By Will Galison
Introduction: TheCommission to Investigate Public Corruption has been tasked with exposing,
investigating and prosecuting corruption in every branch and at every level of
New York's Government. But it is evident that it is using its vast powers to
pursue only selected political “targets”, while taking extraordinary (and
illegal) measures to protect other wrongdoers from prosecution; particularly
those with personal, professional and political ties to the Commission and it's
founders, Governor Cuomo and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. To these ends,
the Commission is employing three basic strategies:
1) Illegally limiting the scope of their investigation to the issue of Election
Law, at the expense of all other matters of public corruption
2)
Illegally banning the public from testifying about matters of public corruption
other than election fraud- by banning public testimony completely.
3) Illegally altering and suppressing the official record of existent public
testimony, so as to remove references of corruption by favored parties and
institutions.
Part one of this series will address the last of these strategies, the
“sanitization” and suppression of testimony submitted by public witnesses at
the Commission's public hearing of September 17th 2013.
(Editors Note: On 10/3013 and again on 11/21/13, the Moreland Commission was
asked to explain and correct the
alterations of the transcript as described below. They have declined to respond)
Part 1: How Governor Cuomo’s Moreland Commission to Investigate Public
Corruption, illegally tampered with
witness testimony transcripts to protect their friends, colleagues, employers
and themselves from criminal prosecution.
“It’s About Trust”
When New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the creation of the “Commission To Investigate
Public Corruption” (aka
“The Moreland Commission”) last July, he summed up his motivation succinctly: “it’s about trust… its about people’s
trust of government… we want to restore the trust”.
The Commission was Governor Cuomo's direct response to the legislature’s
rejection of his anti-corruption “Clean Up Albany” bill, and he vowed that it
would be even tougher than the bill in routing out corruption in every corner
of New York Government: “I said to the legislature right up front... if you
don't pass the Clean up Albany legislation...I'm going to appoint a Moreland
Commission… and THEY are going to clean up Albany”
Government Corruption a “Double
Crime”
Governor Cuomo also spoke of his particular disgust with crimes involving
public corruption, even in comparison to other crimes. “ public corruption is a double crime. Its the
underlying crime and then it's the crime of breaching the public trust, because
when you're an elected official…you say trust me, I'm here to serve you... so
breaching that trust violating that trust to me is a separate and inexcusable
offense.
Finally, the Governor stressed that the sterling integrity and efficacy of the
Commission members would be a shining example to the public and politicians
alike. As he spoke, the official motto of the Commission was emblazoned on an
enormous banner behind him: “Restoring Public Trust in Government”: “ [the Commission
will vindicate good elected officials to the extent that they are now being
tarnished by the implication of the wrongdoing of the few… I believe there has
never been a more credible group of law enforcement officials assembled in this
state.”
“The Best and the Brightest”
Governor Cuomo could not
have been more effusive in his praise of the Commission members; “I’m going to put together a group of the
best and brightest law enforcements officials you have ever seen assembled,
period, in the state of New York. “The blue ribbon commission …the all stars,… a roster of who’s who in the law
enforcement community. … If this government has something to hide this group of people is going to find it and they're
going to expose it and that's what this is all about”. These are the “Untouchables” of the New York Law Enforcement,
and their integrity, perceived and actual, is the cornerstone of Cuomo's plan
to clean up NY Government.
The
Role of the “Public” in the “Public Hearings”
One aspect of the hearings that Governor
Cuomo did not address in his speeches introducing the Commission was the
role of witnesses from the public, but that role is clearly stated in paragraph
IX of his executive order106 that created the Commission: “The Commission shall conduct public
hearings around the State to provide opportunities for members of the public
and interested parties to comment on the issues within the scope of its work.”
At the first public hearing on Sept 17,
2013 Commission Chairman Fitzpatrick also emphasized the
importance of input from the public
hearings in his speech. “our first task
is to issue a report on or about December first of this year...and the gist of
this hearing today is to assist us in drafting and eventually writing that
report”
The Attempt to Bar the “Public” From the “Public Hearing” of September
17th, 2013.
In
practice, however, the public's role in the hearings, appeared to be a low
priority to the Commission. The Commission made no effort to announce the
hearings through media, and news venues
such as WNYC, New York One, and the Post, News, Times and Voice all failed to
mention them in advance. The Commission's website itself didn't even set up an RSVP system
for registrants until nearly a week before the first hearing.
Despite the media blackout, however, word spread among the community of
corruption victims who had been denied redress by existing oversight agencies
for years. Many heard about the hearings through The Center for Judicial Accountability, which notified its list of members and
followers. When the first Commission hearing was held on September 17th
about a hundred people gathered at the entrance of Pace University to testify.
The
excitement was palpable among the crowd that waited patiently behind police
barricades before the opening of the hearings at 6:00 PM. But at about 5:45, Commission
staffer Heather Green walked along the barricade with a clipboard in her hand.
She asked the witnesses their names, glanced at her clipboard, then shook her
head and told them,“I’m sorry, you’re not on the list”. No explanation was given as to why dozens of
people who had registered were “not on the list”, and the frustration of the
witnesses gave way to anger and some near-altercations. Ominously, dozens
of NYPD officers were gathered at the
scene, suggesting that the Commission expected public outrage at being excluded
from the “public hearing”.
Ultimately,
of the over one hundred witnesses that had gathered outside Pace University,
fewer than 20 were allowed into hearing, and only 16 were ultimately allowed to
testify. The majority of the seats in the patently undersized hearing room were
filled by reporters, and the security details and staff of the invited
speakers, who included Preet Bharara, Loretta Lynch and Cy Vance. When, after
speaking, those luminaries left the room with their entourages, plenty of seats
became available, but by that point the excluded witnesses waiting outside had
long since given up and gone home.
The
Politicians Speak; the Public Listens
Chairman William Fitzpatrick opened the hearing by lauding the credentials of
each of the 25 Commissioners, followed by his statement of the Commission’s
intent: “The public frustration and anger
with corruption has reached the breaking point… We fully intend to complete
[Cuomo’s] vision of restoring the trust of the people in its own government”,
he declared. Fitzpatrick’s rambling
presentation was followed by equally longwinded speeches by Vance, Bharara and
other invitees.
The “Public” Speaks Truth to Power
After the politicians had “run the clock” for over two hours, the members of
the public were finally allowed to speak, but were granted a mere three
minutes each to testify. If the
Commission strove to limit the public's participation because they feared it
could expose corruption among their peers, their fears were well founded. The witnesses named names, and cited specific
cases of government corruption that had devastated their lives, and for which
they could find no redress from any existing oversight agencies in New York
State. To the Commission's obvious displeasure, nearly all of the witnesses
complained of systemic corruption in the
Judiciary; the branch of Government that Attorney General Schneiderman
claimed could “police itself”. Some complaints also implicated the architects
of the Commission itself, Governor Cuomo, and AG Schneiderman:
The Commission “Disappears” The Public's
Written Testimony and Evidence
The Moreland
Commission’s website,
in it’s “Public Comments/ Testimony section, originally included the statement:
“All written testimony submitted will be
included on the record of the proceedings”, but immediately after the
testimonies of September 17th, that extremely important provision
has now been expunged from the website.
It was expunged presumably because it is being wantonly violated. As of this writing, over two months after the
hearing, not one word of the written
testimony has yet been published. Effectively, all the written testimony
and evidence that was submitted to the Commission is being withheld from the
public. Is it part of some “secret record” for Commission eyes only? Will it be
presented to Governor Cuomo and AG Schneiderman, or withheld from them as well?
Or has it simply been shredded, like the JNC's evidence against Jonathan
Lippman?
The only “record of the proceedings” available the public is the stenographic
transcript of the public hearings.
The Commission Alters the Record.
The
collection and suppression of the public's written testimony and evidence is
violative of the Commission's mandate and would appear to constitute a
deliberate cover-up of the crimes and corruption reported in those documents.
But even more sinister and
illegal is the Moreland Commission's alteration of the transcript of the September 17th hearing,
to reflect what they want it to say,
rather than what the stenographer actually recorded in her notes. Moreover, the
Commission posted the altered transcript on the website and misrepresented it
as an unaltered transcript, inckuding this signed certification attached by the
stenographer, Stefanie Krut, of Precise Court Reporting:
CERTIFICATION; I, STEFANIE KRUT, a Notary
Public in and for the State of New York, do hereby certify: THAT the foregoing
is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes.
IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of
September
2013.
Stefanie
Krut
---------------------------------
STEFANIE KRUT, PRECISE COURT REPORTING
Is
Stephanie Krut The Worst Stenographer in the World? ...
In the transcript of the witness’s testimony, the sheer number of errors-
including misspellings and omissions of key names and institutions - is
shocking. But more alarming is the apparently deliberate pattern underlying the
errors. Virtually all of the misspelled names of people and institutions
associated with complaints against the judiciary, and many were of people
with known ties to the Commission. For example:
•
Chief
Judge “Jonathan Lippman” is written “Jonathan Littman” 13 times, omitted 2
twice and never once spelled correctly.
•
NY
Administrative Judge “Anne T. Pfau”,
is written: “Anne T. Fow”, twice
•
Judge
“Saralee Evans” is written: “Sarah Lee
Evans”
•
Judge
“Scarpino” is written: “Scarpiano”
•
Judge
“Terrance McElrath” is written: “Terance
Mukolrov”
•
Judge
“Paula Hepner” is written: “Paula Hevner”
•
Attorney
“Marc A Pergament” is written: “Marc A
Pergamen”
•
Judge
“Betty Elrin” (who is on the Commission) is spelled correctly in the
Commissioner's portion and omitted in
the Public portion.
•
The
“Judicial Nomination Committee” is written: “The Judicial Violations Committee”
•
The
initials “JNC” are written: “JVC” three times
•
The
“Fund for Modern Courts” is written “The Funds for Modern Court”
•
The
“Committee on Judicial Conduct” is omitted
twice.
•
Judge
“Jacqueline Silverman” is omitted
“CASE
fixing” is written: “fixing”
•
-And
my name, “Galison”, is spelled “Galveston” 19 times, even though
it was spoken nine times by the commissioners.
None of the proper names listed above (and many more) were ever spelled
correctly in the transcript. It should be noted that despite formal requests by several witnesses to correct the hundreds of errors in their
respective portions of the transcript, the Commission has refused to make any
corrections and has not responded to any of the witnesses.
… Or a “Spelling Savant”?
As
stunning as are the number and nature of “errors”in the transcript of the
public's testimony, even more incredible is the accuracy of the transcript of
the testimony of the Commission members and invited guest speakers, including
US Attorney Preet Bharara and District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.
Whereas there are over 70 errors in the 122 lines of transcription of my testimony,
there are only five in the 152 lines
of Mr. Bharara’s testimony. In the
nearly 500 lines of testimony of Chairman Fitzpatrick, there are zero substantive errors.
If the transcript was not altered,
Ms. Krut is a speller with a nearly paranormal ability to discern between the
various spelling of names that sound identical. For example,
-Ms. Krut recorded the name of the law firm Vladeck,
Waldman, Elias and Engelhard with perfect spelling, despite the rare
variations in the names’ spelling. According to a search the Whitepages.com
website, there are at least four different spellings of the name pronounced
“vladuk” and the chance of it being spelled “Vladeck” spelling is about one in
ten.
-The name “Engelhard” is seven times less common than its homonym “Engelhardt”,
but Ms Krut made the distinction.
-The name that sounds like “Chamberlain” in the video is 20 times more likely
to be spelled “Chamberlain” than “Chamberland”, but Ms. Krut nailed it.
- The name “Deringer”, as in “Freshfields, Bruckhaus
& Deringer”, is three times more likely to be spelled with two “r”s than
one, but Ms. Krut can apparently hear the difference.
In fact, Ms. Krut spelled perfectly every
single proper name - approximately 50 different ones - uttered by Mr.
Fitzpatrick in his introduction.
But does the discrepancy between the impeccable accuracy of the transcript of
the government officials testimony and the butchering of the public witness’s
testimony conclusively prove that the transcript was altered? Could it
not be that after two and a half hours of carefully recording the politician’s
speeches, the Stenographer suddenly became too exhausted to accurately
transcribe?
If true, the allegation that Commission tampered with the transcripts would
mean that the “most credible, blue ribbon, who's who of New York law
enforcement” is itself guilty of corruption, crimes and conspiracy. As Carl
Sagan put it; “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Is there
proof?
The Smoking Gun
As it turns out, there is
at least one feature of the transcript that proves beyond doubt that the
transcript was altered after the
stenographic notes were taken at the hearing. It occurred during Chairman
Fitzgerald’s introduction of the Commission members and their accomplishments,
as he introduced Commissioner Makau Mutua.
Here is what Fitzpatrick clearly says on the video at 7 minutes and 47 seconds:
“Dean Makau Mutua is the Dean of the SUNY
Buffalo Law School. He is also the SUNY Distinguished Professor and the Floyd
Hilda Hurst Faculty Scholar at SUNY Buffalo. Dean Mutua came to us from Nairobi
where he attended the University of
Dar-es-Salaam, and Nairobi's loss, believe me, was
America's gain. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law School”.
The transcript is a subtly different however. At line 4 of page 7 Fitzpatrick states:
4 Dean Makau Mutua is the Dean of the SUNY
Buffalo Law
5 School. He is also the SUNY Distinguished Professor
and the
6 Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar at SUNY Buffalo. Dean
Mutua
7 came to us from Nairobi where he attended the
University of
8 Dar-es-Salaam, and Nairobi's loss, believe me, was
America's
9
gain. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law School.
Notice the differences? For one thing, Ms. Krut leaves out the name “Floyd”,
from the phrase “Floyd and Hilda Hurst Faculty Scholar”- which is spoken on the
video. Of course, even the best Stenographers occasionally miss a word or two,
and the omission of “Floyd” from “Floyd Hilda Hurst” would seem like a trivial
error.
But look closer. Ms. Krut also added something to the transcript that
was not spoken by Fitzpatrick at all. The transcript says
“Hilda L. Hurst”, and Fitzpatrick never uttered the initial “L” or anything
that sounded like it.
Could Ms. Krut have heard, between Fitzgerald’s words “Hilda” and “Hurst”, some
random noise in the room that sounded to her like an “L”? If she did, it would
be one of the most amazing coincidences in history, because Dean Makuta is, in
fact, the “Floyd H. and Hilda L.
Hurst Faculty Scholar at SUNY Buffalo”.
A stenographer may omit and misspell words that are spoken at a tribunal, but
she cannot record information that she has no way of knowing, if it is not
spoken at all. There is no possible way that Ms. Krut could have heard and
typed the initial “L” because it was never uttered at the hearing. The initial
“L” must have been placed in the transcript after
the hearing, and that seemingly trivial fact has enormous ramifications.
The Significance of the Alterations
First of all, alteration of the transcript from her original notes means that
Ms. Krut’s “certification” is fraudulent;
the transcript is not a “true
and accurate transcript of [Krut’s] stenographic notes”. It also means that the transcript was altered
after the hearing and before the Moreland Commission posted it as the official record of the September 17th
hearing.
Could the
transcripts have been altered legallyt? The protocol for making corrections in
the transcript is strict and well established. If the entity that ordered the
transcript (in this case the Moreland Commission) wants corrections made in the
transcript, it must send the desired corrections to the stenographic company
that reported the hearing. If there is an electronic record (audio or
audiovisual) of the hearing, the original Stenographer will check the
transcript against the record and if the correction is warranted, will add the
corrections as an addendum.
But according to
Florence Seth, the owner of Precise Court Reporting, the Moreland Commission never contacted Precise Court Reporting
or Ms Krut to request any changes in the transcripts. Ms. Krut’s supervisor,
Kelly Iacobella, emphatically confirmed this, saying: “I can tell you straight
up that they have not”.
And according to Ms. Seth, the Commission could not have altered the transcript
either legally or technically; “The Moreland Commission cannot change [the
transcript] on their own…you just can’t change things like that, this is a
legal document that’s already been established…they don’t have the software to
change the transcript” she said.
Harriet Ben Erdelman, the President of the New York Association of Court
Reporters (NYACR) concurred: “the Court Reporter shouldn't have put the initial
[“L”] in if it wasn't said... she would have written whatever was said
verbatim.. corrections would not have been made except through the agency...
they could not have sent [the corrections]
directly to the stenographer”.
Because the transcript was never sent to Precise Court Reporters for
corrections, and because the Commission does not have the software to alter the
transcript, the only possible conclusion is that Ms. Krut created the
transcript not solely from her stenographic notes, as affirmed in her oath of
certification, but with input from an outside source, which is illegal; all
without the knowledge or authorization of her supervisor and employer. To
knowingly alter a transcript that will be used in an official procedure is not
only a violation of Court Reporter’s ethics; it is a felony under NY Penal Code
S 215.35 and to sign a false certification is
perjury.
Ms.
Krut did not illegally alter the transcript because she was irresistibly
compelled to include Hilda Hurst’s middle initial (which she could not have
known even existed). Clearly, Ms. Krut altered
the transcript, and broke the law, because someone bribed, threatened or
otherwise coerced her into doing it, and the only party with a motivation to do
so was the Commissioner or Commissioners
fastidious enough to pour over the transcript, discover the missing “L” and
order it replaced. That same fastidiousness is evident in the precisely correct
orthography of rare and alternatively spelled names like Beinecke, Chamberland,
Vladeck and Deringer.
Why the Commission altered the
Transcript Secretly and Illegally
The Commissioners could have corrected the spelling mistakes easily and
legally by simply asking Precise Court Reporting to make the requested
changes, so why didn't they do that way? Because if they admitted to reviewing
and correcting the transcript legally, how could they then explain the
dozens of errors in the Public testimony? How could they explain not noticing
the misspelling of Chief Judge Lippman's name 13 times?
The Commission altered the transcripts secretly, illegally, and selectively,
and that process allowed then to introduce other changes that might suit their
agenda, and if discovered, attribute them to Ms. Krut’s exhaustion or
incompetence. This fact could explain why virtually all of the misspellings and
omissions in the transcript were of the names of the Commission's friends and
associates who were implicated in public complaints.
Conflicts of Interest Among the
Commissioners
The glaring conflicts of interests of the Commissioners are too numerous to
address in this article and will be he subject of separate article, but several
were directly addressed in the Center for
Judicial Accountability’s August 5th, 2013 letter
to the Commission: The letter, which has never been responded to, asks the Commission to identify it’s protocol
for dealing with obvious and potential conflicts of interest of Commission members, special advisors, or staff:
“[Commission staffers] Kelly Donovan and John Amodeo are part of Attorney General Schneiderman's senior staff, are they not? How then will they be handling complaints against Attorney General Schneiderman and the Attorney General's office for corrupting their duty to safeguard government
integrity
and constitutional governance?”
To expand on that point, how will
Commissioner Special Advisor Ray Kelly handle the complaints already submitted
against corruption in the NYPD? How will Milton Williams handle the numerous
complaints against his old friend Judge Lippman, who Williams’ “Fund For Modern
Courts” effectively put Lippman into power?
Moreover, how would any of Commissioners,
as deputized “Little Attorney Generals”, handle complaints against the man who
convened the Commission in the first place, Andrew Cuomo? The fact that the Commissioners are being
asked to investigate their friends, colleagues employers (and potentially themselves) is the very kind
of situation for which conflict of interest rules exist.
The Commission Must Act on Every Crime of Which it Obtains Evidence
But, according to ¶ IV of Executive
Order
106:
“If
in the course of its inquiry the Commission obtains evidence of a violation of
existing laws, such evidence shall promptly be communicated to the Office of
the Attorney General and other appropriate law enforcement authorities, and the
Commission shall take steps to facilitate jurisdictional referrals where
appropriate.”
That includes violations of law by
anyone; including friends, colleagues, employers, family and even fellow
Commissioners.
Whistle-bower: ADA
Mark Sacha Exposes Corruption in the Moreland Commission
In
fact, it has already been proven that the Moreland Commission will violate its
own rules to protect its friends and associates. In
his testimony at the September 24th hearing in Albany. Veteran Assistant DA Mark Sacha made
allegations of criminal acts and corruption against one of the Commissioners;
Frank Sedita III. Mr. Sasha had been fired after serving as Assistant District
Attorney under 6 different DA's over 25 years, because, he alleges, he exposed
egregious campaign corruption by Sedita. Did the Commission report Sedita to
the proper authorities as mandated by ¶IV of Executive Order 106?
No. According to Mr. Sacha, not only was his September 24th
testimony completely ignored- his 8- page
follow up letter to the Commission, which details and documents his complaint
has also gone unanswered and unacknowledged for nearly two months.
And ominously if not surprisingly, it was immediately after Mr. Sasha's
testimony that the Commission banned testimony from non-invited guests entirely
and permanently.
The Moreland Commission Protocol on Conflicts of Interest
The Moreland Commission has refused to
divulge its protocol involving matters of conflicts of interest. Center
For Judicial Accountability's August 5th letter specifically requested this protocol, but
has been ignored by the Commission. When this reporter asked Executive Director Regina
Calcaterra about the issue, she directed a State Trooper to detain him while she fled
in her car.
Whatever the Commission's protocol on conflicts of interest may be, they are
certainly bound by Public Officer's law
: a Commissioner who is presented with evidence implicating his friend,
colleague or employer, should disclose
that potential conflict of interest and recuse himself from any investigation
regarding anyone or any matter with which he has a relationship. But that would require every member of the
commission to recuse themselves regarding complaints against Schneiderman or
Cuomo, and that might make things pretty complicated.
A much simpler solution is to change the names on the transcript, so that his
friends are no longer even mentioned in the record. He would want every mention of your favored
government officials and favored institution’s names altered, so that they
would not show up on an electronic search and were not part of the official
record, and that is exactly what the
transcript reflects.
A corrupt commission would ignore any requests to correct the obvious
errors and omissions in the transcript, and
that is exactly what the Commission has done.
A corrupt commission would also want to
make the transcript so hard to find that nobody would ever know that you
altered it, and that is exactly
what the Commission has done. Nobody visiting the website of the Commission
will find the transcript because there is no link to it.
A corrupt commission would also not respond to any emails or phone calls regarding the
transcript or the procedures on conflict of interest. And that is exactly what
the Commission has done.
It appears that the Commission's protocol for handling conflicts of
interest is to illegally change th record so that their friends are not
mentioned in it. How can they prosecute Chief Judge Jonathan “Littman” or
Administrative Judge Anne “Fow”, when no such people exist? And how can they
pursue a complaint by the mysterious Will Galveston, who also does not
exist?
By Altering The Transcripts,
Moreland Commissioners Committed Multiple Felonies
The alteration of the transcript is much more than a violation of
Commission Rules; it may constitute commission of a number of of State and
Federal felonies under state and federal law, including:
1) S 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence,
both for the suppression of witness testimony and for the alteration of the
transcript, which constitutes physical evidence under NY law.
2) S 215.00 Bribing a witness, for
influencing Ms. Krut to alter the transcript.
3) Federal law 18
U.S.C. § 2541 for conspiracy to deprive the rights of the witnesses
for redress of grievances, among other things.
4) Crimes under
Color of Law, for all of the above in their official capacities as
deputized Attorney Generals.
5) NYS Public
Officers law §74, for using his or her official position to secure
unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others
Who is Guilty?
Certainly, any Commission members, advisors, or staff
who were involved in the altering of the transcripts must be prosecuted by
Federal law enforcement.
Stenographer Stefanie Krut is apparently
also guilty of tampering with physical evidence, but could be given clemency
for revealing who in the Commission requested the illegal changes, what changes
were made, and who paid her for altering the transcript.
It is possible that not all of the
Commission members, advisors and staff are complicit in the alteration of the
transcripts. But according to section IV of Executive Order 106, every
member of the Moreland Commission is compelled to report evidence of this
crime to the appropriate authorities, and as this article is being sent to all
of them at the time of publication, they will be aware of these crimes by the
time you read these words. If they do not immediately communicate
this evidence to the Office of the Attorney General and other appropriate law
enforcement authorities”, including
the Justice Department and the FBI, then they are as complicit and guilty as
those that altered the transcript, and must be punished accordingly.
The Moreland Commission Is Not Merely a Sham; It is the Epitome of
Corruption; a Disgrace and a Danger to the State of New York.
If, as Governor Cuomo claims to believe, official corruption is a “double
crime” of particular heinousness, how can we describe the perversity of
corruption in a Commission created for the sole purpose of fighting public
corruption . Certainly it is a “triple crime”. It is the underlying, crime, the
betrayal of the public trust, and ultimately the mechanism by which public
corruption will be perpetuated and proliferated. Add to that the hypocrisy, the
cynicism, and contempt for the rights and grievances of the New York citizenry,
and it can be said that those Commissioners involved in this cover up are
despicable criminals as any. If this group of felons represents, in Governor
Cuomos' words, “the
best and brightest law enforcements officials you have ever seen assembled,
period, in the state of New York”, we are in deep trouble.
