW York's top jurist, Chief Judge Judith Kaye, has a long and distinguished career on the bench. So her threats to sue the state with a frivolous claim over judicial pay raises have been disappointing, to say the least. On Tuesday, she told a group of business leaders, she claimed, "We are prepared for full-scale litigation against the state of New York if nothing happens by the time the Legislature adjourns." . . . Kaye is understandably irked that the salaries of the states' judges haven't increased in some nine years. But the power to set judicial salaries clearly rests with the Legislature's appropriations power, as spelled out in the state Constitution, which says that judicial pay "shall be established by law." . . . The Constitution constrains the Legislature not to lower judges' salaries over the term for which they have been elected or appointed - an important safeguard to preserve judicial independence - but hardly compels lawmakers to increase judicial pay.
Gary Greenwald works for who ever pays him the most to falsify documents and scam people. Every knows what this corrupt attorney is all about.
I must share with you
NOW HIRING
The Children’s Protection Services is now hiring.
In order to qualify for employment you must meet the following requirements.
1. You must not know any of the Constitution.
2. If you do, you must forget it. It is not needed in this field. We don’t acknowledge it
3. You must be able to select your own victims, sorry we meant cases.
4. You must select poor, single, disabled, or grandparents, no 2 parent homes, no one with an income over 35,000 and absolutely NO ONE who can afford a lawyer.
5. You must be able to lie on demand, it doesn’t matter what you say, we have guardian ad litems to back you up.
6. You must not be afraid to lie to the police, tell them you have a warrant to remove a child even if you don’t. Don’t worry they know the game too.
7. we prefer you read and write well, but if not that’s ok, we have standard forms you can fill out and pick and choose what reasons you would like to use for removing a child.
8. You must make sure the rubber stamp at the Judges bench is always in place and refilled with ink.
9. You must be creative and able to exaggerate the most basic situations.
10. No college degree required, we also offer you GED training.
If you are interested please submit your resume`, if you don’t have one, just stop by and write your name and number down on a piece of paper. We will call you.
We offer great benefits.
Long lunches, paid travel to testify, but only if you agree to lie to the Judge. Perjury is not an issue. We don’t acknowledge that either. You will put up for promotion immediately if you can prove to us, that you have no emotions or logical thinking skills. Although this job is with children you must not like them nor consider their feelings and what they want. We don’t do that. That is another myth that has plagued our profession. This job offers great pay and on your third day, we give you your official “seal of entitlement and power”. This allows you to officially run over the “little people”. We don’t deal with the “big dogs”. They can afford lawyers, so no worries.
Please apply immediately, we have more children to steal, Sorry typo again, we meant “save” and we need you.
You may apply @ any Juvenile or Family Court or your closest Department of Human Services Office.
I found this in Gary Greenwald's website:
Helping Victims of Abuse
Greenwald Law Offices has helped both women and men who have been abused or are afraid that they will lose their children. Our attorneys work closely with local mental health professionals and battered women's and men's groups. If you are a battered woman or man, or a domestic violence victim, we can provide emergency protective orders and restraining orders in both the criminal and family courts. We are here to help you begin to rebuild your life.
I contacted the women's program in Orange County and nobody works with Greenwald Law Office. I wonder who are the Local Mental Health Professionals he works so close with. He can provided with emergency falsified court orders and he sure helps a lot of criminals. In regard of father's group without a doubt he works very close with them.
Hon. Judith S. Kaye is the Chief Judge of the State of New York. In that role, she serves as the Chief Judicial Officer of the State and the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. The Chief Judge establishes Statewide standards and administrative policies after consulting with the Administrative Board of the Courts and approval by the Court of Appeals.
Hon. Ann Pfau is the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts. On behalf of the Chief Judge, the Chief Administrative Judge supervises the administration and operation of the State's trial courts.
For further information call 212-428-2120.
Hon. Jan H. Plumadore is the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the Courts outside New York City. Judge Plumadore is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the trial-level courts located outside New York City. Judge Plumadore works with local Administrative Judges to allocate and assign judicial and nonjudicial personnel resources to meet the needs and goals of the State-paid trial-level courts. He is also responsible for overseeing the local Town and Village Courts.
For more information:For further information call 518-474-3828.
Hon. Joan B. Carey is the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts. Judge Carey is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the trial-level courts located in New York City. Judge Carey works with the Administrative Judges of the various courts in New York City in order to allocate and assign judicial and nonjudicial personnel resources to meet the needs and goals of those courts.
For further information call 212-374-8540.
Hon. Juanita Bing Newton is the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives. Judge Bing Newton is responsible for providing Statewide oversight in developing and implementing programs to assure meaningful access to justice for all New York citizens. The Office for Justice Initiatives maintains the CourtHelp web site which is designed to offer assistance to individuals seeking access to the courts without the benefit of the services of an attorney.
For further information call 212-374-4515.
Hon. Judy Harris-Kluger is the Statewide Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Court Operations and Planning. Judge Kluger is responsible for overseeing projects and initiatives related to court planning, reform, specialization and innovation. These responsibilities include the establishment of Integrated Domestic Violence Courts throughout the State. Judge Kluger also serves as Director of the Office of Court Drug Treatment Programs, responsible for overseeing the Statewide initiative to provide court-mandated treatment to nonviolent drug-addicted offenders.
For further information call 212-428-2130.
Hon. Jacqueline W. Silbermann is the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Matrimonial Matters. Judge Silbermann is responsible for providing Statewide oversight over the matrimonial litigation process. The Office of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Matrimonial Matters is responsible for the production and distribution of information and services relating to matrimonial matters to the Judiciary, non-judicial employees, matrimonial counsel and litigants.
For further information call 212-428-2140.
Lawrence K. Marks, Esq., is the Administrative Director of the Office of Court Administration. Mr. Marks is in charge of the day-to-day management of OCA. He, along with the Chief of Operations, supervises OCA, which includes the divisions of: Human Resources, Financial Management, Technology, Court Operations, Public Safety, Public Affairs, Communications, Jury Services, Court Research and Administrative Services.
For further information call 212-428-2884.
Ronald Younkins, Esq. , is the Chief of Operations for the Office of Court Administration. Mr. Younkins is in charge of long-term projects and initiatives. He, along with the Administrative Director, supervises OCA, which includes the divisions of: Human Resources, Financial Management, Technology, Court Operations, Public Safety, Public Affairs, Communications, Jury Services, Court Research, Court Facilities and Administrative Services.
For further information call 212-428-2126.
Since 1990, the Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System has been responsible for the distribution, collection, review and maintenance of the financial disclosure statements required to be filed annually by approximately 5,000 judges, justices and other employees of the court system, pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Judge, 22 NYCRR Part 40. Effective September, 2006, certain candidates for public election to judicial office are also required to file financial disclosure statements, pursuant to the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, 22 NYCRR Part 100
25 Beaver Street - Room 875
New York, NY 10004
(212) 428-2899
About the Commission
The Ethics in Government Act of 1987 was enacted in order to promote public confidence in government, to prevent the use of public office to further private gain, and to preserve the integrity of governmental institutions. The Act accomplishes those goals by prohibiting certain activities, requiring financial disclosure by certain State employees, and providing for public inspection of financial statements.
Since 1990, the Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System has been responsible for administering the distribution, collection, review and maintenance of annual financial disclosure statements. The powers and duties of the Commission are set forth in 22 NYCRR Part 40 (Chief Judge's Rule) and the procedures promulgated by the Commission are set forth in 22 NYCRR Part 7400.
The Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System is comprised of five members appointed by the Chief Judge. Two members must be State Judges or Justices, and at least two shall not be public officers or employees. The chair is designated by the Chief Judge. The Commissioners serve without compensation. Each Commissioner serves for a term of five years.
The members of the Commission are:
Hon. Gloria Goldstein, Appellate Division Justice, Second Department. Justice Goldstein is the Chair of the Commission;
Mary C. Daly, Dean of St. John's University School of Law;
Hon. Victoria A Graffeo, Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals;
Judy A. Toyer, Esq., an attorney with Eastman Kodak Co;
Hon. Roberto Velez, Chief Administrative Law Judge, NYC OATH.
There are three Commission staff members, Janice Howard, Executive Director; Sharon C. Kennedy, Associate Counsel; and Milagros Davila-Butler, Administrative Secretary.
Public Service Announcement:
Listen to the radio spot
Under the leadership of Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, The New York State Unified Court System has created dozens of specialized domestic violence courts across the State - from our biggest cities to our smallest towns. Building on the successes of the last decade, we will continue to create innovations that address the needs of all litigants, including the most vulnerable.
Our goal is simple: to fight domestic violence by helping victims and holding offenders accountable. October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and this year, the New York State Court System proudly commemorates ten years of dedicated service to families in crisis.
Thanks to the hard work of hundreds of judges, court staff, attorneys, service providers, and others, we are making a difference helping to end family violence.
I am sorry I had to stop and laugh at this last one. What a load crap
Thanks to the hard work of hundreds of judges, court staff, attorneys, service providers, and others, we are making a difference helping to end family violence.
I wonder in what planet and galaxy is this taken place.
The lord works in mysterious ways
Woman injured in crash with trooper's car
June 18, 2007
White Lake — The wife of a prominent Orange County lawyer was seriously hurt Sunday night when their car and a state police car collided on Route 17B in White Lake.
Gary Greenwald, 62, and Diane Greenwald, 58, of Goshen had just visited their daughter and son-in-law's new restaurant, Bubba's, in White Lake. As they left the parking lot in their Mercedes Benz driven by Gary Greenwald, state police said, Trooper Peter Bizjak was heading west on 17B.
__________________________
Gary - are you drinking and driving????
who are you going to use, your wife or shld your wife sue you because u r driving???
know bernadette? i am curius to know who is the judge that will be handling your case?
got campaign dollars tracking to those judges?
do you even sleep at night?
anyone else has Greenwald or bernadette???
connect the dots....
like someone said - the Lord works in mysterious way
By MICHELE McPHEE
DAILY NEWS POLICE BUREAU CHIEF
Justice Marilyn Diamond
A criminal profiler who analyzed threatening letters sent to a Manhattan judge has concluded that the judge wrote them herself, the Daily News has learned.
Since Acting Supreme Court Justice Marylin Diamond reported the first of the bizarre threats three years ago, she has been guarded virtually around-the-clock by NYPD detectives or Supreme Court officers, according to law enforcement sources.
They escorted Diamond from her upper East Side home to the courthouse in lower Manhattan and from there to her weekend home in Westport, Conn., the sources said.
They guarded her at hairdressing appointments, lunch dates, and social functions - until last week, when her armed security detail was lifted the same day the Daily News contacted the NYPD and the state Office of Court Administration about the case.
"She needed to justify her security detail, so she was writing the letters to herself," one law enforcement source told The News. "It's a crazy case. Detectives were trying to determine who was sending her the letters, and everything was coming back to her."
Reached Thursday at Manhattan Supreme Court, Diamond expressed shock when told of the profiler's findings, then declined further comment.
Later that day, she told the NYPD that two additional letters were sent to her chambers with 9/11-related threats, sources said.
On Friday, Diamond denied she was the source of the letters.
"To allege that I was the one making these threats is totally incorrect and grossly irresponsible," Diamond said in a statement released through David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration.
Husband a judge
The 61-year-old jurist, a graduate of New York University and St. John's Law School, is one of the city's few Republican judges. She was elected to New York City Civil Court in 1990 and appointed an acting state Supreme Court justice four years later.
There, she joined her husband, Franklin Weissberg, a longtime state judge who has since retired from the bench.
For years, Diamond handled divorces, many of them high-profile cases, including that of Jocelyne Wildenstein and her billionaire husband, art dealer Alec Wildenstein.
Last October, she was presiding over the bitter breakup of wealthy investment banker Theodore Ammon and his wife, Generosa, when Theodore Ammon was found beaten to death in his East Hampton, L.I., home.
According to law enforcement sources, when Diamond began receiving the letters in 1999, the case was assigned to the threat assessment unit, part of the NYPD's elite Intelligence Division. Detectives began poring through the judge's case files.
But when investigators became stumped about a possible motive for the letters, they called in Ray Pierce, a retired detective and founder of the NYPD's criminal assessment and profiling unit, the sources said.
Pierce, who was trained as a psychological profiler by the FBI, reviewed 48 letters, typed as well as handwritten. Most were mailed to Diamond at her chambers, though some were sent to her Manhattan home.
Anti-Semitic
In some of the letters, the writer called her a "pig," the sources said. Others were anti-Semitic. Some featured a roughly scrawled heart with a dagger drawn through it. All of them threatened her life.
One of the first letters to arrive in 1999 read: "You bitch. I see you every day on the train. I'm going to ... crucify you. Maybe I'll see you in hell."
Pierce told investigators he has "no doubt" Diamond was writing the letters herself, the sources said.
They said he reached that conclusion by considering a combination of factors: A barrage of letters would come when there was talk of her security detail ending, or during times of terror alerts. After last Sept. 11, for example, Diamond received a letter containing baby powder during the anthrax scare. Pierce also found the letters were written by an "insecure woman," according to sources.
"She has a serious problem. She thrives on attention. She had a security escort to her daughter's wedding, she's very impressed with that," Pierce told investigators, according to one source familiar with his findings.
"There was a vicious theme in all of the letters, but an obvious failure on the part of the person sending them to act. It became obvious after a while it was just a farce," Pierce concluded, according to the source.
Pierce himself declined to comment on the case.
Michael O'Looney, the NYPD's deputy commissioner of public information, also declined comment on the case.
'Credible threats'
Bookstaver defended Diamond's need for security, but would not discuss the cost to taxpayers for three years of 24-hour-a-day protection.
"We do not discuss judicial security. Discussing that may put someone's life in danger," Bookstaver said. "There were persistent, credible, serious threats made against her that were taken seriously, not only by the court system, but by the NYPD."
Diamond is not the only judge who has needed armed guards. For years, the NYPD and court officers have protected Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Leslie Crocker Snyder, who has been threatened by murderous drug gangs. Another state Supreme Court justice, Ira Gammerman, got a security detail when his name turned up on what he was told was a "hit list" allegedly compiled by parking garage magnate Abe Hirschfeld.
Nor is this Diamond's first brush with controversy. In the summer of 2000, the heirs of a wealthy Mexican art collector accused Diamond of using "undue influence" to gain control of the elderly woman's $21 million trust fund. Diamond said she was wrongly accused and a suit filed by the heirs was later thrown out of court.
Her judicial record contains a number of notable decisions, including those in the Wildenstein case and rulings that backed the city's efforts to close sex shops and keep the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association from taking contract disputes to arbitration.
No DNA evidence
For the moment, it seems unlikely Diamond, even if she is the author of the threatening letters, will face any criminal charges. Right now, law enforcement can't prove it, though sources say investigators are hard at work trying to bolster Pierce's theory.
There is no DNA evidence tying her to the missives, and a handwriting analysis also failed to link Diamond to the threats.
__________________________________________________
Judge Eyed in Court-Transcript Probe
By Brad Hamilton
New York Post
May 7, 2006
The state court watchdog is investigating charges that Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Marilyn Diamond changed official transcripts, allegedly to help cover up favorable rulings she made for pals, The Post has learned.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct interviewed court reporter Maurice Schwartzberg two weeks ago - and he admitted making "substantial revisions" to transcripts at the judge's request in one case.
Diamond is the central figure in an FBI probe into whether judges hid personal and professional ties to litigants, then ruled in their favor.
The case involving Schwartzberg pitted a co-op owner against his building at 40 Fifth Ave. over the installation of a washer-dryer.
The owner, Sam Levin, twice asked Diamond to recuse herself in 2004 after discovering that real-estate broker Douglas Elliman - which managed the co-op - rented out apartments in the judge's townhouse.
Diamond refused and ruled against Levin.
____________________________________________________________
I live in Rockland and have been going through hell here since I was 6 years ols my case has gone on for over 10 years now Jackie Sands was the original law guardian I had Bert Pepper as the forensic and an attorney named Lynn Brustein totally discredited him in Rockland back in 1998 I didn't know they even allowed courts to use him anymore. I have been before almost every judge and had numerous law guardians and attorneys here. I have been tried as a witch kept from my kids for no reason and always paid my support Judge warren recently had no choice but to give me custody of my oldest son when he turned 15 and walked out of his fathers home. With my youngest child I have always had custody and when getting divorced moved to NJ simply out of fear for Rockland COunty.My middle son still resides with his fahter (same father as the oldest) he is failing and the list of wrongs done to him go on and on. I have concrete evidence from him at 14 years old as to the way he is treated. I have been on both sides of the fence and my story is so long I would have to type all night to tell it I know all the players here in this game and thats what my kids were to them a game. It took 10+ years to be able to say I was right but the damage to my sons can never be undone. I would love to see Justice here but in 36 years of the family court in Rockland I have never seen it.....or in any of their courts for that matter.
my email is DawnF6@optonline.net my name is Dawn if I can be of any help to anyone no matter if it means testifing lobbying or just listening I would be happy to. I never did anything wrong to begin with and would love to be pointed in the right direction to change I've been waiting a long time
I think is time to filed a complaint againts Dr. Bert Pepper if more than one mother complaint is better. Please let's get together and have this unethical psychiatrist under investigation and make sure he loses his license to commit crimes. We have Catherine Wilson, Dawn and myself Nancy Marin. If anybody else knows who else had Pepper let's posted and get together via phone to coordinated the complian.
bringmykidshome@yahoo.com
This is one is only directed to those unethical attorneys in New York State.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy,
did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient
was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk
in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been
alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have
been alive and practicing law.
rester yang
whr r u.......
Can somebody tell me how much are Judges in New York State charging lately for Custody and Divorce cases. Do I have to pay directly to the Judge, the attorneys, the Law Guardian,the Court Clerk or do I do a direct deposit. I also want to know if my pay off's would be tax deductible. Do I put the money in a black, white or yellow envelop. Do I pay with yen, pesos, american money, diamonds or gold.I have so many questions and I am eager to know how much I need to get Justice in New York State. I am planning to open a referral services to get the right Judge, Law Guardian, attorney and psychiatrist.
BY NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, July 19th 2007, 4:00 AM
Deadbeat dad ex-judge Reynold Mason was back behind bars yesterday after failing to convince a Manhattan Supreme Court justice he couldn't support his three children.
Mason told Justice Joan Lobis that he has tried, but has been unable to pay some $250,000 in court-ordered support since being booted from the Brooklyn bench in 2003 and becoming a real estate agent in Georgia.
"I made a lot of mistakes. I was trying to set myself up to earn money," Mason said Tuesday, trying to justify why he bought a $9,000 car but had no cash for his kids. "You have to have a car to do what I did [sell real estate]."
Mason, who once earned $136,700 a year on the bench, was thrown in jail in May after avoiding child support for four years. In court papers, he said he only made $68,000 in 2005 and 2006 and declared bankruptcy to survive.
He asked Lobis to reduce his obligations to his ex-wife, Tessa Mason Abrams, and their children, Tiffany, 16, Dylan, 14, and Joshua, 9, saying he was borrowing from his family to get by.
But his ex-wife's attorney, Robert Dobrish, blasted Mason for failing to report family debts on his financial statements.
Lobis agreed, rejected Mason's request and sent him back to the Manhattan Detention Center until he can come up with $75,000 bond for his children.
"I find his testimony lacking in credibility in a number of places," she said, branding as "shocking" his contention that financial statements he signed under oath "were not complete."
"That he is not able to honor his own oath is of concern to the court," she added.
"I'm exhausted," said Tessa Abrams Mason, who ran her ex-husband's 1994 campaign to get to the Civil Court and then Supreme Court, and then got him knocked off the bench by handing evidence of ethics violations to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Abrams Mason, now on workers' compensation for an injury from her Wal-Mart job, tried for four years to get her deadbeat ex to pay for his kids.
"I just want this to be resolved," she said.
Segal Levi’s ex- husband Avraham Levi – sentenced to 3 months in JAIL, (see NY Times’ and NY Post’s articles below)
HIS attorney, Paul Simonovsky - JAILED,
Justice Gerald Garson’s Court Officer Louis Salerno - convicted of moving cases to Justice Garson;
Nissim Ellman – the middleman – convicted and will be sentenced in August 2007
The Matrimonial Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson – JAILED (3 – 10 years).
I hope this story sends a message to all the players who are willing to commit crimes against loving protective moms, our innocent children (our future leaders), and use them as pawn while using taxpayers $$$ to do their misdeeds - to win by any means necessary.
Keep the faith.
__________________________________
NY Post
July 25, 2007
3 MOS. FOR JUDGE BRIBERY
By ALEX GINSBERG
A Brooklyn father who admitting bribing crooked judge Gerald Garson to the tune of $10,000 was sentenced to three months in jail yesterday for his role in the corruption scandal.
Avraham Levi, 48, will also do 150 hours of community service and five years' probation following his release, according to the sentence handed down by Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Berry.
"I wish I'd never given the money," Levi said yesterday before being sentenced. "Since those days, my life has been destroyed . . . I'm asking for mercy."
Sigal Levi, who is still fighting her ex-husband over custody of their children, said she was hoping for more jail time.
"I think for the crime he committed and for the pain he created, it's very little," she said.
The judge also admonished Avraham Levi for putting up the cash in hopes of cheating his wife in the divorce case.
"She was not going to get fair justice," Berry said.
METRO BRIEFING | NEW YORK
Brooklyn: Man Sentenced for Bribing Judge
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE
By MICHAEL BRICK
Published: July 25, 2007
A man was sentenced to three months in jail yesterday for paying a bribe to manipulate his divorce case, an act that touched off an extensive corruption inquiry and eventually resulted in the convictions of a matrimonial judge and the county Democratic Party leader. The man, Avraham Levi, pleaded guilty to bribery conspiracy in 2004, agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors. The judge he had sought to bribe, Gerald P. Garson, is now serving a sentence of 3 to 10 years in prison. In State Supreme Court yesterday, prosecutors asked for a sentence of six months in prison, while defense lawyers argued for a sentence of community service. The judge, Jeffrey Berry, ordered three months in prison and 150 hours of community service. “Justice should never be able to be purchased,” Justice Berry said.
esther ur back!!!! welcome back to the loony bin...was simonvsky ur law gurdian. garson was ur judge? salrno ur court officer? casue u could not lost custody simply cause you are anutty babd mopmmy could u?
got Dr. Pepper?
do tell....
Heard that he was dissed in lowest garbage court - oops i mean Supreme Court
got kids who is old enough to sing about sneezing pepper?
many reporters want to listen
Esther Baby:
VA Inspector General - 212 951 5449
do you know that you can sue your ex, your ex's attorneys and many more?
the feds might want to know
Dr. Bert Pepper is in need of a full evaluation himself to understand his testimony. This looney toon sits on the stand and it appears to be having a psychotic episode when he opens his mouth.
ahchoo ahchoo ahchoo!
those pepper are making sneeze !!!
someone help us open the windows and doors and let the sunshine in
future predictions for the best interest of the child = psychic predictions
and they are no longer practicing psychology if they are making psychic predictions
call them - LIARS LIARS - shame on you
NY POST -
HARLEM MOM ACCUSES ACS OF LOSING HER CHILD
By ALEX GINSBERG
July 30, 2007 -- A Harlem mom is furious with city child-welfare officials for placing her 14-year-old son in a foster home, then doing nothing after he ran away and vanished earlier this month.
"I have not heard from my son in three weeks," Kijana West said. "I'm slowly flipping out."
West's son, Rameses Amon-Ra, was living with his dad in The Bronx last April when the man allegedly beat him, prompting the Administration for Children's Services to take the teen from the home.
West, 32, said ACS was reluctant to place her son with her because she lived in a studio apartment. She said Family Court Judge Sidney Gribetz urged ACS to help West find a bigger apartment.
West said that help did not arrive until three weeks ago.
In the meantime, Rameses was sent to live with a foster family in The Bronx.
On July 11, West got a disturbing call from her son, telling her he had been taken in by a family in Queens.
"I played by the rules," he said in the call. "And it took too long. And I'm just not coming back."
An ACS spokeswoman said the agency's confidentiality rules precluded her from commenting on the case.
A law guardian appointed to represent the teen's interests did not return a phone message.
West's lawyer, Steven Gildin, said he was considering legal action.
ACS "just sat back and let the situation get out of hand. They lost the kid," Gildin said.
EX-HUBBY WHO BRIBED DIVORCE JUDGE CAGED
By JENNIFER FERMINO
August 7, 2007 -- A Brooklyn father who admitted bribing a crooked judge with cash, cigars and nearly $10,000 in food and booze for help in his bitter divorce, was carted off to jail yesterday.
Avraham Levi, who is still battling with his ex over custody of their kids, was sentenced to three months behind bars.
He will also have to perform 150 hours of community service and serve five years' probation for his role in the judicial corruption scandal.
"I wish I'd never given the money," Levi said last month when he was sentenced. "Since those days, my life has been destroyed . . . I'm asking for mercy."
Justice Gerald Garson gave free advice, lucrative court appointments and client referrals to his good pal, Paul Siminovsky, who was Levi's lawyer.
Garson was found guilty of accepting bribes in April. In June, the disgraced judge began serving a 3- to 10-year prison sentence.
Siminovsky, 48, a successful divorce lawyer who enjoyed unusual access to Garson, was caught on tape being promised that he would get favorable outcomes for litigants by throwing drinks, dinners and cash Garson's way.
EX-HUBBY WHO BRIBED DIVORCE JUDGE CAGED
By JENNIFER FERMINO
August 7, 2007 -- A Brooklyn father who admitted bribing a crooked judge with cash, cigars and nearly $10,000 in food and booze for help in his bitter divorce, was carted off to jail yesterday.
Avraham Levi, who is still battling with his ex over custody of their kids, was sentenced to three months behind bars.
He will also have to perform 150 hours of community service and serve five years' probation for his role in the judicial corruption scandal.
"I wish I'd never given the money," Levi said last month when he was sentenced. "Since those days, my life has been destroyed . . . I'm asking for mercy."
Justice Gerald Garson gave free advice, lucrative court appointments and client referrals to his good pal, Paul Siminovsky, who was Levi's lawyer.
Garson was found guilty of accepting bribes in April. In June, the disgraced judge began serving a 3- to 10-year prison sentence.
Siminovsky, 48, a successful divorce lawyer who enjoyed unusual access to Garson, was caught on tape being promised that he would get favorable outcomes for litigants by throwing drinks, dinners and cash Garson's way.
Letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton Re: NY Court Corruption...CLICK HERE FOR LETTER
On August 1, 2007, we received the following "Open Letter" addressed to U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) concerning the statewide court corruption crisis in New York:
An Open Letter to Senator Hillary Clinton:
Your key supporters are women. Your key supporters in New York State have been women.
Yet, you have done nothing to help the victims of the New York probate and family courts—those victims are largely women.
We have no one to turn to, The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Garcia, is a former clerk to Chief Judge Kaye.
In fact, the investigation into judicial corruption that had gone on prior to Mr. Garcia's arrival, as reported in the New York Post, terminated after he arrived. As to New York County District Attorney Morgenthau, he has kept his hands off judicial corruption.
You, as a United States Senator from New York, can ask the U.S. Senate to open hearings into this travesty of justice, and/or ask the Department of Justice to appoint an independent prosecutor to handle judicial corruption in the Southern District of New York.
To continue to do nothing would indicate that you do not merit the support of the women voters.
From a woman voter
News from Orange County
Misconduct Charges Lead to N.Y. Judge's Resignation
Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal
7-18-07 -- Former New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence I. Horowitz used his status as a judge to seek preferential police treatment for his girlfriend and to have authorities investigate the woman's estranged husband, the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct said Tuesday. . . . The commission announced that Horowitz, who resigned on June 20, has signed a stipulation acknowledging that he could not defend himself against the disciplinary charges. He also agreed not to serve again as a judge or judicial hearing officer. . . . Horowitz, 56, was a Westchester County Supreme Court justice who has been assigned to Orange County for the past two years. . . . In a formal complaint also released Tuesday, the commission charged Horowitz with two counts of judicial misconduct, and it dated his wrongdoing to Jan. 1, 2004, when he joined the Supreme Court bench. . . . The commission contended that from the beginning of his tenure, Horowitz used Supreme Court stationery to write letters concerning personal or family business matters. The correspondence included letters to the schools his children attended to comment on school policies, to his house of worship to discuss his membership dues and to Verizon, contesting an unpaid bill of $14,707 for a phone number associated with his former law practice, according to the commission.
A Columnist from the Times Herald answered the question
Mrs. Quinn,
What is your take about the corruption in the Family and Supreme Court handling child custody and Divorce cases. The child custody scandals in New York State which Orange County is part of it as the cases are increasing and children are been placed with abusers.
-Susan L.
A:The only take I have on family court and custody/divorce cases is that being a family court judge is an entirely thankless job. Both disputing parties go in thinking the judge is going to side with them. When the judge finds a compromise, both parties think the judge favored the other one - or is a man-hater/woman-hater.
The system isn't perfect, but I think the judges do the best they can in 99 percent of cases. My feeling is, when two adults can't act like adults and work things out, they deserve whatever they get by inviting a neutral third party into the marriage to make decisions for them.
-Beth Quinn
According to NYS Board of elections
Saul Edelstein gave money
($1, 000 - 6/13/02 - check # 4848)
to Brooklyn Independent Democrats
- Esther - isn't that your ex's attorney?
who has Justice Harowitz????
and the attorneys????
Brooklyn Independent Democrats - isn't that Norman club?
Jailed NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman along with JAILED Justice Garson, along with Jailed attorney and Law Guardian Paul Simonovsky - the more he wined and dined the Justice, the more Law Guardian appointment ...
Heard that some got away like another law guardian in Florida name Ellen
Ellen ran to florida - the trial read she got almost as many Law Guardian appointments as jailed simonovsky
also heard that simonovsky is good friends with many attorneys that are still messing up the courts
ALL of them should be disbarred
EX-HUBBY WHO BRIBED DIVORCE JUDGE CAGED
By JENNIFER FERMINO
August 7, 2007 -- A Brooklyn father who admitted bribing a crooked judge with cash, cigars and nearly $10,000 in food and booze for help in his bitter divorce, was carted off to jail yesterday.
Avraham Levi, who is still battling with his ex over custody of their kids, was sentenced to three months behind bars.
He will also have to perform 150 hours of community service and serve five years' probation for his role in the judicial corruption scandal.
"I wish I'd never given the money," Levi said last month when he was sentenced. "Since those days, my life has been destroyed . . . I'm asking for mercy."
Justice Gerald Garson gave free advice, lucrative court appointments and client referrals to his good pal, Paul Siminovsky, who was Levi's lawyer.
Garson was found guilty of accepting bribes in April. In June, the disgraced judge began serving a 3- to 10-year prison sentence.
Siminovsky, 48, a successful divorce lawyer who enjoyed unusual access to Garson, was caught on tape being promised that he would get favorable outcomes for litigants by throwing drinks, dinners and cash Garson's way.
Saul Edelstein also gave money to Justice Rachel Adams (twice) - law secretary/or clerk to Jailed Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson
EDELSTEIN, SAUL
26 COURT STREET
NEW YORK, NY 11242 100.00 02-JUL-02 RACHEL ADAMS FOR SUPREME COURT 2002 JULY PERIODIC A Sup. Court Justice 2
EDELSTEIN, SAUL
26 COURT STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11242 100.00 31-JUL-02 RACHEL ADAMS FOR SUPREME COURT 2003 JAN PERIODIC A Sup. Court Justice 2
FYI -
The story by Tom Robbins/Village Voice re: Brooklyn Democratic Club about Jailed Justice Gerald Grason, his wife Judge Robin Garson, Jailed Clarence Norman - oh they were honoring the convicted felon Hevesi.
Brooklyn Dems Celebrate as Scandal Mounts
For Judges, It's One-Stop Shopping
by TOM ROBBINS
May 7 - 13, 2003 - VILLAGE VOICE
The class of 1997, State Supreme Court, Kings County, included six new judges, all listed on the Democratic Party line and all popularly elected. By last week, a third of the class had been removed in disgrace, a crime rate far higher than that of the meanest ghetto school.
On Thursday, Judge Reynold Mason was ordered off the bench by the Court of Appeals, which upheld an ethics panel's findings that he had abused an escrow account and cheated his brother-in-law and his landlord, all while dispensing justice to litigants before him in court. Mason's ejection came seven days after fellow judge Gerald Garson stood in the dock in criminal court, accused of fixing cases in his own courtroom a few blocks away.
The class's misconduct ratio is even higher if Judge Victor Barron, convicted last year of demanding a bribe to sign off on a child's injury settlement, is added to the roster. Barron was also on the ballot in 1997, running for re-election to civil court. At the time, he was already serving as an acting Supreme Court Justice and won election to the upper bench the following year.
All of the disgraced judges were originally rated "approved" by the local bar association. Those findings constituted the chief defense of the beleaguered Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, Clarence Norman, as he stood outside the ribbon-festooned ballroom of the Marriott Brooklyn Hotel where his annual awards dinner was under way last Thursday evening.
"You tell me a system that can predict the integrity and honesty of judges six years after they are elected," said the county leader, seemingly agitated that the questions were being raised during his own party, where awards were given to Comptroller Alan Hevesi and four local entrepreneurs. Judge Garson has only been accused, he reminded his questioners, and thus is "entitled to the presumption of innocence."
Garson has pleaded not guilty, but in claims yet to be disputed, law enforcement sources have said that the judge wore a wire for nearly a month in an effort to gain leniency and to produce evidence of corruption in the selection of the borough's judges. Garson's actions have led to the two worst words in Brooklyn politics ‹"grand jury." Immediately after Garson's arraignment on April 24, District Attorney Charles J. Hynes said he had convened one to delve into possible wrongdoing in judicial selection. That is fine by him, insisted Norman.
"I think it's a good thing that there's a grand jury," he said. "I welcome it. I think it will finally put to rest all this talk about the purchasing and selling of judgeships."
Moreover, added Norman, he was satisfied with the current process of selecting and nominating candidates for the borough's highest courts‹in which party delegates, mostly allied with the leadership, meet in convention in late September to nominate a slate of candidates put forth by Norman. The nominees are then overwhelmingly elected in November by an electorate enlightened by little more than the hints of ethnicity and gender contained in the names on the ballot.
"We have a process; it is open, it is accessible," he said. Asked why he had only last month publicly released the names of those on his own longtime judicial screening committee, a panel appointed by him and charged with evaluating candidates, Norman said it had all been a misunderstanding. "Anyone who wanted to know who was on that panel, all they needed to do was ask," he said.
Downstairs, in the hotel's driveway, some two dozen Democratic Party dissenters held a small rally to present a different political picture. "Justice Is Not a Family Affair," said one sign. "Order in the Court" was another. One of the group donned a judge's black robe and a pair of plastic handcuffs, while clasping a $20 bill and several cigars‹a reference to one of the modes of payoff Garson is alleged to have received. Calling themselves the Coalition for an Independent Judiciary, the group's ranks include nine of the borough's 42 Democratic district leaders and another nine elected officials. Among them are State Senator Martin Connor and Assembly Members Jim Brennan, Roger Green, and Joan Millman, all of whom were too busy fighting the budget battle in Albany to attend the rally or the dinner.
"We need to restore order in the courts and trust in Brooklyn's judicial system," said Alan Fleishman, a district leader representing a swath of brownstone Brooklyn in Park Slope. "Brooklynites," he added, "should have the right to know that justice can only be won, not bought."
The coalition's reform platform calls for a more diverse screening panel, an open process for candidates, and a role for all of the party's leaders in selecting nominees.
Upstairs, Norman said the reformers didn't need to call a press conference to send their message. "All they had to do was raise it at the next executive committee," he said. "We're open to all proposals."
Inside the ballroom, at Norman's party, the mysteries of Brooklyn judge-making were even more apparent. More than 25 sitting jurists and a greater number of applicants moved from table to table in a swirl of politicking. Just inside the door, leaning against the wall and sipping an imported beer, stood Michael Pesce, one of the borough's top judges. The former administrative judge of Brooklyn's Supreme Court, Pesce was elevated to presiding justice of the Appellate Division last year, just days after Judge Barron's arrest, amid calls for state officials to get a greater grip on things in the courthouse. Pesce, a onetime insurgent, long ago made peace with the borough's politics without losing his reputation for straight talk. Asked why he and so many other judges, all of whom are expected to remain above politics, were present at the affair, he took a sip from his beer. "Why? It's a good question," he responded. "The short answer is that I'm up for re-election. The political process is such that this is the way judges get elected. What are you supposed to do?"
At the front of the room, framed by a giant, glittering red banner proclaiming "Welcome Brooklyn Democrats 2003," stood the night's master of ceremonies, district leader and party insider Stevie Cohn. He led the celebrants in the Pledge of Allegiance and "The Star-Spangled Banner," and then introduced Norman. A Court Street lawyer, Cohn has been involved in making judges in Brooklyn for more than 25 years, often handling their campaigns as well. He has also been one of the greatest recipients of lucrative fiduciary appointments from the judges he helps to pick. He took in more than $500,000 in fees from such appointments in the late 1990s, said the New York Post in a 1997 exposé. An embarrassed Cohn said then that he would stop accepting them. But when the Voice checked again in 2001, when Cohn was a candidate for City Council, it found he had never stopped. A spokesman said there had been some confusion; Cohn had only meant to cease taking appointments from Surrogate's Court.
Gerald Garson gracefully absented himself from the party at the Marriott, as did his wife, Robin, a civil-court judge who was elected last year after being given an opponent-free slot by Norman. In one of the charges against Gerald Garson, he is alleged to have taken $1,000 from a lawyer in payment for client referrals Garson allegedly made. According to the criminal complaint, the judge allegedly asked that the money be delivered not in cash, but in the form of a check to his wife "to defray a debt she owed."
Robin Garson's campaign filings show that she raised more than $50,000, including $10,000 in loans from friends and family members. Most of the funds went for campaign consultants and printers favored by Brooklyn's Democratic leaders. She also spent $1,140 at Craft Clerical Clothes on West 37th Street, where judicial robes are sold. Another $930 went for two months' worth of parking in a garage at her and her husband's home, on East 74th Street. As in Manhattan, not Brooklyn.
<< back to history
R U Kidding me - Saul Edelstein gave $ 1000 to Brooklyn democratic Club - 6/13/02 Check # 4848
Forget jailed Norman for a minute
Wasn't the jailed judge Garson treasurer of that club???
Lou
- read NY Times - the money that Saul Edelstein gave to Brooklyn Independent Democrats
From the NY Times, "The investigation into dealings by Justice Garson, a former treasurer of the Brooklyn Democratic organization, has spilled over into a conspiracy inquiry involving the judicial nominating system and taking aim at, among others, the Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, State Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr."
_______
Brooklyn Corruption Figure Admits He Arranged Bribes
By MICHAEL BRICK, The New York Times
February 24, 2005
A central figure in the wide-ranging investigation of judicial and political corruption in Brooklyn, a man accused of arranging bribes in divorce and child custody cases for people in the borough's Orthodox Jewish communities, pleaded guilty yesterday to 13 counts of bribery and conspiracy.
The man, an electronics dealer named Nissim Elmann, admitted passing thousands of dollars to a lawyer to arrange preferential treatment in cases before a State Supreme Court justice, Gerald P. Garson. Justice Garson has been suspended from the bench and is awaiting trial on bribery charges.
The investigation into dealings by Justice Garson, a former treasurer of the Brooklyn Democratic organization, has spilled over into a conspiracy inquiry involving the judicial nominating system and taking aim at, among others, the Brooklyn Democratic Party leader, State Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr.
Prosecutors portrayed Mr. Elmann as a fixer, a known figure in Orthodox communities who accepted cash through the window of his car or inside a warehouse and passed it to a former lawyer who had an advantage in Justice Garson's courtroom.
The former lawyer, Paul Siminovsky, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of giving unlawful gratuities last year, after wearing a hidden microphone at the direction of the office of Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney.
Jury selection had been scheduled to begin yesterday in the case against Mr. Elmann, and his guilty plea came as a surprise to prosecutors, who had requested electronic gear for the courtroom to play tapes of 110 telephone calls and dozens of other conversations.
"He is not cooperating, nor have we asked him to cooperate with us," Assistant District Attorney Noel Downey said. "The D.A.'s office came to play ball, and he backed down."
In State Supreme Court in Brooklyn yesterday, Justice Jeffrey C. Berry read through the counts aloud in a meticulous monotone, noting the legal language and asking in plain terms if Mr. Elmann understood the charges. "You knew this conduct was illegal?" Justice Berry asked repeatedly, and repeatedly Mr. Elmann replied that he had.
In all, Mr. Elmann agreed to guilty pleas to seven felonies and six misdemeanors. Justice Berry ordered a presentence investigation and indicated that the sentence would probably amount to between one and a half and seven years in prison.
Mr. Downey, the Brooklyn prosecutor, described the guilty pleas as "a telling event, because it supports the massive investigation undertaken by District Attorney Hynes and the Rackets Division in uncovering the vast corruption scheme that was unleashed on the matrimonial courts of Brooklyn."
Gerald J. McMahon, a lawyer for Mr. Elmann, said that his client chose to plead guilty in part to spare his family the stress of a trial (Mr. Elmann did not appear to have any family members in the courtroom) and in the hope that Justice Berry would hand out sentences "in a proportional way."
His comment was a sidelong reference to the open cases against several other people, including Justice Garson. Justice Berry has set a status hearing for May 26 involving several of the defendants in the intertwined investigations.
Mr. McMahon described Mr. Elmann as someone pressured by his community to gain access to the spoils of corruption.
"He tried to help people, and he was pushed by people in his shul, especially David Cohen," Mr. McMahon said, referring to a rabbi in Midwood. "It was almost a religious obligation, and Mr. Elmann was a seriously religious person."
Reached by telephone, Rabbi Cohen, who Mr. McMahon said had been on his witness list, declined to comment.
In court, Mr. Elmann passed up an opportunity to blame his rabbi or his community. After he finished pleading to the charges, Justice Berry asked him, "Nobody threatened, forced or coerced you to do these acts?"
"No," Mr. Elmann said.
Saul Edelstein - is his firm Edelstein Faegenburg and Brown?
If so, they also gave $ 300 To Brooklyn Democrats
EDELSTEIN & FAEGENBURG
26 COURT STREET, SUITE 1503
BROOKLYN, NY 11242
300.00 23-MAR-99 THE BROOKLYN DEMOCRATS
1999 July Periodic A N/A N/A N/A N/A
They also gave $1 , 000 to ELECT JUDGE MARTIN SCHNEIER JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
A thousand dollars sure is a lot of money???
EDELSTEIN & FAEGENBURG
26 COURT STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11242 1,000.00 29-OCT-99 COMMITTEE TO ELECT JUDGE MARTIN SCHNEIER JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
1999 27 Post General A Sup. Court Justice 2 N/A N/A
Civil Court Judge contribution
EDELSTEIN, ADAM
26 COURT STREET, SUITE 1503
BROOKLYN, NY 11242 250.00 06-
JUN-06 FRIENDS OF BARRY BONDOROWSKY
2006 July Periodic A Civil Court Judge N/A Kings Kings
$ 500 to Judge Panepinto from
THE EDELSTEINS FAEGENBURG & BROWN
26 COURT STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11242 500.00 23-
NOV-05 COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JUDGE PANEPINTO
2006 Jan Periodic A Civil Court Judge N/A Richmond Richmond
$ 500 to JUSTICE LUIS A. GONZALEZ
from
THE EDELSTEINS FAEGENBURG & BROWN
26 COURT STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11242 500.00 14-JUN-06 COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JUSTICE LUIS A. GONZALEZ
2006 July Periodic C Sup. Court Justice 12 N/A N/A
$ 500.00 for JUDGE GIGANTE SURROGATE
THE EDELSTEINS FAEGENBURG & BROWN
61 BROADWAY SUITE 2210
NEW YORK, NY 10006 500.00 11-APR-07 ELECT JUDGE GIGANTE SURROGATE
2007 July Periodic B Surrogate Court Judge N/A Richmond Richmond
Who is Edelstein Faegenburg and Brown - why so many contribution to many judges????
can someone please give the site again to check for contributions?
$ 250 to JUDGE ELLEN SPODEK FOR SUPREME COURT
THE EDELSTEINS FAEGENBURG & BROWN
26 COURT STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11242 250.00 07-APR-06 2006 JUDGE ELLEN SPODEK FOR SUPREME COURT
July Periodic A Sup. Court Justice 2 N/A N/A
$ 750 to Judge Beitner
THE EDELSTEINS FAEGENBURG & BROWN LLP
61 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10006 750.00 25-JUN-07 BEITNER FOR JUDGE
2007 July Periodic A Surrogate Court Judge N/A Kings
$ 750 to Judge Beitner
THE EDELSTEINS FAEGENBURG & BROWN LLP
61 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10006 750.00 25-JUN-07 BEITNER FOR JUDGE
2007 July Periodic A Surrogate Court Judge N/A Kings
Did anybody sees this?
DEM'S EX DEFEATS 'ABUSE' BY DIVORCE JUDGE
By JANON FISHER
August 12, 2007 -- She lost her son, her home and her job - but a Manhattan woman has fought and finally won an appeal to overturn the uncontested divorce that gave her politically connected husband everything.
After a three-year battle, Susan Gass, 50, won a ruling last month in which the appeals court blasted deputy chief matrimonial judge Jacqueline Silbermann for giving the husband everything without the wife even knowing she was being sued for divorce.
Gass, who was repeatedly told she couldn't fight the 2004 divorce, claims politics drove the judges' rulings. Her husband, Thomas Gass, is the former president of the Village Reform Democratic Club in Manhattan.
In its decision, the appeals court said Silbermann "abused her discretion" when she ignored Gass' repeated attempts to fight the divorce, which awarded child custody and the house to her husband.
"There was a complete lack of due diligence on the part of all the judges," Gass told The Post.
Susan Gass said her husband filed for an "uncontested divorce" without ever serving her; he has claimed he did.
Thomas Gass would not comment on the ruling.
Susan Gass refused to give up, even after Silbermann granted the terms of the divorce in 2005.
"I couldn't go to my grave letting them do this to me and get away with it," she said.
Now, she plans to head back to court and divorce her husband again.
DEM'S EX DEFEATS 'ABUSE' BY DIVORCE JUDGE
NY Post August 12, 2007
By JANON FISHER
August 12, 2007 -- She lost her son, her home and her job - but a Manhattan woman has fought and finally won an appeal to overturn the uncontested divorce that gave her politically connected husband everything.
After a three-year battle, Susan Gass, 50, won a ruling last month in which the appeals court blasted deputy chief matrimonial judge Jacqueline Silbermann for giving the husband everything without the wife even knowing she was being sued for divorce.
Gass, who was repeatedly told she couldn't fight the 2004 divorce, claims politics drove the judges' rulings. Her husband, Thomas Gass, is the former president of the Village Reform Democratic Club in Manhattan.
In its decision, the appeals court said Silbermann "abused her discretion" when she ignored Gass' repeated attempts to fight the divorce, which awarded child custody and the house to her husband.
"There was a complete lack of due diligence on the part of all the judges," Gass told The Post.
Susan Gass said her husband filed for an "uncontested divorce" without ever serving her; he has claimed he did.
Thomas Gass would not comment on the ruling.
Susan Gass refused to give up, even after Silbermann granted the terms of the divorce in 2005.
"I couldn't go to my grave letting them do this to me and get away with it," she said.
Now, she plans to head back to court and divorce her husband again.
Check this article - Silbermann gotta to go - she is the problem with Garson
Suddenly, Splitsville
By Bob Port
New York Daily News
December 12, 2004
Imagine suddenly discovering that you're divorced, you've lost custody of your son and you owe your husband $521.32 a month in child support — all without knowing your "uncontested" divorce was in court.
Imagine arriving home to find the locks changed on your loft apartment, then being told a judge has ordered police to arrest you if you go near your home or family again.
This really happened to Susan Gass, 47, a Wall Street computer scientist married to Thomas Gass, 48, a Brooklyn lawyer and president of the Village Reform Democratic Club in Manhattan.
In October, Thomas Gass obtained an uncontested divorce decree in Manhattan Supreme Court without his wife involved. Last year, he obtained an order of protection barring her from their home without his wife present in court.
It all happened right under the noses of four Manhattan judges.
Thomas Gass refused to comment to the Daily News. Susan Gass is appalled.
"Anything is possible," said Justice Jacqueline Silbermann, the administrative chief of Manhattan's Supreme Court.
To obtain an uncontested divorce, she explained, one spouse must file a sworn statement from the other or some proof the other spouse was served. "Either one or both of these documents could, in effect, be fraudulent and the court not know it," Silbermann said.
"This was all a fraud," said Susan Gass. Her husband's divorce petition, abruptly put on hold last month when she raised issues of service in court, is now awaiting reassignment to a new judge.
"I just woke up one day and everything was taken away from me — my home, my son, all my hopes," Gass said.
"I was living in a fantasy world, thinking that there is the rule of law here," said Gass, an Iranian-born U.S. citizen who fled her homeland in 1978.
It started June 16, 2003, when Susan Gass insisted her husband needed to discipline their 14-year-old son to do better in school. Susan Gass called police.
Her husband pushed, shoved and verbally abused her, according to an NYPD domestic incident report, which notes that officers found no indication of child abuse or neglect. Susan Gass left, spending the night with a friend.
The next day, Thomas Gass appeared alone in Manhattan Family Court with a completely different story. His wife, he claimed, "did repeatedly punch the child throughout his face and body ... and did throw a kitchen chair at the child."
That, according to Susan Gass, was a lie.
Knowing only what Thomas Gass alleged, Supreme Court Justice Susan Knipps, supervising judge of Family Court, granted his request for an emergency order of protection. She barred Susan Gass from going anywhere near her husband, her son or her home.
Three days later, given only a five-minute chat with a court-appointed lawyer, Susan Gass got her turn in court. A child abuse investigator had interviewed her husband, her son and her husband's parents, but claimed Susan Gass could not be found.
The son was asking to stay with his father and Manhattan Family Court Judge Arlene Goldberg kept the order of protection in force. Later, Family Court granted the husband temporary custody. Gass, homeless, missing many belongings and stuck with more than $40,000 in credit card debt, struggled to make sense of what had occurred. "I went through shock," she said.
She hired a lawyer and filed for divorce, only to see the assigned judge, Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische, excuse herself from the case because she knew the woman's husband.
Thomas Gass, active in the Democratic Party, had been supporting Gische in her recent reelection bid.
Months later, Susan Gass got a new judge, Laura Drager, and Thomas Gass began offering to settle, but when the wife proposed she get full or joint custody of her son, Drager warned she would have to bear half her husband's legal fees.
Susan Gass immediately dropped her divorce petition.
Then, Thomas Gass filed a new petition for an uncontested divorce. Joel Medows, his attorney, filed a sworn statement saying he served Mrs. Gass at 9:45 p.m. on a Friday night last August.
"I served her personally," Medows told The News.
"That is an absolute lie," said Susan Gass, who has an ATM receipt appearing to place her a considerable distance from where Medows claimed to have served her.
When Susan Gass never showed up in court, a referee granted Thomas Gass everything he wanted: divorce, full custody and child support. When Susan Gass found out, she objected and Drager ordered the divorce decree put on hold.
The whole case has court officials scratching their heads as they prepare to sort out who did what and when.
"If an officer of the court or a litigant is sworn in and provides the court with false information, it's a serious crime," court system spokesman David Bookstaver said. "It's perjury."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/261168p-223678c.html
Gass v Gass
2007 NY Slip Op 06252
Decided on July 26, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on July 26, 2007
Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Kavanagh, JJ.
183
Index 309697/04
[*1]Thomas Gass, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Susan Gass, Defendant-Appellant.
Susan Gass, appellant pro se.
Philip Groner, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered August 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment, reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted with leave to file a late answer within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
Initially, we find that the motion court properly confirmed the Referee's report, which clearly defined and addressed the issues raised, resolved matters of credibility, and made findings substantiated by the record (see Melnitzky v Uribe, 33 AD3d 373 [2006]). Plaintiff husband proved by a preponderance of the evidence, after a traverse hearing, that his attorney had properly served the wife with a copy of the summons with notice in this divorce action (see Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536, 538 [2006] [declining to disturb hearing court's finding, supported by the record, that process server was more credible than defendant]).
The dissenting Justice accurately relates the facts, but erroneously rejects the credibility determinations made by the referee and confirmed by the motion court. Contrary to the dissent's assertion, neither the court nor the Referee based its credibility findings primarily on the process server's status as an attorney. Instead, the record shows that the Referee made explicit credibility findings for each of the three critical witnesses at the traverse hearing - the wife, the process server/attorney and Ms. Lee - and did so based on an evaluation of the traditional criteria for weighing the credibility of witness testimony.
For instance, the Referee found that the wife's testimony was "not credible" based on her obvious motive to deny being served with process (see NY Pattern Jury Instructions [PJI3d] 1:8 [in weighing testimony, jurors may consider the interest or lack of interest of any witness in the outcome of the case]), and further noted that the wife's two strongest pieces of evidence at the traverse hearing - the ATM receipt mentioned by the majority and Lee's testimony - were both "inconclusive" regarding the pivotal issue of whether service was accomplished.
Similarly, the Referee found Lee's testimony "suspect,"
asking rhetorically, "How likely is it that she would independently remember whether defendant was a customer at the Laundromat on a particular night, months before the traverse hearing?" It was perfectly appropriate for the Referee and the motion court to consider the probability or [*2]improbability of Lee's testimony, when considered in light of all the other evidence in the case (see PJI3d 1:8). In fact, the absurdity of Lee's testimony that she remembered the exact date and time of the wife's appearance at her laundromat six months earlier alone justifies this credibility determination made by the Referee.
Nor did the referee and motion court rely "decisively" on the process server's status as an attorney. Although the Referee certainly did question why "an attorney admitted to practice for over 30 years" would risk his law license by filing a perjurious affidavit of service, the dissent ignores the remainder of the Referee's statement, which points out that engaging in such a desperate falsehood to accomplish service on that particular evening would have been illogical and completely unnecessary, given that the attorney was personally familiar with the wife, lived in close proximity to her, and there was no imminent risk that the statute of limitations would expire if service had not immediately been effected.
In our view, the Referee's statements merely reflect an inquiry into the absence of logical reasons, given the potential risks, of engaging in such misconduct. We agree with his conclusion that the attorney had no discernible motive or logical reason to state falsely that he had properly served the wife, whom he knew personally and who would obviously deny service, since he easily could have accomplished the same result on another occasion.
Nevertheless, under the unique circumstances of this case, the order should be reversed and the default vacated because, apparently unbeknownst to the Referee who granted the default, the wife had appeared and filed a motion seeking affirmative relief in Supreme Court prior to the default being entered.
Although the wife's default in failing to timely answer the complaint is undisputed, the record amply demonstrates that she undertook several actions that should have placed both the court and the husband's counsel on notice that she intended to appear and defend the matrimonial action. First, on September 27, 2004, after allegedly learning of the divorce action for the first time during an appearance in Family Court, the wife served a notice of appearance (which included a demand for a copy of the divorce complaint and all other papers) and a request for judicial intervention on the husband's attorney by regular mail. Significantly, a copy of the wife's notice of appearance in the record includes a stamp stating "RECEIVED OCT 1 - 2004 TRIAL SUPPORT OFFICE." This indicates that Supreme Court, or at least the Trial Support Office of that court, received notice that the wife was appearing in the action on October 1, 2004, which is 11 days before the default judgment was signed.
Second, the record also shows that the husband's attorney received the wife's notice of appearance, as evidenced by his September 30, 2004 "Notice of Rejection," wherein he rejected service of the wife's papers as untimely. The notice of rejection further indicates by stamp that it was received by the Trial Support Office on September 30, 2004, 13 days before the default judgment was signed. These documents indicate that the husband's attorney was obviously aware of the wife's appearance in the action 12 days before the default judgment was signed.
In addition, the record shows that on October 6, 2004, the wife submitted a show cause order to vacate the husband's note of issue in the divorce action. Justice Stackhouse signed the order on October 8, and set a return date of October 18. Thus, four days before the default judgment was signed, the record shows that the wife had made a motion in Supreme Court seeking affirmative relief in the divorce action.
From these facts, it is evident that the court and the husband's attorney were or should [*3]have been aware of the wife's appearance and her request for affirmative relief several days before the default was signed. However, the papers filed by the husband's counsel in support of the default judgment, as well as the judgment itself, strongly indicate that this information was never brought to the attention of the referee who granted the default. Indeed, the husband's attorney's affirmation of regularity states that "[the wife] is in default for failure to serve a notice of appearance in this action in due time, and the time to answer has not been extended by stipulation, court order or otherwise." Further, the divorce judgment itself states that "Defendant has not appeared and is in default."
Although we recognize that the husband's papers in support of the default were prepared and filed before the wife's entry into the case, it remains a mystery to us why the Referee was apparently oblivious to her appearance. Equally puzzling is how a Referee can grant a default judgment in an "uncontested" matrimonial action at the same time a Supreme Court Justice has signed a show cause order, brought by the party allegedly in default, requesting vacatur of the note of issue in that action. If the Referee had been made aware of the wife's entry into the case, it is entirely possible that this default never would have been entered.
We note that in recognition of the important public policy of determining matrimonial actions on the merits, the courts of this State have adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in actions for divorce or ancillary relief (see Viner v Viner, 291 AD2d 398 [2002]; O'Brien v O'Brien, 149 AD2d 830, 831 [1989]). Accordingly, even assuming that the wife's allegations of a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense were insufficient by themselves to justify the standard for vacatur, under the unusual circumstances of this case, including the wife's pro se status and the fact that the Referee was apparently kept in the dark about her appearance in the case and intent to defend the action, we find that the motion court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the default (id. at 831-832). We also note that the wife faithfully appeared during all Family Court proceedings and during her prior divorce action, and her motion to vacate her default was made promptly upon its entry.
Finally, our dissenting colleague is mistaken in suggesting that we implicitly find that the wife had perjured herself and suborned perjury. We find no such thing. As our opinion makes clear, we find that the Referee's credibility determinations were supported by the evidence at the traverse hearing, and, to that extent, his finding of proper service must be upheld. Unlike the dissent, we do not believe it is this Court's function to make an independent determination as to who, in fact, perjured themselves at the traverse hearing, and we offer no opinion thereon. Our vacatur ruling is based solely on the unfairness of granting a
premature default against an unrepresented party in a matrimonial action. It has nothing to do with indulging any party's alleged misconduct.
All concur except Sullivan, J. who dissents in a memorandum as follows:
SULLIVAN, J. (dissenting)
Contrary to the majority's view, this appeal from the denial of defendant-wife's motion to vacate a default judgment of divorce turns solely on the motion court's confirmation of a referee's report, after a traverse hearing, to the extent it determined that the wife had been personally served with a copy of the summons with notice, as indicated in the affidavit of [*4]service [FN1]. Since I believe that the Referee, as a matter of law, improperly assessed the credibility of the process server, who happened to the husband's attorney, I dissent and would reverse the referee's factual determination and grant defendant's motion to vacate the default and dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Before turning to the facts adduced at the traverse, some background leading to the challenged service of process is in order. The parties, married in 1987, have one child, a son, born in 1990. An incident in June 2003, in which the wife allegedly, in anger and in the husband's presence, punched the child about the face and body and threw a chair at him, brought the parties to Family Court, which issued a temporary order of protection pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act in favor of the child and the husband. After a hearing, Family Court extended the order of protection and appointed a law guardian for the child. On August 6, 2003, the husband filed a custody petition and, following a hearing held that day, was granted custody of the child with continuation of the order of protection.
The wife thereafter commenced a divorce action in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking, inter alia, custody of the child, which prompted a transfer of the family offense and custody petitions to the Supreme Court for merger with the divorce action. A law guardian appointed for the child recommended that custody remain with the father. At a settlement conference with the Justice presiding, the wife discontinued her divorce action. The husband commenced the instant divorce action the same day - August 3, 2004 - by filing a summons with notice with the New York County Clerk. That night, the husband's attorney allegedly personally served a copy of the summons and notice, together with a copy of the Child Support Standards Act, upon the wife as she was walking near her Prince Street apartment in Soho. The attorney filed an affidavit of service with the New York County Clerk on August 4. The wife never appeared in her husband's divorce action.
The wife claims she first heard of the new divorce action on September 27, 2004, during a Family Court support hearing. On the same date, she filed a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) with a request for a preliminary conference, and on October 6, 2004 she filed a show cause order to vacate the husband's note of issue in this matter. On October 12, prior to the return date, a judgment of divorce was granted on default on the basis of the wife's cruel and inhuman treatment of her husband. The judgment also awarded custody of the child. According to the wife, the Referee who signed the judgment was unaware of the pending RJI and order to show cause.
On November 17, 2004, the wife moved to vacate the default judgment solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to lack of service. She asserted that she never encountered the husband's attorney, whom she knew, on the date of the alleged service; nor was she served with a copy of the summons with notice. The court directed a traverse hearing before a Special Referee, which was held on February 16, 2005.
The husband's attorney, licensed to practice for 30 years, testified that he resides on Grand Street, on Manhattan's lower east side, and that on the evening of August 3, 2004, at approximately 9 P.M., he left his apartment to walk one and a half miles to the wife's apartment on Prince Street to serve her with a summons with notice. The attorney, a good friend of [*5]plaintiff, had known his client's wife socially for at least 10 years. In fact, he had attended various family functions, including their son's bar mitzvah. On the night in question, he observed the wife at the intersection of Prince and Wooster Streets, and handed her the summons with notice, stating, "Susan, I have a summons for you, along with the Standards of Child Support." According to the attorney, he asked the wife if she were in the armed forces of the United States, to which she responded, "Why are you asking that stupid question?" The attorney noted that he and the wife were standing in front of a store, "Camper Shoes," located at 125 Prince Street, and that the time was approximately 9:45 P.M.
After completing the service, the attorney returned home by taxicab, arriving by 10 P.M., and immediately prepared an affidavit of service, as well as a diary entry noting the service. The affidavit of service, notarized and filed with the County Clerk the next day, reflected an August 3, 2004 service at 9:45 p.m. in front of 125 Prince Street. The attorney identified the wife as the person he had served at the time and place in question.
The wife testified that she knew the attorney socially and that she resided in an apartment at an address on Prince Street,[FN2] and was employed by J.P. Morgan Chase, with duties that included "computer information security." She stated that on the night in question, she left her apartment at "about 9 P.M." to bring her laundry to Kim's Laundromat, located approximately three blocks away at 207 Thompson Street, just north of Bleecker Street. After loading the washing machines, she left the laundromat to walk two blocks to a Citibank ATM machine located on LaGuardia Place, between Bleecker and West 3rd Streets, completed a transaction and walked directly back to the laundromat. She produced her ATM receipt showing a completed transaction at 9:35 P.M. She denied being at the intersection of Prince and Wooster Streets and having been served with a copy of the summons with notice. She also noted that her apartment was located approximately three and a half blocks away from the corner of Prince and Wooster Streets. The wife finished her laundry at about 10 P.M. and was assisted by "Antonio," a laundromat employee, in carrying several loads of laundry back to her apartment. On cross-examination, she stated that it would take "maybe about ten minutes" to walk the three and a half blocks from the Citibank ATM to the corner of Prince and Wooster Streets.
Hae Jung Lee, who worked at the laundromat, recalled the evening in question and confirmed that the wife arrived there "a little after nine o'clock in the evening." As she recalled, "After [the wife] put everything inside the machine, she said, I will go out, come back soon,' and she went out." According to Lee, a wash cycle takes 24 minutes. She estimated the wife's absence at "[a]bout ten minutes." She testified that after the wife returned, she finished her wash and left the laundromat a little after 10:30 P.M.
In his report, the Referee found that the husband met his burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the attorney had served the wife, finding him
the most credible witness. His testimony had a ring of truthfulness to it. Why would he, an attorney admitted to practice for over 30 years, risk his license by filing a perjurous affidavit of service? Moreover, he knew defendant personally for over a decade and knew where she lived, which was within walking distance of his home. If he had not run into her on the night in question, he could have served her at some other time, there being no statute of limitations problem. His [*6]testimony concerning defendant's response to his query about whether she was in the armed forces of the United States, to which she responded, "Why are you asking that stupid question?", seems realistic.
Lee's testimony was suspect. How likely is it that she would independently remember whether defendant was a customer at the Laundromat on a particular night, months before the traverse hearing? Even if she did, her alibi testimony does not negate the possibility that [the attorney] did, in fact, serve the summons with notice on defendant while the latter admittedly had exited the Laundromat.
[The wife's] testimony was not credible. She had a motive to deny being served with process. The most probative bit of evidence, [the wife's] ATM receipt, is inconclusive as an alibi, since, by her own admission, [the wife] could have walked to where [the attorney] claimed he served her and still have returned to the Laundromat at the time Lee testified [the wife] returned.
With regard to the wife's testimony, the Referee noted in particular:
On cross-examination, the [wife] testified that the distance between her bank and the corner of Prince and Wooster Streets is 3½; blocks. . . . [The wife] further testified, over objection, that the distance can be walked in ten minutes. [The Wife] testified that the time on the ATM receipt indicates that the time of her banking transaction was at 2135 . . . 9:35 p.m.
The motion court confirmed the report, finding that the findings were "supported by the record" and that "the husband obtained jurisdiction over the wife by serving her as indicated in the affidavit of service."
The burden of proof on the issue of jurisdiction rests with the party asserting it (Lamarr R v Klein, 35 AD2d 248, 250 [1970], affd 30 NY2d 757 [1972]), and, after a hearing, must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (Elm Mgt. v Sprung, 33 AD3d 753 [2006]). "[T]he evidence must be of such weight as to produce a reasonable belief in the truth of the facts asserted" (Jarrett v Madifari, 67 AD2d 396, 404 [1979], quoting Fisch on NY Evidence § 1090 [2d ed]). If substantiated by the record, a referee's determination will not be disturbed (Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135 [1997]; see Marcus v Marcus, 4 AD3d 257 [2004]).
At the outset of the hearing, the wife's attorney, noting that the husband's sole witness was an attorney, asked the referee not to indulge in a "presumption based upon either the affidavit of service or the fact that the person who allegedly effected service is an attorney." This request was in keeping with the general rule in assessing a witness's credibility (see NY PJI3d 1:8, 1:41). Unfortunately, as his report shows, the referee based his decision as to credibility essentially on the process server's status as an attorney. Although he stated that the attorney's testimony had a "ring of truthfulness" to it, the basis of that conclusion is clear from the very next sentence: "Why would he, an attorney admitted to practice for over 30 years, risk his license by filing a perjurous affidavit of service?" While on the subject of rhetorical questions, one might ask, "Why would an attorney put himself in the position of acting as a process server for his client in a case such as this, given his relationship to the parties?" As to the wife's alleged [*7]response to the military service question - "Why are you asking that stupid question?" - its relevance to the attorney's credibility is unfathomable.
On the other hand, the Referee found the wife not credible because she had a motive to deny being served. This finding ignores the fact that the attorney also had an obvious interest - sustaining his claim of service and supporting his client's case. Furthermore, the Referee's reasoning is flawed in finding the ATM receipt "inconclusive as an alibi, since, by her own admission, [the wife] could have walked to where [the attorney] claimed he served her and still have returned to the Laundromat at the time Lee testified [the wife] returned." While this may be true, the Referee ignoring the only piece of unassailable documentary evidence offers no explanation as to why the wife would walk completely out of her way to the intersection of Prince and Wooster Streets (the alleged place of service, which was two blocks south of Bleecker Street) before returning to the laundromat, which was one street west of the ATM (both of which were north of Bleecker Street). In that regard, while both the Referee and the majority question Lee's credibility, particularly with respect to her recollection of the exact date and time in question, the Referee made no finding that the wife was not at the laundromat at that time. In any event, on cross-examination, Lee offered a plausible explanation for her specific recollection of the date and time.
Moreover, what reason would the wife have, if actually served, to ignore process? As she pointed out in argument, she had vigorously participated in those proceedings since their inception in Family Court in 2003 and had never defaulted. In fact, it was she who instituted the original divorce proceeding, which she discontinued only because of a lack of funds.
A judicial factfinder should make credibility determinations on the basis of demeanor, forthrightness in answering, consistency or lack thereof in the account being given, interest in the outcome and other relevant considerations. Status in life cannot be the decisive factor in a "he said/she said" credibility contest. "General propositions do not decide concrete cases" (Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 [1905], Holmes, J.,
dissenting). Since status was decisive in this case, it cannot be said that the husband sustained his burden of proof that required - as to the challenged service - a preponderance of the evidence (Jacobs v Zurich Ins. Co., 53 AD2d 524, 525 [1976]).
The majority vacates the wife's default because of her efforts to appear in and defend the action prior to the entry of the default judgment. In my view, such a result is untenable. In upholding the Referee's determination at the traverse hearing, the majority agrees with the Referee's conclusions that the wife was served with the summons and that her testimony was incredible, and also with his assessment of Lee's testimony as "suspect." In short, the majority implicitly finds that the wife not only perjured herself but suborned perjury as well. While courts may be inclined to a more liberal attitude in vacating defaults in matrimonial actions (see e.g. O'Brien v O'Brien, 149 AD2d 830 [1989), no court has ever been so indulgent as to reward a party who has engaged in such conduct by granting affirmative relief.
The majority's disposition is also unsupportable because, despite the tendency toward a liberal policy in matrimonial proceedings, "it is still incumbent upon a party seeking vacatur to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense" (Estate of Allen v Allen, 258 AD2d 423 [1999]). There is no showing of a meritorious defense, and to the extent that the wife's claim of lack of service the only basis for her motion to vacate the default can be considered an excuse, this claim has been patently rejected by the majority.
In my view, the majority's route to the result reached is as tortured as it is inexplicable. [*8]
Accordingly, I would deny plaintiff's motion to confirm the referee's report, grant defendant's cross motion to disaffirm the report and her motion to vacate the default judgment, and dismiss the complaint.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: JULY 26, 2007
CLERK
Footnotes
Footnote 1:The Referee's recommendation regarding the ultimate disposition of the wife's motion was stricken as beyond the scope of the order of reference.
Footnote 2:The attorney testified that the wife resided in an apartment with a different number.
Gass v Gass
2007 NY Slip Op 06252
Decided on July 26, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on July 26, 2007
Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Kavanagh, JJ.
183
Index 309697/04
[*1]Thomas Gass, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Susan Gass, Defendant-Appellant.
Susan Gass, appellant pro se.
Philip Groner, New York, for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.), entered August 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment, reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted with leave to file a late answer within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
Initially, we find that the motion court properly confirmed the Referee's report, which clearly defined and addressed the issues raised, resolved matters of credibility, and made findings substantiated by the record (see Melnitzky v Uribe, 33 AD3d 373 [2006]). Plaintiff husband proved by a preponderance of the evidence, after a traverse hearing, that his attorney had properly served the wife with a copy of the summons with notice in this divorce action (see Lattingtown Harbor Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino, 34 AD3d 536, 538 [2006] [declining to disturb hearing court's finding, supported by the record, that process server was more credible than defendant]).
The dissenting Justice accurately relates the facts, but erroneously rejects the credibility determinations made by the referee and confirmed by the motion court. Contrary to the dissent's assertion, neither the court nor the Referee based its credibility findings primarily on the process server's status as an attorney. Instead, the record shows that the Referee made explicit credibility findings for each of the three critical witnesses at the traverse hearing - the wife, the process server/attorney and Ms. Lee - and did so based on an evaluation of the traditional criteria for weighing the credibility of witness testimony.
For instance, the Referee found that the wife's testimony was "not credible" based on her obvious motive to deny being served with process (see NY Pattern Jury Instructions [PJI3d] 1:8 [in weighing testimony, jurors may consider the interest or lack of interest of any witness in the outcome of the case]), and further noted that the wife's two strongest pieces of evidence at the traverse hearing - the ATM receipt mentioned by the majority and Lee's testimony - were both "inconclusive" regarding the pivotal issue of whether service was accomplished.
Similarly, the Referee found Lee's testimony "suspect,"
asking rhetorically, "How likely is it that she would independently remember whether defendant was a customer at the Laundromat on a particular night, months before the traverse hearing?" It was perfectly appropriate for the Referee and the motion court to consider the probability or [*2]improbability of Lee's testimony, when considered in light of all the other evidence in the case (see PJI3d 1:8). In fact, the absurdity of Lee's testimony that she remembered the exact date and time of the wife's appearance at her laundromat six months earlier alone justifies this credibility determination made by the Referee.
Nor did the referee and motion court rely "decisively" on the process server's status as an attorney. Although the Referee certainly did question why "an attorney admitted to practice for over 30 years" would risk his law license by filing a perjurious affidavit of service, the dissent ignores the remainder of the Referee's statement, which points out that engaging in such a desperate falsehood to accomplish service on that particular evening would have been illogical and completely unnecessary, given that the attorney was personally familiar with the wife, lived in close proximity to her, and there was no imminent risk that the statute of limitations would expire if service had not immediately been effected.
In our view, the Referee's statements merely reflect an inquiry into the absence of logical reasons, given the potential risks, of engaging in such misconduct. We agree with his conclusion that the attorney had no discernible motive or logical reason to state falsely that he had properly served the wife, whom he knew personally and who would obviously deny service, since he easily could have accomplished the same result on another occasion.
Nevertheless, under the unique circumstances of this case, the order should be reversed and the default vacated because, apparently unbeknownst to the Referee who granted the default, the wife had appeared and filed a motion seeking affirmative relief in Supreme Court prior to the default being entered.
Although the wife's default in failing to timely answer the complaint is undisputed, the record amply demonstrates that she undertook several actions that should have placed both the court and the husband's counsel on notice that she intended to appear and defend the matrimonial action. First, on September 27, 2004, after allegedly learning of the divorce action for the first time during an appearance in Family Court, the wife served a notice of appearance (which included a demand for a copy of the divorce complaint and all other papers) and a request for judicial intervention on the husband's attorney by regular mail. Significantly, a copy of the wife's notice of appearance in the record includes a stamp stating "RECEIVED OCT 1 - 2004 TRIAL SUPPORT OFFICE." This indicates that Supreme Court, or at least the Trial Support Office of that court, received notice that the wife was appearing in the action on October 1, 2004, which is 11 days before the default judgment was signed.
Second, the record also shows that the husband's attorney received the wife's notice of appearance, as evidenced by his September 30, 2004 "Notice of Rejection," wherein he rejected service of the wife's papers as untimely. The notice of rejection further indicates by stamp that it was received by the Trial Support Office on September 30, 2004, 13 days before the default judgment was signed. These documents indicate that the husband's attorney was obviously aware of the wife's appearance in the action 12 days before the default judgment was signed.
In addition, the record shows that on October 6, 2004, the wife submitted a show cause order to vacate the husband's note of issue in the divorce action. Justice Stackhouse signed the order on October 8, and set a return date of October 18. Thus, four days before the default judgment was signed, the record shows that the wife had made a motion in Supreme Court seeking affirmative relief in the divorce action.
From these facts, it is evident that the court and the husband's attorney were or should [*3]have been aware of the wife's appearance and her request for affirmative relief several days before the default was signed. However, the papers filed by the husband's counsel in support of the default judgment, as well as the judgment itself, strongly indicate that this information was never brought to the attention of the referee who granted the default. Indeed, the husband's attorney's affirmation of regularity states that "[the wife] is in default for failure to serve a notice of appearance in this action in due time, and the time to answer has not been extended by stipulation, court order or otherwise." Further, the divorce judgment itself states that "Defendant has not appeared and is in default."
Although we recognize that the husband's papers in support of the default were prepared and filed before the wife's entry into the case, it remains a mystery to us why the Referee was apparently oblivious to her appearance. Equally puzzling is how a Referee can grant a default judgment in an "uncontested" matrimonial action at the same time a Supreme Court Justice has signed a show cause order, brought by the party allegedly in default, requesting vacatur of the note of issue in that action. If the Referee had been made aware of the wife's entry into the case, it is entirely possible that this default never would have been entered.
We note that in recognition of the important public policy of determining matrimonial actions on the merits, the courts of this State have adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in actions for divorce or ancillary relief (see Viner v Viner, 291 AD2d 398 [2002]; O'Brien v O'Brien, 149 AD2d 830, 831 [1989]). Accordingly, even assuming that the wife's allegations of a reasonable excuse and meritorious defense were insufficient by themselves to justify the standard for vacatur, under the unusual circumstances of this case, including the wife's pro se status and the fact that the Referee was apparently kept in the dark about her appearance in the case and intent to defend the action, we find that the motion court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the default (id. at 831-832). We also note that the wife faithfully appeared during all Family Court proceedings and during her prior divorce action, and her motion to vacate her default was made promptly upon its entry.
Finally, our dissenting colleague is mistaken in suggesting that we implicitly find that the wife had perjured herself and suborned perjury. We find no such thing. As our opinion makes clear, we find that the Referee's credibility determinations were supported by the evidence at the traverse hearing, and, to that extent, his finding of proper service must be upheld. Unlike the dissent, we do not believe it is this Court's function to make an independent determination as to who, in fact, perjured themselves at the traverse hearing, and we offer no opinion thereon. Our vacatur ruling is based solely on the unfairness of granting a
premature default against an unrepresented party in a matrimonial action. It has nothing to do with indulging any party's alleged misconduct.
All concur except Sullivan, J. who dissents in a memorandum as follows:
SULLIVAN, J. (dissenting)
Contrary to the majority's view, this appeal from the denial of defendant-wife's motion to vacate a default judgment of divorce turns solely on the motion court's confirmation of a referee's report, after a traverse hearing, to the extent it determined that the wife had been personally served with a copy of the summons with notice, as indicated in the affidavit of [*4]service [FN1]. Since I believe that the Referee, as a matter of law, improperly assessed the credibility of the process server, who happened to the husband's attorney, I dissent and would reverse the referee's factual determination and grant defendant's motion to vacate the default and dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Before turning to the facts adduced at the traverse, some background leading to the challenged service of process is in order. The parties, married in 1987, have one child, a son, born in 1990. An incident in June 2003, in which the wife allegedly, in anger and in the husband's presence, punched the child about the face and body and threw a chair at him, brought the parties to Family Court, which issued a temporary order of protection pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act in favor of the child and the husband. After a hearing, Family Court extended the order of protection and appointed a law guardian for the child. On August 6, 2003, the husband filed a custody petition and, following a hearing held that day, was granted custody of the child with continuation of the order of protection.
The wife thereafter commenced a divorce action in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking, inter alia, custody of the child, which prompted a transfer of the family offense and custody petitions to the Supreme Court for merger with the divorce action. A law guardian appointed for the child recommended that custody remain with the father. At a settlement conference with the Justice presiding, the wife discontinued her divorce action. The husband commenced the instant divorce action the same day - August 3, 2004 - by filing a summons with notice with the New York County Clerk. That night, the husband's attorney allegedly personally served a copy of the summons and notice, together with a copy of the Child Support Standards Act, upon the wife as she was walking near her Prince Street apartment in Soho. The attorney filed an affidavit of service with the New York County Clerk on August 4. The wife never appeared in her husband's divorce action.
The wife claims she first heard of the new divorce action on September 27, 2004, during a Family Court support hearing. On the same date, she filed a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) with a request for a preliminary conference, and on October 6, 2004 she filed a show cause order to vacate the husband's note of issue in this matter. On October 12, prior to the return date, a judgment of divorce was granted on default on the basis of the wife's cruel and inhuman treatment of her husband. The judgment also awarded custody of the child. According to the wife, the Referee who signed the judgment was unaware of the pending RJI and order to show cause.
On November 17, 2004, the wife moved to vacate the default judgment solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to lack of service. She asserted that she never encountered the husband's attorney, whom she knew, on the date of the alleged service; nor was she served with a copy of the summons with notice. The court directed a traverse hearing before a Special Referee, which was held on February 16, 2005.
The husband's attorney, licensed to practice for 30 years, testified that he resides on Grand Street, on Manhattan's lower east side, and that on the evening of August 3, 2004, at approximately 9 P.M., he left his apartment to walk one and a half miles to the wife's apartment on Prince Street to serve her with a summons with notice. The attorney, a good friend of [*5]plaintiff, had known his client's wife socially for at least 10 years. In fact, he had attended various family functions, including their son's bar mitzvah. On the night in question, he observed the wife at the intersection of Prince and Wooster Streets, and handed her the summons with notice, stating, "Susan, I have a summons for you, along with the Standards of Child Support." According to the attorney, he asked the wife if she were in the armed forces of the United States, to which she responded, "Why are you asking that stupid question?" The attorney noted that he and the wife were standing in front of a store, "Camper Shoes," located at 125 Prince Street, and that the time was approximately 9:45 P.M.
After completing the service, the attorney returned home by taxicab, arriving by 10 P.M., and immediately prepared an affidavit of service, as well as a diary entry noting the service. The affidavit of service, notarized and filed with the County Clerk the next day, reflected an August 3, 2004 service at 9:45 p.m. in front of 125 Prince Street. The attorney identified the wife as the person he had served at the time and place in question.
The wife testified that she knew the attorney socially and that she resided in an apartment at an address on Prince Street,[FN2] and was employed by J.P. Morgan Chase, with duties that included "computer information security." She stated that on the night in question, she left her apartment at "about 9 P.M." to bring her laundry to Kim's Laundromat, located approximately three blocks away at 207 Thompson Street, just north of Bleecker Street. After loading the washing machines, she left the laundromat to walk two blocks to a Citibank ATM machine located on LaGuardia Place, between Bleecker and West 3rd Streets, completed a transaction and walked directly back to the laundromat. She produced her ATM receipt showing a completed transaction at 9:35 P.M. She denied being at the intersection of Prince and Wooster Streets and having been served with a copy of the summons with notice. She also noted that her apartment was located approximately three and a half blocks away from the corner of Prince and Wooster Streets. The wife finished her laundry at about 10 P.M. and was assisted by "Antonio," a laundromat employee, in carrying several loads of laundry back to her apartment. On cross-examination, she stated that it would take "maybe about ten minutes" to walk the three and a half blocks from the Citibank ATM to the corner of Prince and Wooster Streets.
Hae Jung Lee, who worked at the laundromat, recalled the evening in question and confirmed that the wife arrived there "a little after nine o'clock in the evening." As she recalled, "After [the wife] put everything inside the machine, she said, I will go out, come back soon,' and she went out." According to Lee, a wash cycle takes 24 minutes. She estimated the wife's absence at "[a]bout ten minutes." She testified that after the wife returned, she finished her wash and left the laundromat a little after 10:30 P.M.
In his report, the Referee found that the husband met his burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the attorney had served the wife, finding him
the most credible witness. His testimony had a ring of truthfulness to it. Why would he, an attorney admitted to practice for over 30 years, risk his license by filing a perjurous affidavit of service? Moreover, he knew defendant personally for over a decade and knew where she lived, which was within walking distance of his home. If he had not run into her on the night in question, he could have served her at some other time, there being no statute of limitations problem. His [*6]testimony concerning defendant's response to his query about whether she was in the armed forces of the United States, to which she responded, "Why are you asking that stupid question?", seems realistic.
Lee's testimony was suspect. How likely is it that she would independently remember whether defendant was a customer at the Laundromat on a particular night, months before the traverse hearing? Even if she did, her alibi testimony does not negate the possibility that [the attorney] did, in fact, serve the summons with notice on defendant while the latter admittedly had exited the Laundromat.
[The wife's] testimony was not credible. She had a motive to deny being served with process. The most probative bit of evidence, [the wife's] ATM receipt, is inconclusive as an alibi, since, by her own admission, [the wife] could have walked to where [the attorney] claimed he served her and still have returned to the Laundromat at the time Lee testified [the wife] returned.
With regard to the wife's testimony, the Referee noted in particular:
On cross-examination, the [wife] testified that the distance between her bank and the corner of Prince and Wooster Streets is 3½; blocks. . . . [The wife] further testified, over objection, that the distance can be walked in ten minutes. [The Wife] testified that the time on the ATM receipt indicates that the time of her banking transaction was at 2135 . . . 9:35 p.m.
The motion court confirmed the report, finding that the findings were "supported by the record" and that "the husband obtained jurisdiction over the wife by serving her as indicated in the affidavit of service."
The burden of proof on the issue of jurisdiction rests with the party asserting it (Lamarr R v Klein, 35 AD2d 248, 250 [1970], affd 30 NY2d 757 [1972]), and, after a hearing, must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (Elm Mgt. v Sprung, 33 AD3d 753 [2006]). "[T]he evidence must be of such weight as to produce a reasonable belief in the truth of the facts asserted" (Jarrett v Madifari, 67 AD2d 396, 404 [1979], quoting Fisch on NY Evidence § 1090 [2d ed]). If substantiated by the record, a referee's determination will not be disturbed (Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135 [1997]; see Marcus v Marcus, 4 AD3d 257 [2004]).
At the outset of the hearing, the wife's attorney, noting that the husband's sole witness was an attorney, asked the referee not to indulge in a "presumption based upon either the affidavit of service or the fact that the person who allegedly effected service is an attorney." This request was in keeping with the general rule in assessing a witness's credibility (see NY PJI3d 1:8, 1:41). Unfortunately, as his report shows, the referee based his decision as to credibility essentially on the process server's status as an attorney. Although he stated that the attorney's testimony had a "ring of truthfulness" to it, the basis of that conclusion is clear from the very next sentence: "Why would he, an attorney admitted to practice for over 30 years, risk his license by filing a perjurous affidavit of service?" While on the subject of rhetorical questions, one might ask, "Why would an attorney put himself in the position of acting as a process server for his client in a case such as this, given his relationship to the parties?" As to the wife's alleged [*7]response to the military service question - "Why are you asking that stupid question?" - its relevance to the attorney's credibility is unfathomable.
On the other hand, the Referee found the wife not credible because she had a motive to deny being served. This finding ignores the fact that the attorney also had an obvious interest - sustaining his claim of service and supporting his client's case. Furthermore, the Referee's reasoning is flawed in finding the ATM receipt "inconclusive as an alibi, since, by her own admission, [the wife] could have walked to where [the attorney] claimed he served her and still have returned to the Laundromat at the time Lee testified [the wife] returned." While this may be true, the Referee ignoring the only piece of unassailable documentary evidence offers no explanation as to why the wife would walk completely out of her way to the intersection of Prince and Wooster Streets (the alleged place of service, which was two blocks south of Bleecker Street) before returning to the laundromat, which was one street west of the ATM (both of which were north of Bleecker Street). In that regard, while both the Referee and the majority question Lee's credibility, particularly with respect to her recollection of the exact date and time in question, the Referee made no finding that the wife was not at the laundromat at that time. In any event, on cross-examination, Lee offered a plausible explanation for her specific recollection of the date and time.
Moreover, what reason would the wife have, if actually served, to ignore process? As she pointed out in argument, she had vigorously participated in those proceedings since their inception in Family Court in 2003 and had never defaulted. In fact, it was she who instituted the original divorce proceeding, which she discontinued only because of a lack of funds.
A judicial factfinder should make credibility determinations on the basis of demeanor, forthrightness in answering, consistency or lack thereof in the account being given, interest in the outcome and other relevant considerations. Status in life cannot be the decisive factor in a "he said/she said" credibility contest. "General propositions do not decide concrete cases" (Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 [1905], Holmes, J.,
dissenting). Since status was decisive in this case, it cannot be said that the husband sustained his burden of proof that required - as to the challenged service - a preponderance of the evidence (Jacobs v Zurich Ins. Co., 53 AD2d 524, 525 [1976]).
The majority vacates the wife's default because of her efforts to appear in and defend the action prior to the entry of the default judgment. In my view, such a result is untenable. In upholding the Referee's determination at the traverse hearing, the majority agrees with the Referee's conclusions that the wife was served with the summons and that her testimony was incredible, and also with his assessment of Lee's testimony as "suspect." In short, the majority implicitly finds that the wife not only perjured herself but suborned perjury as well. While courts may be inclined to a more liberal attitude in vacating defaults in matrimonial actions (see e.g. O'Brien v O'Brien, 149 AD2d 830 [1989), no court has ever been so indulgent as to reward a party who has engaged in such conduct by granting affirmative relief.
The majority's disposition is also unsupportable because, despite the tendency toward a liberal policy in matrimonial proceedings, "it is still incumbent upon a party seeking vacatur to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense" (Estate of Allen v Allen, 258 AD2d 423 [1999]). There is no showing of a meritorious defense, and to the extent that the wife's claim of lack of service the only basis for her motion to vacate the default can be considered an excuse, this claim has been patently rejected by the majority.
In my view, the majority's route to the result reached is as tortured as it is inexplicable. [*8]
Accordingly, I would deny plaintiff's motion to confirm the referee's report, grant defendant's cross motion to disaffirm the report and her motion to vacate the default judgment, and dismiss the complaint.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: JULY 26, 2007
CLERK
Footnotes
Footnote 1:The Referee's recommendation regarding the ultimate disposition of the wife's motion was stricken as beyond the scope of the order of reference.
Footnote 2:The attorney testified that the wife resided in an apartment with a different number.
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2007 VOL. I NO. XXXXII Westchester’s Most Influential Weekly
Debra Weissman v Ronald H. Weissman
May 17, 2007
Debra C. Weissman
Armonk, New York 10504
Justice Jonathan Lippman
Chief Administrative Judge
Justice of the Supreme Court
New York State Supreme Court
Westchester County Courthouse
111 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, New York 10601
Re: Emergency Request for Criminal Investigation Regarding Judge Silbermann’s Unethical Interference and infl uence over Judge Scarpino’s Judicial Authorities
I am writing you an open letter requesting that you intercede in a criminal activity that is currently taking place in the Matrimonial Part of the Westchester Supreme Court. I am requesting that you place a temporary stay on all of my pending proceedings in front of the lower and appellate court until we can meet and you can hear the tapes that I have regarding Justice Silbermann’s interference by inappropriately contacting and directing the honorable Judge Scarpino as to how to proceed. I am requesting that you handle the investigation because Judge Silbermann reports directly to you and we are no longer dealing with unethical referees but one of the highest judges in our court system. I sent Judge Silbermann a letter last week before I realized that she, not Judge Scarpino, was the culprit.
Aft er you hear my tapes, you will agree that she must be handled immediately and must refrain from intimidating judges who are overseeing my case. You are well aware of my case, in which you intervened more than two years ago, when my attorneys contacted you regarding the former Referee Montagnino’s unethical behavior toward me, a battered wife and ward of the Court. His rulings against me were so blatantly biased and egregious that I was forced to fi le a grievance against him in the latter part of 2004. When my attorneys accused him of having ex-parte relationships with Mr. Joel Bender, the defendant’s attorney, during my entire matrimonial proceedings, he had the audacity to sanction us approximately $70,000 for even broaching the subject in open court. For getting too close to the truth, I was punished while my ex-husband was granted an illegal Conversion Divorce without a grounds trial, and was allowed to retain 99% of the marital assets worth over $30 million dollars.
Fast forward to March 28, 2006, when Mr. Bender fi nally admitted under oath that he did have many meetings with James Montagnino and his wife because of his desire to become a Supreme Court Judge. Now, more than 3 years later, I have spent over $100,000 in legal fees trying to rectify the fi nancial damage done by these two co-conspirators, the former Referee Montagnino, and Mr. Bender, that transpired throughout the divorce proceedings.
I am experiencing déjà vu. However, this time it is with the head of the matrimonial division of the New York State Supreme Court, Jacqueline Silbermann, Judge Scarpino, and the unethical Mr. Bender.
As occurred in January 2005 when I had indisputable evidence regarding their ex-parte relationship, which they both denied, I now have evidence that Judge Silbermann has actually interceded in My Judicial Misconduct Motion by contacting and instructing Judge Scarpino not to decide my case, which, in essence, is a ruling in my ex-husband’s favor. Th e law fi rm of Bender, Jenson & Silverstein, LLP, and the former Special Referee have blatantly ignored the law, ethical mandates, and evidence of fraud committed by the defendant with his legal representatives.
One can only surmise Judge Silbermann pressured him this way because of her personal, long-time relationship with Mr. Bender. How disingenuous could a head ofmatrimonial matters, who is at the end of her career, be? She seems willing to not only destroy her career for the sake of a corrupt attorney, but also, far worse, attempt to ruin Judge Scarpino by unethically interfering with his judicial decision-making powers. I was contacted by diff erent sources who all informed me of her actions. At fi rst I did not believe it, but it was reconfi rmed. Please be advised that I have recorded their stories because I wanted to have proof of Judge Silbermann’s unethical behavior, knowing full well that no one would believe this. What makes it so appalling is that if my case, given all the publicity it has received, can be fi xed by the head of the matrimonial division, how many others were also fi xed?
To the public she touts herself as an advocate for victims of domestic violence, but nothing could be further from the truth. Although I never intended to confront Judge Silbermann given all of her power and infl uence, I feel I have no other choice. I am not going to spend the rest of my life in poverty and
shame as a result of the corruption that presently exists in the Matrimonial Part of the Westchester, Supreme Court. I do not deserve this type of treatment and I have always acted with dignity and respect to everyone I have encountered in the court system.
The CPLR mandates that newly discovered evidence be presented to the court in which the judgment being challenged originated. My attorneys and I have adhered to the letter of the law in every aspect of this litigation, but continue to have to fight against opposing counsel and the judges who are presiding over this case, who themselves fail to follow the law they have taken an oath to uphold. My September, 2006 motion asking the court to address the newly discovered evidence, resulted in
a decision where everything but the newly discovered evidence was addressed. Judge Scarpino’s attempt to avoid actually making a decision on the clear and convincing evidence is almost too incredible to believe, but could easily be explained if he was unduly infl uenced by his boss, Judge Silbermann. His attempt to “punt” and avoid having to actually address the fraud, misconduct, lying, and cheating which are pervasive and obvious can only lead to one logical conclusion.
Judge Scarpino has just recently accepted my ‘Motion to Reargue’ to address the fraud and misconduct committed by the defendant, the defendant’s attorneys and the former Referee Montagnino, but instead of allowing me to obtain the relief from their fraud and misconduct and allowing me to uncover additional documentation and provide the fi nancial relief I desperately need, and am entitled to, he rewards the defendant and his attorneys by striking any items of relief by allowing the defendant to be in contempt of court for the past 6 years.
Among the items of fraud that need to be addressed are millions of dollars of real estate and other
financial investments the defendant has been allowed to control and shift in his continuing eff orts to defeat any equitable distribution of the marital assets which I actively participated in accumulating. Specifi cally, Judge Scarpino is allowing the defendant, Dr. Ronald Weissman to continue to hide assets by striking from the motion the following:
• Th e purchase of a commercial building located at 15 North Broadway, White Plains, which was in the process of being purchased, with my active participation and marital assets.
• Money taken, in the form of a loan, from a marital investment account in Merrill
Lynch (850-19D82), which was never repaid, and was used as an initial payment for the property at 15 North Broadway.
• Failed to allow tracing of almost a half million dollars in investment accounts which were never disclosed in any Statements of Net Worth or any other documents.
• Address the misappropriation of the defendant’s contents of a Merrill Lynch (850-88808) IRA account in the amount of approximately $300,000.
• Address the failure of the defendant to provide life insurance in the amount of $1.8 million to cover payments due plaintiff .
• Address the fact that the defendant is conspiring with his insurance agent to provide false and misleading documents to the Court to show compliance with the requirement to provide life insurance to the plaintiff when, in fact, he has actually named someone else as the beneficiary.
One need only read the series of court papers submitted in my most recent attempt to have the Westchester Supreme Court address the misconduct and fraud committed by the defendant, the defendant’s attorneys and the former Special Referee, to be able to see, without a doubt, that the defendant had this case fi xed. Each and every allegation listed above of fraud and misconduct is not only backed up with evidence, but the evidence includes sworn statements by the guilty parties themselves, Mr. Joel Bender and former Special Referee James Montagnino. It is abundantly clear that the defendant’s attorneys have conspired with judges to obtain favorable decisions.
Judge Scarpino was brought into the Matrimonial parts last spring following an investigation by the Offi ce of the Inspector General of the bias and misconduct on the part of the former Special Referee Montagnino of which I was one of the leading complainants. For thirteen months (from January 2005 until the end of March 2006), my attorneys had attempted to elicit the truth from the defendant’s attorney, Joel Bender, and the former Referee Montagnino and have them admit to an improper ex-parte relationship which they had engaged in during the time of my divorce proceedings.
It was not until months aft er the judgment was entered, and my papers had been submitted to the Appellate Court, that Mr. Joel Bender fi nally admitted, while under oath, to the truth of his relationship with the former Referee. With this newly discovered evidence, my attorneys and I submitted a motion to Judge Scarpino to have him rule on the fraud and misconduct which was fi nally admitted by Mr. Bender. However, Judge Scarpino, denied my judicial misconduct motion
by stating that the relief being sought was the same as that which was pending before the Appellate Court despite the fact that almost 99 percent of the motion requested Judge Scarpino to address the newly discovered evidence of fraud and misconduct.
In his decision, Judge Scarpino skirted around the issue that underlies the integrity of the entire legal proceeding and addressed everything else. While the relief sought in the motion may have been the same as that which is before the Appellate Court, the facts, supported by the evidence he had before him, were not available at the time the appeal was perfected and could not have properly been included in the appeal since
SPECIAL Court Report ...cont’d from pg. 1
PAGE THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2007
it had never been presented to a lower court to rule on. Judge Scarpino knew it was not possible in terms of the sequence of events, for the issue of ex-parte communications, meetings, etc. between the former Referee Montagnino and the law firm that represented the defendant to be included in my appeal. Mr. Bender and Montagnino conspired and intentionally concealed their relationship until Mr. Bender, who was taken by surprise at a sanction hearing and placed under oath, was finally forced to
reveal the truth after concealing it for months. The issue of these meetings between Mr. Bender and former Referee Montagnino are significant for several reasons. These ex-parte meetings took place during a period that Mr. Bender was appearing in front of former Referee Montagnino involving contested matrimonial cases. These meetings took place in Mr. Bender’s offices after hours. It
is mandatory that these types of meetings be brought to the attention of those who appear
in front of a Judge or hearing officer to insure that if a party feels they may be prejudiced by the relationship they can have the official recused. Not only was the relationship not presented by those individuals, but they intentionally concealed and lied about there being any ex-parte communication when directly questioned. Further, the purpose of these ex-parte communications was intended to support the former Referee Montagnino in his well-known attempt to obtain a nomination to become a Supreme Court Judge. Additionally, it was only after October 9, 2006 in his own affirmation that Mr. Bender finally confessed to having these clandestine meetings, but added details incriminating several other prominent Westchester attorneys also having meetings by naming names.
It was only after the damage was done and the defendant had obtained an illegal conversion divorce, was able to obtain all the marital assets and all the other assets he had hidden from me, tricked me, and manipulated the legal proceedings forcing me into an unconscionable stipulation (a stipulation which was clearly intended to have been formalized by a written agreement) that the former Referee Montagnino made me a ward of the Court. Another unbelievable act which was meant to further control and destroy me was to instruct his hand-picked court-appointed guardian to take the
limited funds that I received from the defendant and put them in trust to be dispersed with the assistance of the defendant. How corrupt is that?
Facts About My Case
I initiated my matrimonial action against my ex-husband, Ronald H. Weissman, MD following 25 years of abuse including many brutal physical beatings. The most serious of these beatings occurred in August 1998 when the defendant, punched me repeatedly in the face with such force that my brain was thrust against the inside of my skull many times, with such severity that he ruptured -literally ripped apart- the bridging veins between my cortex and my venous sinuses. The defendant, in an attempt to coverup this beating, began treating me as a patient, put me to bed, prescribed and administered medications which were contraindicated and failed to summon emergency medical
attention or to notify my own personal physician. As a direct result of the trauma, I suffered several strokes, which further weakened me physically and added to the damage caused during the beating. The strokes prevented part of my brain from getting the blood and oxygen needed thereby causing part of it to die. Only belatedly did I receive medical treatment, and that was only when a friend came by the house several weeks later and demanded that I be taken to the hospital immediately.
I have provided to the Court certified medical records of over 1,000 pages from three nationally recognized medical centers which have certified that my medical diagnosis is that of Traumatic Brain Injury. These certified records also contain admissions by the defendant, Dr. Ronald H. Weissman, that the cause of my Traumatic Brain Injury was the beating which he alone had administered. Despite the voluminous documentation and undisputable written proof by physicians and by independent medical providers, the defendant, the defendant’s attorneys and the former Referee continue to deny
that there was ever any spousal abuse, and that I suffer from Traumatic Brain Injury.
The certified proof I have submitted establishes that the defendant and his attorneys are liars. They must be held accountable for their intentional misrepresentation of the facts and the abuse I have been subjected to by the Court for the past six years, and they must be disciplined for years of malicious conduct which is unbecoming Officers of the Court. Every statement, every allegation I have made can be supported by written, certified, evidence. Every piece of evidence has been in both the Matrimonial Division of the Westchester Supreme Court, and the Second Department of the Appellate Division since 2001. The only ‘evidence’ the defendant and the defendant’s attorneys have to
present is his “denial” that there was ever any spousal abuse.
Yet, despite all the evidence and all the motions and court proceedings, the former Referee Montagnino and many of the former matrimonial judges have found ways to have ruled in the defendant’s favor at every opportunity they could. The have allowed him to control, from day one, over $30 million of marital assets. They have allowed him to submit almost blank Net Worth Statements from 2001 to the present. They have refused to prevent him from moving or selling assets which he continues to do in an obvious attempt to prevent their tracing. The defendant continues to buy major Westchester real estate properties and distributes our marital wealth unilaterally to others (See attached). All of these “Officers of the Court” continue to ignore the 800- lb. gorilla in the room, of a victim of spousal abuse who has been left with permanent physical and brain injuries as well as the testimonies from legal and medical experts/ institutions on domestic violence. The former Referee Montagnino has gone so far as to ignore his own hand-picked law guardian’s findings and recommendations and has actually accused me of making up this diagnosis in anticipation of my matrimonial action (Please see attached two decisions and orders dated 11/2005.)
Defendant’s brutality against me robbed me of a life and career that I worked my entire life to obtain. Despite the years of abuse, I was a dutiful wife and mother and worked hard to improve my husband’s career and our family’s life. In a cruel brutal and clearly criminal instant, my life was taken away from me. I will never be able to accomplish the goals I had aimed for in my life. While the defendant reaps the benefits of our marriage, I am left to face an uncertain future with serious physical disabilities and brain injury. I will never fully recover from the injuries I suffered. The defendant and his attorneys continue to mischaracterize and misrepresent, in a demeaning and disrespectful manner, the disability I suffer and the cruel and unconscionable treatment they have subjected me to during this litigation. Instead of obtaining the assistance of the courts to allow me to end an abusive marriage and leave with sufficient assets to be able to take care of myself and obtain the medical care I still desperately need, I have had to endure six years of fighting through the fraud and corruption with seemingly no end in sight.
My sources have informed me that Judge Scarpino will allow me to sell the house but put the proceeds in escrow and yet not direct that the defendant place $30 million in escrow as well. How fair is that? According to the fraudulent outline of settlement placed on record, I already have the right to sell the house but for the fact that the defendant sued my former realtor and by doing so, terrorized every other realtor in Westchester. It is not bad enough that I can’t get on with my life but that the courts
support my ex-husband in his actions that clearly violate the law. While this is going on, I am still responsible for paying my own legal fees although there is a clear disparity between the income levels of the defendant and myself. Instead of taking the judicial action this case calls for, in fairness and equity, and considering the years of abuse, and the fraud and misconduct which the defendant and counsel have carried on for over six years, Judge Scarpino suggested that I file a Plenary Action to obtain relief. This is quite upsetting given the fact that I can’t afford to pay for my own medical
coverage, and this action would be another legal expense, another waste of judicial resources
and would give the defendant more time to continue his lavish lifestyle while manipulating
the marital assets and blocking me from getting the proper medical attention I still need. I want to be able to plan for my future which now includes planning on how to manage with a severe disability.
You should be outraged that as a battered wife and a ward of the Court, Judge Scarpino did not afford me the legal protections mandated by state and federal laws and constitutions. Additionally, Judge Scarpino has failed to replace the Guardian Ad Litem who personally told me she was withdrawing because she could not deal with Mr. Bender’s unethical shenanigans, thus denying me the ability to have equal access to the courts and be able to protect myself and my property. Although this case is in Judge Scarpino’s hands, he is apparently being coerced by Judge Silbermann to not rule, but to defer a decision until the Appellate Court rules on the separate issues before it. As a Judge in the Supreme Court of New York State, he has a responsibility to follow the rules, laws and Constitutions of both New York State and the United States. It is his responsibility to protect those individuals who need protection. In this case, I not only need the protection of the Court, but sought it out. It is now time for
Judge Scarpino to do the right thing and rule on the evidence he has before him. A review of the papers the defendant and defendant’s counsel have submitted do not address the issues of fraud and misconduct that the plaintiff motion papers go into detail describing. Why is it that Mr. Bender does not submit an affirmation denying the allegations? The reason the defendant’s papers do not address the issues in the motion is because they already know the outcome. Reading the Order to Show Cause that Judge Scarpino signed May 1, 2007, it is clear what the outcome of the proceedings will be.
I am asking you to immediately investigate the actions of the judicial personnel in my case who have denied my rights, continue to deny my rights, and continue to victimize me for what appears to be both a fear of doing the right thing, and an expectation that the unethical thing will be advantageous for them personally. I now turn to you and request that on behalf of all victims, that you do the right thing by addressing this blatant and unconscionable treatment of an abused spouse and send a
message in no uncertain terms to the judges and the attorneys and court personnel in Westchester that fraud, corruption, and brutality will not be tolerated.
Yours Truly,
Debra C. Weissman
cc: The Westchester Guardian
SPECIAL Court Report
Criminals are running our Courtrooms. I think a massive class action law suit is in need against the State of New York for Violations of our Constitutional Rights. To include the Chief Judge of the State Judith Kaye, Judge Francis Nicolai, The Grievance Committee, Governor Spitzer, any all of the parties inovloved in the Violations that will constitute violations if I am not mistake the RICO Act.
Criminals are running our Courtrooms. I think a massive class action law suit is in need against the State of New York for Violations of our Constitutional Rights. To include the Chief Judge of the State Judith Kaye, Judge Francis Nicolai, The Grievance Committee, Governor Spitzer, any all of the parties inovloved in the Violations that will constitute violations if I am not mistake the RICO Act.
Orange County New York is a paradise for child abusers and pedophiles.
$800,000 abuse verdict against county, foster home
August 27, 2007
A state hearing officer ordered Orange County and foster parents in the Town of Wallkill to pay $800,000 in damages for sexual abuse that the boy suffered at the hands of another child in the foster home.
The boy was six when he was placed in the home in March 2001, after the county's Department of Social Services complained in Family Court that the boy was being abused and neglected.
The family fought back in court. Eventually, they agreed to have social services monitor their home for a year, in exchange for having their son returned to them. The boy returned home in June 2001 - a week earlier than scheduled, after a county caseworker learned that the boy had been sexually abused by an older boy in the foster home.
The parents of the abused boy, who's now 13, sued in state Supreme Court in Goshen in 2001. After a non-jury trial in May and June of this year, state Judicial Hearing Officer Peter C. Patsalos made his decision earlier this month: He found the county 70 percent at fault for the abuse that the boy suffered, and the foster parents 30 percent responsible.
We are all targets of these criminals and our children are the merchandise up for sale
05/17/07
Letter to the FBI investigating Officer
Peter Petrov
7 4th St 2K
Stamford , CT 06905
Phone 914-309-7463
e-mail: peter@letq.com
Dear Mr. O’Connor,
I recently heard that an FBI investigation on the case fixing in the Westchester Matrimonial Courts is underway.
I believe I witnessed and been victim of such practices and am willing to cooperate in the investigation. I would gladly provide you with documents (court orders, transcript, different court documents), proving that the Westchester Matrimonial Courts and the Westchester DA are corrupt.
Here are the most rampant faces of corruption that I experienced (the short description of a specific instance is in italic)
Judicial assignments
Assigning cases to Judges whose judicial election campaign was generously supported by attorneys from selected law firms with the purpose of extorting money from the adversary litigant.
On July 2006 my case was assigned to the two judges who topped the list of my wife’s attorney’s judicial election campaign contributions with respectively $5000 and $750. The two judges were not actively handling at the time respectively criminal and matrimonial cases.
Backdating (or probable forgery) of court orders
As it can be seen from March 2006 transcripts, in a couple of court appearances my matrimonial judge was discussing with the parties whether a forensic evaluation should be conducted by a Westchester County Community Service Agency or by an independent evaluator. All of the sudden the evaluator, connected to the Westchester County served me an order backdated on January 27, 2006, ordering forensic evaluation at their facility
Granting of attorney fees w/o any proof
It is a usual practice one of the litigants to be ordered to pay his adversary’s attorney fees, without any fault from his part. The only reason for this is that his adversary’s party attorney belongs to a well-connected law firm.
On two occasions, matrimonial judges ordered me to pay my adversary parties’ attorney fees without requiring or seeing, any proof that the actual fees incurred
Toleration of the perjury by Westchester matrimonial judges and the County DA
The Westchester DA virtually refuses to prosecute even the most rampant cases of perjury in matrimonial actions. The matrimonial judges in Westchester automatically dismiss motions to address perjuries.
In sworn and notarized affidavits submitted to the matrimonial court my wife claimed that I transferred $180,000 offshore in order to evade taxation, that I own $1,000,000 financial portfolio that I fail to declare, that I hide $477,000 in securities, that I raped her and tried to kill her at least tree times.
When I filed a complaint with the Westchester DA, I was initially directed to file a report with my local police department. When I did so, the DA again refused to investigate, stating that they needed referral from my matrimonial judge. Following this advice, I filed a motion addressing the perjuries with my matrimonial judge (a former assistant DA). The judge initially granted the order to show case and after that outright dismissed the motion stating that, “the matter was already brought to the attention of the DA”. But the DA office again refused to investigate this time stating that the phone conversation they had with my matrimonial judge did not involve any referral of the matter to them.
I wonder how a tax evader, rapist and killer like me is not at least investigated. Note that in the same time the same DA brought a Christmas shopping charge against me (see bellow Denying the right of speedy trial)
Fabrication of bogus claims in domestic violence with the help of well connected lawyers tolerated by well greased matrimonial judges
As you might know, the contemporary divorces are often accompanied by bogus claims in domestic violence with the purpose to gain advantage in the divorce litigation, especially in determining the child custody and the party in default. There is no no-fault divorce in the state of New York ).
Usually the party who is determined faulty in the divorce is ordered to pay the often-exorbitant fees of the adversary party attorney.
Selective prosecution by Westchester DA
See above Toleration of the perjury…, see bellow Denying the right of speedy trial
Denying the right of speedy trial
Offer divorce litigants, whose divorce is accompanied by criminal allegations, face rampant violations of the NY Criminal Procedure, rule defined in article 30.20.2 stating that the trial of a criminal action must be given preference over civil cases
I believe this is done with the sole purpose the pending criminal case to negatively influence the outcome of the civil procedure. The cited violation benefits the attorneys from influential law firm – the adversary party is found in fault and as such ordered to pay attorney fees to the well connected attorney.
Eight days after I filed for divorce, my wife complained to the White Plains Police that I violated an order of protection by stalking her (at the time we had mutual protective orders). She spotted me on two occasions (two consecutive Sundays, respectively 3 and 2 weeks before Christmas of 2005) in the White Plains City Center and Galleria Mall.
I was arrested and a criminal procedure started against me. Both matrimonial and criminal matters were consolidated before the same judge in an IDV Court . I requested a jury trial on the criminal matter at the beginning of February - approximately 2 month before it became clear that there will be a trial in the divorce proceedings too. In the meantime, a well-connected “pro-bono” matrimonial attorney was assigned to my allegedly poor wife. (At the time, I disposed with an attractive amount of cash and liquid assets; the domestic violence community whose services my wife was using and the presiding and administrative judges, were well aware of this fact).
Even if my criminal matter was much less complicated and the trial could have been set within days, the presiding judge kept adjourning it, while on July 2006 he issued a trial readiness order for the divorce matter. My multiple requests the criminal matter to be tried before the divorce were completely ignored. My matrimonial trial started on December 18, 2006 and still there is no scheduled date for the criminal trial.
I believe this was done with the sole purpose I to be set as the default party in the divorce and I to be ordered to pay my wife’s hefty attorney fees.
Shelling taxpayer’s and litigant’s money to different programs
Directing innocent divorce litigants accused in bogus criminal and family court offences to attend different costly programs at significant taxpayer’s and their own expense with the main purpose of financially benefiting the staff of those programs and increasing the power of county executives.
Without ever admitting any guilt on January 2006, I was ordered to attend a program called “Domestic Violence for Men”. The non-appealble referral document was crafted as a condition for my $5000 bail (later raised to $10000). My multiple requests to cancel this referral were denied. The lecturers in this program claim they teach feminist agenda; besides the ridiculous statements that all men are batterers, they undermine the laws of the United States by teaching that the US Constitution (as a document created by rich white men) was a tool to maintain the oppression on women and minorities …(see the paragraph bellow)
When I stopped attending this program on my own, I was initially jailed and after my relative of mine posted an increased bail I was told that I won’t get trial until after I comply. Putting conditions on a constitutional right to trial is a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Here is a list of persons and agencies that I had contacts with and are involved in the above corruption schemes in Westchester County
DA office: Edward Livingston, ADA , Ken Citarella, ADA
Judiciary: Hon Francis Nicolai, administrative Judge, Hon. Sam Walker (presiding over my divorce and stalking case between January and July 2006), Hon. Robert Neary (presiding over my divorce case since August 2006), Hon. Colangello (presiding over my criminal case since August 2006)
Lawyers and agencies: Neveen Nesheiwat lawyer for my wife since March 2006; My Sister’s Place – a local agency running a couple of “battered” woman shelters in Westchester, providing legal services for the alleged victims and coaching matrimonial and family court judges in Westchester to its feminist agenda
Westchester Jewish Community Services/Forensic Evaluation Program – a preferred provider of forensic evaluations for Westchester Courts (a litigant, refusing to go there for an evaluation could suffer an ex-parte diagnosis containing qualifications as “paranoid”, “mentally disturbed”, etc.)
White Plains YWCA/Supervised Visitations Program – this program is headed by a former director of a “battered’ women shelter with close ties to My Sister’s Place (which provides lawyers to the allegedly “battered” women). The reports issued by this agency are carefully crafted and facts from the visit carefully selected to impeach the parenting abilities of the usually male “visitor”.
Westchester County “Domestic Violence Program for Men” – often males who have not admitted any guilt and w/o any due process are sent to this program as a “condition of bail” on their own and taxpayer’s expense. The program teaches Feminist and Marxist agenda – that all men are sexists and batterers, that the US Constitution just serves the sexist and batterer society since it was created by men, that the presumption of innocence and the right of due process and trial are not applicable to the domestic relations courts, that the current educational system in the US was unfair and should be replaced by a socialist one, etc.
Judicial Steering in New York Courts
New York Law Journal
Westchester's Matrimonial Part Revamped in Wake of Infighting
Daniel Wise
06-26-2006
After months of bitter infighting, Ninth Judicial District Administrative Judge Francis A. Nicolai (See Profile) has reassigned all four judges who have been hearing divorce cases in Westchester County.
Two of five referees assigned to the matrimonial part are also being given new assignments, and the format for the matrimonial part itself is being revamped, said Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver.
Three new judges will be transferred into the part starting today, he added.
The judges are being shuffled and the part reorganized, Mr. Bookstaver said, because court officials have learned "from the nature of matrimonial work that it is historically prudent to rotate judges."
When the changes are fully implemented, the matrimonial part, which decides approximately 900 contested divorce cases a year, will have one fewer judge and two fewer referees.
The change in format, which will be phased in, will result in judges handling their own cases from start to finish, Mr. Bookstaver said. For the time being, though, judges assigned to the part will supervise cases until a fact issue is ready to be tried. At that point, cases will be assigned to any judge or referee in the part, or one of two backup judges, to conduct a fact-finding hearing.
Two of the judges being reassigned will continue to conduct fact-finding hearings during the transition, Mr. Bookstaver said. He added that no date had been set for the completion of the change in court procedures.
Westchester Surrogate Anthony A. Scarpino, who is coming into the part as supervising judge, will not carry his own inventory of cases, Mr. Bookstaver said. Surrogate Scarpino (See Profile) replaces Justice W. Denis Donovan (See Profile), who was responsible for assigning cases out to trial and hearings twice a week, and also carried a calendar of post-judgment enforcement motions.
The rotations are related to the controversies that have swirled through the part in recent months. Without being specific, Mr. Bookstaver said that the public has raised "a number of issues about the part's practices and policies and the changes are designed to address those serious issues."
Mr. Bookstaver would not discuss details, and said he could neither confirm nor deny whether investigations had been conducted by OCA Inspector General Sherrill R. Spatz.
But a referee assigned to the part, James A. Montagnino, has made available to the Law Journal a letter he wrote on March 13 to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and five other top administrative judges complaining that Justice Nicolai had improperly intervened in cases on seven occasions after having had ex parte contact with a lawyer or litigant.
And in interviews, both Mr. Montagnino and his lawyer, Fred L. Shapiro, a former County Court judge, said they had met with Ms. Spatz, who was conducting an investigation into the charges raised in Mr. Montagnino's letter to Judge Kaye.
Mr. Montagnino separately said that about a week after he wrote his letter, Ms. Spatz informed him that her office would be investigating complaints lodged against him by a number of female litigants whose cases he had handled. Other than Ms. Spatz, no agency has jurisdiction to investigate such charges.
Outcomes of Investigations
With regard to the investigation of Mr. Montagnino, Mr. Shapiro said that on June 5, Mr. Montagnino was told at a meeting with OCA's director of human relations that Ms. Spatz's investigation had resulted "in no negative findings." But he said OCA proposed that Mr. Montagnino accept a transfer to the Bronx because "it would be better for everyone if he did not continue to work in Westchester."
Mr. Montagnino, in turn, asked for a transfer to the Albany area because he could move to his vacation home in Saratoga, Mr. Shapiro said, and it was agreed he would be given an assignment in either Albany or Rensselaer county.
Mr. Bookstaver said that Mr. Montagnino was one of two referees who is being transferred out of the matrimonial part, and that starting today he will be assigned in the Third Judicial District, which includes Rensselaer and Albany counties.
To the extent that no public action has been taken against Justice Nicolai, and he remains as administrative judge for the five-county Ninth Judicial District, it can be inferred that Ms. Spatz found no merit to Mr. Montagnino's complaint.
As for the ex parte issues raised in Mr. Montagnino's March 13 letter, Mr. Bookstaver said that dealing with complaints from litigants and lawyers is "a part of what administrative judges do — it is very much a part of the administrative judge's responsibilities."
Three New Judges
Like Mr. Montagnino, Judicial Hearing Officer Edward P. Borrelli was reassigned as part of the court shakeup. Starting today, Mr. Borrelli will be working in the commercial part of the Westchester courthouse.
The three other referees who had been assigned to handle fact-finding hearings and occasionally whole cases, will now each be paired with one of the new judges handling divorces. In their new roles, they will be sent "narrowly framed issues" to try, and also handle conferences and motions in cases assigned to their judges, Mr. Bookstaver said.
The three referees who will continue to do matrimonial work are Meryl Amster, Irene Ratner and Reynold Snyder, though he is also slated for reassignment. Mr. Bookstaver said that Mr. Snyder will be replaced after he is reassigned.
The four judges being reassigned from the part are Justices Donovan, Bruce E. Tolbert (See Profile), Richard B. Liebowitz (See Profile) and William J. Giacomo (See Profile).
Justices Donovan, Tolbert and Giacomo will carry the same type of caseloads as other generalists receiving civil assignments in Westchester, though Justices Tolbert and Giacomo will remain available to conduct fact-finding hearings in divorce cases during the transition. Justice Liebowitz will also handle a normal civil caseload, but in Rockland County, starting today
In addition to Surrogate Scarpino, the judges coming into the part are Westchester Justice Linda Jamieson (See Profile), a former divorce practitioner and Family Court judge, and Justice Lewis Lubell, a plaintiffs' personal injury attorney who was elected to the bench from Westchester County last November but who has been sitting in Orange County.
Justice Lubell will be replaced in Orange County by Justice Joseph Alessandro (See Profile), who is being brought in from Rockland.
Concern Over Resources
Matrimonial bar leaders in Westchester expressed concern that the changes will leave them with one fewer judge and two fewer referees. They also said they were caught short by the changes.
Neil A. Fredman of Fredman & Kosan, who until May 17 was the head of the family law section of the Westchester County Bar Association, said that he had first heard "rumblings" of the planned changes two weeks ago. Mr. Fredman said that, even though the family law chairman historically has served as the liaison between the Westchester matrimonial bar and matrimonial judges, he had received no communication from the court about the proposed changes.
Mr. Fredman said that he was "mystified" as to why OCA was reassigning the judges. "There were charges and countercharges flying all over the place," he said, and the "only visible result is that all the judges are gone — and the complaints had nothing to do with them."
The bar fought hard to have more referees and a fourth judge added to the part, Mr. Fredman said. Now that they are gone, he added, "we will certainly be pressing to get them back."
Lonya A. Gilbert, a co-chairwoman of the Westchester women bar's matrimonial committee, said, "Our clients are required to come to preliminary conferences, and we already often have to wait a half hour. This certainly won't make the situation any better."
Fallout in Orange County
The dustup in Westchester has also had reverberations in Orange County, where lawyers are upset over the loss of Justice Lubell.
Joseph A. Owen the immediate past president of the Orange County Bar Association, said his association had written to Justice Nicolai asking that Justice Lubell not be reassigned, but was advised in a phone call that the transfer "was already done."
Justice Lubell, who was elected to the Supreme Court last November, was "a real gem," Mr. Owen said. "With his experience as a trial lawyer, he was able to move cases expeditiously and fairly," and both sides of the personal injury bar "appreciated having him on their cases."
Jonathan Jacobson, the Democratic leader in Orange County said he had contacted both Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman (See Profile) and Justice Nicolai, asking them not to reassign Justice Lubell.
Mr. Jacobson said he had gotten "lots of calls from Democratic and Republican lawyers alike expressing extreme displeasure" at Justice Lubell's transfer. They all felt, he said, that Justice Lubell had not "forgotten that he was a lawyer once, and understands the needs of lawyers."
Complaints to Conduct Panel
The infighting that led to the eventual shakeup in Westchester are reflected in the complaints against Justice Nicolai that Mr. Montagnino made in his March 13 letter and were mirrored in a complaint he filed nearly two weeks later with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Both the letter and complaint asserted seven instance of improper ex parte contacts in six cases.
In addition, Barry Skwiersky, court attorney to Justice Giacomo, complained separately to the commission about Justice Nicolai's intervention in two of the cases cited by Mr. Montagnino, which had also been handled by his judge.
Mr. Montagnino's attorney, Mr. Shapiro, who handled matrimonial cases in Westchester for eight years, filed a third complaint with the commission in which he offered added factual support concerning three of the alleged episodes of improper involvement by Justice Nicolai.
In two of those episodes, Mr. Shapiro claimed to be relaying information provided by Mr. Borrelli, who is a member of the court system's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. According to Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Borrelli complained about two instances of ex parte intervention by Justice Nicolai in a divorce case that he was handling. Mr. Borrelli declined to comment.
Mr. Shapiro said that, as far as he is aware, his and Mr. Montagnino's complaints are still pending before the commission. Mr. Skwiersky also said he believed his complaint is still pending. Under conduct commission procedures, complainants are advised of how their complaints are disposed.
As for the complaints against Mr. Montagnino that he was biased against women, many matrimonial lawyers sent letters to Ms. Spatz's office attesting that he "was not a sexist," said Mr. Fredman of the Westchester bar. The outpouring of letters — one source said there were upwards of 30 — reflected a strong level of support.
Kathleen Donelli, another co-chairwoman of the Westchester women bar's matrimonial committee, for instance, said Mr. Montagnino is "always fair to women and women's issues and has the utmost respect of both male and female attorneys."
But some lawyers have a more negative view. Carol Most, a lawyer who was cited by Mr. Montagnino in two of his alleged examples of ex parte contacts, publicly criticized him as being "unfair" to women at a meeting of the Westchester women bar's matrimonial committee in 2003, according to Ms. Donelli, a partner at McCarthy Fingar in White Plains.
Ms. Most, who at the time was a co-chairwoman of the committee, declined to comment.
The leadership of the women's bar was so upset that its president at the time, Kathy N. Rosenthal, wrote a letter to Justice Nicolai disavowing Ms. Most's remarks, Ms. Donelli said.
Though the letter did not mention Ms. Most by name, Ms. Rosenthal stated that she was aware that "one or more members" of the association had expressed "an opinion" regarding Mr. Montagnino. She then noted that the association had not given authority to anyone "to speak about or against Referee Montagnino."
Several Westchester matrimonial practitioners identified a small group of lawyers as being highly critical of Mr. Montagnino. None of those lawyers responded to requests to speak about their views, even on a not for attribution basis.
But other lawyers who are aware of their views, described the group as believing that Mr. Montagnino is not favorably disposed to wives with high-end lifestyles who are seeking to maintain those lifestyles, without having to re-enter the work force, through a liberal award of maintenance.
Comments that Mr. Montagnino made during a continuing legal education seminar at Pace law School in 2004 resonated with the critics, some lawyers said.
Referring to the zip code for Scarsdale, 10583, Mr. Montagnino described some women litigants as having outsized and unrealistic expectations of what they can obtain in divorce, a phenomenon he dubbed the "10583 syndrome."
A reading of the full 10-paged, single-spaced transcript of the session, however, reveals other passages that would definitely be helpful to the non-monied spouse.
Tense Episodes
A couple of episodes illustrate the tensions that have marked the conflicts within the court, one involving Mr. Montagnino and one involving Justice Nicolai.
Mr. Montagnino acknowledged in an interview that the day after Ms. Most spoke at the 2003 womens' bar meeting, he bumped into her in the courthouse and asked her to come to his chambers. He said he told Ms. Most, who denied making the remarks attributed to her the night before, that making a false statement that a judicial officer is biased could constitute professional misconduct.
In a similar vein, both Mr. Montagnino and Mr. Shapiro charge that Justice Nicolai contacted court officials in charge of assigning counsel in Family Court cases after a well-respected law guardian complained that Justice Nicolai had intervened on an ex parte basis in a case where she had been assigned to be the law guardian.
According to a source familiar with the situation, the law guardian, Kathleen Hannon, had written "an over-the-top letter" to Justice Nicolai complaining about his ex parte intervention in a divorce case being handled by Mr. Borrelli. (The same case that Mr. Shapiro referred to in his complaint to the conduct commission.)
Justice Nicolai then forwarded Ms. Hannon's letter to the officials who certify lawyers for court appointments in Family Court cases in the Second Department with the notation "for whatever action you deem appropriate."
Ms. Hannon, apologized and that was the end of the matter, the source said. Ms. Hannon did not return a request for comment.
— Daniel Wise can be reached at dwise@alm.com.
Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 9:10 AM
I loved the comment about Judge Nicolai being unfairly accused. Let me set the record straight. My ex is a lawyer in the courts in Judge Nicolai's district. In fact, Frank Nicolai had the office next to my ex for 15 years, so he knows him well. When my ex wanted a divorce, he changed his schedule to work half days, coming home to meet the school bus every afternoon (as the father's rights groups tell the dads to do). Nicolai approved this even though my ex is still collecting his six-figure income. Further, my ex drags me in and out of court and does all his work for this case in the court house on taxpayers equipment and time. He takes all his time in court as paid time. I went to OCA to complain and documented the cost to the taxpayers for three years of this - it was well over $150,000. OCA bumped this to Nicolai saying it was an "administrative issue". Frank did nothing. My ex gets preferential treatment because he knows everyone. When he attacked me, I had him removed from the house. He immediately went to Nicolai and got a counter order (what litigant can go to the administrative judge to get an immediate court order? No one). My ex threatened me that he would use Nicolai's order to drag me to trial and put our daughter (who witnessed his attack) on the stand if I didn't withdraw my order of protection. Nicolai gave my ex his order without any evidence. Worse, Nicolai never entered his order into the County clerk's ofice. When I told Len Spano, the Westchester County Clerk, about this unentered order, he brushed it off (since he's pals with my ex, too - my ex gives Len's son, Nick Spano, our local Albany Senator, court appointments worth thousands of dollars).
My ex told the judge on our case that since he was home every afternoon same as me, I wasn't entitled to full child support since his "expenses" were now equal to mine. The judge agreed and awarded me only 6% instead of the 25% I was entitled to. In fact, I got zero child support for almost six months. When I went to Family court to have this corrected, my ex walked downstairs and had the referee remove herself from the case. No one else would take my case. I had no legal recourse available to me because my ex knew everyone and could couner my every move. Child support services was horrified and we complained to Nicolai. Frank did nothing.
At the matrimonial Commission hearings, there were many victims, both male and female, complaining about how if your ex is rich, powerful, a lawyer, or politically connected, there is no way you can get a fair shake in the New York State courts. I'm living proof.
I had to hire lawyers to protect me from what the courts themselves refer to as "power abuse". I've spent over $160,000 (compared to zero cost for my ex) and am nearly bankrupt. How does any of this have the best interests of my children at heart? Why won't anyone make my ex stop his abuse? I've asked everyone I can think of for help - no dice. When you're politically connected, you can get anything you want in the system.
Beginning of the End of Corruption in NY Courts
New York Times
February 21, 2007
Supreme Court Will Review the Way New York Selects Judicial Candidates
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — The United States Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to review New York’s method of selecting candidates to its own Supreme Courts — the 324 judges who have general trial jurisdiction throughout the state and whose nomination to 14-year terms is tightly controlled by a political process that two lower federal courts declared unconstitutional last year.
The lower court rulings, which were stayed until after the 2006 election cycle, have created turmoil in the state’s judicial politics and spurred calls for fundamental change in a system that dates to 1921. The political parties control the nominating conventions, and candidates who are not favored by the parties’ leaders have no chance of getting on the ballot. The actual elections are for the most part uncontested.
From 1994 to 2002, these nominating conventions in the state’s 12 judicial departments chose 568 State Supreme Court candidates, none of whom were challengers to the party favorites. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a ruling last August affirming a decision issued five months earlier by Judge John Gleeson of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, ruled that the system was so exclusionary as to violate the First Amendment right of the state’s voters to freedom of political association.
“The First Amendment guarantees voters and candidates a realistic opportunity to participate in the nominating phase free from severe and unnecessary burdens,” Judge Chester J. Straub wrote for a three-judge panel of the appeals court. He added that the United States Supreme Court’s election-law precedents “establish that the First Amendment prohibits a state from maintaining an electoral scheme that in practice excludes candidates, and thus voters, from participating in the electoral process.”
The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court by the New York State Board of Elections, joined by several political organizations; the incumbent State Supreme Court justices; and by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who was governor-elect by the time the appeal reached the court on Nov. 28.
Governor Spitzer’s view of the case will be a matter of some interest as it goes forward. Addressing the Rockefeller Institute of Government shortly after his election as governor, Mr. Spitzer indicated that he did not support the existing system, which he said was “in dire need of reform.” According to an account in The New York Law Journal, the governor-elect said that “there must be a way to primary onto the ballot,” and added that “I will not support anything that has a closed convention structure, where only those who came out of the convention could be on the ballot.”
Governor Spitzer’s office in Albany said on Tuesday that he would have no comment on the Supreme Court decision to hear the case, New York Board of Elections v. Torres, No. 06-766. The court will take up the case when its next term begins in October. It could be a year from now, or longer, before the justices issue a decision.
That long waiting period presents considerable uncertainty. Under Judge Gleeson’s original ruling, the state will have to begin to use a primary election system unless it comes up with another way to satisfy the court’s constitutional concerns. A bill to establish primary elections as the way to choose State Supreme Court nominees passed the State Senate last year and was reintroduced at the beginning of the new session in January.
But primaries present their own problems, including the need for candidates to raise considerable amounts of money. (Money is also an issue with the nominating conventions; a judge who was arrested in Brooklyn on corruption charges several years ago asserted that the going rate in the borough for the Democratic nomination for judge was $50,000.)
A task force convened by the New York City Bar Association in response to the court rulings recommended a system of merit selection, under which bar associations, civic groups and others would screen and present a list of candidates from which the governor or, in New York City, the mayor would choose.
Mark H. Alcott, president of the New York State Bar Association, said on Tuesday that the organization had long supported a merit selection system. The shift to such a system would require a state constitutional amendment. The Constitution was amended in 1846 to require election of State Supreme Court justices.
The challenge to the convention system was brought by a group of judicial candidates, Republican and Democratic voters, and the civic group Common Cause, represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. The lead plaintiff, Margarita López Torres, who is now the Brooklyn surrogate court judge, tried and failed several times to obtain a Democratic nomination for State Supreme Court. As an elected Civil Court judge, she refused an order to make a patronage appointment of a law secretary, and complained that she was told by a party leader that she “did not understand the way it works.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 9:04 AM 10 comments Links to this post
Misconduct Charges Lead to N.Y. Judge's Resignation
Wednesday July 18, 3:02 am ET
Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal
Former New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence I. Horowitz used his status as a judge to seek preferential police treatment for his girlfriend and to have authorities investigate the woman's estranged husband, the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct said Tuesday.
The commission announced that Horowitz, who resigned on June 20, has signed a stipulation acknowledging that he could not defend himself against the disciplinary charges. He also agreed not to serve again as a judge or judicial hearing officer.
Horowitz, 56, was a Westchester County Supreme Court justice who has been assigned to Orange County for the past two years.
In a formal complaint also released Tuesday, the commission charged Horowitz with two counts of judicial misconduct, and it dated his wrongdoing to Jan. 1, 2004, when he joined the Supreme Court bench.
The commission contended that from the beginning of his tenure, Horowitz used Supreme Court stationery to write letters concerning personal or family business matters. The correspondence included letters to the schools his children attended to comment on school policies, to his house of worship to discuss his membership dues and to Verizon, contesting an unpaid bill of $14,707 for a phone number associated with his former law practice, according to the commission.
Horowitz also violated judicial canons beginning on Feb. 3, 2005, when his girlfriend, Michelle Nolan, was stopped for speeding in Yorktown, Westchester County, the commission charged. A police computer check indicated Nolan's estranged husband, Christopher Angiello, had reported the vehicle stolen. Horowitz called the officer investigating Nolan's case and identified himself as her friend and assuring him Nolan would respond to any traffic summonses, the commission charged.
Several summonses were issued against Nolan, though the officer's supervisor had recommended she be charged with a crime and that bail be set, the commission noted.
Horowitz then accompanied Nolan to the Yorktown police station to file a complaint against Angiello for having made a false report about the car. At that time, he identified himself as a judge and demanded that police investigate Angiello and his brother, Yorktown Police Officer Dominic Angiello, for allegedly working together to improperly report the vehicle as stolen.
On Feb. 7, 2005, the commission said Horowitz called Mount Pleasant Police Chief Louis Alagno, Westchester County Assistant District Attorney Vincent O'Connell and Chief Assistant District Attorney Richard Weill, identified himself as a judge and urged them to investigate Nolan's complaint.
The commission charged Horowitz with violating the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Governing Judicial Conduct ?100.1, for failing to maintain high standards of conduct; ?100.2(A), for failing to act in a way that upholds public confidence in the judiciary; and ?100.2(C), for lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of another.
In his answer to the complaint, Horowitz wrote that whenever he used the official Court letterhead for personal correspondence, he typed "Personal and Unofficial" in the upper right hand corner and believed that was sufficient to indicate he was not writing in his official capacity as a judge.
He acknowledged making the calls to the police chief and prosecutors on Nolan's behalf, but denied that he identified himself as a judge or that he "persisted" in pressing for investigations of Angiello and his brother.
In the stipulation with the commission, Horowitz acknowledged his inability to defend himself against the charges in the complaint and that he has resigned from the Court. While the commission has 120 days under Judiciary Law ?47 to complete an investigation against judges if they resign, commission administrators and Horowitz agreed that all matters in his case should be closed.
The stipulation made reference to the commission's notification to Horowitz that it was also investigating "additional allegations" against him unrelated to the 2006 complaint, but the nature of the other allegations was not revealed.
RESPONSE TO CHARGES
In his verified answer, Horowitz noted that his misconduct came in his first 18 months as a "relatively new" judge. He also made reference to a series of personal setbacks dating from his 2003 campaign for Supreme Court, when his wife, Alexis Furer, began a bitterly contested divorce proceeding against him.
Horowitz also said his mother was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, his finances were strained by joining the judiciary and fighting his divorce, he required hospitalization with abdominal problems and his son was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He denied that his personal issues had interfered with his work on the bench throughout the period.
"The actions which formed the basis for the Judicial Conduct Commission's proceedings were an anomaly, were not undertaken for personal or financial gain and were unrelated to matters he presided over," said Horowitz's attorney, Deborah A. Scalise of Jones Garneau in Scarsdale. "Unfortunately, he had more than his share of personal issues and ultimately decided to resign from the bench."
Horowitz "looks forward to putting this episode behind him" and returning to private practice, Scalise said.
In 2001, Horowitz ran as the Republican challenger to Democratic Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. Spano won easily.
Horowitz is the 18th judge to enter into a stipulated resignation or retirement since the Commission on Judicial Conduct introduced that method of disposing of cases four years ago. Commission Administrator Robert Tembeckjian said Tuesday it allows the commission to more quickly remove judges whose cases are likely bound for formal removal judgments, and judges are able to save the resources they would spend if the adjudication process were completed.
In cases like Horowitz's, where the former judge is seeking to return to private practice, the commission routinely forwards its decisions and supporting documents to attorney screening panels for possible review of whether ex-judges violated legal canons, Tembeckjian said. In Horowitz's case, that would be to the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Appellate Division, 2nd Department.
Scalise said her client is not aware of any grievance proceedings against him.
How to deal with a stubborn husband who abuses his wife?
Q. For no reason, my sister's husband has been using abusive language against my sister for quite sometime now and that too in the presence of their 7 years old daughter. He is a person who nobody can speak to or make him understand. My sister has tried to tell him on a couple of occasions not to use abusive language in front of their child but e just does not listen. Of late, my niece has started behaving very stubbornly. Earlier she was a very lovable, understanding and mature child. But now she has just become the opposite. She just does not listen to her mother and uses the same curses and language that her father uses against her mother. Please advise us on how we can sort out this problem and stop the child from becoming worse and a rebel. Talking to the father is just next to impossible, because he will not take it in the right sense.
A. You ask what to do about the child, but that is not the right question, because the child is acting normally, imitating her strongest parent. The correct question is, what is to be done about a husband who abuses his wife in front of their child?
The answer is up to your sister. She must face the fact that if she allows the abuse to continue she will cause harm to both herself and her child. It is good that you are concerned for your sister and niece, because they need your help. A plan must be made to get your brother-in-law some help, perhaps counseling. Not knowing the full situation, I cannot help you make a specific plan, but you might ask:
1. Who has influence over him?
2. Is he in trouble at work as well as at home?
3. Is he trying to get out of the marriage?
4. Is he ill, or worried about finances, his job, his parents, his health?
5. Does he have a legitimate complaint against your sister that has not been resolved?
Good luck in solving this important family puzzle!
15 July 2005
Answered by
Dr. Bert Pepper
Psychiatrist,
Blauvelt,
New York
Dr. Bert Pepper
Psychiatrist
Blauvelt, New York
Dr. Bert Pepper is a psychiatrist who has practiced for the past 42 years in various parts of the United States. He is currently in private practice in New York State.
Dr. Pepper is a graduate of the New York University College of Medicine, and also has a Public Health degree from Columbia University. He holds faculty positions at Harvard and New York University. He served as the Director of Consultation of the American Psychiatric Association for over 20 years, and is a Life Fellow of the Association.
Dr. Pepper's special interests include:
chronic mental disorders
psychopharmacology
alcohol abuse and drug abuse
helping people recover from the effects of sexual and other traumas
public health
administration of health services.
personality disorders, and the ways in which trauma impairs growth of the self.
Dr. Pepper has held numerous administrative and faculty positions in the past. Currently he is a member of the National Advisory Council of the U.S. Government's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. He is also a Board member of several voluntary agencies that provide housing and treatment services to poor and minority mentally ill and substance abusing persons.
They forgot to add in his special interest that when it comes to protect abusers he is your guy.
Judge Sentences Himself By Signing Papers Unread
MOSCOW, May 6 — A judge on one of the most important benches of the Moscow District Court who has the bad habit of signing unread any document placed before him has just sentenced himself to jail.
The court clerks, deciding he needed a lesson in "Bolshevik vigilance," presented to him a sheaf of papers including one reading "To the chief of Butyrky prison: Under Magistrate Abramson is sent to you for further detention." Judge Abramson signed all the papers and picked up his newspaper again.
The clerks, of course, extracted the sentence and were passing it around laughingly when the judge found out about it. He destroyed it in a rage, declaring such jokes tended to undermine Soviet justice.
Esther:
I have more information about Jeff ragsdale, his brother and favorite sister in law and also your ex's attorneys spinnell, father and son edelsteins
contact me
if he only had a brain said...
Dr. Bert Pepper
Most abuser protector DON'T HAVE NADA ZIP.
WE NEED TO WRITE TO ALL THE AGENCIES THAT PEPPER BELONGED TO -ABOUT THE SALTY THINGS THAT PEPPER DID - SHAMEFUL - VERY VERY SHAMEFUL AND ALSO UNETHICAL
can someone please contact the second department or the first department - whoever is in charge of assigning experts ..
please find out which judges have been assigning pepper and how many appointments pepper has received for his unjust enrichment.
please find out if he has been wining and dining those judges or gave money - campaign contributions or any of his relatives of 6th degree of separation.
the road to crookedness will have an end
also pepper's professional license
can someone check if he has any violation - pls call the license office if he has any complaint, been sued, or if he has sued others - look into his fraud, call the IRS - did he include your payments as income or pay taxes. get copies of your checks and his clients that you know.
did he bill you correctly or double billed you and other clients?
find all his patients including the same attorneys that recommended pepper - the same players
do the same for the same players - know everything about them - how many times they take your judge to lunch/dinner/birthday party, etc and how many appointments they get
find out how many times they get favorable ruling because they take judges out to lunch
THINK JAILED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE GERALD GARSON AND JAILED LAW GUARDIAN AND ATTORNEY PAUL SIMONOVSKY AND ALSO HIS CLIENT EX-HUSBAND AVRAHAM LEVI.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is not the incoming train.
Our faith will WIN !!!!
shame on you
Real Estate Law Blog - http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/
The law firm blogs that protect other attorneys
UNCONSTITUTIONAL - THAT'S WHY JUDGES ARE BAD - PLS READ BELOW
___________________________________
Crashing the Gates
By Jason Boog
Posted 09-08-06
Defenders of the country club had hoped the judge's testimony would secure the gates. Instead, it sent an open invitation to party crashers.
When defense counsel for the New York judicial establishment called Supreme Court judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam to the stand in 2004, they were confident her testimony would convince federal judge John Gleeson that the judicial convention system was constitutional. At issue was the landmark federal case, Lopez Torres vs. New York State Board of Elections.
They must have assumed that the modest, plain-spoken description of the process by such a witness—who sits in Manhattan’s medical malpractice part—would trump the image of candidates forced to leap through hoops in smoke-filled rooms.
They were wrong.
For two days of testimony, Justice Abdus-Salaam provided an unprecedented glimpse into the byzantine maneuverings behind the Supreme Court elections. Sometimes boring, sometimes ridiculous, the process never sounded pretty.
The judge explained how state Assemblyman Herman “Denny” Farrell Jr., chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee, urged her to go before the Supreme Court screening panel back in 1993. Salaam sat before 12 or 15 party-selected screeners and apparently succeeded in charming the group.
At that point, the machine smoothly shifted into high gear—using party workers to collect the thousands of signatures required to build a slate of judicial delegates to vote for Abdus-Salaam at the judicial convention. Without the support of party leaders, a challenger would have to mount a massive, expensive signature campaign to muster comparable support at the convention.
She embarked on a string of fundraiser dinners and political club visits, finally throwing a “delegate’s party” to introduce herself to the estimated 200 delegates and alternates who would pick five judges to nominate as Democratic candidates at the September judicial convention.
Her testimony (click here for excerpts) concluded with a recitation of bean-counting on the convention floor. She painstakingly described scratch-paper math she used to track her delegation supporters.
There were a few suspenseful moments, but ultimately, Abdus-Salaam received the party’s stamp of approval. The nomination virtually assured Abdus-Salaam’s win, and she swept into the 14-year post, along with four other Democratic Party picks, beating the nearest Republican contender by more than sixty thousand votes.
In all, it sounded more like being rushed for a sorority or fraternity than being vetted for a branch of government that settles massive financial claims and decides which citizens go to Rikers Island.
Indeed, New York is the only state in the nation with such a party-rigged convention system for selecting its top trial judges.
Gleeson’s ruling made no bones about his disapproval of the process, and he declared the system unconstitutional. In late August, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed Gleeson’s ruling, which mandates open primaries until the state legislature builds a new system. (See appellate ruling, Lopez Torres v. New York State Board of Elections)
Without the guiding hand of the Democratic Party, an open primary could jack up the price tag of a Supreme Court race by hundreds of thousands of dollars. While Gleeson stayed his decision to avoid disrupting the 2006 election, the Second Circuit panel flatly denied another extension for next year’s race.
“I think it was wrong,” said Joseph L. Forstadt from Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Forstadt defended the Association of New York State Supreme Court Justices in front of Gleeson. “I put six Supreme Court justices on the witness stand, they testified that they got their jobs by the sweat of their own brow. I think the court should have relied on the credibility of their testimony.”
Forstadt and others are currently considering other appeal options. But the odds are now very heavy that 2007 will see a slew of pricey battles.
Abdus-Salaam estimated she spent less than $2,000 on the entire campaign in 1993.
When asked how she would finance a re-election bid in an open primary, she had a gloomier outlook: “I would have to hock my brownstone, I don’t have relatives with money like that, raising bits and pieces, I think it would [be] difficult, because I’ve been on the bench so long we haven’t been allowed to do any sort of mingling with clubs.”
Now, it looks like Justice Abdus-Salaam might have to consider that second mortgage.
Consultant Peter R. Weiss, for one, thinks she’s facing precisely such a steep financial climb. What would he tell a prospective candidate in an open primary?
“Raise a lot of money,” he said. “Two hundred grand would be the minimum. Three hundred thousand would be better. If you are an incumbent, you’ve been out of circulation for 14 years. That’s a problem. Party leadership has changed, and you have to start from scratch.”
Weiss saw the effects immediately after the Gleeson decision dropped last January. The consultant said he received phone calls from Manhattan attorneys who hoped to run in Brooklyn in the event of an open primary. They saw an opportunity in five open seats for 2006 in a borough that they assumed would have less competition than their own.
Panicked by the prospect of being forced to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in time for the 2006 campaign, Supreme Court justice Joan Lobis was among a half-dozen incumbents who petitioned Gleeson for a delay: “[M]y contact with the political process has been quite minimal, and long ago,” she wrote in an affidavit. “Not only would this entire process be wholly foreign to anything I have done, it would also be totally at odds with my professional life for the last 20 years.”
As unimpressed as Gleeson had been by the defense of the ancient regime, he sympathized with those claiming they’d have no time to avoid an electoral guillotine. The judge stayed his own ruling until after the 2006 election.
In 2007, however, an open primary could wreak havoc in three New York City boroughs. According to records on file at the Unified Court System, six incumbent justices will face re-election next year: Abdus-Salaam, Fern Fisher and Charles E. Ramos in Manhattan; L. Priscilla Hall, Larry D. Martin, and Albert Tomei in Brooklyn and Staten Island. In addition, two seats will be opened by retirement in Queens.
Despite the potentially prohibitive price tag, some court watchers see the new system as a step toward better government: “It’s a great day for democracy in New York,” said Gary Tilzer, the campaign manager who fought to win a judicial spot for Surrogate Judge Margarita Lopez Torres. “Now you have a system where challengers have a shot.”
In 2004, Tilzer’s candidate took the election battle to Judge Gleeson’s courtroom. After combing through 10,000 pages of evidence, Judge Gleeson concluded that the plaintiffs—Surrogate Lopez Torres, the Brennan Center for Justice, and eight frustrated judicial candidates—were unfairly excluded by the convention system.
In the wake of the appellate ruling, the fate of the system now rests in the hands of the state legislature.
The Republican-dominated state Senate rushed through an election reform bill (S.55-A) in January, led by Senator John A. DeFrancisco. The bill would create a petition mechanism whereby candidates without the party’s blessing could still join the primary ballot. That measure has stalled in the state Assembly’s Election Law Committee since February.
According to Deanna Cohen, a spokesperson for DeFrancisco’s office, the Assembly isn’t scheduled for another lawmaking decision until January, but she’s hopes they will schedule an extra session to address the bill. “We’d like to see the bill passed in the assembly, and Senator DeFrancisco suggested an alternative bill also—he’s open to other ideas.”
Various election specialists are happy to provide suggestions.
“It’s going to put a lot of pressure on the legislature,” consultant Tilzer acknowledged. “If they don’t work on district size, an open primary will be difficult.” He advised the legislature to create smaller judicial districts and provide matching funds for judicial candidates—allowing candidates to run on a level playing field.
Under New York election law, the state comprises of 12 judicial districts, each with a different number of “authorized Supreme Court positions.” Both parties choose Supreme Court delegates through a mind-boggling calculus of district size and voting patterns within individual districts, electing candidates to fill a 14-year spot on the court.
In Manhattan, the First Judicial District (JD) on the election grid, two incumbent seats out of 38 Supreme Court positions are up for re-election in 2006. In Brooklyn and Richmond counties (Second JD), five out of 52 seats are technically open, with two incumbents and three retiring justices. In Queens, (Eleventh JD), there are four incumbents and three retiring judges out of 38 seats. Finally, in the Bronx (Twelfth JD), there is one incumbent and one retiring judge out of 24 seats.
“The Second Circuit ruling doesn’t call for nip and tuck changes,” said James Sample, associate counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, the group that helped Margarita Lopez Torres file her suit. He stressed that the state legislature should avoid making only “incremental changes” to the judicial election system—quick fixes such as creating an independent screening panel or requiring fewer signatures to build a delegate slate.
“That still keeps it in control of party bosses,” explained Sample. “We just think minor changes to the status quo are insufficient. We have to be careful not to let incremental reform become the ally of the unconstitutional status quo.”
According to Manhattan election consultant and political writer Jerry Skurnik, the legislature should think about ways to protect incumbents like Abdus-Salaam. Traditionally, incumbent judges in both the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court automatically receive re-election nods at the convention.
Skurnik advises Supreme Court justices to lobby for an “assigned vacancy” law that would help insulate incumbent judges from direct competition—compelling new candidates to declare which vacancy they were seeking, rather than indirectly challenging an incumbent.
In Skurnik’s hypothetical, an unopposed incumbent could be toppled by two primary candidates who weren’t even seeking her seat if they both somehow outpolled her among primary voters. Talking about the one vacant judicial seat in Manhattan in 2007, Skurnik explained: “[Abdus-Salaam] may lose, even though nobody is opposing her!”
Posted by Jason Boog on September 8, 2006 07:25 AM | Permalink | Print
COMMENTS
The Dem Party in the City, particularly in Brooklyn, is known to sell judgeships among most attorney's who are in the know. No shock here except that it's not confined to Brooklyn. Who is going to stop this?
Posted by: JDGrove | September 13, 2006 12:23 PM
Curriculum Vitæ
Bert Pepper, M.D.
120 N. Main Street
New City, New York 10956
(845) 634-0050; (845) 638-6061
Personal Born in New York City 9/28/32. Married.
Education M.S., 1964; in Community Psychiatry and Administrative Medicine: Columbia University School of Public Health and Administrative Medicine.
M.D., 1957, New York University School of Medicine.
B.S., 1953, in Chemistry: City College of New York.
Academic and Music Diploma, 1949, High School of Music and Art.
Internship 1957-1958, rotating, at U.S. Public Health Service Hospital, Staten Island, New York.
Psychiatric
Residency 1962-1963, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
1960-1962, Rockland State Hospital, Orangeburg, NY.
Professional Experience
1983 to date Founder and Executive Director, The Information Exchange, Inc. TIE is a national, tax-exempt not for profit agency whose mission is to improve treatment for mentally ill and emotionally troubled persons, especially those who also have substance abuse/alcohol disorders. TIE achieves its objectives via consultation, training, and research.
1984 to 1997 Director, Consultation Service of the American Psychiatric Association.
1976 to 1984 Member, Vice-Chair or Chair of the Consultation Services Board of the American Psychiatric Association
1963 to date Private practice of psychiatry.
1988 to 1990 Consultant to the County of Rockland for Mental Hygiene.
1988 to 2000 Consultant to Argus (Therapeutic) Community, Inc.
1975 to 1988 Director of Rockland County Unified Services: Director of the Rockland County Mental Health Center: and Commissioner of Community Services: Rockland County, State of N.Y.
1972 to 1975 Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, State of Maryland.
January 1974 to
September 1974 Assistant Secretary for Programs, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, State of Maryland; Program Director for umbrella-type state agency. Responsibilities included policy direction, program integration , and general supervision of $400,000,000 annual operating budget. Components were: Mental Hygiene, Mental Retardation, Local Public Health, Preventative Medicine, Laboratory Medicine, Chronic Disease and Geriatrics, Drug Abuse, and Juvenile Services.
1968 to 1974 Editorial consultant to Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia.
1968 to 1971 Senior Psychiatric Consultant to Institute of Community Studies, the research arm of United Community Funds and Chests of America.
1966 to 1970 Associate Commissioner, New York State Department of Mental Hygiene. As part of an overall departmental reorganization in 1966, created and directed a new office: The NYC Metropolitan Regional Office served New York City and nine suburban and rural counties in southern New York State. Population of region 12 million. The office licensed all mental health and mental retardation services in the region, approved the annual plan for services for each county, and recommended State financial aid.
1964 to 1966 Director, Rockland County Community Mental Health Services. As administrator, accountable to lay professional Mental Health Board and to county government for all mental health and mental retardation services provided or funded by the county. Proposed and developed functional program, and secured federal, state and county grants to construct the Rockland County Community Mental Health Center. The Center was designed as an integrated component of a total county human services (health, social services, medical services, and mental health) system.
1962 to 1964 During Fellowship years at Columbia University School of Public Health, assignments included:
General training and supervision by Viola Bernard, M.D., Professor of Social and Community Psychiatry.
Administrative psychiatry supervision by Lawrence Kolb, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University.
Research Fellowship in Psychiatric Epidemiology under Ernest Gruenberg, M.D., Professor of Research Psychiatry, Columbia University.
New York City Mental Health Board; preceptorship in public mental health planning and administration under Marvin Perkins, M.D., Commissioner.
Research fellowship in social psychology under Bruce Dohrenwend, Ph.D.
Ittleson Research Center; training/research in childhood psychosis, directed by William Goldfarb, M.D.
Bank Steet College of Education; psychiatric consultant.
1960 to 1962 Senior Psychiatrist, Rockland State Hospital (concurrent with residency).
1958 to 1960 Staff Psychiatrist, U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at Fort Worth, Texas. Hospital specialized in treating drug addicts.
1956 Two-month elective externship in child psychiatry at New York University, Bellevue Medical Center, under Lauretta Bender, M.D.
Faculty Appointments
1993 to date Lecturer on Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School and Faculty, Massachusetts Mental Health Center.
1978 to date Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, New York University College of Medicine.
1973 to date Lecturer, School of Hygiene, Department of Mental Hygiene, Johns Hopkins Medical School.
1984 to 1987 Member of the Faculty for Continuing Medical Education, New York Academy of Medicine.
1977 to 1979 Adjunct Professor, Long Island University--Mercy College.
1964 to 1978 Various faculty titles and assignments in Division of Social and Community Psychiatry, Columbia University.
1972 to 1977 Lecturer in Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
1973 to 1975 Senior Associate in Social Psychiatry, Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital, Baltimore, MD.
1972 to 1975 Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
1970 to 1972 Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Albany Medical College.
1965 to 1972 Lecturer in Psychiatry, New York School of Psychiatry.
1964 to 1966 Lecturer in Law and Psychiatry, Rutgers University Law School, Newark, NJ.
1961 to 1962 Instructor in Psychiatry and Neurology, Rockland State Hospital, School of Nursing.
Publications: Books
Lives at Risk: Understanding and Treating Young People with Dual Disorders, R. Ryglewicz and Bert Pepper, M.D., Free Press, New York, 1996.
Advances in Treating the Young Adult Chronic Patient: New Directions for Mental Health Series, No. 21, B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz, Eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, January 1984.
The Young Adult Chronic Patient: New Directions for Mental Health Services Series, No. 14, B. Pepper, and H. Ryglewicz, Eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, June 1982.
The Social Setting of Mental Health, A. Kraft, A. Dean, B. Pepper. Basic Books, a Division of Harper & Row, New York, 1976.
Publications: Chapters, Articles
"Stability of Psychiatric Symptoms Among Mentally Ill Chemical Abusers in Long-Term Residential Treatment Programs", Larry Nutbrock, Bert Pepper, et al., Journal of Drug Issues, 1997.
"Homeless, Mentally Ill, Chemical Abusing Men in Different, Community-based Treatment Programs," Michael Rahav, Bert Pepper, et al., Chapter in The Effectiveness of Innovative Approaches in the Treatment of Drug Abuse, 1997.
"Working with Seriously Mentally Ill Substance Abusers", Bert Pepper and Edward Hendrickson, Chapter in Responding to the Mental & Substance Abuse Health Care Needs of Persons on Community Corrections, 1996.
"Characteristics and Treatment of Homeless, Mentally Ill, Chemical-Abusing Men", Michael Rahav, Bert Pepper, et al., Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Jan.-March, 1995.
"The Dual-Disorder Client: Mental Disorder and Substance Use", Hilary Ryglewicz, Bert Pepper, Innovations in Community Mental Health.
"Bringing Experimental Research Designs into Existing Treatment Programs: The Case of Community-Based Treatment of the Dually Diagnosed, Michael Rahav, Bert Pepper, et al., Chapter in Drug Abuse Treatment, Edited by Fletcher, et al.
"Dual Diagnosis of Major Mental Illness and Substance Disorder," New Directions for Mental Health Services Series, No. 50. Minkoff and Drake, Eds. Overview chapter with R. Drake, K. Minkoff. Chapter with M. McLaughlin on modifying the Therapeutic Community to treat the dually disordered. Jossey-Bass, Summer 1991.
"Mentally Ill Alcohol & Substance Abusers: Overview," lead article in special issue on that topic; The Journal of the California Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Winter 1991. Served as issue editor.
With H. Ryglewicz, wrote 3 educational books, published by TIE:
Alcohol, Drugs, and Mental/Emotional Problems: What You Need To Know to Help Your Dual Disorder Client.
Alcohol and Street Drugs: What Parents Need to Know.
Alcohol and Street Drugs: Time for a Choice. (Client version).
These books, first published in 1990, were published in their second editions in 1991.
"The Information Exchange: A Resource for Diagnosis and Treatment of Young Adults with Severe Co-Morbid Disorders," Synapse, publication of the West Hudson Psychiatric Society. November - December 1991.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient and Substance Abuse," Forum, journal of the Rockland County Mental Health Association, September 1991.
"The Young and The Restless: Programming for the Crisis-Ridden Young Adult Patient," B. Pepper and M. McLaughlin, in Psychiatry Takes to the Streets, Ed. N. Cohen. The Guilford Press, 1990.
"Neuropsychological Characteristics of Young Adult Chronic Patients: Preliminary Observations," Joseph Zacker, Bert Pepper & Michael C. Kirshner, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1989.
"A Public Policy For the Long-Term Mentally Ill: A Positive Alternative to Reinstitutionalization," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56(3), pp.452-457 July 1987.
"What in a Diagnosis -- and What Isn't", Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol. 39, No. 1., January 1988.
"Role of the State Hospital: A New Mandate for a New Era," Bert Pepper & Hilary Ryglewicz, Psychiatric Quarterly, vol 57, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 1985.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient," Bert Pepper and Hilary Ryglewicz. Chapter in Marlow, H. and Weinberg, R. (Eds.), Competence Development, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Illinois, 1985.
"Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment," Panel Member (contributor) to Chapter 12 -- Mental and Behavioral Disorders, American Medical Association, pp. 215-221, 2nd edition, 1984.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient." Chapter in Talbott, J. (Ed.), The Chronic Mental Patient: Five Years Later. Grune & Stratton, 1984.
"The Management of chronic Pain," Bert Pepper & Hilary Ryglewicz. Chapter in Kelly, Wm. E. (Ed.), The Changing Role of Rehabilitation Medicine in the Management of the Psychiatric Patient, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Ill., 1983.
"Unified Services: A New York State Perspective," Bert Pepper and Hilary Ryglewicz. Chapter in Talbott, J. (Ed.), Unified Services: Utopia Unrealized; New Directions for Mental Health, No. 18, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, June 1983.
"Treatment Failures as Unmet Needs: the Role of a Unified Service System in Effecting and Affecting Improved Treatment for Young Adult Chronic Patients," Chapter in Spiegel, D. et al. (Ed.). Book based on conference at Stamford University, December 1982.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient: A New Challenge." American Journal of Social Psychiatry, Vol. 3, No. 4. Brunner/Mazel, New York 1983.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient in the Community: Effective Treatment in the Psychiatric Day Hospital," B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Partial Hospitalization, Louisville, Kentucky, 1982. American Association for Partial Hospitalization, Boston, MA 1983.
"Unified Services: Concept and Practice," B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, Vol. 33, No. 9, September 1982.
"Testimony for the Neglected: The Mentally Ill in the Post-Deinstitutionalized Age," B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 52, No. 3, July 1982.
"A Profile of the New Chronic Patient," B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz. Roche Report: Frontiers of Psychiatry, January 1, 1982.
"Patient's Rights and Patient's Needs -- Are They Compatible?" B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz. Canadian Legal Aid Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1981.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient: Overview of a Population," B. Pepper, M. Kirshner, H. Ryglewicz. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, Vol. 32, No. 7, July 1981.
"The Young Adult Chronic Patient: An Emerging Population," B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz, The Bulletin, American Psychiatric Association, Vol. 23, No. 7, April 1981.
"Commentary on Legal, Clinical, Economical and Ethical Issues Related to the Self-Help and Mutual Aid System," Alan Gartner and B. Pepper, June 15-16, 1977. Published by the Bureau of Health Education in Cooperation with the Mental Health Materials Center.
"The Role of Community and Staff Expectations in Effecting Change in a Children's Psychiatric Hospital," Bert Pepper and Erica Loutsch. In D.V Sanker (Ed.), Mental Health in Children, Vol. 1.
Articles on Stammering, Stuttering, Left-Handedness, and Right-Handedness, in Funk & Wagnall's Enclyclopedia.
"The Role of the State," Journal of the New York State Medical Society, Vol. 71, No. 11, June 1, 1971.
"Community Mental Health Centers: From Concept to Reality," International Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. IX, 1970-1971.
"Community Control in New York City: Crisis in Mental Health Services?" Published in the Bulletin of the New York State Council of District Branches. American Psychiatric Association, May 1969.
"What is a Psychiatrist?" Pamphlet published by New York State Council of District Branches of the American Psychiatric Association, 1968. Edited, re-published and distributed nationally by the APA.
"Group Therapy and Hospitalization of Narcotic Addicts," Archives of General Psychiatry, October 1961.
Appointments, Offices, and Memberships
1960 to date Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association
1991 to date Member, Expert reviewer panel, American Journal of Addictions.
1990 to date Chair of the Clinical Sub-Committee and Member of the Clinical Advisory Committee of the New York State Department of Substance Abuse Services.
1997 to date Member, The National Writers Union
1988 President of the American Orthopsychiatric Association.
1984 to 1990 Board Member of the American Orthopsychiatric Association
1984 to 1986 Treasurer, American Orthopsychiatric Association.
1983 to 1984 Co-Chairman, Program committee, American Orthopsychiatric Association.
1981 to date Member or Fellow, American Orthopsychiatric Association.
1990 to date Member, American Society of Addiction Medicine.
1988 to date Charter Member: American Academy of Psychiatrists in Alcoholism & Addictions.
1972 to date Member or Fellow, American Public Health Association
1985 to date Member, American Association for Social Psychiatry.
1982 to date Member or Fellow, American College of Mental Health Administrators.
1988 to date Member, World Association for Social Psychiatry.
1977 to date Member, American Society for Clinical Hypnosis
1986 to date Member, New York University-Bellevue Psychiatric Society
1986 to date Member, and former Board Member, American Association of Community Psychiatrists
1987 to 1991 Member, New York State Quality of Care Commission. Appointed by the Governor of New York State.
1986 to 1990 Co-Chair, Council on Psychiatric Services of the American Psychiatric Association
1985 to 1989 Member, Subcommittee on the Mentally Handicapped in the Community of the New York State Bar Association Committee on Mental and Physical Disability.
1984 to 1988 Member, National Advisory Board of the American Mental Health Association.
1981 to 1987 President and Founder, Committee of Advocates for Psychiatric Patients.
1980 to 1986 Chairman of the New York State Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors.
1985 to 1986 Member, Youth Suicide Prevention Council. Appointed by the Governor of New York State.
1980 to 1986 Chairman, New York State Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors.
1982 to 1985 Member, Committee on Young Adult Psychiatry of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry.
1979 to 1984 Member, Area II Committee on Public Psychiatry of the American Psychiatric Association.
1982 Councilor, American Association of Psychiatric Administrators.
1979 to 1982 Member, President's Committee on Employment for the Handicapped.
1979 to 1982 Chairman, Study Group on Informed Consent to Treatment of the New York State Office of Mental Health.
1979 to 1981 Consultant to the Governor, State of Alabama.
1978 to 1981 Founding Chairman, Committee on Rehabilitation of the American Psychiatric Association.
1974 to 1977 Member, Task Force on Right to Treatment of the American Psychiatric Association.
1965 to 1969 Delegate, West Hudson District Branch, Chairman, Committee on Allied Health Professions of New York State Council District Branches. Was responsible for coordination of writing, editing, publishing and distributing 50,000 copies of a public education pamphlet, What is A Psychiatrist? Pamphlet was edited, re-published and distributed nationally by the American Psychiatric Association.
1968 to 1969 Member, Task Force to Study Implementation of P.L. 89-749 (comprehensive health planning). The Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association.
Nationwide Planning
1998 TO 1999 National Advisory Council, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
1973 to 1974 National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: liaison representative.
1973 to 1974 Secretary, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.
Statewide Planning
1972 to 1975 Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, State of Maryland.
1972 to 1975 Maryland State Hospital Construction Advisory Council.
1968 to 1969 Chairman, New York City Task Force on Rehabilitation of the Emotionally Ill of Comprehensive State-Wide Planning for Vocational Rehabilitation Services.
1964 to 1965 Member, Mid-Hudson Regional Mental Health Planning Committee.
Other
1998 Board of Directors, Pathways to Housing, Inc.
1979 to 1984 Reviewer, Hospital and Community Psychiatry, a Journal of the American Psychiatric Association.
1981 to 1983 Vice-Chairman and Founding Member, Rockland County Future, Inc.
1974 to 1975 Chairman, Atlantic States Conference on Mental Health.
1973 to 1974 Vice-Chairman and Program Chairman, Atlantic States Conferences on Mental Health.
1964 to 1971 Chairman, Board of Trustees, Community Music School, Spring Valley, New York.
Consultancies
1998-1999 Consultant to the Council on Addiction Psychiatry
1995-1996 Consultant to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on co-occurring mental health and substance-related disorders.
1979 Expert witness for the U.S Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division: As amicus curiae for the plaintiff, against the State of Alabama: Case of Wyatt v. Stickney.
1978 Expert witness for Mental Health Law Project: Nelson v. Hudspeth on behalf of the plaintiff, against the State of Mississippi, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
1978 Expert witness for the Office of the Public Advocate on behalf of plaintiff: Rennie v. Klein; U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.
1985 Expert witness for the U. S. Department of Justice in defense of the Coatsville, N.J., Veterans Administration Hospital; against a class action suit brought by the N.J. Office of the Public Advocate
Awards
1997 Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, New Providence, NJ
1997 Who's Who in the East, New Providence, NJ
1996 American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation Scientific Distinction Award.
1996 The Best Doctors in America, Northeast Region, Woodward/White, Inc.
1983, 1985 While serving as Commissioner of the Rockland County Mental Health Center, the Center received two awards from the American Psychiatric Association:
1983, Certificate of Significant Achievement for integrated and unified mental health, mental retardation, substance abuse and alcoholism services;
1985, Gold Award for identifying, researching and treating the emerging population of Young Adult Chronic Patients.
December,
1983 Joseph R. Bernstein Award from the Rockland County Mental Health Association.
November,
1983 Proclamation of Recognition and Appreciation, Rockland County Legislature.
1981 Award: In recognition of the completion of six outstanding years as County Director and one year as Chairman of the New York State Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors presented by the Community Services Board of Rockland County.
1972 Meritorious Service Citation presented by the New York State Department of Mental Health.
Certified in Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.
Licensed to practice medicine in the States of New York and Maryland.
Certified as Number 1 on New York State List of eligibles for appointment to the position of Director, Psychiatric Center. Grade: 100% -- 1973.
Listed in Who's Who in the East, 1979.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home
Bert Pepper, M. D.
Executive At-Large
120 North Main Street
New City, NY 10956
Home: 845-359-6891
Office: 845-634-0050
Cell Phone: 845-536-6891
Fax: 845-634-1690
BertPepper@mac.com
Assistant: Judy Bettello
jbettello@yahoo.com
Dr. Bert Pepper is involved with the Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health
STATE SPENDING ON MENTALLY ILL IN CENTERS IS TERMED INFLATED
By RONALD SMOTHERS
Published: June 20, 1982
New York State's payments to its 25 community mental health centers are twice as high as they should be, according to a report by a state commission.
After a nearly yearlong study, the Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled concluded that part of the cause was the practice that has existed for almost 20 years of state and local governments picking up equal parts of the centers' annual deficits.
This, combined with the Office of Mental Health's ''perfunctory'' approval of cost claims and lack of regulatory control gave centers not only a free rein, but a powerful incentive to be ''innovative and creative'' in their budgeting, the report said. Less Costly Care
While the study called the centers' practices ''inefficient,'' ''improper'' and ''illegitimate,'' Clarence Sundram, the chairman of the commission, stopped short of calling them illegal or criminal. Much of the activity - which involved overstatement of costs, understatement or failure to collect revenue and diversion of revenue from centers - was not proscribed in legislation for the $100-million-ayear programs.
The community-based centers provide less costly outpatient care to some mentally ill people who would otherwise have to be in large state hospitals. Some directors of the centers said the criticized practices existed to make up for cuts or inadequate increases in state aid in recent years and were often concurred in by sympathetic state officials.
Dr. Bert Pepper, director of the Rockland County Community Mental Health Center, said the report, which was released last week, sounded much like a continuation of the state's attempt to ''renege'' on its ''responsibility for the mentally disabled.'' Diversion of Reimbursements
The problem is particularly bad, the commission's report said, at centers that are affiliated with local hospitals. Many of them willingly entered into arrangements with hospital officials, involving diverting their Medicaid reimbursements to the hospital, allowing charges from the hospitals for administrative services they did not receive, or failing to collect reimbursements from third parties to avoid the cost of collection, the study reported. By using such practices, the centers are able to overspend and then justify higher budget requests in subsequent years, the report found.
One example from the five randomly selected centers studied in 1978 and 1979 indicated that through diversion of a portion of the state and Federal reimbursements due its affiliated center, an unidentified upstate hospital received $200,000, which it then turned over to the county government. The county, in turn, used those funds to pay its 50 percent share of the center's deficit for the following year.
''The system of deficit financing now in effect is inherently inefficient and has a variety of perverse incentives that, under the best of circumstances, whould require vigilant fiscal oversight to prevent abuse and misuse of public funds,'' the report concluded. Change in Emphasis
The commission's report recommends changing the centers' financing mechanism, noting that by 1986 they will get no Federal aid, so state and local funds will have to suffice.
Dr. Pepper, however, said the state's efforts would be better spent lowering its $900 million annual budget for large state hospitals, many of whose patients were to be placed in community settings and served by the centers as a part of the state's ''mainstreaming'' policy and budget trimming. Many of the patients have left the hospitals, he said, but costs and staff continue to increase while the community mental health centers' budgets remain at 1975 levels.
The study said controls on the 12 centers in New York City were better than those on upstate centers. Bruce Gantt, deputy commissioner of the city's Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Alcoholism Services, said city centers were operated under contracts with hospitals or voluntary agencies and had a 90 percent collection rate from patients with health insurance, whose fees generally provided from 40 to 50 percent of the center's revenues.
bernadette lupinetti is now the law guardian for my case. I know she is siding with my ex. I am afraid she is going to sway the judge against me.
any suggestions on what I should do? please help
who's the judge?
what court?
who is the forensic psychaitrist?
who is the father's attorney?
Record the psychological evaluation
Record any conversations you have with her either on the phone and in person. Always keep your recorder with you at all times.
Don't trust her at all, she lies all the time and likes to make threats on the phone.
How to manage angry and aggressive behaviour?
Q. My wife has a very angry temperament. She gets worse, abusive and threatens me especially 8 to 10 days before her menstrual cycle. This behaviour continues even after the cycle too, but at a lower intensity. She has made several attempts to kill me during the peak of her anger. She wishes to be a controlling parent and I do not have an opposition to this but I am much concerned about the way she is trying to acquire this status. We have a 3 year old son and she continues to abuse me all the time in front of him. She showed similar behaviour even before the birth of our son but it has worsened after her delivery. She talks too much and does not realise the consequences of her abusive talk in front of our son. The boy has started understanding the situation and tells his mother lies like I ill-treated him and seems to enjoy the fun when she abuses and beats me. One important aspect of her behaviour is that she presents herself as a very kind and balanced personality in front of our relatives and friends. She even cooks very good and tasty food and serves me and my son with lot of efforts. But the abusing continues when we are sitting and eating. I had tried to explain her parents about her angry behaviour and her attempts to hurt me; however they only partially believe me in this. However they were the only supporters who suggested me to take her to a psychologist. She has a step mother and she had told me that even she had similar experiences when she married my father-in-law after his first wifes death due to Breast cancer. My wife, then in early days of her school did not accept her new mother and used to be very angry with her. My wife was treated by a psychologist for her anger and by a gynaecologist for her hormonal imbalance recently, but the treatment was halted as we shifted to US from India. I had tried to have a dialogue with her regarding her behaviour, but could not succeed. I have lot of patience to bear all this as I love her and our son. When this problem started with her I too used to be angry and had slapped her on one or two occasions. However now I do not turn angry and always maintain an adult and mature behaviour whenever she is ill treating me. I have succeeded in this as I have learned that actions are followed only after thoughts; and if I control my thoughts I can control my actions. I have cultivated good and loving thoughts for her and my son. I am concerned about why this is happening to her and also psychological effect of her behaviour on our son. Please suggest a remedy.
A. I cannot make a diagnosis without examining the person, but a few items stand out in your description. There is probably a hormonal component to your wifes angry mood, since it varies to some degree with her menstrual cycle.
She may be experiencing an agitated type of depression, which she controls with most others, but lets it express itself when with those to whom she is closest; her husband and her son.
Since she has been treated by a psychologist and her gynaecologist, it is now time to see a psychiatrist, who can do a full examination and, based on his diagnosis, prescribe one of many appropriate medications for her condition.
17 March 2003
Answered by
Dr. Bert Pepper
Psychiatrist,
Blauvelt,
New York
Dr. Bert Pepper is a liar, becomes an expert for whatever the Court wishes. Is the question is about finance he is the forensic psychiatrist to ask. If the question is about electronics he is your guy. This psychiatrist is a looney toon who makes things up.
I heard Dr. Bert Pepper wants to be the next Richard Gardner, hopefully he will soon do the same thing as his mentor did and go to a better life down below. Or maybe his prostate cancer will end his miserable life sooner. Not wishing his death, just wishing that he suffers for the rest of eternity for the pain he has caused so many families and children with his insane behavior.
Take your charges & stuff 'em
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY MARIAN SHELTON
Sunday, August 26th 2007, 4:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Email Suggest a Story
Be Our Guest
Last week, it became front-page news that with a few months left in my 10-year term on the Family Court bench, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was charging me with being "habitually intemperate." It is alleged that I was, on occasion, nasty to various individuals - including a woman whose profanity shouldn't be tolerated in a courtroom and a man who brutally beat his wife.
So that the public and press could hear the whole story and not just the commission's sound bites, I joined the tiny group of judges who have ever opted to make commission proceedings against them public.
But that isn't enough. I need to set the record straight now - because those who have made these charges would like people to think that Family Court is a tearoom and that judges work in a cocoon. Not so. Bronx Family Court is not a tearoom - it's reality.
Some people have asked, "Can a judge who calls someone a 'pig' be fair? Doesn't everyone, even a wife-beater, have the right to be treated civilly?" I agree, of course - except when the batterer is already subject to a protective order and is trying to use my courtroom to show his terrified wife that the court can't help her.
Is the commission telling the public that a judge must follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but the batterer is free to threaten, glare and use body language to make the woman understand he's still the boss?
Not on my watch he isn't. Gentility is not the goal here. The goal is getting across this message: In my courtroom, we respect "the most important rights of the victim, which are to live without fear and free from harm." I'm quoting Raoul Felder, the commission's chairman.
Then there's the allegation that I'm guilty of "disparaging a man's Caribbean hair style." If it was a Caribbean hair style, my African-American colleagues certainly didn't recognize it, and neither did the man himself. He said his hair was in clumps and tied with rubber bands as a cure for "baldness."
The charges themselves are only part of the travesty here. The Commission on Judicial Conduct - which is the "courtroom" in which these charges will be heard - is stacked against me.
How would you feel if you were on trial and the commission selected as the referee a former commission staff attorney who worked alongside the prosecutor in your case and now, in retirement, has done no legal work other than acting as a referee in commission cases?
My case was instigated by the court officers' union leader, Dennis Quirk, who now denies my sworn testimony that he menacingly threatened to end my career. To start the ball rolling, Quirk submitted eight bogus claims of discourtesy by me toward court officers. But when, after 16 months of "investigation," the commission filed its charges, seven of these claims had magically disappeared and in the eighth, the officer's name was gone.
Now isn't that curious? In fact, the present charges largely come from a few court officer "rat sheets" - the officers' subjective notes of "unusual occurrences" taken as they spied on judges.
I am pleased that word is out that I've been reversed on appeal just three times in 40,000 cases. I am as proud of that as I am about the many letters of support I have received, including this one from a Daily News reader who had a case before me:
"You were a determining factor in my life. ... You deserve accolades and not condemnation for the way that you conduct yourself and run your courtroom. You are equally fair and stern. ... You save lives - daily."
She speaks to my heart, and it's for her and all of you who took the time to write that I'm glad I insisted on opening my hearings to the public. I would be grateful to meet those who believe the truth isn't found in sound bites but in open hearings that expose the commission's one-sided procedures.
Shelton is a Bronx Family Court judge.
Exclusive
Bronx judge scorn to be wild?
She faces ax for alleged rude cracks
BY JOSE MARTINEZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, August 14th 2007, 4:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronx Family Court Judge Marian Shelton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think Judge Judy has a big mouth, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Bronx Family Court Judge Marian Shelton allegedly yelled at a lawyer to "shut up," tossed a woman from court for wearing "inappropriate" clothing, told a Caribbean man to "take those stupid things out of your hair" and said a lawyer had "mental health issues."
Shelton, 52, who was appointed to a 10-year term by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1998, could get bounced from the bench for allegedly making rude cracks toward lawyers, court officers and people going before her on sensitive family matters.
Yet she isn't backing down from a bruising confrontation with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Shelton is going public with her case of disorder in the court - making her one of the few New York judges to voluntarily lift the veil of secrecy from disciplinary hearings.
"We can deal with each of these charges," said Dean Yuzek, a lawyer for the judge. "If we were concerned about this at all, we wouldn't have opened up the proceedings to the public."
Documents made public yesterday detail the charges against Shelton, portraying her as a blustery, Judge Judy-like crank who's not afraid to mix it up, or offend, in the courtroom.
"Go to therapy, but don't act out in my courtroom," Shelton allegedly snapped at one law guardian in a 2005 case.
In another instance, she allegedly mocked the accent of lawyer Mariana Toledo-Hermina.
"How is Toledo-Hermina an attorney when you cannot understand what she is saying?" Shelton allegedly said.
Shelton's side contends she is the victim of bullying from Dennis Quirk, the powerful president of the New York State Court Officers Association, who filed several complaints against her. Quirk denied he had it in for the judge.
"That's nonsense. I've never seen her, never met her, never talked to her," Quirk said. "If we get complaints from our members, we forward them to the commission."
Shelton slapped down the commission as well, describing the panel as "ethically challenged."
She complained that a so-called "impartial" referee appointed by the panel to hear her case is a former commission staffer and "obviously less than neutral."
In May, anticipating the charges, Shelton's husband, wealthy former Proskauer Rose lawyer Saul Cohen, took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to bash the commission.
Yuzek said the allegations in the complaint lack the proper context. He praised Shelton as a "direct, honest and businesslike person."
"It's become so petty and personal, without any regard for all the work she's done," he said.
The commission plans to hear Shelton's case before Dec. 31, when her term on the bench expires.
Shelton breezily handled cases yesterday in her courtroom, occasionally cracking jokes with lawyers and court officers. She then politely refused to comment to The News, before slipping out a side door of the courthouse.
jmartinez@edit.nydailynews.com
With Ethan Rouen
Did somebody write that they have Bernadette Lupinetti?
who is the Judge?
the forensic psychiatrist that she picked this time?
Who's the father's attorney?
Bernadette Lupinetti is an assigned law guardian by the Court but she is not paid by the Courts she is actually a private paid attorney. She is very popular among certain Judges in the Court both in Supreme Court and Family Court. She gets to scheme, lie, cover up the fraud of another attorney, manipulate and very well known for making threats. She supports batterers and child abusers and will do anything to help the batterer get custody and retaliated against a mom.
Letter to the Honorable Chief Judge Judith Kaye:
Hon. Chief Judge Kaye,
As many others, I too feel the need to kill a tree or two by writing to you. I mean kill a tree because I know you don't read the letters or care about the corruption, crimes against women and children, violation of due process, unethical judges, law guardians, attorneys, forensic psychiatrist, CPS and I can go on and on.
You probably have heard from others the same concerns in regard of the problems litigants are facing in matrimonial and child custody cases. But I will tell you again maybe you will read this letter and will be touch in the core of your soul to do something.
I will start with the Judges behavior, first Judges blah, blah, blah and will continued doing blah, blah, blah until there is a stop to their criminal blah, blah, blah.
Attorneys too, blah, blah, blah this is unacceptable they took an oath and it reads like this blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. When are these attorney will be accountable for their criminal and blah, blah, blah behavior?
Law Guardians too, their job in regard of a child is to blah, blah, blah, blah at all times. They too are failing in their blah, blah, blah responsibilities.
Forensic Psychiatrists are too involved in protecting the abuser with their blah, blah, blah mickey mouse testimony. I must add that blah, blah, blah, blah must stop.
The rest of the criminals involved in the criminal activities, should also be punish blah, blah, blah, blah.
Honorable Chief Judge Judy Kaye, you must agreed that after reading all the important blah, blah, blah, blah, blah that I have writing to you, that there is a blah, blah, blah that must be addressed.
I can almost picture what you are thinking after reading all the blah, blah, and blah, blah I have writing to you. I bet a letter is getting ready from your office to be sent to me.
I bet it can be interpreted like this:
Dear Blah your blah, blah letter and blah, blah concerns have been directed to me from Judge Kaye to be answer with our regular of your blah, blah. Judge Kaye can’t give you legal advice despite the fact that you did not ask for it we feel we must fill out the letter with lost of blah, blah, blah. Chief Kaye can only really responded to blah, blah, blah letters when they come from the media. You must understand the Judge gives a blah, blah, blah care about all the litigants, especially the safety of abused mothers and their children.
Yes, we know our Judicial System is worst than the toilet situation in Iraq. But to us is just a blah, blah, blah of care. I hope you understand our position to blah, blah, blah the citizens of the State of New York. It is best to blah, blah, blah letter of blah, blah. We do care just not about the poor people and victims of crimes. Hope you have a blah, blah, blah hell of a time in your next Court proceedings and I will assured you the blah, blah, blah situation will continue and that our effort to blah, blah, blah every litigant who goes to Court seeking Justice causes a great deal of blah, blah, blah concern and more blah, blah, blah is been done to follow proper blah, blah, blah procedures when it comes to Court.
Blah, Blah yours,
One more blah, blah, blah letter ignored.
After this I fell a blah, blah, blah of relief knowing that the blah, blah, blah will continue as long as Chief Judge Judy Kaye and others Public Servants are sitting in power doing all the blah, blah, blah they can with in their power to ensure that our rights and constitutional blah, blah, blah are fully blah, blah protected. I think I’ll take a valium or two, I heard the other rim is more pleasant.
By DANNY HAKIM
Published: February 7, 2006
ALBANY, Feb. 6 — A commission appointed to look into New York State's matrimonial laws called on Monday for an overhaul of divorce and child custody rules, including the authorization of no-fault divorces, which would put New York in line with all the other states.
By not allowing couples to end their marriages by mutual consent, New York has kept some of the strictest barriers to divorce in the nation. Currently, one party in the divorce must allege cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery, or abandonment — literal or sexual — for a year. That rule has often resulted in costly legal proceedings and bitter custody fights in cases where both sides want a divorce.
The Matrimonial Commission, which was appointed by the state's chief judge in 2004 and has taken testimony around the state, called for a range of changes to bring New York's matrimonial laws more in line with practices around the United States. In addition to allowing no-fault divorces, the panel called for an emphasis on mediation and procedures to move cases more swiftly through the system.
The commission's report was seized on by the state's chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, who said that the changes "would be front and center" on her agenda in the coming months. And it comes as several prominent groups, including the bar associations of New York City and State, have urged that New York allow for some kind of one-step, no-fault divorce.
"Divorce takes much too long and costs much too much— too much money, too much agony, too hard on the children," Judge Kaye said on Monday in her annual address on the state of the judiciary. She said afterward that no-fault divorces would mean that spouses "don't have to invent charges against each other."
Some Roman Catholic and women's groups have historically opposed no-fault divorces, and in recent years conservative groups have been pushing for more restrictive barriers to divorce. But in New York there has been a shift in sentiment in favor of no-fault divorce, with the Women's Bar Association reversing its opposition in 2004.
But for no-fault divorce to come into being, the Legislature would have to agree, and lawmakers have had bruising fights over the issue. While the report, from a commission led by Justice Sondra Miller of the State Supreme Court's Appellate Division, gives the proposals a new immediacy, the issue languished in the Legislature after Judge Kaye called for no-fault divorce a year ago.
Lawmakers said on Monday that they had yet to review the report. Helene E. Weinstein, a Democratic assemblywoman from Brooklyn who is chairwoman of the Assembly's Judiciary Committee, said she had supported no-fault divorces in the past, with some reservation, and was working on "a potential draft proposal."
Leaders in the Republican-led Senate suggested that the focus might be on more incremental changes
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Hope Against Court Corruption Has Arrived. Her Name is Ann T. Pfau.
It was announced on Friday, May 25, 2007, that Ann T. Pfau would take over as New York State’s Chief Administrative Judge, effective immediately. Albany insiders report that the appointment, though largely welcomed, is somewhat surprising since Judge Pfau is not the traditional “inside player.” One state employee said, “Judge Pfau is probably one of only a few people who can correct the widespread problems and abuses in our courts. Someone like Ann Pfau is long-overdue.”
Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s appointment comes at the end of a week when The Westchester Guardian reported on a request for a criminal investigation involving the alleged improper actions of Westchester County Surrogate Anthony A. Scarpino and New York City Administrative Judge Jacqueline W. Silbermann.
Another Albany insider says, “Even Chief Judge Kaye is ready for a shake-up, and Judge Pfau is the person who can get the job done. Judith Kaye doesn’t want to be remembered as being the top person over the type of wide-spread abuse and corruption that would make Boss Tweed blush. It’s about the Kaye legacy at this point.”
One top state official said, “the appointment of Judge Pfau has [Governor] Spitzer’s and [Attorney General] Cuomo’s fingerprints all over it. [Judge] Pfau is how the Governor and the A.G. clean up the mess in the courts.”
As nice as the name Ann T. Pfau sounds, it’s been around for a few years.
As Sam Roberts reported on March 2, 2006 (New York Times: “State Bars a Bronx Lawyer From Receiving Court Appointments”), it was First Deputy Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau who permanently barred Bronx political heavy-weight Stanley K. Schlein from ever accepting Guardianship and other high-paying judicial appointments.
And the name Ann T. Pfau comes up in a February 23, 2002 New York Times article (“Another Brooklyn Judge Said to Be Reassigned”) as taking action in a Brooklyn State Supreme Court bribe scandal, and where the ethical actions of 5 other judges were being investigated. While censuring one judge, the Commission on Judicial Conduct commented that one judge showed “remarkable insensitivity to his ethical responsibilities.”
And, most heart-warmingly, is the sound of the name Ann T. Pfau as presented in a November 11, 2003 New York Times Metro Briefing (“New York: Brooklyn: Administrative Judge Promoted”) announcing her appointment as First Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, noting that Judge Pfau was then brought in to oversee the corruption probes in the Brooklyn courts, which included her overseeing investigators’ placement of hidden cameras to catch corrupt judges.
Note to Judge Pfau: Honest judges cheer your appointment; honest lawyers cheer your appointment; and honest state employees cheer your appointment. Your employees, the public and the rule of law have been waiting for you.
Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 9:04 PM
Expose Corrupt Courts
MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"
End Corruption in the Courts!
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Court Overhaul Begins: Attorney Disciplinary Chief Counsel Cahill First to Go...CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY
Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the First Department Attorney Disciplinary Committee, was summoned to a meeting with New York State Office of Court Administration officials on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. He was told to bring along his First Deputy Chief Counsel, Sherry K. Cohen, sources say.
The two top lawyers at the State office charged with overseeing attorney ethics in the Bronx and Manhattan sat, uncomfortably, through most of the day at various high-level conferences. In the end, it was made clear that immediate changes were being made at their Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Changes that didn't necessarily include them.
Two days later, on Thursday, July 19th, Mr. Cahill called a staff meeting where he said that he had "good news." He first announced that he had a new grandchild, and then added that he had decided to resign. He was reportedly delighted to be "… one of the few who is leaving under his own steam." Sources say he indicated that he was hoping to stay on through the end of August but was awaiting 1st Department Presiding Justice Jonathan Lippman's decision on the actual date of his final day.
On Friday, Mr. Cahill began referring to his departure as "retirement."
Tom Cahill's departure comes shortly after reporters began asking questions about an alleged cover up concerning the forced resignation of a young employee at the First Department Committee on Character and Fitness (CCF). That incident reportedly involved Mr. Cahill and Ms. Cohen at the Disciplinary Committee, and the CCF's boss Sarah Josephine Hamilton and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, then state Appellate Division Chief Clerk, and who is now the Chief Clerk for the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
One insider says that the complaints against Cahill and Cohen had "…become overwhelmingly voluminous, and simply too much to continue ignoring..." The pair had been accused of selectively implementing the politically fueled and widespread practice of indefinitely delaying or white-washing certain disciplinary investigations. "Cahill and Cohen made up their own rules," according to the insider.
One such complaint involved Thomas Cahill and the Proskauer Rose law firm, and which has been "pending" since February of 2003. The Cahill Proskauer Complaint remains a troubling thorn at the highest levels of the New York State Office of Court Administration, and one which is a high priority for the new State Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Ann T. Pfau.
The Cahill Proskauer issue also became a hot topic in Washington, D.C. in early 2007 at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Department of Commerce (The United States Patent and Trademark Office). And it has specifically caught the attention of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and U.S. House Representatives John D. Dingell and Nita Lowey.
The Cahill Proskauer Scandal involves many allegations: the alleged theft by Proskauer of numerous U.S. Patents from their own client; claimed losses of 17 billion dollars; and the March, 2005 bombing in Boyton Beach, Florida of the inventor-client-complainant's family mini-van.
It is alleged that Mr. Cahill masterminded the scheme to indefinitely delay complaints against Proskauer Rose, himself, and former New York State Bar Association President and Proskauer partner Steven C. Krane, Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein, chief counsel for MPEGLA, and Raymond Joao of Yonkers. It is also alleged that attorney Steven C. Krane initially interceded, with Mr. Cahill's knowledge and consent, in handling disciplinary complaints involving himself at the same time he was associated with the 1st Department in Manhattan.
Attorney Krane's conflicts were exposed when officials from the "Iviewit" company contacted Katherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who contradicted Cahill's statements and Krane's written denial of his 1st Dept roles. Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe advised that she was, in fact, on a Committee at the 1st Dept with both Cahill and Krane and that they even had a meeting that same night.
The various Cahill Proskauer issues bounced around under the public radar screen at the Court of Appeals in Albany and were ultimately transferred from the 1st Department to the 2nd Department in Brooklyn. This was done after 5 justices of the 1st Dept ruled unanimously to investigate Krane, Rubenstein and Joao for conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety after their review of the 1st Department complaint.
The Cahill inquiry is apparently "still pending" under attorney Martin R. Gold who, insiders say, was directed to "sit on it…forever."
Earlier this year, FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. assigned additional agents to the Public Integrity/Corruption squad at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, and where agents have been actively conducting interviews.
The New York Law Journal will formally announce Mr. Cahill's departure next week.
For more information regarding the Cahill Proskauer story, see: http://www.iviewit.tv
Bernadette Lupinetti supports child abusers and wife beaters. She is pro fathers and will do anything to help them it appears she grew up without one and is looking the affection of all.
Pay off's for a Judge in New York State to rig a child custody and matrimonial case 10 G's and up.
Pay Off's for a law guardian to help an abuser get custody 10G's and up.
Pay off's for a psychiatrist to lie on the stand and recommend the abuser gets child custody 10 G's and up.
Pay off's for an attorney to falsify court orders and tamper with court records 80G's and up.
See them get arrested found guilty and going to jail PRICELESS.
did anyone see the crime of child abuse committed by esther yang recently? shocking conduct from a parent who dont got custody
Did anybody see how Esther's ex does not care about his child's education? Been in control is more important to him. What a sad excuse for a man and a DNA father.
Exclusive
Divorce battle keeps girl from top city school
By NANCIE L. KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, September 7th 2007, 4:00 AM
Yang wants Grace to attend competitive PS 6, while Carter wants her to stay at failing Staten Island school.
Third-grader Grace Yang Carter could be attending one of the city's top public schools - if it weren't for her parents' raging divorce battle.
Grace's mother won the girl a spot at the upper East Side's highly regarded Public School 6 under the federal No Child Left Behind program.
But Grace's dad, who lives on Staten Island, has refused to move the girl from PS 16, a failing school there, saying the commute to Manhattan is too long.
Grace's mom, Esther Yang, is furious.
"This is the most coveted waiting-list school in the city," she said. "I don't have the money to live in that zip code. How can any caring parent deny her this opportunity? I don't get it!"
Grace, 8, lives with her dad, Edward Carter, on Staten Island half the week, and with her mom in Manhattan the rest of the time.
As part of a 2004 divorce decree, Carter was granted the final say on Grace's education.
He accused Yang of wrongly applying to PS 6, 40 blocks from her Tudor City apartment, in effect bumping his applications to three high-performing schools 10 minutes from his home.
"I did not think it is in Grace's best interest to be riding in a yellow bus nearly 15 miles on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, approximately 1-1/2 hours each way, to and from school every day," the father said. "She'd become a commuter at 8 years old. Scores are one thing. But she also thrives on the stability, consistency and warmth of attending school close to me."
Yang countered that she commutes 18 miles to take Grace from her Manhattan apartment back to the failing school on Fridays and Mondays.
"I will gladly pick up Grace from his home and drop her at [PS 6] every day and back, whatever it takes," she said.
Yang begged a five-judge Appellate Division panel earlier this week to overrule Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis, who refused to force the transfer.
Yang, a Chinese-American yoga instructor, said Grace scored in the 92nd percentile in elite private school tests, and doesn't want her daughter at a school branded "in need of improvement" by the state.
Yang also charged Grace "got pushed down the stairs by the boys" at PS 16 in St. George. "Most of Grace's friends transfer out of that school to Manhattan," the mom said.
But Carter argued Grace would lose out on after-school play dates and activities like art lab at Snug Harbor along with "dance class, swim class, time with me at the park, zoo, library."
"She would miss time socializing with her classmates," he said. "All that would end. She'd be sitting on a bus."
Grace is enrolled in an accelerated dual Spanish-English language program, he said, and scored well on standardized tests at PS 16.
Grace was to begin class Tuesday at PS 6, where 90% of students test at or above grade level. But Carter reenrolled her at PS 16, calling it "the best of options available." Only half the students at PS 16 score at grade level and 86% qualify for free lunch.
He said he is working with the Education Department to move her to one of his school choices.
nkatz@nydailynews.com
esther no chinee
Post a Comment