Judge in the Doghouse for Bringing Her Pups to Courthouse
The Associated Press - November 10, 2009
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A South Carolina courthouse has gone to the dogs — the judge's dogs to be exact. The Post and Courier of Charleston reported Tuesday that some members of Dorchester County Council want Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein (to stop bringing her two spaniels and Airedale to work. The council has asked the county attorney to write a letter asking that only service animals be allowed in the building. Goodstein says her dogs are housebroken, trained and haven't soiled the courthouse. She thinks rumors about the dogs' accidents started after she got down on her hands and knees one day to clean mud tracks left by a construction worker.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Former NYC SEC Attorney Pleads Guilty in Dreier Scam
Attorney Pleads Guilty to Aiding in Marc Dreier's Fraud
The New York Law Journal by Mark Hamblett - November 10, 2009
A lawyer pleaded guilty this morning to impersonating representatives of both a hedge fund and a pension fund in order to assist attorney Marc Dreier in selling a phony promissory note. Robert L. Miller, a former enforcement lawyer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), said he helped Mr. Dreier, currently in prison for 20 years, pitch a $44.7 million note to two investment funds. "In summary, I agreed with Marc Dreier that I would make misrepresentations to two hedge funds to induce them to buy notes," Mr. Miller told Southern District Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis. "I knew that what I was doing was wrong and I deeply regret what I did." Mr. Miller, 52, said he was paid $100,000 for two phone sessions in which he impersonated a representative of a Canadian pension fund and then a representative of a hedge fund, and claimed he was heavily coached by Mr. Dreier on what to say.
Mr. Miller pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud pursuant to a plea agreement and is cooperating with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan R. Streeter in the hopes of getting a break when he is sentenced by Judge Kimba Wood. Mr. Miller declined to speak after leaving the magistrate judge's court with his attorney, Jacob Laufer. "He's made a mistake," Mr. Laufer said. "He's confronting the consequences of it. He's a decent man." Mr. Miller, a resident of Englewood, N.J., was with the SEC between 1983 and 1986. According to the cooperation agreement, he and Mr. Dreier managed an investment fund together from 1999 to 2008. Mr. Dreier, the sole equity partner in Dreier LLP, pleaded guilty to selling more than $700 million in bogus real estate and pension plan notes to investors. Mr. Miller became the third person to plead in the Dreier case.
Like Mr. Miller, Dreier ally Kosta Kovachev did some impersonation as part of Mr. Dreier's scheme to defraud hedge funds of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Kovachev pleaded guilty Nov. 2 to conspiracy to commit securities fraud for pretending to be chief executive officer of Solow Realty & Development Co.—once Mr. Dreier's biggest client, and the company whose identity he hijacked to sell fictitious notes to gullible hedge funds. Mr. Kovachev also posed as an accountant for the company on another occasion. Mr. Dreier on May 11 pleaded to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, one count of money laundering, one count of securities fraud and five counts of wire fraud. Mr. Laufer said Mr. Miller is currently unemployed. His name does not appear on the roster of the now-defunct firm Dreier LLP, which declared bankruptcy on Dec. 16, 2008, just weeks after Mr. Dreier surrendered to authorities. Mr. Laufer declined to comment on what, if any role, Mr. Miller may have played at the firm. Mr. Miller is scheduled to appear before Judge Wood on Feb. 5. No date has been set for sentencing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Anna Arreola is also handling the prosecution. Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.
The New York Law Journal by Mark Hamblett - November 10, 2009
A lawyer pleaded guilty this morning to impersonating representatives of both a hedge fund and a pension fund in order to assist attorney Marc Dreier in selling a phony promissory note. Robert L. Miller, a former enforcement lawyer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), said he helped Mr. Dreier, currently in prison for 20 years, pitch a $44.7 million note to two investment funds. "In summary, I agreed with Marc Dreier that I would make misrepresentations to two hedge funds to induce them to buy notes," Mr. Miller told Southern District Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis. "I knew that what I was doing was wrong and I deeply regret what I did." Mr. Miller, 52, said he was paid $100,000 for two phone sessions in which he impersonated a representative of a Canadian pension fund and then a representative of a hedge fund, and claimed he was heavily coached by Mr. Dreier on what to say.
Mr. Miller pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud pursuant to a plea agreement and is cooperating with Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan R. Streeter in the hopes of getting a break when he is sentenced by Judge Kimba Wood. Mr. Miller declined to speak after leaving the magistrate judge's court with his attorney, Jacob Laufer. "He's made a mistake," Mr. Laufer said. "He's confronting the consequences of it. He's a decent man." Mr. Miller, a resident of Englewood, N.J., was with the SEC between 1983 and 1986. According to the cooperation agreement, he and Mr. Dreier managed an investment fund together from 1999 to 2008. Mr. Dreier, the sole equity partner in Dreier LLP, pleaded guilty to selling more than $700 million in bogus real estate and pension plan notes to investors. Mr. Miller became the third person to plead in the Dreier case.
Like Mr. Miller, Dreier ally Kosta Kovachev did some impersonation as part of Mr. Dreier's scheme to defraud hedge funds of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Kovachev pleaded guilty Nov. 2 to conspiracy to commit securities fraud for pretending to be chief executive officer of Solow Realty & Development Co.—once Mr. Dreier's biggest client, and the company whose identity he hijacked to sell fictitious notes to gullible hedge funds. Mr. Kovachev also posed as an accountant for the company on another occasion. Mr. Dreier on May 11 pleaded to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, one count of money laundering, one count of securities fraud and five counts of wire fraud. Mr. Laufer said Mr. Miller is currently unemployed. His name does not appear on the roster of the now-defunct firm Dreier LLP, which declared bankruptcy on Dec. 16, 2008, just weeks after Mr. Dreier surrendered to authorities. Mr. Laufer declined to comment on what, if any role, Mr. Miller may have played at the firm. Mr. Miller is scheduled to appear before Judge Wood on Feb. 5. No date has been set for sentencing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Anna Arreola is also handling the prosecution. Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.
Judge Denies Buying Sex, Only Visited Sex Shop For Tasty Chicken Soup
Trial: On witness stand, judge says he never paid for sex, threatened anyone
The News Tribune by Adam Lynn - November 4, 2009
Tacoma, Washington- Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht spent the better part of five days listening as witnesses in his trial on charges of felony harassment and patronizing a prostitute talked about him, his character and his actions. On Monday, Hecht spoke for himself. Taking the witness stand in his own defense, Hecht emphatically denied ever buying sex from or threatening to kill anyone. The Pierce County judge testified that he’d never even seen two of the men who said they exchanged sex for cash – John Marx and Edward Smith – until they showed up in court to say that they had. Both gave similar accounts about what had happened between them and Hecht: Picked up downtown, taken to his law office for sex acts, paid and dropped back off. “Until he walked in here to testify, I had never seen John Marx, ever,” Hecht said in response to a question from his attorney, Wayne Fricke. He gave a similar response when Fricke asked him about Smith.
The judge admitted he confronted a young heroin addict in a downtown Tacoma alley in late August 2008 and asked the man, “Are you talking shit about me?” But he denied threatening to kill Joseph John Hesketh IV as Hesketh testified earlier in the trial. The clash with Hesketh is the basis for the harassment charge. “Never, ever,” Hecht said when Fricke asked whether he’d threatened Hesketh in any way that day. And he described his relationship with another male prostitute as platonic, not sexual as portrayed by assistant attorney general John Hillman, who is prosecuting the case. Hecht described himself as the “helpful grandpa type” in his dealings with Joseph Pfeiffer, giving the young homeless man socks, money for food and advice about how to better his lot in life. The judge testified that he never picked up Pfeiffer after dark, drove him to a North End law office and engaged in sex on the floor.
Hecht’s relationship with Pfeiffer is the basis of the patronizing a prostitute charge. “Isn’t it true that Joe Pfeiffer would often call you after business hours for you to come pick him up downtown?” Hillman asked during a contentious cross-examination. “No,” the judge replied. All told, Hecht testified for about two hours and 40 minutes. Observers jammed the courtroom – including an investigator from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct – and the temperature quickly rose to uncomfortable levels. The 14 jurors watched his every move, sometimes taking notes when he answered a question. His wife and three grown children sat in the front row and listened intently as Hillman asked questions meant to paint the judge as a liar or lecherous. At one point, Hillman asked Hecht about more than 200 phone calls during a six-month period between the judge and a man who police believe charges a fee to set up clients with younger men known to pose for nude photos. The judge responded that he talked to Patrick Graham for a variety of reasons, none of them related to sex. “He’s sort of a needy guy,” Hecht said of Graham, whom he met downtown some years ago. “If he burped, he’d call me and tell me he burped.”
Hecht occasionally mopped his brow with a tissue as the questioning went on and on. He explained away the perspiration as a symptom of his diabetes. Through it all, he stuck to his story. He never bought sex from the four men who testified previously that they sold it to him, and he never threatened to kill Hesketh to stop him from talking about their previous sexual relationship. That relationship never occurred, the judge added. Hecht said he never told his friends to tell Pfeiffer to leave town so the prostitution charge would go away, even though Hillman presented cell phone records that appeared to show a pattern that could suggest so. The judge admitted he knew some of his friends had been talking to Pfeiffer, who disappeared from Tacoma as the original trial date approached and finally was arrested on a material-witness warrant, but never told King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce about it. His frequent reply to questions from Hillman was, “No, I did not” and at one point he asked the assistant attorney general “How many times are you going to ask that?” when Hillman returned to the question about whether Hecht had ever paid for sex. The judge also found himself answering many questions about his association with the Antique Row area of downtown and his relationship with the homeless men who hang out there. Hecht testified that he has dabbled in antiques his entire adult life and worked as an upholsterer before becoming an attorney in 1988. He has many friends and business associates along Antique Row, he testified.
The judge said he visited the former Mecca adult theater and bookstore hundreds of times over the years to buy the chicken soup from a vending machine there – “it’s very good chicken soup,” he testified – and once in a while consulted with the Mecca owner about police raids on the theater and whether they were legal. Hecht also said he frequently hands out cash, clothes, food and his cell phone number to homeless people. He even hired some of them to work on his campaign for judge, he said. Hecht said he lives by a philosophy. “It’s real, real simple. I cannot change your life, but I can change your moment,” he testified. “And if I can change your moment, I feel that I have that obligation to do it. When I do that, I feel good.” Hillman would try to turn those words against him later. “You testified that people like … Joseph Pfeiffer, you helped them out because it makes you feel good, correct?” the assistant attorney general said. “Correct,” Hecht said. “Did you ever require anything from them that would make you feel good?” Hillman continued. “No,” Hecht said. About 3:45 p.m., the questions ended, and Hecht walked slowly back to the defense table. He gave his wife and kids a wan smile and sat down. His part in the trial was over. Fricke and Hillman will make their closing arguments today. Then the jurors will get their say. Even then, Hecht’s troubles won’t be over, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The Commission on Judicial Conduct also has brought the judge up on charges of violating the code of judicial conduct. A hearing on those charges, originally set for November, now is scheduled for February 2010. Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644 - adam.lynn@thenewstribune.com
Tacoma, Washington- Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht spent the better part of five days listening as witnesses in his trial on charges of felony harassment and patronizing a prostitute talked about him, his character and his actions. On Monday, Hecht spoke for himself. Taking the witness stand in his own defense, Hecht emphatically denied ever buying sex from or threatening to kill anyone. The Pierce County judge testified that he’d never even seen two of the men who said they exchanged sex for cash – John Marx and Edward Smith – until they showed up in court to say that they had. Both gave similar accounts about what had happened between them and Hecht: Picked up downtown, taken to his law office for sex acts, paid and dropped back off. “Until he walked in here to testify, I had never seen John Marx, ever,” Hecht said in response to a question from his attorney, Wayne Fricke. He gave a similar response when Fricke asked him about Smith.
The judge admitted he confronted a young heroin addict in a downtown Tacoma alley in late August 2008 and asked the man, “Are you talking shit about me?” But he denied threatening to kill Joseph John Hesketh IV as Hesketh testified earlier in the trial. The clash with Hesketh is the basis for the harassment charge. “Never, ever,” Hecht said when Fricke asked whether he’d threatened Hesketh in any way that day. And he described his relationship with another male prostitute as platonic, not sexual as portrayed by assistant attorney general John Hillman, who is prosecuting the case. Hecht described himself as the “helpful grandpa type” in his dealings with Joseph Pfeiffer, giving the young homeless man socks, money for food and advice about how to better his lot in life. The judge testified that he never picked up Pfeiffer after dark, drove him to a North End law office and engaged in sex on the floor.
Hecht’s relationship with Pfeiffer is the basis of the patronizing a prostitute charge. “Isn’t it true that Joe Pfeiffer would often call you after business hours for you to come pick him up downtown?” Hillman asked during a contentious cross-examination. “No,” the judge replied. All told, Hecht testified for about two hours and 40 minutes. Observers jammed the courtroom – including an investigator from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct – and the temperature quickly rose to uncomfortable levels. The 14 jurors watched his every move, sometimes taking notes when he answered a question. His wife and three grown children sat in the front row and listened intently as Hillman asked questions meant to paint the judge as a liar or lecherous. At one point, Hillman asked Hecht about more than 200 phone calls during a six-month period between the judge and a man who police believe charges a fee to set up clients with younger men known to pose for nude photos. The judge responded that he talked to Patrick Graham for a variety of reasons, none of them related to sex. “He’s sort of a needy guy,” Hecht said of Graham, whom he met downtown some years ago. “If he burped, he’d call me and tell me he burped.”
Hecht occasionally mopped his brow with a tissue as the questioning went on and on. He explained away the perspiration as a symptom of his diabetes. Through it all, he stuck to his story. He never bought sex from the four men who testified previously that they sold it to him, and he never threatened to kill Hesketh to stop him from talking about their previous sexual relationship. That relationship never occurred, the judge added. Hecht said he never told his friends to tell Pfeiffer to leave town so the prostitution charge would go away, even though Hillman presented cell phone records that appeared to show a pattern that could suggest so. The judge admitted he knew some of his friends had been talking to Pfeiffer, who disappeared from Tacoma as the original trial date approached and finally was arrested on a material-witness warrant, but never told King County Superior Court Judge James Cayce about it. His frequent reply to questions from Hillman was, “No, I did not” and at one point he asked the assistant attorney general “How many times are you going to ask that?” when Hillman returned to the question about whether Hecht had ever paid for sex. The judge also found himself answering many questions about his association with the Antique Row area of downtown and his relationship with the homeless men who hang out there. Hecht testified that he has dabbled in antiques his entire adult life and worked as an upholsterer before becoming an attorney in 1988. He has many friends and business associates along Antique Row, he testified.
The judge said he visited the former Mecca adult theater and bookstore hundreds of times over the years to buy the chicken soup from a vending machine there – “it’s very good chicken soup,” he testified – and once in a while consulted with the Mecca owner about police raids on the theater and whether they were legal. Hecht also said he frequently hands out cash, clothes, food and his cell phone number to homeless people. He even hired some of them to work on his campaign for judge, he said. Hecht said he lives by a philosophy. “It’s real, real simple. I cannot change your life, but I can change your moment,” he testified. “And if I can change your moment, I feel that I have that obligation to do it. When I do that, I feel good.” Hillman would try to turn those words against him later. “You testified that people like … Joseph Pfeiffer, you helped them out because it makes you feel good, correct?” the assistant attorney general said. “Correct,” Hecht said. “Did you ever require anything from them that would make you feel good?” Hillman continued. “No,” Hecht said. About 3:45 p.m., the questions ended, and Hecht walked slowly back to the defense table. He gave his wife and kids a wan smile and sat down. His part in the trial was over. Fricke and Hillman will make their closing arguments today. Then the jurors will get their say. Even then, Hecht’s troubles won’t be over, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The Commission on Judicial Conduct also has brought the judge up on charges of violating the code of judicial conduct. A hearing on those charges, originally set for November, now is scheduled for February 2010. Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644 - adam.lynn@thenewstribune.com
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Disbarred Lawyer to Assist Incoming Manhattan DA
Disbarred Tawana Brawley lawyer C. Vernon Mason aids Manhattan District Attorney-elect Cy Vance
The New York Daily News by Melissa Grace - EXCLUSIVE - November 7, 2009
Disbarred lawyer C. Vernon Mason - a civil rights leader at the heart of the Tawana Brawley case - is on the transition team for Manhattan District Attorney-elect Cy Vance. Mason, who lost his law license for mistreating poor clients, is among 35 advisers who will help shape policy and prosecutions. "C. Vernon Mason is a well-respected clergy member who cares deeply about his community and the criminal justice issues faced by youth and adults," said Michael Cherasky, head of Vance's prep team. Vance declined to comment. Mason, a deacon at Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church and a faculty member at the New York Theological Seminary, did not return calls for comment. A longtime civil rights advocate, Mason is best known for his ties to the polarizing Brawley case. He and the Rev. Al Sharpton advised the black teenager, who claimed she was kidnapped and raped by six white cops upstate in 1987. A grand jury later concluded Brawley fabricated the story. In 1998, Mason, Sharpton and activist Alton Maddox lost a defamation suit brought by prosecutor Stephen Pagones, whom they falsely accused in the Brawley case. Mason was ordered to pay $185,000 in damages, a debt that has not been paid, said Pagones, 48, who runs a private investigation firm. Asked about Mason's appointment to the transition team, Pagones said, "That would pose concern to anybody with common sense." Mason, who cultivated a reputation as a fierce advocate for the oppressed, was disbarred by a state appeals court in 1995 after being found guilty of 66 misconduct charges, included fee gouging, theft and the neglect of his clients. In 1985, Mason tried to unseat Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in a primary bid. Morgenthau, who endorsed Vance as his successor, said Mason's disbarment and involvement with Brawley are a nonissue. "That's all ancient history," he said. "He's well-respected." mgrace@nydailynews.com
The New York Daily News by Melissa Grace - EXCLUSIVE - November 7, 2009
Disbarred lawyer C. Vernon Mason - a civil rights leader at the heart of the Tawana Brawley case - is on the transition team for Manhattan District Attorney-elect Cy Vance. Mason, who lost his law license for mistreating poor clients, is among 35 advisers who will help shape policy and prosecutions. "C. Vernon Mason is a well-respected clergy member who cares deeply about his community and the criminal justice issues faced by youth and adults," said Michael Cherasky, head of Vance's prep team. Vance declined to comment. Mason, a deacon at Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church and a faculty member at the New York Theological Seminary, did not return calls for comment. A longtime civil rights advocate, Mason is best known for his ties to the polarizing Brawley case. He and the Rev. Al Sharpton advised the black teenager, who claimed she was kidnapped and raped by six white cops upstate in 1987. A grand jury later concluded Brawley fabricated the story. In 1998, Mason, Sharpton and activist Alton Maddox lost a defamation suit brought by prosecutor Stephen Pagones, whom they falsely accused in the Brawley case. Mason was ordered to pay $185,000 in damages, a debt that has not been paid, said Pagones, 48, who runs a private investigation firm. Asked about Mason's appointment to the transition team, Pagones said, "That would pose concern to anybody with common sense." Mason, who cultivated a reputation as a fierce advocate for the oppressed, was disbarred by a state appeals court in 1995 after being found guilty of 66 misconduct charges, included fee gouging, theft and the neglect of his clients. In 1985, Mason tried to unseat Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in a primary bid. Morgenthau, who endorsed Vance as his successor, said Mason's disbarment and involvement with Brawley are a nonissue. "That's all ancient history," he said. "He's well-respected." mgrace@nydailynews.com
Saturday, November 7, 2009
A New York Dose of Defrauding the Public of Honest Services
A Dose of Albany Fraud from Tony Seminerio
The Village Voice by Tom Robbins - November 3, 2009
Anthony Seminerio, former Queens assemblyman, limped through the federal courthouse on Pearl Street last week, a sagging wreck of a man. It was morning, but his collar was already wilted against an extra-wide neck. Up on the 21st floor, he sat at the defense table, slumped forward and eyes closed. He has already pleaded guilty to a fraud charge: neglecting to let his constituents know that one way to obtain his help was to pay him something extra on the side. This is known as defrauding the public of honest services. It is the same offense pending against former Republican State Senate majority leader Joe Bruno, whose own federal trial is now under way in Albany. With a little digging, prosecutors could probably win indictments on this count against a third of the legislature's members. Those who do regular business in the state capital say that this means the law is too broad and unfair. Actually, it means that the laws have simply gone unenforced for years. In Seminerio's case, the only question left for Judge Naomi Buchwald to decide is his punishment. For two and a half days, the defendant sat in courtroom 21A as lawyers argued about the severity of his crime. The assemblyman's able attorney, Pery Krinsky, insisted that, except for a single instance of poor judgment, his client had properly steered clear of state officials when representing his paying clients. The proper penalty, he said, is no more than six months of detention, preferably served at home. Assistant U.S. attorney William Harrington countered that Seminerio engaged in a decade-long crime spree and thus owes the government between 11 and 14 years in prison. Seminerio's only contribution was to give his brow an occasional deep-tissue muscle rub. The more they talked, the farther he slumped. According to letters submitted by his doctor, his ailments include coronary artery disease, hypertension, and morbid obesity. Such disorders grow more extreme in direct proportion to the amount of prison time a defendant faces. But to look at Tony Seminerio is to finally understand what Jimmy Breslin, also from Queens, means when he calls someone a busted valise. Seminerio, 74 years old, must be as busted as any valise ever made.
It is a dramatic switch from the boisterous politician heard on FBI wiretaps played in court as he sat rubbing his brow. "I talk to Bruno like I talk to you," he bragged to one of his clients, the head of a local hospital, about his ties to the Senate boss: "Like I say, 'Come on, Joe. What, are you breaking my balls? You know I need this.' And he laughs . . . So that, that kind of relationship you can't buy for a million dollars." Another audiotape had him complaining to a top state official about another hospital executive who had rebuffed Seminerio's demands for a monthly retainer: "On my mother's grave," he barked. "You know me, you know, I'm a street guy. This guy never went for three cents out of his own pocket." He was heard ranting at Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver about pending health cuts and the milder budget trims aimed at schools: "I mean, Shelly, for Christ's sake. You, you know something? Honest to God, if I'm wrong, say, 'Tony, you're wrong.' You know it. I don't give a fuck how educated you are, if you're not in good health, what good is it gonna do you? . . . People's education, my ass. You, you, you walking the street a cripple and you're not being treated, go tell me about your education." A day later, his concerns had narrowed to his own domain and he was heard boasting to a lobbyist how he had told off the Speaker: "And I told him, 'Shelly, I don't give a fuck ya close every hospital in the city. You leave my hospitals alone.'" After they're used in his criminal case, the FBI tapes of Seminerio's phone calls and the ramblings picked up on a bug placed in his district office should be presented as an exhibit in the Queens Museum. They capture, just as effectively as any archivist wandering rural America in search of authentic folk music, exactly how politics is still played and sounds in certain corners of New York.
This is how Tony Seminerio talked for 30 years, full of bluster and blarney as he strutted the halls of Albany. If many people knew he was often full of hot air, it never dimmed his political fortunes. "I always ask for the whole loaf," he explained in the late '80s. "That way, whatever piece of bread I get is a score." His first lessons came as a corrections officer at Rikers Island for 15 years, where he was active in his union and where he saw how politicians were courted. Elected to the assembly in 1978, he was nominally a Democrat but regularly won the Republican, Conservative, and Independence party nominations as well. He habitually crossed party lines to endorse Republicans like Al D'Amato for the U.S. Senate, and Rudy Giuliani for City Hall. He was so secure in his job that one day, in 1992, he stood and heckled the governor, right in the middle of a State of the State speech—the legislature's single most formal occasion. The moment came just as Mario Cuomo had warned that a stalled state budget could stall legislative paychecks as well. "Don't tell me I won't get paid for my work!" boomed Seminerio from the floor. "We're here everyday, 14 or 15 hours a day." "Tony, you vote against it," responded Cuomo, another Queens neighbor and wise to the assemblyman's frequent naps at his Assembly desk. "At least this way we'll get a vote out of you." But all of that bluster started seeping out of Tony Seminerio like air from a punctured tire on the day last year that the FBI knocked on his door to ask about the side business he ran as a consultant. How was it, they wanted to know, that an elected official received hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees from local institutions—a college, a couple hospitals, and a medical benefits firm among them—that depended on his support in Albany? What exactly was the difference, they asked, between his legislative duties and the tasks he performed for his paying clients? Agents Brian Fitzpatrick and Christopher Kelly duly recorded his answer: "I don't charge my constituents," the assemblyman said as if he were cutting them a price break. He thought of himself as "The Godfather," he told the agents. People come to him, he said, and he tries to help. As for the routine passing of legislation, he confessed it was over his head. "Eighty percent of the bills I vote for, I don't know what the hell it is," the agents quoted him as saying. This exchange proves that Seminerio deserves the maximum sentence for dumb comments to federal officials. But there was also truth to his lawyer's claim that he often extended himself to those in need. One such was Brian McLaughlin, the ex–labor leader, a good friend who served with Seminerio in the Assembly. McLaughlin's own indictment for massive thefts was almost a year old when he met Seminerio at the Atlantic Diner in Richmond Hill in September 2007. Seminerio thought he was there to help an old pal and he casually explained how he ran his consulting business. McLaughlin, wearing a wire for the feds, was there to help himself. Outside court last week, Seminerio was asked what he'd been thinking. "What can I tell you?" he said. "I'm a sucker for a loser." trobbins@villagevoice.com
The Village Voice by Tom Robbins - November 3, 2009
Anthony Seminerio, former Queens assemblyman, limped through the federal courthouse on Pearl Street last week, a sagging wreck of a man. It was morning, but his collar was already wilted against an extra-wide neck. Up on the 21st floor, he sat at the defense table, slumped forward and eyes closed. He has already pleaded guilty to a fraud charge: neglecting to let his constituents know that one way to obtain his help was to pay him something extra on the side. This is known as defrauding the public of honest services. It is the same offense pending against former Republican State Senate majority leader Joe Bruno, whose own federal trial is now under way in Albany. With a little digging, prosecutors could probably win indictments on this count against a third of the legislature's members. Those who do regular business in the state capital say that this means the law is too broad and unfair. Actually, it means that the laws have simply gone unenforced for years. In Seminerio's case, the only question left for Judge Naomi Buchwald to decide is his punishment. For two and a half days, the defendant sat in courtroom 21A as lawyers argued about the severity of his crime. The assemblyman's able attorney, Pery Krinsky, insisted that, except for a single instance of poor judgment, his client had properly steered clear of state officials when representing his paying clients. The proper penalty, he said, is no more than six months of detention, preferably served at home. Assistant U.S. attorney William Harrington countered that Seminerio engaged in a decade-long crime spree and thus owes the government between 11 and 14 years in prison. Seminerio's only contribution was to give his brow an occasional deep-tissue muscle rub. The more they talked, the farther he slumped. According to letters submitted by his doctor, his ailments include coronary artery disease, hypertension, and morbid obesity. Such disorders grow more extreme in direct proportion to the amount of prison time a defendant faces. But to look at Tony Seminerio is to finally understand what Jimmy Breslin, also from Queens, means when he calls someone a busted valise. Seminerio, 74 years old, must be as busted as any valise ever made.
It is a dramatic switch from the boisterous politician heard on FBI wiretaps played in court as he sat rubbing his brow. "I talk to Bruno like I talk to you," he bragged to one of his clients, the head of a local hospital, about his ties to the Senate boss: "Like I say, 'Come on, Joe. What, are you breaking my balls? You know I need this.' And he laughs . . . So that, that kind of relationship you can't buy for a million dollars." Another audiotape had him complaining to a top state official about another hospital executive who had rebuffed Seminerio's demands for a monthly retainer: "On my mother's grave," he barked. "You know me, you know, I'm a street guy. This guy never went for three cents out of his own pocket." He was heard ranting at Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver about pending health cuts and the milder budget trims aimed at schools: "I mean, Shelly, for Christ's sake. You, you know something? Honest to God, if I'm wrong, say, 'Tony, you're wrong.' You know it. I don't give a fuck how educated you are, if you're not in good health, what good is it gonna do you? . . . People's education, my ass. You, you, you walking the street a cripple and you're not being treated, go tell me about your education." A day later, his concerns had narrowed to his own domain and he was heard boasting to a lobbyist how he had told off the Speaker: "And I told him, 'Shelly, I don't give a fuck ya close every hospital in the city. You leave my hospitals alone.'" After they're used in his criminal case, the FBI tapes of Seminerio's phone calls and the ramblings picked up on a bug placed in his district office should be presented as an exhibit in the Queens Museum. They capture, just as effectively as any archivist wandering rural America in search of authentic folk music, exactly how politics is still played and sounds in certain corners of New York.
This is how Tony Seminerio talked for 30 years, full of bluster and blarney as he strutted the halls of Albany. If many people knew he was often full of hot air, it never dimmed his political fortunes. "I always ask for the whole loaf," he explained in the late '80s. "That way, whatever piece of bread I get is a score." His first lessons came as a corrections officer at Rikers Island for 15 years, where he was active in his union and where he saw how politicians were courted. Elected to the assembly in 1978, he was nominally a Democrat but regularly won the Republican, Conservative, and Independence party nominations as well. He habitually crossed party lines to endorse Republicans like Al D'Amato for the U.S. Senate, and Rudy Giuliani for City Hall. He was so secure in his job that one day, in 1992, he stood and heckled the governor, right in the middle of a State of the State speech—the legislature's single most formal occasion. The moment came just as Mario Cuomo had warned that a stalled state budget could stall legislative paychecks as well. "Don't tell me I won't get paid for my work!" boomed Seminerio from the floor. "We're here everyday, 14 or 15 hours a day." "Tony, you vote against it," responded Cuomo, another Queens neighbor and wise to the assemblyman's frequent naps at his Assembly desk. "At least this way we'll get a vote out of you." But all of that bluster started seeping out of Tony Seminerio like air from a punctured tire on the day last year that the FBI knocked on his door to ask about the side business he ran as a consultant. How was it, they wanted to know, that an elected official received hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees from local institutions—a college, a couple hospitals, and a medical benefits firm among them—that depended on his support in Albany? What exactly was the difference, they asked, between his legislative duties and the tasks he performed for his paying clients? Agents Brian Fitzpatrick and Christopher Kelly duly recorded his answer: "I don't charge my constituents," the assemblyman said as if he were cutting them a price break. He thought of himself as "The Godfather," he told the agents. People come to him, he said, and he tries to help. As for the routine passing of legislation, he confessed it was over his head. "Eighty percent of the bills I vote for, I don't know what the hell it is," the agents quoted him as saying. This exchange proves that Seminerio deserves the maximum sentence for dumb comments to federal officials. But there was also truth to his lawyer's claim that he often extended himself to those in need. One such was Brian McLaughlin, the ex–labor leader, a good friend who served with Seminerio in the Assembly. McLaughlin's own indictment for massive thefts was almost a year old when he met Seminerio at the Atlantic Diner in Richmond Hill in September 2007. Seminerio thought he was there to help an old pal and he casually explained how he ran his consulting business. McLaughlin, wearing a wire for the feds, was there to help himself. Outside court last week, Seminerio was asked what he'd been thinking. "What can I tell you?" he said. "I'm a sucker for a loser." trobbins@villagevoice.com
Friday, November 6, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court Expands Transparency
Supreme Court Database To Be Expanded
A group of law schools will help expand an online U.S. Supreme Court database so that it reaches back to the court's first recorded decision in 1792. The schools received an $874,000 National Science Foundation grant in September to begin the four-year project, which will add 19,675 cases to a database that now extends from 1953 through 2008, said Lee Epstein, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. The group will post 4,400 cases by next summer and add more in installments each year. “There's a lot of interest in the history of the court and lots of people write about the court, and now they're going to have an empirical foundation,” Epstein said. Harold Spaeth, professor emeritus at Michigan State University, created the database during the 1980s for scholarly research. The schools redesigned it last year with updated technology to make it more user-friendly for non-academics. CLICK HERE TO SEE THE DATABASE or CLICK HERE
The Connecticut Law Tribune - November 6, 2009
A group of law schools will help expand an online U.S. Supreme Court database so that it reaches back to the court's first recorded decision in 1792. The schools received an $874,000 National Science Foundation grant in September to begin the four-year project, which will add 19,675 cases to a database that now extends from 1953 through 2008, said Lee Epstein, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. The group will post 4,400 cases by next summer and add more in installments each year. “There's a lot of interest in the history of the court and lots of people write about the court, and now they're going to have an empirical foundation,” Epstein said. Harold Spaeth, professor emeritus at Michigan State University, created the database during the 1980s for scholarly research. The schools redesigned it last year with updated technology to make it more user-friendly for non-academics. CLICK HERE TO SEE THE DATABASE or CLICK HERE
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Kerik Pleads Guilty in Corruption Case
Kerik Pleads Guilty in Corruption Case
The New York Times by SAM DOLNICK - November 5, 2009 (12:45pm)
The New York Times by SAM DOLNICK - November 5, 2009 (12:45pm)
Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press
Bernard B. Kerik, a former New York police commissioner, pleaded guilty to eight felonies in a Federal District Court in White Plains on Thursday morning. Mr. Kerik, who will be sentenced in February, faces 27 to 33 months in prison. Wearing a blue suit and a red tie, Mr. Kerik, with a subdued expression, appeared in the packed courtroom and said, “Guilty, your honor,” as each of the charges were read by Judge Stephen C. Robinson. Throughout the 90-minute proceeding, Mr. Kerik’s lawyer, Michael F. Bachner, rubbed the defendant’s back in support. Mr. Kerik, 54, pleaded guilty to two counts of tax fraud, one count of making a false statement on a loan application — the most serious — and five separate counts of making false statements to the federal government. These last charges stemmed from statements Mr. Kerik made to the White House during the vetting process after the Bush administration nominated him to lead the Department of Homeland Security. He later withdrew his name. The loan application charge could have resulted in a maximum of 30 years in prison. As part of Mr. Kerik’s plea deal, prosecutors requested far less time behind bars for Mr. Kerik, who had also been commissioner of the city’s Correction Department. One charge that had been expected, depriving the public of his honest services as a government official, was not addressed. Judge Robinson asked Mr. Kerik a series questions to be sure he was aware of his rights. Mr. Kerik, who was jailed in October, had been planning to fight the charges in court. Sentencing was set for Feb. 18. Mr. Bachner said he would ask that Mr. Kerik be freed on bail prior to that, and the judge said he would be receptive to such a request. “I think you had a very full life,” Judge Robinson told Mr. Kerik, saying he would take the good with the bad as he mulled sentencing. “There is much good in that full life, I believe.” The case against Mr. Kerik centered on claims that a construction company suspected of having ties to organized crime paid for much of the renovation work at Mr. Kerik’s home in Riverdale, in the Bronx, in the hope that he would help the company obtain a city license. One of the tax charges is directly related to the renovation case.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
U.S. Congress Focuses on Judicial Recusal Duty
Congress Set to Take Aim at Judicial Recusals
House Judiciary Committee's interest marks the first time Congress has flirted with recusal guidelines since a 2004 scrap between congressional Democrats and Justice Scalia
The National Law Journal by David Ingram - November 2, 2009
Congress is preparing to wade into one of the most sensitive of issues for the federal judiciary: when a judge should step aside in a case and who should make that decision.
The House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is planning a hearing on federal recusal guidelines amid controversies that have swept through state court systems in recent years, culminating in a U.S. Supreme Court decision five months ago that tightened the recusal requirements for elected state judges. The Judiciary Committee's interest marks the first time Congress has flirted with recusal guidelines since a high-profile scrap in 2004 between congressional Democrats and Justice Antonin Scalia. In a debate that broke along partisan lines, Democrats said that Scalia should have recused in a case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney because he and Cheney were part of a group that went duck hunting in Louisiana while the case was pending. Nonprofits seeking records from Cheney's energy task force eventually lost, 7-2. Under the current system, federal judges get to decide on their own whether to disqualify themselves from cases. Among the proposals being discussed are requiring a second judge to rule on a recusal motion -- rather than leaving the motion to the "targeted" judge -- and making substitution automatic if any party to a case swears an affidavit alleging prejudice. Some lawmakers, including Conyers, have also said in the past that they want a system to review recusal decisions by U.S. Supreme Court justices. In interviews last week, several federal judges raised concerns about how a new system would work and whether there are any problems now that need addressing. "We're very sensitive to the whole area and have tried to address it," said Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A former chief judge, Wilkinson said he had no opinion yet on possible changes but would watch the issue closely.
WHEN TO STEP ASIDE
Federal law, judicial canons and advisory opinions from the Judicial Conference all guide the recusal process. Court computers, for example, are programmed not to assign a case to a judge who owns stock in one of the parties. In general, judges must also recuse if they've worked on the case in the past as a lawyer or if a close relative is involved. But the decision can become much more complicated, especially after a motion that a judge's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." In 1992, television companies sought the disqualification of Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit in a case involving Federal Communications Commission rules about financial interest and syndication. The companies cited the fact that, while a law professor 15 years earlier, Posner gave expert testimony on behalf of CBS. Parties submitted briefs, and Posner issued an usual 2,800-word defense of his decision to remain on the case. A petition to review his decision en banc failed. The latest congressional attention was sparked by Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. In Caperton, West Virginia, Chief Justice Brent Benjamin refused to step aside even though a major campaign contributor to the judge's election campaign was the chief executive of A.T. Massey. In June, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the U.S. Constitution's due process clause required Benjamin's recusal. Even though federal judges are appointed by the president, those pushing for changes said cases like Caperton threaten the public's confidence in the entire judiciary. "These big recusal cases serve as exclamation points for the idea that judges are people, too," said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law -- Bloomington who directed a recent American Bar Association study on recusals. Geyh was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 20 about recusals, but the hearing is being rescheduled. One senior Democratic aide to the House Judiciary Committee said the lawmakers want to examine "whether there is a need to change several substantive and procedural aspects of federal judicial recusal laws so as to promote greater transparency to the public and within the judicial branch." The aide was not authorized to speak on the record and requested anonymity to discuss the committee's plans. The time is right, Geyh argues, to think about changes. Nineteen states allow litigants to disqualify a judge without even having to state a reason. Eight states require that a second judge be the one to rule on a disqualification motion. "There's something weirdly paradoxical that a judge gets to rule on whether he's too partial to rule in a case," Geyh said. "If it becomes a contested matter, why not transfer it to another judge and increase the confidence level in the process?" Those who favor an overhaul of the recusal process claim overwhelming public support. Justice at Stake, a D.C. nonprofit that advocates for judicial independence, released a poll this year in which 81 percent of respondents said that judges should not decide motions asking them to step aside.
MORE JUDGE-SHOPPING?
Finding support among judges isn't so easy. "I think, by and large, our system works fairly well," said Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Asked about a system where a judge automatically steps aside when asked, Walton said it could leave the door open to abuse by overzealous litigants looking for an extra advantage. "That becomes particularly problematic, because you don't want parties to judge-shop," he said. According a 2008 ABA report on recusals, states that have an automatic recusal system use a variety of methods to deter judge-shopping. Alaska and South Dakota require parties to swear affidavits alleging bias. Other states limit challenges to one per side, while Montana permits sanctions against lawyers who file improper disqualification motions. Chief Judge Edith Jones of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said moving the recusal decision to another judge will only waste time because such decisions are already reviewable by higher courts. "I really think this is a solution in search of a problem. There are other problems that the judiciary has that Congress may want to take a look at, such as the cost and delays in litigation," Jones said. In recent years, judges have resisted legislative mandates about how the federal court system operates. They beat back a proposal by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., to create an inspector general for the judiciary. And, after Scalia's decision not to recuse in the Cheney case, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected a request from Conyers and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to set up a system to review justices' recusal decisions. In a letter to two senators, Rehnquist also wrote that questions about Scalia's reasoning were "ill considered." Still, congressional inquiries sometimes prompt action within the judiciary. In March, the Judicial Conference adopted revisions to its ethics code, in the latest response to recommendations from a committee led by Justice Stephen Breyer. The committee was set up in response to pressure from Capitol Hill.
'DEAD LETTER' LAW
The federal law setting out a standard for when a judge must recuse has remained largely the same since 1974, when it was modeled on an ABA proposal. A separate law that dates to 1949 says that a judge "shall proceed no further" in a case if a party files an affidavit alleging bias. But that's not how the system works in practice, and Geyh said the judiciary has found enough ways around the law that it's a "dead letter." "You have statutes that set forth general standards. ... The question for Congress is: Do they think the courts have done a bad job interpreting them?" said Mayer Brown partner Andrew Frey, who represented A.T. Massey in the Caperton case. Other procedural questions linger for Congress and the courts. If a federal judge refuses to step aside, should the standard on appeal be whether he abused his discretion, as it is in 28 states, or should it be lower? And should judges be encouraged, after ruling, to make a greater effort to explain their reasoning? Any changes within the judiciary would go through the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct. Its chairwoman is Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit, and she was scheduled to testify before Congress on the issue. McKeown declined an interview request. In a statement, she noted that the Committee on Codes of Conduct "provides ethics advice and training that includes issuance of more than 100 advisory opinions annually and response to nearly 1,000 informal requests for ethics advice." James Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra University School of Law and a recusal expert, said the Caperton ruling is giving momentum to those who want to see more. The case, he said, "provides a compelling narrative of the risks that are posed when fairness -- or the perception of fairness -- suffers, whatever the source of the perceived unfairness may be. And Congress certainly has an interest in that."
House Judiciary Committee's interest marks the first time Congress has flirted with recusal guidelines since a 2004 scrap between congressional Democrats and Justice Scalia
The National Law Journal by David Ingram - November 2, 2009
Congress is preparing to wade into one of the most sensitive of issues for the federal judiciary: when a judge should step aside in a case and who should make that decision.
The House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is planning a hearing on federal recusal guidelines amid controversies that have swept through state court systems in recent years, culminating in a U.S. Supreme Court decision five months ago that tightened the recusal requirements for elected state judges. The Judiciary Committee's interest marks the first time Congress has flirted with recusal guidelines since a high-profile scrap in 2004 between congressional Democrats and Justice Antonin Scalia. In a debate that broke along partisan lines, Democrats said that Scalia should have recused in a case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney because he and Cheney were part of a group that went duck hunting in Louisiana while the case was pending. Nonprofits seeking records from Cheney's energy task force eventually lost, 7-2. Under the current system, federal judges get to decide on their own whether to disqualify themselves from cases. Among the proposals being discussed are requiring a second judge to rule on a recusal motion -- rather than leaving the motion to the "targeted" judge -- and making substitution automatic if any party to a case swears an affidavit alleging prejudice. Some lawmakers, including Conyers, have also said in the past that they want a system to review recusal decisions by U.S. Supreme Court justices. In interviews last week, several federal judges raised concerns about how a new system would work and whether there are any problems now that need addressing. "We're very sensitive to the whole area and have tried to address it," said Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A former chief judge, Wilkinson said he had no opinion yet on possible changes but would watch the issue closely.
WHEN TO STEP ASIDE
Federal law, judicial canons and advisory opinions from the Judicial Conference all guide the recusal process. Court computers, for example, are programmed not to assign a case to a judge who owns stock in one of the parties. In general, judges must also recuse if they've worked on the case in the past as a lawyer or if a close relative is involved. But the decision can become much more complicated, especially after a motion that a judge's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." In 1992, television companies sought the disqualification of Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit in a case involving Federal Communications Commission rules about financial interest and syndication. The companies cited the fact that, while a law professor 15 years earlier, Posner gave expert testimony on behalf of CBS. Parties submitted briefs, and Posner issued an usual 2,800-word defense of his decision to remain on the case. A petition to review his decision en banc failed. The latest congressional attention was sparked by Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. In Caperton, West Virginia, Chief Justice Brent Benjamin refused to step aside even though a major campaign contributor to the judge's election campaign was the chief executive of A.T. Massey. In June, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found that the U.S. Constitution's due process clause required Benjamin's recusal. Even though federal judges are appointed by the president, those pushing for changes said cases like Caperton threaten the public's confidence in the entire judiciary. "These big recusal cases serve as exclamation points for the idea that judges are people, too," said Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law -- Bloomington who directed a recent American Bar Association study on recusals. Geyh was scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 20 about recusals, but the hearing is being rescheduled. One senior Democratic aide to the House Judiciary Committee said the lawmakers want to examine "whether there is a need to change several substantive and procedural aspects of federal judicial recusal laws so as to promote greater transparency to the public and within the judicial branch." The aide was not authorized to speak on the record and requested anonymity to discuss the committee's plans. The time is right, Geyh argues, to think about changes. Nineteen states allow litigants to disqualify a judge without even having to state a reason. Eight states require that a second judge be the one to rule on a disqualification motion. "There's something weirdly paradoxical that a judge gets to rule on whether he's too partial to rule in a case," Geyh said. "If it becomes a contested matter, why not transfer it to another judge and increase the confidence level in the process?" Those who favor an overhaul of the recusal process claim overwhelming public support. Justice at Stake, a D.C. nonprofit that advocates for judicial independence, released a poll this year in which 81 percent of respondents said that judges should not decide motions asking them to step aside.
MORE JUDGE-SHOPPING?
Finding support among judges isn't so easy. "I think, by and large, our system works fairly well," said Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Asked about a system where a judge automatically steps aside when asked, Walton said it could leave the door open to abuse by overzealous litigants looking for an extra advantage. "That becomes particularly problematic, because you don't want parties to judge-shop," he said. According a 2008 ABA report on recusals, states that have an automatic recusal system use a variety of methods to deter judge-shopping. Alaska and South Dakota require parties to swear affidavits alleging bias. Other states limit challenges to one per side, while Montana permits sanctions against lawyers who file improper disqualification motions. Chief Judge Edith Jones of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said moving the recusal decision to another judge will only waste time because such decisions are already reviewable by higher courts. "I really think this is a solution in search of a problem. There are other problems that the judiciary has that Congress may want to take a look at, such as the cost and delays in litigation," Jones said. In recent years, judges have resisted legislative mandates about how the federal court system operates. They beat back a proposal by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., to create an inspector general for the judiciary. And, after Scalia's decision not to recuse in the Cheney case, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected a request from Conyers and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to set up a system to review justices' recusal decisions. In a letter to two senators, Rehnquist also wrote that questions about Scalia's reasoning were "ill considered." Still, congressional inquiries sometimes prompt action within the judiciary. In March, the Judicial Conference adopted revisions to its ethics code, in the latest response to recommendations from a committee led by Justice Stephen Breyer. The committee was set up in response to pressure from Capitol Hill.
'DEAD LETTER' LAW
The federal law setting out a standard for when a judge must recuse has remained largely the same since 1974, when it was modeled on an ABA proposal. A separate law that dates to 1949 says that a judge "shall proceed no further" in a case if a party files an affidavit alleging bias. But that's not how the system works in practice, and Geyh said the judiciary has found enough ways around the law that it's a "dead letter." "You have statutes that set forth general standards. ... The question for Congress is: Do they think the courts have done a bad job interpreting them?" said Mayer Brown partner Andrew Frey, who represented A.T. Massey in the Caperton case. Other procedural questions linger for Congress and the courts. If a federal judge refuses to step aside, should the standard on appeal be whether he abused his discretion, as it is in 28 states, or should it be lower? And should judges be encouraged, after ruling, to make a greater effort to explain their reasoning? Any changes within the judiciary would go through the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct. Its chairwoman is Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the 9th Circuit, and she was scheduled to testify before Congress on the issue. McKeown declined an interview request. In a statement, she noted that the Committee on Codes of Conduct "provides ethics advice and training that includes issuance of more than 100 advisory opinions annually and response to nearly 1,000 informal requests for ethics advice." James Sample, an associate professor at Hofstra University School of Law and a recusal expert, said the Caperton ruling is giving momentum to those who want to see more. The case, he said, "provides a compelling narrative of the risks that are posed when fairness -- or the perception of fairness -- suffers, whatever the source of the perceived unfairness may be. And Congress certainly has an interest in that."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Ethics Law on Trial
Ethics laws on trial
Statutes will get scrutiny in Bruno case opening today
The Albany Times Union by JAMES M. ODATO - November 2, 2009
As the trial of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno begins today, state ethics laws, as much as the powerful Republican leader himself, will be on trial. Prosecutors have shown they intend to dissect New York's public officers law and disclosure laws, and many onlookers are eager to see the weaknesses in those laws laid bare. "I always felt the disclosure laws were lacking in transparency and given the rules on outside employment ... you needed the corresponding disclosure into those relationships," said Michael Garcia, who stepped down at the end of 2008 as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. His office became the most aggressive to prosecute Albany lawmakers in corruption cases in years and won convictions through guilty pleas. Garcia said the Bruno case will be a positive thing for Albany. "I always felt we were close to reform -- one more case, one more event would quite possibly put it over the edge to real reform," Garcia said. "None of those cases ever went to trial. Maybe a public airing of the rules and facts will cause people to re-engage in the reform debate."
New York's ethics codes aren't the worst.
The state received a "C" grade in an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity of standards required of state lawmakers nationwide. The state's history suggests public outrage over corruption scandals can propel action on ethics laws. After exposure of Democratic Party racketeering in the 1980s, state lawmakers created the integrity laws now in place after voters and leaders pushed for change. With the passage of time showing those laws to be inadequate, many lawmakers, public policy experts and government reform advocates are focusing on the Bruno trial to spark meaningful reform. The use of the federal honest services statute against New York elected officials already caused a rethinking of financial disclosure laws this legislative session. A plan passed in the Assembly stalled and compromises are under negotiation. Bruno, 80, of Brunswick, is a 32-year Senate veteran who rose to lead the chamber from 1995 to 2008. He gave up his powerful post and quit amid a federal investigation of his outside business interests. He is charged with not fully disclosing his consulting activities and representation of investment companies that involved people and groups having business before the state. His activities made him millions of dollars for barely doing any work, according to federal investigators, and the income did not have to be disclosed on financial forms lawmakers must fill out every year.
Indeed, New York does not require disclosure of business clients, sums of money earned privately, or even how the money is earned. Some states require such disclosure. A few require lawmakers, even lawyers, to name clients. This summer, lawmakers began attempts to update the Ethics in Government Act of 1987. The 22-year-old legislation was a response to scandals that rocked the Democratic Party and climaxed with the suicide of Donald Manes, the Queens borough president under investigation in a kickback scheme. The dramatic Manes story became national news. Well-known Syracuse Mayor Lee Alexander was under investigation for his own kickback scheme and pleaded guilty to charges in 1987. Assemblyman G. Oliver Koppell, who later was appointed attorney general, led a committee that recommended the ethics legislation that became the backbone of the "landmark" laws governing public officials. Koppell, now a New York councilman, also is a lawyer with an outside business practice. He said he would want to protect client identities but doesn't mind if income from law practices becomes a disclosable detail. "It's good to review things in light of experience and problems that may have evidenced themselves," he said. His bill more than two decades ago arose when the public, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and newspaper editorials demanded reform. It passed in both houses easily, causing some lawmakers to weep at its substance. Yet Cuomo vetoed it, saying the rules didn't go far enough. After negotiation, lawmakers worked out a compromise. They persuaded him to agree to a separation-of-powers argument. Cuomo instituted a tougher ethics program for executive branch officials policed by an ethics commission. The Legislature set up its own regulator, a Legislature-controlled body.
"The Legislature's ethics agency is a toady agency, a disaster," said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group. The commission and the in-house ethics panel set up by the Legislature has shown little evidence of policing members, although its operations are mostly confidential. Horner said it has been too easy for lawmakers to go afoul: "If you're based on an honor system and you see others gaming the system, you say: 'Why can't I go one more step beyond what is allowed?' It's the Wild West without U.S. marshals, it's the lawlessness of state ethics where state officials wittingly or unwittingly break the law." Attempts to create new laws broke down in September when the Senate squabbled over passing a plan advanced by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and co-sponsored by Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, R-Canandaigua. The measure calls for revealing ranges of income of lawmakers. It would require lobbyists and clients of lobbyists to disclose business relationships with public officials and set up a new executive branch ethics commission and new lobbying commission. Gov. David Paterson is pushing for what he calls a better plan. The Senate failed to pass the bill after Sen. John Sampson proposed an amendment that included tougher campaign finance enforcement. Missing from the legislation is the broad disclosure of the special interest group relationships and clients of lawyers, such as Silver, who is a practicing attorney. "Are we going to require that lawyers and real estate brokers disclose their clients? How far do we go? And accountants having to disclose their clients?" said Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome. "Then this is no longer going to be a legislature that allows outside clients. That would have a monumental impact on whether we remain a part-time legislature or if we transition into a full-time legislature." Lawyer Mark Davies, who runs New York City's Conflicts of Interest Board, said the disclosure requirements need a major overhaul, such as rewriting disclosure forms so they solicit more details that point out the potential for conflicts. Many doubt whether the Legislature has the will to make heavy revisions. Barbara Grumet, a veteran ethics professor who worked at Russell Sage College, is now a conflict-of-interest watchdog at a City University of New York technology college. "I think we need more disclosure, but it's politicians who decide on changing the rules and setting up the mechanisms for changing the rules," she said. "I'm not optimistic we're going to get greater disclosure." James M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or jodato@timesunion.com.
Trial facts
When: The trial is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. Monday, 1st floor courtroom, U.S. District Court, 445 Broadway, just north of the bottom of State Street, Albany.Best bet: Arrive by 8:30 a.m. First-come, first-served seating for about four dozen. Tip: Leave cell phones, computers, cameras and recording devices at home. Be ready to pass through metal detectors at the door and hand over most electronic devices to security personnel for safe-keeping. Parking: Either bring plenty of quarters for on-street meter spaces or find lots such as Columbia Street Garage at Columbia Street between Broadway and Water Street. -- James M. Odato
Statutes will get scrutiny in Bruno case opening today
The Albany Times Union by JAMES M. ODATO - November 2, 2009
As the trial of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno begins today, state ethics laws, as much as the powerful Republican leader himself, will be on trial. Prosecutors have shown they intend to dissect New York's public officers law and disclosure laws, and many onlookers are eager to see the weaknesses in those laws laid bare. "I always felt the disclosure laws were lacking in transparency and given the rules on outside employment ... you needed the corresponding disclosure into those relationships," said Michael Garcia, who stepped down at the end of 2008 as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. His office became the most aggressive to prosecute Albany lawmakers in corruption cases in years and won convictions through guilty pleas. Garcia said the Bruno case will be a positive thing for Albany. "I always felt we were close to reform -- one more case, one more event would quite possibly put it over the edge to real reform," Garcia said. "None of those cases ever went to trial. Maybe a public airing of the rules and facts will cause people to re-engage in the reform debate."
New York's ethics codes aren't the worst.
The state received a "C" grade in an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity of standards required of state lawmakers nationwide. The state's history suggests public outrage over corruption scandals can propel action on ethics laws. After exposure of Democratic Party racketeering in the 1980s, state lawmakers created the integrity laws now in place after voters and leaders pushed for change. With the passage of time showing those laws to be inadequate, many lawmakers, public policy experts and government reform advocates are focusing on the Bruno trial to spark meaningful reform. The use of the federal honest services statute against New York elected officials already caused a rethinking of financial disclosure laws this legislative session. A plan passed in the Assembly stalled and compromises are under negotiation. Bruno, 80, of Brunswick, is a 32-year Senate veteran who rose to lead the chamber from 1995 to 2008. He gave up his powerful post and quit amid a federal investigation of his outside business interests. He is charged with not fully disclosing his consulting activities and representation of investment companies that involved people and groups having business before the state. His activities made him millions of dollars for barely doing any work, according to federal investigators, and the income did not have to be disclosed on financial forms lawmakers must fill out every year.
Indeed, New York does not require disclosure of business clients, sums of money earned privately, or even how the money is earned. Some states require such disclosure. A few require lawmakers, even lawyers, to name clients. This summer, lawmakers began attempts to update the Ethics in Government Act of 1987. The 22-year-old legislation was a response to scandals that rocked the Democratic Party and climaxed with the suicide of Donald Manes, the Queens borough president under investigation in a kickback scheme. The dramatic Manes story became national news. Well-known Syracuse Mayor Lee Alexander was under investigation for his own kickback scheme and pleaded guilty to charges in 1987. Assemblyman G. Oliver Koppell, who later was appointed attorney general, led a committee that recommended the ethics legislation that became the backbone of the "landmark" laws governing public officials. Koppell, now a New York councilman, also is a lawyer with an outside business practice. He said he would want to protect client identities but doesn't mind if income from law practices becomes a disclosable detail. "It's good to review things in light of experience and problems that may have evidenced themselves," he said. His bill more than two decades ago arose when the public, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and newspaper editorials demanded reform. It passed in both houses easily, causing some lawmakers to weep at its substance. Yet Cuomo vetoed it, saying the rules didn't go far enough. After negotiation, lawmakers worked out a compromise. They persuaded him to agree to a separation-of-powers argument. Cuomo instituted a tougher ethics program for executive branch officials policed by an ethics commission. The Legislature set up its own regulator, a Legislature-controlled body.
"The Legislature's ethics agency is a toady agency, a disaster," said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group. The commission and the in-house ethics panel set up by the Legislature has shown little evidence of policing members, although its operations are mostly confidential. Horner said it has been too easy for lawmakers to go afoul: "If you're based on an honor system and you see others gaming the system, you say: 'Why can't I go one more step beyond what is allowed?' It's the Wild West without U.S. marshals, it's the lawlessness of state ethics where state officials wittingly or unwittingly break the law." Attempts to create new laws broke down in September when the Senate squabbled over passing a plan advanced by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and co-sponsored by Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, R-Canandaigua. The measure calls for revealing ranges of income of lawmakers. It would require lobbyists and clients of lobbyists to disclose business relationships with public officials and set up a new executive branch ethics commission and new lobbying commission. Gov. David Paterson is pushing for what he calls a better plan. The Senate failed to pass the bill after Sen. John Sampson proposed an amendment that included tougher campaign finance enforcement. Missing from the legislation is the broad disclosure of the special interest group relationships and clients of lawyers, such as Silver, who is a practicing attorney. "Are we going to require that lawyers and real estate brokers disclose their clients? How far do we go? And accountants having to disclose their clients?" said Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, D-Rome. "Then this is no longer going to be a legislature that allows outside clients. That would have a monumental impact on whether we remain a part-time legislature or if we transition into a full-time legislature." Lawyer Mark Davies, who runs New York City's Conflicts of Interest Board, said the disclosure requirements need a major overhaul, such as rewriting disclosure forms so they solicit more details that point out the potential for conflicts. Many doubt whether the Legislature has the will to make heavy revisions. Barbara Grumet, a veteran ethics professor who worked at Russell Sage College, is now a conflict-of-interest watchdog at a City University of New York technology college. "I think we need more disclosure, but it's politicians who decide on changing the rules and setting up the mechanisms for changing the rules," she said. "I'm not optimistic we're going to get greater disclosure." James M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or jodato@timesunion.com.
Trial facts
When: The trial is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. Monday, 1st floor courtroom, U.S. District Court, 445 Broadway, just north of the bottom of State Street, Albany.Best bet: Arrive by 8:30 a.m. First-come, first-served seating for about four dozen. Tip: Leave cell phones, computers, cameras and recording devices at home. Be ready to pass through metal detectors at the door and hand over most electronic devices to security personnel for safe-keeping. Parking: Either bring plenty of quarters for on-street meter spaces or find lots such as Columbia Street Garage at Columbia Street between Broadway and Water Street. -- James M. Odato
Feds Closer to Kerik's Outing of Westchester and Manhattan DA Corruption
At 11:15 am on October 30, 2009, we posted "Kerik Offered 'Get out of Jail' Card" that advised that a knowledgeable source had advised that former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik had been offered a deal of a lifetime- that he could walk out of jail, and that all pending criminal charges against him would be dropped for his complete cooperation and testimony involving widespread public corruption in New York. While we note the New York Daily News story below, dated November 3, 2009, we stand by our original information. We have been further informed that the 3-year deal was a counter-offer. The original deal to Kerik stands: "Talk and Walk." Informed sources believe, firmly, that Bernie can blow the lid off corruption in New York, and specifically inside the Westchester and Manhattan District Attorneys' offices involving former Westchester DA Jeannine Pirro and the recent criminal prosecution of Brooke Astor's son, Robert Marshall. Stay tuned...... more to follow..........
Here's Today's New York Daily News article on Kerik's 'half-deal':
Three for the price of one: Kerik offered deal of less than 36 months jail for impending cases
The New York Daily News by Robert Gearty In White Plains, N.Y. and Greg B. Smith - November 3, 2009
On the eve of his corruption trial ex-NYPD top cop Bernard Kerik was offered a plea deal that would get him out of jail in under three years, the Daily News has learned. Kerik faces three federal trials, the first on charges he got $255,000 in apartment renovations from a mob-linked contractor seeking a city permit. The second trial, also in White Plains, involves charges of hiding more than $300,000 book fees, royalties and free rent from the IRS. A third case filed in Washington federal court charges the former NYPD commissioner with making false statements on his application when President George W. Bush tapped him to be Homeland Secretary. Under the proposed deal, the cases would be consolidated and Kerik would face a possible sentence of 27 to 33 months, a source familiar with the ongoing talks said. Kerik could be sentenced to 20 years if convicted.
As of yesterday, Kerik had not formally accepted the offer and could, in the end, decide to go forward with the first of three criminal trials starting next Monday in White Plains Federal Court. Defense lawyer Barry Berke did not return calls seeking comment. A spokesman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara declined to comment. The deal would let Kerik plead to lesser charges in the corruption case, sources said. He would only have to admit to conspiracy to deprive the city of honest services. In turn, the feds would drop mail and wire fraud charges which carry potential five-year sentences, the source said. The former appointee of Mayor Rudy Giuliani would also have to plead guilty to some charges in the tax evasion case, as well as admit to filing false statements. Pressure has mounted on Kerik to resolve his outstanding legal issues since Oct. 20, when prosecutors claimed Kerik was involved in trying to sway potential jurors on the eve of his trial. White Plains Federal Judge Stephen Robinson threw him into the Westchester County jail. He was segregated from other inmates because of his law enforcement background. Two days after he arrived he was placed in the psychiatric unit after displaying certain unspecified "symptoms" in lockup. A letter from Dr. Robert Mahler released yesterday said Kerik was placed there "for observational purposes and psychiatric assessment in the context of psychosocial stressors." Kerik was discharged from the unit after doctors determined he "poses no risk to himself or others due to any psychiatric illness." Kerik is charged with getting a mob-linked contractor to pay for $255,000 in renovations to his apartment. At the time, the contractor was seeking a city permit. Kerik, then the city's corrections commissioner, vouched for the contractor, prosecutors say. rgearty@nydailynews.com
Here's Today's New York Daily News article on Kerik's 'half-deal':
Three for the price of one: Kerik offered deal of less than 36 months jail for impending cases
The New York Daily News by Robert Gearty In White Plains, N.Y. and Greg B. Smith - November 3, 2009
On the eve of his corruption trial ex-NYPD top cop Bernard Kerik was offered a plea deal that would get him out of jail in under three years, the Daily News has learned. Kerik faces three federal trials, the first on charges he got $255,000 in apartment renovations from a mob-linked contractor seeking a city permit. The second trial, also in White Plains, involves charges of hiding more than $300,000 book fees, royalties and free rent from the IRS. A third case filed in Washington federal court charges the former NYPD commissioner with making false statements on his application when President George W. Bush tapped him to be Homeland Secretary. Under the proposed deal, the cases would be consolidated and Kerik would face a possible sentence of 27 to 33 months, a source familiar with the ongoing talks said. Kerik could be sentenced to 20 years if convicted.
As of yesterday, Kerik had not formally accepted the offer and could, in the end, decide to go forward with the first of three criminal trials starting next Monday in White Plains Federal Court. Defense lawyer Barry Berke did not return calls seeking comment. A spokesman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara declined to comment. The deal would let Kerik plead to lesser charges in the corruption case, sources said. He would only have to admit to conspiracy to deprive the city of honest services. In turn, the feds would drop mail and wire fraud charges which carry potential five-year sentences, the source said. The former appointee of Mayor Rudy Giuliani would also have to plead guilty to some charges in the tax evasion case, as well as admit to filing false statements. Pressure has mounted on Kerik to resolve his outstanding legal issues since Oct. 20, when prosecutors claimed Kerik was involved in trying to sway potential jurors on the eve of his trial. White Plains Federal Judge Stephen Robinson threw him into the Westchester County jail. He was segregated from other inmates because of his law enforcement background. Two days after he arrived he was placed in the psychiatric unit after displaying certain unspecified "symptoms" in lockup. A letter from Dr. Robert Mahler released yesterday said Kerik was placed there "for observational purposes and psychiatric assessment in the context of psychosocial stressors." Kerik was discharged from the unit after doctors determined he "poses no risk to himself or others due to any psychiatric illness." Kerik is charged with getting a mob-linked contractor to pay for $255,000 in renovations to his apartment. At the time, the contractor was seeking a city permit. Kerik, then the city's corrections commissioner, vouched for the contractor, prosecutors say. rgearty@nydailynews.com
Monday, November 2, 2009
New York: The Land of "Honest Services" Theft
Feds: Bruno “exploited” power, public’s trust
The Albany Times Union by Robert Gavin - November 2, 2009
The Albany Times Union by Robert Gavin - November 2, 2009
A federal prosecutor today cast former state Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno as a scheming state leader who skated by New York’s ethics rules, deceptively solicited unions with business before the state and reeled in hundreds of thousands of dollars while betraying the public’s trust in a shroud of secrecy. “He exploited his position,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Coombe as the trial of Bruno began before Judge Gary Sharpe in U.S. District Court on Broadway in downtown Albany. An eight-count indictment accuses Bruno, 80, who had been the Legislature’s most powerful Republican for more than 14 years, of mail and wire fraud in an alleged scheme to defraud the public of “honest services.” The silver-haired Bruno, of Brunswick, sat with his hands folded as the prosecutor repeatedly told a jury of seven women and five men of upcoming evidence they would hear to show his guilt. While many parties were “constantly bombarded” by investor representatives, “Senator Bruno’s calls were different,” she said. She told jurors Bruno approached 15 unions on behalf of the Milford, Conn.-based Wright Investor Services and 11 later invested with the outfit, which had paid the senator $1.3 million. She noted Bruno also received $630,000 from the locally based McGinn-Smith and Company between 1993 and 2005. She highlighted the alleged “mixing of Senator Bruno’s private interests and public duties.” She told jurors they would hear from the likes of union officials, as well as Loudonville businessman Jared Abbruzzese, who she said paid Bruno $360,000 in 2004 and 2005 – and then exchanged a horse when the payments stopped. Coombe said Bruno did not inform a legislative-controlled ethics committee he would be contacting labor unions – which deal with the state – when he approached the panel.
And the prosecutor said while Bruno sat atop the Senate leadership, some bills passed and some would not that “directly affected the unions.” She also alleged the senator had “empty shell” entities, identified as Business Consulting Inc. and Capital Business Consultants, within the alleged scheme. While Coombe spoke for less than 30 or so minutes, defense attorney Abbe Lowell doubled that time, questioning what proof existed to his client’s guilt. The high-profile lawyer began his opening arguments addressing those in court, with special mention to “members of the Bruno family.” He painted Bruno as a self-made business success story who was repeatedly re-elected 16 times – and hardly conducted his dealings secretly. Rather, he told jurors, Bruno did not as much as violate a state ethic rule, let alone a federal felony. Lowell scrawled words on a paper board to illustrate his points. He said Bruno never had any exchange, applied no pressure to anyone, paid off no one and showed “no hiding of anything required in the state of New York.” Not one document, e-mail, check, phone message or witness for that matter would support the government’s case, Lowell said. While Coombe had alleged Bruno hid details of his consultant work to the state legislative ethics panel, Lowell said Bruno repeatedly kept it informed. And he questioned how Bruno could have broken the law when other Senate staffers – who knew of Bruno’s work – have not been charged. “It is wrong for public officials to violate the public’s trust,” he said. “But it is equally wrong when an innocent man is convicted.” Coombe objected twice during Lowell’s lengthy opening. Sharpe rebuked her twice, noting the lawyer was offering arguments and not evidence. While lawyers were meeting to potentially “expedite” the trial, according to Sharpe, Jurors were sent home without any witnesses being called. The trial resumes Tuesday at 9 a.m. (Staff writer James M. Odato contributed to this story)
And the prosecutor said while Bruno sat atop the Senate leadership, some bills passed and some would not that “directly affected the unions.” She also alleged the senator had “empty shell” entities, identified as Business Consulting Inc. and Capital Business Consultants, within the alleged scheme. While Coombe spoke for less than 30 or so minutes, defense attorney Abbe Lowell doubled that time, questioning what proof existed to his client’s guilt. The high-profile lawyer began his opening arguments addressing those in court, with special mention to “members of the Bruno family.” He painted Bruno as a self-made business success story who was repeatedly re-elected 16 times – and hardly conducted his dealings secretly. Rather, he told jurors, Bruno did not as much as violate a state ethic rule, let alone a federal felony. Lowell scrawled words on a paper board to illustrate his points. He said Bruno never had any exchange, applied no pressure to anyone, paid off no one and showed “no hiding of anything required in the state of New York.” Not one document, e-mail, check, phone message or witness for that matter would support the government’s case, Lowell said. While Coombe had alleged Bruno hid details of his consultant work to the state legislative ethics panel, Lowell said Bruno repeatedly kept it informed. And he questioned how Bruno could have broken the law when other Senate staffers – who knew of Bruno’s work – have not been charged. “It is wrong for public officials to violate the public’s trust,” he said. “But it is equally wrong when an innocent man is convicted.” Coombe objected twice during Lowell’s lengthy opening. Sharpe rebuked her twice, noting the lawyer was offering arguments and not evidence. While lawyers were meeting to potentially “expedite” the trial, according to Sharpe, Jurors were sent home without any witnesses being called. The trial resumes Tuesday at 9 a.m. (Staff writer James M. Odato contributed to this story)
Sunday, November 1, 2009
NY's Corruption Lets No Penny Go Unstolen
Ex-N.Y. Senate leader faces corruption trial
Bruno accused of accepting commissions, gifts in return for favors
The Associated Press by Michael Virtanen - November 1, 2009
ALBANY, N.Y. -- For more than a decade, state Senate Republican leader Joseph L. Bruno was a top power broker in New York. The backslapping ex-boxer was gruffly unapologetic over the millions in pork projects that he grabbed for his upstate district. On Monday, he faces trial on charges that could tarnish his legacy, send him to prison and serve as a de facto indictment of Albany's oft-criticized political culture. Federal prosecutors accuse Bruno of collecting $3.2 million in commissions and gifts over 13 years in return for using his state influence to benefit a dozen labor unions and three private businessmen. He has pleaded not guilty and denounced the eight-count January indictment as a politically motivated fishing expedition. The trial is expected to last weeks.
The charges against Bruno, 80, are the latest in a line of corruption cases against New York officials over the past two decades. Assembly Speaker Mel Miller was convicted of fraud in 1991 and Sen. Guy Velella went to jail for bribery conspiracy in 2004. Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi -- reelected while under indictment -- was convicted of using state workers to chauffeur his wife in 2006. This year, former health commissioner Antonia Novello, once the U.S. surgeon general, was convicted of using state workers to help her with shopping and other personal business. Lawrence Norden, senior counsel at New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice, said oversight has been lacking for a long time, particularly by legislators and partly the result of the concentration of power in three offices: the governor, Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker. By 2008, the Senate Ethics Committee hadn't met in 10 years, he said. The committee held hearings again this year. Norden said he expects the trial to shed light on the "pay-to-play" culture that's still "very much a reality" in the state capital. "I think that's what this prosecution is all about," he said.
Bruno, who grabbed the New York Senate Republican majority's leadership post in a 1994 overthrow, doggedly courted high-tech projects for New York, often in his district. But in many ways, he was an old-time pol, a guy who used phrases like "a man's man," occasionally cursed in news conferences, paused to chat with young female reporters and interns, and seethed when he felt a handshake deal was broken. Bruno resigned in the summer of 2008, only months after Democratic Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer -- the political nemesis Bruno once dismissed as "fancy, dance-y, prance-y" -- fell from power in a prostitution scandal. The three-year federal investigation of Bruno led to charges a few months after that. Free until trial without having to post bail, Bruno declined requests for an interview. In court papers, he acknowledged running a sideline consulting business since 1993 but said he simply got paid for work he did. "I'm looking forward to the justice system and I have a lot of confidence in that and that a jury will decide our innocence," Bruno said after a preliminary hearing last week. Prosecutors allege Bruno sold his favorable influence to union officials, who put their pension funds with the investment company and stock brokerage that paid him commissions. They allege he also helped three private businessmen with state interests, getting large payments in return. The indictment didn't specify what they got, saying only that Bruno "did take discretionary official action on legislative, funding, contract, and regulatory issues" that benefited them. -- Associated Press
Bruno accused of accepting commissions, gifts in return for favors
The Associated Press by Michael Virtanen - November 1, 2009
ALBANY, N.Y. -- For more than a decade, state Senate Republican leader Joseph L. Bruno was a top power broker in New York. The backslapping ex-boxer was gruffly unapologetic over the millions in pork projects that he grabbed for his upstate district. On Monday, he faces trial on charges that could tarnish his legacy, send him to prison and serve as a de facto indictment of Albany's oft-criticized political culture. Federal prosecutors accuse Bruno of collecting $3.2 million in commissions and gifts over 13 years in return for using his state influence to benefit a dozen labor unions and three private businessmen. He has pleaded not guilty and denounced the eight-count January indictment as a politically motivated fishing expedition. The trial is expected to last weeks.
The charges against Bruno, 80, are the latest in a line of corruption cases against New York officials over the past two decades. Assembly Speaker Mel Miller was convicted of fraud in 1991 and Sen. Guy Velella went to jail for bribery conspiracy in 2004. Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi -- reelected while under indictment -- was convicted of using state workers to chauffeur his wife in 2006. This year, former health commissioner Antonia Novello, once the U.S. surgeon general, was convicted of using state workers to help her with shopping and other personal business. Lawrence Norden, senior counsel at New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice, said oversight has been lacking for a long time, particularly by legislators and partly the result of the concentration of power in three offices: the governor, Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker. By 2008, the Senate Ethics Committee hadn't met in 10 years, he said. The committee held hearings again this year. Norden said he expects the trial to shed light on the "pay-to-play" culture that's still "very much a reality" in the state capital. "I think that's what this prosecution is all about," he said.
Bruno, who grabbed the New York Senate Republican majority's leadership post in a 1994 overthrow, doggedly courted high-tech projects for New York, often in his district. But in many ways, he was an old-time pol, a guy who used phrases like "a man's man," occasionally cursed in news conferences, paused to chat with young female reporters and interns, and seethed when he felt a handshake deal was broken. Bruno resigned in the summer of 2008, only months after Democratic Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer -- the political nemesis Bruno once dismissed as "fancy, dance-y, prance-y" -- fell from power in a prostitution scandal. The three-year federal investigation of Bruno led to charges a few months after that. Free until trial without having to post bail, Bruno declined requests for an interview. In court papers, he acknowledged running a sideline consulting business since 1993 but said he simply got paid for work he did. "I'm looking forward to the justice system and I have a lot of confidence in that and that a jury will decide our innocence," Bruno said after a preliminary hearing last week. Prosecutors allege Bruno sold his favorable influence to union officials, who put their pension funds with the investment company and stock brokerage that paid him commissions. They allege he also helped three private businessmen with state interests, getting large payments in return. The indictment didn't specify what they got, saying only that Bruno "did take discretionary official action on legislative, funding, contract, and regulatory issues" that benefited them. -- Associated Press
Americans for Legal Reform Meeting Set for November 3rd
American for Legal Reform Meeting Annoucement
Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, November 3rd, 7pm at the Plainview Library. There will be a guest speaker and the subject will be consumer debt. Following are directions and a list of future meetings.
ALR MONTHLY MEETINGS
Plainview Library
999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, NY 11803 - 516-938-0077
Directions: Take L.I.E. to exit 48 to Old Country Rd. west
MEETINGS BEGIN AT 7PM
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
Americans for Legal Reform
PO Box 2679
Huntington Station, NY 11746
631-421-6390
www.americans4legalreform.com
Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, November 3rd, 7pm at the Plainview Library. There will be a guest speaker and the subject will be consumer debt. Following are directions and a list of future meetings.
ALR MONTHLY MEETINGS
Plainview Library
999 Old Country Rd., Plainview, NY 11803 - 516-938-0077
Directions: Take L.I.E. to exit 48 to Old Country Rd. west
MEETINGS BEGIN AT 7PM
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
Americans for Legal Reform
PO Box 2679
Huntington Station, NY 11746
631-421-6390
www.americans4legalreform.com
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Judge Drops Most of Criminal Charges Against Judge-Elect
Case Against Surrogate-Elect Survives Dismissal of 8 Charges
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - November 2, 2009
A judge has thrown out eight criminal charges against Manhattan Surrogate-elect Nora Anderson but has retained two felony charges that could send her to prison for up to four years if convicted. Acting Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Obus in Manhattan on Friday dismissed four felony and four misdemeanor counts charging Ms. Anderson and her mentor/former boss, attorney Seth Rubenstein, with masking the source of $250,000 pumped into Ms. Anderson's campaign in the closing days of the 2008 Democratic primary. Ms. Anderson won that primary but was suspended without pay before she could take the bench. Justice Obus cited jurisdictional grounds for his ruling, holding that the charges should have been brought in Brooklyn, where Ms. Anderson's campaign headquarters was located in Mr. Rubinstein's office. He allowed the other two charges to stand because they involved acts in Manhattan: allegedly false filings with the New York City Board of Elections, whose headquarters is located in the borough. At the same time, Justice Obus in People v. Anderson, 5768/08, rejected the defendants' substantive claims that funneling campaign contributions through an intermediary is not a crime. Those arguments, if accepted, would have scuttled the indictment entirely.
The Manhattan Supreme Court decision appears on page 17 of the print edition of today's Law Journal. In court on Friday, Assistant District Attorney Daniel G. Cort told Justice Obus that his office would have to decide which of three options to pursue: appealing; asking Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes to pursue the eight dismissed counts; or proceeding on the two remaining counts. In the event Manhattan Disrtict Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau asks for assistance from Brooklyn, there is a possibility the case would be divided with the two counts being tried in Manhattan and the remainder in Brooklyn. Mr. Rubenstein and Ms. Anderson were charged jointly under the 10-count indictment. According to the government, Mr. Rubenstein gave Ms. Anderson $100,000 and loaned her another $150,000. Ms. Anderson was accused of then directing the contribution and loan to her campaign under her name. One count upheld by Justice Obus relates to Mr. Rubenstein's gift of $100,000 to Ms. Anderson on Aug. 12, 2008, and the other to his loan to her of $150,000 two weeks later. Ms. Anderson reported to the Board of Elections that she gave her campaign $100,000 eight days after receiving that amount from Mr. Rubenstein and loaning her campaign $170,000 on Aug. 26, the same day Mr. Rubenstein made the $150,000 loan. New York's Election Law does not limit the amounts candidates may give their own campaigns, but other donors to countywide races in Manhattan were limited to $33,122 in 2008. Loans are required to be repaid by the election date or they are considered contributions. Ms. Anderson, 57, a former chief clerk of the Manhattan Surrogate's Court, had worked with Mr. Rubenstein, 82, in Brooklyn at his 26 Court St. office for nine years before entering the Surrogate's race. The defendants agreed that Manhattan had geographic jurisdiction over the two counts involving the campaign finance filings with the city Board of Election. Instead, they moved to dismiss all 10 counts claiming the state's Election Law does not make it a crime to funnel campaign contributions through an intermediary. Justice Obus rejected those arguments, noting that Election Law §14-120(1) makes it a misdemeanor to make a contribution to a campaign in any name other than one's own. He emphasized that the law bars a donor from "directly or indirectly" concealing the true donor's name.
1977 Ruling Cited
Justice Obus, however, accepted the defendants' argument that jurisdiction in Manhattan over the other eight counts could not be sustained on the strength of the New York Court of Appeals' 1977 ruling in Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y. 2d 311. In Steingut, which involved former Assembly Speaker Stanley Steingut, the Court of Appeals ruled that jurisdiction could not be based on the premise that "the voters of [a] county would be called upon to vote in an election allegedly tainted by criminal activity localized in a single county." Mr. Steingut had been accused of illegal activities in Manhattan to advance the election of his son in Brooklyn to the City Council. The two pending charges accuse Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein of filing false documents (campaign financial disclosure reports) in Manhattan. Four of the dismissed charges carry the same penalty of zero to four years in prison. They relate to filing false campaign disclosure reports with the New York State Board of Elections in Albany and falsifying the reports in the first instance in Brooklyn. The others are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail: two counts of willfully evading the contribution limits in the Election Law and two counts for failing to make contributions in one's own name. Ms. Anderson won the three-way 2008 primary with 48 percent of the vote (NYLJ, Sept. 11, 2008). She raised $613,000, more than either of her two opponents: John R. Reddy, counsel to the Manhattan public administrator, who raised $600,903 and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, who raised $110,200. Ms. Anderson is represented by Gustave H. Newman and Richard A. Greenberg. Frederick P. Hafetz, of Hafetz & Necheles, represented Mr. Rubenstein. Messrs. Newman and Hafetz both declined to comment. Mr. Cort is the deputy chief of the Manhattan district attorney's rackets bureau. Daniel Wise can be reached at dwise@alm.com.
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - November 2, 2009
A judge has thrown out eight criminal charges against Manhattan Surrogate-elect Nora Anderson but has retained two felony charges that could send her to prison for up to four years if convicted. Acting Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Obus in Manhattan on Friday dismissed four felony and four misdemeanor counts charging Ms. Anderson and her mentor/former boss, attorney Seth Rubenstein, with masking the source of $250,000 pumped into Ms. Anderson's campaign in the closing days of the 2008 Democratic primary. Ms. Anderson won that primary but was suspended without pay before she could take the bench. Justice Obus cited jurisdictional grounds for his ruling, holding that the charges should have been brought in Brooklyn, where Ms. Anderson's campaign headquarters was located in Mr. Rubinstein's office. He allowed the other two charges to stand because they involved acts in Manhattan: allegedly false filings with the New York City Board of Elections, whose headquarters is located in the borough. At the same time, Justice Obus in People v. Anderson, 5768/08, rejected the defendants' substantive claims that funneling campaign contributions through an intermediary is not a crime. Those arguments, if accepted, would have scuttled the indictment entirely.
The Manhattan Supreme Court decision appears on page 17 of the print edition of today's Law Journal. In court on Friday, Assistant District Attorney Daniel G. Cort told Justice Obus that his office would have to decide which of three options to pursue: appealing; asking Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes to pursue the eight dismissed counts; or proceeding on the two remaining counts. In the event Manhattan Disrtict Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau asks for assistance from Brooklyn, there is a possibility the case would be divided with the two counts being tried in Manhattan and the remainder in Brooklyn. Mr. Rubenstein and Ms. Anderson were charged jointly under the 10-count indictment. According to the government, Mr. Rubenstein gave Ms. Anderson $100,000 and loaned her another $150,000. Ms. Anderson was accused of then directing the contribution and loan to her campaign under her name. One count upheld by Justice Obus relates to Mr. Rubenstein's gift of $100,000 to Ms. Anderson on Aug. 12, 2008, and the other to his loan to her of $150,000 two weeks later. Ms. Anderson reported to the Board of Elections that she gave her campaign $100,000 eight days after receiving that amount from Mr. Rubenstein and loaning her campaign $170,000 on Aug. 26, the same day Mr. Rubenstein made the $150,000 loan. New York's Election Law does not limit the amounts candidates may give their own campaigns, but other donors to countywide races in Manhattan were limited to $33,122 in 2008. Loans are required to be repaid by the election date or they are considered contributions. Ms. Anderson, 57, a former chief clerk of the Manhattan Surrogate's Court, had worked with Mr. Rubenstein, 82, in Brooklyn at his 26 Court St. office for nine years before entering the Surrogate's race. The defendants agreed that Manhattan had geographic jurisdiction over the two counts involving the campaign finance filings with the city Board of Election. Instead, they moved to dismiss all 10 counts claiming the state's Election Law does not make it a crime to funnel campaign contributions through an intermediary. Justice Obus rejected those arguments, noting that Election Law §14-120(1) makes it a misdemeanor to make a contribution to a campaign in any name other than one's own. He emphasized that the law bars a donor from "directly or indirectly" concealing the true donor's name.
1977 Ruling Cited
Justice Obus, however, accepted the defendants' argument that jurisdiction in Manhattan over the other eight counts could not be sustained on the strength of the New York Court of Appeals' 1977 ruling in Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y. 2d 311. In Steingut, which involved former Assembly Speaker Stanley Steingut, the Court of Appeals ruled that jurisdiction could not be based on the premise that "the voters of [a] county would be called upon to vote in an election allegedly tainted by criminal activity localized in a single county." Mr. Steingut had been accused of illegal activities in Manhattan to advance the election of his son in Brooklyn to the City Council. The two pending charges accuse Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein of filing false documents (campaign financial disclosure reports) in Manhattan. Four of the dismissed charges carry the same penalty of zero to four years in prison. They relate to filing false campaign disclosure reports with the New York State Board of Elections in Albany and falsifying the reports in the first instance in Brooklyn. The others are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail: two counts of willfully evading the contribution limits in the Election Law and two counts for failing to make contributions in one's own name. Ms. Anderson won the three-way 2008 primary with 48 percent of the vote (NYLJ, Sept. 11, 2008). She raised $613,000, more than either of her two opponents: John R. Reddy, counsel to the Manhattan public administrator, who raised $600,903 and Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton A. Tingling, who raised $110,200. Ms. Anderson is represented by Gustave H. Newman and Richard A. Greenberg. Frederick P. Hafetz, of Hafetz & Necheles, represented Mr. Rubenstein. Messrs. Newman and Hafetz both declined to comment. Mr. Cort is the deputy chief of the Manhattan district attorney's rackets bureau. Daniel Wise can be reached at dwise@alm.com.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Judicial "Kids for Cash" UPDATE - "Losing Faith in the Justice System"
Pa. Supreme Court Throws Out Thousands of Juvenile Delinquency Cases
Court Says Cases Tainted by Alleged Kickback Scheme Involving Corrupt Judge
ABC NEWS by FRANK MASTROPOLO, LAUREN PEARLE and GLENN RUPPEL - October 29, 2009
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that almost all juvenile delinquency cases heard by an indicted former judge must be thrown out. The ruling means cases heard by former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella from Jan. 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 are in question for fairness and impartiality. Ciavarella faces criminal charges that accuse him of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks from owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes. In one reported case, a college-bound high school student served three weeks in juvenile detention for making fun of the school principal on a Web site. The court said that it "cannot have any confidence that Ciavarella decided any Luzerne County juvenile case fairly and impartially while he labored under the specter of his self-interested dealings with the facilities," and called Ciavarella's actions a "travesty of juvenile justice." The decision could impact up to 6,500 Pennsylvania youth, whose juvenile detention records will now be erased and their cases dismissed without the possibility of retrial.
Most of the affected youth have already served their time. In Pennsylvania, juvenile criminal records are not automatically expunged when children turn 18, so Thursday's ruling could give thousands of kids a clean slate, said Marsha Levick, deputy director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia and an attorney for the children. About 100 Pennsylvania children could now be released from juvenile detention or taken off of probation, according to Levick. "The court's far-reaching order is an exceptional response to the most serious judicial scandal in the history of the United States," Levick told ABC News. The ruling is the latest stunning development in a story of corruption that first shocked Luzerne County residents in January 2009. Federal prosecutors announced that respected county judges Ciavarella and Michael Conahan had pleaded guilty to tax evasion and honest services fraud. However, their plea deal and relatively light sentence were later rejected by a federal judge who ruled that Ciavarella and Conahan had failed to accept responsibility for their crimes. In fact, Ciavarella had previously told "20/20" that "we would never agree that [the kids' sentencing] was improper." Now, the two former judges face much more serious federal racketeering, bribery, and extortion charges. All of this is the result of a lengthy investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. Ciavarella and Conahan have pleaded not guilty. "They sold their oath of offices to the highest bidders and engaged in ongoing schemes to defraud the public of honest services that were expected from them," Deron Roberts, chief of the FBI's Scranton office, said at a late January news conference announcing the case. The judges' arrests shed light on a mystery in Luzerne County: Why were so many kids getting sent directly to juvenile detention after seeing Ciavarella in his Wilkes-Barre juvenile court? And why were those kids sent away in such a rush?
'I Had No Clue What to Say'
Eric Stefanski had never been in trouble before he found himself in front of Ciavarella, who took office in 1996. "I was 12 years old when I got locked up. I had no clue what to say when he asked me how do I plead," Stefanski told "20/20" correspondent Jim Avila. "I was 12 years old. I didn't know too much about the court system." His offense? He went joyriding with his mom's car and ran over a barrier, smashing the undercarriage. No one was hurt, not even Stefanski, but in order to get her insurance to pay for the damage, his mom, Linda Donovan, had to file a police report. Donovan even thought an appearance before a judge would be good for her son and give him a little scare. She wasn't prepared for what happened when Eric came before Ciavarella. "He read me my charges and said, 'How do you plead?' And I didn't know what to say, so I looked at my mom, and I guess she didn't know I was looking, and I said, 'Guilty,'" Stefanski said. "That's when I turned around, I looked at my mom and she started crying."
'The Most Egregious Abuse of Power'
Stefanski was locked up for two years. He was not represented by an attorney, his mom said, because she didn't think he needed one. "His first offense, he's so young, I just didn't think that it was necessary," Donovan said. It's not supposed to be like this in juvenile court, where incarceration is considered the last resort, legal experts said. But Levick told ABC News she saw a disturbing trend inside Ciaravella's courtroom. And she had the evidence to back it up, she claimed. "The numbers of children going into placement in Luzerne County tended to be two to three times higher than in other counties," she said. Levick said kids were being locked up for minor infractions. "A child who shoplifted a $4 bottle of nutmeg," she said. "A child who was charged with conspiracy to shoplift because he was present when his friend was shoplifting. A child who put up a MySpace page, taunting her school administrator. "I think what we have here in Luzerne County is probably the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the American legal system," Levick said. Levick turned her findings over to the FBI, and the outcome rocked the Pennsylvania justice system. Ciavarella and Conahan had allegedly devised a plot to use their positions as judges to pad their pockets. They shut down the old county-run juvenile detention center by first refusing to send kids there and, then, by cutting off funds, choking it out of existence. They then replaced the facility with a cash cow -- a privately owned lockup built by the judges' cronies -- and forged a deal for the county to pay $58 million for a 10-year period for its use. At the time, Conahan was serving as president judge of the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court, a position that allowed him to control the county-court budget. Ciavarella was the Luzerne County juvenile court judge. In the judges' original plea deal, they admitted that they took more than $2.6 million in payoffs from the private youth detention center between 2003 and 2006. Prosecutors said the judges attempted to hide their income from the scheme by creating false records and routing payments through intermediaries. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed them from their duties after federal prosecutors filed charges Jan. 26. The investigation is ongoing. "The defendants engaged in fraud by taking millions of dollars in connection with the construction, operation and expansion of juvenile detention facilities here in Luzerne County," U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson said. And, according to state statistics, Ciavarella's incarceration rates of juveniles jumped after the privately owned juvenile detention center opened. "The information alleges that the judges ordered juveniles into these detention facilities, the facilities in which they had a financial interest, and on occasion that those orders were done, despite the recommendation of juvenile probation officers that the child not be detained, not be imprisoned," Carlson said. Ciavarella denies having sentenced kids for cash, and told ABC News last spring, "I'm not pleading guilty to anything relative to cash for kids, embezzlement, extortion, quid pro quo. Absolutely not."
Losing Faith in the Justice System
Dave Janoski, projects editor of the Citizens Voice newspaper of Wilkes-Barre, said, "You could see that, at the very moment, when they could make the most money, that's when the number of kids spiked." Many Wilkes-Barre residents exploded with anger when they heard that men they elected, and trusted to judge their children, had profited from their incarceration. "There's been a lot of outrage," said Terrie Morgan-Besecker, staff writer for the Times Leader newspaper in Wilkes-Barre. "I think a lot of them have lost faith in the system of justice ... that they went in there blindly thinking that they were going to talk to the judge, he was going to listen to them and hand down an appropriate punishment ... and they're just yanked away from their parents and put in shackles," she said. "It just left them absolutely stunned and not believing that this could happen." Many people wanted to know who was looking out for the kids as they worked their way through the judicial system. "I think that we had a conspiracy of silence going on in Luzerne County," Levick said. "There were officers of the court, there were members of the district attorney's office, members of probation, private lawyers, public defenders, who were in the courtroom every day. And they had to know what was happening and whether it was by virtue of intimidation or an unwillingness to get involved. The fact remains that nobody stood up." When Ciavarella was asked about families' complaints of his rapid-fire brand of justice and trials that lasted only minutes with even first-time offenders sent to detention centers, he told "20/20," "You take a look at their file and you look to see if this was the first time they had a run-in with the law. It might have been the first time they're in front of me. You may be surprised that it's not going to be as clear-cut as they would like you to think."
'The Judge Is Incorrect'
But Arthur Grim, a Pennsylvania juvenile judge himself, who was assigned to review Ciavarella's cases, said Ciavarella is wrong. "Kids were in there for relatively minor first-time offenses and ended up being placed," Grim said. "The judge is incorrect. "I'm seeing cases which seem to take in the neighborhood of a minute-and-a-half to three minutes. ... That simply is not the way to do business." Chief Justice Ronald Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court told ABC News last spring that "the Supreme Court is committed to righting whatever wrong was perpetrated on Luzerne's juveniles and their families." Thursday, he delivered on that promise.
Court Says Cases Tainted by Alleged Kickback Scheme Involving Corrupt Judge
ABC NEWS by FRANK MASTROPOLO, LAUREN PEARLE and GLENN RUPPEL - October 29, 2009
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled late Thursday that almost all juvenile delinquency cases heard by an indicted former judge must be thrown out. The ruling means cases heard by former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella from Jan. 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008 are in question for fairness and impartiality. Ciavarella faces criminal charges that accuse him of taking millions of dollars in kickbacks from owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, often for minor crimes. In one reported case, a college-bound high school student served three weeks in juvenile detention for making fun of the school principal on a Web site. The court said that it "cannot have any confidence that Ciavarella decided any Luzerne County juvenile case fairly and impartially while he labored under the specter of his self-interested dealings with the facilities," and called Ciavarella's actions a "travesty of juvenile justice." The decision could impact up to 6,500 Pennsylvania youth, whose juvenile detention records will now be erased and their cases dismissed without the possibility of retrial.
Most of the affected youth have already served their time. In Pennsylvania, juvenile criminal records are not automatically expunged when children turn 18, so Thursday's ruling could give thousands of kids a clean slate, said Marsha Levick, deputy director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia and an attorney for the children. About 100 Pennsylvania children could now be released from juvenile detention or taken off of probation, according to Levick. "The court's far-reaching order is an exceptional response to the most serious judicial scandal in the history of the United States," Levick told ABC News. The ruling is the latest stunning development in a story of corruption that first shocked Luzerne County residents in January 2009. Federal prosecutors announced that respected county judges Ciavarella and Michael Conahan had pleaded guilty to tax evasion and honest services fraud. However, their plea deal and relatively light sentence were later rejected by a federal judge who ruled that Ciavarella and Conahan had failed to accept responsibility for their crimes. In fact, Ciavarella had previously told "20/20" that "we would never agree that [the kids' sentencing] was improper." Now, the two former judges face much more serious federal racketeering, bribery, and extortion charges. All of this is the result of a lengthy investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. Ciavarella and Conahan have pleaded not guilty. "They sold their oath of offices to the highest bidders and engaged in ongoing schemes to defraud the public of honest services that were expected from them," Deron Roberts, chief of the FBI's Scranton office, said at a late January news conference announcing the case. The judges' arrests shed light on a mystery in Luzerne County: Why were so many kids getting sent directly to juvenile detention after seeing Ciavarella in his Wilkes-Barre juvenile court? And why were those kids sent away in such a rush?
'I Had No Clue What to Say'
Eric Stefanski had never been in trouble before he found himself in front of Ciavarella, who took office in 1996. "I was 12 years old when I got locked up. I had no clue what to say when he asked me how do I plead," Stefanski told "20/20" correspondent Jim Avila. "I was 12 years old. I didn't know too much about the court system." His offense? He went joyriding with his mom's car and ran over a barrier, smashing the undercarriage. No one was hurt, not even Stefanski, but in order to get her insurance to pay for the damage, his mom, Linda Donovan, had to file a police report. Donovan even thought an appearance before a judge would be good for her son and give him a little scare. She wasn't prepared for what happened when Eric came before Ciavarella. "He read me my charges and said, 'How do you plead?' And I didn't know what to say, so I looked at my mom, and I guess she didn't know I was looking, and I said, 'Guilty,'" Stefanski said. "That's when I turned around, I looked at my mom and she started crying."
'The Most Egregious Abuse of Power'
Stefanski was locked up for two years. He was not represented by an attorney, his mom said, because she didn't think he needed one. "His first offense, he's so young, I just didn't think that it was necessary," Donovan said. It's not supposed to be like this in juvenile court, where incarceration is considered the last resort, legal experts said. But Levick told ABC News she saw a disturbing trend inside Ciaravella's courtroom. And she had the evidence to back it up, she claimed. "The numbers of children going into placement in Luzerne County tended to be two to three times higher than in other counties," she said. Levick said kids were being locked up for minor infractions. "A child who shoplifted a $4 bottle of nutmeg," she said. "A child who was charged with conspiracy to shoplift because he was present when his friend was shoplifting. A child who put up a MySpace page, taunting her school administrator. "I think what we have here in Luzerne County is probably the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the American legal system," Levick said. Levick turned her findings over to the FBI, and the outcome rocked the Pennsylvania justice system. Ciavarella and Conahan had allegedly devised a plot to use their positions as judges to pad their pockets. They shut down the old county-run juvenile detention center by first refusing to send kids there and, then, by cutting off funds, choking it out of existence. They then replaced the facility with a cash cow -- a privately owned lockup built by the judges' cronies -- and forged a deal for the county to pay $58 million for a 10-year period for its use. At the time, Conahan was serving as president judge of the Luzerne County Common Pleas Court, a position that allowed him to control the county-court budget. Ciavarella was the Luzerne County juvenile court judge. In the judges' original plea deal, they admitted that they took more than $2.6 million in payoffs from the private youth detention center between 2003 and 2006. Prosecutors said the judges attempted to hide their income from the scheme by creating false records and routing payments through intermediaries. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court removed them from their duties after federal prosecutors filed charges Jan. 26. The investigation is ongoing. "The defendants engaged in fraud by taking millions of dollars in connection with the construction, operation and expansion of juvenile detention facilities here in Luzerne County," U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson said. And, according to state statistics, Ciavarella's incarceration rates of juveniles jumped after the privately owned juvenile detention center opened. "The information alleges that the judges ordered juveniles into these detention facilities, the facilities in which they had a financial interest, and on occasion that those orders were done, despite the recommendation of juvenile probation officers that the child not be detained, not be imprisoned," Carlson said. Ciavarella denies having sentenced kids for cash, and told ABC News last spring, "I'm not pleading guilty to anything relative to cash for kids, embezzlement, extortion, quid pro quo. Absolutely not."
Losing Faith in the Justice System
Dave Janoski, projects editor of the Citizens Voice newspaper of Wilkes-Barre, said, "You could see that, at the very moment, when they could make the most money, that's when the number of kids spiked." Many Wilkes-Barre residents exploded with anger when they heard that men they elected, and trusted to judge their children, had profited from their incarceration. "There's been a lot of outrage," said Terrie Morgan-Besecker, staff writer for the Times Leader newspaper in Wilkes-Barre. "I think a lot of them have lost faith in the system of justice ... that they went in there blindly thinking that they were going to talk to the judge, he was going to listen to them and hand down an appropriate punishment ... and they're just yanked away from their parents and put in shackles," she said. "It just left them absolutely stunned and not believing that this could happen." Many people wanted to know who was looking out for the kids as they worked their way through the judicial system. "I think that we had a conspiracy of silence going on in Luzerne County," Levick said. "There were officers of the court, there were members of the district attorney's office, members of probation, private lawyers, public defenders, who were in the courtroom every day. And they had to know what was happening and whether it was by virtue of intimidation or an unwillingness to get involved. The fact remains that nobody stood up." When Ciavarella was asked about families' complaints of his rapid-fire brand of justice and trials that lasted only minutes with even first-time offenders sent to detention centers, he told "20/20," "You take a look at their file and you look to see if this was the first time they had a run-in with the law. It might have been the first time they're in front of me. You may be surprised that it's not going to be as clear-cut as they would like you to think."
'The Judge Is Incorrect'
But Arthur Grim, a Pennsylvania juvenile judge himself, who was assigned to review Ciavarella's cases, said Ciavarella is wrong. "Kids were in there for relatively minor first-time offenses and ended up being placed," Grim said. "The judge is incorrect. "I'm seeing cases which seem to take in the neighborhood of a minute-and-a-half to three minutes. ... That simply is not the way to do business." Chief Justice Ronald Castille of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court told ABC News last spring that "the Supreme Court is committed to righting whatever wrong was perpetrated on Luzerne's juveniles and their families." Thursday, he delivered on that promise.
Kerik Offered "Get out of Jail" card
BREAKING NEWS: A knowledgeable source has advised that disgraced former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik has been offered a deal of a lifetime- he can walk out of jail, and all pending criminal charges against him will be dropped, for his complete cooperation and testimony involving public corruption concerning some of New York's most powerful: financial hotshots, prosecutors, judges and politicians. (October 30, 2009, 11:15am)
Jury Finds Against Anderson Retaliation (UPDATED 5pm)
UPDATED 5PM:
Ex-Lawyer for NY Attorney Watchdog Loses Suit Over Firing
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - October 30, 2009
A federal jury took barely three hours yesterday to throw out claims from a former staff attorney with the First Department's disciplinary committee that she had been fired in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights. The unanimous, eight-member Southern District jury rejected the civil rights suit brought by Christine A. Anderson, who claimed she was fired in 2007 because she objected that officials at the committee were "whitewashing" complaints and giving preferential treatment to attorneys with connections. The jury credited the claims of the Office of Court Administration and three individual defendants that Ms. Anderson had been fired for insubordination. The state argued that she had exaggerated her complaints and had spurned numerous opportunities to repair her frayed relationship with her direct supervisor, Sherry K. Cohen, the committee's deputy chief counsel and a defendant in the case. The other two individual defendants were Thomas J. Cahill, who at the time was the committee's chief counsel, and David Spokony, the First Department's deputy clerk. One of Ms. Anderson's lawyers, Rory J. Bellantoni, in his closing statement yesterday morning had asked the jury to award Ms. Anderson $298,000 for lost wages and "substantial" damages for pain and suffering. The jury, which returned a unanimous verdict as required, consisted of five women and three men. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, who presided over the three-day trial, had dismissed Ms. Anderson's claims that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race and national origin on a motion for summary judgment. Ms. Anderson is Jamaican. Mr. Bellantoni, who left the bench over the summer after six years as County Court judge in Westchester, said after the verdict that Ms. Anderson is "weighing her options." John McConnell, the First Department's clerk, said, "We are delighted with the verdict." The verdict embraced Assistant Attorney General Lee A. Adlerstein's closing argument that Ms. Anderson "resented" Ms. Cohen's detailed style of management and resisted numerous efforts to repair her relationship with Ms. Cohen. In 2001, Ms. Anderson, now 64, was hired as a staff attorney at the committee which is responsible for policing the conduct of attorneys practicing in Manhattan and the Bronx. Ms. Cohen, who had been with the committee since 1993, became deputy chief counsel in 2003. Sometime thereafter, she became Ms. Anderson's supervisor. There was no dispute that the relationship between the two was fraught. Both lawyers testified that in July 2006 a confrontation had occurred in Ms. Anderson's office when Ms. Cohen, with the door closed behind her, refused to accede to Ms. Anderson's demand that she be let out. A panel convened by the First Department's then clerk, Catherine Wolfe, to investigate an "incident report" filed by Ms. Anderson, resulted in a decision that Ms. Cohen should apologize to Ms. Anderson and take a management course. The panel also recommended that Mr. Cahill make it clear that the lines of authority within the office made Ms. Cohen the direct supervisor of Ms. Anderson.
Deteriorating Relationship
Ms. Anderson had testified that her relationship with Ms. Cohen began to deteriorate in August 2005, when the two disagreed over the wording of a private admonition that both agreed should be given to a lawyer. Ms. Cohen wanted references that the attorney had made misrepresentations taken out. When Ms. Anderson refused, Ms. Cohen took the file and rewrote the recommendation, which had to be approved by the committee's policy committee. Prior to Ms. Cohen's revision, Ms. Anderson testified that she had objected that the report had been "whitewashed" and "sanitized" to affect the outcome of the case. As the relationship became increasingly tense, Ms. Anderson testified that she was fearful of Ms. Cohen and refused to meet with her alone. Ms. Wolfe meanwhile counseled Ms. Cohen to take notes of her contacts with Ms. Anderson and to have a second person in the room. Mr. Bellantoni described Ms. Wolfe's advice as designed to develop a paper trail to create a pretext for firing Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson testified that in fall 2006 she again clashed with Ms. Cohen over the handling of several other cases. In February 2007, Ms. Anderson stated, she had complained to Mr. Cahill that attorneys with political connections or ties to those on the 64-member disciplinary committee got preferential treatment. The same was true, she said, for lawyers who hired attorneys who had previously worked at the committee. However, Mr. Adlerstein in his closing dismissed claims that Ms. Anderson had complained directly to Mr. Cahill, saying she only had made "general statements" that lacked specifics. Referring to the fact that Mr. Cahill, a former Southern District U.S. attorney, denied that the February 2007 conversation ever took place, Mr. Adlerstein charged Ms. Anderson had made the conversation up "out of whole cloth." Ms. Anderson had "exaggerated" the incident with Ms. Cohen in her office in an effort to get rid of her as her supervisor, Mr. Adlerstein said. Mr. Bellantoni's partner, John Lovett, had delivered the opening statement for Ms. Anderson and handled much of the witness examinations. He was not in court yesterday due to a family medical emergency. Assistant Attorney General Wesley E. Bauman had delivered the opening statement for the four state defendants.
Deteriorating Relationship
Ms. Anderson had testified that her relationship with Ms. Cohen began to deteriorate in August 2005, when the two disagreed over the wording of a private admonition that both agreed should be given to a lawyer. Ms. Cohen wanted references that the attorney had made misrepresentations taken out. When Ms. Anderson refused, Ms. Cohen took the file and rewrote the recommendation, which had to be approved by the committee's policy committee. Prior to Ms. Cohen's revision, Ms. Anderson testified that she had objected that the report had been "whitewashed" and "sanitized" to affect the outcome of the case. As the relationship became increasingly tense, Ms. Anderson testified that she was fearful of Ms. Cohen and refused to meet with her alone. Ms. Wolfe meanwhile counseled Ms. Cohen to take notes of her contacts with Ms. Anderson and to have a second person in the room. Mr. Bellantoni described Ms. Wolfe's advice as designed to develop a paper trail to create a pretext for firing Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson testified that in fall 2006 she again clashed with Ms. Cohen over the handling of several other cases. In February 2007, Ms. Anderson stated, she had complained to Mr. Cahill that attorneys with political connections or ties to those on the 64-member disciplinary committee got preferential treatment. The same was true, she said, for lawyers who hired attorneys who had previously worked at the committee. However, Mr. Adlerstein in his closing dismissed claims that Ms. Anderson had complained directly to Mr. Cahill, saying she only had made "general statements" that lacked specifics. Referring to the fact that Mr. Cahill, a former Southern District U.S. attorney, denied that the February 2007 conversation ever took place, Mr. Adlerstein charged Ms. Anderson had made the conversation up "out of whole cloth." Ms. Anderson had "exaggerated" the incident with Ms. Cohen in her office in an effort to get rid of her as her supervisor, Mr. Adlerstein said. Mr. Bellantoni's partner, John Lovett, had delivered the opening statement for Ms. Anderson and handled much of the witness examinations. He was not in court yesterday due to a family medical emergency. Assistant Attorney General Wesley E. Bauman had delivered the opening statement for the four state defendants.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
NY Immigration Lawyer Sentenced to 4 Years
NY Immigration Lawyer Convicted of Fraud Sentenced to 4 Years
The New York Law Journal by Mark Hamblett - October 29, 2009
The New York Law Journal by Mark Hamblett - October 29, 2009
An immigration attorney was sentenced Monday to serve four years and three months in prison for presenting false documents to immigration officials. Raghubir K. Gupta, 63, who had offices in Brooklyn and Queens, was given the sentence by Southern District Judge Deborah A. Batts. Evidence at his 2008 trial showed that Mr. Gupta, who processed applications under a limited amnesty and legalization program, had clients provide false dates on applications so they could qualify. Charged amidst an increasing crackdown on immigration fraud, Mr. Gupta was convicted of one count each of willfully causing the subscription of an immigration document containing a material false statement and one count of presenting an immigration document containing a material false statement.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Brooklyn DA Probes Nassau Wrong-Doing
Brooklyn DA probes wrongful jailing in Nassau
Newsday by SID CASSESE - October 27, 2009
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is investigating the actions of Nassau police and prosecutors in a 2005 case that kept a Queens teenager locked up four months for an armed robbery that, the man's lawyer says, officials knew he did not do. Raheem Crews, now 24, had the perfect alibi. He was in jail when the robbery occurred. "All I can say is that we are investigating the Crews case," Jonah Bruno, a Hynes spokesman, said earlier this week. Neither Crews nor his Hempstead lawyer, Fred Brewington, were aware of Hynes' involvement in the case, the lawyer said Tuesday. "Nobody ever talked to us," he said. The Hynes news surfaced following a letter Brewington sent last week to Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. In it he castigated her for not following up on an earlier request this year for an investigation into the actions of the police and assistant district attorneys in the Crews case. Rice spokesman Eric Phillips, said: "This is [a] very serious allegation . . . and when we received it we promptly referred it [in May 2009] to federal authorities. "When it became clear that prosecutors from this office's former administration could be materially involved . . . we requested [in August] that a special prosecutor be assigned. On August 26, 2009, Nassau's chief judge granted that request and appointed the Kings County district attorney." Det. Sgt. Anthony Repalone, a spokesman for the Nassau Police department, said that after "we did an internal investigation on one member [who was a part of the Crews case], he resigned." Repalone would not identify the officer. Brewington said his client was in jail on some criminal mischief charge when he was locked up from March 24 to 31. The robbery occurred March 25. Crews went back to jail in May 2005 and remained incarcerated until September of that year. sid.cassese@newsday.com
Newsday by SID CASSESE - October 27, 2009
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is investigating the actions of Nassau police and prosecutors in a 2005 case that kept a Queens teenager locked up four months for an armed robbery that, the man's lawyer says, officials knew he did not do. Raheem Crews, now 24, had the perfect alibi. He was in jail when the robbery occurred. "All I can say is that we are investigating the Crews case," Jonah Bruno, a Hynes spokesman, said earlier this week. Neither Crews nor his Hempstead lawyer, Fred Brewington, were aware of Hynes' involvement in the case, the lawyer said Tuesday. "Nobody ever talked to us," he said. The Hynes news surfaced following a letter Brewington sent last week to Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. In it he castigated her for not following up on an earlier request this year for an investigation into the actions of the police and assistant district attorneys in the Crews case. Rice spokesman Eric Phillips, said: "This is [a] very serious allegation . . . and when we received it we promptly referred it [in May 2009] to federal authorities. "When it became clear that prosecutors from this office's former administration could be materially involved . . . we requested [in August] that a special prosecutor be assigned. On August 26, 2009, Nassau's chief judge granted that request and appointed the Kings County district attorney." Det. Sgt. Anthony Repalone, a spokesman for the Nassau Police department, said that after "we did an internal investigation on one member [who was a part of the Crews case], he resigned." Repalone would not identify the officer. Brewington said his client was in jail on some criminal mischief charge when he was locked up from March 24 to 31. The robbery occurred March 25. Crews went back to jail in May 2005 and remained incarcerated until September of that year. sid.cassese@newsday.com
Sneaky, Back-Door Acts, the OCA Way
Is $5,000 stipend boost a back-door pay hike?
Chief judge doubles payment to $10,000 as judiciary still in salary fight with Legislature
The Albany Times Union by IRENE JAY LIU - October 28, 2009
ALBANY, NY -- As the Legislature and governor tackle New York's $3 billion budget deficit, the state's third branch of government has doubled judges' stipends, which will cost an additional $6 million per year. Citing the judges' decade-long lack of a pay raise, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announced during an Oct. 14 webcast that he would double judges' supplemental allowance from $5,000 to $10,000, to cover items such as uncovered medical expenses, robe dry cleaning, travel, judicial license plates and marriage counseling. Lippman said in an interview with the New York Law Journal, which first reported the allowance increase, that he was "pleased to be able to double" the support. "We are not giving judges (added) salary," he said. " …We have finite resources. I think it's an appropriate reimbursement of judges for expenses of all different kinds."
Judges have been locked in a battle with the Legislature over judicial pay, which has been locked at $136,700 for the past 11 years. The Legislature, which must approve judicial pay raises, has historically tied them to their own salary increases -- a practice that the judiciary has called unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals will hear arguments in three separate cases about the issue early next year. Legislative leaders and the governor have been named as defendants in the three lawsuits. Responding to the judges' lack of a pay raise, former Chief Judge Judith Kaye in 2008 created the Judicial Supplemental Support Fund, which would provide full-time judges with a $5,000 annual stipend for "services and goods to support them in the performance of their judicial responsibilities," according to a 2009 bulletin from the state comptroller's office. Judges can receive the stipend in two ways: They can file receipts for reimbursement of expenses, or they can take a lump-sum payment which is taxable as income and does not require judges to file receipts. More than 90 percent of judges take the full $5,000 allowance, according to the Office of Court Administration, costing the state roughly $6 million. Doubling the allowance will cost another $6 million per year, according to OCA spokesman David Bookstaver. The expanded allowance will become effective Nov. 1, but checks reflecting the added funds will not be cut until April 15, 2010. The expansion will be added to next year's budget, said Bookstaver. Bookstaver emphasized that the increased allowance was not in lieu of a raise. "We have to keep the best and the brightest on the bench. And frankly, some of them are leaving because they can't make ends meet," he said. "This is really to make the judges lives slightly more tenable in an untenable situation." Bookstaver added that the judiciary may reconsider the expanded benefit if judges receive a pay raise before April 15. "If the salaries are increased, we'll certainly take a second look at the judicial supplement support fund," he said.
Reaction from state leaders to the judiciary's planned increase was muted, even as Gov. David Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson tackle the state's estimated $3 billion current-year budget shortfall. "It's our policy not to comment on next year's budget submission until it's formally introduced," said Division of the Budget spokesman Matt Anderson. "New York judges are overworked and underpaid, and while we are in a fiscal crisis, we have to ensure the administration of justice is never compromised," Sampson said. Silver's office declined to comment on the issue. While state leaders have stayed largely silent on the issue, the allowance expansion was met with consternation in some quarters of the legislature. "In the scheme of the larger budget problem, $6 million is symbolic ... but it is indicative of them having too much money to spend. They obviously have the money and they want to spend it," said Assemblyman William Parment, D-Chautauqua County, who has questioned the judiciary's significant budget expansion over the past few years. The judiciary's budget has grown about 45 percent over the past seven years, from $1.7 billion in the 2002-2003 budget to $2.5 billion in the current-year budget. "Is it not symbolic or symptomatic of a larger, more troubling problem within the judiciary?," asked Parment of the stipend expansion, particularly given the state's current economic crisis. Paterson did not propose cuts to the judiciary's $2.5 billion budget in his deficit reduction plan, which proposes cuts in almost every corner of state government in an attempt to save $5 billion over two years. "I don't see how the governor can expect the Legislature to cut school teachers and leave the judicial budget unscathed," Parment said. "The governor does not typically put forward proposed spending reductions for other coequal branches of government when submitting his initial budget recommendations," Anderson said. Irene Jay Liu can be reached at 454-5081 or iliu@timesunion.com.
Chief judge doubles payment to $10,000 as judiciary still in salary fight with Legislature
The Albany Times Union by IRENE JAY LIU - October 28, 2009
ALBANY, NY -- As the Legislature and governor tackle New York's $3 billion budget deficit, the state's third branch of government has doubled judges' stipends, which will cost an additional $6 million per year. Citing the judges' decade-long lack of a pay raise, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announced during an Oct. 14 webcast that he would double judges' supplemental allowance from $5,000 to $10,000, to cover items such as uncovered medical expenses, robe dry cleaning, travel, judicial license plates and marriage counseling. Lippman said in an interview with the New York Law Journal, which first reported the allowance increase, that he was "pleased to be able to double" the support. "We are not giving judges (added) salary," he said. " …We have finite resources. I think it's an appropriate reimbursement of judges for expenses of all different kinds."
Judges have been locked in a battle with the Legislature over judicial pay, which has been locked at $136,700 for the past 11 years. The Legislature, which must approve judicial pay raises, has historically tied them to their own salary increases -- a practice that the judiciary has called unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals will hear arguments in three separate cases about the issue early next year. Legislative leaders and the governor have been named as defendants in the three lawsuits. Responding to the judges' lack of a pay raise, former Chief Judge Judith Kaye in 2008 created the Judicial Supplemental Support Fund, which would provide full-time judges with a $5,000 annual stipend for "services and goods to support them in the performance of their judicial responsibilities," according to a 2009 bulletin from the state comptroller's office. Judges can receive the stipend in two ways: They can file receipts for reimbursement of expenses, or they can take a lump-sum payment which is taxable as income and does not require judges to file receipts. More than 90 percent of judges take the full $5,000 allowance, according to the Office of Court Administration, costing the state roughly $6 million. Doubling the allowance will cost another $6 million per year, according to OCA spokesman David Bookstaver. The expanded allowance will become effective Nov. 1, but checks reflecting the added funds will not be cut until April 15, 2010. The expansion will be added to next year's budget, said Bookstaver. Bookstaver emphasized that the increased allowance was not in lieu of a raise. "We have to keep the best and the brightest on the bench. And frankly, some of them are leaving because they can't make ends meet," he said. "This is really to make the judges lives slightly more tenable in an untenable situation." Bookstaver added that the judiciary may reconsider the expanded benefit if judges receive a pay raise before April 15. "If the salaries are increased, we'll certainly take a second look at the judicial supplement support fund," he said.
Reaction from state leaders to the judiciary's planned increase was muted, even as Gov. David Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson tackle the state's estimated $3 billion current-year budget shortfall. "It's our policy not to comment on next year's budget submission until it's formally introduced," said Division of the Budget spokesman Matt Anderson. "New York judges are overworked and underpaid, and while we are in a fiscal crisis, we have to ensure the administration of justice is never compromised," Sampson said. Silver's office declined to comment on the issue. While state leaders have stayed largely silent on the issue, the allowance expansion was met with consternation in some quarters of the legislature. "In the scheme of the larger budget problem, $6 million is symbolic ... but it is indicative of them having too much money to spend. They obviously have the money and they want to spend it," said Assemblyman William Parment, D-Chautauqua County, who has questioned the judiciary's significant budget expansion over the past few years. The judiciary's budget has grown about 45 percent over the past seven years, from $1.7 billion in the 2002-2003 budget to $2.5 billion in the current-year budget. "Is it not symbolic or symptomatic of a larger, more troubling problem within the judiciary?," asked Parment of the stipend expansion, particularly given the state's current economic crisis. Paterson did not propose cuts to the judiciary's $2.5 billion budget in his deficit reduction plan, which proposes cuts in almost every corner of state government in an attempt to save $5 billion over two years. "I don't see how the governor can expect the Legislature to cut school teachers and leave the judicial budget unscathed," Parment said. "The governor does not typically put forward proposed spending reductions for other coequal branches of government when submitting his initial budget recommendations," Anderson said. Irene Jay Liu can be reached at 454-5081 or iliu@timesunion.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
