$LUSH LEGAL WOE LANDING HARD ON TAXPAYERS
The NEW YORK POST by BRENDAN SCOTT
April 20, 2008 -- The City Council's slush-fund woes have just begun - now comes the massive bill to taxpayers. The far-reaching investigation into the council's practice of doling out millions in the budget to nonprofit organizations will cost untold tens of thousands of dollars.
Although the investigation has just begun to result in indictments, council Speaker Christine Quinn has already burned through nearly $95,000 of tax money on legal bills. Quinn signed a yearlong contract with white-collar-crime specialists Sullivan & Cromwell in October. But barely six months later, the council has spent all but $366.75 of a $95,000 retainer, The Post has learned. That contract was nearly exhausted by Feb. 7, when the council paid $59,083.25 in one bill to the $450-an- hour firm.
Meanwhile, Quinn has hired a $600-an-hour criminal lawyer, Lee Richards III, to represent her. And The Post reported yesterday that the speaker was weighing whether other council members questioned in the probe are eligible for their own tax-funded attorneys. The total tab would lay a crushing blow to the city budget.
"Wow," said council Minority Leader James Oddo (R-Staten Island). "After the events of this past week, it's clear that this is going to run longer than some of us anticipated." Last week, two aides to Councilman Kendall Stewart (D-Brooklyn), Chief of Staff Asquith Reid and staffer Joycinth "Sue" Anderson, were indicted on charges they looted $145,000 in grant money that Stewart had earmarked for an after-school tutoring program run by Reid.
The arrests stem from a probe by the US Attorney's Office and the city's Department of Investigation into the council's stashing of $17 million since 2001 under phony charity names. Individual council members would dole out the funds to favored nonprofits. Manhattan US Attorney Michael Garcia has said the probe, first reported earlier this month by The Post, will reach beyond the two indictments. Regarding funding for representation for individual council members, Oddo said, "At some point, the discussion will have to turn to who is the most appropriate entity to pay for it." brendan.scott@nypost.com
We own the legal system, so why shouldn't we profit from every angle. Seems like you non-attorneys are bit jealous. I'll give you a little insight: "pro se" means automatic loss (after the legal profession sucks every possible dollar out of you, of course)
ReplyDeleteGotta run, heading down to spend the day on my new boat. LOL
S&C a white shoe firm that has a lot of dirt on their white shoes, Christine Quinn most have a really big problem to take these fixers
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much did Gary Greenwald, Esq. from Chester New York in Orange County got paid to falsify Court Orders and tampered with Court records among his other clown tricks. Gary Greenwald have taken cases defending man accused of sexual crimes against children. The case out of Superior Court Orange County where Gary Grenwald is involved in which Greenwald has been exposed FOR FRAUD. Now Gary Greenwald's attorney is trying to make the mother look like she is crazy for exposing him for been an unethical fraudulent attorney. As a result of Gary Greenwald and Erno Poll's fraud on behalf of their client a minor child is been sexually exploited online. You can denied the pictures of this child naked you pigs. You will go down and every single news media will hear of this story. Your criminal activities are over, prepared for judgment day.
ReplyDeleteTo Bedford:
ReplyDeleteFirst, lawyers do not contribute to GNP (look it up cause I doubt you know what that stands for), so they should not be rewarded as if they add value to our economy (they don't. They just, to use your words, suck every possible dollar out).
Second, value should be based on worth. No lawyer is worth more than a firefighter. So if my relatives and friends can risk their lives for a meesly $40 an hour, then a lawyer is worth less than that. Way less.
Third, your real value will be determined by the ultimate judge. Hint: you might want to enjoy that boat while you can. There's no cool breeze where you're spending eternity.
And fourth, this Pro Se litigant is running circles around idiot lawyers and judges. I even helped to make sure one particularily moronic judge lost his reelection bid. Lawyers may be good at manipulating words, but the verbal side of the brain does not contain the logic center. Only those of us with mathematical brains can analyze. I can pop the razzle-dazzle out of any lawyers argument in an New York minute. Logic deflates them real fast.
A lawyers tap-dancing routine may sound good, but, when exposed, it ultimately makes no sense whatsoever. I will admit that lawyers do have one talent - they're experts at finding twelve people who are even dumber than what they are.
And for your 411, my ex is a Law Secretary in the courts who abused me in the system for years using all of his judicial connections, legal knowledge, and assistance of lawyers who were all too willing to curry his favor since they know he's the one who writes the judge's orders (and judges just rubber-stamp what the Law Secretaries write). Yet despite all of this legal show of force, this Pro Se litigant ended up with his house and full custody (shows how pathetic lawyers are - I offered joint custody. So how the heck did they lose custody completely? They were complete idiots, that's how).
The lawyers forgot that one woman beats a pack of good-old-boy attorneys any day. Plus, it didn't help them that they were mostly Ivy League graduates and I went to City University (in da Bronx) and graduated from the school of common sense.
Oh - and judging by the style of your rhetoric, I'll bet your boat is really a dinghy. The bigger the bravado, the smaller the ....