MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Thursday, September 10, 2009

"Kids for Cash" Judges Indicted For Racketeering

Ex-Judges Indicted For Racketeering
The Legal Intelligencer by Leo Strupczewski And Hank Grezlak - September 10, 2009

PHILADELPHIA, PA - A federal grand jury has handed down a 48-count indictment against two former Luzerne County judges, alleging the men engaged in racketeering and related charges, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced Wednesday. The indictment, a copy of which was not available at press time Wednesday, comes about five-and-a-half weeks after a federal judge rejected the conditional plea agreements of Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and nearly two weeks after the men withdrew their conditional guilty pleas in the matter. The indictment charges Conahan and Ciavarella with fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations while alleging they received "millions of dollars in illegal payments," according to Dennis C. Pfannenschmidt, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Each charge is related to the judges' ties to two juvenile detention facilities: PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care. The indictment also seeks forfeiture of more than $2.8 million — an amount the government alleges were proceeds from the judges' criminal activity. That amount is slightly higher than the $2.6 million the judges originally admitted to accepting in their conditional plea agreements. Conahan's attorney, Philip Gelso, could not be immediately reached for comment. Neither could Ciavarella's attorney, Al Flora.

The indictment is the latest twist in a story that has seen several since late summer.
Conahan and Ciavarella made a joint filing Aug. 20, petitioning U.S. District Judge Edwin M. Kosik to reinstate their agreed-upon sentence of 87 months in prison because neither could be found at fault for his post-plea hearing actions. Kosik rejected that Aug. 24. That same day, the former judges withdrew their guilty pleas and formally entered pleas of not guilty to the charges. Kosik threw out the plea agreements July 31, citing, in part, Conahan and Ciavarella's conduct following the announcement they had agreed to plead guilty to federal fraud charges and their refusal to accept responsibility for the crimes they had committed. Ciavarella's public comments were self-serving, he said, and Conahan was being obstructionist. In his Aug. 24 order, Kosik said in light of the presentence report and sentencing recommendation from the probation office, it was within his discretion to throw out the plea agreements. The probation officer's "assessment and justification for the recommendation" was partly the basis for Kosik's earlier conclusions that Conahan was obstructing justice, failing to discuss the motivation behind his conduct and failing to accept responsibility for his crimes, he said. "The probation recommendation characterized these failures by Conahan as based on his 'scandalous conduct,'" Kosik wrote in his Aug. 24 order. "The defense claims that a defendant is not required to admit relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction. The court generally agrees, but the defendant was expected to admit relevant conduct related to the scandalous nature of the offense of conviction." In a telling footnote, Kosik said he had met with Conahan and Ciavarella's lawyers twice and rejected reconsidering the plea agreements both times. He said federal prosecutors as well as the defense attorneys had urged him to reconsider the plea deals. Both sides offered to meet with him separately "to explain each side's reasons for entering into the plea agreement," Kosik said. "The offer was rejected by the court because such a meeting might impermissibly involve the court in plea bargaining," he said. Later in the body of his opinion, Kosik said: "It ill behooves both parties to want the court to consider additional reasons to be conveyed in private."

While the government's press release made no mention of any charges beyond those related to the juvenile detention center, several sources said they expected the government to come back at some point with a superseding indictment seeking additional charges against Conahan and Ciavarella. While the federal government's case against the former judges centers on their roles in taking money from attorney Robert Powell, the owner, and Robert Mericle, the builder, of a juvenile detention facility and the judges' alleged abuse of the rights of juveniles sentenced to the facility, sources close to the investigation and inside Luzerne County say the scam some in the media have labeled "kids for cash" was just the tip of the iceberg andonly the most blatant example of the corruption allegedly overseen by the two judges. The Legal has previously reported Conahan's ties to admitted felons, including reputed mob boss William "Billy" D'Elia. Multiple sources have said that Conahan and his father also had links to Joseph Scalleat and Michael "Hoppy" Carsia. According to a former member of the now-defunct Pennsylvania Crime Commission, Scalleat and Carsia ran the mob in Hazleton for years. The Legal has also previously reported that federal investigators are looking at allegations of case-fixing in Luzerne County, particularly UM/UIM arbitration cases, as well as criminal case-fixing.


CLICK HERE TO SEE RELATED STORIES

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

WSJ on "Kids for Cash" Judges: Lock 'Em Up

Lock 'Em Up
Jailing kids is a proud American tradition
The Wall Street Journal by THOMAS FRANK - April 1, 2009

At first glance, the news from Luzerne County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, is not good. In what is known locally as the "kids for cash" scandal, two judges have pleaded guilty to accepting $2.6 million in kickbacks from a for-profit juvenile correctional facility -- a privately owned jail for kids, essentially. And here is what the judges delivered, according to the charges of the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case: In 2003 one of them, Judge Michael Conahan, who had authority over such expenses, defunded the county-owned detention center, channeling kids sentenced to detention to the private jail -- along with the public's money. For good measure, the feds charge, Mr. Conahan also agreed to send the private facility $1.3 million per year in public funds. Over the succeeding years, the private jail, along with a second lockup-for-profit that had opened in another part of the state, won tens of millions of dollars in Luzerne County contracts, allegedly with the two judges' help. What has drawn the media's attention, though, is the remarkable strictness of the judges' judging. Mr. Conahan's alleged partner in the scheme, Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr., reportedly sent kids to the private detention centers when probation officers didn't think it was a good idea; he sent kids there when their crimes were nonviolent; he sent kids there when their crimes were insignificant. It was as though he was determined to keep those private prisons filled with children at all times. According to news stories, offenses as small as swiping a jar of nutmeg or throwing a piece of steak at an adult were enough to merit a trip to the hoosegow.

Over the years Mr. Ciavarella racked up a truly awesome score: He sent kids to detention instead of other options at twice the state average, according to the New York Times. He tried a prodigious number of cases in which the accused child had no lawyer -- here, says the Times, the judge's numbers were fully 10 times the state average. And he did it fast, sometimes rendering a verdict "in the neighborhood of a minute-and-a-half to three minutes," according to the judge tasked with reconsidering Mr. Ciavarella's work. My question is, what have the Luzerne County judges done that deviates in the least from our American political traditions? These jurists have merely taken to heart the unvarying message of 40 years' worth of election results -- that more people, many more, need to go to jail -- and have come up with an entrepreneurial solution to the problem. We the people say it loud and clear every Election Day, in high-crime periods as well as peaceful stretches: More of our population needs to be behind bars. We love retribution so much we make hits of TV shows in which society's ne'er-do-wells come in for lectures not only by stern, righteous judges, but by tattooed, mulletted bounty hunters as well.

And over the years we have embraced all sorts of instruments ensuring that more people got locked up for longer and longer stretches: Three strikes laws, mandatory sentencing laws, zero-tolerance policies. Maybe they aren't "fair," but they've helped to make the U.S. number one in percentage of population in the clink -- in fact, as Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb pointed out in Parade magazine on Sunday, America has an amazing 25% of the world's prisoners. Taking this path has not always been easy. In the 1990s, when we started to realize that child crooks were "superpredators" who needed to go to prison along with everyone else, some were unwilling to act. Others stepped up. "We've got to quit coddling these violent kids like nothing is going on," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) in 1996. "Getting some of these do-gooder liberals to do what is right is real tough. We'd all like to rehabilitate these kids, but by gosh we are in a different age." But taking law and order to the next level in this different age required money, by gosh. Privatizing bits of the prison industry was a step in the right direction, but what we didn't have -- until recently -- were proper instruments for incentivizing the judiciary. That's what the "kids for cash" judges were apparently experimenting with. Today the do-gooders revile those efforts as "kickbacks," but before long we will see them as legitimate tools of justice. Our laws governing lobbying and campaign contributions have struck the right balance between the wishes of the people and those of private industry, so why are we so quick to doubt that the same great results can be achieved by putting the government's justice-dealing branch on the same market-based course? The public will get to see their neighbors' kids go to jail, the judge who sends them there will be able to afford a nice condo in Florida, and the company that satisfies the public's desire for punishment will make a handsome profit. It will be a win-win result for everyone. Write to thomas@wsj.com

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Sloppy Legal System Ruins Another Life

Debt collector's ID snafu 'ruins my life'
The New York Post by ALEX GINSBERG - September 8, 2009
She should be in medical school by now, on her way to becoming a pediatrician.

Instead, Rachel Lindor is a college dropout, sharing a room with her sister in Brooklyn and working for $9.25 an hour -- the victim of a debt-collection paperwork snafu that destroyed her dream, according to a shocking suit filed last week. Lindor, 23, was a junior at Penn State looking forward to medical school when things came crashing down after a $4,352.17 debt was wrongly attributed to her. "My plan was go to Penn State, finish college, get a job, move out, get a car . . . Now, I can't get into med school," Lindor said. "They have ruined my life." She first realized she was in trouble in fall 2006, when her student loans were canceled because she had been sued, without her knowledge, in Brooklyn Civil Court for the debt. It turns out that a "Raqul Lindor" had racked up thousands with AT&T Wireless. That debtor eventually came to be associated with Rachel's Flatbush address and yet another person's Social Security number. A collection agency, Palisade Collection, hired a law firm, Forster & Garbus, to go after "Raqul," which wound up, because of the snafu, being Rachel. In March 2005, unbeknownst to Rachel, the court entered a default judgment against her. A year and five months later, it was on her credit report. An odyssey of dead-end phone calls and red tape followed. Distracted, stressed out and growing penniless, she struggled to keep from being evicted from her apartment. Penn State let her sit in on classes without registering, but they terminated her from her work-study cafeteria job. "I'm thinking, I don't have money to go back to school," she said. "My credit-card bills are piling up. And I still have the civil judgment on my credit report. I'm crying. This is it. My life is over."

Finally, Forster & Garbus admitted in writing that the person it was looking to collect from had a different Social Security number -- though the firm never explained why, despite the discrepancy, it sued Rachel. Armed with the letter, Lindor got her credit report cleaned up -- but too late. Being broke during the fall 2006 semester, Lindor had failed to pay a single credit-card bill. What's more, she had been barred from taking some of her finals because she wasn't officially enrolled. Her GPA plummeted to 1.98, just under the 2.0 student lenders require. Now she's working as an assistant at Borough of Manhattan Community College, sharing a two-bedroom apartment with five relatives and forking over $300 a month to repay $80,000 in student loans -- for a degree she doesn't have. "That's what kills me," she said. Her lawyer, Kevin Mallon, said it wasn't a case of identity theft because ID thieves swipe personal information that matches. "If you're an identity thief, you steal a name and a Social that go together," Mallon said. "That's how you get a credit card or a phone account." So Mallon has gone after everybody, the credit bureau TransUnion, as well as Palisade, AT&T and Forster & Garbus, to figure out who was sloppy. Of the defendants, only Forster & Garbus agreed to comment. Lawyer Ron Forster said the "Raqul" account was closed and no money ever collected. "We deal with this on a regular basis," he said, referring to inaccurate information. "Inevitably, it's only that 1 percent or less that creates the problem, but that's all it takes." alex.ginsberg@nypost.com

Monday, September 7, 2009

Without Fear or Favor: The Next District Attorney Must Follow The Law

Contenders Offer Visions for Post-Morgenthau Office
The New York Law Journal - September 8, 2009

No matter who wins the Sept. 15 Democratic primary, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is in for some significant changes. That, at least, is one possible conclusion to be drawn from the responses to a Law Journal questionnaire of the three contenders to replace Robert M. Morgenthau, 90, who will retire at the end of the year after 36 years in office. (See the candidates' full responses to the questionnaire below.) The choice is important to Manhattan residents but has ramifications beyond the borough. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, first under Frank Hogan and then under Mr. Morgenthau, has been a model for prosecutors nationwide. The contenders are Richard M. Aborn, 57, a managing partner at Constantine Cannon; Leslie Crocker Snyder, 67, a partner at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman; and Cyrus R. Vance Jr., 55, a partner at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer.

The three candidates have been respectful of Mr. Morgenthau's legacy, but all offer policies that clearly signal their intention to do things differently. Mr. Aborn, for example, says Mr. Morgenthau has been "a great public servant," but says that his retirement presents "a unique moment to think about a revised vision for our criminal justice system." Mr. Vance, whom Mr. Morgenthau has endorsed, praises his former boss' stewardship but promises "the vision and expertise to adopt to new challenges." Notably, in a campaign where all the contenders have been eager to claim the mantle of a "progressive," the candidates share many ideas. Among them are increased emphasis on drug treatment and other alternatives to incarceration; the establishment of specialty courts; targeting domestic violence and hate crimes; and measures to prevent wrongful convictions. Of course, it is uncertain how many of these changes can be implemented, particularly in a time of scarce resources.

The candidates pledge to beef up technology, apply for grants, tap forfeited funds and shift resources. "We can do more with existing resources," says Ms. Snyder. Prosecutors "try few cases and can use their time more productively." Rank-and-file voters may have difficulty distinguishing the nuances of the candidates' policy proposals, so the three have taken pains to highlight aspects of their experience and training that quality them to lead an office with 454 lawyers and 754 staff that recorded almost 34,000 criminal convictions last year. A veteran of the fight for gun control who has served as a consultant to criminal justice agencies, Mr. Aborn says he is "the only candidate building coalitions and turning ideas into action." And he says that, by virtue of his law firm role, he is the only candidate who has served in "a managerial role." Mr. Vance says he is "uniquely qualified" to serve as district attorney because he is "the only candidate who has spent my entire career as an advocate in the courtroom, both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney." He adds that he has considerable experience in managing complex cases. Ms. Snyder explains that after working 35 years in "virtually every aspect of Manhattan's criminal justice system," she knows it "inside out. I know what works and what doesn't work." Answers to the New York Law Journal's questionnaire is below:

Race for Manhattan D.A. - September 08, 2009

On Jan. 1, Manhattan will get its first new district attorney in 36 years. Three candidates are running in the Sept. 15 Democratic primary to succeed one of the nation's most well-known prosecutors, Robert M. Morgenthau, who will retire at age 90. Success in the primary is tantamount to election; there is no Republican candidate. All of the attorneys seeking to succeed Mr. Morgenthau once worked for him as a prosecutor. They are Richard M. Aborn, a managing partner at Constantine Cannon; Leslie Crocker Snyder, a partner at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman; and Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a partner at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer. The Law Journal asked them to discuss their qualifications and their visions for the post-Morgenthau office.

Q: What changes do you anticipate in the district attorney's office if you are elected? Would you adopt policies and/or practices that are not being used now? Please be specific.

Richard M. Aborn

A: Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau leaves behind a great legacy and he should be respected as a great civil servant. With his retirement, we have a unique moment to think about a different vision for our criminal justice system. This is a major opportunity.

Juveniles: I believe we need to be more proactive in preventing crime, particularly juvenile crime. The first thing we have to do is keep kids from getting into trouble in the first place. One of the best ways to prevent crime is a solid after-school program but also seeking specific interventions where appropriate.

Treatment Programs: The first question my office will ask is not how much jail time is appropriate, but whether a treatment program is the most effective intervention. And I will develop a program, PreventStat, to measure the effectiveness of the treatment programs we send offenders to, and make sure that we are using our scarce resources in the most effective way possible.

Gun Control: We have good gun control laws in New York City, but we can't wait until illegal guns get into the city to stop them. By then it's too late. We need to regionalize the fight against guns, by creating a regional compact with neighboring states to go after gun traffickers. That's the cornerstone of my five-point plan to prevent gun violence in New York City.

Racial Bias: I also believe we need to examine racial biases within the criminal justice system. For example, blacks and Latinos are arrested at a disproportionately high rate for marijuana possession. I will work with the New York Police Department to re-evaluate their stop and frisk policies. And I will work to implement policies in the district attorney's office, like ones that were implemented in Madison, Wisconsin, to minimize racial bias within the case screening, sentencing and plea procedures. Discriminatory application of the laws is something I will not tolerate as district attorney and I will focus on not only creating a safe city, but one that is also fair.

Leslie Crocker Snyder

A: My progressive vision for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office includes many proposals that will improve our criminal justice system. Here are a few key priorities:

Alternatives to Incarceration: The criminal justice systemputs too many people in jail, especially younger nonviolent people who can be rehabilitated. While violent offenders that are fairly convicted must receive strict penalties, nonviolent offenders must be given access to alternatives to incarceration, drug treatment and job training. As district attorney, I will divert a percentage of the office's budget to create and partner with existing Alternative to Incarceration Programs (ATIs). These programs will use holistic models that incorporate substance abuse treatment, job training, education and family counseling. I will hire a full-time coordinator with expertise in substance abuse to implement a screening process and monitor the progress of participants.

Community Partnerships: I have long advocated for more active partnerships between the district attorney's office and the communities it serves. I will link assistant district attorneys with each community to form a partnership with community leaders, educators, business leaders, religious leaders, social service agencies and law enforcement. This partnership will move into problem schools and housing developments to attempt to resolve problems before they become criminal. We will work together to provide counseling to the offender and his or her family, drug treatment, job training and links to educational and social services. Our goal is to prevent young people from becoming first offenders. If their conduct makes them first offenders, we must make every effort to prevent them from becoming second offenders. I will aggressively promote community partnerships and alternatives to incarceration.

Problem Solving Courts: The district attorney's office should embrace problem-solving courts and urge the court system to institute more of them. If crimes are nonviolent, supervised treatment, not incarceration, should be the first choice of sentence for many offenders. In various counties in New York state there are drug courts, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, sex offense courts, veterans' courts and community courts. Each of these specialized courts recognizes the unique problems that exist for a particular population. I will urge their broader use.

Criminal Court: Criminal Court is the first place many New Yorkers see their criminal justice system at work. Unfortunately, it is often not a pretty sight.There is a backlog of more than 17,000 cases and almost no misdemeanors are brought to trial. In 2008, more than 2,000 felonies were dismissed for failure to prosecute. I will implement radical changes and new procedures to help deal with the crippling Criminal Court case backlog. (See detailed plan on my Web site, www.snyderforda.com.)

Keeping Our Kids Safe: Under the "Keep Our Kids Safe" program, the district attorney's office would provide the opportunity on a strictly voluntary basis, to create identification "passports" for children up to 14 years of age. These passports will be maintained by parents or guardians and can be transmitted to law enforcement officers if a child goes missing. I will also embark upon far more vigorous efforts against child predators and child pornography.

Training: The Manhattan District Attorney's Office is a great office, but it can be improved. Too often, assistant district attorneys are expected to learn from on-the-job training. I will implement techniques to improve both assistants' trial skills and their knowledge of the law.

Cyrus R. Vance Jr.

A: The next district attorney must be prepared to keep Manhattan safe in a way that is both fair and effective. The office requires leadership that preserves the legacy of excellence, integrity and justice that has defined and distinguished it throughout the Morgenthau era, while simultaneously providing the vision and expertise to adapt to new challenges. This requires not just being tough on crime, but also being smart about how to fight crime.

Community-Based Justice: I would begin by instituting a program of Community-Based Justice, in which prosecutors are assigned to specific geographic regions of Manhattan. This fundamental change to the organization of the office will allow prosecutors to understand the specific problems faced by different communities, gain the trust of residents, identify crime trends early, better focus investigations and target recidivism. This approach will aid our efforts to combat all types of crime, including gangs, drug trafficking, gun trafficking, sex crimes, identity theft, domestic violence and hate crimes. It will optimize effective localized responses in combination with the office's specialized investigative resources. Assigning trial division bureaus to specific police precincts also allows prosecutors to work with the same officers continually, enabling them to more readily identify incidents and patterns of misconduct. I will also open an office of the district attorney in Washington Heights, to better reach the community.

Conviction Integrity Panel: I will also create a Conviction Integrity Panel, which will use best practices from across the nation to take measures to prevent wrongful convictions. The panel will be tasked with examining every step of an investigation and prosecution—including pre-indictment, pretrial, and post-trial, to ensure that best practices are followed. The panel, comprised of senior assistant district attorneys and outside experts as necessary, will also ensure ongoing training for all lawyers to identify mistakes that typically result in wrongful convictions: misidentification, false confessions, mishandling of evidence and government and legal misconduct.

Alternatives to Incarceration: I will always be committed to preventing as well as prosecuting crimes. That means working to find alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders (especially those with drug or psychiatric issues), it means setting up re-entry programs for former inmates, and it means reaching into communities and partnering with neighborhood organizations to make sure that we are stopping crimes before they occur.

Racial Bias: As district attorney, I will frankly address the issue of racial bias in law enforcement. The office will partner with the Vera Institute of Justice to conduct a review of our prosecutorial decisions and policies to uncover any instances of racial bias. The Vera Institute is a non-partisan, nonprofit center for justice policy and practice, and they have successfully piloted such programs in district attorney offices across the nation. If racial bias, conscious or unconscious, is identified, we will work swiftly and decisively to correct it.

Domestic Violence: We must also change the way we look at domestic violence and recognize that these cases, in addition to being criminal offenses, have created a public health crisis. Domestic violence offenses have resisted the trend of declining crime in New York City, and we must work much harder to prevent these crimes. Among other steps, I will work to establish a Family Justice Center in Northern Manhattan, where a disproportionate number of the county's domestic violence cases are reported, that will integrate essential services for victims under one roof. Because domestic violence often escalates over time, I will work to increase sentences for repeat offenders. I will also tailor treatment initiatives to the goal of ending ongoing cycles of domestic violence. I will devote new resources and attention to prosecuting acquaintance rape cases and improve the prosecution of intimate partner violence including cases involving LGBT couples. It is time to make these cases a top priority.

Specialized Courts: I will work to create more specialty courts and expand the existing drug courts and other community courts that effectively operate on a larger scale in many counties of New York state. These specialty courts reduce judicial backlog and allow an increased number of rehabilitation-oriented sentences where appropriate, which in turn reduces recidivism. In particular, I will lobby for the creation of a Mental Health Court in Manhattan, as has been done in Brooklyn and the Bronx, as well as create a Mental Health Unit of specially trained assistant district attorneys. The prevalence of serious mental illness among our jail and prison population is far higher than it is among the general population. Jails and prisons are simply not equipped to effectively treat mentally ill offenders. They spend more time in jail than other prisoners and are more likely to commit additional crimes once released. We must break this cycle. The goal of the Mental Health Court is to give mentally ill defendants effective, evidence-based treatment. This approach will protect the community by reducing the number of crimes committed by offenders with psychiatric illnesses. It will also reduce costs and help integrate people with psychiatric disorders back into the community so they may become law-abiding, productive members of society. As Manhattan district attorney, my office will also provide a veteran justice outreach specialist to identify and assist veterans who come into the criminal justice system, who will serve as part of the Mental Health Unit.

Q: Would you establish additional specialized bureaus? Which ones?

Aborn: Hate Crimes Unit: Now is a key time to address hate crimes within Manhattan. The rash of hate crimes on the Upper East Side has revealed that we need to be constantly vigilant even in this day and age. I will create a specialized Hate Crimes Unit in the district attorney's office with an expertise in handling bias-related offenses. The Hate Crimes Unit would work with the Community Affairs Unit to maintain close relationships with community groups representing New Yorkers most likely to be the targets of bias-related crimes.

Domestic Violence Bureau: Domestic violence cases are different from other types of prosecutions—especially those involving stranger-on-stranger violence. Domestic violence victims are often terrified to proceed against perpetrators who know where they can find them and may face family and community opposition to cooperating with criminal justice officials. I will have a fully staffed domestic violence bureau with specialized assistant district attorneys.
Snyder: Many of my policy proposals include establishing specialized bureaus. A few examples:

Second Look Bureau: The main responsibility of a district attorney is to see that justice is done in every case. Ideally, our criminal justice system would "get it right" every time and a "first look" would be sufficient. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. I have long proposed the creation of a Second Look Bureau to remedy prosecutorial mistakes and avoid wrongful convictions. The bureau will operate as an independent unit in the office. The Second Look Bureau will be composed of experienced attorneys who have no involvement in the original cases and therefore no vested interest in preserving their convictions. They will review and investigate whether a credible basis exists for re-examining a conviction at any point. If a substantial error or misconduct is discovered, the bureau will take appropriate action, which may include asking for a reversal or a new trial. The bureau will also create regular reports and conduct training for assistants to prevent mistakes from happening again. This bureau will be supplemented by many other initiatives to prevent wrongful convictions: i.e. improved identification procedures, double blind line-ups and expansion of DNA use, as well as improved training for assistants. Appropriate action will be taken to discipline any prosecutor who engages in misconduct.

Housing Bureau: New York City has made great progress when it comes to residents feeling safe and secure in their homes, but more must be done. Too many people feel they have no recourse against abusive landlords. Too many public housing residents still deal with the horrors of drugs and guns on a daily basis. There are several crucial steps that must be taken to protect tenants struggling with abusive landlords and residents of public housing plagued by crime and drugs. To combat these two separate but equally critical problems, I will create a Housing Bureau. The bureau will maintain a centralized, computerized repository of complaints against landlords, so that assistant district attorneys can track landlords who prey on and abuse tenants and bring significant cases against them. It will coordinate with civil authorities responsible for housing oversight to identify landlords whose buildings are persistent code violators and develop criminal cases where appropriate. The bureau will also prosecute landlords who foster or tolerate criminal activity or who knowingly rent to drug dealers or others engaging in criminal activities. The district attorney's office must bring together the Narcotics Eviction Program, which uses a civil eviction statute to remove drug dealers from residential and commercial buildings, and the Formal Trespass Affidavit Program, which authorizes local police to perform "vertical" patrols in buildings. Merging these two programs under the authority of the Housing Bureau would allow for better organization and communication and more vigorous enforcement, while taking care that community complaints of indiscriminate arrests are addressed. By using innovative crime-prevention techniques, such as the involvement of community leaders, residents and social service agencies along with law enforcement, to lessen crime in public housing, the Housing Bureau can achieve the dual purpose of protecting tenants from abusive landlords and abusive living environments.

Domestic Violence Bureau: Domestic violence is an under-reported crime because victims are often afraid to seek help or are too intimidated by their batterers to do so. Almost 65 percent of domestic violence cases in Manhattan are dismissed. The district attorney's office must support victims, which will help ensure their safety and bring their abusers to justice. I will take bold steps to combat this complex problem, including the creation of a Domestic Violence Bureau. The bureau will be dedicated to handling only domestic violence cases. The bureau chief and assistant district attorneys will receive regular training in handling the sensitive issues arising from domestic violence. Assistants will establish contact with victims shortly after incidents occur, and will maintain a line of contact long after a case has been resolved. They will work to assist victims, including obtaining temporary orders of protection when appropriate. The district attorney's office must also improve the use of evidence-based prosecutions. If victims are not available to testify against their abusers, or refuse to do so, there will often be enough other evidence, such as medical records, police testimony or 911 calls, to proceed with the prosecution. Working closely with the police department, the office will improve the collection and preservation of evidence so that a prosecution without the victim's testimony is more likely to proceed. The office will also work with hospitals and health care providers to encourage victims to report abuse.

Counter-Terrorism Bureau: It is time to establish a trained team of experts in a single unit: the Counter-Terrorism Bureau. It will be headed by an assistant district attorney with the necessary security clearance to access classified information, and the experience to bring together otherwise disparate investigations into a single effective investigation and prosecution based on a comprehensive strategy. The office will bring to bear in a single bureau experts with experience in investigating all aspects of counter-terrorism, from the front organization raising funds, to the money-launderers who clean the money; from the facilitators who rent the apartments, to the importers who smuggle weapons and other dangerous material into our city; from the drug dealers whose profits support the terrorist activities, to the forgers who prepare the false documents. The bureau will link shared databases across units within the office to ensure that information is shared. Assistants from typically isolated units will be brought together for comprehensive briefings to foster coordinated and efficient information sharing. The bureau will establish ongoing information-sharing relationships with all of the agencies operating in and around New York County that have responsibility for any component of counter-terrorism. These formal relationships are essential—history has shown that investigative failures are inevitable when one works in isolation. The district attorney's office must evolve to address modern threats. We need an approach that applies all of the elements of our investigative power. We need to identify and integrate the capabilities of multiple agencies and disciplines to defeat today's threats.

Vance: Specialized bureaus allow prosecutors to develop the expertise and specialized knowledge to help us prosecute crime in the most thorough and efficient way possible. Such units already exist for domestic violence, economic crimes such as fraud, racketeering and other special white-collar prosecutions and narcotics cases and I believe we need to approach other crimes in the same way.

Public Integrity Unit: For example, we should establish a Public Integrity Unit to combat public corruption and prosecute public officials who misuse taxpayer dollars for personal gain.

Hate Crimes Unit: Hate crimes will be handled by a specialized bureau to combat the disturbing rise of these crimes in New York County. Assistant district attorneys will be trained to recognize the nuances required to obtain convictions in hate crime cases and how to overcome these issues.

Safe Housing Unit: I will establish a Safe Housing Unit to combat abusive landlords, denial of basic services, unsafe buildings and illegal evictions. Housing cases are extremely technical, and the office would be well served by having a full unit of specialists.

Counter-Terror Unit: A team of experienced counter-terror prosecutors and investigators will be assembled to handle terrorism investigations, as well as crimes that support terrorism—such as credit card fraud, money laundering, false identification, tax evasion, theft and weapons possession. Working with the police department and federal authorities, this team will "connect the dots" and will understand the bigger picture of terrorism and the role that common crimes can play in the identification of terrorist organizations. They will be led by a counter-terror coordinator, reporting directly to the district attorney. The coordinator will have a background in counter-terrorism and security.

Environmental Crimes Unit: I will establish an Environmental Crimes Unit to deal with the specific issues that New Yorkers face in maintaining a clean and healthy living environment. The unit will work in tandem with local agencies on prevention initiatives. The district attorney's office must hold polluters accountable and protect the health of Manhattan residents.

Immigration Affairs Unit: In addition to these, I will elevate the Immigrant Affairs Program to full unit status to better address the issues of fraud, wage discrimination and fear of reporting crime that plagues immigrant communities.

Q: Do you anticipate that additional resources will be available to implement your programs? If no new resources can be anticipated, how would you reallocate existing resources or find new sources of funding? Would cuts be required in other areas?

Aborn: We are currently in the midst of troubling financial times and departments all across the city, the state and the country have been facing budget cuts. While the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has been fortunate and remained relatively unscathed by these cuts, it is naïve to think we have unlimited funds at our disposal.

Richard M. Aborn, 57
Partner, Constantine Cannon, 2004-present
President, Constantine & Aborn Advisory Services, 2004-present
Other legal experience:Director, NYPD Misconduct Investigation Unit, Office of the Public Advocate, 1999-2001; President, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, 1992-1996
Member, Aborn & Anesi, 1984-1994; Assistant district attorney, New York County District Attorney's Office, 1979-1984

Education: J.D., John Marshall Law School 1979; B.A., University of Dubuque, 1974
Personal: Born in New York City; married for 18 years to Ingrid Rossellini, a professor of Italian literature at New York University; one daughter

I have recently proposed a means of modernizing the office, a process of gathering data that I have dubbed "PreventStat" that will begin the transition to an electronic environment and allow the office to evaluate the programs it utilizes. The transition to an electronic environment will save money, and the ability to effectively evaluate the current programs will allow the office to stop relying on programs that do not work. In addition, by moving toward a preventative model of criminal justice and employing alternatives to incarceration we can dedicate prison dollars to programs which are both progressive and effective. It costs about $44,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a state prison, and a mere $2,700 to $4,500 a year for out-patient treatment. Even in-patient treatment is only about $17,000 to $21,000 a year, still far short of the cost to incarcerate. We are not only wasting lives in prison, but tax dollars as well. We know alternatives to incarceration work, and in these tough economic times we cannot afford to ignore the reality.

Snyder: We will seek additional resources via grants and appropriate asset forfeiture. However, by vastly improving technology immediately, we will operate far more efficiently, track crime patterns electronically and conserve resources. Cuts will be made in unnecessary programs, and more resources will be utilized to supplement alternatives to incarceration. We can also do more with existing resources; prosecutors try few cases and can use their time more productively.

Vance: I plan to build on the recent victories in white-collar crime prosecutions and settlements that generated $350 million for New York City and state taxpayers over the past year alone. I am committed to making white-collar crime a top priority, and my deep experience in this area will enable the office to win an even greater number of cases and reach better settlements. Some of this money will go directly to the district attorney's office and can provide additional funding needed to make vital changes in programming. Additionally, erasing the backlog of cases in the criminal courts would go a long way toward freeing up other resources and would allow us to reassign lawyers to specific neighborhoods or to highly specialized units, including new programs. Since 1997, there has been a 24 percent increase in Criminal Court caseload. Yet the number of judges available to try cases has remained static. This, among other problems, has led to a huge Criminal Court backlog, inundating certain prosecutors, Legal Aid lawyers and judges with excessive caseloads. Consequently, cases often cannot be investigated as thoroughly and promptly as justice requires; judges must manage over-crowded dockets that affect their ability to focus on each case individually. Other cases are dismissed on speedy trial grounds. Inevitably, this reality undermines public confidence in our justice system. One of my first priorities will be to work with all branches of government, and the agencies involved, increasing trial capacity for misdemeanors. This includes working with the Office of Court Administration toward the reassignment of more judges, on a temporary basis, to the Criminal Court. These changes will improve not only the district attorney's office, but the entire criminal justice system and the communities in which they serve.

Q: What in your background and/or experience makes you better equipped than your adversaries to manage an office that has a $74 million budget and employs 500 attorneys?

Aborn: In addition to having been a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I am currently a managing partner of Constantine Cannon, a nationally recognized law firm. Depending on the firm's caseload, I manage anywhere from 100 to 200 employees and a substantial budget. To my knowledge, I am the only candidate who has served in such a managerial role. Moreover, I am the only candidate with experience building broad coalitions and turning ideas into action. As the president of Jim and Sarah Brady's gun control organization I was the principal strategist behind landmark gun control legislation which passed through a hostile Congress despite the well-funded efforts of the National Rifle Association. We built a national coalition of grass roots organizations, elected officials, and other leaders to take on seemingly insurmountable challenges and succeeded. I have also helped large organizations like the Los Angeles Police Department implement comprehensive transition plans. As Manhattan district attorney, I will apply those tested leadership skills to not only run the office, but bring about real change.

Snyder: I have worked for over 35 years in virtually every aspect of Manhattan's criminal justice system. As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for nine years, I founded and led the Sex Crimes Prosecution Bureau, the first in the nation and a model throughout the country. I am the co-author of important legislation including New York's Rape Shield Law and other reforms of the Penal Law.


Leslie Crocker Snyder, 67
Partner, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, 2003-present
Other Legal Experience: Prosecuted violent career criminals on a U.S. Department of Justice grant at the New Orleans District Attorney's Office, pro bono, 2007; Acting Supreme Court justice, Manhattan, 1986-2003; Criminal Court judge, Manhattan, 1983-1986
Deputy criminal justice coordinator (head of arson strike force), Office of the New York City Criminal Justice Coordinator, 1982-1983; Private criminal practice, 1979-72
Chief of Trials, Office of the Special Prosecutor Against Corruption in the Criminal Justice System, 1976-79; Chief, sex crimes unit, Manhattan District Attorney's Office, 1974-76; assistant district attorney, 1968-1974

Education: J.D., Case-Western Reserve Law School, 1966 Certificate, Harvard-Radcliffe Graduate Program in Business Administration, 1963; B.A., Radcliffe College, 1962
Personal: Born in New York City, married for more than 40 years to Dr. Frederic E. Snyder, a retired pediatrician; two sons

After leaving the office, I became a special assistant attorney general, prosecuting corruption in the criminal justice system. I was in charge of numerous assistant prosecutors and staff as well as all legal training and recruiting. I was in private practice for three years before returning to public service as the deputy criminal justice coordinator and head of the arson strike force at the office of the New York City Criminal Justice Coordinator. In 1983, I was appointed as a judge to the Criminal Court of New York City and then to Supreme Court and the Court of Claims. I presided primarily over the highest level "A-1" multiple defendant narcotics felonies, drug gangs, organized crime and "white-collar" criminal cases, including the trials of New York City's most violent drug gangs: the "Gheri Curls," the "Wild Cowboys," the "Young Talented Children" and the "Natural Born Killers," among others. I also presided over the carting or "Garbage" case, which led to the reform of the private sanitation industry in New York City. While on the bench, I helped young, nonviolent offenders avoid the cycle of incarceration by placing them in alternative programs, such as the holistic rehabilitation program Abraham House and the Andrew Glover Youth Program. I also adopted a public school to provide students with a hands-on introduction to the legal process. I am on the board of the Kips Bay Boys' and Girls'Club, D.A.R.E., and Abraham House. I spent six months in 2007 on a U.S. Department of Justice grant, prosecuting career violent felons in New Orleans and assisting the criminal justice system with post-Katrina problems. At all stages of my career, I have run bureaus and managed offices, task forces and my courtroom, which was frequently filled with large gangs, security and court personnel. I also learned management skills at the Harvard Business School. After 35 years, I know Manhattan's criminal justice system inside and out. I've seen what works and what doesn't, and it is this experience that informs my plans for improving the district attorney's office so it better serves all New Yorkers. I believe I have a depth and diversity of experience that is unmatched by my opponents.

Vance: As the only candidate who has spent my entire career as an advocate in the courtroom, both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I am uniquely qualified to manage the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The decisions that prosecutors will face—when to offer plea bargains, how to pursue the strongest prosecutions, whether or not to bring charges, how to deal with discovery—are decisions I have faced throughout my career and ones which I am highly qualified to guide. As a founding partner at a pre-eminent litigation firm, I am no stranger to managing lawyers or to handling large cases, such as our work on the pay discrimination suit brought against Boeing on behalf of a class of almost 20,000 women workers. I am capable of and prepared by my experience to manage large teams of attorneys at work on complex cases, which is why current District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, The New York Times, the Daily News and the New York Post have all said I am the clear choice for this position.

Q: What priority should the district attorney's office give to the prosecution of white-collar crime? How does that differ from the priority it holds in the office today?

Aborn: I believe the office must continue a strong approach to investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes, especially those that can result in New Yorkers losing their homes and savings. We need to have a comprehensive approach, making sure that regulatory government agencies are in communication with the office. We also must establish a hotline in which citizens can call with questions or concerns in regards to these issues. Often crimes are not prosecuted until many have fallen victim to a scam because individuals do not know to report it or do not realize they have been the victim of a prosecutable crime. The prosecution of white-collar crime is a high priority in the current office, but I believe we can be more aggressive in not only prosecuting these offenses, but more efficient in investigating them. Using the latest technologies and analytic software will help us see non-obvious connections between people, places and things, which will improve the efficacy of our white-collar investigations.

Snyder: The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has a long and proud tradition of bringing white-collar criminals to justice. I will build on this legacy while ensuring that the prosecutors in my office have the training and leadership necessary to meet the challenges presented by our current financial and economic crisis and by the growing sophistication of white-collar criminals. Training in the area of white-collar crime must be improved. This will involve having financial experts, FINRA, the SEC and major financial institutions lecture assistants on their areas of expertise, as well as having experienced prosecutors and expert white-collar defense attorneys participate in training. While there will be specialized bureaus in many aspects of white-collar crimes, all assistants need to know how to prosecute these critical crimes. I will bring a renewed focus to protecting the residents of Manhattan from these crimes. In particular, we will hold accountable those who prey on our most vulnerable residents, especially the elderly and the poor. We will prosecute the perpetrators of mortgage fraud, identity theft, predatory lending, consumer fraud, and other offenses that reach into the homes and batter the personal finances of Manhattan residents. We must investigate and prosecute those who take advantage of struggling Manhattan residents by engaging in debt collection fraud or deceptive practices in connection with debt consolidation. The district attorney's office will continue to emphasize the investigation and prosecution of traditional white-collar crime. We will prosecute individuals and entities that engage in securities fraud, including those who deceive the investing public about the value of the securities they sell or the performance of their businesses, and those who buy and sell securities using insider information. We will hold accountable those who increase the cost and decrease the quality of health care by engaging in insurance and other health care fraud, and those who use the Internet to steal or commit fraud.

Cyrus R. Vance Jr., 55
Partner, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, 2004-present
Other legal experience: Founding partner, McNaul Ebel, Nawrot Helgren and Vance, 1995-2004; Partner, Culp, Dwyer, Guterson & Grader in Seattle, 1988-1995; Assistant district attorney, New York County District Attorney's Office, 1982-1988
Education: J.D., Georgetown University Law School, 1982; B.A., Yale University, 1977
Personal: Born in New York City; married for 25 years to Peggy McDonnell, a photographer; two children

Vance: Once thought to be "victimless," we have learned all too well that white-collar crime hurts everyone, locally and globally. It can ruin the lives of small business owners, students in need of financial aid or retirees who rely on their life savings. It can also be used to fund terrorist organizations. These crimes are no less important than any other criminal act, and should be prosecuted just as vigorously. Under Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has consistently been at the forefront of economic crime prosecution. But given the speed of changing technologies and the status of New York City as a global financial hub, we must remain ever-vigilant. As a prosecutor and trial lawyer who has specialized in white-collar crime for 25 years, I know how to evaluate and build complex cases. As district attorney, I will make economic crime a top priority. Prioritizing white-collar crime is one reason why The New York Times endorsed me over my opponents. As district attorney, I will preserve the ideals and the legacy of Robert Morgenthau, but I will also build upon his successes by bringing needed changes to the office. I will enact measures to ensure cases be prosecuted efficiently, but not at the expense of justice. I will rehabilitate criminals who deserve a second chance and punish those who do not.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Concept of Ethics to Visit Albany

After turmoil, Senate to pass ethics reforms
PressConnects.com by Joseph Spector - September 5, 2009

ALBANY, NY -- The state Senate next week is expected to pass legislation that aims to toughen oversight of lawmakers and the influence special-interest groups have with the Legislature. The measures, which passed the Assembly in June, would scrap the much-maligned Commission on Public Integrity and replace it with three new commissions, which would independently oversee state lobbying activities, the Legislature and executive branch. The bill also establishes an investigation office to oversee ethics in the Legislature and requires lobbyists to disclose business relationships with public officials. Lawmakers would have to disclose more information about their outside salaries and business dealings. "I think it's the most sweeping change in ethics law in 20 years," said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group. New York government has been plagued by ethical scandals that critics say have been fueled by weak laws.

The outcry for change, punctuated earlier this year by a damning investigation of the Public Integrity Commission, prompted the Democratic-led Assembly to pass the reforms before session ended in late June. The measures stalled in the Senate, though, where a June 8 coup halted business for a month. Senate Democrats, who have regained the majority, plan to come back into session Thursday and pass the ethics package and other bills. Democrats hold a 32-30 seat majority. "Senate Democrats realize that when we came into the majority (in January) we inherited an Albany that was mired in dysfunction," said Austin Shafran, spokesman for Senate Democrats. "We've taken steps thought the year to make the legislative process more open, transparent and inclusive." Other items on the agenda include: confirmation of Jay Walder as head of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority; creating a "Green Jobs/Green New York" program to make one million homes more energy efficient; and a measure to reduce greenhouse gases. Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson, D-Brooklyn, submitted additional ethics legislation that would require Assembly approval. The measures, Horner explained, would expand laws that control lobbying, require lawmakers' financial disclosure forms to be reviewed for accuracy, require public officials to detail business dealings with lobbyists and give the state Board of Elections greater investigative powers. Melissa Mansfield, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said the Assembly would review the Senate's additional provisions. "The speaker would be very pleased if the Senate took up his bill and would be open to chapter amendments," she said. "He'd like to get this done this year."


**********

New York Senate returning for unfinished business
The Associated Press - September 5, 2009

The New York Senate plans to return to the Capitol next week to vote on ethics reform and complete other unfinished business.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- New York's Senate, which spent June gridlocked in a power struggle, plans to return to the Capitol next week to vote on ethics reform and complete other unfinished business. In a special session Thursday, Democrats who control the chamber with a narrow 32-30 majority plan to take up legislation that would establish a new statewide commission to investigate lobbying ethics compliance, with a new office to examine complaints against lawmakers themselves. While the Assembly has passed that bill 140-0, Democratic Senate leader Sen. John Sampson of Brooklyn plans to offer amendments to broaden the definition of lobbying and expand disclosures, requiring legislators and other public officers to report business dealings with lobbyists.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

City of Brotherly Love Shares NY's Feelings on Corruption

PA is booming when it comes to political corruption, a.k.a. political terrorism
The Pittsburgh Independent Examiner by Mike Ference - September 1, 2009

Pennsylvania made the news again. But sadly enough, it was once again for all the wrong reasons. According to Corporate Crime Reporter, Pennsylvania ranks number 7 in public corruption, concerning convictions that result from federal prosecutions. The vast majority of public corruption prosecutions – as high as 80 percent of them – are brought by federal officials. That’s according to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, a weekly legal newsletter based in Washington, D.C. Sadly, in states that have a high volume of political corruption, such as in Pennsylvania, where federal law enforcement resources are already strained, one can only imagine how many political criminals are getting away scot-free. None the less, let’s review a sample of typical Pennsylvania cases that involves those politicians who did get called to accountability: A farewell bash was held for former PA State Senator Vince Fumo before he was to report to a federal prison in Kentucky. The former DeMOBocrat power broker was found guilty on all charges – 147 to be exact – in a corruption case that found Fumo guilty of defrauding the Senate and two nonprofits to the tune of $2.1 million. The same case resulted in Fumo being found guilty of obstructing the FBI investigation. It would be the third time in Fumo’s career as a public serpent that he would face federal prosecutors. Justice finally prevailed. Was Fumo’s last hurrah bash any less disgusting than the cheering crowd that greeted Pan Am Flight 103 terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi on his return to Libya? In both cases, it’s simply a mockery of justice. Another political corruption case, tagged Bonusgate, stars former state Rep. Mike Veon, headliner of the Pennsylvania Dirty Dozen DeMOBocrats. He and his fellow public serpents were indicted for doling out millions of dollars in taxpayer money to government workers who supported certain political campaigns, doling out the money under the guise of bonuses. The prison time for all 12 alleged scoundrels could conceivably total 1,892 years, if they get convicted on all counts. But wait. It gets worse. In a story out of Luzerne County, two more red-handed crooks, namely, Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, agreed to plead guilty to various federal charges involving their Cash for Kids program which consisted in them sending children to privately owned detention facilities with no justification for the sentences imposed. Altogether, the judges took $2.6 million in kickbacks via the very lucrative child trafficking scheme. Now that U.S. District Judge Edwin Kosik recently rejected the plea deals, on account of the two State judges not accepting responsibility for their actions, they could receive much longer sentences if convicted. These three cases indicate how unfortunate PA taxpayers are when it comes to responsible government. We learned from experience to expect our elected politicians to steal from the taxpayers every chance they get. But for judges to cash in on the lives of children, by means of dispensing unjust sentences in exchange for cash, it's almost beyond comprehension. What can we do to stop political corruption in PA? Maybe nothing. Then again, maybe it’s time to get even with these bastards. Here are some things that our legislature should be considering, in order to get PA back on the road to good government: Political corruption is a crime much like treason or even terrorism. Therefore, the criminals who abuse their offices should be dealt with as if they were traitors or terrorists. If and when the parties are found guilty of a corruption case, all of their assets should be seized. If they refuse to cooperate with authorities and refuse to provide information about their criminal behavior – the who, what, when, and where thereof – then an added punishment should be exacted upon them for a crime similar to Contempt of Court. But, in those cases of non-cooperation, the charge should be Contempt of the Taxpayer. This includes all persons who partook in the politicians' crimes, including all family members who used the ill gotten gains for their own pleasure.

It’s time to disenfranchise anyone whose paycheck is dependent upon a friend or relative in office. The legislature must free Pennsylvanians of the nepotism that helps someone to remain in office indefinitely. This is that same nepotism which makes the hired friend or relative a hired hand in covering up criminal behavior. My solution is not without precedent. After all, the Hatch Act already prohibits federal employees from engaging in a wide range of political activities. The reasoning, at least in part, is that such employees, who should ideally be servants of the entire citizenry, should not be allowed to use their positions for partisan purposes. Equally important is the need to see to it that government corruption is not handed down through generations of the same families. Stopping the transfer of pilfered commonwealth money through corrupt family bloodlines is a necessity. The way I see it, government employees in PA who have essentially been given jobs for life, with great benefits attached – whether they are qualified or not – should not be allowed to vote for those giving out the jobs. That is a conflict of interest. PA government employees have secured more than most PA taxpayers could ever hope to gain while living in our commonwealth. PA government employees should only be allowed to sell their souls but one time. Anyone with additional information on this story or similar events please feel free to send a message to Ference@icubed.com or drop a dime and dial 412-233-5491. Reporting live from Pittsburgh’s Golden Triangle – where the confluence of the Sicilian mob and the Democratic Party meet to form the deMOBocrats.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Clone Judge Schack

Schack Cites Judicial Pay Stall as Reason for Recusal
The New York Law Journal by Mark Fass - March 10, 2009

A Brooklyn judge has recused himself from a receivership case where the plaintiff is represented by a law firm that employs two state lawmakers, one of whom voted against a judicial pay raise. In a scathing 10-page decision, Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack (See Profile) wrote that it would be improper for him, as a petitioner in an action against the Legislature seeking raises for judges, to adjudicate an action in which the firm has a stake. "To avoid any potential appearance of impropriety in the instant case, since both Senator Craig M. Johnson and Assembly Member Marc S. Alessi are both of counsel to Jaspan Schelsinger Hoffman . . . I must recuse myself," Justice Schack wrote in JPMorgan Chase v. Bergen Plaza, 126/09. "I hope that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Alessi would allow the judges of this state to receive their first pay raise in this century. Thanks to our legislators . . . our New York State judges are the 'Rodney Dangerfields' of government. A pay raise would help to give us a little respect, instead of, as recently said by Chief Judge Kaye, 'the disdain with which we are treated.'"

Justice Schack's recusal order is yet another salvo in the fight for pay increases for New York's approximately 1,300 trial judges, who have not received a raise since 1999, when the Legislature bumped their salaries to $136,700 a year. No state has gone longer without raising judicial pay; according to one study, New York ranks 48th in judicial pay when adjusted for the cost of living. Last May, then-Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, a leading advocate for judicial raises, e-mailed the entire state judiciary, advising her fellow judges that they may recuse themselves as a matter of "individual conscience," but that a "strategy" of recusals could "hurt our cause" (NYLJ, May 2, 2008). Two weeks later, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct warned that judges who recuse themselves to protest legislative inaction could face disciplinary actions. The County Judges Association of the State of New York then adopted a resolution supporting "the recusal of any New York State Judges, as a matter of personal conscience, in regard to their ability to be fair and impartial due to the controversy surrounding Judicial compensation." Though no one keeps an official count of the recusals, Steven W. Schlesinger told the Law Journal last year that in a three-month period about 20 judges recused themselves from cases involving his firm. Yesterday, he did not return a call for comment. In one such case, Trump on the Ocean, LLC v. Cortes-Vasquez, 5329-08, then-Nassau Supreme Justice Leonard B. Austin granted a potential intervenor's motion for recusal. "The integrity of the judicial process requires that all attorneys and their clients believe that the decisions of this or any other court are based upon the facts and the law and not some issue in an unrelated matter which can be perceived as affecting the Court's impartiality or sense of fairness," Justice Austin wrote. Last week Justice Austin was appointed to the Appellate Division, Second Department. In the present action before Justice Schack, JPMorgan Chase, the plaintiff, sought the appointment of a receiver for a bankrupt Brooklyn shopping plaza.

Justice Schack recused himself, citing his status as a plaintiff in Maron v. Silver, 06-021984, which seeks an increase in judicial salaries to $169,300. He wrote that it would neither be proper nor appear proper for him to rule on a case involving Jaspan Schlesinger, where both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Alessi are counsel. Mr. Alessi voted against the raises; the issue has not come to a vote before the Assembly. "Both Senator Johnson and Assemblyman Alessi have the right to earn additional income, unlike judges," Justice Schack wrote. "It is high time for [them] to realize that the approximately 1300 New York State judges are working people who deserve their first pay raise in more than a decade." According to a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, JPMorgan Chase will now go to Justice Abraham Gerges (See Profile), Brooklyn's administrative judge, for reassignment. Antonia Donohue of Jaspan Schlesinger represented the plaintiffs, JPMorgan Chase. She declined to comment. The defendant, Bergen Plaza, did not answer the complaint. Its phone has been disconnected and no one responded to an e-mail requesting comment. The judges' pay-raise suit, Maron, is not faring well. In December 2007, Albany Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. McNamara (See Profile) dismissed all but one claim (NYLJ, Dec. 3, 2007). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed 4-1, and the judges are now seeking leave to appeal (NYLJ, Nov. 14, 2008). There are two other lawsuits seeking higher pay for judges. Larabee v. Silver, 112301/07, was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in September 2007 on behalf of the New York City Family Court Association, the state Family Court Judges Association, the New York City Civil Court Judges Association and the New York City Criminal Court Judges Association. In Kaye v. Silver, 400763/08, filed in April 2008, Judge Kaye claimed the Legislature denied the judges their constitutional right to an adequate salary. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner is now considering a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss in Kaye. Justice Lehner's denial of the government's motion for summary judgment in Larabee has been appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department. Mark.Fass@incisivemedia.com

**********

A ‘Little Judge’ Who Rejects Foreclosures, Brooklyn Style
The New York Times by MICHAEL POWELL - August 31, 2009

The judge waves you into his chambers in the State Supreme Court building in Brooklyn, past the caveat taped to his wall — “Be sure brain in gear before engaging mouth” — and into his inner office, where foreclosure motions are piled high enough to form a minor Alpine chain. Every week, the nation’s mightiest banks come to his court seeking to take the homes of New Yorkers who cannot pay their mortgages. And nearly as often, the judge says, they file foreclosure papers speckled with errors. He plucks out one motion and leafs through: a Deutsche Bank representative signed an affidavit claiming to be the vice president of two different banks. His office was in Kansas City, Mo., but the signature was notarized in Texas. And the bank did not even own the mortgage when it began to foreclose on the homeowner. The judge’s lips pucker as if he had inhaled a pickle; he rejected this one. “I’m a little guy in Brooklyn who doesn’t belong to their country clubs, what can I tell you?” he says, adding a shrug for punctuation. “I won’t accept their comedy of errors.”

The judge, Arthur M. Schack, 64, fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators and lawyers who file motions by the bale. While national debate focuses on bank bailouts and federal aid for homeowners that has been slow in coming, the hard reckonings of the foreclosure crisis are being made in courts like his, and Justice Schack’s sympathies are clear. He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model. His opinions, too, have been greeted by a cry of affront from a bank official or two, who say this judge stands in the way of what is rightfully theirs. HSBC bank appealed a recent ruling, saying he had set a “dangerous precedent” by acting as “both judge and jury,” throwing out cases even when homeowners had not responded to foreclosure motions.

Justice Schack, like a handful of state and federal judges, has taken a magnifying glass to the mortgage industry. In the gilded haste of the past decade, bankers handed out millions of mortgages — with terms good, bad and exotically ugly — then repackaged those loans for sale to investors from Connecticut to Singapore. Sloppiness reigned. So many papers have been lost, signatures misplaced and documents dated inaccurately that it is often not clear which bank owns the mortgage. Justice Schack’s take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose. “If you are going to take away someone’s house, everything should be legal and correct,” he said. “I’m a strange guy — I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate.” Justice Schack has small jowls and big black glasses, a thin mustache and not so many hairs combed across his scalp. He has the impish eyes of the high school social studies teacher he once was, aware that something untoward is probably going on at the back of his classroom. He is Brooklyn born and bred, with a master’s degree in history and an office loaded with autographed baseballs and photographs of the Brooklyn Dodgers. His written decisions are a free-associative trip through popular, legal and literary culture, with a sideways glance at the business pages. Confronted with a case in which Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs passed a defaulted mortgage back and forth and lost track of the documents, the judge made reference to the film classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” and the evil banker played by Lionel Barrymore. “Lenders should not lose sight,” Justice Schack wrote in that 2007 case, “that they are dealing with humanity, not with Mr. Potter’s ‘rabble’ and ‘cattle.’ Multibillion-dollar corporations must follow the same rules in the foreclosure actions as the local banks, savings and loan associations or credit unions, or else they have become the Mr. Potters of the 21st century.” Last year, he chastised Wells Fargo for filing error-filled papers. “The court,” the judge wrote, “reminds Wells Fargo of Cassius’s advice to Brutus in Act 1, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’: ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’ ”

Then there is a Deutsche Bank case from 2008, the juicy part of which he reads aloud: “The court wonders if the instant foreclosure action is a corporate ‘Kansas City Shuffle,’ a complex confidence game,” he reads. “In the 2006 film ‘Lucky Number Slevin,’ Mr. Goodkat, a hit man played by Bruce Willis, explains: ‘A Kansas City Shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left.’ ” The banks’ reaction? Justice Schack shrugs. “They probably curse at me,” he says, “but no one is interested in some little judge.” Little drama attends the release of his decisions. Beaten-down homeowners rarely show up to contest foreclosure actions, and the judge scrutinizes the banks’ papers in his chambers. But at legal conferences, judges and lawyers have wondered aloud why more judges do not hold banks to tougher standards. “To the extent that judges examine these papers, they find exactly the same errors that Judge Schack does,” said Katherine M. Porter, a visiting professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national expert in consumer credit law. “His rulings are hardly revolutionary; it’s unusual only because we so rarely hold large corporations to the rules.” Banks and the cottage industry of mortgage service companies and foreclosure lawyers also pay rather close attention. A spokeswoman for OneWest Bank acknowledged that an official, confronted with a ream of foreclosure papers, had mistakenly signed for two different banks — just as the Deutsche Bank official did. Deutsche Bank, which declined to let an attorney speak on the record about any of its cases before Justice Schack, e-mailed a PDF of a three-page pamphlet in which it claimed little responsibility for foreclosures, even though the bank’s name is affixed to tens of thousands of such motions. The bank described itself as simply a trustee for investors.

Justice Schack came to his recent prominence by a circuitous path, having worked for 14 years as public school teacher in Brooklyn. He was a union representative and once walked a picket line with his wife, Dilia, who was a teacher, too. All was well until the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. “Why’d I go to law school?” he said. “Thank Mayor Abe Beame, who froze teacher salaries.” He was counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association in the 1980s and ’90s, when it was on a long winning streak against team owners. “It was the millionaires versus the billionaires,” he says. “After a while, I’m sitting there thinking, ‘He’s making $4 million, he’s making $5 million, and I’m worth about $1.98.’ ” So he dived into a judicial race. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1998 and to the Supreme Court for Brooklyn and Staten Island in 2003. His wife is a Democratic district leader; their daughter, Elaine, is a lawyer and their son, Douglas, a police officer. Justice Schack’s duels with the banks started in 2007 as foreclosures spiked sharply. He saw a plague falling on Brooklyn, particularly its working-class black precincts. “Banks had given out loans structured to fail,” he said. The judge burrowed into property record databases. He found banks without clear title, and a giant foreclosure law firm, Steven J. Baum, representing two sides in a dispute. He noted that Wells Fargo’s chief executive, John G. Stumpf, made more than $11 million in 2007 while the company’s total returns fell 12 percent. “Maybe,” he advised the bank, “counsel should wonder, like the court, if Mr. Stumpf was unjustly enriched at the expense of W.F.’s stockholders.” He was, how to say it, mildly appalled. “I’m a guy from the streets of Brooklyn who happens to become a judge,” he said. “I see a bank giving a $500,000 mortgage on a building worth $300,000 and the interest rate is 20 percent and I ask questions, what can I tell you?”

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Brooklyn Judicial Don Quixote

New York, NY - Foreclosure Judge Tosses Out Cases, Brooklyn Style
Published on: August 30th, 2009 at 09:48 PMNews Source: NY Times

New York, NY - The judge waves you into his chambers in the State Supreme Court building in Brooklyn, past the caveat taped to his wall - "Be sure brain in gear before engaging mouth" - and into his inner office, where foreclosure motions are piled high enough to form a minor Alpine chain. Every week, the nation's mightiest banks come to his court seeking to take the homes of New Yorkers who cannot pay their mortgages. And nearly as often, the judge says, they file foreclosure papers speckled with errors. He plucks out one motion and leafs through: a Deutsche Bank representative signed an affidavit claiming to be the vice president of two different banks. His office was in Kansas City, Mo., but the signature was notarized in Texas. And the bank did not even own the mortgage when it began to foreclose on the homeowner. The judge's lips pucker as if he had inhaled a pickle; he rejected this one. "I'm a little guy in Brooklyn who doesn't belong to their country clubs, what can I tell you?" he says, adding a shrug for punctuation. "I won't accept their comedy of errors." The judge, Arthur M. Schack, 64, fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators and lawyers who file motions by the bale. While national debate focuses on bank bailouts and federal aid for homeowners that has been slow in coming, the hard reckonings of the foreclosure crisis are being made in courts like his, and Justice Schack's sympathies are clear. He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model. His opinions, too, have been greeted by a cry of affront from a bank official or two, who say this judge stands in the way of what is rightfully theirs. HSBC bank appealed a recent ruling, saying he had set a "dangerous precedent" by acting as "both judge and jury," throwing out cases even when homeowners had not responded to foreclosure motions. Justice Schack, like a handful of state and federal judges, has taken a magnifying glass to the mortgage industry. In the gilded haste of the past decade, bankers handed out millions of mortgages - with terms good, bad and exotically ugly - then repackaged those loans for sale to investors from Connecticut to Singapore. Sloppiness reigned. So many papers have been lost, signatures misplaced and documents dated inaccurately that it is often not clear which bank owns the mortgage.


Justice Schack's take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose. "If you are going to take away someone's house, everything should be legal and correct," he said. "I'm a strange guy - I don't want to put a family on the street unless it's legitimate." Justice Schack has small jowls and big black glasses, a thin mustache and not so many hairs combed across his scalp. He has the impish eyes of the high school social studies teacher he once was, aware that something untoward is probably going on at the back of his classroom. He is Brooklyn born and bred, with a master's degree in history and an office loaded with autographed baseballs and photographs of the Brooklyn Dodgers. His written decisions are a free-associative trip through popular, legal and literary culture, with a sideways glance at the business pages. Confronted with a case in which Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs passed a defaulted mortgage back and forth and lost track of the documents, the judge made reference to the film classic "It's a Wonderful Life" and the evil banker played by Lionel Barrymore. "Lenders should not lose sight," Justice Schack wrote in that 2007 case, "that they are dealing with humanity, not with Mr. Potter's 'rabble' and 'cattle.' Multibillion-dollar corporations must follow the same rules in the foreclosure actions as the local banks, savings and loan associations or credit unions, or else they have become the Mr. Potters of the 21st century." Last year, he chastised Wells Fargo for filing error-filled papers. "The court," the judge wrote, "reminds Wells Fargo of Cassius's advice to Brutus in Act 1, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar': 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' " Then there is a Deutsche Bank case from 2008, the juicy part of which he reads aloud: "The court wonders if the instant foreclosure action is a corporate 'Kansas City Shuffle,' a complex confidence game," he reads. "In the 2006 film 'Lucky Number Slevin,' Mr. Goodkat, a hit man played by Bruce Willis, explains: 'A Kansas City Shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left.' " The banks' reaction? Justice Schack shrugs. "They probably curse at me," he says, "but no one is interested in some little judge." Little drama attends the release of his decisions. Beaten-down homeowners rarely show up to contest foreclosure actions, and the judge scrutinizes the banks' papers in his chambers. But at legal conferences, judges and lawyers have wondered aloud why more judges do not hold banks to tougher standards. "To the extent that judges examine these papers, they find exactly the same errors that Judge Schack does," said Katherine M. Porter, a visiting professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national expert in consumer credit law. "His rulings are hardly revolutionary; it's unusual only because we so rarely hold large corporations to the rules." Banks and the cottage industry of mortgage service companies and foreclosure lawyers also pay rather close attention. A spokeswoman for OneWest Bank acknowledged that an official, confronted with a ream of foreclosure papers, had mistakenly signed for two different banks - just as the Deutsche Bank official did.


Deutsche Bank, which declined to let an attorney speak on the record about any of its cases before Justice Schack, e-mailed a PDF of a three-page pamphlet in which it claimed little responsibility for foreclosures, even though the bank's name is affixed to tens of thousands of such motions. The bank described itself as simply a trustee for investors. Justice Schack came to his recent prominence by a circuitous path, having worked for 14 years as public school teacher in Brooklyn. He was a union representative and once walked a picket line with his wife, Dilia, who was a teacher, too. All was well until the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. "Why'd I go to law school?" he said. "Thank Mayor Abe Beame, who froze teacher salaries." He was counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association in the 1980s and '90s, when it was on a long winning streak against team owners. "It was the millionaires versus the billionaires," he says. "After a while, I'm sitting there thinking, 'He's making $4 million, he's making $5 million, and I'm worth about $1.98.' " So he dived into a judicial race. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1998 and to the Supreme Court for Brooklyn and Staten Island in 2003. His wife is a Democratic district leader; their daughter, Elaine, is a lawyer and their son, Douglas, a police officer. Justice Schack's duels with the banks started in 2007 as foreclosures spiked sharply. He saw a plague falling on Brooklyn, particularly its working-class black precincts. "Banks had given out loans structured to fail," he said. The judge burrowed into property record databases. He found banks without clear title, and a giant foreclosure law firm, Steven J. Baum, representing two sides in a dispute. He noted that Wells Fargo's chief executive, John G. Stumpf, made more than $11 million in 2007 while the company's total returns fell 12 percent. "Maybe," he advised the bank, "counsel should wonder, like the court, if Mr. Stumpf was unjustly enriched at the expense of W.F.'s stockholders." He was, how to say it, mildly appalled. "I'm a guy from the streets of Brooklyn who happens to become a judge," he said. "I see a bank giving a $500,000 mortgage on a building worth $300,000 and the interest rate is 20 percent and I ask questions, what can I tell you?"

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Oversight Breakdown

The Madoff Files: A Chronicle of SEC Failure
Over and Over, Agency Skipped 'Basic' Steps to Find Fraud, Report Says
The Washington Post by Zachary A. Goldfarb - September 3, 2009

Washington's top cop for Wall Street, hamstrung by bureaucracy and inexperienced investigators, failed to thoroughly pursue multiple warnings about Bernard L. Madoff's multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, according to a scathing new critique of the Securities and Exchange Commission by its internal watchdog. The report, issued Wednesday by the commission's inspector general, offers the first detailed examination of one of the agency's most public embarrassments. It says the SEC received repeated allegations that Madoff was probably cheating investors, including detailed road maps provided by outside businessmen, only to fail to discover the fraud. The SEC opened inquiries five times in a 16-year period. But in each instance, inexperienced officials, at times ignorant of other agency probes into Madoff, took his explanations at face value and did little to verify them. Madoff himself told the inspector general that he was "astonished" that the SEC did not verify whether he was carrying out the billions of dollars of trades he claimed to be making after he supplied the agency with account details. "The SEC never properly examined or investigated Madoff's trading and never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme," the inspector general, H. David Kotz, concludes in the report. The extensive number of contacts between the SEC and Madoff raises questions about whether the agency is capable of spotting and stopping other financial frauds. The SEC has said it doesn't have the resources necessary to oversee the exploding number of financial firms and can review many of them only once every few years. It became aware of Madoff's fraud only when he confessed to it in December.

The financial crisis has exposed many breakdowns in regulation, but none has involved such a large fraud by a single person. The inspector general's report "makes clear that the agency missed numerous opportunities to discover the fraud," SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro said. "It is a failure that we continue to regret, and one that has led us to reform in many ways how we regulate markets and protect investors." Federal prosecutors say Madoff may have stolen up to $65 billion from his clients. He claimed that he engaged in a highly specialized trading strategy that persistently beat the market, but in fact, he did little trading and instead used proceeds from some investors to pay others. His fraud left thousands of clients, including charities, retirees and celebrities, devastated. Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence in a federal prison in North Carolina. The inspector general's report concludes that the agency's failings were the result of misjudgments but not improprieties. It says that no SEC officials who worked on the review of Madoff's firm had "any financial or other inappropriate connection with Bernard Madoff or the Madoff family that influenced the conduct of their examination or investigative work." The report, in particular, exonerates Eric Swanson, a former SEC official who worked on a Madoff probe and later married Madoff's niece Shana, who was a compliance officer at his firm. The report issued Wednesday is a 22-page executive summary of a 450-page investigation likely to be released later this week. It contains a number of startling anecdotes recounting how the SEC bungled its Madoff probes since the first review in 1992. The inspector general found that SEC officials received detailed warnings but were generally not equipped to capitalize on them.

In May 2003, for instance, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations in Washington received a letter from a well-known hedge-fund manager identifying red flags at Madoff's firm. An SEC supervisor involved in the review called these "indicia of a Ponzi scheme." But it took seven months to launch the probe. One OCIE staffer said that "there was no training" and that "this was a trial by fire kind of job." Agency officials ignored several of the questions in the hedge-fund manager's letter that went to the heart of the fraud and focused on others, because, according to the associate director in charge of the review, "that was the area of expertise for my crew." The team prepared to ask Madoff for detailed information about trades but decided against it. Officials said such information "can be tremendously voluminous and difficult to deal with" and can take "a ton of time" to review.

The Washington office stopped its probe as it shifted resources while public pressure mounted to review the mutual fund industry. At the same time, however, the SEC's New York office, unaware of the Washington probe, began its own review. It uncovered detailed concerns about Madoff's firm in the internal documents of another financial services company that had come under review. SEC officials arrived at Madoff's firm in Midtown Manhattan and learned that he would be their primary contact. He provided them with contradictory information. But when they sought to confront him about it, he said he had already given the information they wanted to investigators in Washington -- which was news to the SEC officials in New York. Shortly thereafter, they concluded their investigation without answering the questions that had spurred the review. In 2005, fraud analyst and onetime Madoff rival Harry Markopolos wrote a detailed letter to the SEC's Boston office warning, "The world's largest hedge fund is a fraud." The Boston office had worked with Markopolos before and found him credible. Boston sent the letter to the SEC's New York office, where officials viewed Markopolos skeptically and did not understand his reasoning, which was based largely on statistics. The team assigned to look into Madoff had little experience reviewing potential Ponzi schemes.

In May 2006, SEC investigators interviewed Madoff, who didn't bring along a lawyer. When asked how he consistently beat the market, he told the investigators, "Some people feel the market," the report recounts. Madoff told the inspector general that he expected to be exposed when he told the investigators that his trading was processed through the Depository Trust Co., an important financial intermediary. He gave the SEC his DTC account number, which they could have used to verify the trades he claimed to have made. "I thought it was the end, game over. Monday morning they'll call DTC, and this will be over," Madoff told the watchdog earlier this year. "And it never happened." The report calls the agency's decision to never verify Madoff's trading "the most egregious failure in the Enforcement investigation." That investigation was closed in August 2006. It took a single phone call to DTC after the Ponzi scheme was exposed in December 2008 to find out that he had not placed any trades with his investors' funds. Concerns about Madoff's firm continued to arrive. In March 2008, the office of then-SEC Chairman Christopher Cox received an e-mail from a source who had contacted the agency several times, urging investigators to look into secret files Madoff maintained on a computer he carried. Cox's aides sent the e-mail to the enforcement division. An enforcement staffer who had worked on the Madoff case replied: "[W]e will not be pursuing the allegations."

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2
Add to Technorati Favorites