Tax Activist Tells Guardian
Politicians Are Greatest Threat To America
“The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy” Kurt Colucci, Author And Tax Activist,Tells Publisher Sam Zherka, “Politicians Are Brokers Of Greed” Urges Citizens To Embrace Tea Party Movement
New Rochelle, New York, February 9, 2010... A city, roughly 10 square miles, with a diverse population over 80,000, New Rochelle is the birthplace of Westchester County Taxpayers Association founder Kurt Colucci, a former college professor presently a businessman who continues to make The Queen City Office Sound his home. Last Tuesday Colucci was interviewed by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka.
Colucci, a very outspoken political critic, tax activist and author of the soon-to-be published A Tax Slaves’ Manifesto, has been ruffing feathersand taking potshots at Westchester and Albany politicians. Last year, he helped organize a dozen Tea Parties all over Westchester, including a modest one in New Rochelle, attended by more than 300 people, and a much larger rally in White Plains on April 25th that drew over 2500 people.
The Guardian asked Colucci if he thought the Tea Party Movement will make a difference in races going forward?
Colucci responded, “The Tea Party Movement is in its early stages; they haven’t seen anything yet. The year 2010 will usher in the Rise of the Taxpayer!”
Colucci went on, “It is important that taxpayers, the economic backbone of this country, steer clear of political party loyalty. Both major parties have merged into one national party, The Party Of Big Spending, and are to blame for the current economic crisis. Our Liberty is hanging by a thread.”
During this very difficult economic climate dubbed, ‘The Great Recession’, Colucci’s message would seem to be resonating with taxpayers all over Westchester County and the nation.
Municipalities throughout Westchester are raising taxes at an unsustainable rate, further economically enslaving its citizens and stripping them of their equity, their homes, and, in many cases, everything they’ve worked long and hard to achieve.
George Nivkor, a Yonkers resident and Tea Party supporter, is calling upon every taxpayer to unite against politicians.
“My father, a hardworking immigrant from Communist Poland, is saddened by what is happening in Westchester County, and America at large, and can only compare it to Communism,” says Nivkor.
Turning to his own city, New Rochelle Colucci pointed out Mayor Noam Bramson and City Manager Chuck Strome, two of New York State’s highest paid municipal officials. Colucci reminded The Guardian that in recent weeks both the Mayor and City Manager have come under heavy fire for their exhorbitant tax increases and the layoff of several firefighters from an already understaffed fire department.
In 2007 readers will recall that Bramson, a staunch political ally of former County Executive Andrew Spano, together with the New Rochelle City Council, orchestrated a nearly 50% pay hike for themselves at a time when our present economic downturn was already becoming very evident. At the time many New Rochelle citizens expressed outrage, some calling the pay raises outright corruption. Numerous calls from The Guardian to Mayor Bramson went unanswered.
“The biggest threat to the American Dream is our own elected officials,” Collucci went on. “they are putting our families in harm’s way by reducing essential services in police and fire departments, all the while spending our hard-earned tax dollars faster than we can earn them and, further enslaving us economically.” Millions of Americans are currently losing their homes to bank and tax foreclosures due to bad lending, and, Predatory Taxation by government. Economists are predicting that property values will continue to decline so long as taxes continue to increase, turning the American Dream into an American Nightmare.
As for the average hardworking, economically enslaved, and exhausted American taxpayer, the Tea Party Movement seems to be the only way to take back Westchester County and the country from self-serving, corrupt politicians who appear to be on a course to destroy the American way of life.
The sentiment amongst citizens throughout the nation, and especially here in Westchester, the highest taxed county in the United States, is antiincumbent. As for this 2010 election cycle, it’s a bad time to be one of the incumbents, or, as Colucci calls them, ‘Tax Terrorists’ as 2010 is the year of the Taxpayer Revolution.
George Nivkor reiterated to The Guardian, by telephone, that “2010 is the year of the Taxpayer’s Revolution.”
Chief Judge John Marshal, in the McCulloch v Maryland case, declared, “The unlimited power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Showing posts with label Sam Zherka. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Zherka. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Westchester Guardian Article/Sam Zherka.
Guardian Publisher Takes Seibel Dismissals To Federal Appeals Court
Cases Dismissed By District Court Judge Cathy Seibel Going To Second Circuit
Civil Actions Brought By Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Are Among More Than 1,500 Dismissed Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal
United States District Court White Plains, New York Judge Cathy Seibel Presiding
This reporter was present in Federal District Court, White Plains, several weeks ago when Judge Cathy Seibel served notice of her intention to dismiss cases brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against Yonkers Mayor Philip Amicone, Deputy Mayor John Fleming, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, and attorney and political consultant Michael Edelman for Defamation and Slander engaged in by way of First Amendment retaliation, conspiring to damage his good name and reputation.
Among the activities claimed by plaintiff Zherka were public statements of untruthful assertions of criminal activity about Zherka by Mayor Amicone before a large gathering of prominent Westchester citizens; repeated internet postings by Michael Edelman falsely alleging criminal activities by Zherka; and Abuse of Process and harrassment of Zherka and many of his friends and business associates by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office involving ADA Bogdanos.
All of the named defendants, were, and are, closely connected to and associated with Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who had telephoned Zherka, and who was recorded threatening him with reprisal because she was displeased with information published in The Guardian concerning political activities by her spouse, attorney Dennis Glazer.
Judge Seibel had admitted many months earlier, when the cases were first filed and assigned to her, that she had a personal relationship with Janet DiFiore, but nevertheless refused, despite that admission, to recuse herself.
Seibel’s dismissal comes under the dictates of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a case out of the Second Circuit that was argued be fore the United States Supreme Court, December 10, 2008 and decided May 18, 2009. The socalled Iqbal Decision, as it has come to be known, in effect has given great latitude to District Court judges to dismiss cases in the pleading stage based on their perception of the case’s plausibility, and has created quite a stir throughout the federal court system, among legal scholars, and in the halls of Congress. New York Congressman Jerry Nadler and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter have each promised to sponsor legislation to blunt, if not curtail, its influence.
Iqbal, in seven short months, has fundamentally changed the process and expectations in the pleadings stage of civil actions brought before federal courts. The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a)(2) of the General Rules of Pleading, simply called for “A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
A legal analyst writing for the highly regarded law firm Mayer, Brown three days after the ruling was handed up, observed “The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal significantly increases the factual detail required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in order to state a claim.”
In practical terms, under Iqbal, typical plaintiffs bringing a civil action against a corporate entity or government agency for many decades have not been expected to provide in their initial pleadings the level of explicit detail that, in most cases, comes to light through discovery. By now demanding such detailed information from plaintiffs in their initial pleadings, District Court judges are virtually throwing up a protective barrier, a shield around defendants, preventing good-faith, well-meant plaintiffs from proceeding, and from reaching the discovery necessary to prosecute their legitimate claims.
Publisher Zherka’s actions, filed long in advance of the Iqbal Decision, present numerous witnesses, audio and videotapes, photographs, and affidavits, little, or none of which,
Judge Seibel, with all due respect, seemed to have taken the trouble to become aware of as we observed her on November 20th when attorney Rory Bellantoni referenced them. In fairness to the judge, at a prior appearance several weeks earlier, she had asked attorney Jonathan Lovett, of Lovett & Bellantoni, to provide her with greater detail, which he certainly did in his amended pleadings.
Zherka, confused by the Judge’s dismissals, told this reporter, “There is so much evidence in our pleadings the case is a poster child for Iqbal.” He indicated that he was “definitely appealing the dismissals to the Second Circuit”, where he was confident they would be reversed, but, that he was “prepared, if necessary, to go all the way to the Supreme Court.” Additionally, he indicated he would be bringing an action against each of the defendants, individually, for Defamation and Slander in State Court.
Analysis:
Iqbal, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is by far and away the most telling and potentially destructive outcome to date to come from the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority established under President George W. Bush. In writing the Majority Opinion, Kennedy declared, “Rule 8(a)(2) demands more than an unadorned the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation and requires that a complaint be factually plausible.”
Mayer, Brown observed, “The decision in Iqbal thus suggests that a federal court no longer need draw factual inferences in favor of the complainant if it believes that a competing interpretation is more plausible.” Commenting just three days after the decision, they go on to say, “Although it remains to be seen whether lower federal courts will interpret Iqbal as abandoning Notice Pleading altogether, the opinion raises the pleading bar substantially and provides defendants with important ammunition to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a claim.”
Now, seven months, and more than 1,500 Iqbal dismissals later, we recognize that Iqbal creates a pretrial screen by which the more egregious and outrageous the conduct pleaded and alleged, the more likely it will be dismissed based upon a particular judge’s experiences, associations, and prejudices, all combining to determine that which she will consider “plausible”.
Regrettably, just as we were beginning to make some headway against prosecutorial misconduct, and major governmental and corporate acts of Constitutional violation, we
find ourselves hog-tied by a “Conservative” majority in the Supreme Court whose decision was designed to slow, if not interdict altogether, the process of uncovering unlawful actors, both in government and corporate enterprise.
In the meantime, Mike Edelman, whose malicious obsession with, and activity on, the blogosphere, is undisputed, continues to defame and malign publisher Sam Zherka as if having been granted a license to continue doing so by the decision of Judge Seibel.
His verbal graffiti, easily identified by other bloggers, can be found on the blogs of complicit media sources. And, of course, he continues to run his mouth frequently on News12 where he masquerades as a Republican commentator, a claim Doug Colety, Chairman of the Westchester Republican Party, has repeatedly refuted.
Cases Dismissed By District Court Judge Cathy Seibel Going To Second Circuit
Civil Actions Brought By Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Are Among More Than 1,500 Dismissed Under Ashcroft v. Iqbal
United States District Court White Plains, New York Judge Cathy Seibel Presiding
This reporter was present in Federal District Court, White Plains, several weeks ago when Judge Cathy Seibel served notice of her intention to dismiss cases brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against Yonkers Mayor Philip Amicone, Deputy Mayor John Fleming, Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos, and attorney and political consultant Michael Edelman for Defamation and Slander engaged in by way of First Amendment retaliation, conspiring to damage his good name and reputation.
Among the activities claimed by plaintiff Zherka were public statements of untruthful assertions of criminal activity about Zherka by Mayor Amicone before a large gathering of prominent Westchester citizens; repeated internet postings by Michael Edelman falsely alleging criminal activities by Zherka; and Abuse of Process and harrassment of Zherka and many of his friends and business associates by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office involving ADA Bogdanos.
All of the named defendants, were, and are, closely connected to and associated with Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, who had telephoned Zherka, and who was recorded threatening him with reprisal because she was displeased with information published in The Guardian concerning political activities by her spouse, attorney Dennis Glazer.
Judge Seibel had admitted many months earlier, when the cases were first filed and assigned to her, that she had a personal relationship with Janet DiFiore, but nevertheless refused, despite that admission, to recuse herself.
Seibel’s dismissal comes under the dictates of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a case out of the Second Circuit that was argued be fore the United States Supreme Court, December 10, 2008 and decided May 18, 2009. The socalled Iqbal Decision, as it has come to be known, in effect has given great latitude to District Court judges to dismiss cases in the pleading stage based on their perception of the case’s plausibility, and has created quite a stir throughout the federal court system, among legal scholars, and in the halls of Congress. New York Congressman Jerry Nadler and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter have each promised to sponsor legislation to blunt, if not curtail, its influence.
Iqbal, in seven short months, has fundamentally changed the process and expectations in the pleadings stage of civil actions brought before federal courts. The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a)(2) of the General Rules of Pleading, simply called for “A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
A legal analyst writing for the highly regarded law firm Mayer, Brown three days after the ruling was handed up, observed “The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal significantly increases the factual detail required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) in order to state a claim.”
In practical terms, under Iqbal, typical plaintiffs bringing a civil action against a corporate entity or government agency for many decades have not been expected to provide in their initial pleadings the level of explicit detail that, in most cases, comes to light through discovery. By now demanding such detailed information from plaintiffs in their initial pleadings, District Court judges are virtually throwing up a protective barrier, a shield around defendants, preventing good-faith, well-meant plaintiffs from proceeding, and from reaching the discovery necessary to prosecute their legitimate claims.
Publisher Zherka’s actions, filed long in advance of the Iqbal Decision, present numerous witnesses, audio and videotapes, photographs, and affidavits, little, or none of which,
Judge Seibel, with all due respect, seemed to have taken the trouble to become aware of as we observed her on November 20th when attorney Rory Bellantoni referenced them. In fairness to the judge, at a prior appearance several weeks earlier, she had asked attorney Jonathan Lovett, of Lovett & Bellantoni, to provide her with greater detail, which he certainly did in his amended pleadings.
Zherka, confused by the Judge’s dismissals, told this reporter, “There is so much evidence in our pleadings the case is a poster child for Iqbal.” He indicated that he was “definitely appealing the dismissals to the Second Circuit”, where he was confident they would be reversed, but, that he was “prepared, if necessary, to go all the way to the Supreme Court.” Additionally, he indicated he would be bringing an action against each of the defendants, individually, for Defamation and Slander in State Court.
Analysis:
Iqbal, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is by far and away the most telling and potentially destructive outcome to date to come from the Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority established under President George W. Bush. In writing the Majority Opinion, Kennedy declared, “Rule 8(a)(2) demands more than an unadorned the-defendant- unlawfully-harmed-me accusation and requires that a complaint be factually plausible.”
Mayer, Brown observed, “The decision in Iqbal thus suggests that a federal court no longer need draw factual inferences in favor of the complainant if it believes that a competing interpretation is more plausible.” Commenting just three days after the decision, they go on to say, “Although it remains to be seen whether lower federal courts will interpret Iqbal as abandoning Notice Pleading altogether, the opinion raises the pleading bar substantially and provides defendants with important ammunition to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a claim.”
Now, seven months, and more than 1,500 Iqbal dismissals later, we recognize that Iqbal creates a pretrial screen by which the more egregious and outrageous the conduct pleaded and alleged, the more likely it will be dismissed based upon a particular judge’s experiences, associations, and prejudices, all combining to determine that which she will consider “plausible”.
Regrettably, just as we were beginning to make some headway against prosecutorial misconduct, and major governmental and corporate acts of Constitutional violation, we
find ourselves hog-tied by a “Conservative” majority in the Supreme Court whose decision was designed to slow, if not interdict altogether, the process of uncovering unlawful actors, both in government and corporate enterprise.
In the meantime, Mike Edelman, whose malicious obsession with, and activity on, the blogosphere, is undisputed, continues to defame and malign publisher Sam Zherka as if having been granted a license to continue doing so by the decision of Judge Seibel.
His verbal graffiti, easily identified by other bloggers, can be found on the blogs of complicit media sources. And, of course, he continues to run his mouth frequently on News12 where he masquerades as a Republican commentator, a claim Doug Colety, Chairman of the Westchester Republican Party, has repeatedly refuted.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Sam Zherka/Bennett Gershman/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Responds To Law Professor Bennett Gershman
Bennett Gershman, the Pace Law professor, has taken the easy way out by assailing Sam Zherka, for exercising his Constitutional right by criticizing nearly every politician in Westchester County, including life-long Republican, District Attorney Janet DiFiore. What Bennett Gershman forgot to mention is that Janet DiFiore, and her husband, Dennis Glazer, who was accused of trying to bribe the Right-To-Life Party candidate for District Attorney in 2005, make large contributions to Pace University, and sit on the Board of Directors. In essence, Janet DiFiore is Bennett Gershman’s boss.
In an editorial written in the Journal News, Gershman attempts to spin the truth by painting District Attorney Janet DiFiore as a professional and responsible DA who plays by the rules. The job of the District Attorney is to seek justice, not just a conviction, or DiFiore Justice, but the justice guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law. The unlawful prosecution of Irma Marquez, an innocent home health aide, who was brutally beaten nearly to death is just one of the many civil rights violations Janet DiFiore, the current DA, was involved in.
What does Mr. Gershman, the Pace Con-Law professor, say to the family of Rui Florim, a Portuguese restaurant worker who was brutally tortured by six Yonkers Police officers for over an hour, netting him 72 stitches, a fractured skull, lacerations and bruises all over his body, then prosecuted by Janet DiFiore without ever committing a crime? How would you feel if Rui was your son?
Mr. Gershman, what do you say to Kian Khatibi’s mother, whose innocent son was released this year after suffering in prison for over nine years for a crime he did not commit? Janet DiFiore, as a judge, was one of the culprits involved in stripping this young man of his freedom by denying his 440.10 Motion almost nine years ago. Up until the day of his release, DiFiore fought hard to keep this innocent man in prison.
Janet DiFiore’s very close relationship with Peter Viviano, a man with close ties to the Genovese Crime Family, is alarming and an eye-opener. Her solicitation and acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the Gabelli Fund, which the federal government accused of Fraud, and who was forced to fork over nearly 150 million dollars of public funds, tells us who Janet DiFiore really is.
Janet DiFiore, who was entrusted with the power to affect peoples’ lives, liberty and reputations, is the same DA who, on March 21, 2007 after The Westchester Guardian published an article revealing corruption on her behalf and her husband’s, called Sam Zherka on the phone and threatened Zherka and his family, saying, “How would you like it if someone came a er your family”.
Mr. Gershman needs to know that, when asked whether she threatened Sam Zherka and his family on the phone, she responded “I don’t recall” in court documents her lawyers submitted on her behalf. I would ask Mr. Gershman, “Are these the actions of a servant of the law and a representative of the People who defends the rights and liberties of all citizens with vigor?”
Mr. Gershman asks what Sam Zherka’s motivation is. As the son of Albanian immigrants whose father spent over a decade in Communist concentration camps under torture, and whose mother was beaten every day for over three years for demanding freedom and liberty, Sam Zherka’s motivation is exactly that, the guarantee of freedom and liberty for me, my eight children, my family and all people. I want to inspire people to participate in the political process, to ask more questions, and to demand answers from our public servants; to teach our family, friends and children to scorn injustice and falsehood.
The United States Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the People, but an instrument for the People to restrain the
Government. Mr. Gershman’s allegations that Sam Zherka has insinuated himself into the DA’s primary race are absolutely true. As an American-born citizen of this great country, it is my Constitutional right and duty to insinuate myself into every elected race especially when one of the candidates is a direct threat to the fabric of freedom and liberty.
As for any investigation by any authority, whether it be Janet DiFiore’s friends at the Manhattan DA’s office or any agency, I openly challenge anyone who can say Sam Zherka has ever committed a crime other than the exercise of Free Speech, which apparently to some in power in Westchester County is a crime.Mr. Gershman, as a professor of law and the Constitution, you should be ashamed of yourself for siding with opportunity over righteousness, politics over dignity, influence over Civil Rights and our Constitutional freedoms. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Sam Zherka, Publisher, The Westchester Guardian
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka Responds To Law Professor Bennett Gershman
Bennett Gershman, the Pace Law professor, has taken the easy way out by assailing Sam Zherka, for exercising his Constitutional right by criticizing nearly every politician in Westchester County, including life-long Republican, District Attorney Janet DiFiore. What Bennett Gershman forgot to mention is that Janet DiFiore, and her husband, Dennis Glazer, who was accused of trying to bribe the Right-To-Life Party candidate for District Attorney in 2005, make large contributions to Pace University, and sit on the Board of Directors. In essence, Janet DiFiore is Bennett Gershman’s boss.
In an editorial written in the Journal News, Gershman attempts to spin the truth by painting District Attorney Janet DiFiore as a professional and responsible DA who plays by the rules. The job of the District Attorney is to seek justice, not just a conviction, or DiFiore Justice, but the justice guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law. The unlawful prosecution of Irma Marquez, an innocent home health aide, who was brutally beaten nearly to death is just one of the many civil rights violations Janet DiFiore, the current DA, was involved in.
What does Mr. Gershman, the Pace Con-Law professor, say to the family of Rui Florim, a Portuguese restaurant worker who was brutally tortured by six Yonkers Police officers for over an hour, netting him 72 stitches, a fractured skull, lacerations and bruises all over his body, then prosecuted by Janet DiFiore without ever committing a crime? How would you feel if Rui was your son?
Mr. Gershman, what do you say to Kian Khatibi’s mother, whose innocent son was released this year after suffering in prison for over nine years for a crime he did not commit? Janet DiFiore, as a judge, was one of the culprits involved in stripping this young man of his freedom by denying his 440.10 Motion almost nine years ago. Up until the day of his release, DiFiore fought hard to keep this innocent man in prison.
Janet DiFiore’s very close relationship with Peter Viviano, a man with close ties to the Genovese Crime Family, is alarming and an eye-opener. Her solicitation and acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from the Gabelli Fund, which the federal government accused of Fraud, and who was forced to fork over nearly 150 million dollars of public funds, tells us who Janet DiFiore really is.
Janet DiFiore, who was entrusted with the power to affect peoples’ lives, liberty and reputations, is the same DA who, on March 21, 2007 after The Westchester Guardian published an article revealing corruption on her behalf and her husband’s, called Sam Zherka on the phone and threatened Zherka and his family, saying, “How would you like it if someone came a er your family”.
Mr. Gershman needs to know that, when asked whether she threatened Sam Zherka and his family on the phone, she responded “I don’t recall” in court documents her lawyers submitted on her behalf. I would ask Mr. Gershman, “Are these the actions of a servant of the law and a representative of the People who defends the rights and liberties of all citizens with vigor?”
Mr. Gershman asks what Sam Zherka’s motivation is. As the son of Albanian immigrants whose father spent over a decade in Communist concentration camps under torture, and whose mother was beaten every day for over three years for demanding freedom and liberty, Sam Zherka’s motivation is exactly that, the guarantee of freedom and liberty for me, my eight children, my family and all people. I want to inspire people to participate in the political process, to ask more questions, and to demand answers from our public servants; to teach our family, friends and children to scorn injustice and falsehood.
The United States Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the People, but an instrument for the People to restrain the
Government. Mr. Gershman’s allegations that Sam Zherka has insinuated himself into the DA’s primary race are absolutely true. As an American-born citizen of this great country, it is my Constitutional right and duty to insinuate myself into every elected race especially when one of the candidates is a direct threat to the fabric of freedom and liberty.
As for any investigation by any authority, whether it be Janet DiFiore’s friends at the Manhattan DA’s office or any agency, I openly challenge anyone who can say Sam Zherka has ever committed a crime other than the exercise of Free Speech, which apparently to some in power in Westchester County is a crime.Mr. Gershman, as a professor of law and the Constitution, you should be ashamed of yourself for siding with opportunity over righteousness, politics over dignity, influence over Civil Rights and our Constitutional freedoms. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Sam Zherka, Publisher, The Westchester Guardian
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Westchester Tea Party.
Some 2,500 Taxpayers Come Out For Westchester Tea Party In Blistering Heat
A week ago this past Saturday, on April 25, the long-awaited Westchester Tea Party got underway around noon, with a bright, sun-filled sky and temperature around 90 degrees. Still, despite News 12’s blatant misreporting, more than 2500 homeowners, busi-nesspeople and taxpayers, some with an occasional infant on their shoulders, came out in the heat to protest the fact that Westchester is the most heavily taxed county in the nation.
Assisted by a dozen canvassers, 2,261 attendees took the time and trouble to fill out contact sheets, four persons to a sheet, for purposes of notification in order to attend and help out at future events. Despite the reality of those numbers, News 12, as has been its modus operandi, bogusly under-reported the attendance by more than two-thirds.
As it turned out, the White Plains Police prevailed upon the demonstration organizers to move the function one block west, down Martine Avenue, to the corner of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, a location that provided no shade from the merciless rays of the sun, unlike the protective shadow provided by the nine-story County Office Building, at the original site.
Tea Party demonstrators were treated to live music and some spirited rhetoric from nearly a dozen speakers, including longtime Greenburgh Supervisor and advocate for the abolishment of County Government, Paul Feiner, Dave Spano, son of the County Executive, and party organizer and underwriter, Publisher Sam Zherka.
Zherka told the crowd, “My father used to tell me how do you know when a politician is lying? He’s lying when his lips are moving.”
Nick DiTomas, of the Cable Access Channel, told the protesters, “The trouble with government is that they attempt to solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them.”
Sam Zherka came back with, “We need to instill fear in those overtaxing, corrupt politicians.” He reminded everyone, “Every person here owns stock in Westchester County. Every person here is the Board of Directors.”
Dr. Guilio Cavallo reminded everybody, “There are 450,000 Independence Party voters in New York State.”
Introduced by Zherka as, “a true public servant,” Supervisor Paul Feiner declared, “We need a referendum initiative. It is catching on now. People realize that we need to reorganize the way government is run.”
A reporter for News12 collared Dave Spano, asking him about the tea bag pinned to his shirt, “What does that tea bag mean to
you?” Spano snapped right back, “It means we’re taxed enough already!”
A week ago this past Saturday, on April 25, the long-awaited Westchester Tea Party got underway around noon, with a bright, sun-filled sky and temperature around 90 degrees. Still, despite News 12’s blatant misreporting, more than 2500 homeowners, busi-nesspeople and taxpayers, some with an occasional infant on their shoulders, came out in the heat to protest the fact that Westchester is the most heavily taxed county in the nation.
Assisted by a dozen canvassers, 2,261 attendees took the time and trouble to fill out contact sheets, four persons to a sheet, for purposes of notification in order to attend and help out at future events. Despite the reality of those numbers, News 12, as has been its modus operandi, bogusly under-reported the attendance by more than two-thirds.
As it turned out, the White Plains Police prevailed upon the demonstration organizers to move the function one block west, down Martine Avenue, to the corner of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, a location that provided no shade from the merciless rays of the sun, unlike the protective shadow provided by the nine-story County Office Building, at the original site.
Tea Party demonstrators were treated to live music and some spirited rhetoric from nearly a dozen speakers, including longtime Greenburgh Supervisor and advocate for the abolishment of County Government, Paul Feiner, Dave Spano, son of the County Executive, and party organizer and underwriter, Publisher Sam Zherka.
Zherka told the crowd, “My father used to tell me how do you know when a politician is lying? He’s lying when his lips are moving.”
Nick DiTomas, of the Cable Access Channel, told the protesters, “The trouble with government is that they attempt to solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them.”
Sam Zherka came back with, “We need to instill fear in those overtaxing, corrupt politicians.” He reminded everyone, “Every person here owns stock in Westchester County. Every person here is the Board of Directors.”
Dr. Guilio Cavallo reminded everybody, “There are 450,000 Independence Party voters in New York State.”
Introduced by Zherka as, “a true public servant,” Supervisor Paul Feiner declared, “We need a referendum initiative. It is catching on now. People realize that we need to reorganize the way government is run.”
A reporter for News12 collared Dave Spano, asking him about the tea bag pinned to his shirt, “What does that tea bag mean to
you?” Spano snapped right back, “It means we’re taxed enough already!”
Janet Difiore.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore Announcement Fiasco Underscores Her
Unfitness To Be Westchester’s District Attorney
DA Staff Member Cautions Guardian Publisher To Be
Careful Of Frame-Up, Or Other Dirty Tricks
Last Thursday at noon was clearly a defining moment for the People of Westchester, and particularly for those who are genuine Democrats.
What they witnessed was a charade, an attempt by the Fat Cats of the Democratic Party, Andy Spano, Reggie LaFayette, Tim Idoni, and all
those greedy hacks, Bill Ryan included, to shove their unfit candidate, their Counterfeit Democrat, down everybody’s throat. Their problem
was, the People weren’t biting.
The charade, put on by some 200 individuals, more than half of whom were Assistant DAs, investigators, and support staff compelled to be
there; and, the rest mostly the same $155,000-a-year politicos who tried to grab outrageous pay raises from taxpayers last Fall, could not have been more defining with respect to why Janet DiFiore is not, and never has been, the District Attorney of the decent, hard-working citizens of Westchester. The event clearly demonstrated why the recent News12 poll of 999 viewers came back:
• Tony Castro ...............55%
• Dan Schorr ................27%
• Janet DiFiore .............18%
Janet, and her politically connected crowd, weren’t fooling anybody. The People know her for who she really is; a mean-spirited, vindictive
opportunist, who for years used the people and the financial resources of the Republican Party in race after race against the choice of rank
and file Democrats, only to throw her old supporters under the bus and suddenly declare herself a Democrat.
But the People of Westchester, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, and Working Families, were not fooled for even
a minute. They know her for the counterfeit she truly is; counterfeit Democrat, counterfeit DA.
The People know that no self-respecting Democrat, and surely no District Attorney worthy of the Office, would ever conduct herself as
Janet DiFiore has for the past three years. They have witnessed her prosecuting the innocent victims of rogue police brutality; Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, and scores of others in Yonkers. And, they haven’t forgotten the three young boys beaten and mauled in Mount Vernon, nor the victims of excessive force in Sleepy Hollow. Each time she covered up the rogue cops involved, compelling the federal government, the Justice Department, to step in and protect the safety and rights of Westchester citizens.
Several individuals who have been wrongfully handled by her, or whose family have been, showed up carrying signs, calling for her firing,
showing photos of Irma Marquez in an effort to speak Truth to Power.
During the event, a staff person from the DA’s Office, attempting not to be noticed by others from the Office, approached Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, standing at the event, and warned him, in a caring tone, to be both cautious and on the lookout for dirty tricks from DiFiore operatives rumored about in the Office. If, in fact, that possibility should materialize, it would simply be one of several vindictive
and retaliatory acts already carried out by Janet DiFiore in fulfillment of threats she made two years ago.
Perhaps the most defining moment came when Party Boss, and part-time $155,000-a-year Election Commissioner, Reggie LaFayette,
rattled by sign-carrying protesters, declared, “This isn’t about these people; it’s about Janet DiFiore.” He was so right; for Janet, it’s never been about the People at all.
Janet’s only comfort to be drawn from the fiasco was the fact that News 12 was the only television coverage that she got. All of the major
networks stayed away, apparently deciding she was a low-level priority.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
DiFiore Announcement Fiasco Underscores Her
Unfitness To Be Westchester’s District Attorney
DA Staff Member Cautions Guardian Publisher To Be
Careful Of Frame-Up, Or Other Dirty Tricks
Last Thursday at noon was clearly a defining moment for the People of Westchester, and particularly for those who are genuine Democrats.
What they witnessed was a charade, an attempt by the Fat Cats of the Democratic Party, Andy Spano, Reggie LaFayette, Tim Idoni, and all
those greedy hacks, Bill Ryan included, to shove their unfit candidate, their Counterfeit Democrat, down everybody’s throat. Their problem
was, the People weren’t biting.
The charade, put on by some 200 individuals, more than half of whom were Assistant DAs, investigators, and support staff compelled to be
there; and, the rest mostly the same $155,000-a-year politicos who tried to grab outrageous pay raises from taxpayers last Fall, could not have been more defining with respect to why Janet DiFiore is not, and never has been, the District Attorney of the decent, hard-working citizens of Westchester. The event clearly demonstrated why the recent News12 poll of 999 viewers came back:
• Tony Castro ...............55%
• Dan Schorr ................27%
• Janet DiFiore .............18%
Janet, and her politically connected crowd, weren’t fooling anybody. The People know her for who she really is; a mean-spirited, vindictive
opportunist, who for years used the people and the financial resources of the Republican Party in race after race against the choice of rank
and file Democrats, only to throw her old supporters under the bus and suddenly declare herself a Democrat.
But the People of Westchester, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Conservatives, and Working Families, were not fooled for even
a minute. They know her for the counterfeit she truly is; counterfeit Democrat, counterfeit DA.
The People know that no self-respecting Democrat, and surely no District Attorney worthy of the Office, would ever conduct herself as
Janet DiFiore has for the past three years. They have witnessed her prosecuting the innocent victims of rogue police brutality; Irma Marquez, Rui Florim, Dr. Sherry Bobrowsky, and scores of others in Yonkers. And, they haven’t forgotten the three young boys beaten and mauled in Mount Vernon, nor the victims of excessive force in Sleepy Hollow. Each time she covered up the rogue cops involved, compelling the federal government, the Justice Department, to step in and protect the safety and rights of Westchester citizens.
Several individuals who have been wrongfully handled by her, or whose family have been, showed up carrying signs, calling for her firing,
showing photos of Irma Marquez in an effort to speak Truth to Power.
During the event, a staff person from the DA’s Office, attempting not to be noticed by others from the Office, approached Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, standing at the event, and warned him, in a caring tone, to be both cautious and on the lookout for dirty tricks from DiFiore operatives rumored about in the Office. If, in fact, that possibility should materialize, it would simply be one of several vindictive
and retaliatory acts already carried out by Janet DiFiore in fulfillment of threats she made two years ago.
Perhaps the most defining moment came when Party Boss, and part-time $155,000-a-year Election Commissioner, Reggie LaFayette,
rattled by sign-carrying protesters, declared, “This isn’t about these people; it’s about Janet DiFiore.” He was so right; for Janet, it’s never been about the People at all.
Janet’s only comfort to be drawn from the fiasco was the fact that News 12 was the only television coverage that she got. All of the major
networks stayed away, apparently deciding she was a low-level priority.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Mount Vernon City Hall, Janet Difiore and Sam Zherka.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
DA Presents A Very Weak Case
Against Publisher Sam Zherka
Mount Vernon City Court
Judge Adam Seiden Presiding
Last Thursday, Guardian publisher Sam Zherka appeared in Mount Vernon City Court for a bench trial before Judge Adam Seiden, charged with Disorderly Conduct, a violation. The charge grew out of an incident outside the chambers of the City Council on
the second floor in City Hall October 31, 2008.
ADA Alexis Celestin told Judge Seiden, sitting as the trier of fact, “The People intend to prove that on Halloween, Friday, October 31st, the City of Mount Vernon conducted an auction of properties foreclosed for tax liens, and, that the Defendant got into an altercation with Police Officer Morris, and that he became loud and he became irate. He said, ‘I pay your salary, and you shouldn’t even be a cop’. Yolanda Robinson, Mount Vernon Chief of Staff, tried to calm the Defendant down, but he
paid no attention to her and went on yelling, screaming and cursing at Police Officer Morris. At the end of the trial, the Court will find that the Defendant is guilty of Disorderly
Conduct.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Sam Zherka, declined to
make an opening statement.
The Prosecution’s first witness was Mount Vernon Police Officer
Morris, a woman who has spent two and a half years in the Patrol Division.
Asked what she was doing on the date in question, she told the
Court that she was working an 8 am - 4 pm tour of duty, and was called to City Hall to relieve Police Officer Pasqua.
Officer Morris claimed early in her testimony that she was instructed not to let anybody else into the auction before Sam Zherka, pre-registered, arrived a few minutes after the scheduled 11am starting time.
She claimed that she turned someone else away.
Morris said, “The Defendant said, ‘I pay your f---ing salary. You shouldn’t be a cop.’”
ADA Celestin asked, “What did you say?”
Police Officer Morris: “I told him to stop yelling at me and using bad language.”
ADA Celestin: “Did anyone approach you?”
Officer Morris: “Yolanda Robinson; she began to talk to the Defendant.”
ADA Celestin: “Do you recall what she said?”
Officer Morris: “No.”
ADA Celestin: “What happened with Officer Pasqua?”
Officer Morris: “We escorted the Defendant downstairs.”
Jonathan Lovett then cross-examined Officer Morris. He started
with, “On October 31, 2008, when were you told by Central what time you arrived earlier outside the doors at City Council Chambers at City Hall? What were you told?”
Morris answered, “Respond to City Hall Council Chambers.” Morris
said that PO Pasqua told her “We’re going to stand here to keep
order and peace.”
Responding to a statement by Morris on direct examination that
she had been told by Second Deputy Controller Valentine not to let anybody else into the auction, Lovett asked, “So before Mr. Zherka got there she told you nobody else was allowed to go in?
Did anyone else go in? Did anyone else go in or out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “Didn’t you see John Boykin come out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “What was the first thing the Defendant said to you?”
Morris: “He asked why he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “What did you say?”
Morris: “I told him he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “Did Mr. Zherka say anything about being registered to
attend the auction?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “How close were you to the door?”
Morris: “About a foot.”
Lovett: “What time did you call for backup?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Mr. Zherka pulling out a tape recorder?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Yolanda Robinson calling Mr. Zherka
a White mother f---er?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
At this point, ADA Celestin began a continuing overruled objection.
Lovett: “Did anyone come out of the auction to say what was going on in the hall was interrupting the auction?”
Lovett then asked if at any point after the incident Officer Morris told Mayor Young, “in words or substance,” that she wanted to apologize to Mr. Zherka; but, Morris denied it.
Morris claimed that she and Mr. Boykin, and Officer Pasqua, accompanied Mr. Zherka down to the first floor.
Lovett then asked Officer Morris a series of questions with regard to what happened when she got down to the first floor:
• If she told the sergeant on duty about Zherka;
• If she told the squad of cops who responded to her call, when
they arrived, and passed her as they ran upstairs;
• If she recalled being with Police Commissioner Chong just inside the front door to City Hall;
• If she checked to see if the auction was still going on on the second floor? All of which she responded to negatively.
Lovett followed up with, “Did John Boykin say anything in your
presence?”
Morris responded, “Yes,” without elaborating.
He then asked the same question with respect to Police Commissioner Chong, to which Officer Morris responded that Chong had said there would be a summons issued.
Lovett then asked, “Do you remember the Defendant’s holding
up his tape recorder and offering to play what had occurred for Commissioner Chong?” Morris denied remembering it.
He then asked, “Are you aware that the entire incident was recorded by Mr. Zherka?”
Morris responded, “No.”
Finally, Lovett asked Morris, “In light of that fact, are there any statements you made here, today, that you might wish to change?”
Morris again said, “No.”
ADA Celestin, at that point, made an application for Judge Seiden to listen to the tape. The Judge reserved decision.
The Prosecution then presented Mount Vernon Police Officer Vincent J. Pasqua, Thomas Rejalla, First Deputy Controller, Susan Valentine, Second Deputy Controller, and Rudy Persaud,
Public Works Supervisor, none of whom had anything particularly supportive of the charges against Mr. Zherka to say.
If anything, their recollection of events suggested that the incident occurring right outside the door to City Council Chambers was in no way audible inside and did not interrupt the auction going on in that room. Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud’s testimony was particularly exculpatory to Zherka in
that Attorney Lovett established, with his testimony, on cross-examination, that neither John Boykin nor Yolanda Robinson were spoken to offensively by Zherka in his presence.
As if to confirm the fact, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “When
you got to the top of the stairs, was Robinson with you?”
Persaud responded, “Yes,” and indicated that he remained for a few minutes outside Council chambers.
The sixth Prosecution witness was Yolanda Robinson, who took
the witness stand declaring, “I am Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff of the City of Mount Vernon.” Robinson, responding to ADA Celestin’s inquiry about her whereabouts at the time in question, said, “I was walking upstairs with Rudy Persaud.
When I reached the top of the stairs, I heard a commotion.”
Celestin asked, “Did you know who the Defendant was?”
Robinson said, “No.”
Asked what she did next, Robinson said, “I identified myself.”
Celestin then asked, “Did he pay attention to you?”
Robinson responded, “No, he didn’t.”
Prosecutor Celestin then asked, “Who was standing there?”
Robinson replied, “I saw Police Officer Morris, Mr. Zherka, and Rob DiBenedictis.”
ADA Celestin asked what Robinson said to Zherka, to which Robinson responded, “I said if you do not behave, you will be escorted out.”
Probed further by Celestin, she indicated, “A crowd had gathered
and I became alarmed for the people gathered.”
Celestin asked, “Did you accompany Mr. Zherka out?”
Robinson responded, affirmatively, following up with, “I saw
Commissioner Chong and identified myself.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett then proceeded to cross-examine the witness.
Mr. Lovett asked, “Why did you leave your office?”
Robinson replied, “I went to see the auction,” and then said she
was having a Department of Public Works issue.
At that point, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “Do you have any
recollection of what you discussed with Mr. Persaud?” Robinson did not recall.
Lovett then asked, “From the point at which you approached the
Chamber door, until you left the area, how much time elapsed?”
Robinson responded, “About 20 to 25 minutes.”
Lovett then asked, “What did the Defendant yell at the officer?”
Robinson responded, “You are not fit to wear the uniform. I pay
your salary.”
Robinson had no recollection of her conversation about a key, a car, or New Jersey, all of which the previous witness, Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud, had explained to the Court were the reasons he was with her, looking for John Boykin, and accompanied her to the area outside City Council Chambers.
Lovett went on, “Do you recall telling John Boykin, ‘mind your own business?’” Robinson said she did not.
Lovett pursued the matter further, “Did you say to Mr. Boykin, ‘What kind of Black man allows a White man to talk to a Black woman like that?’”
Robinson did not recall having said that. However, she did admit to telling Boykin, “If you don’t stop interfering, you’re going down with him.”
Speaking further of Boykin, Robinson said, “I recall him trying
to interfere as the police officers were trying to remove him.” Lovett came back with, “Do you recall saying, ‘This White motherf---er f---ed with the wrong f---er.’”
ADA Celestin immediately objected, and was sustained. Lovett then asked, “How long was Mr. Zherka outside the chambers?”
Robinson responded, “Ten minutes.”
Judge Seiden then said, “What we are trying to get at here are the exact words that you used.”
To that, Robinson responded, “I told Commissioner Chong that I
told him [Zherka] who I was, and he kept doing what he was doing.”
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
DA Presents A Very Weak Case
Against Publisher Sam Zherka
Mount Vernon City Court
Judge Adam Seiden Presiding
Last Thursday, Guardian publisher Sam Zherka appeared in Mount Vernon City Court for a bench trial before Judge Adam Seiden, charged with Disorderly Conduct, a violation. The charge grew out of an incident outside the chambers of the City Council on
the second floor in City Hall October 31, 2008.
ADA Alexis Celestin told Judge Seiden, sitting as the trier of fact, “The People intend to prove that on Halloween, Friday, October 31st, the City of Mount Vernon conducted an auction of properties foreclosed for tax liens, and, that the Defendant got into an altercation with Police Officer Morris, and that he became loud and he became irate. He said, ‘I pay your salary, and you shouldn’t even be a cop’. Yolanda Robinson, Mount Vernon Chief of Staff, tried to calm the Defendant down, but he
paid no attention to her and went on yelling, screaming and cursing at Police Officer Morris. At the end of the trial, the Court will find that the Defendant is guilty of Disorderly
Conduct.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Sam Zherka, declined to
make an opening statement.
The Prosecution’s first witness was Mount Vernon Police Officer
Morris, a woman who has spent two and a half years in the Patrol Division.
Asked what she was doing on the date in question, she told the
Court that she was working an 8 am - 4 pm tour of duty, and was called to City Hall to relieve Police Officer Pasqua.
Officer Morris claimed early in her testimony that she was instructed not to let anybody else into the auction before Sam Zherka, pre-registered, arrived a few minutes after the scheduled 11am starting time.
She claimed that she turned someone else away.
Morris said, “The Defendant said, ‘I pay your f---ing salary. You shouldn’t be a cop.’”
ADA Celestin asked, “What did you say?”
Police Officer Morris: “I told him to stop yelling at me and using bad language.”
ADA Celestin: “Did anyone approach you?”
Officer Morris: “Yolanda Robinson; she began to talk to the Defendant.”
ADA Celestin: “Do you recall what she said?”
Officer Morris: “No.”
ADA Celestin: “What happened with Officer Pasqua?”
Officer Morris: “We escorted the Defendant downstairs.”
Jonathan Lovett then cross-examined Officer Morris. He started
with, “On October 31, 2008, when were you told by Central what time you arrived earlier outside the doors at City Council Chambers at City Hall? What were you told?”
Morris answered, “Respond to City Hall Council Chambers.” Morris
said that PO Pasqua told her “We’re going to stand here to keep
order and peace.”
Responding to a statement by Morris on direct examination that
she had been told by Second Deputy Controller Valentine not to let anybody else into the auction, Lovett asked, “So before Mr. Zherka got there she told you nobody else was allowed to go in?
Did anyone else go in? Did anyone else go in or out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “Didn’t you see John Boykin come out?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “What was the first thing the Defendant said to you?”
Morris: “He asked why he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “What did you say?”
Morris: “I told him he couldn’t go in.”
Lovett: “Did Mr. Zherka say anything about being registered to
attend the auction?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
Lovett: “How close were you to the door?”
Morris: “About a foot.”
Lovett: “What time did you call for backup?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Mr. Zherka pulling out a tape recorder?”
Morris: “I’m not sure.”
Lovett: “Do you remember Yolanda Robinson calling Mr. Zherka
a White mother f---er?”
Morris: “I don’t remember.”
At this point, ADA Celestin began a continuing overruled objection.
Lovett: “Did anyone come out of the auction to say what was going on in the hall was interrupting the auction?”
Lovett then asked if at any point after the incident Officer Morris told Mayor Young, “in words or substance,” that she wanted to apologize to Mr. Zherka; but, Morris denied it.
Morris claimed that she and Mr. Boykin, and Officer Pasqua, accompanied Mr. Zherka down to the first floor.
Lovett then asked Officer Morris a series of questions with regard to what happened when she got down to the first floor:
• If she told the sergeant on duty about Zherka;
• If she told the squad of cops who responded to her call, when
they arrived, and passed her as they ran upstairs;
• If she recalled being with Police Commissioner Chong just inside the front door to City Hall;
• If she checked to see if the auction was still going on on the second floor? All of which she responded to negatively.
Lovett followed up with, “Did John Boykin say anything in your
presence?”
Morris responded, “Yes,” without elaborating.
He then asked the same question with respect to Police Commissioner Chong, to which Officer Morris responded that Chong had said there would be a summons issued.
Lovett then asked, “Do you remember the Defendant’s holding
up his tape recorder and offering to play what had occurred for Commissioner Chong?” Morris denied remembering it.
He then asked, “Are you aware that the entire incident was recorded by Mr. Zherka?”
Morris responded, “No.”
Finally, Lovett asked Morris, “In light of that fact, are there any statements you made here, today, that you might wish to change?”
Morris again said, “No.”
ADA Celestin, at that point, made an application for Judge Seiden to listen to the tape. The Judge reserved decision.
The Prosecution then presented Mount Vernon Police Officer Vincent J. Pasqua, Thomas Rejalla, First Deputy Controller, Susan Valentine, Second Deputy Controller, and Rudy Persaud,
Public Works Supervisor, none of whom had anything particularly supportive of the charges against Mr. Zherka to say.
If anything, their recollection of events suggested that the incident occurring right outside the door to City Council Chambers was in no way audible inside and did not interrupt the auction going on in that room. Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud’s testimony was particularly exculpatory to Zherka in
that Attorney Lovett established, with his testimony, on cross-examination, that neither John Boykin nor Yolanda Robinson were spoken to offensively by Zherka in his presence.
As if to confirm the fact, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “When
you got to the top of the stairs, was Robinson with you?”
Persaud responded, “Yes,” and indicated that he remained for a few minutes outside Council chambers.
The sixth Prosecution witness was Yolanda Robinson, who took
the witness stand declaring, “I am Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff of the City of Mount Vernon.” Robinson, responding to ADA Celestin’s inquiry about her whereabouts at the time in question, said, “I was walking upstairs with Rudy Persaud.
When I reached the top of the stairs, I heard a commotion.”
Celestin asked, “Did you know who the Defendant was?”
Robinson said, “No.”
Asked what she did next, Robinson said, “I identified myself.”
Celestin then asked, “Did he pay attention to you?”
Robinson responded, “No, he didn’t.”
Prosecutor Celestin then asked, “Who was standing there?”
Robinson replied, “I saw Police Officer Morris, Mr. Zherka, and Rob DiBenedictis.”
ADA Celestin asked what Robinson said to Zherka, to which Robinson responded, “I said if you do not behave, you will be escorted out.”
Probed further by Celestin, she indicated, “A crowd had gathered
and I became alarmed for the people gathered.”
Celestin asked, “Did you accompany Mr. Zherka out?”
Robinson responded, affirmatively, following up with, “I saw
Commissioner Chong and identified myself.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett then proceeded to cross-examine the witness.
Mr. Lovett asked, “Why did you leave your office?”
Robinson replied, “I went to see the auction,” and then said she
was having a Department of Public Works issue.
At that point, Judge Seiden asked the witness, “Do you have any
recollection of what you discussed with Mr. Persaud?” Robinson did not recall.
Lovett then asked, “From the point at which you approached the
Chamber door, until you left the area, how much time elapsed?”
Robinson responded, “About 20 to 25 minutes.”
Lovett then asked, “What did the Defendant yell at the officer?”
Robinson responded, “You are not fit to wear the uniform. I pay
your salary.”
Robinson had no recollection of her conversation about a key, a car, or New Jersey, all of which the previous witness, Public Works Supervisor Rudy Persaud, had explained to the Court were the reasons he was with her, looking for John Boykin, and accompanied her to the area outside City Council Chambers.
Lovett went on, “Do you recall telling John Boykin, ‘mind your own business?’” Robinson said she did not.
Lovett pursued the matter further, “Did you say to Mr. Boykin, ‘What kind of Black man allows a White man to talk to a Black woman like that?’”
Robinson did not recall having said that. However, she did admit to telling Boykin, “If you don’t stop interfering, you’re going down with him.”
Speaking further of Boykin, Robinson said, “I recall him trying
to interfere as the police officers were trying to remove him.” Lovett came back with, “Do you recall saying, ‘This White motherf---er f---ed with the wrong f---er.’”
ADA Celestin immediately objected, and was sustained. Lovett then asked, “How long was Mr. Zherka outside the chambers?”
Robinson responded, “Ten minutes.”
Judge Seiden then said, “What we are trying to get at here are the exact words that you used.”
To that, Robinson responded, “I told Commissioner Chong that I
told him [Zherka] who I was, and he kept doing what he was doing.”
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Advocate/Westchester County Government.
Thursday, March 12, 2009.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Enthusiastic Crowd Of More Than 300
Converge On Royal Regency Hotel, Yonkers;
Plan Strategy To Abolish County Government
Son Of Andy Spano Says, “I Love My Father, But He’s Doing A Bad Job”
Last Wednesday, in part motivated by the commercials calling for the abolishment of County Government being run on their station and other cable channels by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by David Spano, the 49-year-old son of Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, News12 decided to make the issue the question of the day by polling their viewers. Viewers responses fell into three categories: those
wanting to abolish County Government, those wanting to keep it, and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way.
The results, announced Thursday morning, were rather definitive and unambiguous. Those wishing to put an end to County Government were 60 percent; those wishing to keep it were 22 percent; and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way, 18 percent. We believe, even given the unscientific nature of the poll and a probable standard deviation of error of about four percent, viewers, those who took the time to participate,
made a strong statement.
We credit News12 for taking the public’s temperature on the subject, though we suspect had Janine Rose anticipated the very strong outcome,
she might not have run the poll given her usual protectionist treatment of Andrew Spano, and, some of her comments earlier, with respect to his son David’s participation in the campaign to eliminate County Government.
Much as Mike Edelman, Rose’s comments seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate, or somehow not right or fair, for David, a man 49 years old, to have, and express, his own opinion with respect to County Government so long as his father was County Executive.
Nevertheless, the results of the poll spoke very clearly about the sentiments of most Westchester residents. Our bloated, disconnected County Government is a luxury we can no longer afford, and has been for some time. It has created a socio-economic divide that has made Westchester both unaffordable and uncomfortable for working families.
Thursday night, on the heels of the poll, more than 300 residents, homeowners, and business people from all over the County, from as far away as Peekskill and Ossining and Bedford and Somers, converged on the Royal Regency Hotel in Yonkers to share their concerns and ideas with each other, and with White Plains City Councilman Glen Hockley, Independence Party Chair Dr. Giulio Cavallo, David Spano, and publisher Sam Zherka.
The purpose of the gathering was to give taxpayers the opportunity to learn more about the upcoming April 25th Westchester Tea Party, scheduled to be held outside the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue in White Plains, and to send them off with palm cards and lawn signs for distribution to their neighbors and friends.
White Plains Councilman Hockley explained the workings of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and how their committeepersons primarily
function to perpetuate their continued existence with little or no concern about community needs. He explained that he recently voluntarily took a 10 percent pay cut in an effort to set an example and to encourage public servants, at all levels in Westchester, to do the same.
David Spano, son of County Executive Andrew Spano, received a warm round of applause when he addressed the crowd, telling them that he believes his father’s expansion of County Government, and taxes, was wrong and needed to be reversed.
Guardian publisher Sam Zherka told the crowd, “We must force Andy Spano into retirement.” He said the people need to vote the 17 County Legislators out of office, and that the County could be broken up into five legislative districts requiring but five legislators and five assistants, thus eliminating 12 current legislators and 47 legislative assistants, bringing about, at a minimum, a $3 million reduction in salaries in that area alone.
Dr. Cavallo, Chair of the Westchester Independence Party, explained the workings of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Westchester,
and how they conspire to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.
A businessman from Sleepy Hollow rose to express the need for a “watchdog”, someone to keep an eye on corruption. Publisher Zherka responded, “The watchdog should be your district attorney. To have a watchdog we need to get rid of Janet DiFiore.” That comment was greeted with strong applause. Throughout the gathering, more han 20 people rose to their feet to express their own concerns and to relate their individual experiences
with County Government. Each account, almost without exception, spoke of an unresponsive, basically aloof and disconnected County Government, too preoccupied with lining their own pockets to help their needy constituents.
As the gathering drew to a close, Sam Zherka explained, “We’re not going to change things overnight; it will take three, four years, maybe more, but we will succeed.” He went on to say, “Alone we will not accomplish, but if we show up with 5,000, 10,000 people, we’ll not only get their attention, we’ll get the governor’s attention. They’ll know we mean business.”
The majority of the more than 300 attendees registered to do volunteer work for upcoming events, and most took stacks of palm cards and five or more lawn signs for their friends and neighbors. There was unmistakeable enthusiasm and resolve to fight County Government excesses and waste throughout the crowd.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Enthusiastic Crowd Of More Than 300
Converge On Royal Regency Hotel, Yonkers;
Plan Strategy To Abolish County Government
Son Of Andy Spano Says, “I Love My Father, But He’s Doing A Bad Job”
Last Wednesday, in part motivated by the commercials calling for the abolishment of County Government being run on their station and other cable channels by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by David Spano, the 49-year-old son of Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, News12 decided to make the issue the question of the day by polling their viewers. Viewers responses fell into three categories: those
wanting to abolish County Government, those wanting to keep it, and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way.
The results, announced Thursday morning, were rather definitive and unambiguous. Those wishing to put an end to County Government were 60 percent; those wishing to keep it were 22 percent; and those who felt it didn’t matter much either way, 18 percent. We believe, even given the unscientific nature of the poll and a probable standard deviation of error of about four percent, viewers, those who took the time to participate,
made a strong statement.
We credit News12 for taking the public’s temperature on the subject, though we suspect had Janine Rose anticipated the very strong outcome,
she might not have run the poll given her usual protectionist treatment of Andrew Spano, and, some of her comments earlier, with respect to his son David’s participation in the campaign to eliminate County Government.
Much as Mike Edelman, Rose’s comments seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate, or somehow not right or fair, for David, a man 49 years old, to have, and express, his own opinion with respect to County Government so long as his father was County Executive.
Nevertheless, the results of the poll spoke very clearly about the sentiments of most Westchester residents. Our bloated, disconnected County Government is a luxury we can no longer afford, and has been for some time. It has created a socio-economic divide that has made Westchester both unaffordable and uncomfortable for working families.
Thursday night, on the heels of the poll, more than 300 residents, homeowners, and business people from all over the County, from as far away as Peekskill and Ossining and Bedford and Somers, converged on the Royal Regency Hotel in Yonkers to share their concerns and ideas with each other, and with White Plains City Councilman Glen Hockley, Independence Party Chair Dr. Giulio Cavallo, David Spano, and publisher Sam Zherka.
The purpose of the gathering was to give taxpayers the opportunity to learn more about the upcoming April 25th Westchester Tea Party, scheduled to be held outside the County Office Building at 148 Martine Avenue in White Plains, and to send them off with palm cards and lawn signs for distribution to their neighbors and friends.
White Plains Councilman Hockley explained the workings of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and how their committeepersons primarily
function to perpetuate their continued existence with little or no concern about community needs. He explained that he recently voluntarily took a 10 percent pay cut in an effort to set an example and to encourage public servants, at all levels in Westchester, to do the same.
David Spano, son of County Executive Andrew Spano, received a warm round of applause when he addressed the crowd, telling them that he believes his father’s expansion of County Government, and taxes, was wrong and needed to be reversed.
Guardian publisher Sam Zherka told the crowd, “We must force Andy Spano into retirement.” He said the people need to vote the 17 County Legislators out of office, and that the County could be broken up into five legislative districts requiring but five legislators and five assistants, thus eliminating 12 current legislators and 47 legislative assistants, bringing about, at a minimum, a $3 million reduction in salaries in that area alone.
Dr. Cavallo, Chair of the Westchester Independence Party, explained the workings of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Westchester,
and how they conspire to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.
A businessman from Sleepy Hollow rose to express the need for a “watchdog”, someone to keep an eye on corruption. Publisher Zherka responded, “The watchdog should be your district attorney. To have a watchdog we need to get rid of Janet DiFiore.” That comment was greeted with strong applause. Throughout the gathering, more han 20 people rose to their feet to express their own concerns and to relate their individual experiences
with County Government. Each account, almost without exception, spoke of an unresponsive, basically aloof and disconnected County Government, too preoccupied with lining their own pockets to help their needy constituents.
As the gathering drew to a close, Sam Zherka explained, “We’re not going to change things overnight; it will take three, four years, maybe more, but we will succeed.” He went on to say, “Alone we will not accomplish, but if we show up with 5,000, 10,000 people, we’ll not only get their attention, we’ll get the governor’s attention. They’ll know we mean business.”
The majority of the more than 300 attendees registered to do volunteer work for upcoming events, and most took stacks of palm cards and five or more lawn signs for their friends and neighbors. There was unmistakeable enthusiasm and resolve to fight County Government excesses and waste throughout the crowd.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Westchester Guardian/The Court ReportCity of Mount VernonJanet Difiore/Sam Zherka/Clinton Young.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Mayor Clinton Young: “I Think Chong
Is Doing Janet DiFiore’s Dirty Work”
Analysis:
DA Janet DiFiore’s First Amendment retaliatory abuse of her Office was vindictive and obvious. She apparently will stop at nothing in her misguided abuse of process against publisher Sam Zherka in retalitation for The Guardian’s exercise of Freedom Of The Press.
This is the same District Attorney who continues to prosecute the innocent victims of Yonkers Police brutality while covering up the rogue cops
involved; the same DA who demands the firing of veteran, dedicated cops who question her judgment; and, the same DA who prosecutes innocent
police officers without a shred of evidence.
The Mount Vernon incident clearly illustrates the contaminating influence a misguided district attorney, the likes of Janet DiFiore, will have on
the conduct of other public officials, particularly police, who are only too well aware of the damage she can do to them, and their careers, should
they refuse to “kiss her ring”. Notoriously dishonest, her stubbornness and stupidity render her a menace to public safety.
For more on this story, Link To: http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Mayor Clinton Young: “I Think Chong
Is Doing Janet DiFiore’s Dirty Work”
Analysis:
DA Janet DiFiore’s First Amendment retaliatory abuse of her Office was vindictive and obvious. She apparently will stop at nothing in her misguided abuse of process against publisher Sam Zherka in retalitation for The Guardian’s exercise of Freedom Of The Press.
This is the same District Attorney who continues to prosecute the innocent victims of Yonkers Police brutality while covering up the rogue cops
involved; the same DA who demands the firing of veteran, dedicated cops who question her judgment; and, the same DA who prosecutes innocent
police officers without a shred of evidence.
The Mount Vernon incident clearly illustrates the contaminating influence a misguided district attorney, the likes of Janet DiFiore, will have on
the conduct of other public officials, particularly police, who are only too well aware of the damage she can do to them, and their careers, should
they refuse to “kiss her ring”. Notoriously dishonest, her stubbornness and stupidity render her a menace to public safety.
For more on this story, Link To: http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Westchester Guardian/Sam Zherka/Readers' Heads-Up.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Readers’ Heads-Up
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka will be appearing in Mount Vernon City Court on Wednesday, January 28th at 9:30 am in response to the recent Ethnic Profiling and First Amendment retaliation employed against him by Mount Vernon City Officials.
Injustice Against One Is Injustice Against All!
Readers’ Heads-Up
Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka will be appearing in Mount Vernon City Court on Wednesday, January 28th at 9:30 am in response to the recent Ethnic Profiling and First Amendment retaliation employed against him by Mount Vernon City Officials.
Injustice Against One Is Injustice Against All!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Westchester Guardian/The Court Report/Janet Difiore/Giulio Cavallo/Sam Zherka.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Civic Leader Hauls DiFiore
And D’Amato Into Court
Claims Retaliatory First Amendment Violations
Last Wednesday, December 3rd, civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett, of White Plains, filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against former United States Senator from New York, Alphonse D’Amato, individually, and Janet DiFiore, individually, and in her capacity as District Attorney for the County of Westchester, New York, on behalf of his client, Giulio Cavallo, Chairman of the Westchester Independence Party.
The suit seeks a sum of $10 million each from D’Amato and DiFiore, for a total of $20 million in punitive damages, plus an award of compensatory damages in the amount of $20 million, sought jointly, and severally, against D’Amato and DiFiore, for a total of $40 million.
The suit describes D’Amato as, “a disgraced, retired United States Senator,” who is politically connected to Defendant DiFiore directly, and
through her husband, Dennis Glazer, “a wealthy New York City-based attorney with long-term deep, and extensive, connections to D’Amato.”
The suit alleges that in 2005, when DiFiore ran for Westchester District Attorney, Glazer personally threatened Plaintiff Cavallo by Coercion
in the Second Degree, on DiFiore’s behalf, that if he failed to secure the Independence Party’s endorsement for her, indicating that he, Glazer,
would use his wealth and political connections to “take control of the Independence Party, and remove Cavallo as its chairman.”
It is further alleged that out of fear induced by both Glazer and DiFiore, Cavallo did secure the Independence Party endorsement for DiFiore directly resulting in her election, and that she was sworn in, as such, on January 1, 2006. The suit refers to an issue of The Westchester Guardian,
in March 2007, in which an article pertaining to DiFiore, and regarding Glazer’s conduct, in corruptly securing from Plaintiff Cavallo the Independence Party’s endorsement, appeared.
Subsequently, Plaintiff Cavallo, on August 28, 2008, published an article in The Westchester Guardian newspaper, accompanied by the headline,
“Civic Leader Declares DA DiFiore A Failure,” in which he expressed his opinion that DiFiore, “has been largely ineffective in combatting crime,”
and described her administration as a “disappointment.”
The suit further alleges that Di-Fiore and her spouse Glazer, “as a consequence of a federal civil rights action, brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against DiFiore because of her threats in her capacity as DA to go after Zherka and his family, became aware of Cavallo’s willingness to testify that DiFiore had told him that she was going to ‘fix Zherka’, and that, as a consequence, DiFiore and Glazer “entered into an agreement to enlist the active participation of D’Amato and other Republican political operatives to threaten and intimidate Plaintiff with a view toward silencing him.”
Interviewed last Friday, December 5th at his attorney, Jonathan Lovett’s, office, Cavallo explained that on October 16th he was attending
a luncheon with Nassau County officials and the State Chairman of the Independence Party, Frank McKay, at the Oheka Castle Restaurant
in Huntington, Long Island.
Cavallo said, “To my surprise, I was informed that Al D’Amato had come to the luncheon and that he wanted to sit next to me.” Cavallo explained that once D’Amato sat down next to him the former Senator subjected him to more than two hours of threats from Janet DiFiore and her spouse, Dennis Glazer.
This reporter asked, “How do you feel about DA Janet DiFiore?”
Cavallo responded, “I feel fear and intimidation.”
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Civic Leader Hauls DiFiore
And D’Amato Into Court
Claims Retaliatory First Amendment Violations
Last Wednesday, December 3rd, civil rights attorney Jonathan Lovett, of White Plains, filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against former United States Senator from New York, Alphonse D’Amato, individually, and Janet DiFiore, individually, and in her capacity as District Attorney for the County of Westchester, New York, on behalf of his client, Giulio Cavallo, Chairman of the Westchester Independence Party.
The suit seeks a sum of $10 million each from D’Amato and DiFiore, for a total of $20 million in punitive damages, plus an award of compensatory damages in the amount of $20 million, sought jointly, and severally, against D’Amato and DiFiore, for a total of $40 million.
The suit describes D’Amato as, “a disgraced, retired United States Senator,” who is politically connected to Defendant DiFiore directly, and
through her husband, Dennis Glazer, “a wealthy New York City-based attorney with long-term deep, and extensive, connections to D’Amato.”
The suit alleges that in 2005, when DiFiore ran for Westchester District Attorney, Glazer personally threatened Plaintiff Cavallo by Coercion
in the Second Degree, on DiFiore’s behalf, that if he failed to secure the Independence Party’s endorsement for her, indicating that he, Glazer,
would use his wealth and political connections to “take control of the Independence Party, and remove Cavallo as its chairman.”
It is further alleged that out of fear induced by both Glazer and DiFiore, Cavallo did secure the Independence Party endorsement for DiFiore directly resulting in her election, and that she was sworn in, as such, on January 1, 2006. The suit refers to an issue of The Westchester Guardian,
in March 2007, in which an article pertaining to DiFiore, and regarding Glazer’s conduct, in corruptly securing from Plaintiff Cavallo the Independence Party’s endorsement, appeared.
Subsequently, Plaintiff Cavallo, on August 28, 2008, published an article in The Westchester Guardian newspaper, accompanied by the headline,
“Civic Leader Declares DA DiFiore A Failure,” in which he expressed his opinion that DiFiore, “has been largely ineffective in combatting crime,”
and described her administration as a “disappointment.”
The suit further alleges that Di-Fiore and her spouse Glazer, “as a consequence of a federal civil rights action, brought by Guardian publisher Sam Zherka against DiFiore because of her threats in her capacity as DA to go after Zherka and his family, became aware of Cavallo’s willingness to testify that DiFiore had told him that she was going to ‘fix Zherka’, and that, as a consequence, DiFiore and Glazer “entered into an agreement to enlist the active participation of D’Amato and other Republican political operatives to threaten and intimidate Plaintiff with a view toward silencing him.”
Interviewed last Friday, December 5th at his attorney, Jonathan Lovett’s, office, Cavallo explained that on October 16th he was attending
a luncheon with Nassau County officials and the State Chairman of the Independence Party, Frank McKay, at the Oheka Castle Restaurant
in Huntington, Long Island.
Cavallo said, “To my surprise, I was informed that Al D’Amato had come to the luncheon and that he wanted to sit next to me.” Cavallo explained that once D’Amato sat down next to him the former Senator subjected him to more than two hours of threats from Janet DiFiore and her spouse, Dennis Glazer.
This reporter asked, “How do you feel about DA Janet DiFiore?”
Cavallo responded, “I feel fear and intimidation.”
Three-State, Multiple Bank Robber, Gets 92 Months
Judge Tells Poughkeepsie Man, “You And I Are The Same Age,”
Reminds Him Of His Responsibility To Be There For His 16-Year-Old Daughter
United States District Court, White Plains
Judge Kenneth M. Karas Presiding
Last Tuesday afternoon, December 2nd, Frank Surico, 44, of Poughkeepsie, appeared before Judge Kenneth M. Karas for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to five counts of Bank Robbery, filed in the Southern District of New York, and one count, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in July 2008. Showing no partiality for one bank over another, he robbed the Webster Bank in Brookfield, Connecticut, of $2,800; the Citizen’s Bank in New Windsor, New York, of $3,264; the Fairfield County Bank in Danbury, Connecticut of $5,300; the Catskill-Hudson Bank, in
Middletown, New York, of $5,365; the Citizen’s Bank in Matamoras, Pennsylvania, of $6,756; and, attempted to rob the Mid-Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union in Middletown, New York.
His method of operation involved no weapon or threat of violence. He would merely put a plastic bag on the counter before a teller, and announce that it was a robbery, demanding that the teller put money in the bag, whereupon he would then walk out.
Other than The Guardian, the only other press present for the sentencing was staff writer Oliver Mackson of The Times Herald-Record in Middletown, who had graduated from high school with Surico and had written an article about Surico’s history, and his conduct on Graduation
Day some 26 years earlier. Mackson was curious whether Surico would recognize him upon entering the courtroom from the holding area.
However, the Defendant showed no glint of recognition as he entered the room, accompanied by a federal marshal, looking toward the spectators gallery. In his account, Mackson recalled how the Defendant at graduation had held up his diploma. As it turned out, Mackson’s article had unintended significance in the proceedings, as it served to document the fact that Surico was, indeed, a high school graduate, an issue that his attorney, Michael K. Burke, of Burke, Miele, and Golden, LLP of Goshen, New York repeatedly stressed to the Court was apparently not clarified in his client’s probation report. Burke would explain that high school graduation would be determinative of where his client would be designated to serve his time and “what programs he would be admitted to by the Bureau of Prisons.”
Judge Karas acknowledged the Times Herald-Record article, copies of which Attorney Burke produced for him, declaring, “I will take judicial
notice of his walking off the stage holding his diploma. I’m happy to attach the article to his papers.” Karas added, “I’m happy to give him credit for time served back to March 4.”
Attorney Burke, moving in a different direction, then stated, “My client has a long history of substance abuse, starting with alcohol as a youth, then cocaine, and finally heroin. Not in any way to justify his behavior, but in none of these robberies did he threaten violence or use violence. In Middletown, when he handed the plastic bag to the teller and she threw it out, he just walked out. He was not violent.” Burke then advanced his case, telling Judge Karas, “I would hope he could be treated other than as a violent criminal so that he could be eligible to enter a 500-hour treatment procedure and shave one year off his sentence.”
Judge Karas then injected, “Technically, the record is correct.” Burke went on, “He is a 44-year-old man. He has a 16-yearold daugher whom he,
his mother, and father, raised.” At that point the Prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Anna M. Skotko, spoke up to the Court, declaring,
“He isn’t over-classi-fied. Congress classified Bank Robbery as a violent crime. The Government’s position is that the conditions are properly
calculated.”
At that point, Judge Karas offered the Defendant an opportunity to speak. Surico accepted and said, “I would like to apologize to all of the tellers. I didn’t mean to frighten them. I made a wrong turn; I made some bad decisions. I harbor no ill will. Under no condition would I ever have hurt anyone.” Judge Karas then began, “The Court’s starting point is what the guidelines have to say. There’s a guideline for each offense.” He went on to acknowledge Surico’s criminal history and its impact on the sentence, adding points for one aspect or another. He concluded that the guidelines called for 92 to 115 months, and then declared, “So that’s the math.”
Karas went on, “This is yet another sad case of someone who got involved in substance abuse. Mr. Surico has a lengthy criminal history, but not a history of violence or hurting people. He has a daughter.” Then the Judge became more stern, declaring, “Bank Robbery is a serious crime and, even though Mr. Surico didn’t use a gun, still people can be hurt by a reaction to the crime. What Mr. Surico did was a very serious crime. I think the criminal history category wasn’t overstated. I do think Mr. Surico needs to learn his lesson, which I don’t believe he has.”
Karas then opined, “All too often I see people who are engaged in the use of drugs. But, he made choices, not once, but many times. If Mr.
Surico had brandished a gun, his guidelines would be 140 to 175 months. It is the judgement of this Court that he serve 92 months followed by three years supervised release.”
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Sam Zherka.
More Court Report
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Guardian Publisher Greeted With Racial Tirade
By Mount Vernon Mayoral Chief Of Staff
Brings Suit In Federal Court Regarding Bizarre Racial Attack
Last Monday, November 10th, Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, went to United States District
Court, White Plains, to file and commence an action against Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff to Mount Vernon City Mayor Clinton Young,
Jane Morris, Shield No. 2057, Mount Vernon Police Officer, Police Commissioner of Mount Vernon, David Chong, 15 “John Doe” Mount Vernon
Police Officers, Terence “Roe”, and the City of Mount Vernon.
The following day, Mr. Zherka, accompanied by Attorney Lovett, and 15 supporters, held a press conference on the plaza in front of
Mount Vernon City Hall. Attorney Lovett explained to reporters why it was necessary to bring the action, below, partially reprinted, in Federal
Court for the purpose of discouraging government officials, for any reason, from behaving as the Defendants had toward Mr. Zherka, ethnically
and racially profiling him, displaying bigotry and profanity, and unlawfully barring him from a public function in a public building, all in violation of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Constitution of the United States, 42U.S.C. Section 1983.
Publisher Zherka told reporters present that he was calling upon Mayor Clinton Young not to indemnify the individuals named as defendants, as he did not wish the taxpayers of Mount Vernon to be stuck with picking up the tab for Robinson’s, Chong’s, and Morris’, unlawful, bigoted behavior.
The suit seeks $100 million in punitive damages and an equal sum in compensatory damages, a total of $200 million. Zherka promised reporters
that he would be tracing the Defendants’ connections to DA Janet DiFiore given her numerous attempts to harass him and damage his reputation and business enterprises.
Interviewed at her offices in Mount Vernon City Hall last Thursday, City Comptroller Maureen Walker, who has been overseeing the City’s finances for the last 14 years, expressed dismay over Chief of Staff Yolanda Robinson’s outrageous racial attack upon Zherka, making it clear that she was not present at the time of the altercation, having left the auction of tax liened City properties a few minutes before Mr. Zherka’s arrival. Walker assured The Guardian that she had no placed no entry restrictions on Zherka or anyone else.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Guardian Publisher Greeted With Racial Tirade
By Mount Vernon Mayoral Chief Of Staff
Brings Suit In Federal Court Regarding Bizarre Racial Attack
Last Monday, November 10th, Attorney Jonathan Lovett, representing Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, went to United States District
Court, White Plains, to file and commence an action against Yolanda Robinson, Chief of Staff to Mount Vernon City Mayor Clinton Young,
Jane Morris, Shield No. 2057, Mount Vernon Police Officer, Police Commissioner of Mount Vernon, David Chong, 15 “John Doe” Mount Vernon
Police Officers, Terence “Roe”, and the City of Mount Vernon.
The following day, Mr. Zherka, accompanied by Attorney Lovett, and 15 supporters, held a press conference on the plaza in front of
Mount Vernon City Hall. Attorney Lovett explained to reporters why it was necessary to bring the action, below, partially reprinted, in Federal
Court for the purpose of discouraging government officials, for any reason, from behaving as the Defendants had toward Mr. Zherka, ethnically
and racially profiling him, displaying bigotry and profanity, and unlawfully barring him from a public function in a public building, all in violation of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Constitution of the United States, 42U.S.C. Section 1983.
Publisher Zherka told reporters present that he was calling upon Mayor Clinton Young not to indemnify the individuals named as defendants, as he did not wish the taxpayers of Mount Vernon to be stuck with picking up the tab for Robinson’s, Chong’s, and Morris’, unlawful, bigoted behavior.
The suit seeks $100 million in punitive damages and an equal sum in compensatory damages, a total of $200 million. Zherka promised reporters
that he would be tracing the Defendants’ connections to DA Janet DiFiore given her numerous attempts to harass him and damage his reputation and business enterprises.
Interviewed at her offices in Mount Vernon City Hall last Thursday, City Comptroller Maureen Walker, who has been overseeing the City’s finances for the last 14 years, expressed dismay over Chief of Staff Yolanda Robinson’s outrageous racial attack upon Zherka, making it clear that she was not present at the time of the altercation, having left the auction of tax liened City properties a few minutes before Mr. Zherka’s arrival. Walker assured The Guardian that she had no placed no entry restrictions on Zherka or anyone else.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Sam Zherka/The Court Report.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Building At 450 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley,Purchased By County Government And Subject Of Taxpayer Lawsuit
Zherka Brings Taxpayer Suit In Federal Court Against 11 County Legislators
Last Wednesday afternoon, Oct. 15th, Guardian publisher Sam Zherka, accompanied by Attorney Jonathan Lovett and Greenburgh Supervisor
Paul Feiner, as well as several supporters, held a press conference in front of the County Office Building at 148 Martine Ave., White Plains to announce a federal lawsuit brought by Zherka, against 11 County Legislators who had passed legislation and signed off on the purchase
of the building and property at 450 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley, in the Town of Greenburgh. The 85,000-square-foot leaky, moldy, old building, had stood vacant and unsaleable for more than five years, and its purchase was seen by most observers, as a reward to owner Jon Halpern, a friend and generous campaign contributor to Andy Spano.
Paul Feiner, as well as several supporters, held a press conference in front of the County Office Building at 148 Martine Ave., White Plains to announce a federal lawsuit brought by Zherka, against 11 County Legislators who had passed legislation and signed off on the purchase
of the building and property at 450 Saw Mill River Road, Ardsley, in the Town of Greenburgh. The 85,000-square-foot leaky, moldy, old building, had stood vacant and unsaleable for more than five years, and its purchase was seen by most observers, as a reward to owner Jon Halpern, a friend and generous campaign contributor to Andy Spano.
Back on July 8th Zherka, one of ten speakers who addressed the Board of Legislators prior to their vote, had told them, “I want to know the urgency of spending $13 million.” He warned them that he would challenge their action in court if they proceeded to pass the necessary enabling legislation. Wednesday’s press conference was by way of informing County residents that he had made good on his warning and,
in fact, had filed a Taxpayer’s Lawsuit in United States District Court the previous Friday.
in fact, had filed a Taxpayer’s Lawsuit in United States District Court the previous Friday.
Asked why he had filed the suit, Zherka told reporters, “If we don’t step up to the plate, we will all be driven from our homes. We are talking about the economic crisis and problems with banks. But, no one is discussing predatory government.”
Attorney Jonathan Lovett told reporters , “The Legislators, taking their orders from the County Executive, split the bond issue,
more than $13 million in total, so as to sneak under the referendum law.” Under County law, any proposed capital expenditure that exceeds
$10 million must be put to a referendum. Lovett described the Legislators’ actions as “a calculated waste of taxpayers’ money.”
more than $13 million in total, so as to sneak under the referendum law.” Under County law, any proposed capital expenditure that exceeds
$10 million must be put to a referendum. Lovett described the Legislators’ actions as “a calculated waste of taxpayers’ money.”
Responding to another reporter’s question as to how he knew what was on Legislators’ minds, Lovett declared, “If the County Legislators had used their brains, this lawsuit would not have been necessary.”
Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner, a leader in the movement to eliminate County Government, stated, “This purchase was a blow to the Town of Greenburgh because it took the property off the tax rolls. The County Legislature abused their authority in voting to approve a sweetheart deal.”
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Westchester Guardian/Janet Difiore.
Thursday, June 19, 2008.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Guardian Publisher Exposes DA DiFiore’s ‘Dirty
Tricks’ To Stifle His First Amendment Rights
Last Tuesday, June 10, Westchester Guardian publisher Sam Zherka held a press conference to announce his placement, in escrow, of $100,000 with White Plains attorney Jonathan Lovett, and his offer to award the funds to whomever shall first come forward with verifiable, truthful information regarding any illegal or unethical activity or prosecutorial misconduct by DA Janet DiFiore and/or her friend, ADA Matthew Bogdanos, of the Manhattan DA’s Office, that leads to their arrest, conviction and/or disbarment.
Mr. Zherka presented the following to explain his unprecedented offer: Last March, The Westchester Guardian published an article critical
of New York State’s Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, in which some unflattering information regarding Janet DiFiore’s high powered attorney spouse, Dennis Glazer, was reviewed.
That article produced a violently angry and abusively intimidating telephone call from DA DiFiore to Publisher Zherka in which she threatened, “How would you like it if someone came after your family?”
Zherka told reporters, “Within a few weeks, my investigation reveals, she had her friend, Assistant DA Matthew Bogdanos, of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, send out subpoenas to several businesses I deal with.” Those subpoenas produced no evidence of wrongdoing by Zherka whatsoever.
In July and August of last year, Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone, closely aligned with DiFiore and with Attorney Michael Edelman, political consultant to each of them, ordered his Department of Public Works and his Police Department to confiscate 56 Guardian news boxes and thousands of newspapers.
Then, in September, Edelman began making false and defamatory accusations about Mr. Zherka on LoHud, the Journal News blog, and
other sites. Edelman created a list of entities and individuals who do business with Mr. Zherka, and who contributed to Dennis Robertson’s
campaign for Mayor of Yonkers. Edelman’s defamatory activities on the blog sites intensified right through October.
Zherka learned that during October, while the defamatory activity was being conducted on the blogs by Edelman, Phil Amicone, at a Republican political function, held at a church in Yonkers, in the presence of some 60 people, reiterated the defama-tory statements of
Edelman, attempting to implicate the publisher criminally, discredit him, and silence his exercise of Free Speech.
Zherka declared, “As a result, everyone who I introduced to Dennis Robertson’s campaign, and who made a contribution, received criminal subpoenas from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. It is no coincidence that in April 2007, Janet DiFiore told a person who was then close to her, and has since come forward because of the injustice, to report that Janet told him, ‘Don’t worry; I’m going to fix him.’ ”
Zherka told reporters, “Her misconduct was a blatant attack and retaliation against Free Speech.”
Having held his press conference on Tuesday, June 10, the very next day Zherka was served with more than 20 additional subpoenas.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------x
SELIM ZHERKA and THE WESTCHESTER
GUARDIAN, INC.,
Plaintiffs, 08 Civ. 3469 ( )
-against- COMPLAINT
JANET DiFIORE, individually, and THE
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER,
Jury Trial Demanded
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs SELIM ZHERKA and THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN, INC., by their attorneys Lovett & Gould, LLP, for their complaint respectfully state:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as related declaratory and injunctive relief, proximately resulting from Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983.
JURISDICTION
2. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff SELIM ZHERKA is a citizen of the United States, a domiciliary of the State of New York, a resident of the Northern Counties, and the owner of Plaintiff THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN, INC, a New York domestic corporation having offices for the conduct of business at 2 William Street, White Plains, New York. As such he is the publisher/owner of The Westchester Guardian, a weekly newspaper, which commencing in August of 2006 began publishing articles concerning inter alia political corruption in the government of the County of Westchester, New York.
4. Defendant JANET DiFIORE (hereinafter “DiFiore”), who is sued in her individual and personal capacities only, at all times relevant to this complaint was the elected District Attorney of Defendant COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, New York (hereinafter “County”), a municipal corporate subdivision of the State of New York duly existing by reason of and pursuant to the laws of said State. With respect to DiFiore’s conduct as set forth infra she acted as in her discretion as a final policymaking official of the County rather than on behalf of the People of the State of New York.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Guardian Publisher Exposes DA DiFiore’s ‘Dirty
Tricks’ To Stifle His First Amendment Rights
Last Tuesday, June 10, Westchester Guardian publisher Sam Zherka held a press conference to announce his placement, in escrow, of $100,000 with White Plains attorney Jonathan Lovett, and his offer to award the funds to whomever shall first come forward with verifiable, truthful information regarding any illegal or unethical activity or prosecutorial misconduct by DA Janet DiFiore and/or her friend, ADA Matthew Bogdanos, of the Manhattan DA’s Office, that leads to their arrest, conviction and/or disbarment.
Mr. Zherka presented the following to explain his unprecedented offer: Last March, The Westchester Guardian published an article critical
of New York State’s Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, in which some unflattering information regarding Janet DiFiore’s high powered attorney spouse, Dennis Glazer, was reviewed.
That article produced a violently angry and abusively intimidating telephone call from DA DiFiore to Publisher Zherka in which she threatened, “How would you like it if someone came after your family?”
Zherka told reporters, “Within a few weeks, my investigation reveals, she had her friend, Assistant DA Matthew Bogdanos, of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, send out subpoenas to several businesses I deal with.” Those subpoenas produced no evidence of wrongdoing by Zherka whatsoever.
In July and August of last year, Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone, closely aligned with DiFiore and with Attorney Michael Edelman, political consultant to each of them, ordered his Department of Public Works and his Police Department to confiscate 56 Guardian news boxes and thousands of newspapers.
Then, in September, Edelman began making false and defamatory accusations about Mr. Zherka on LoHud, the Journal News blog, and
other sites. Edelman created a list of entities and individuals who do business with Mr. Zherka, and who contributed to Dennis Robertson’s
campaign for Mayor of Yonkers. Edelman’s defamatory activities on the blog sites intensified right through October.
Zherka learned that during October, while the defamatory activity was being conducted on the blogs by Edelman, Phil Amicone, at a Republican political function, held at a church in Yonkers, in the presence of some 60 people, reiterated the defama-tory statements of
Edelman, attempting to implicate the publisher criminally, discredit him, and silence his exercise of Free Speech.
Zherka declared, “As a result, everyone who I introduced to Dennis Robertson’s campaign, and who made a contribution, received criminal subpoenas from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. It is no coincidence that in April 2007, Janet DiFiore told a person who was then close to her, and has since come forward because of the injustice, to report that Janet told him, ‘Don’t worry; I’m going to fix him.’ ”
Zherka told reporters, “Her misconduct was a blatant attack and retaliation against Free Speech.”
Having held his press conference on Tuesday, June 10, the very next day Zherka was served with more than 20 additional subpoenas.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------x
SELIM ZHERKA and THE WESTCHESTER
GUARDIAN, INC.,
Plaintiffs, 08 Civ. 3469 ( )
-against- COMPLAINT
JANET DiFIORE, individually, and THE
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER,
Jury Trial Demanded
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs SELIM ZHERKA and THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN, INC., by their attorneys Lovett & Gould, LLP, for their complaint respectfully state:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as related declaratory and injunctive relief, proximately resulting from Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983.
JURISDICTION
2. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343.
THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff SELIM ZHERKA is a citizen of the United States, a domiciliary of the State of New York, a resident of the Northern Counties, and the owner of Plaintiff THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN, INC, a New York domestic corporation having offices for the conduct of business at 2 William Street, White Plains, New York. As such he is the publisher/owner of The Westchester Guardian, a weekly newspaper, which commencing in August of 2006 began publishing articles concerning inter alia political corruption in the government of the County of Westchester, New York.
4. Defendant JANET DiFIORE (hereinafter “DiFiore”), who is sued in her individual and personal capacities only, at all times relevant to this complaint was the elected District Attorney of Defendant COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, New York (hereinafter “County”), a municipal corporate subdivision of the State of New York duly existing by reason of and pursuant to the laws of said State. With respect to DiFiore’s conduct as set forth infra she acted as in her discretion as a final policymaking official of the County rather than on behalf of the People of the State of New York.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Janet Difiore/Joe Spiezio.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Developer “Buddy” Of Mayor Amicone Dragged
Into Federal Court For Serious Labor Violations
Last Thursday, May 22, Attorney Jonathan Lovett, accompanied by 20 Latino clients, held a press conference on the plaza in front of the United States District Courthouse in White Plains following the filing of a summons and complaint against developer Joseph Spiezio and his accountant and bookkeeper, accusing the three of enforcing a conspiratorial agreement in violation of his clients’ rights under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law.
Specifically, Spiezio is accused of numerous intentional unlawful acts including violation of Hours And Wages Laws, failing to pay overtime wages “for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week,” and “periodically requiring work on Sundays without any compensation at all.” More egregious, Spiezio unlawfully appropriated, in cash, for his own benefit, 20 percent of the wages paid to all of more than 40 Latino manual laborers and carpenters on the false representation that it was for “taxes to be withheld and paid by Defendants to federal, state
and Yonkers tax authorities.” In actuality, beginning in 2000 and over a period of several years, the money was stolen and not paid to any taxing authority.
Asked why the Plaintiffs did not complain sooner, Attorney Lovett indicated that former District Attorney Jeanine Pirro was notified, and “couldn’t care less,” and that Janet DiFiore refused to act as well. Asked what evidence he had, given the fact that the Plaintiffs were paid in cash, Lovett responded, “We have copies of a number of their payroll sheets.”
The 20 Plaintiffs who filed on Thursday come originally from Ecuador, Mexico and El Salvador. Lovett told reporters, “They were referred to as Spics, and treated like garbage.” He indicated that there are 20 more Plaintiffs who will also be filing against Spiezio soon.
Spiezio, who has enjoyed a “very cozy relationship” with Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone, and special treatment from his administration, is known to have received an $800,000 “loan” from the City which he has failed to repay.
Court Report PG 1 - http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/year/08/may%2008/vol%202%20no%2043%20may%2029%202008%20pdfs/WG052908X03.pdf
Court Report PG 2 - http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/year/08/may%2008/vol%202%20no%2043%20may%2029%202008%20pdfs/WG052908X07.pdf
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Developer “Buddy” Of Mayor Amicone Dragged
Into Federal Court For Serious Labor Violations
Last Thursday, May 22, Attorney Jonathan Lovett, accompanied by 20 Latino clients, held a press conference on the plaza in front of the United States District Courthouse in White Plains following the filing of a summons and complaint against developer Joseph Spiezio and his accountant and bookkeeper, accusing the three of enforcing a conspiratorial agreement in violation of his clients’ rights under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law.
Specifically, Spiezio is accused of numerous intentional unlawful acts including violation of Hours And Wages Laws, failing to pay overtime wages “for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week,” and “periodically requiring work on Sundays without any compensation at all.” More egregious, Spiezio unlawfully appropriated, in cash, for his own benefit, 20 percent of the wages paid to all of more than 40 Latino manual laborers and carpenters on the false representation that it was for “taxes to be withheld and paid by Defendants to federal, state
and Yonkers tax authorities.” In actuality, beginning in 2000 and over a period of several years, the money was stolen and not paid to any taxing authority.
Asked why the Plaintiffs did not complain sooner, Attorney Lovett indicated that former District Attorney Jeanine Pirro was notified, and “couldn’t care less,” and that Janet DiFiore refused to act as well. Asked what evidence he had, given the fact that the Plaintiffs were paid in cash, Lovett responded, “We have copies of a number of their payroll sheets.”
The 20 Plaintiffs who filed on Thursday come originally from Ecuador, Mexico and El Salvador. Lovett told reporters, “They were referred to as Spics, and treated like garbage.” He indicated that there are 20 more Plaintiffs who will also be filing against Spiezio soon.
Spiezio, who has enjoyed a “very cozy relationship” with Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone, and special treatment from his administration, is known to have received an $800,000 “loan” from the City which he has failed to repay.
Court Report PG 1 - http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/year/08/may%2008/vol%202%20no%2043%20may%2029%202008%20pdfs/WG052908X03.pdf
Court Report PG 2 - http://www.westchesterguardianonline.com/year/08/may%2008/vol%202%20no%2043%20may%2029%202008%20pdfs/WG052908X07.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)