The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Judge Charles Brieant: A Profile In Dedication
Last month, July, marked the 35th anniversary of the appointment of Westchester’s own Federal District Court Judge, Charles Brieant. Appointed by President Richard Nixon, for many years Brieant was the only Federal Judge in the County. Judge Brieant agreed to give the GUARDIAN an interview at 8:00AM, in chambers.
Amongst several portraits of past prominent Jurists and political leaders adorning the walls of Brieant’s chambers, most impressive to this reporter was a large group photo of all of the young law school graduates who had interned over the past thirty-five years with the Judge, nearly three dozen in all. Brieant pointed out several indicating, with a paternal pride, the prominent public and private positions they had attained.
I asked, for openers, “How would you characterize the single most noticeable difference in the types of actions coming before you today, as opposed to when you were first appointed?” Brieant quickly responded, “There’s a tremendous difference in the types of cases. It has become the Court of Working People.” He went on to explain, “Back then we had many maritime and stock fraud cases. Now we see a lot of employment cases, discrimination.”
He went on, “We still get patent cases, employment disputes, civil rights, and criminal cases. Where we were once the Court of High Finance and the High Seas, we’ve become the Court of the People.” To further emphasize his point, Brieant revealed that some thirty percent of filers are pro se, availing themselves of electronic research and filing.
Brieant then turned to another aspect of change, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, evoking the statement, “Congress attempted to cure a problem they didn’t understand. They tried to make a national sentencing scheme.” He went on to explain that the net result of the guidelines has been more guilty pleas and far fewer trials.
Realizing that he had been in college during World War II, I asked if his schooling had been interrupted. Brieant related that he had entered the Army Air Corps, serving in Guam with the 351st servicing B-29 bombers. Returning from the war he quickly finished up his undergraduate work and made up for lost time completing law school in a remarkable twenty-four months.
Brieant, and both of his parents were born and raised in Ossining. His dad was a physician. Charles, however, was more interested in politics, and the law. At age sixteen he was working in the campaigns of local politicians. And, by twentyeight he ran successfully for Town Justice, defining his career path very early on.
Asked how, if at all, being a federal judge has influenced his private life, the Judge quickly responded, “I had to give up my private practice, and had to work much harder.”
Judge Brieant then recalled the near-fatal consequences to his wife when a disgruntled individual, unhappy with his ruling, sent poisoned chocolates to her. Attempting to turn to more pleasant memories I asked, “Looking back over the years what would you describe as the most gratifying aspect of your life’s work?”
Brieant responded, without hesitation, “helping people resolve their problems.” He went on to say that his work was made easier and more pleasant, “working with young law clerks who brought a modern outlook, and dealing with something different every day.”
With the clock well past 9:00AM, and mindful that the Judge would need to be taking the bench shortly, I dropped one last question on him, asking, “Years from now, when judicial historians reflect upon your many years of service to the citizens of the Southern District of New York, how would you prefer to be remembered?”
Brieant’s first response was, “My work was up to date,” quickly followed by, “due mainly to my loyal conscientious staff.” Then, pausing for a moment to re-flect, he offered, “Remembered that I cared and wanted to help people.”
As one who has sat in his courtroom, and read several of his decisions, I believe the good Judge will get his wish.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Our Readers Respond...
To the Editor:
For more than four years since the death of my nephew, Robert Viscome, those who loved and miss him dearly have endured much pain made the more unbearable by the existence of too many unanswered questions. In breaking my public silence I want to make it clear that I speak for myself only, moved to do so by the words of a campaign spokesperson for Jeanine Pirro.
Replying to a reporter’s question regarding her acceptance of thousands of dollars from beer and alcohol companies, he said, and I quote, “THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, PROHIBITION ENDED.” That was such a cold and callous statement from the camp of the woman who was so quick to try and use teen drinking as another venue to sell herself and her misguided, self-serving crusade against underage drinking.
Robert was left to die like a dog on the side of the road, two doors away from Pirro’s own home while more than 20 young adults made a conscious decision not to call for emergency medical assistance, because of their concern about the alcohol and drug evidence they chose to instead clean up. I want to point out the incredible insensitivity of Mrs. Pirro from that day to this, with regard to our loss.
It was disgraceful enough that she never prosecuted those young adults, not even seeking community service. Most people have come to believe that her daughter played a role in that decision. So now I am asking Mrs. Pirro a simple question seeking a simple yes or no answer. “Was your daughter at the Porzio residence at any time that dreadful afternoon?”
Four years ago, Mrs. Pirro was the CRUSADER against teenage alcohol abuse. Now she accepts their campaign contributions. What kind of message does that send? For an individual who states that she is passionate for crime victims, and that she knows the ethical way to handle a crime, Mrs. Pirro certainly does not appear to understand the difference between two simple words, RIGHT and WRONG.
Shortly after Robert’s passing, Mrs. Pirro began a campaign to rescue her image, not by going after those who played a direct role in his death, but by creating a smokescreen of concern about under-aged drinking with a series of well-circulated, premeditated public relation blitzes. It was not about getting to and exposing the facts.
Everyone involved in Robert’s death, from the young adults to those who were elected to serve the public, Police Chief Dave Hall to Judge John Voetsch, and everyone in between, all walk around haunted by their actions and lack of accountability. There’s no getting even. This was never about getting even. This is about two very simple words that Mrs. Pirro does not seem to understand, RIGHT and WRONG.
Ray Viscome
West Harrison
To the Editor:
Is the recent rotation in the matrimonial part historic or novel? Does anybody know what was contained in the reports of Inspector General Spatz?
Name Withheld
To the Editor:
For more than four years since the death of my nephew, Robert Viscome, those who loved and miss him dearly have endured much pain made the more unbearable by the existence of too many unanswered questions. In breaking my public silence I want to make it clear that I speak for myself only, moved to do so by the words of a campaign spokesperson for Jeanine Pirro.
Replying to a reporter’s question regarding her acceptance of thousands of dollars from beer and alcohol companies, he said, and I quote, “THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, PROHIBITION ENDED.” That was such a cold and callous statement from the camp of the woman who was so quick to try and use teen drinking as another venue to sell herself and her misguided, self-serving crusade against underage drinking.
Robert was left to die like a dog on the side of the road, two doors away from Pirro’s own home while more than 20 young adults made a conscious decision not to call for emergency medical assistance, because of their concern about the alcohol and drug evidence they chose to instead clean up. I want to point out the incredible insensitivity of Mrs. Pirro from that day to this, with regard to our loss.
It was disgraceful enough that she never prosecuted those young adults, not even seeking community service. Most people have come to believe that her daughter played a role in that decision. So now I am asking Mrs. Pirro a simple question seeking a simple yes or no answer. “Was your daughter at the Porzio residence at any time that dreadful afternoon?”
Four years ago, Mrs. Pirro was the CRUSADER against teenage alcohol abuse. Now she accepts their campaign contributions. What kind of message does that send? For an individual who states that she is passionate for crime victims, and that she knows the ethical way to handle a crime, Mrs. Pirro certainly does not appear to understand the difference between two simple words, RIGHT and WRONG.
Shortly after Robert’s passing, Mrs. Pirro began a campaign to rescue her image, not by going after those who played a direct role in his death, but by creating a smokescreen of concern about under-aged drinking with a series of well-circulated, premeditated public relation blitzes. It was not about getting to and exposing the facts.
Everyone involved in Robert’s death, from the young adults to those who were elected to serve the public, Police Chief Dave Hall to Judge John Voetsch, and everyone in between, all walk around haunted by their actions and lack of accountability. There’s no getting even. This was never about getting even. This is about two very simple words that Mrs. Pirro does not seem to understand, RIGHT and WRONG.
Ray Viscome
West Harrison
To the Editor:
Is the recent rotation in the matrimonial part historic or novel? Does anybody know what was contained in the reports of Inspector General Spatz?
Name Withheld
In Our Opinion....
In our opinion, there’s been entirely too much conjecture over the last few years, regarding the ultimate solution, to the crumbling and congested Tappan Zee Bridge. While experts and politicians have weighed in, may of them, numerous times, projected costs have continued to rise and conditions have continued to deteriorate.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that there is, in fact, a workable solution, one for which there is a model. The site of the Newburgh Beacon Bridges, just 30 miles up river, once posed a similar problem,
throughout the 1970’s. The original span, consisted of one lane of traf-fic in each direction, totally adequate, until the completion of Interstate 84, in 1971, when it quickly became an unbelievable bottleneck.
After years of suffering, it was ultimately determined that a second bridge would have to be constructed adjacent to the original. Upon completion of the new span, a three lane artery from West to East, it became possible to convert the old span to a three lane artery, once the center median was eliminated, with traffic flowing in the opposite direction. The net result was three-fold increase in roadway capacity.
While many of the proposals, to date, including a tunnel, or a new supersized bridge with, a railroad, may appear to offer a solution, they come with totally unacceptable price tags, and with equally unacceptable ecological consequences. Therefore, we believe the time for mulling over the situation has passed. It is equally urgent that we both promptly construct an additional right of way, a new bridge, and perform major rehablitiation on the existing one. That’s our opinion, what’s yours?
as for perennial Sue Kelly
Representative Sue Kelly, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on oversight and investigations, up to four weeks ago, had strongly supported the Bush Administration’s aggressive interdiction
of terrorist financial resources. Declaring that her record would strongly suggest support for a “sophisticated and aggressive program” such as the Administration has been pursuing, she, nevertheless, made an abrupt turn-about when she opened a hearing with, “Many in Congress who should have been briefed by this Administration
were not.”
The Congresswoman would appear to be responding to her changing constituency, and to the very real possibility of a Democratic landslide in New York this fall. She is obviously attempting to re-align herself with Democrats, and some liberal Republicans who have been speaking out against perceived Due Process and Separation of Powers violations under this president. Just how successful this late tactic will prove to be will be discovered come November 7th.
The Advocate
Richard Blassberg
Investigative Journalism: A Newspaper’s Finest Hour
In a democracy government has the obligation to conduct its business in accordance with the prevailing rules of lawful conduct. In the United States that set of rules is our Federal Constitution, the contract to which the governed, and those who would govern, have agreed to adhere. In essence, those who would enforce the law, must live by it.
It was no coincidence that the Founding Fathers placed a very high priority on the guaranty of a free and unfettered Press, and, in fact, made that right one of the subjects of the first of ten amendments to the constitution, comprising the Bill of Rights. Under the First Amendment, that established freedom of speech and association, the right to a free and independent press was specifically guaranteed, thus ensuring a perpetual “watchdog” over the activities of government.
It’s the primary responsibility, indeed, the mandate, of a free press, as protected under the First Amendment, to vigilantly observe and report the conduct of government, without favor or exception. Not since Daniel Ellsberg
and the “Pentagon Papers,” in the 1970’s have we seen such controversy over the Times, or any newspaper’s exposure of the federal government’s unconstitutional and illegal activity.
Unfortunately, whether for reasons of rivalry and competition, or simply their failure to perceive the underlying threat to our free society posed by a culpable, muted press, major New York newspapers, The Post, and The
Daily News, have attacked the Old Gray Lady as treasonous and disloyal, for exposing the Administration’s unlawful, covert activities in their attempt to track the finances of persons suspected of supporting terrorism.
Thomas Sowell, a Post columnist who can usually be counted upon for a reasonable approach in such matters, went so far as to refer to “The Times’ Anti-Patriots,” insisting, “Americans may be dying” because of what terrorists have learned from them.
Sowell attacks “the public’s right to know” as a mere hollow excuse, and naively dismisses any notion that terrorist operatives might well have suspected that their money transfers were under American government
surveillance. He cites the revelation during World War II, by the Chicago Tribune that the United States had figured out the Japanese Code, as a comparable betrayal of an important government secret. He then, incredibly
remarks, “Fortunately, for this country, the Japanese didn’t read the Tribune, or didn’t believe it.”
What Thomas Sowell, and others who espouse his position, should know from history, is that in a free society those who represent themselves as observers and reporters of critical newsworthy events, cannot presume
to manage the news, to pick and choose that which they believe their readers have a right, or a need to know. Government at every level, not merely the administration in Washington; police departments, for example can
always be counted upon to attempt to justify their unlawful activities and abuse of power in the name of public safety and security.
Today it’s the War On Terrorism. Thirty years ago, at the time of the Pentagon Papers, it was the Vietnam War. And, thirty years before that, it was the unlawful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War
II. The simple fact is that no enemy of the United States, Japanese, North Vietnamese, or Muslim Terrorist, should ever be vested with the power to deny American citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed right to know, by a free press that would culpably conspire to conceal the unlawful activities of their own government in the name of loyalty or patriotism.
Richard Blassberg
Investigative Journalism: A Newspaper’s Finest Hour
In a democracy government has the obligation to conduct its business in accordance with the prevailing rules of lawful conduct. In the United States that set of rules is our Federal Constitution, the contract to which the governed, and those who would govern, have agreed to adhere. In essence, those who would enforce the law, must live by it.
It was no coincidence that the Founding Fathers placed a very high priority on the guaranty of a free and unfettered Press, and, in fact, made that right one of the subjects of the first of ten amendments to the constitution, comprising the Bill of Rights. Under the First Amendment, that established freedom of speech and association, the right to a free and independent press was specifically guaranteed, thus ensuring a perpetual “watchdog” over the activities of government.
It’s the primary responsibility, indeed, the mandate, of a free press, as protected under the First Amendment, to vigilantly observe and report the conduct of government, without favor or exception. Not since Daniel Ellsberg
and the “Pentagon Papers,” in the 1970’s have we seen such controversy over the Times, or any newspaper’s exposure of the federal government’s unconstitutional and illegal activity.
Unfortunately, whether for reasons of rivalry and competition, or simply their failure to perceive the underlying threat to our free society posed by a culpable, muted press, major New York newspapers, The Post, and The
Daily News, have attacked the Old Gray Lady as treasonous and disloyal, for exposing the Administration’s unlawful, covert activities in their attempt to track the finances of persons suspected of supporting terrorism.
Thomas Sowell, a Post columnist who can usually be counted upon for a reasonable approach in such matters, went so far as to refer to “The Times’ Anti-Patriots,” insisting, “Americans may be dying” because of what terrorists have learned from them.
Sowell attacks “the public’s right to know” as a mere hollow excuse, and naively dismisses any notion that terrorist operatives might well have suspected that their money transfers were under American government
surveillance. He cites the revelation during World War II, by the Chicago Tribune that the United States had figured out the Japanese Code, as a comparable betrayal of an important government secret. He then, incredibly
remarks, “Fortunately, for this country, the Japanese didn’t read the Tribune, or didn’t believe it.”
What Thomas Sowell, and others who espouse his position, should know from history, is that in a free society those who represent themselves as observers and reporters of critical newsworthy events, cannot presume
to manage the news, to pick and choose that which they believe their readers have a right, or a need to know. Government at every level, not merely the administration in Washington; police departments, for example can
always be counted upon to attempt to justify their unlawful activities and abuse of power in the name of public safety and security.
Today it’s the War On Terrorism. Thirty years ago, at the time of the Pentagon Papers, it was the Vietnam War. And, thirty years before that, it was the unlawful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War
II. The simple fact is that no enemy of the United States, Japanese, North Vietnamese, or Muslim Terrorist, should ever be vested with the power to deny American citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed right to know, by a free press that would culpably conspire to conceal the unlawful activities of their own government in the name of loyalty or patriotism.
The Court Report
By Richard Blassberg
Menendez Sentenced in Rape, Murder From Tragedy Comes All-Too-Familiar Message
Westchester County Court, White Plains
Judge Barbara Zambelli Presiding
White Plains, July 25- Ariel Menendez, 28, having been found guilty, on May 29th, of the brutal rape and murder of 17-year-old Elizabeth Butler, a year earlier, appeared for sentencing by County Court Judge Barbara Zambelli
before a packed courtroom. More than thirty relatives and friends of the young North Salem High School senior had come seeking closure, and some relief from their grief. However, Menendez, convicted of two counts of Murder, Rape, and Criminal Sexual Act, had come with his own agenda.
When asked by Judge Zambelli if he wished to make a statement, Defendant Menendez, standing beside his Legal Aid Attorney Harvey Loeb, spoke out angrily, “Of course I do.” Wasting no time, he acknowledged
how much he hated his victim’s family, and then proceeded to prove it by torturing them with his version of the circumstances involved in his taking of Elizabeth’s life. Still insisting that they had engaged in consensual sex, declaring, “We both agreed to it,” he went on to describe, in agonizing detail, how they then began arguing, and he proceeded to strangle and stab her to death.
Many in the courtroom, devastated by the stark, matter-of-fact, account began weeping. As Menendez went on, suggesting that he had been mistreated, his victim’s father, no longer able to contain himself, shouted, “Shut up.” At that point the Defendant turned to face the Butler Family cursing repeatedly until court officers succeeded in ushering him from the courtroom. The proceedings were then adjourned for about fifteen minutes.
Prior to Menendez, Patricia Butler, the victim’s mother had delivered a statement in which she shared with the Court the impact that her daughter’s killing had had upon her family. Perhaps more objectively and calmly
than most mothers in her situation might have been able to, Mrs. Butler acknowledged Menendez’ misguided feelings about his own victimization, telling him firmly, “You are a sociopath without a conscience.” And,
following with, “If you can’t have something you destroy it.”
Having used the brief adjournment time to deal with another matter involving the release of a Legal Aid attorney from the case of another defendant, and the assumption of the case by a privately retained counsel, Zambelli called for Menendez to be returned to the courtroom for the resumption of his sentencing. ADAs Perrone and Branca-Santos, who had successfully prosecuted the case, now returned to the Prosecution table as the Defendant rejoined Defense Attorney Loeb.
Declaring, “Mr. Menendez, you raped strangled, and stabbed Elizabeth Butler to death, and have shown no remorse,” Zambelli then proceeded, straight away, to sentence Menendez. “For Count One, First Degree Rape,
I sentence you to a determinate twenty-five years, plus five years of post release supervision, and registration as a sex offender. For Count Two, Second Degree Murder, I sentence you to Life Without Possibility of Parole. For
Count Three, Criminal Sex Act, I sentence you to Twenty-Five Years. And, for the Fourth Count, First Degree Murder, I sentence you to Life Without Possibility of Parole.” The pronouncement of sentence completed, Elizabeth Butler’s family and friends broke into a spontaneous round of applause.
June 5th of last year Ariel Menendez, then 27, who had been dating Elizabeth Butler, a seventeen-year-old North Salem High School senior, enraged that she had attempted to break off her relationship with him, gained entry to the Butler’s SUV and attacked her. The incident occurred in the parking lot near the Hygrade Market, across from the Croton Falls Rail Road station, where Elizabeth worked part-time and where she had met Menendez a year earlier.
Tragically, her lifeless, savaged, body was discovered by her parents. The heinous crime had sent shockwaves
through the normally peaceful Northern Westchester community, the circumstances, perhaps giving brief pause for thought to parents regarding the company kept by their teen-aged children.
Analysis:
If Elizabeth’s life, and her family’s bitter loss, are not to be in vain, we must all give more than brief pause to
consideration of their all-too-common plight. There are those who might ask how it was that someone the likes
of Ariel Menendez could manage to work his way into a seven-month relationship with Elizabeth? And, Mrs. Butler openly admitted that she wished she could have done more to protect her. However, those who have raised a daughter through the teenaged years, and into adulthood, know only too well how vulnerable adolescent girls may truly be.
At sixteen and seventeen girls are physically, hormonally, and emotionally thrust into a very different circumstance than they have ever experienced. For some there is a strong need to receive attention, to love and be loved.
Often those needs make such young women, particularly vulnerable to older, possibly predatory, males. Just beginning to find their confidence socially, adolescent girls may find the attention of older males, flattering, encouraging, and fun. They are too busy exploring relationships, sex, and sometimes drugs, and/or alcohol to question, or even be aware of, the possible motives of older companions.
As parents we must never lose sight of the fact that our most important role in life is parenting. One cannot be too careful of who it is that our kids are hanging with when they’re not at home. Still, try as we might to be involved,
and yet not too overbearing, it’s a very narrow line that must be walked. Sometimes it’s difficult to make seventeen-year-old girls, in love, see what we see in their boyfriends, and pushing too hard may only make the forbidden fruit appear the more sweet. Given that Elizabeth had already decided that she was no longer interested in Ariel Menendez, to that extent her parents had done all that they might. Unfortunately, nobody could foresee the depth of this predator’s dark side.
By Richard Blassberg
Menendez Sentenced in Rape, Murder From Tragedy Comes All-Too-Familiar Message
Westchester County Court, White Plains
Judge Barbara Zambelli Presiding
White Plains, July 25- Ariel Menendez, 28, having been found guilty, on May 29th, of the brutal rape and murder of 17-year-old Elizabeth Butler, a year earlier, appeared for sentencing by County Court Judge Barbara Zambelli
before a packed courtroom. More than thirty relatives and friends of the young North Salem High School senior had come seeking closure, and some relief from their grief. However, Menendez, convicted of two counts of Murder, Rape, and Criminal Sexual Act, had come with his own agenda.
When asked by Judge Zambelli if he wished to make a statement, Defendant Menendez, standing beside his Legal Aid Attorney Harvey Loeb, spoke out angrily, “Of course I do.” Wasting no time, he acknowledged
how much he hated his victim’s family, and then proceeded to prove it by torturing them with his version of the circumstances involved in his taking of Elizabeth’s life. Still insisting that they had engaged in consensual sex, declaring, “We both agreed to it,” he went on to describe, in agonizing detail, how they then began arguing, and he proceeded to strangle and stab her to death.
Many in the courtroom, devastated by the stark, matter-of-fact, account began weeping. As Menendez went on, suggesting that he had been mistreated, his victim’s father, no longer able to contain himself, shouted, “Shut up.” At that point the Defendant turned to face the Butler Family cursing repeatedly until court officers succeeded in ushering him from the courtroom. The proceedings were then adjourned for about fifteen minutes.
Prior to Menendez, Patricia Butler, the victim’s mother had delivered a statement in which she shared with the Court the impact that her daughter’s killing had had upon her family. Perhaps more objectively and calmly
than most mothers in her situation might have been able to, Mrs. Butler acknowledged Menendez’ misguided feelings about his own victimization, telling him firmly, “You are a sociopath without a conscience.” And,
following with, “If you can’t have something you destroy it.”
Having used the brief adjournment time to deal with another matter involving the release of a Legal Aid attorney from the case of another defendant, and the assumption of the case by a privately retained counsel, Zambelli called for Menendez to be returned to the courtroom for the resumption of his sentencing. ADAs Perrone and Branca-Santos, who had successfully prosecuted the case, now returned to the Prosecution table as the Defendant rejoined Defense Attorney Loeb.
Declaring, “Mr. Menendez, you raped strangled, and stabbed Elizabeth Butler to death, and have shown no remorse,” Zambelli then proceeded, straight away, to sentence Menendez. “For Count One, First Degree Rape,
I sentence you to a determinate twenty-five years, plus five years of post release supervision, and registration as a sex offender. For Count Two, Second Degree Murder, I sentence you to Life Without Possibility of Parole. For
Count Three, Criminal Sex Act, I sentence you to Twenty-Five Years. And, for the Fourth Count, First Degree Murder, I sentence you to Life Without Possibility of Parole.” The pronouncement of sentence completed, Elizabeth Butler’s family and friends broke into a spontaneous round of applause.
June 5th of last year Ariel Menendez, then 27, who had been dating Elizabeth Butler, a seventeen-year-old North Salem High School senior, enraged that she had attempted to break off her relationship with him, gained entry to the Butler’s SUV and attacked her. The incident occurred in the parking lot near the Hygrade Market, across from the Croton Falls Rail Road station, where Elizabeth worked part-time and where she had met Menendez a year earlier.
Tragically, her lifeless, savaged, body was discovered by her parents. The heinous crime had sent shockwaves
through the normally peaceful Northern Westchester community, the circumstances, perhaps giving brief pause for thought to parents regarding the company kept by their teen-aged children.
Analysis:
If Elizabeth’s life, and her family’s bitter loss, are not to be in vain, we must all give more than brief pause to
consideration of their all-too-common plight. There are those who might ask how it was that someone the likes
of Ariel Menendez could manage to work his way into a seven-month relationship with Elizabeth? And, Mrs. Butler openly admitted that she wished she could have done more to protect her. However, those who have raised a daughter through the teenaged years, and into adulthood, know only too well how vulnerable adolescent girls may truly be.
At sixteen and seventeen girls are physically, hormonally, and emotionally thrust into a very different circumstance than they have ever experienced. For some there is a strong need to receive attention, to love and be loved.
Often those needs make such young women, particularly vulnerable to older, possibly predatory, males. Just beginning to find their confidence socially, adolescent girls may find the attention of older males, flattering, encouraging, and fun. They are too busy exploring relationships, sex, and sometimes drugs, and/or alcohol to question, or even be aware of, the possible motives of older companions.
As parents we must never lose sight of the fact that our most important role in life is parenting. One cannot be too careful of who it is that our kids are hanging with when they’re not at home. Still, try as we might to be involved,
and yet not too overbearing, it’s a very narrow line that must be walked. Sometimes it’s difficult to make seventeen-year-old girls, in love, see what we see in their boyfriends, and pushing too hard may only make the forbidden fruit appear the more sweet. Given that Elizabeth had already decided that she was no longer interested in Ariel Menendez, to that extent her parents had done all that they might. Unfortunately, nobody could foresee the depth of this predator’s dark side.
Pirro’s Internet Sex “Stink”
Two weeks ago the Appellate Division, Second Department, of State Supreme Court, effectively pulled the rug from beneath Jeanine Pirro, literally tossing her self-promotional career, together with her quest for the State Attorney General’s Office, into the waste basket. In throwing out the indictment and conviction of Jeffrey Kozlow, Indictment # 01042 of 2004, Justices Crane, Krausman, Rivera, and Dillon were not merely reversing the conviction of one out of more than one hundred men prosecuted through Pirro’s, highly publicized, Internet sting operation, between July of 1999 and December of 2005.
Rather, they were declaring the core theory under which theWestchester District Attorney’s Office had prosecuted the majority of those ensnared in its sting to have been fatally flawed, and Constitutionally deficient.
In stating, “Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed,” and remitting the matter back to the Westchester County Court, the Appellate Division, Second Department, which had been historically very easy on Mrs. Pirro, as well as her convicted felon spouse, were now, finally drawing a line in the sand. And, while it might appear at first blush that the overwhelming majority of the cases that were brought to indictment through the sting could be favorably impacted, only a very few actually will be.
In stating, “Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed,” and remitting the matter back to the Westchester County Court, the Appellate Division, Second Department, which had been historically very easy on Mrs. Pirro, as well as her convicted felon spouse, were now, finally drawing a line in the sand. And, while it might appear at first blush that the overwhelming majority of the cases that were brought to indictment through the sting could be favorably impacted, only a very few actually will be.
In making it’s decision the Court’s finding was that the evidence, upon which County Court Judge Joseph Alessandro, sitting as the trier of fact, had found Mr. Kozlowguilty of five counts of Attempted Disseminating of Indecent Material To Minors in the First Degree, was “legally insufficient.” The Court found that the DA “failed to establish that the Defendant’s Internet communications with an undercover police officer, whom he believed to be a minor, depicted sexual conduct within the meaning of Penal Law Section 235.22(1) since they contained no visual sexual images.”
In truth, very few of the more than one hundred prosecutions generated over 53 months by Pirro’s high-profile sting operation involved the transmission of visual images. However, of those that did not, only a mere handful, were not disposed of by plea bargains. Two such cases that went to trial were Kozlow, case number 100,subject of thepresent decision, and Paul Wicht, case number 96, a highly regarded Bronxville High School science teacher who had taught at Byram Hills High for eight years,
Wicht, from the very beginning has maintained that he was induced and entrapped, and that he is innocent of the charges for which he was tried. He was found guilty, after jury trial, before Supreme Court Justice Lester Adler several months ago, a conviction that is the subject of an appeal application currently before that judge. Wicht’s motion to vacate his conviction is primarily based upon a glaring Brady violation, the intentional withholding of exculpatory information by the Prosecution, in his case, not only from the jury and the Defense, but also from the Court, despite Adler’s specific request for it from the Prosecutor.
Specifically, Wicht’s motion charges that Pirro’s Office lied to the Court when asked if all of the e-mails allegedly sent by the Defendant to the “victim,” had, in fact, been presented in evidence. From amongst scores of e-mails, the first 23 of which were actually exchanged between the socalled victim, and her former teacher, none of which contained any criminally culpable content, followed by many more, actually instigated, and criminalized first, by detectives from the North Castle Police Department, and then, by Pirro’s undercover sting operators, number 23 was intentionally kept from the jury as well as the Court.
During pre-trial hearings before County Court Judge Robert DiBella, Wicht had succeeded in compelling the Prosecution to release a “mirror image” of the hard drive from his seized computer, knowing full-well that his original e-mail correspon-dences with his former student, instigated by the student, had contained nothing inappropriate, and were, in fact, beneficial. Wicht was confident that once the jury was exposed to the last of his e-mails to her, number 23, in which he had specifically suggested that it would be best to end the correspondence, and then proceeded to do precisely that, that the enticement and entrapment by the police and Mrs. Pirro’s operatives would become obvious, and evident.
In short, it was no coincidence that Pirro’s Office omitted the one e-mail correspondence, out of scores of them, that would most likely have established Wicht’s innocence and convinced the jury that he had been induced and entrapped. It is because he and his family had the courage and fortitude to stand up for the truth, and were willing, and able, to pursue justice by rejecting any, and all, plea offers, instead going to trial, that Paul Wicht now stands eligible to benefit from the present Appellate Division Decision.
Unfortunately, there are numerous other men, who under similar circumstances, were unlawfully induced, and entrapped by Pirro’s “slime brigade,” and fell prey to the pressure and intimidation of her extreme prosecutorial misconduct, her Internet Sex Stink. This tactic was designed to distract and deflect attention from her and her husband’s unlawful conduct. For those who knuckled under, and accepted the usual, “no jailtime” plea offer, Kozlow offers no legal remedy.
Nevertheless, for those who stood up for their own innocence, and, in a broader sense, for the community at large, the People of Westchester, indeed, the People of New York State, the Kozlow Decision, represents still further evidence that Jeanine Pirro’s reign of terror is in it’s final fleeting moments. For the issue to involve the “Crown Jewel” of her unending self-promotional propaganda, the Internet Sex Sting, is clearly devastating to her current political effort.
However, of equal importance is the recognition by State and Federal Tribunals of the magnitude and frequency of prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated by the Pirro Regime, not only in her Internet operation, but throughout her practices over twelve years as DA. For the many innocent police officers and civilians, maliciously, and intentionally prosecuted and imprisoned over that time Koslow is the promise of Justice tomorrow.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
How should divorced parents be seated at the wedding ceremony?
Question: My significant other was divorced 4 1/2 years ago after a 25 year marriage. His daughter will be married in November. (It was not a pleasant divorce and the mother of the bride is not very pleasant to me, excluding me from things such as showers and bachlorette parties, and not wanting me to be around the morning of the wedding.)
My question is, in what order or what pew does the mother of the bride, her guest, the father of the bride and I sit for the wedding ceremony?
Answer: In your situation, etiquette indicates that the mother of the bride and her significant other (if applicable) sit in the first row pew, and you and her father be seated in the second row. If hostility levels are quite high, you and her father should be seated in the third row, leaving a buffer row in the middle where siblings and grandparents can be seated."Can I wear white to my son's wedding?
Question: My son is getting married soon. I was wondering if it is improper for me to wear a white dress to the wedding and reception. The wedding colors are lavender, white, and black. Help.
Thank you,
Di
Answer: It is almost never proper to for a guest to wear a white dress to a wedding. You could try to find out how the bride feels, but that could really put her on the spot, especially considering you're her future mother-in-law. That wouldn't be fair. My advice is to just wear any other color but white.
Thank you,
Di
Answer: It is almost never proper to for a guest to wear a white dress to a wedding. You could try to find out how the bride feels, but that could really put her on the spot, especially considering you're her future mother-in-law. That wouldn't be fair. My advice is to just wear any other color but white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)