New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver Assisted Vito Lopez In A Coverup By Giving Victims $103G Public Funds As Hush Money

I'm posting political pieces such as the Silver-Lopez-Lippman stuff below just to show how education politics must be understood before anything really changes for the better in our public schools. My opinion: get the triumvirate out of New York State.

 

Betsy Combier

 

Silver hit by ‘hu$h’ probe

By ERIK KRISS in Albany and JOSH MARGOLIN in NY POST

Last Updated:3:26 AM, August 29, 2012

Posted:12:50 AM, August 29, 2012

LINK

NYS Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver

A state ethics committee created by Gov. Cuomo has launched a potentially damning probe into the six-figure Assembly payout to two of Vito Lopez’s alleged sex-harassment victims — a deal Speaker Sheldon Silver now admits he green-lighted, sources said yesterday.

With his role in the scandal facing intense scrutiny, Silver made a stunning mea culpa last night.

“I now believe it was the wrong one from the perspective of transparency,” he said in a statement, referring to the decision to keep the settlement under wraps.

“I take full responsibility in not insisting that all cases go to the ethics committee.”

He then laid out his mistakes in authorizing the $103,080 settlement:

“The Assembly (1) should not agree to a confidential settlement, (2) should insist that the basic factual allegations of any complaint be referred to the ethics committee for a full investigation and (3) should publicly announce the existence of any settlement, while protecting the identity of the victims,” Silver said.

The rare admission by one of the state’s most powerful lawmakers comes during the opening stages of an investigation by the independent Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE), which “will focus on the process’’ that led to the taxpayer-funded settlement, a source said.

Probers are interested in what led to the deal, who did the negotiating and how the final terms were hammered out, sources said.

Cuomo — who created JCOPE last year to police the state government — yesterday said investigators should probe Lopez’s alleged sexual misconduct.

“What’s really troubling here is a person coming forward and saying they were harassed by a public official,” he said. “If there were repeated instances of it, I think he should resign everything.”

Still, the governor defended the use of public funds to settle sex-harass cases.

“This would not be the first harassment case that the state settled . . . It’s the obligation of the state to settle the claims, if you can,’’ he said.

The costly deal involved two women, The New York Times reported.

The deal also was well-known to more state officials than previously thought, The Post has learned. A lawyer in Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office reviewed the settlement and made a recommendation on it, although neither the lawyer nor Schneiderman was involved in its approval, said a top aide to the AG. State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli’s office cut the check for it.

Lopez, 71, yesterday resigned as Brooklyn’s Democratic Party leader, but vowed to hold on to his Assembly seat, despite calls for his ouster.

He was censured and stripped of his position as head of the Assembly’s Housing Committee by Silver on Friday after the Assembly’s ethics panel charged that Lopez groped at least two young female staffers.

It was then revealed that two other women claimed he had sexually harassed them — but Assembly leaders quietly dealt with them by negotiating the settlement.

The president of the National Organization for Women of New York City, Sonia Ossorio, said Silver’s feet need to be held to the fire.

“This earlier complaint was never reported to the Assembly’s ethics committee,’’ she said.

“Sheldon Silver is now in the hot seat with Lopez, and he has a lot of explaining to do.”

A Silver spokesman previously said that the only time complaints aren’t investigated by the ethics committee is when victims insist that they not be “for reasons of personal privacy.’’

Gloria Allred, lawyer for at least one of the women in the settlement, said in a statement yesterday, “We have never requested or insisted that a legislative committee or other body not proceed with an investigation.”

Lopez denied the charges in a statement yesterday, saying, “I never sexually harassed any staff, and I hope and intend to prove in the coming months the political nature of these accusations.”

Kevin Mintzer, the lawyer for the two other women whose complaints led to Lopez’s censure, demanded that the Brooklyn kingmaker be immediately forced to give up his Assembly seat.

“The notion that Mr. Lopez will continue to be in a position to sexually harass other Assembly employees is intolerable,’’ Mintzer said.

Lopez, in resigning his local party post, said he did so because of an “onslaught of character attacks.’’

They have “put enormous emotional pressures on my family and close friends. I cannot sit by and allow that to continue,” said the pol, who has a longtime girlfriend.

But a Brooklyn party source said Lopez doesn’t want to give up his Assembly seat because he is still hoping to get rid of Lincoln Restler, a fellow district leader who could challenge Lopez’s protégé, City Councilman Steve Levin.

Former Assemblyman Frank Seddio is said to be a front-runner to replace Lopez as party leader.

Additional reporting by Sally Goldenberg, Rich Calder, Fredric U. Dicker, Dan Mangan, Kate Sheehan

From Betsy Combier :

We all remember Wayne Barrett's expose of the corruption inside our Unified Court System, right? Now President Obama has appointed Shelly Silver - oops, I mean Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman - to the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute:

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:
• Jonathan Lippman – Member, Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute
The President also announced his intent to appoint the following individual to a key Administration post:
• John F. Sopko – Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
President Obama said, “The extraordinary dedication these individuals bring to their new roles will greatly serve the American people. I am grateful they have agreed to serve in this Administration and I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come.”
President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:
Judge Jonathan Lippman, Nominee for Member, Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute
Judge Jonathan Lippman is currently Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, a position he has held since 2009. Judge Lippman has spent his entire legal career in the New York State court system, serving for 40 years in a variety of roles. He was Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department from 2007 to 2009; an Associate Justice of the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts from 2006 to 2007; a Justice of the Supreme Court, Ninth Judicial District from 2006 to 2009; and Chief Administrative Judge of all New York State Courts from 1996 to 2007. Judge Lippman is a member of the Board of Directors of the Conference of Chief Justices, former President of the Conference of State Court Administrators, and former Vice Chair of the Board of the National Center for State Courts. He is the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including the William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence, which the National Center for State Courts awarded to him in 2008. He holds a B.A. from New York University in Government and International Relations and a J.D. from the New York University School of Law.

Cuomo’s on the case

Last Updated:8:05 AM, August 29, 2012

Posted:10:27 PM, August 28, 2012

Gov. Cuomo yesterday took effective custody of the Sheldon Silver-Vito Lopez sexual-harassment scandal — urging his hand-tooled Joint Commission on Public Ethics to work its way to the bottom of Albany’s latest bubbling cesspool.

JCOPE was Cuomo’s idea, and six of the agency's 14 members — including Executive Director Ellen Biben — are Cuomo retainers of some standing.

Ellen Biben

As is Letizia Tagliaferro, named by Biben yesterday as JCOPE’s director of investigations and enforcement.

These are people of considerable talent, as well. They’re well-equipped to make quick work of the Silver-Lopez scandal — should they choose to do so.

And if they don’t — well, it’s on Cuomo.

Late yesterday, the governor publicly called on JCOPE to investigate the sexual-harassment allegations against Lopez.

Good for the governor.

But any investigation that doesn’t include a thorough public airing of just how the Assembly came to make a surreptitious $103,000, taxpayer-funded payment to make the Lopez claim go away will be no investigation at all.

Silver, of course, had to be right in the middle of it all; no payment of any sort would have been made without the Assembly speaker’s imprimatur.

So a serious probe by definition means that Cuomo and Silver are hell-bent for a major collision.

Fine by us.

Cuomo came to office promising “a new day in Albany” and a vow to “restore honor and integrity to government.”

Not that he’s in any way responsible for Lopez’s misdeeds, of course. Nor for those of Albany’s legion of legislative malfeasors.

Silver, on the other hand, has been an enabler of misconduct for years — going back at least to when he used tax dollars to bail one of his own key aides out of a sexual-misconduct mess.

Authorizing Lopez’s payout, in other words, was just another day at the office for the speaker.

And, in that respect, getting to the bottom of Silver’s behavior is — institutionally speaking — of far more importance than determining who Lopez groped and when he groped them.

Lopez, it appears, is just a pig.

Silver is one of the most powerful elected officials in Albany — not someone who should be rolling around in the muck with all the other oinkers.

Silver said yesterday that he believes the secret payout was “wrong . . . from the perspective of transparency.”

Said Cuomo: “I think JCOPE should do an investigation of the allegations that have been made and let’s have the facts.”

From his lips to Biben’s ear.

We don’t doubt that she’s listening.

From Betsy Combier:
You cant make this stuff up. Let's see how Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Governor Andrew Cuomo get out of this one. We, the public dont need any of these cheats, including Cuomo.

Eric Schneiderman

Silver Lopez New York's Joe Paterno Sandusky

Pay to Play Sexual Abuse Cover Up
Albany's Blue Wall of Silence: No Outrage By Members 
LINK
 
Lopez, as sketchy a pol as they come, now turns out to be a serial molester. And Silver has been an enabler — and, effectively, his paymaster.  Vito Lopez needs to go. Shelly Silver needs to come clean.  Now. .@nypostopinion calls Vito Lopez a "serial molester" & NYS Assembly Speaker Sheldon SIlver his "enabler"  * Daily News: Speaker Sheldon Silver’s handling of case against Vito Lopez needs full probe"A hushed up settlement with tax dollars is not in the public interest * Albany’s enforcement mechanisms — supposedly bolstered by Cuomo — broke down badly when it came to Lopez."  * Rumors of an Albany housecleaning have been greatly exaggerated * The Times urges Lopez to resign from the state assembly and demands the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics begin investigating the matter:  *  The Daily News calls for a full probe of the Lopez harassment incidents and the events that led the Assembly to settle one claim:  * Newsday praises state officials for getting serious about cleaning up Albany, but worries that pols will continue to violate the law or breach ethical standards: * The TU says it’s time for Lopez to go. *State Paid $103,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Vito Lopez(NY Mag) * Vito Lopez Sexual Harassment Claims Settled By Sheldon Silver's Authorization Of Secret Payment(Huff Post) *"this could be worse than the Michael Boxley affair"--@Fud31 re: Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's handling of Vito Lopez case.* Tax $ Settled Assembly Sex Claim: Report(NBC) * “Vito Lopez is a sexual predator who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law with both criminal and civil charges against him,” Lincoln Restler said. “His corrupt reign has, fortunately, come to an end.” * Citizens Union would like JCOPE to take a look into the settlement with Lopez’s first sexual harassment allegation. *  Governor Cuomo agreed that the ethics panel needs to do something. * Cuomo Wants Facts In Lopez Investigation(YNN) * Gloria Allred, who represented at least one woman who settled with Lopez, said her firm has “never requested or insisted that a legislative committee or other body not proceed with an investigation.” * (Another Bragg piece): NYC Councilman Dan Halloran is campaigning for Congress on a shoestring budget, and was able to travel to Israel – in style – thanks to funding from a Brooklyn nonprofit, the World Committee. 

Bloomberg Doing His Best Sargent Schultz "I know Nothing"On Lopez

.@MikeBloomberg, asked whether @vitojlopez should resign, says "it's up to the albany legislature to investigate" .@MikeBloomberg, asked whether @VitoJLopez assembly payment was appropriate, said "I just don't know what laws are"* Bloomberg Declines to Opine on Vito Lopez’s Woes(NYO)

Silver Spokesman Victim Asked for Privacy  
A spokesman for Silver’s office said that the only situation where a complaint isn’t referred to the ethics committee is when a victim asks for privacy. (WNYC)

Gloria Allred Not True
A statement Tuesday from Gloria Allred, an attorney for the woman, said they have “never requested or instead that a legislative committee or other body not proceed with an investigation.”

The DN editorial board says: Spill the Vito Lopez secrets 

The New York Times called on Lopez to step down, while the New York Post and the Daily News put the heat on Shelly Silver instead.

Shelly buys silence(NYP) Was Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s lightning-fast crackdown last week on a powerful colleague charged with sexually harassing two female interns meant to divert attention from his own misuse of public money? * Last night, in response to a FOIL request, the amount was disclosed: $103,080, paid two months ago. * Assembly Paid $103,000 in Harassment Case(NYT)Sheldon Silver, the New York State Assembly speaker, authorized the secret payment to settle sexual harassment claims against Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, according to Assembly records.Assemblyman Vito Lopez denied charges he sexually harassed female staff members and has “no intention of resigning,” but records showed Speaker Shelly Silver approved a $103,080 payment to settle his claim. Lawmaker Denies Sexual Charges(WSJ) *Looks like Vito's grabby tendencies cost taxpayers $103k(NYDN) * copy of "Quick Pay Voucher" suggesting there was a $100K settlement for a prior Vito Lopez case. * The voucher said the money was used for "legal services." [Erik Kriss] * A Silver spokesman said alleged victims can request that sexual harassment cases not be referred to the Assembly's ethics committee. [Jon Campbell] Lots of Buzz about Lopez stepping down (NYO)

   Fake Sheldon Silver ‏@ShellySilver

Gevalt. The Senate is a mess. The press should focus on this... RT @nydailynews Queens Sen. Shirley Huntley indicted 

There is precedent for such action.

Back in 2003, Silver’s chief counsel, Michael Boxley, plea-bargained his way out of a rape charge leveled by a 22-year-old legislative intern — after which it came to light that two years earlier, another staffer had charged Boxley with sexually assaulting her.he.  The first victim subsequently sued — pocketing a $507,500 payment, plus legal fees, with all but $20,000 of the bill being borne by the taxpayers.

Deep Throat: Follow the Money

Daily News The $103,080 does not represent the full size of the settlement" 

NYT leaves out Naomi Rivera when writing about the latest Albany scandals.  Has never talked about  Naomi Rivera

The Bronx establishment is going all-out to save Naomi Rivera.* The Bronx Democratic County Leader Carl Heastie is "unwavering" in his support for Assemblywoman Naomi Rivera, who is the subject of four ongoing investigations. [Sally Goldenberg]

Remember These Words: Bad Faith

Health Insurance Provider’s “Cavalier Attitude” Toward Document Production And Repeated Bad Faith Discovery Violations Warranted Severe Sanctions

Aug 27, 2012

Authored By: Kathy Trawinski

Citation: Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88563 (D.N.J. 2006).

Employee/Employer Implicated: Document Custodian, In-House Counsel, Outside Counsel, Owner & Executive, Upper Management

e-Lesson Learned: Litigants should never ignore a discovery order. A litigant who persistently evades discovery will face harsh sanctions, such as the preclusion of evidence, monetary sanctions, the striking of privilege assertions, etc. The severest of sanctions will be warranted in the face of such bad faith conduct and flagrant disregard of court orders.

Tweet This: Court finds extensive discovery violations and flagrant disregard of discovery orders warrant severe sanctions

In Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey imposed severe sanctions on Health Net Inc., a health insurance provider, and its subsidiaries for what the court term its “flagrant disregard” of discovery orders and its “lengthy pattern of repeated and gross noncompliance with discovery.”  These sanctions arose in a case in which the plaintiff beneficiaries, Zev and Linda Wachtel, had filed an ERISA action against the Health Net defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and other wrongs regarding the manner in which the defendants reimbursed out-of-network claims.

After a “lengthy pattern of repeated and gross noncompliance with discovery” emerged, the beneficiaries made a motion for an integrity hearing under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  (Rule 37 governs sanctions against a party who fails to provide discovery as required by the discovery rules or a court order.)  The court had previously held eleven days of evidentiary hearings regarding whether the defendants had complied with court orders to retain, search, and produce e-mail and other electronic documents.

The court noted that the defendants had “employed an obstructionist approach to discovery” throughout the litigation.  The defendants had failed to produce documents responsive to the beneficiaries’ requests, failed to preserve and search e-mails, and engaged in a pattern of violation and disregard of discovery orders.

Some examples of the defendants’ bad faith discovery violations include:

• defendants never produced thousands of pages of relevant and responsive documents within the three-year-long discovery period
• defendants did not even search for these documents until it decided to look for them for its own use at trial and for its defense at the Rule 37 hearing
• thousands of defendants’ employees’ e-mails were never searched; many others were lost permanently due to defendants’ e-mail retention/non-retention practices.  This caused Plaintiffs to waste huge amounts of time and money deposing the defendants’ witnesses without the benefit of their e-mails and other documents relevant to each deponent.
• defendants produced approximately 20,000 pages of previously unproduced discovery to the plaintiffs in support of their motion for summary judgment.  Many of these documents related to individuals whom the plaintiffs had already deposed years earlier.
• defendants willfully ignored several of over 160 court discovery orders and opinions
• defendants engaged in a “repetitive pattern of strategic delays”
• defendants only produced many documents that were not produced in discovery upon court order at the Rule 37 integrity hearing
• defendants ignored court orders to produce documents
• defendants failed to ask their witnesses to search for relevant documents before their depositions
• often, defendants did not even argue that production was burdensome, but later decided to argue burdensomeness to legitimize their failure to obey the court’s orders
• defendants unilaterally, and with no legal basis, decided to stop restoring and producing requested e-mails
• defendants process for responding to discovery requests was utterly inadequate, as they relied on an in-house paralegal who was also responsible for approximately 60 other cases

The court noted that this was not a case of inadvertent or negligent failure to disclose the existence of additional discovery.  Rather, the defendants actively chose not to advise the plaintiffs or the court that they were planning to rely on documents that had never before been produced.  The court found that the defendants chose not to produce the belated discovery until its impact would be most acute.  These discovery violations rose to the level of bad faith.

Shockingly, Health Net unilaterally decided that if the magistrate judge did not expressly state that she was ruling on their “burdensome” objections, they could continue to withhold documents.  The company never told the judge that it was not complying with her discovery orders in this way—rather, it simply withheld the documents.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the repeated nature of the defendants’ conduct and their flagrant disregard of court orders warranted strong sanctions.  The court characterized Health Net’s conduct as “abusive and contemptuous of” the magistrate judge’s orders and of its adversary.

This case vividly demonstrates that litigants should never ignore a discovery order.  A litigant who persistently evades discovery will face harsh sanctions, such as the preclusion of evidence, monetary sanctions, the striking of privilege assertions, etc.  Courts are likely to be very hostile to a litigant that has treated the discovery process with such a cavalier attitude, especially if the party thereafter unearths documents that had previously been requested in support of its own motions.  The severest of sanctions will be warranted in the face of such bad faith conduct.

The court imposed sanctions severe enough to redress the defendants’ misconduct and to remedy the harm to the beneficiaries and the court.  The court noted that these sanctions were imposed in part “to punish Defendants’ disrespect and abuse of this Court’s procedures.”  The severe sanctions the court imposed include: deeming facts admitted; precluding evidence; striking the defendants’ privilege assertions in various privilege logs; striking the defendants’ late-designated witnesses; imposing monetary sanctions; and appointing a special discovery master.

The court observed that Health Net’s “intentional discovery abuse [was] systemic and shocking.”  It admonished the defendants for draining court time and resources, and for seriously interfering with the court’s functioning.

Kathy Trawinski is a Seton Hall University School of Law student (Class of 2012) who focuses her studies in the area of commercial litigation.  She is an Associate Editor of the Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board.  She will begin as a first year associate at Day Pitney LLP in the fall of 2012.  Prior to law school, she was a 2009 graduate of the University of Virginia, where she earned a BA in English.

Prince George County Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett Frees Former Marine Brandon Raub From The Psychiatric Hospital He Was Sent To After Posting On His Facebook Page

Prince George County Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett Frees Former Marine Brandon Raub From The Psychiatric Hospital He Was Sent To After Posting On His Facebook Page
Prince George County Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett ordered the release of former Marine Brandon Raub, who had been detained “for psychiatric evaluation” after posting anti-government messages on his Facebook page – according to Morning Sun. From Editor Betsy Combier: Thank you, Judge Sharrett!

Brandon Raub

Brandon Raub Facebook Fiasco: How Posting on Your Timeline Could Land You in the Madhouse
LINK

Prince George County Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett ordered the release of former Marine Brandon Raub, who had been detained “for psychiatric evaluation” after posting anti-government messages on his Facebook page – according to Morning Sun.

The judge said that the involuntary commitment order issued by a magistrate against Brandon J. Raub was invalid “because it contained no allegation or basis to hold him.”

“This is a great victory,” said John Whitehead, an executive director at the Rutherford Institute – a civil liberties organization defending 26-year-old Raub. “He’s a good human being. He just got caught in some weird bureaucratic meanderings and the judge recognized that there’s really no true facts to hold this man in a psychiatric ward,” Whitehead added.

Raub, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was released from the Salem Veterans Affairs Medical Center late yesterday and was on his way back to his home in the Richmond area. He had been taken into custody on August 16 after being questioned by Chesterfield County police and federal agents over the aforementioned Facebook posts.

The FBI said the interview was prompted by complaints from people who read his "ominous" posts, including some that spoke of a "pending revolution." Another post said “a day of reckoning” was coming, and an additional one said: “Sharpen my axe; I’m here to sever heads.”

However, witnesses of the arrest shot a video of Raub being taken away from his home in handcuffs. They later posted it on YouTube, where the video went viral prompting support for the veteran and criticism of the government – which online comments said it stepped on Raub’s civil liberties. Raub, however, was never charged with a crime.

“People a have right to go on Facebook or the Internet (and) say things that people might not agree with,” Whitehead said. “But that doesn’t mean they’re crazy or should be incarcerated for it,” he added.

Or, does it?

Brandon Raub and the Victory for the Bill of Rights
LINK

In a victory for the Constitution, specifically the First and Fourth Amendments, former United States Marine Brandon Raub was ordered released from a psychiatric institution by a federal circuit judge. Raub had been taken into custody on August 16 after a triumvirate of freedom-hating jack-booted thugs comprised of the Secret Service, FBI, and local authorities in Virginia questioned Raub about posts he made on his Facebook page. Apparently irked by Raub’s responses, the officials sent Raub, against his will, to a mental hospital.

Raub had no doubt made a series of bizarre statements on his Facebook page, including claims about an imminent civil war in the U.S., the government raping children, and 9/11 being an inside job. Though these opinions are ridiculous, ridiculousness is not illegal. In fact, thanks to the First Amendment, ridiculousness is quite constitutional.

This would include inflammatory speech, so long as the speech in question is not meant to incite imminent lawless action, as the Supreme Court outlined in Brandenburg v. Ohio. That the authorities in this case did not arrest and charge Raub with any crime, indicates they were well-aware that formal criminal action against him was not feasible from a legal standpoint. Instead, it appears Virginia has a very low legal threshold for institutionalizing its citizens. John Whitehead, Raub’s attorney, told Business Insider, “I could call [the police] right now and probably get you committed if you were in Virginia,” adding, “They can arrive at your door based on somebody's testimony or your Facebook page and take you away to a mental hospital.”

That is scary prospect. What’s even scarier is the fact that the federal and state governments appear to be trolling the Facebook pages of private citizens for posts that deviate too far from what they consider to be the acceptable range of opinions. Whether you agree with Raub’s crackpot theories—and hopefully you do not—it is vital to the perseverance of the Bill of Rights that all freedom-loving Americans denounce the illegal detention of Raub as blatant violation of the most fundamental constitutional principles of freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable seizure.

In the days after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush insisted that the objective of the hijackers and those who sent them was to “change our way of life,” and that we mustn’t succumb to their volition. It saddens me to say that we have failed in this regard. We have allowed “terrorists” to become the government’s go-to excuse as to why we must give up a little freedom here and a few rights there. The ironic part is that Brandon Raub served in the U.S. military, which, according to established political orthodoxy, is the guarantor of our freedom. But if the current trend continues, we won’t need a military because soon there will be nothing left to defend.

Francesco Portelos Appeals His Rubber Room Assignment To Chancellor Walcott

Greetings Chancellor Walcott,
    I would like to appeal my capricious reassignment from Berta Dreyfus IS 49 (R049) to 8201 Rockaway Blvd., Ozone Park (CFN211). After I left the environmental engineering field and took a $20,000+ cut in salary, I was considered an excellent and effective teacher for 5 years.  I have plenty of documentation from the administration to prove it and some is posted on protectportelos.org. I also have testimonials from the public, parents and students. I have been mentioned in the news in positive articles as well as having my own innovative methods of teaching recently published. I made history by becoming the first person to win a UFT Chapter Leader position while sitting in the "rubber room" for 50 days. The school staff wants me back. I recently filed a US patent for a website I designed and working on a second for an educational e-portfolio site I call fridgework.com. I am also halfway done with my leadership in education class to become a principal or superintendent. Are these qualities not good enough for public education?

What Happened?

  As a taxpayer and community member I brought up issues pertaining to the budget, potential financial misconduct, misappropriation of funds, corporal punishment by an assistant principal and sexual harassment by another assistant principal. Just weeks after my complaints, I was prevented from entering the school building and reassigned to do nothing. That was 123 days ago. 

  Through my own investigation and FOIL requests I have found that criminal activity has taken place at my school and possibly my network office where I was placed. My reward?- An empty cubicle an hour and a half from my family! SCI has about 15 absolutely ridiculous allegations about me they are investigating. They were all made by the 3 people involved in misconduct. I ask you, the mayor, PEP and the politicians copied in this email to help rectify this sad situation.  I received notice that on September 4th I am to return back to an empty cubicle. There are a lot of people who wouldn't mind getting paid $ 75,000 to sit and play solitaire, but that is not me. By all means let SCI continue their investigation, but there is no reason for me to be out of the classroom especially when none of the allegations are about harming children.

  Unfortunately, I had to bring a federal lawsuit against the DOE and Principal Linda Hill. September 11, 2012 will be our first date in court. The students are not the only ones suffering as my family has been hit hard by this. 

Below are just a few of the many comments left on my petition site and blog.

• Petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/new-york-city-department-of-education-reinstate-mr-portelos-to-the-classroom-and-take-him-out-of-the-rubber-room
•   Editorial: Is Francesco Portelos a Danger to Tenure Law? by Betsy Combier
  
  Francesco Portelos' Poison - Threats To Principals
  
  Francesco Portelos: "A Troublemaking, Combative, and Disgruntled Employee", Loses His Federal Case by Editor Betsy Combier
  
  Francesco Portelos and His "Victim Complex"
  
  OP-ED: Why Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Bully Mob, UFT Solidarity, Failed
  
  Parents against teacher tenure say they're being harassed by educator
  
  EDITORIAL: Cyberstalker Francesco Portelos and His Blame Game Must Be Stopped
  
  Teacher’s tweets threaten kids in tenure suit: parents
  
  
  Contact me if you are being charged with 3020-a, have had a bad experience with Francesco Portelos, or have been in a "new" rubber room at betsy.combier@gmail.com.
  
  Betsy Combier, betsy.combier@gmail.com
  Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
  Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
  Editor, Parentadvocates.org
  Editor, New York Court Corruption
  Editor, National Public Voice
  Editor, NYC Public Voice
  Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials
  

NYPD Punished For Facebook Comments

Well, isn't this interesting. The policeman who walked over to New York State Supreme Court Judge Thomas Raffaele and hit him on his throat, and the sargeant who refused to write down a complaint against this policeman, both walk. The District Attorney says there is nothing criminal going on.

Yet, if you can document something these same members of the NYPD said on Facebook that may not be proper, then you may have something to use against them. See the article below. This makes no sense.

Police Workers Punished for Racist Web Posts on West Indian Parade

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

LINK

Nearly 20 employees of the New York Police Department have faced discipline in connection with the posting of racist or derogatory comments on a Facebook page about revelers at the 2011 West Indian American Day Parade, a heavily policed annual celebration in Brooklyn on Labor Day weekend, a spokesman for the department said Wednesday.

The comments referred to “savages” and “animals,” and one poster wrote, “Let them kill each other.” The Facebook page, titled “No More West Indian Day Detail,” elicited comments from more than 150 people, many of whose names matched those of police officers.

After an article appeared in December in The New York Times about the online remarks, the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, vowed to conduct an internal affairs investigation, saying that 20 offensive comments “were associated with names that match those of police officers.”

On Wednesday, the department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said 17 people had since been disciplined; four of those are officers facing pending departmental trials on charges of “conduct prejudicial to the good order of the Police Department,” he said.

Mr. Browne said that seven had received the department’s lowest level of punishment, the equivalent of a reprimand. Six others received what is known as a command discipline — a punishment that sometimes entails a loss of up to 10 vacation days, although Mr. Browne said he was unaware what penalties were issued in these particular cases.

Mr. Browne said he did not know which Facebook comments in particular corresponded to each punishment.

The parade has been marred by violence. In 2011, the police tied three shootings to the parade, and seized 14 guns during the celebration the night before the parade, which is known as J’Ouvert.

Some of the comments on the Facebook page suggested that some police officers felt the event had turned too dangerous.

“Why is everyone calling this a parade,” one wrote. “It’s a scheduled riot.”

A Brooklyn city councilman, Jumaane D. Williams, who is of West Indian descent, said the punishments indicated that the Police Department had taken the comments seriously. But Mr. Williams, who was himself handcuffed during the parade last year as he walked in an area that the police had closed to the public, said he was concerned that the racist comments reflected the attitudes of a department that he said used discriminatory policing practices.

The associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Christopher Dunn, said it was difficult to evaluate the punishments without knowing which Facebook comments in particular had prompted them.

“Like all public employees, police officers have a First Amendment right to speak freely in their personal lives, even if that speech is offensive,” Mr. Dunn said. “What they do not get to do is be racists in their work lives, and the Police Department can and should discipline officers who are guilty of that.

NYPD disciplines 17 cops who posted racist Facebook comments about West Indian Day Parade 

About 150 comments were posted, referring to parade revelers as "savages" and "animals."

LINK

 

 

 

 

 

NYPD brass has disciplined 17 cops who posted racist or offensive comments on a Facebook  page devoted to last year's West Indian Day Parade, officials said Thursday.

News of the disciplinary action, first reported by the New York Times, comes almost one year after the Labor Day weekend celebration.

About 150 comments were posted on the page, referring to parade revelers as "savages" and "animals."

Investigators found that about 20 of the people who posted comments matched the names of NYPD police officers.

Paul Browne, top spokesman for the NYPD, said four cops still face departmental trials on misconduct charges.

Six cops were slapped with command disciplines and seven received lower levels of punishment.

The annual parade has become one of the city's largest events.

It is heavily policed and has been linked to violence. Last year, three shootings were tied to the parade.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-disciplines-17-cops-posted-racist-facebook-comments-west-indian-day-parade-article-1.1142642#ixzz24P2a0ew9

 

Police Brutality Against NYS Supreme Court Judge Rafaele Dismissed By Queens D.A.

 We often hear about police not protecting the public and becoming a problem
as cops brutalize people for no reason. In the case of New York State Supreme Court Judge
Thomas D. Rafaele (Queens), who was hit in the neck by an officer as he watched a scuffle
with a homeless man. D.A. Richard Brown saw that "the facts do not warrant the filing of
criminal charges".

We are all in danger. 

Betsy Combier

 No Charges for Officer Accused by Judge

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM, NY TIMES

NY State Supreme Court Judge Thomas D. Raffaele

LINK

After a three-month investigation, the Queens district attorney has decided not to bring criminal charges against a police officer who was accused of assaulting a State Supreme Court justice on the street in what the judge contended was an unprovoked attack, officials said Wednesday.

The episode, which occurred just after midnight on June 1 as a crowd watching two officers subdue an unruly homeless man became increasingly restive, was the subject of what District Attorney Richard A. Brown called “an extensive and thorough investigation.”

In a statement, Mr. Brown said his office “has concluded that the facts do not warrant the filing of criminal charges” because “there is insufficient evidence of criminality to support a charge that the police officer acted with the intent to injure or that physical injury (as defined by statute and case law) occurred.”

The judge, Thomas D. Raffaele, 69, who hears matrimonial cases and has been on the bench since 2006, said that he was “very shocked” and “very disappointed” by the decision. He criticized the investigation by the district attorney’s office.

Mr. Brown said in the statement that his office had also decided not to charge the officers for their conduct in subduing the homeless man, who had been chasing people with a metal pipe, concluding that necessary force was used. He also said his office found no criminality in the actions of a sergeant, who Justice Raffaele said had refused to take a complaint against the officer who struck him.

The matter, Mr. Brown said, was being referred to the Civilian Complaint Review Board and the Police Department to determine whether Police Department rules or procedures had been violated.

The officers’ names were not disclosed.

Justice Raffaele has said that during the episode, which occurred in the Jackson Heights section, he saw the crowd becoming unruly, called 911 and reported that the officers needed help.

But within minutes, he said, one of the officers subduing the man became enraged and charged toward him. He said the officer screamed and cursed at the onlookers, some of whom were complaining about what they said was the violent treatment of the man, and then he focused on Justice Raffaele, who was wearing a T-shirt and jeans. The judge has said the officer rushed forward and delivered a sharp blow to his throat, using the upper edge of his hand, a move similar to one he had learned when he was trained in hand-to-hand combat in the Army.

Mr. Brown said in his statement that the confrontation had occurred inside a perimeter the police had established around the man, to separate him from the crowd.

The judge, who was notified of the decision Wednesday morning, later said that the outcome sent a bad message to the public and the police.

“To be in a situation where somebody smashes you in the neck and just walks away from it because they are a police officer — when I did nothing to provoke this attack — I feel it’s dangerous, not just for me but for any other citizen, because officers end up feeling that they can do anything and that there will be no consequences,” Justice Raffaele said. “I think it has a bad effect on the police force because they feel there are no consequences.”

He said he believes most officers are “very honest and are out there trying to protect us, but a crazy guy like this who is out of control should not be walking around out there with a gun and a badge.”

He said of the prosecutor’s office, “I feel that from the beginning they did not make a serious effort to investigate this,” citing what he said was their failure to initially interview witnesses whose names he provided. Mr. Brown disputed Justice Raffaele’s account.