Former Judge of the New York State Supreme Court, Salvador Collazo, and His Paralegal, Are Found Guilty of Fraud

Salvador Collazo leaves the Federal Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan.

New York Federal Court Found Former Judge And His Paralegal Guilty Of Operating Immigration Fraud Mill
by BCheung on April 20, 2010
LINK

Salvador Collazo, former Justice of the New York State Supreme Court and Attorney at law from Bronx New York, and his paralegal Dalia Preldakaj, were found guilty of multiple counts of fraud pursuant to their immigration fraud mill operation.

Between 2000 and 2008, Collazo and Preldakaj submitted hundreds of fraudulent amnesty applications to the United States Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Preldakaj also charged clients thousands of dollars in excessive filing and processing fees. Proceeds were kept to herself through nominee bank accounts which she controlled.

Preladkaj was additionally charged for witness tampering by attempting to persuade a former client to file a false claim against her to purport the money the client had paid to her as a personal loan.

Collazo now faces a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to commit immigration application fraud, one count of immigration application fraud, and one count of false statements.

Preldakaj now faces a maximum penalty of 80 years of imprisonment for one count of money laundering, immigration application fraud, engaging in an illegal monetary transaction, immigration fee fraud, witness tampering and witness tampering after being released on bail.

Former Manhattan judge Salvador Collazo arrested in green-card scam
By Thomas Zambito, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, July 14th 2009, 8:30 PM
LINK

A former Manhattan judge bounced off the bench for commenting on a female intern's "knockers" was arrested Monday for filing bogus green-card applications.

Manhattan federal prosecutors say Salvador Collazo took thousands of dollars in excessive fees from aspiring citizens.

Collazo pleaded not guilty to visa fraud and was freed on a $100,000 bond.

The Court of Appeals knocked him off the bench in 1998 after an intern said the former Civil Court judge told her to take off her jacket on a hot day, even though she had nothing on underneath.

Collazo's former law secretary said the judge once passed him a note about the intern that read: "She has some knockers."

IN THE MATTER OF HON. SALVADOR COLLAZO, JUDGE OF THE CIVIL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND ACTING JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER, FOR REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, RESPONDENT.
91 N.Y.2d 251, 691 N.E.2d 1021, 668 N.Y.S.2d 997 (1998).
February 17, 1998
SCJC No. 12

[NY Int. 0009]
Decided February 17, 1998
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
Milton S. Gould, for petitioner.
Robert H. Tembeckjian, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, a Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York and Acting Justice of Supreme Court, First Judicial District, has requested review of the determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that he failed to observe the "high standards of conduct" necessary to "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary" (Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 100.1; see, Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1), and violated the rule that a Judge "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity * * * of the judiciary" (Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 100.2[a]; see, Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2A) and, as a consequence, should be removed from office.

After a full evidentiary hearing held before a Referee, submissions by the parties and oral argument, the Commission determined that petitioner made inappropriate remarks in the workplace to and about a female law intern and thereafter engaged in deceptive or duplicitous behavior with respect to those incidents and the Commission's investigation of them. Petitioner argues that the Commission essentially "misused lack of candor charges" because there is no "contrary objective proof" that petitioner lied (see, Matter of Kiley v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 74 NY2d 364, 370-371) and that although he made "serious mistakes," his conduct merely reflects poor judgment and does not warrant the extreme sanction of removal (see, id.). Having conducted a plenary review of the record (Judiciary Law § 44[9]), we conclude that the Commission's determination is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Matter of Mogil v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 88 NY2d 749, 752), and that the sanction of removal is appropriate.

The investigation of petitioner's conduct was triggered by a complaint stemming from a note he passed to his court attorney, allegedly concerning the physical attributes of a female law intern, and that petitioner suggested, albeit in jest, to the same intern that she remove part of her apparel in his presence. Although petitioner denied, under oath, making such remarks and gave a different explanation for writing the note, the Referee and the Commission rejected his testimony. Based upon our independent review of the record and giving due deference to the credibility determinations of the Referee and the Commission (see, Matter of Sims v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 61 NY2d 349, 353, rearg denied 62 NY2d 884), we find no reason to disturb their findings.

Here, petitioner's ribald note and indelicate suggestion, even if made in jest, are, without question, demeaning, entirely inappropriate and deserving of some sanction. Although we agree with the Commission that these isolated occurrences, standing alone, would not be sufficient to justify removal, petitioner's misconduct is magnified here by a pattern of evasive, deceitful and outright untruthful behavior, evidencing a lack of fitness to hold judicial office.

The most egregious instances of such misconduct occurred in connection with petitioner's attempt to conceal the Commission's pending investigation of the initial complaint while seeking an interim appointment to a vacancy on Supreme Court in the Twelfth Judicial District. First, in the course of completing a questionnaire for the Governor's Judicial Screening Committee, petitioner encountered the question: "Have you ever been the subject of any inquiry or investigation by a federal, state or local agency (other than for routine background investigations for employment purposes)?" Petitioner responded "no," despite the fact that he unquestionably was aware of the pending investigation, having testified before the Referee only two months prior. Petitioner signed the questionnaire and certified that "to the best of my knowledge the information I have supplied is complete, true and accurate."

Petitioner attempted to explain away this falsehood, asserting that he believed the question referred only to criminal investigations. His explanation, however, was rejected by the Referee and the Commission in light of the clear language contained in the questionnaire. After reviewing the record and the questionnaire itself, we agree with the Commission that petitioner's explanation was, at the very least, disingenuous.

Then, in May of 1995, petitioner was nominated by Governor Pataki to fill the Supreme Court vacancy and his name was submitted to the State Senate for confirmation. In accordance with the requirements of Judiciary Law § 45(2), petitioner was asked to execute and promptly return to the Senate Judiciary Committee a waiver of his right to confidentiality as to any Judicial Conduct Commission records pertaining to him. Petitioner delayed returning the waiver until the day before his scheduled confirmation hearing despite repeated efforts by the Senate Judiciary Committee's staff counsel to contact petitioner and procure the waiver. Petitioner asserted that the delay was attributable to his own second thoughts about accepting his pending elevation to Supreme Court. In light of petitioner's otherwise active pursuit of the appointment, both the Referee and the Commission rejected petitioner's explanation, as do we.

Significantly, during this period of delay, petitioner was asked directly by staff counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee whether he was the subject of any complaints before the Commission. He responded, unequivocally, in the negative. When confronted with these facts, he denied, under oath, that this conversation occurred. The Referee and the Commission credited the testimony of staff counsel over that of petitioner. Based upon our review of the record, we find no reason to disturb this credibility determination.

Thus, we conclude that petitioner made false statements to the Commission and gave deceitful, and even dishonest, responses to the Governor's Screening Committee and to the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee. By no means can this pattern of behavior be explained as a "mere lack of recall" or described as "poor judgment" (see, Matter of Kiley v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 74 NY2d, at 369-370, supra). A further aggravating factor was that petitioner was motivated by his own personal gain to dissimulate in this manner (cf., Matter of Skinner v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, __NY2d__ [decided 12/18/97]; Matter of Kiley v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, supra, at 370).

Although the sanction of removal is reserved for those instances where the conduct is "truly egregious" and not merely an exercise of poor judgment (see, Matter of Mazzei v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 81 NY2d 568, 572; Matter of Kiley v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, supra, 74 NY2d, at 369-370), we have recognized that the "truly egregious" standard is measured with due regard to the fact that judges must be held to a higher standard of conduct than the public at large (see, Matter of Mazzei v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, supra; Matter of Aldrich v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 58 NY2d 279, 283). Particularly relevant here is our conviction that "deception is antithetical to the role of a Judge who is sworn to uphold the law and seek truth" (Matter of Myers v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 67 NY2d 550, 554; see, Matter of Cohen v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 74 NY2d 272, 278). Thus, we conclude that the Commission appropriately imposed the sanction of removal in this case.

Accordingly, the determined sanction should be accepted, without costs, and petitioner should be removed from his office of Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York and Acting Justice of Supreme Court, First Judicial District.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Determined sanction accepted, without costs, and Honorable Salvador Collazo removed from the offices of Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York and Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, First Judicial District. Opinion Per Curiam. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Decided February 17, 1998

Westchester Surrogate Scarpino's Corruption Back in Federal Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER
08 Civ. 3305 (SAS) (dated April 6, 2010)

PAMELA CARVEL, Plaintiff,

-against-

NEW YORK STATE; OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED
COURT SYSTEM OF NEW YORK;
THOMAS J. CAHILL, individually and in
his official capacity; SHERRY M. COHEN,
individually and in her official capacity;
GARY L. CASELLA, individually and in his
official capacity; EVE MARKEWICH,
individually and as a partner of BLANK
ROME LLP; FRANK STRENG,
individually and as a partner of
McCARTHY FINGAR LLP; DEBORAH
McCARTHY; JOEL AURNOU; WILLIAM
GRIFFIN, individually and as a co-owner of
HUDSON VALLEY BANK; LAURA
WERNER, individually and in her official
capacity; ANTHONY SCARPINO,
individually and in his official capacity;
CHARLES SCOTT, individually and in his
official capacity; and JOHN/JANE DOE,
DOE COMPANY 1-20,
Defendants.

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Pamela Carvel, proceeding pro se, brought suit against the above named defendants pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”),1 alleging various constitutional violations including the denial of due process and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.2 Carvel also asserts a number of state law claims.3 The instant case, along with five other cases, were filed as related to Anderson v. State of New York, 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS).4 On August 8, 2008, this Court dismissed this and the five other actions in an omnibus Opinion and Order.5 Carvel appealed to the Second Circuit which, on March 12, 2010, issued a Summary Order, affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding this case to this Court.6

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in all aspects but one, stating as follows:

we cannot affirm the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s conspiracy allegations under §1983. Plaintiff alleges a “strong appearance of bribery” surrounding $400,000 in loans given to Justice Scarpino. App. 26 (Compi. 7~ 69-70). Although Justice Scarpino enjoys the benefit of absolute judicial immunity from that claim, the other defendants involved in the alleged “bribery” scheme do not. See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28-29 (1980). Because the District Court did not explicitly address this claim before dismissing it sua sponte, we lack a basis on which to affirm its dismissal. We therefore vacate the dismissal with respect to the “bribery” claim and remand for the District Court to address Ihe claim in the first instance.7 This Court must therefore apply the holding of Dennis v. Sparks8 to plaintiff’s allegations and determine whether any part of her conspiracy claim should survive.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss

The first question is whether plaintiff’s allegations meet the plausibility standard recently adopted by the Supreme Court. In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must “accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint”9 and “draw all reasonable inferences in [the] plaintiffs favor.”10 However, a court need not accord “[l]egal conclusions, deductions or opinions couched as factual allegations . . . a presumption of truthfulness.”11 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must show that the plaintiff is plausibly entitled to relief.’12 A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”13 Plausibility “is not akin to a probability requirement,” rather plausibility requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”14

B. Conspiracy Under Section 1983

In order to survive a motion to dismiss a section 1983 conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must allege: “(I) an agreement between [two or more state actors or] a state actor and a private party; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages.”5 “Thus, a plaintiff must show that defendants acted in a willful manner, culminating in an agreement, understanding or meeting of the minds, that violated [his] rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal courts.”6 “In addition, ‘complaints containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations that the defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights are properly dismissed.”7 While conclusory allegations may be insufficient, “conspiracies are by their very nature secretive operations,’ and may have to be proven by circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence.”8 Finally, “[a] violated constitutional right is a natural prerequisite to a claim of conspiracy to violate such right.”9 “Without deprivation of a federal constitutional right, ‘there can be no civil rights conspiracy to deprive that right.”20 Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege a constitutional deprivation.

III. DISCUSSION

A. In General

Because plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is prolix and often vague and repetitive, it is difficult to decipher the parameters of the alleged conduct that resulted in particular constitutional violations. However, the thrust of plaintiffs numerous allegations can be summarized as follows: After the suspicious death of plaintiffs uncle, ice cream magnate Thomas Carvel, his multimillion dollar estate was plundered by private attorneys, assisted by various employees of the state court system, to the financial and emotional detriment of his wife, Agnes Carvel, now deceased,2’ and plaintiff, his surviving niece.22 In sum, plaintiff alleges that individual defendants William Griffin, Eve Markewich, Frank Streng, Deborah McCarthy, and Joel Aurnou (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), all of whom are attorneys in private practice, colluded with Justice Anthony Scarpino of the Westchester County Surrogate’s Court, and other state employee defendants, to “engage in tax fraud, charity fraud, covert agreements, conversion, and fraudulent transfers of Pamela Carvel ‘s assets and other Carvel assets to themselves and their agents, so as to defraud Pamela Carvel as client, fiduciary, creditor, beneficiary, and charitable benefactor.”23

B. The Alleged Bribery

Carvel further alleges that Griffin, Markewich, Streng, McCarthy, and Aurnou “entered into covert verbal and written agreements in the Southern District, orchestrated, endorsed, or condoned by Defendants Scarpino, Scott, and Werner, to withhold ALL funds from Pamela Carvel (and the Carvel family) as fiduciary, creditor, asset owner, and benefactor.”24 Plaintiff also alleges a “strong appearance of bribery” surrounding $400,000 in “loans” given to Justice Scarpino from Hudson Valley Bank, a bank in which Griffin is the controlling shareholder. As stated by plaintiff: Streng entered the picture only when the matters in Thomas Carvel’s estate were going to trial before Surrogate Scarpino. Defendant Scarpino failed to disclose conflicts with Streng and a strong appearance of bribey through about $400,000 in “loans” from Hudson Valley Bank, controlled by Griffin, who was appearing before Scarpino as witness and adverse litigant against Pamela.

Public records appear to show that Scarpino was given a $100,000 “loan” by Hudson Valley Bank prior to taking office. Neither Scarpino, nor Markewich, nor Streng, nor McCarthy, nor Aurnou, nor Griffin, ever revealed to Plaintiff Pamela Carvel that Griffin’s Hudson Valley Bank gave Scarpino that loan or additional loans. Griffin’s Hudson Valley Bank gave Scarpino another $200,000 “loan” in October 2001 to coincide with commencement of the first trials in Thomas Carvel’s estate. None of the Defendants revealed [that] yet another $100,000 “loan” in December2004 was given to Scarpino by Griffin’s Hudson Valley Bank just prior to the commencement of trials in Agnes Carvel’s estate.25

Plaintiff claims that as a result of this alleged bribery, Scarpino denied plaintiffs request for a trial by jury.26 Furthermore, two days before plaintiffs opposition to a motion for accounting and legal fees was due in the Thomas Carvel case, Streng moved to withdraw his law firm, McCarthy Fingar, from representing plaintiff, leaving her without legal representation.27 Despite Scarpino’s previous recusal in the McKeown case because of his close relationship with Streng, Scarpino did not decline to decide Streng’s motion to withdraw in Carvel’s case.28 Plaintiff further alleges that Scarpino and Streng corruptly agreed to apply Streng’s withdrawal of representation in the Thomas Carvel case to other matters, thereby depriving Pamela Carvel of due process.29

C. Plaintiff’s Alleged Injuries

It appears that plaintiff could properly allege a plausible section 1983 conspiracy claim, at least as to Griffin. According to plaintiff, Paul Amicucci is a member of Griffin’s law firm. After Agnes Carvel’s death, Griffin, allegedly acting on behalf of the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation, sold Agnes Carvel’s 19-acre residence in Ardsley, New York, to Amicucci’s brother for two million dollars in 2006, although it was worth ten million dollars.3° On the same day, Amicucci’s shell company assigned the whole property back to Griffin through Hudson Valley Bank as a lease assignment for security for a mortgage from Hudson Valley Bank.31

Upon plaintiff’s discovery of these transactions in 2007, this “real estate scheme” was brought before Justice Scarpino who allegedly “did nothing.”32 With further elaboration, Scarpino’s handling of this “real estate scheme” may be a sufficient overt act done with the intention of causing plaintiff to be deprived of property without due process.33 These allegations could, with further elaboration, sufficiently allege the agreement and acting in concert elements of a section 1983 conspiracy claim, at least between Griffin and Scarpino, when coupled with the above-mentioned bribery allegations concerning $400,000 in “loans” made to Scarpino by the Hudson Valley Bank. Moreover, Griffin could be deemed to be a state actor under Dennis v. Sparks given his alleged collusion with a state-court judge who, but for absolute judicial immunity, would also be a defendant in this action.34 The question, then, is whether plaintiff can allege sufficient facts so as to include Griffin and the remaining Individual Defendants in a conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights.

In sum, the remaining individual Defendants could also be deemed to be state actors if there is a sufficient factual basis to conclude that they conspired with Justice Scarpino, or any other state actor, to deprive plaintiff of a constitutional right. However, the Complaint fails to adequately plead how plaintiff was deprived of her property without due process and what the Individual Defendants allegedly did, with whom, when, and what corresponding constitutional injury it caused.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, plaintiff’s section 1983 conspiracy claim is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend her Complaint against the Individual Defendants within the next thirty (30) days.35 An amended Complaint must contain specific factual allegations, consistent with this Supplemental Opinion and Order, detailing the various conspiracies in which each of the Individual Defendants allegedly engaged and that resulted in a constitutional violation.36 The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to reinstate this case to my active docket as to defendants Griffin, Markewich, Streng, McCarthy, and Aurnou.

Leave to amend should be freely granted when “justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). See also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). This rule is especially applicable to pro se litigants. See Gomez v. USAA Fed. Scm’. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999) @er curiam) (stating that a pro se complaint should not be dismissed without granting leave to amend when a liberal reading of such complaint “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated”) (quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis added). Although Gomez pre-dates the plausibility standard announced in Twoinbly and elaborated upon in Iqbal, the standard for granting leave to amend, albeit somewhat less relaxed now, must still permit pro se litigants at least one chance to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

I decline defendant Markewich’s suggestion to stay this case pending a decision on a motion to dismiss filed in a subsequently commenced district court action, Carvel v. Ross, 09 Civ. 722 (LAK). See 3/17/10 Letter from Philip Touitou, counsel to Markewich, at I.

Dated: New York, New York
April 6, 2010

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN,
U.S.D.J.

Appearances -Plaintiff (Pro Se):

Pamela Carvel
110 West Ninth Street, Suite 177
Wilmington, DE 19801-1618

For Defendant Markewich:

Philip Touitou, Esq.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
780 Third Avenue, 4t1~ Floor
New York, NY 10017 (212) 471-6211

For Defendants Frank Streng and Joel Aurnou:

Joseph J. Brophy, Esq.
McCarthy Fingar LLP
11 Martine Avenue, I 2th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606 (914) 946-3700

FOOTNOTES:

1. Section 1983 states as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, as follows: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST., amend. XIV, § 1.

3. See Amended Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 172-203.

4. See Esposito v. State of New York, 07 Civ. 11612 (SAS); Bernstein v.Appellate Div. First Dep ‘t Departmental Disciplinary Comm., 07 Civ. 11196(SAS); McKeown v. State of New York, 08 Civ. 2391 (SAS); McCormick v. State of New York, 08 Civ. 4438 (SAS); and Capogrosso v. New York State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct, 08 Civ. 5455 (SAS).

5. See Esposito, et at v. State of New York, Nos. 07 Civ. 11612, 08 Civ. 2391, 08 Civ. 3305, 08 Civ. 4438, 08 Civ. 5455, 08 Civ. 6368, 2008 WL 3523910 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2008). This Opinion also dismissed Peterec-Tolino v. State of New York, 08 Civ. 6368 (SAS). Bernstein was decided in a separate Opinion and Order, also dated August 8, 2008. See Bernstein v. State of New York, 591 F. Supp. 2d 448, 470 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing remaining defendants sua sponte, and denying leave to amend). Carvel, McCormick, Capogrosso, and Petrec-Tolino were dismissed sua sponte while Esposito and McKeown were dismissed pursuant to motions to dismiss, On appeal, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal in Bernstein and affirmed this Court in Esposito, Capogrosso, and Peterec-Tolino by Summary Order. No appeal was taken in McCormick while the appeal in McKeown is pending.

6. See Carvel v. New York, No. 08-4576-CV, 2010 WL 889326, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2010).

7. Id. at *1.

8. In Dennis, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether private parties accused of conspiring with a judge could be deemed to be acting “under color of’ state law for purposes of section 1983. See 449 U.S. at 27-28. In answering this question, the Supreme Court stated that:

to act “under color of’ state law for § 1983 purposes does not require that the defendant be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting “under color” of law for purposes of § 1983 actions. Of course, merely resorting to the courts and being on the winning side of a lawsuit does not make a party a co-conspirator or ajoint actor with the judge. But here the allegations were that an official act of the defendantjudge was the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving bribery of the judge. Under these allegations, the private parties conspiring with the judge were acting under color of state law; and it is of no consequence in this respect that the judge himself is immune from damages liability. Immunity does not change the character of the judge’s action or that of his co-conspirators. . . . Private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge in connection with such conduct are thus acting under color of state law within the meaning of § 1983 as it has been construed in our prior cases.

Id. at 27-29 (footnotes and citations omitted, emphasis added).

9. Bell At/i Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 572 (2007). Accord Rescuecoin Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 127 (2d Cir. 2009).

10. Ofori-Tenkorang v. American Int’l Group, Inc., 460 F.3d 296, 298 (2d Cir. 2006).

11. In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 503 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted).

12. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (“[WJe do not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”).

13. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation marks omitted).

14. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

15. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324-25 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 1999)).

16. Bussey v. Phillips, 419 F. Supp. 2d 569, 586-87 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted, alteration in original).

17. Ciambriello, 292 F.3d at 325 (quoting Dwares v. City of N.Y., 985 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1993) (quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted)).

18. Pangburn, 200 F.3d at 65 (quoting Rounseville v. Zahl, 13 F.3d 625, 632 (2d Cir. 1994)).

19. Romer v. Morgenthau, 119 F. Supp. 2d 346, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“Thus, if a plaintiff cannot sufficiently allege a violation of his rights, it follows that he cannot sustain a claim of conspiracy to violate those rights.”).

20. Bussey, 419 F. Supp. 2d at 587 (quoting Young v. County of Fulton,160 F.3d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1998)). Accord Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff 63F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that a section 1983 conspiracy claim “will stand only insofar as the plaintiff can prove the sine qua non of a § 1983 action: the violation of a federal right”) (citing Adickes v. 5.11. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,
150 (1970)).

21. Plaintiff claims that Agnes’s death on August 4, 1998, was caused by a stroke “procured deliberately by stress from [defendant Williamj Griffin instigated through [the] Surrogate’s Court.” Compl. ¶ 62.

22. See id. ¶ 6 (“Defendants as individual lawyers, in various positions, created or furthered systemic corruption in New York State for the purpose of furthering deceptions to steal control of the Carvel family’s. . . assets — to the total exclusion of the legitimate asset owners and their successors in interest.”); ¶ 7 (“The fundamental mechanism that makes such corruption possible is the deprivation to Pamela Carvel (and others) of all legitimate avenues of redress of grievances or judicial abuses because of intentional and negligent collusion by State employees charged with protection of Pamela Carvel (and all other citizens).”).

23. Id. . ¶ 11
24. Id. . ¶ 29
25. Id. . ¶ 69-70.
26. Id. . ¶ 71.
27. Id. . ¶ 75

28. See id. ¶ 77. According to plaintiff Scarpino, in a written decision, “specifically denied responsibility over ethical and professional complaints against Streng and his firm.” fd. ¶ 24. Plaintiff fails to explain the significance of how and when Scarpino “denied responsibility” for Streng’s conduct and how this alleged denial violated any of her constitutional rights.

29. Id. . ¶ 77.
30. Id. . ¶ 84.

31. Id. . See id. Plaintiff does not identify to whom the mortgage from Hudson Valley Bank was made.

32. Id. ¶ 85. Once again, plaintiff fails to identify how this “real estate scheme” was presented to Justice Scarpino.

33. For example, plaintiff fails to explain the basis of her property interest in her aunt’s residence. Presumably, Pamela Carvel was the beneficiary, or a beneficiary, of Agnes Carvel’s estate but this is not specifically alleged in connection with the Ardsley residence.

34. I need not decide whether plaintiff has asserted plausible claims against Justice Scarpino as the Second Circuit held that he is shielded from suit under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See Carvel, 2010 WL 889326, at *1.

****CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ORDER****

Nora Anderson Is Aquitted Of All Charges And Takes Her Seat As Manhattan Surrogate

Nora Anderson, elected as Manhattan Surrogate to replace Judge Renee Roth butunable to take her seat on Jan. 1, 2009 because she was indicted for election finance fraud, has been found innocent and now will take her seat. This will remove Temporary Surrogate Judge Troy Webber, who, working with the Attorney General's office and the Public Administrator, locked me in her courtroom on April 1, 2009 in order to threaten me with contempt of court if I wrote anything about her denial of my Constitutional rights as she put me on trial without a jury.

Here is the complaint I filed in Federal court:

RICO in the New York State Unified Court System: How the Courts Steal Your Property, Your Children, and Try To Destroy Your Life...And How You Can Stop Them


After the trial ended on September 14, 2009, I received the "missing" hospital records of my mom's emergency care at Lenox Hill Hospital when she was physically attacked by my twin sister on July 25, 1997. In these records, my mom told the hospital staff that her daughter Julia Danger had hurt her. This attack caused my mom to change her Will, on November 22, 1997, leaving her apartment to me. The fact was covered up by the Surrogate Court for twelve years, in order that the property left to me in my mom's Will could be taken by the Court.

As of April 1, 2010, Judge Webber has never made a decision on the Probate of the Will of my mom, Julia Elizabeth Taschereau.

Surrogate Acquitted in Election Law Case
The New York Law Journal by Daniel Wise - April 2, 2010

Manhattan Surrogate Nora S. Anderson and a co-defendant, Seth Rubenstein, were acquitted yesterday in a verdict that could blow a hole in the contribution limits under the state's campaign finance law. After deliberating for about eight hours over two days, the jury found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the judge and Mr. Rubenstein had lied in campaign filings about $250,000 pumped into her 2008 primary campaign for Manhattan surrogate. Surrogate Anderson sobbed with relief as the verdicts were announced. Prosecutors had contended that Mr. Rubenstein was the source of the $250,000 and that, as a candidate, Surrogate Anderson had falsely reported the funds as coming from her. The defense contended the funds were a gift and a loan and that the candidate was free to use them as she chose. The verdict frees Surrogate Anderson to assume her seat, possibly as early as Monday. She has been suspended with pay since Jan. 1, 2009. David Bookstaver, a spokesperson for the court system, said "we will assure an orderly transition in the coming days." Bronx Supreme Court Justice Troy K. Webber (See Profile) has been serving as the interim Manhattan surrogate.

The prosecution presented undisputed facts to back up a strong case that the source of the $250,000 had been masked by Mr. Rubenstein and Surrogate Anderson: In the month before the 2008 Democratic primary, Mr. Rubenstein twice transferred funds into the candidate's personal accounts: $100,000 on Aug. 12 and $150,000 on Aug. 25. On Aug. 19, Surrogate Anderson donated $100,000 to her campaign and on Aug. 26, she loaned her campaign $170,000, $20,000 of which prosecutors acknowledge was her own. Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Daniel G. Cort argued that the money came at a critical time for the cash-strapped campaign with vendors refusing to carry out vital tasks without an up-front payment. With Mr. Rubenstein having the needed funds but unable to make them available without exceeding campaign contribution limits, and Ms. Anderson lacking the assets needed to reinvigorate her campaign, Mr. Cort contended that it would take an "Olympic leap of mental gymnastics" to find a legitimate purpose for funneling Mr. Rubenstein's funds through Ms. Anderson. The acquittal on those facts essentially eliminates the limits on the amount of money individuals may make to candidates, several election law experts said. In the 2008 Manhattan primary, the limit was $33,122. Amounts loaned to a campaign are treated as contributions if not repaid by primary day, which in 2008 was Sept. 9. Henry T. Berger, an election law expert, said the verdict "effectively means there are no campaign limits. Anyone who wants to can evade the limits by making a gift to the candidate, as long as they pay the gift tax and don't require that the money be spent in the campaign." Another expert, Lawrence A. Mandelker, of Kantor, Davidoff, Wolfe, Mandelker, Twomey & Gallanty, said the verdict creates a hole in the disclosure law which "the Legislature will have to address." He added that the prosecution's case had been made more difficult after Acting Justice Michael G. Obus (See Profile), who presided over the trial, had dismissed eight of 10 counts in the indictment. All of the counts alleging direct violations of the election law were dismissed, and only the two false filing counts were allowed to go forward because the filing took place in Manhattan while the underlying acts occurred at Surrogate Anderson's headquarters, which were located in Mr. Rubenstein's office in Brooklyn.

The question of ownership was harder to prove under the filing counts, Mr. Mandelker said, than under the dismissed charges, which make any gift or loan "in connection with an election" a crime. The two defense lawyers—Gustave H. Newman for Surrogate Anderson and Frederick P. Hafetz for Mr. Rubenstein—during trial hammered away at reasonable doubt stressing inconsistencies and ambiguities in both the state Election Law and the prosecution's expert witness, William J. McCann, the lawyer at the Board of Elections in charge of enforcing the state campaign finance laws. Yesterday morning the jury asked for a read back of Mr. McCann's testimony which took close to an hour and a half. About an hour of the read-back dealt with Mr. McCann's cross-examination by Mr. Hafetz. Roughly 20 minutes after the read-back was completed, the jury informed Justice Obus that it had a verdict. Read Mr. McCann's direct testimony and testimony on cross examination. Messrs. Newman and Hafetz during the trial cited numerous ambiguities in the election law and the way it is administered. Mr. Hafetz delivered a particularly harsh attack on Mr. McCann, calling him "pompous," the "professor of presumptions" and "a walking definition of reasonable doubt." In one instance cited by the two defense lawyers, Mr. McCann testified that the handbook prepared by the board to assist candidates in filling out disclosure forms was "wrong" when it stated that gifts from a candidate were not considered contributions. In another, they pointed out that Mr. McCann had categorized Ms. Anderson as the agent of her campaign committee. That categorization, Mr. Hafetz told the jury, was essential to "bootstrap" Mr. Rubenstein's gift to the candidate into a contribution to the committee. The problem, Mr. Hafetz related, was that there was no mention of a candidate being a committee's agent in the 2007 version of the handbook, which was the only one available to the Anderson campaign.

Expected to Take Bench

Richard Godosky, who represented Surrogate Anderson in opposing her suspension while she fought the criminal charges, said "I assume she will take the bench on Monday and Justice Webber will return to the Bronx." Gary Spencer, a spokesman for the Court of Appeals, said Wednesday that Surrogate Anderson's suspension would dissolve by its own terms upon acquittal. The surrogate won a three-way Democratic primary race in 2008, defeating Manhattan Justice Milton A. Tingling (See Profile) and John J. Reddy Jr., counsel to the Manhattan public administrator. She then coasted to victory without opposition in the general election. The Court of Appeals suspended her three days before she was scheduled to take office. If convicted, Surrogate Anderson, 57, and Mr. Rubenstein, 82, could have been sentenced to prison for a maximum term of 1 1/3-to-4 years. Surrogate Anderson was also represented by Richard A. Greenberg. Daniel Wise can be reached at dwise@alm.com.

Here's the New York Times Story:

Manhattan Surrogate’s Court Judge Is Acquitted
The New York Times by JOHN ELIGON - April 1, 2010
LINK

A jury decided on Thursday that a judge in Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan, along with her mentor and former boss, did not break the law by making transactions that ended with a $250,000 contribution to the judge’s campaign. Judge Nora S. Anderson, 57, was acquitted of two felony counts of intentionally filing false campaign reports. Her former boss, Seth Rubenstein, a lawyer in Brooklyn, was acquitted of the same charges. The verdict means that Judge Anderson, who was suspended as soon as she took office on Jan. 1, 2009, because of the charges, will be permitted to take her seat, said Gary Spencer, the spokesman for the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. The actions at issue in the case were never in dispute. During Judge Anderson’s 2008 race for Surrogate’s Court, which handles wills, estates and adoption matters, Mr. Rubenstein twice gave money to her — $100,000 on one occasion and $150,000 on another — and she directed that money to her campaign war chest. Prosecutors said that Judge Anderson lied on financial disclosure reports filed with the city that listed her as the source of the money. Mr. Rubenstein, 82, funneled the money this way to avoid exceeding the individual donor limit of $33,122.50, the prosecution said. Defense lawyers conceded that Mr. Rubenstein gave Judge Anderson the money as a gift with the hope that she would use it for her campaign. But once he had given it to her, they said, it was hers to spend as she pleased, so the statements on the disclosure reports were true. The jurors said little as they left the courtroom. “There were certain things that were unclear” about the case, said the foreman, John Wilson. He declined to offer details, adding only that “there was enough reasonable doubt among the minds of the jurors.” Some experts said Thursday that the verdict underlined the need for Albany to reform campaign finance laws. “This just eviscerates campaign contribution limits,” said Henry T. Berger, an election lawyer. “Anybody can give as much as they want to the candidate they want simply by giving it to the candidate, and not the campaign, as long as they pay the gift taxes on it.”

Judge Anderson sobbed as the verdict was read. As she left the courthouse, she was all smiles. “I’m very happy,” she said, declining to comment further. “Feels terrific,” said her husband, Tony Levell. “It was an arduous ordeal for her.” But Judge Anderson is not in the clear yet. Before the case went to trial, Justice Michael J. Obus, who presided over the case in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, threw out several of the prosecution’s charges, saying that they were out of the Manhattan district attorney’s jurisdiction because the transactions between Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein occurred in Brooklyn, where his office is. Now, the Brooklyn district attorney’s office plans to investigate the charges, said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for the office. The state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct also has the authority to bring ethics sanctions against Judge Anderson. Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator, said he could not comment on whether the commission would pursue a case. “The law is clear that people are allowed to give gifts” to candidates for office, said Jerry H. Goldfeder, an election lawyer who was a consultant for the defense on the case. “That’s what the law is. Is it good policy? That’s a different issue.”

Laurence D. Laufer, another election lawyer who advised the defense, said the trial had exposed three ambiguities in the state’s campaign finance law. “When does a personal gift become a contribution? When should that be disclosed? Who should make the disclosure?” he said. “The bottom line is it’s time for the Legislature to get serious and seriously consider an overhaul that provides clarity and simplicity about what is required under campaign finance.” Although this case exposed a loophole in campaign finance law, it is not as large as people might think, said Lawrence A. Mandelker, an election lawyer who also was a defense consultant. There may still be a case to be made over whether the transactions in Judge Anderson’s case were illegal contributions. A provision of campaign finance law defines a contribution as a gift or loan made in connection with an election, Mr. Mandelker said. But the jury did not have to consider that because the related charges were among those that Justice Obus had dismissed. Instead, the central question for jurors was to whom the money belonged once Mr. Rubenstein had given it to Judge Anderson. “The jury would view the actions of these defendants as innocent,” Mr. Mandelker said, “not done with the intent to defraud, but with the intent to legally structure the transactions in a way that would not violate the law.”

December 11, 2008
Judge-Elect Is Indicted Over Donations to Her Surrogate’s Court Race
By JOHN ELIGON

The Democratic primary was nearing and Nora S. Anderson, a candidate for judge in Manhattan Surrogate’s Court, was running low on campaign money. She had campaign materials to print and mail, and staff members to pay, prosecutors said.

Toward the end of August, Ms. Anderson got just what she needed. Two payments totaling a quarter of a million dollars were deposited into her campaign account, and in disclosure reports filed with the state, Ms. Anderson, a lawyer, said she had made a loan and a donation to herself.

But the money did not come from her own funds, prosecutors said on Wednesday. The actual source, prosecutors said, was Seth Rubenstein, a lawyer who was Ms. Anderson’s boss, friend and campaign adviser.

Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein conspired to conceal the money trail, prosecutors said, to avoid exceeding the individual donor limit of $33,122.50. State law allowed Ms. Anderson to contribute as much of her own money to her campaign as she wished.

“They took fairly elaborate steps to evade the law,” said Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney (pictured at right)



Ms. Anderson, 56, went on to beat Justice Milton Tingling of State Supreme Court and a lawyer, John Reddy, in the primary and was unopposed in the general election last month. She was in court Wednesday, but as a defendant, not a judge.

Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein were indicted in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on felony charges of filing false documents and falsifying business records. If convicted, each faces up to four years in prison.

They also face misdemeanor counts of knowingly and willfully violating contribution limits, punishable by up to a year in jail.

“Here you have $250,000 coming from Rubenstein made to appear like it was coming from Anderson,” Mr. Morgenthau said at a press conference. “That’s the crux of the case.”

Gus Newman, Ms. Anderson’s lawyer, said his client was innocent and still deserved her seat on the bench. An indictment does not require her to step down, prosecutors said.

“Before these charges she had a totally unblemished reputation,” Mr. Newman added. “When all the facts come out in the courtroom, it’ll be clear that Nora’s reputation will be restored and that she’s totally innocent of any wrongdoing.”

Ms. Anderson and Mr. Rubenstein pleaded not guilty before Justice Bruce Allen. Both were ushered into the courtroom in handcuffs. Ms. Anderson wore black stilettos, a dark blue pinstriped suit, a Burberry coat and a pearl necklace. Mr. Rubenstein wore his thinning gray hair pulled back in a ponytail and a dark suit with a red tie.

Both ignored reporters’ questions as they left the courthouse.

The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, is expected to decide whether to suspend Ms. Anderson before the end of the year, said David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court Administration.

The court may discuss a suspension now but cannot take action until Jan. 1, when Ms. Anderson’s term officially begins. A felony conviction would most likely result in her removal from the bench by the Court of Appeals.

If Ms. Anderson resigns, it will be up to Gov. David A. Paterson to appoint someone to take her place until the general election in November, Mr. Bookstaver said. If she were to take the bench but is then suspended, the state’s chief administrative judge, Ann Pfau, would appoint a temporary replacement, Mr. Bookstaver said.

Surrogates’ courts are no strangers to scandal. In 2005, Michael H. Feinberg, a surrogate in Brooklyn, was removed after the State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that he had awarded $8.6 million in legal fees to a friend without verifying that the friend had done the work. Judges in surrogate’s courts, as the handlers of wills, estates and guardianships, have the power to appoint lawyers to lucrative cases.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office began investigating Ms. Anderson after receiving a tip over the summer, said Daniel J. Castleman, the chief assistant in the office.

As part of the investigation, prosecutors also examined a $225,000 loan that Mr. Rubenstein gave Ms. Anderson in April. The loan could have been considered a contribution that exceeded limits because it was not repaid by the primary, Mr. Castleman said. But Ms. Anderson repaid that loan with her own money shortly after the primary, he said, and the office did not file charges in relation to that.

The focus of Wednesday’s charges was two large deposits made to Ms. Anderson’s campaign account in August.

The first, for $100,000, was posted to her campaign account on Aug. 20, one day after Ms. Anderson deposited a check from Mr. Rubenstein for the same amount into her personal bank account, prosecutors said.

The second payment, for $150,000, was wired into Ms. Anderson’s campaign account on Aug. 26, the same day Mr. Rubenstein transferred that exact amount of money into Ms. Anderson’s personal brokerage account.

Mr. Rubenstein’s lawyer, Frederick P. Hafetz, said his client did not commit a crime.

“Mr. Rubenstein acted totally within the election law,” Mr. Hafetz said. “We are confident he will be vindicated at trial.”

Mr. Reddy, one of the defeated candidates, said, “I take no joy in any of this,” but declined to comment further.

Ms. Anderson, working as a lawyer for Mr. Rubenstein’s firm, has handled only Surrogate’s Court cases for the past decade, said her lawyer, Mr. Newman.


Nora S. Anderson leaving court after her indictment on campaign finance charges. She was elected a surrogate last month.

Even as she was being investigated, Ms. Anderson was preparing to take the bench.

She took the oath of office during a private ceremony last week, according to Janet Mishkin, the principal law clerk for Kristin Booth Glen, one of the two judges currently serving in Manhattan Surrogate’s Court.

It is customary for judges to hold private swearing-in ceremonies before they take the bench. But the oath does not become official until Jan. 1, after it is filed with the city clerk’s office.

If she were to take the bench, Ms. Anderson would replace Renee R. Roth and serve alongside Judge Glen, who administered the oath.

Mick Meenan contributed reporting.

Rights For The Poor and Public Defenders

LAWYER AND DEFENDANT Kimberly Hurell-Harring was represented by Patrick E. Barber, left, in a case that could change the system

March 19, 2010
The Right to Counsel: Woman Becomes a Test Case
By WILLIAM GLABERSON, NY TIMES

FORT EDWARD, N.Y.

SHE was poor and in trouble. He was the public defender appointed to represent her.

She was Kimberly Hurell-Harring, a nobody in the courts, a nursing home worker and a mother of two who had done something stupid. He was Patrick E. Barber, a lawyer with a silver stubble of a beard, paid by the county and state to help make the criminal justice system as fair to the poor as it is to the rich.

At his urging, she pleaded guilty and went to jail for a felony that turned out not to be a felony at all. “It seemed like he was on the D.A.’s side,” she said later.

He said recently that he had done what he could: “They had her dead to rights.”

Usually, such a minor case would go unnoticed; a little test of the constitutional right to a lawyer, results unknown. Instead it has made Mr. Barber an emblem of the problems of the state’s ramshackle system of providing lawyers for indigent defendants. On Tuesday, New York’s highest court is to consider a class-action suit, filed by civil liberties lawyers in Ms. Hurell-Harring’s name, that seeks broad changes in the state’s frayed network of public defenders, who are routinely unmonitored and often overwhelmed. Her case, now being pored over by some of the state’s leading lawyers and judges, offers a window into the everyday corners of the legal system, where no one is usually watching.

It began two and a half years ago, in October 2007, in the Washington County Court here, not far from the Vermont border. In an area of the state where prisons are an industry, Ms. Hurell-Harring pleaded guilty to trying to sneak her inmate husband three-quarters of an ounce of marijuana in a condom she had hidden in her vagina.

From the courtroom benches, the few spectators saw a frightened woman who had never been in trouble before and a public defender who was not fighting for her. “She was sitting there looking stunned and confused,” said Daniel J. Freeman, a recent Yale Law School graduate who had been sent to observe by the New York Civil Liberties Union. “I didn’t see him interacting much with her.”

The story of this one defendant and her public defender, assembled through interviews and court records, is about a woman who was barely making it before the legal system helped shove her off track.

And it is also about a small-town lawyer and part-time public servant sinking in personal and professional quicksand that few people knew about when he showed up to represent Kimberly Hurell-Harring. Least of all her.

The Client

She was 31 in the fall of 2007, a spirited woman with a big smile and 13 gold hoops in one ear. Pregnant at 14, she could have become lost. But she had earned her high school diploma and done something with the nursing assistant’s certificate she carried proudly in her wallet.

She worked nights, sometimes two jobs, changing bedpans and offering solace. When Amos D. Harring was arrested for assault, she stuck by him. The police said he had shot someone.

She arrived in Washington County on Sept. 29 on the journey thousands of women make every year to the state’s far reaches, where their men are locked away. She came twice a month or even more often, sometimes alone, sometimes with her two girls, ages 16 and 4.

This time, the three of them had driven together, 240 miles across the state from Rochester, where they had always lived. There was to be a family visit the next day at the hulking maximum-security prison, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, where Mr. Harring, who was 30, was doing eight years.

But that morning, she left the girls at the Budget Inn and went by herself to see him. When she got to the turreted wall that makes Great Meadow look like some 1940s-movie prison, two investigators hustled her off. They had recordings of the couple’s phone conversations. They knew about the marijuana in the condom, a tactic that was more of a prison cliché than an investigative challenge.

Three-quarters of an ounce was not much. But any marijuana is contraband.

She was terrified as the investigators laid out their case, and confessed. “I am very, very, very sorry that I did this,” she wrote, acknowledging, too, that it was not the first time. Her husband said later that it had all been his idea. “I have threatened and forced her to bring drugs into the facility,” he wrote in a notarized statement a few days after her arrest.

There was a frantic call to an aunt in Rochester to pick up the girls. A local judge set bail at $10,000, an impossible sum. Then she landed in Alpha Pod, the spartan women’s dormitory at the county jail, where 22 women slept on metal bunks in a concrete-block room.

She worried. About her girls. About her mother, a stroke victim. About her future. She knew a felony conviction meant any nursing home job would be gone, along with her rent-subsidized apartment and a lot of other things.

She kept saying, to anyone who would listen, that she wanted a misdemeanor deal. She knew she had made a mistake, but, though she had not a day of legal training, it did not seem like a felony to her.

Some of the other women in Alpha Pod were hard cases, drug abusers and repeat petty criminals who warned her about public defenders. It is an article of jailhouse faith that poor people get what they pay for in lawyers: Nothing.

She said one of the women, named Becky, gave her a specific caution about Mr. Barber: “You got to be careful.”

The Lawyer

Everybody around Fort Edward knew Pat Barber, a fixture at the courthouse and a stepfather of two whose family owned a local tavern. He had been here all his life except for college in western New York and law school at Syracuse.

So there was not much in the way of vetting when he put in a cost-conscious bid to become Washington County’s chief public defender, a part-time position he added to his private practice of trial work, debt collections, wills and divorces. It was quickly settled. Beginning in 2006, he would get $50,000 a year and some rent for the office he had shared with a law partner who had recently died. “We have to have a good reason not to take the low bid,” said John A. Rymph, the chairman of the County Board of Supervisors.

There were plenty of good reasons, according to court records released last month. Mr. Barber, 49 at the time, had been reprimanded twice — in 2002 and 2005 — by the Committee on Professional Standards, the state group that disciplines lawyers, for neglecting cases. He had been struggling with depression for years. “On some occasions he had to leave the courtroom because of panic attacks,” a report from his psychiatrist said. “He had daily drinks to cope.”

But the people reviewing the bids in Washington County knew none of that. The reprimands were confidential, though officials at the professional standards committee say they could have been released to a potential employer if Mr. Barber had signed a waiver. If, that is, anyone in Washington County had known to ask him to sign one.

Told recently about Mr. Barber’s history, Roger Wickes, the county attorney, said, “I would have assumed the board would have been concerned had they known about it.”

By the time Ms. Hurell-Harring made her trip across the state, Mr. Barber’s troubles were piling up.

He had put $304,895.46 in checks for an auto-accident settlement into the file and never mailed them to his client, court records say. He kept telling another client he was finishing up some work related to her divorce. “I misled her as far as the progress of what was going on,” he testified later.

In a third private-practice case, a man appealed his rape conviction, claiming that Mr. Barber had failed to do basic things at the trial like question some important witnesses. In time, a divided appeals court ruled that “no legitimate trial strategy existed.”

The week in October that he went to court for Ms. Hurell-Harring, Mr. Barber was being pursued on yet another file full of trouble. At the request of county officials, John R. Winn, a local lawyer, had been asking questions about two estates Mr. Barber was supposed to be handling that had been so neglected that two properties had been sold for unpaid taxes.

Mr. Winn started calling Mr. Barber, and eventually he turned over a carton with all his records on the two estates — dividend checks, tax bills and bank statements, all in their original envelopes. “I looked, and I said, ‘He’s never opened anything,’ ” Mr. Winn said. One of the women had died six years earlier.

In a long interview this month, Mr. Barber blamed his depression. “You just develop this nausea fear of a file and you would do anything to stay away from it,” he said.

He argued that his problems had not affected his public work. But his psychiatrist, Dr. Koock E. Jung, said in another disciplinary case against him, in 2009, that his symptoms included “breaking out sweating, dizziness and shortness of breath, which affected his law practice seriously, especially his public defender’s job.”

The Case

At the county jail, Ms. Hurell-Harring was growing frantic as she waited nearly a month for her sentencing. She called Mr. Barber’s office every few days. Usually the secretary said he was busy. When they did talk, she said, Mr. Barber told her she had no options.

On Nov. 8, 2007, the civil liberties union filed its class-action suit in Albany, mentioning Ms. Hurell-Harring’s contraband charge. A lawyer read it at the New York State Defenders Association, an organization that provides training and expertise to defense lawyers.

The lawyer, Alfred A. O’Connor, had been working for years on the very issue in her case: whether that small amount of marijuana should be defined as dangerous prison contraband, which could make her smuggling effort a felony, or whether it was ordinary contraband, a misdemeanor that might mean no jail time at all and none of the consequences that come with felony convictions.

Mr. O’Connor started calling Mr. Barber, too. “Good news,” he recalls saying when they spoke on Nov. 15, the day before Ms. Hurell-Harring’s sentencing. He told Mr. Barber that the state’s highest court was considering the contraband question. Defense lawyers had already laid out the very argument that could mean freedom for his client.

But Mr. Barber did not ask for a copy of the briefs. “There wasn’t any enthusiasm,” Mr. O’Connor said. Asked about this in the recent interview, Mr. Barber said had not wanted to bring up anything that could make prosecutors ask for a longer sentence.

The next day in court, Judge Kelly S. McKeighan noted that Ms. Hurell-Harring had admitted to the felony charge: promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Mr. Barber agreed, never mentioning that it might not be a felony at all.

“I just want to go home to my kids and my mother,” Ms. Hurell-Harring told the judge. Instead, she went back to jail, serving four months before she was released for good behavior. She left Washington County on Jan. 28, 2008, a convicted felon facing five years of probation.

The Aftermath

At home on Rochester’s northwest side, things were rough. Her $12-an-hour job was gone. She and the girls moved into her mother’s run-down house and survived on food stamps. The older one, Shaniqua, took a while to pick up where they left off.

“I promised her I would never leave her again,” Ms. Hurell-Harring said.

In New York City, the civil liberties lawyers had asked Roberta A. Kaplan, a partner at one of the country’s leading corporate firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, to see what could be done for Ms. Hurell-Harring.

Working without a fee, Ms. Kaplan and her team of lawyers did the kind of work lawyers there do for big companies like Citigroup and Time Warner and well-known people like Gov. David A. Paterson. They studied Mr. Barber’s work. They started filing appeals on Ms. Hurell-Harring’s behalf. One of them, Andrew J. Ehrlich, wondered: “How many other Kimberlys are there out there?” How many other Pat Barbers?

In June 2008, the State Court of Appeals ruled in the case Mr. O’Connor had worked on: that, indeed, a small amount of marijuana does not usually amount to dangerous prison contraband like a gun or a razor blade.

Pointing to that ruling, the Paul, Weiss lawyers persuaded a state appeals court in October 2009 to overturn Ms. Hurell-Harring’s conviction. “The act of which defendant is accused,” the court said, “does not constitute a crime.”

In Rochester, Ms. Hurell-Harring talked to her husband on the phone for the first time in two years. This month, she went back to work at a nursing home, for $9.70 an hour. “I finally can try to get my life back,” she said a few weeks ago.

In Washington County, court officials last spring noticed something odd in a judge’s order in a paternity case Mr. Barber had handled in 2007. It seemed to be signed by a Family Court judge, but the court had no such document in its files.

In June, a suicidal Mr. Barber was briefly hospitalized. In September, he resigned as public defender. Five months later, he was arrested and charged with a felony: forging the court order. He was released without bail.

In February, he was disbarred. An appeals court said he had created fake documents to “deceive his clients into believing that he had undertaken the tasks for which he had been retained.”

This month, still awaiting his own day in court on a felony charge, Mr. Barber sat at his law office desk sorting through a bunch of files. Inside, there was no heat. Outside, there was a “for sale” sign.

“Obviously, I did some stupid things,” he said. “I even hurt a couple of people, which I am very regretful for.”

But he defended some of his work, including the case of Kimberly Hurell-Harring.

He was asked what he remembered of her in those weeks in 2007 when their paths crossed. “Honestly,” he said, “a lot of crying.”

Alain Delaquérière and Toby Lyles contributed research.

SeeThroughNY.net and Updated Legislative Spending

That nice big castle thing you see above is our New York State legislature. When you get elected to represent people and you walk into that structure, something happens to your head; ethics and values which you grew up with disappear. Suddenly a nice thick, new carpet for your office seems necessary. The latest computer/fax/printer with the biggest monitor...got to have it. Doesn't matter if people are going hungry in your district, they'll never know that you are spending thousands of dollars in public money on that extra comfy leather chair for your new desk.

Or will they? Thanks, SeeThroughNY.net!!!!

Luv,

Betsy Combier
Editor, New York Court Corruption

Updated Legislative Spending Posted On Internet
March 17, 2010
LINK

CONTACT: Lise Bang-Jensen
(518) 434-3100

Office expenditures of individual state Senators and Assembly members for the six months ending September 30, 2009, the latest period for which data are available, have been posted in a searchable format on the Empire Center’s government transparency website, SeeThroughNY.net.

The data show that Senate Democrats, who took control of the majority in January 2009, spent $12,994,058 on their member office operations from April through September last year. This was an increase of $4.2 million, or 48 percent, over the same period in 2008. Senate Republicans, now in the minority, spent $9,927,046 -- a decrease of $6 million, or 38 percent. Other highlights:

* Senate Democrats spent an average of $393,759 per member office. This represents an increase of $101,411 or 35 percent from the $292,349 per member from the same period in 2008, when they were in the minority.

* Senate Republicans averaged $320,227 per member office. This represents a decrease of $178,600, or 36 percent from the $498,827 in average member expenditures when they were in the majority. However, it was 9.5 percent more per member than Democrats received when they were in the minority a year earlier.

* Democratic members of the Assembly majority averaged $193,712 per member in spending, and increase of .06 percent, while Republican minority spending was $139,980 per member, a 5 percent decrease.


Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan) (at right) spent $440,764 on staff, rent, travel, telephone service, office supplies and other expenditures during the 6-month period, making him the highest spender among the 150 members of his house. The Assembly’s next highest

spenders were: Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn-pictured at right), $381,710; Catherine Nolan (D-Queens), $354,043; Vito Lopez (D-Brooklyn), $346,389; and Robin Schimminger (D-Erie County), $332,115. The sixth highest was Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) at $311,971 for his expenditures as an Assembly member. That does not include his expenditures as Assembly Speaker.

In the 62-member Senate, the top spender was Jeffrey Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester), who serves as the Deputy Majority Leader. He spent $758,070 on office operations, excluding his leadership expenses. The Senate’s next highest spenders were: Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn-pictured below), $705,741; Eric Schneiderman (D-Manhattan/Bronx), $607,200; John Sampson (D-Brooklyn), $570,976; and Shirley Huntley (D-Jamaica), $500,325.
Senator Carl Kruger
The posted data, which can be downloaded on a spreadsheet, covers the period of April 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009. A copy of the expenditure rankings for the six-month period is here. Not included in the expenditure reports are member items, or pork barrel projects, which also can be viewed on the “Expenditures” section of SeeThroughNY.net.

Federal Judge in PA Says That The Two "Kids For Cash" Judges Can Be sued

"Kids For Cash" Judges Conahan and Ciavarella

Federal Judge Rules Ciavarella and Conahan Can be Sued for Non-Judicial, Administrative Actions

Judges Not Dismissed from Lawsuit

Philadelphia, PA (November 20, 2009)—U.S. District Judge Richard Caputo today granted in part and denied in part Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella’s requests for judicial immunity. The court declined to dismiss the two former Luzerne County judges from the federal civil lawsuit with respect to their conduct outside the courtroom as alleged in the complaint filed by the plaintiffs.

“This is an important victory for the plaintiffs. They will have the opportunity to pursue their allegations against the judges for their conduct outside the courtroom, including their acceptance of kickbacks and their conspiring with the developer and owner of the private for profit facilities,” says Marsha Levick, Deputy Director at Juvenile Law Center.

In the order, the court granted Ciavarella’s request for judicial immunity for his actions inside the courtroom. Although the judicial immunity doctrine is well entrenched in U.S. court history - thus barring civil lawsuits against judges for acts inside the courtroom - this will not shield Ciavarella from criminal proceedings against him and provides no protections for his actions outside the courtroom in the civil litigation.

Today’s order states, “That is not to say, however, that every act alleged of the two was judicial in nature. For example, Conahan’s signing of a ‘Placement Agreement’ would be an administrative, not a judicial act. Similarly, any acts in making budget requests to the Luzerne County commissioners would also be administrative or executive in nature. And the actions of Conahan and Ciavarella in coercing probation officers to change their recommendations is outside of the role of a judicial officer.”

The order continues, “The Motions to Dismiss by Ciavarella and Conahan will be granted as to their courtroom conduct. Specifically, Conahan’s motion will be granted as to his action granting injunctive relief preventing the release of the PACC audit. Ciavarella’s motion will be granted as to his juvenile delinquency determinations and the sentences he imposed. As to the remaining allegations against each, the doctrine of judicial immunity does not shield them from liability, because the other allegations relate to non-judicial acts. I will deny their Motions to Dismiss as to such non-judicial conduct.”

Juvenile Law Center is a national, non-profit, public interest law firm that advances and protects the rights and well-being of children in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. For more information contact Lourdes Rosado at (215) 625-0551.

See also my articles on these two judges on Parentadvocates.org:

The "Kids For Cash" Scandal: The Decisions of Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella in Hundreds of Juvenile Convictions are Overturned.

Pennsylvania's Judicial Conduct Board Tries To Salve The Reputations of The Board As Well As The Two "Kids For Cash" Judges

Fighting Corruption in Medicine: How about Looking Into EmblemHealth?

NY. Fighting Corruption in Healthcare – We Thought Spitzer Had Left The Building
LINK

More corruption at very high levels of government in NY…

Can you say NY’s corruption is like a bottomless cesspool. It stinks so bad, no one wants to clean it.

This story written by a Member of an Association of Retired Police Officers:
This is a story of how disgraced former NYS Gov. Eliot Spitzer “fast-tracked” legislation through the New York State legislature that authorized his hand-picked Insurance Superintendent, Eric Dinallo, (pictured at right) to approve the merger and conversion of non-profit health insurers HIP and GHI into a for-profit corporation.

So far, the conversion has been prevented with Mr. Spitzer resigning as Governor after being involved in a prostitution scandal, and Insurance Superintendent Eric Dinallo resigning on July 2, 2009. Mr. Dinallo was replaced by James Wrynn on August 20, 2009.
After being confirmed by the NYS Senate, Mr. Wrynn agreed to meet with myself and a group of NYPD/FDNY retirees on October 26, 2009 to discuss our concerns regarding former governor Spitzer [a/k/a client number 9, resigned for getting caught with a prostitute with only his socks on] creating a public corporation where he, former Senator Joseph Bruno, who also resigned after being convicted of corruption, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver [another crook] would have control of the anticipated $3 to $5 billion proceeds from the initial sale of EmblemHealth stock if HIP/GHI was converted from a non-profit to a for-profit corporation under EmblemHealth.

Joe Bruno

Since Emblemhealth is a “shell” corporation formed by the board of directors of HIP and GHI, we filed a “Freedom of Information” request for the Independent Audit reports of HIP, GHI and EmblemHealth.

This FOIL request was recently denied by the NYS Insurance Department based on the objections of the Board of Directors of HIP and GHI[not grounds for denial as NYS FOIL law controls what documents by law need to be disclosed, not any board of directors] stating that since EmblemHealth, the “shell” corporation formed by the HIP/GHI boards was a “holding company”, EmblemHealth was not subject to NYS’s “Freedom of Information Laws”. [We'd love to know the actual NYS law the FOIL people sited for this.]

We now advise that this merger is corrupt and in need of investigation:

1. According to NYC records, in 2006, HIP had cash reserves of over $900 million and on March 10, 2005 HIP purchased a for-profit health care insurer named ConnectiCare for $354 million when, according to the Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance, ConnectiCare, which operated in Massachusetts, had a net worth of only $4.0 million.

2. Since President Obama is saying that his health care reform bill will include investigating the “waste, fraud and corruption” that appears to be endemic to New York City’s health care system, I believe the Congress should look into why HIP would pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a small out-of-state health care insurer whose credit rating in December 2003 was lowered by Standard and Poor’s from “marginal” to “weak”, after ConnectiCare took out a $115 million bank loan that allowed ConnectiCare’s owners, “The Carlyle Group” and “Liberty Partners”, two Wall Street private equity firms, to get a dividend on their investment in the ConnectiCare.

3. In addition, as stated above, since HIP paid $354 million for a health insurer whose net worth was only $4.0 million, and Attorney General Cuomo has ignored Mayor Bloomberg’s complaint that the conversion of HIP/GHI to a “single for-profit entity could increase health care costs by hundreds of millions of dollars” for New York City taxpayers, I fail to see how any New York member of the House, or the U.S. Senate, can support “fast-tracking” President Obama’s health reform bill that would add millions of dollars to New York State’s health care costs without first ensuring New York City’s health care insurers are being run in the best interest of New York City’s taxpayers and their active and retired employees, including the members of the NYPD Superior Officers Association Retired.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Best regards,

NYPD Superior Officers Association Retired

Story Link

PS: Please feel free to pass the above and Mayor Bloomberg’s attached members to the other members of Congress and U.S. Senate for their consideration as well.

Statement By Steve Cohen On New York State Corruption

March 2, 2010
Steven Cohen
Executive Director, The Earth Institute, Columbia University

The Corrupt Spectacle of New York's State Government
LINK

I confess that I am old enough to remember seeing John F. Kennedy on a little black and white TV screen, challenging me to ask what I could do for my country. I suppose that it was in that moment that I became interested in public service and politics, and all these years later my commitment is battered but still intact. The assassinations of the 1960's and the attempt on President Reagan in 1981 were terrifying, but in some way almost ennobling. Our leaders seemed like heroes, and these larger-than-life figures never had to tell us, Richard Nixon style, "I am not a crook." Some, like Teddy Kennedy, let us down, but then lived long enough to redeem themselves in our eyes.

But today, the slow and steady debasement of public service in New York is visible across the spectrum, characterized by disgraced ex-police commissioner Bernie Kerick's disgusting corruption, State Senator Hiram Monserrate's self-righteous domestic abuse, former Governor Elliot Spitzer's famous role as client number 9, and now, Governor David Paterson's ridiculous claim that he "never abused his office." No, it's just that he may have talked an alleged abuse victim into staying silent. Ask not, indeed.

Corruption is of course not limited to New York, and it is not new. The Tweed Court House that is now the home of the City's Department of Education has been termed a monument to corruption. Uncounted (literally) millions of dollars passed through the Democratic Party's corrupt and greedy hands during the twenty years (1861-1881) it took to construct that stately structure. Some have even argued that the corrupt party bosses of Tammany Hall helped the city absorb the waves of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Political boss rule was seen as a necessary part of the city's economic and political development.

Yet while sin and corruption are not new, and my boyhood hero John Kennedy probably had more than wealth in common with Elliot Spitzer, I am starting to think that the American crisis of public ethics has spun out of control. There are two central aspects to this crisis:

* The first is the corrosive impact of money in politics, exacerbated by the Supreme Court's recent decision that campaign contributions are a form of free speech subject to virtually no limitations.

* The second is the abuse of power, which takes many forms, from Congressman Rangel's use of four rent-stabilized apartments to the illicit use of the Governor's state trooper detail to intimidate a victim of domestic abuse to Kerik's quarter million dollar apartment renovation by (of course) a mob-connected contractor.

Since America is the land of free market capitalism, why does this matter? Shouldn't we have a free market in terms of political influence? The problem is that corruption, oddly enough, corrupts. If the rule of law is a meaningless game, and everything is for sale, then there is no rule of law and, in the end, no civilization. Wealth in a modern economy requires rules that create certainty so that people are willing to invest their capital and put it to work instead of hiding it under the mattress. Political corruption is a primary cause of economic malaise. Without the incredible civic citizenship of New York's unions, elected officials and business leaders in the mid-1970's, New York City would have ended up bankrupt and in permanent decline. The temporary cessation of corruption and the presence of enlightened self-interest led to the revival that New York City enjoys today.

In contrast, the horrifying dysfunction of the political elite in Albany has directly contributed to the economic decline of upstate New York. In the 1970's we had the courageous leadership of then-Governor Hugh Carey. Today, we have former Senate leader Joe Bruno facing jail time, Assembly Leader Shelly Silver still collecting huge fees from his law practice, and a governor who may be guilty of obstructing justice. Investments in infrastructure and funding for business incentives are pushed aside in an effort to placate health care and education interests and unions. Perhaps at one time we were rich enough to afford this level of payoff, but its clear that those days are long over.

We need to search for a systemic cure for this disease of corruption. We need a real system of checks and balances that makes it clear to public officials that if they abuse the public's trust, someone is watching and they will get caught. But we also need to change the overall environment in our state government. I would start by tightly regulating outside income for legislators while increasing their salaries. Legislators make an average of $90,000 a year in New York, and we still operate under the myth that these are part time jobs. New York's budget is over $130 billion dollars a year. Running a state of this size should be a full time job and not a hobby. While average New Yorkers may think that $90,000 is a lot of money, it is not. These low salaries are an invitation for corruption - and many of our legislators seem to be accepting that invitation.

Still, the corrupt and dysfunctional environment in Albany does not excuse the abuse of power that the Governor, the state police and his top aide have been accused of. If the investigation proves that these charges are true, not only should Governor Patterson resign, but he should be prosecuted as well. Personally, I hope these charges are untrue, although I fear that that the worst is yet to come.

*************************************************************
Steven Cohen is the Executive Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and is also Director of the Master of Public Administration Program in Environmental Science and Policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. From 2002 to 2006 he directed education programs at the Earth Institute. From 1998 to 2001 Cohen was Vice dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. From 1985 to 1998 he was the Director of Columbia's Graduate Program in Public Policy and Administration. From 1987-1998 Cohen was Associate Dean for Faculty and Curriculum at SIPA.

He is a graduate of James Madison High School in Brooklyn (1970), Franklin College of Indiana (1974) and the State University of New York at Buffalo (M.A., 1977; Ph.D., 1979). In 1976-77 Cohen was a Ford Foundation Fellow in Urban Environmental Policy; in 1978-79 he was a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in Public and Environmental Policy and Implementation.

Dr. Cohen served as a policy analyst in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1977 through 1978 and 1980-81, and as consultant to the agency from 1981 through 1991, from 1994 to 1996 and from 2005 to the present. From 1990-94, Cohen served on the Board of the Pew Faculty Fellowship in International Affairs; he has also served on the Executive Committee and Committee on Accreditation and Peer Review of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. From 2001 to 2004 he served on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology. He serves on the Board of Directors of Homes for the Homeless.

Cohen is the author of The Effective Public Manager (1988), Understanding Environmental Policy (2006) and the co-author of Environmental Regulation Through Strategic Planning (1991), Total Quality Management in Government (1993), The New Effective Public Manager (1995), Tools for Innovators: Creative Strategies for Managing Public Sector Organizations (1998), The Effective Public Manager 3rd and 4th editions (2002, 2008), Strategic Planning in Environmental Regulation (2005), The Responsible Contract Manager (2008), and numerous articles on public management innovation, public ethics and environmental management.

Dr. Cohen has taught courses in public management, policy analysis, environmental policy and management innovation. In 1982 Cohen developed, and until 2001 directed, Columbia's Workshops in Applied Public Management and Applied Policy Analysis; bringing practical professional education into the center of Columbia's public administration curriculum. He has conducted professional training seminars in total quality management, strategic planning, project management and management innovation.

Cohen was born in Orange, New Jersey, and raised in Brooklyn, New York. He now resides in New York City with his wife, Donna Fishman and their two wonderful daughters, Gabriella and Ariel.

Former New York State Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio is Sentenced to Six Years in Prison

Preet Barbara, US Attorney For the Southern District of New York

Department of Justice Press Release

For Immediate Release
February 4, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600

Former New York State Assemblyman Sentenced to Six Years in Prison for Public Corruption Crimes
LINK

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that ANTHONY SEMINERIO, 74, of Queens, New York, was sentenced today to six years in prison by United States District Judge NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD for defrauding the people of New York of his honest services as an Assemblyman in the New York State legislature.



According to the Indictment, the Court's findings, and the evidence at the October 20, 21, and 30, 2009, sentencing hearing:

Seminerio's Overall Scheme Using "Marc Consultants"

SEMINERIO served as a member of the New York Assembly from 1978 until his June 23, 2009, resignation from that body. From 1999 through September 2008, SEMINERIO engaged in a scheme to defraud the public of his honest services by using a purported consulting firm, "Marc Consultants," to solicit and receive "consulting" payments from persons and entities having business before the State of New York. In fact, the Court found that SEMINERIO did not perform "any bona fide consulting services that fall outside the scope of activities an elected official could readily be expected to perform on behalf of his or her constituents." Instead, the Court found that he "solicited and received payments from a number of organizations and used his elected office to lobby state legislators and agency officials on behalf of those paying clients." Those entities included hospitals and related entities; a consulting firm associated with an educational institution; and a firm engaged in marketing supplemental insurance packages to public institutions.

Seminerio's Extortion of the Consultant

In 1999, SEMINERIO, among other things, approached ARLENE PEDONE, the founder of a Queens-based consulting company for whom he had previously worked and demanded a share of the company's revenue. When PEDONE resisted, SEMINERIO retaliated by writing and calling many of PEDONE's clients, telling them he was no longer associated with the firm, and pressuring some of them to stop paying PEDONE and instead hire SEMINERIO. As a result, PEDONE lost her client base and her company folded.

Seminerio's Extortion of a Non-Profit Executive

That summer, SEMINERIO also pressured ROBERT RICHARDS, the president of the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, which depended largely on New York State funding. SEMINERIO asked RICHARDS to become his consulting client, repeatedly advancing his request when RICHARDS refused to respond. In January 2000, SEMINERIO met with RICHARDS at SEMINERIO's Albany legislative office and warned that if RICHARDS failed to hire him, SEMINERIO would block RICHARDS's efforts in the legislature in Albany. After this meeting, RICHARDS agreed to hire SEMINERIO and paid a monthly fee for approximately two years to Marc Consultants.

Seminerio's Bribery Scheme with a Client Hospital

More recently, on July 10, 2008, SEMINERIO called DENNIS WHALEN, a senior New York State health department official, and assured him that he had "a friend of me in the Assembly." WHALEN mentioned that he had been speaking with CARL KRUGER, a New York State Senator who supported the acquisition of the Caritas Hospitals in Queens, New York, by Parkway Hospital, which had previously refused to pay SEMINERIO consulting fees. SEMINERIO replied that he would rather see Jamaica Hospital, a client that had paid him nearly a decade's worth of consulting fees, "get it." SEMINERIO did not disclose to WHALEN that Jamaica Hospital had hired him, nor did he disclose that Parkway Hospital had refused to do so.

JUDGE BUCHWALD rejected SEMINERIO's contention that his criminal activity was limited to a "single, isolated criminal act" of failing to disclose a conflict of interest to WHALEN during the July 10, 2008, call. The Court also rejected SEMINERIO's claim that his activities had been approved in 1996 and thereafter by the New York Legislative Ethics Committee. The Court criticized SEMINERIO's failure to disclose the true nature of his work to the Committee and rejected his reliance on the Committee's opinion as "a classic illustration of 'garbage in, garbage out.'"

In imposing the sentence, Judge BUCHWALD described in detail how SEMINERIO "accepted bribes and engaged in extortion as part of a decade-long scheme to use his office - both literally and figuratively - for personal gain and at the expense of the public trust." As the Court highlighted, SEMINERIO was secretly recorded providing his own view of what it means to be a public official: "It doesn't mean [expletive deleted]."

In addition to his prison term, Judge BUCHWALD ordered SEMINERIO to pay $1,000,000 in forfeiture.



U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA said, "When an elected official such as Seminerio violates the public trust, it threatens the public's confidence in our democracy. Seminerio was elected to serve the people, not himself. Judge Buchwald's powerful words and sentence reaffirm the commitment to the fair and impartial exercise of governmental power. We will continue to work tirelessly to prosecute those who betray for private gain the people they are elected to represent."

Mr. BHARARA praised the investigative work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case. The investigation is continuing.

The prosecution is being handled by the Office's Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys DANIEL L. STEIN and WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON are in charge of the prosecution.

Anthony Seminerio's 30 years in office ends with 11 to 14 in prison

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/25/2009-06-25_anthony_seminerios_30_years_in_office_ends_with_11_to_14_in_prison.html#ixzz0ebvzzG0A

Ex-Queens pol Anthony Seminerio brags to FBI about LIRR job hookup:
Court hears
by Oren Yaniv, Daily News Staff Writer, October 22nd 2009, 4:00 AM

Disgraced Queens lawmaker Anthony Seminerio boasted to an FBI agent that he got associates jobs at the Long Island Rail Road in exchange for steering state funds to the agency, prosecutors said on Wednesday.

"Anytime that I would, ah, give them a $250,000 contribution or $500,000 for repair of the railroad, I need two jobs," he bragged to an FBI informant wearing a wire. "Even if I didn't have anybody, then I find two people and get them jobs."

During the former assemblyman's sentencing hearing in Manhattan Federal Court, prosecutors played an intercepted conversation in which he asks an LIRR official to get his son's pal a machinist position.

"I have a dear friend of the family," Seminerio, 74, said before offering to meet the official to discuss future projects.

Seminerio, who resigned in June, faces up to 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to taking secret payments from Jamaica Hospital officials.

The defense will present its arguments next week, and then the judge will determine his sentence.