Frank Petrone's "Taxpayer Funded Political Theater"...Millions Spent on Rumors?

In 2001 SUPERVISOR FRANK PETRONE CALLED THE HUNTINGTON TOWN BOARD "AN INCUBATOR FOR RUMORS...", when deposed about an "incident" that occurred in 1999...

14 YEARS LATER...

THE INVESTIGATION OF THAT INCIDENT HAS COST THE TAXPAYERS OVER FIVE MILLION DOLLARS AND IT'S NOT OVER YET...

The truly never-ending saga of the"Harbormaster and the Councilwoman"...is still ongoing...

Since you, the taxpayers have paid and continue to pay millions of dollars in legal fees for all of this drama you have a right to the details of the depositions of the politicians and the details contained in the many lawsuits, however sordid some of them might be.  The documented facts of this story-amassed over a decade- are however so voluminous and costly, they will appear in this forum in several parts...or rather...Acts and Scenes from Frank Petrone's...

                                      "Taxpayer Funded Political Theater..."                 (of the absurd?)

The Players: (Time period; 1999 to the Present)

Frank Petrone:  Huntington Town Board Supervisor, Democrat, currently running for Town Board.  In 2001 he was a Republican...(Joined the GOP in 1976)

William Townsend Perks:  Then Harbormaster for the Town of Huntington, now retired.  Worked under Susan Scarpati-Reilly on the Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit.

Susan Scarpati-Reilly: Then a Town Councilwoman for Huntington Town. An attorney,  Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was Town Board liaison for the Town’s Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit in 1999.

Steve Israel: Currently a Congressman, Mr. Israel was a Town Councilman for Huntington Town at the time. Dated, married and divorced Marlene Budd.

Marlene Budd:  Now a Suffolk County Family Court Judge (term 2006-2016) former Huntington Town Councilwoman, former wife of Steve Israel.

Joseph Anastasia:  Director of Maritime Services; Mr. Perks' Supervisor, signed the payroll along with co-signer Phil Nolan who was Director of Environmental Control and the Landfill and the Ogden Martin (Covanta) Town Incinerator.

Lawyers and Law Firms:

Attorneys were paid for by The Town of Huntington for various lawsuits, defenses and appeals for the Town of Huntington, Susan Scarpati-Reilly and those she accused of various things and had filed a myriad of lawsuits against.  These included but were not limited to:  Thelma Neira, and Marlene Budd and The Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, the Chairman Howard Glickstein and all the board members collectively and individually and several Town Attorneys.

Thelma Neira: Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington

Jim Matthews: Town Attorney for Huntington

Robert DiGregorio:  Assistant Town Attorney for Huntington

Clifford Bart:  Attorney  for the Town in the Arbitration case

Maureen Hoerger: from Perini & Hoerger,  For Susan Scarpati-Reilly

Ernest Stolzer:  with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP for the Town

James P. Clark:  with Rains and Pogrebin, then with Bond, Schoeneck and King, LLP, Cullen and Dykman and James P. Clark Law Offices, for the Town

Jason Abelove: attorney for Susan Scarpati-Reilly

Gerald LaBush and Robert Vespoli:  For the Independent Fact-Finder

Edward Yule:  Northport resident, the only attorney the Town refused to pay for.  Attorney for Mr. Perks for the entire fourteen years, has yet to be paid by the Town despite two court rulings that support Mr. Perks', union contractual right to counsel, when accused of an assault.

ACT 1:         THE HARBORMASTER BLOWS THE WHISTLES

Scene One:  

In 1996 William Townsend Perks, the longtime Huntington Harbormaster and an expert with extensive Haz-Mat and Emergency training, began documenting that the Town of Huntington had no formal emergency response plan for evacuation and they had no emergency response manual as is required by New York State Department of Labor Law.  Despite the fact that Huntington Town Supervisor Frank Petrone used to be the Director of FEMA operations for the entire Eastern Coast of the United States, when notified by Mr. Perks of the Town's non-compliance, Huntington declined to comply with the state law.

Over time when his notices and warnings to the Town continued to be ignored, Mr. Perks said he began to file grievances about this and other problems, as was his job description and only recourse at that point.  Mr. Perks, the Harbormaster, was eventually assigned to the Town's Landfill and according to him, he was being forced to work out of title.

Huntington was then fined for unpreparedness and for not having an emergency plan and manual in place in violation of the law.  Mr. Perks contends he did his job when he tried to alert the public about the lack of an emergency contingency plan. But he believes the Town really went after him because he tried to let people know that for over ten years the Town was burning tons of radiated garbage that contaminated  the scrap metal or “Grizzle” in the Town's waste-to-energy facility at 99 Town Line Road.  It began to be returned as radioactive. When he started speaking out about this, he says, the Town then set about to destroy his credibility.  He believes fourteen years and millions of dollars later, they are still at it and using taxpayer money, false statements and rumors to do it.

Mr. Perks contends that Mr. Petrone has continued this in order to cover up the contamination and to continue the bonanza of millions of dollars in legal fees he has awarded to law firms and individual attorneys over the years.  Then in turn,  they have donated tens of thousand of dollars to his campaigns.

There are boxes of documented evidence that support the fact that Mr. Perks was and is telling the truth about the radiated waste; including several affidavits and dozens of bills of lading and truck manifests, from Gershow Recycling in Medford, sending the truckloads of radiated waste through residential neighborhoods back to the Ogden Martin Incinerator (now called Covanta) in Huntington, because they contained radiated waste.
(See: State Orders Islip Landfill Capped)
 http://freelance-documentdrivennews.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

According to New York State Department of Conservation law, it is illegal to burn anything known to contain radiation, including "just medical waste".  The “hot” or radiated metal that was sent back to the Huntington incinerator was first put into the 40 yard dumpsters according to several sources and then cut up and burned.  Then they were burned again and re-burned, according to Mr. Perks who said he was an eyewitness to these events. "Why would you re-burn steel, over and over?" he asks.  "This was not low level radiation such as found in medical waste as the officials  tried to say it was back then", according to Mr. Perks, "It contained Radium 226...which has a half life of over 1600 years.  Then the ash was dumped into the unlined landfills. "

Spent fuel rods and other radiated materials from Brookhaven National Laboratory were also burned in the Huntington incinerator, according to sources.  The man who removed the leftover metal pellets after they were burned is a relatively young man who is now dying of radiation poisoning. He has had to have all his teeth pulled and was made to fight for his disability benefits. (See:  “Three Courageous Affidavits”)
http://freelance-documentdrivennews.blogspot.com/2012_10_01_archive.html

Mr. Perks is currently undergoing “chelation therapy”, a difficult and sometimes deadly medical procedure for removal of heavy metals, including mercury from the bloodstream.  The side effects can also be devastating.

Mr. Perks believes the Town has spent many millions of dollars to discredit him and stop the investigation of the serious charges he made in his grievances.  He notified the Town of the workers' rights with regard to being exposed to toxins and the failure of the Town to follow the Right-to-Know Laws and to follow training and equipment requirements for people working around potentially deadly and other toxic substances.

Mr. Perks said when the Town finally installed a radiation detector, it was going off like crazy and the people working there had no Haz-Mat gear at all to protect themselves.  When he complained and notified them, instead of providing the gear, Mr. Perks was informed by Town workers that employees of Ogden Martin had manipulated the background levels of the detector so high, nothing would have made it go off.  When Mr. Perks complained to the DEC officials assigned to the plant, they informed him that neither of them were qualified or had any training in radiation related incidents.

Scene 2:

          "THE INCIDENT" AT THE MOBIL OIL TRANSFER STATION

On March 9, 1999 the Town of Huntington Supervisor Frank Petrone, offered Town Board Resolution number 1999-184 calling for the Town Board to appoint an “Independent Fact Finder”, in order to ascertain all relevant facts surrounding an incident involving a Town employee (Mr. William Townsend Perks) and then Town Councilwoman Susan-Scarpati Reilly at the Town’s Mobil Oil Transfer Station.  This was based on what Mr. Petrone called media reports of a police report of an “alleged assault”.”

Then Town Councilman Steve Israel, seconded Town Board Resolution 1999-184 in order to hire this "Fact Finder" and start an investigation against then Huntington Town Harbormaster William Townsend Perks, based on the allegations made by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, an attorney and then a Councilwoman for Huntington Town.

You may think this is “old news”, however the fallout out of that "incident" and subsequent lawsuits and various appeals have already cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars and fourteen years later they are still paying lawyers and the investigation of this incident and legal wrangling is still not over.

                                             THE FACT FINDER’S REPORT

The completed 33 page, "Fact Finder Report", cost the Town over $70,000 dollars and was released to the press and the Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure. It was not admitted into United States District Court, because Judge Joanna Seybert denied its’ entry.

From the Report by Gerald La Bush, the Fact-Finder hired by Huntington by a Town Board Resolution:

“On the cold and rainy night of February 28, 1999, around eight in the evening, at the Mobil Oil terminal in Cold Spring Harbor, an altercation occurred between then Huntington Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly and Harbormaster William Perks.  Among the many questions surrounding the incident are:  Did Mr. Perks slap Ms. Scarpati-Reilly on the arm?  Or, did Ms. Scarpati-Reilly slap Mr. Perks on the side of the head?  The precise facts of the altercation in the parking lot of the Mobil Oil terminal may never be susceptible of absolute determination, since the only known witnesses, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly and Mr. Perks tell irreconcilable versions of the same events.
However, our investigation has uncovered substantial evidence, both circumstantial and direct, that casts serious doubts on Ms. Scarpati-Reilly’s claims, and, more significantly, serious doubts about the propriety of her actions, both before and after the alleged incident.  Her actions, in the aggregate, demonstrate a calculated and persistent disregard for the truth.  They harmed many people, from ordinary town employees to elected officials.”

Despite the recommendations of the Fact Finder regarding Ms. Scarpati-Reilly’s questionable credibility and the fact that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly later admitted she lied to the press, the Town has forged forward with lawsuits and appeals relating to Mr. Perks.

The original resolution was about an assault, supposedly based on media reports about Mr. Perks, according to depositions by Town Board members in the case.  The problem is that at the time of the original resolution, according to Mr. Perks, no media reports of assault existed yet, only rumors.  Searches of multi-media sources...prior to the Resolution, have to date, produced not one media report that cites an "assault" having taken place.

From the Resolution:

“Whereas the Town Board, through media reports, has become aware of a police report alleged to have been filed by Councilwoman Susan Scarpati-Reilly complaining of an alleged assault upon her by William Perks, a Town employee…an independent fact finder must be appointed to ascertain all of the relevant facts pertained therein and report to the Board his findings.”

The resolution passed with 4 ayes with Susan Scarpati-Reilly abstaining from the vote.

The police report does not accuse Mr. Perks of assault, in it, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly charges him with harassment.

                                            "EVERYONE'S IN FOR A RIDE"

Susan Scarpati-Reilly swore to the following under oath in a deposition in the matter of the Fact-Finder’s Report:  (The only thing added is the names in parenthesis)

“When they got to the appointment of the fact finder, I left.  I didn’t want to be present when the rest of my colleagues were discussing whether to have a fact finder involving me.  And so I left.  And that way I could avoid talking to them about what happened.
 And right before—or during the course of the town board meeting, they gave me a new resolution appointing you (Gerald LaBush).  It was worded very differently than the first one.  And I went to Jim (Matthews) and Jim said they were angry with him for even talking to me; that he—they had asked him to get off the case and to assign Larry Cregan and that Jim said he couldn’t talk to me about it, that Larry was going to handle it.  I said “All right.”  But I said, “Who directed this resolution? Because it’s—there’s some inaccuracies.  You have to do it within thirty days.”  I said, “You know, what happened to right counsel, and the fact that this was pursued in the District Attorney’s Office?” And he said, “You have to talk to Frank.” I sit next to Frank (Petrone) on the Board.  So, before we actually voted on it, I turned to Frank and I said, “Frank, whoever drafted this resolution doesn’t practice criminal law.  It really violates my rights.  It violates his rights.  I mean this is an employee, employer matter."  But at the same time I am waiting for the District Attorney’s office to give me a call back to see which direction I am going in.
And right off the start is the beginning of it, they said that I was assaulted---alleged assault.  I wasn’t thinking tort law; I’m thinking criminal law.  And I said, “Frank, I mean it’s just written poorly.” And he turned and he said, “You asked for it.” So I said “Okay, everyone’s in for a ride.”  And they voted on the resolution.”…And I went home and thought about it and I knew this was going to be a political fiasco…and it’s--it’s just a harassment case.” (Deposition of Susan Scarpati-Reilly taken by the Fact-Finder Gerald LaBush on April 14, 1999)

The ride has still not stopped, the political fiasco endures and Frank Petrone purposefully and knowingly turned this simple alleged harassment case into a fourteen year, multi-million dollar financial bonanza and extravaganza for more than a dozen lawyers…all based on rumors, according to Mr. Perks.

(Note:  Neither the Police, the District Attorney’s office nor the Ethics Board ever questioned Mr. Perks about the incident and the police and the DA declined to charge or prosecute Mr. Perks, despite evidence of significant pressure by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly for them to do so, according to information obtained.)


                                            “ INCUBATOR FOR RUMORS”

In a deposition dated April 25, 2001 Mr. Frank Petrone (then a Republican…since 1976) testified under oath:

“Town Hall is an incubator for rumors.”  When asked if rumors would be the impetus for the Town initiating an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment involving Susan Scarpati-Reilly, Mr. Petrone admitted that although he heard of rumors of an affair between Town Councilwoman, Susan Scarpati-Reilly and Bill Perks, “I don’t think rumors would move us into any direction, because if we had to do things based on rumors, I would have to have—I would have to have a team of attorneys just doing that.  There are many rumors.”

Mr. Petrone’s statement would prove to be prophetic, as today over $4.1 million at 9% interest is owed to Mr. Perks' attorney, Edward Yule, since 2009 when Mr. Perks won his arbitration case.  Since then both the arbitration decision and a Supreme Court Justice have agreed that Mr. Perks' union contract  required the Town to pay Mr. Perks' legal fees, because according to the language of their own resolution...Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had accused him of assault.  The Town's attorneys are currently in Brooklyn's Appellate Court, 2nd Department, appealing Judge Joseph Farneti's 2012, Supreme Court decision upholding the award of attorneys fees to Mr. Yule, by the Arbitrator, Mr. Gregory,  based on the collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Yule waited until the last possible moment and day to file the lawsuit against the Town, according to Mr. Perks, as he was desperately trying to work out a settlement for his legal fees, after the Fact Finders report was released.  The Town then declined to pay Mr. Yule's attorney's fees, what was then a little over $70 thousand dollars (about what they spent on the Fact-Finders' Report).  Fourteen years later, it is now over 5 million with interest and still counting during the appeal.  That does not include the millions they have spent on legal fees for the Town's many other attorneys who have billed for thousands of hours and millions of dollars in these matters.

Mr. Perks said he was advised by Mr. Yule at the time, the only way to clear his name of these false allegations, was to file the sexual harassment lawsuit against the Town, something Mr. Perks said he did on the last day possible, albeit reluctantly.  "No one wants to file a lawsuit when you've worked in a place for over twenty years...but my attorney advised me there was no other way to clear my name and reputation from all the false rumors and information being disseminated by the Town at the time."

On May 9, 2012 Supreme Court Judge Joseph Farneti upheld the decision of the Arbitrator, David Gregory, the Executive Director of the Center of Labor and Employment Law,  awarding attorney fees to Mr. Perks' attorney, Mr. Yule.

Mr. Gregory had found in Mr. Perks' favor in an Arbitration lawsuit charging that Huntington Town had violated a section of Local 342’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that stated the Town was required to pay for an attorney for Mr. Perks when Susan Scarpati-Reilly accused him of assault while he was on the job.

Judge Farneti agreed with Mr. Gregory and Judge Farneti’s decision is currently on appeal by the Town of Huntington in the New York State Appellate Division Second Department.

Scene Three:

                                                 Scarpati-Reilly Accuses Others

The Town paid for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly’s attorney, and also for the attorney of Thelma Neira, (who was then and is currently still a Huntington Assistant Town Attorney).  Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had charged Ms. Neira with a criminal act.  In that case, since Ms. Neira and Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had both at one time worked at the office of the District Attorney in Suffolk, the case was switched to the Nassau District Attorney’s office... where it languished and then eventually was dropped.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly had allegedly also accused George Hoffman, Public Information Officer for Supervisor Petrone, of being the one who had filed the complaint against Mr. Perks with the police, when it was actually Ms. Scarpati-Reilly who had made the formal charge of harassment and asked to have him arrested.  The police declined to do so and to this day have never questioned Mr. Perks about her allegations.

Eventually, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly admitted that she lied to the media when she claimed to know nothing of the incident, and that she lied when she said that she was home baking a birthday cake for her son at the time and that she lied when she insisted again to reporters she knew nothing of the incident.  Ms. Scarpati-Reilly also sent a letter to the media finally admitting she had made the police report herself.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly also accused Marlene Budd, now a judge, then also a Huntington Town Councilwoman, of “trying to influence a pending investigation”, according to an article in The New York Times (The Harbormaster and the Councilwoman by David Winzelberg, Oct 25, 2005).

The case was dismissed as without merit.  The Town (taxpayers) paid for attorneys in these matters.

On January 14, 2000, the Town of Huntington’s Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure issued their own report and based some of their conclusions on the Fact Finder’s Report in response to Town Board Resolution No. 1999-380. The report stated that even if Ms. Scarpati-Reilly was in fear of personal danger (which she had alleged as her reason for lying to the press) or even if she were concerned about the danger to herself or others, it would not justify the false statements to the press.

In their report the Ethics Board wrote:

“At the very least Ms. Scarpati-Reilly’s false statements to the press could well lead the public to conclude that she was engaged in acts that were in violation of the trust placed in her by the public.  At the very least Councilwoman Scarpati-Reilly’s conduct violated Section 29-5(b)(5) of the Ethic’s Code, which prohibits government officials from engaging in conduct that created an appearance of impropriety.”

In May of 2000, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town of Huntington Board of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, Howard A. Glickstein as Chairman, Beth Graham, Stanley Heller, Karen Joy Miller and Laurie Nolan as Members, the Town of Huntington Town Attorney’s Office, Lawrence W. Cregan, as Ex-Oficio Member of the Board and Special Assistant Town Attorney and Jim Matthews, as Town Attorney.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly charged in the suit that on or about June 1, 1999 the Huntington Town Board pursuant to Town Board Resolution 1999-380 gave the Fact Finder’s Report to the Board of Ethics.  The suit said that upon information and belief, the Board of Ethics met on several occasions between June 1, 1999 and January 4, 2000 to take testimony, review documentary evidence and discuss and prepare an opinion regarding Ms. Scarpati-Reilly’s conduct as described in the Fact Finder’s Report.

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly complained among other things she was not given prior notice as was required to be given to her and to the news media and other outlets at least 72 hours prior to the meetings. The meetings, minutes, correspondence, opinions and actions of the ethics board should have been confidential, according to her verified petition.

In an article in Newsday dated March 10, 1999 (by Chastity Pratt) Ms. Scarpati Reilly said “My only explanation for having exercised less than adequate judgment is that my name and reputation were being threatened and unfortunately, I panicked.”

In the letter to the editors, Ms. Scarpati-Reilly retracted statements for the record, where she denied filing the police complaint finally admitting she lied when she said she was home baking a birthday cake for her son at the time of the incident.

In an article in The Long Islander (Scarpati-Reilly: “I Panicked” by A. Anthony Miller, March 1999) it was revealed that after her initial denial to the paper that she had made the police report, she sent a letter of apology “in which she admitted to some ‘misstatements’ in her initial denial and she also acknowledged that she did, indeed, file the police report.”

Oddly enough, the Ethics Board never spoke to Mr. Perks during the entire investigation.

All the defendants retained counsel and the Town of Huntington (taxpayers) paid the legal bills.  Ms. Scarpati-Reilly eventually dropped the lawsuit and eventually,  the Town paid her legal fees as well.
No Resolution has yet been found that authorizes money to be spent on legal fees when Ms. Scarpati-Reilly is the petitioner.  Jason Abelove was retained as Ms. Scarpati'-Reilly's attorney in the federal lawsuit where she is and was a defendant.  But Mr. Perks says the Town continued to allow her to use Mr. Abelove and paid for his services when she filed lawsuits against others, including a defamation suit against him that was dismissed by Judge Catterson.  This suit was dismissed because Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, although she had started the lawsuit, failed to give DNA when it was court ordered and failed to show up for a court appearance, without any explanation, according to court papers.  The Judge was not amused.  At the time of the appointment of Jason Abelove, then Councilman Israel said on the record if it were determined that Ms. Scarpati-Reilly acted outside the scope of her duties and responsibilities of her position as Councilwoman, she would be liable for the legal bills incurred by the taxpayer.   To date there is no record of any reimbursement by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly for the legal fees incurred by the Town.

Scene: Four
                                             SCARPATI-REILLY DENIES AFFAIR

Ms. Scarpati-Reilly has always denied there was ever a sexual relationship with Mr. Perks.  Both were married to others at the time.  Mr. Perks contends it was ongoing for over a year and when he tried to end it -Ms. Scarpati-Reilly got angry and vindictive.

The police report is not for an assault as the Town Board Resolution stated, but was for harassment, according to Ms. Scarpati-Reilly's complaint.  It alleged that when Ms. Scarpati –Reilly threatened to bring Mr. Perks up on charges for being out of uniform, he allegedly slapped her arm.  Mr. Perks denies slapping her arm and says she hit him in the head. During the course of the investigation it was determined that according to the Town, there never was a uniform or dress code for the Mobil Oil Spill Response Unit.

Eventually, Mr. Perks filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Ms. Scarpati-Reilly who still maintains there was no affair between her and Mr. Perks. In Federal court, a jury determined that there was sexual harassment of Mr. Perks by Ms. Scarpati-Reilly, but at the same time they found the Town of Huntington was not liable for Ms. Scarpati-Reilly’s actions and awarded no damages to Mr. Perks.

It cost Mr. Perks approximately $50,000 dollar to file a lawsuit in the Appellate Division 2nd Department.  He lost.

Mr. Perks contends this whole entire million dollar fiasco was designed to "kill the messenger" about the radiated waste being burned for decades.  "We have the highest Cancer rates in the nation".  No one wants the ramifications of exposing that.  Mr. Petrone and others knew what was happening, but chose to allow it, cover it up and destroy the messenger.   The real losers here are the taxpayers and people who live in the radius of the incinerator and are sick and may not know why.  That is exactly why the State Department of Environmental Conservation strictly prohibits burning of any radioactive waste, in Covanta's  permit.  The winners are the attorneys and law firms who have made millions on these "exaggerated and false charges", according to Mr. Perks.  "Mr. Petrone has gotten tens of thousands in campaign contributions from most of the firms and individuals,  hired by the Town, since the incident,  including Covanta, so he has also benefited directly himself."

Mr. Perks and his family on the other hand have been physically, financially,  socially and psychologically devastated for over a decade,  yet he continues to fight as the investigation is still ongoing...  

Intermission…

In the next Acts:  THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS OF:

The Depositions of the Politicians
The Fact-Finders Report
The Ethics Board Report and Depositions
The Lawyers…Law Firms...Lawsuits and Legal Fees
The Campaign Contributions
The Devastation to Mr. Perks
What Now?

GOP Quietly Changes Law Giving John Boehner Exclusive Power to Re-Open the Government in the House

THE GOP's LITTLE RULE CHANGE THEY HOPED YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE

In the late evening on September 30, 2013, the House of Representatives voted for a resolution that changed House Rule XXII Clause 4, so that now only the Speaker of the House (GOP Leader John Boehner) is able to call up the bill to re-open the government.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, challenged the rule with House Speaker Pro Tempore,  Jason Chaffetz on the House floor recently.  The confrontation is available on YouTube where you can see Representative Chaffetz, admit on the record that as of October 1st "The House has altered the operation of that standing rule."  taking away from every other member of Congress both Democrat and Republican, the ability to bring the Senate bill to open the government, to the floor of the House.

Now only Speaker Boehner or his designee has that ability.

HOUSE RULE XXII; CLAUSE 4

"When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with the House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged."

House Resolution 368 dated Oct 1, 2013 changed the standing rules of the House so that now-
only the Majority Leader or his designee can make the motion to vote to re-open the government.

Yesterday, in an Editorial in Newsday,  Eugene Robinson,  Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the Washington Post wrote that Speaker Boehner is "Playing to win..." and "after the shutdown he may be stronger among conservatives because he stood up to Obama."

Quoting from the Commentary:

"If Boehner wins any concessions, he will trumpet them as a great victory. If he gets nothing, he will have led his troops valiantly into battle against all odds.  There are romantics in politics who appreciate this sort of theatre."

Mr. Robinson's characterization of these issues does a tremendous disservice to all those suffering as a result of the government's shutdown. This is not theatre, Mr. Robinson, but reality. There is nothing romantic about it.  People cannot get medicine as trials have been stopped, people who saved for a year for a family vacation find the National Parks are closed when they get there.  People cannot pay their bills as they are no longer receiving a government paycheck, essential services for communities have been halted...these are not play acts in the theatre...they are a disgraceful reality.  Mr. Robinson's essay posed the questions "Who in his or her right mind would want the (Speaker's) job?" and "Who else would even be considered speaker material?"  To answer those questions, anyone who is a patriotic American would be a better fit for the job.  If this shutdown is all about Mr. Boehner making future political points to keep his job, while selling the American people down the drain, then Mr. Boehner should not only lose his position as Speaker of the House, he should lose his Congressional seat and be brought up on charges of treason.

It is disgraceful if the desire for more control or power by Speaker Boehner in a political sphere is seen as a victory when the consequences of his actions and/or inaction are hurting millions on a tangible level.  It is disgraceful if the reputation of our nation deteriorates as China and the rest of the world worry that we will default for the first time in our Country's history...it is disgraceful that they look at us and say what the hell is going on in the United States?  This undermines our credibility and the entire world's financial stability and should render Mr. Boehner politically impotent for the future not stronger as Mr. Robinson's essay purports to suggest.

Congressman Van Hollen eventually took the step of renewing his motion to re-open the government under the regular standing rules of the House and was told by Speaker Pro Tempore, Chaffetz  under Section 2 of House Resolution 368 that passed in the late evening hours of Sept 30th, "That motion may only be entertained by the majority leader or his designee."

Mr. Van Hollen then asked for the record, "Why were the rules rigged to keep the government shut down?  Democracy has been suspended."

In a recent CNN interview, Mr. Van Hollen stated that House Republicans have since last March, repeatedly blocked the appointment of budget negotiators throughout the year.  He also questioned why if the shutdown by the GOP was originally intended to stop "Obamacare", why do they need to shutdown the government while negotiating?  They were unwilling to negotiate all along on budget issues, now they are demanding the Democrats negotiate by extortion.

These members of Congress who put their own paychecks and careers ahead of the people they were elected to represent display the height of narcissism and selfishness.   It is tantamount to treason on some levels as it is causing the destruction of our nation from the inside out, something Nikita Khrushchev warned we would do to ourselves someday.  Mr. Krushchev,  thought it would be the common man who did this...he was wrong about that...it is our elected officials who bear this dubious distinction and responsibility.

Former President of Suffolk Bar Association Under Investigation by State Inspector General

Freelance Investigations Exclusive

The New York State Office of the Inspector General has opened an investigation after two separate complaints were made to them against Centereach attorney, Louis C. England.

Mr. England is currently under investigation by the New York State Inspector General's Office, according to a transcript obtained exclusively by Freelance Investigations. Mr. England admitted in June, 2013 in State Supreme Court in Central Islip that he was called in for several hours by investigators as far back as December of 2012 and that as far as he knew the investigation was ongoing.

Admitted to the Bar in 1969, Mr. England was the former President of the Suffolk County Criminal Bar Association in 1983 and President of the Suffolk County Bar Association in 1998.  Mr. England was past director of both associations.  Mr. England is also a member of the Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee (until 2016) where people on Long Island would need go to complain about problems with attorneys.
          
                                                     Complaint Number One

The first complainant said Mr. England failed in his fiduciary responsibilities in her case, rehired an accountant not approved by the court after she had already fired him, failed to properly collect rents and to ensure the accountant paid the taxes in a timely manner causing financial penalties.  She also said she was locked out of the building and business she is 50% owner of by her husband and although she asked the receiver to get a copy of the key, thus far Mr. England has failed to provide her with one.  

According to Mr. England's own testimony while recounting his credentials in the courtroom of Supreme Court Judge John C. Bivona, "I was appointed by the Federal Court Judge Wexler as the attorney for a receivership that lasted approximately five years in the 90's and I have been a receiver since about in or about 1995."  Mr. England responded to questions by Mr. Michael D. Solomon (of Solomon & Herrera of Levittown), attorney for the defendant/husband in this matrimonial case who will be known as Mr. X to protect his privacy in this matter and also from the attorney for the plaintiff, Mrs. X.

From the Voir Dire of Mr. England by Mr. Frank Blangiardo (Blangiardo & Blangiardo of Cutchogue), attorney for the plaintiff, Mrs. X.
                   
                      Q. ( Mr. Blangiardo) And is it true sir, you were being investigated with regard to this very case by the New York State Inspector General?

        Mr. Solomon:  Your Honor, let me just object for Voir Dire purposes.
                   
                     A. (Mr. England)  Mrs. X...

                              THE COURT: Yes, but overruled.

                     A. (Mr. England) Mrs. X...

                     Q. (Mr. Blangiardo) Yes or no sir?

                     A. (Mr. England)  Complained...

                     Q. (Mr. Blangiardo) Yes or no sir?

                     A. (Mr. England) ...to the Inspector General of the State of New York.

                               THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. England. It's a yes or no question.

                     A. (Mr. England)  Yes.

                     Mr. Blangiardo: Nothing Further.

                               THE COURT:  Thank You. (end)

Later when under examination by the defendant's attorney, Mr. Solomon, the topic was again brought up to Mr. England.

                      Q.  (Mr. Solomon) And did there come a point in time that some sort of complaint was filed against you by Mrs. X?

                       A.  (Mr. England) I understand that Mrs. X has made complaints against various people and she had made a complaint to the Inspector General of the State of New York.  I received a phone call from the investigator.  I then went, in December of 2012 and I gave the investigator a complete breakdown of the receivership.  I met with them for two hours.  I met with the Inspector General herself and basically the --I don't know the status of it at this point in time, I have not heard from them, other than they had inquired as to a couple of, a couple of areas that Mrs. X had raised in the complaint.  I did --on Friday evening about eight o'clock, was informed that a certain attorney in Suffolk County had received phone calls from Mrs. X.  She is attempting to retain counsel to sue me, that I have destroyed her business. (end)

Mrs. X alleged to the Court and to the Inspector General that Mr. England did not fulfill his fiduciary responsibilities in this case and it was admitted for the record that Mr. England had hired back an accountant that Mrs. X had previously fired.  As it turned out, the Inspector General informed Mrs. X that the accountant in the case was not even on the list of accountants approved by the court.

Mr. England for all of his own professed experience in "receiverships" expressed surprise that the accountant he rehired was even required to be on an approved list...

VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION OF MR. ENGLAND by Mr. Blangiardo

Q. With all your experience going back to Judge Wexler, as you talked about--

A. (Mr. England) Yeah.

Q. --in 1995 on some cases are you aware of the fact, or are you aware that accountants have to be on approved lists?

A. (Mr. England) I, I understand that they have created lists for everything, okay.  I do not know whether, in fact, an --accountants are necessary to be on the approved list. (end)

In this case, the accountant had been fired by Mrs. X and Mr. England admitted he knew that but insisted he needed to rehire the accountant, Christopher Gargiulo, because he wanted him to do the taxes.  Mr Gargiulo admitted under cross examination he was told by the husband to deduct over $45,000 dollars from the wife's K-1 account. When pressed about the issue under oath, Mr. Gargiulo admitted,  "It may be an error" when he did that.  Mr. Gargiulo also admitted he was not on the approved list of CPA's allowed to be hired by a court appointed receiver and said that he did not know why he had been fired by Mrs. X, a 50% owner of the building and business prior to being re-hired by Mr. England.

Mr. England complained that Mrs. X never gave him documents he needed to get tenants to pay rents, taxes and other expenses such as snow plowing and that the only person who told him she took the documents was her husband.  Mr. X complained Mrs. X withheld documents, a charge Mrs. X has continually denied all throughout the case.

Mrs. X also noted that tax documents and bank statements were easily obtainable and that is how she got copies herself which she readily submitted to the attorneys and the court, according to her.  She also contends that the files Mr. X said she had removed from  the office were a mouse click away in a computer in the business she owns half of and was locked out of.

Mr. Blangiardo also questioned why Mr. England blamed missing documents for his failure to perform some fiduciary responsibilities.  Mr. England admitted under oath that "Nobody has told me that she has the file except for Mr. X."

Then Mr. Blangiardo asked Mr. England what he knew about this alleged missing file...the color, the size...anything...He replied, "I don't know anything about the file.  I was just told there was a file (that) exists and that Mrs. X removed that file with other files of (the business named). "

Pressed by Mr. Blangiardo, Mr. England again admitted for the record, the only person who told him Mrs. X  took the file was Mr. X.

Calls to Mr. Gargiulo and Mr. England were not returned at time of publication.  Each was also approached at the courthouse on the day they testified and given a business card with contact numbers of Freelance Investigations and asked to call to tell their side of the story. Neither called, nor returned a call to their office just prior to publication.

A SECOND INVESTIGATION OPENED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE

Another formal complaint against Mr. England was made to the Managing Inspector General for Fiduciary Appointments this week by a woman we shall call Mrs Z.  According to her:

Louis C. England failed in the performance of his duties by failing to do due diligence and by failing to abide by the laws and rules.  Louis C. England breached his fiduciary duty when he unlawfully evicted (Mrs. Z) and the tenant and the son.  Louis C. England breached his fiduciary duty when he stole (Mrs. Z's) house.  (from the complaint to the New York State Inspector General dated August 1, 2013)

In this case, the complainant believes her eviction and the subsequent foreclosure of her home was done illegally and she has a video and a tome of documents and law to support her allegations, which she is supplying the Inspector General's Office at their request, according to her.

Anyone who has also had problems with Mr. England as a receiver should contact the New York State Inspector General's Office or leave a comment for this reporter.  All comments and responses will be kept confidential and/or forwarded to the Inspector General upon request.

Inspector General's Office Contact Information:  

Call:
1-800-DO-RIGHT (1-800-367-4448)  (between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m)
Email:
inspector.general@ig.state.ny.us
On-line:  Complete their On-line Complaint Form or
Write:
State Inspector General
Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 2, 16th Floor
Albany, NY 12223

CROSS ENDORSING PLUS NO TERM LIMITS equals a DEATH KNOLL FOR DEMOCRACY

EDITORIAL OPINION:

Since Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone lost the term limits case against Democratic Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota, Conservative County Sheriff, Vincent DeMarco and Republican County Clerk, Judith Pasquale and he has decided not to appeal, all three candidates will be on the November ballot.  But they don't have to spend a penny or a minute campaigning because all three have been "cross-endorsed."  The public cannot limit the number of years they can serve, after Judge Gazillo sided with Mr. Spota's attorney and wrote that those three jobs were governed by State Constitutional Law and therefore the public vote on the term limit referendum that showed the public does want term limits, does not apply to them.  Though not part of that lawsuit, Republican Angie Carpenter was also cross-endorsed for County Treasurer.

Cross-endorsement or “fusion” voting is a process whereby two or more political parties nominate the same candidate for the same office during the general election.  Cross- endorsing is only permitted in seven states:  New York, Connecticut, Idaho, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina and Vermont.  Laws in the 43 remaining states ban cross-endorsements by explicitly prohibiting multiple party nominations or indirectly requiring that candidates be members of the nominating party.  Since candidates can only belong to one party at any given time, the legal effect of these laws is to ban cross-endorsement.

        (Old Research Report on Cross-Endorsing Candidates by Terrance Adams January 16, 2013)

Years ago on Long Island, the politicians realizing the real power was in controlling the courts, decided to hand pick their judges and "cross endorse" them to allegedly keep the politics out of the judiciary.  What a load of bunk that truly was. Unfortunately, people fell for it hook line and sinker.  In truth it is politics at it's most raw and insidious as people get political hacks in the seats where the best lawyers and most ethical and judicious men and women should be sitting instead.  Today people are switching political parties like they change shoes for the weather and no one seems to think this is an issue.

Mr. Spota, originally a Republican, ran for DA as a Democrat and unilaterally decided to pardon Steve Levy, a Republican as long as he would return the $4 million dollars in campaign funds he raised while a Democrat, before he switched to the Republican Party.  Mr. Spota didn't want that money used against his party.  It didn't matter that improprieties may have happened in obtaining the campaign funds, as long as the Dems got the money back they didn't care.  Even though serious issues were raised in the investigation, Mr. Spota "decided" to let him finish out his term as long as he agreed not to run again.  What gave Mr. Spota that power to make a decision like that, is a good, fair and reasonable question.  No one has answered it yet.

“There is no question that while the investigation revealed serious issues with regard to fundraising and the manner in which it was conducted, including the use of public resources, I am confident that Mr. Levy did not personally profit,” said Suffolk County D.A. Thomas Spota. “The forfeiture of his 4 million dollar campaign fund demonstrates his acceptance of responsibility for these failings.” It’s a staggering fall for the county executive, who was cross-endorsed in 2007 and won with 96 percent of the vote. After an abrupt switch to the Republican Party last year, he very nearly won a Wilson Paluka vote at the nominating convention, which would have allowed him to run in the G.O.P. primary for governor.  (Levy Surrenders Funds, Will Not Seek Third Term in Response to D.A. Probe by Amanda Sterling 3/24/11 )

Mr. Spota said Mr. Levy did not personally profit?  How is not having to go to jail not a profit personally for Mr. Levy?  What about the loss of choice for the tax payers?  What about the people who contributed to the campaign, shouldn't they have had a say as to what happened to the money?

In the Godfather, the line from Michael Corleone to the naive Kay went something like, "Right now we buy the lawyers and judges, in twenty years we will be the lawyers and the judges."  How prophetic that truly was as once again life imitates art, or was it the other way?

Who gets picked for the phony baloney "steering committees" supposedly assigned to pick the judges?  More political cronies and hacks.

Why do they really cross endorse?  It is for control of the lucrative and powerful;  District, Bankruptcy and Surrogate's court judgeships..."cha ching".  In Family and Supreme court with cross endorsements comes the control of appointing lucrative receiverships, law guardianships, forensic appointments, court ordered therapies and control of the fate of any poor family's fortune who happens to fail in their marriage...cha ching...supervised visitation...cha ching...making money on the backs of people and their children who are already in emotional distress...cha ching! Don't get pissed off that you are getting screwed and they are snatching your children or you will be sent to anger management...cha ching!

Years ago, switching political parties was political suicide.  No one would ever trust you again.  Now, people flip from Democrat to Republican and back, or a side step to Conservative...ideology be damned!  Party bosses sell out their constituents and even their own committee people when they make the deals behind closed doors and then announce the cross endorsements as if they are doing the public some kind of service.

In fact, it is all about winning the line...any line...so the politicians can stay on the municipal teat and get that golden pension.  It is the tax payers that must be kept out of the loop as to who gets into those plum positions, otherwise how would the fix be in for the politically connected and well heeled?  The politicians know as long as they are all on some municipal payroll they are alright, like shirts and skins in gym, everyone goes back to the same homeroom, they just pretend to be on opposite sides for the playing of the game for the public to watch.  The public buys the schtick!

In Oliver Stone's Nixon, Fyvush Finkle, the famous character actor played a campaign manager to Richard Nixon. He spoke to Nixon about the mob stuffing the ballot boxes for Kennedy to win in Chicago. When Nixon lost, Finkle said  "Dick, they stole it fair and square." Nixon wanted to take it to the Supreme Court like they did with Gore vs Bush.  Back then that was verboten.  Instead Finkle said, "They'll give it to you next time." They didn't want the public to know the elections are always fixed in some ways. Now people don't seem to care about anything.  Anthony Weiner's run for New York City mayor says it all.  He lied over and over, sent numerous pictures of his personal parts to several women, lied over and over again when caught and people will still vote for this liar to be mayor! Why?

People also seem to love to vote the incumbents no matter what, most of the time. Or the brother or son of a familiar name, as if we long for the days of the monarchy once again.  Mario Cuomo was Governor, so now Andrew should be just fine as governor, right???  Maybe not so much if you have any kind of memory at all.  Remember this?

When Cuomo became HUD Secretary in 1997, he axed a federal program that had saved the U.S. $2.2 billion between 1994 and 1997 and re instituted a system that lost the government money while earning billions for favored friends. He fired a former HUD official whose company designed the program. That wasn’t the only money big money lost. When Cuomo was secretary, HUD reported that $59 billion was missing! It couldn’t say where they money went, because it failed to produce audited financial statements.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is renowned for corruption. Historically, fraud has been so pervasive and blatant that the Sopranos episode on it was disturbingly realistic. ( From the Komisar Scoop...Lucy Komisar 2006 )

Let's not forget about the expose by The Village Voice or this little article that packed quite a punch...

As HUD secretary from 1997 to 2001, Cuomo pushed government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie to buy more home loans to low-income borrowers with impaired credit, in an attempt to end what he thought was lending discrimination against minorities. By 1999, they had committed $1 trillion in such high-risk loans.
But Cuomo still was not happy. So in 2000, he hiked their affordable-housing quota to 50%. That meant Fannie and Freddie had to devote fully half their mortgage financing to “underserved” borrowers with unproven or damaged credit. To help them meet that drastic new goal, Cuomo pressured them to relax their lending criteria and invest in sub prime loans. He also authorized them to buy sub prime securities.
This isn’t ancient history. The quota Cuomo set in 2000 remained in force through 2004 and beyond. Four years after he required Fannie and Freddie to commit half their lending to support affordable housing, they together commanded almost half the sub prime securities market.  Credit quality suffered while risk soared. By 2005, most of the loans they’d bought had down payments of 3% or less. Many had no down payment at all. By 2008, Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad sub prime paper.
Relevance to New York voters? Like the rest of taxpayers, they are on the hook for an estimated $1 trillion in losses in what could end up being the mother of all bailouts. Meanwhile, related foreclosures are still rattling Wall Street. (ANDREW CUOMO’S SCANDAL…By Ruth King/October 21, 2010) 

Let us also not forget about the fact that casino gambling is the one and only true goal of this governor and his upstate minions and he will not stop until he gets that accomplished for the boys that put him in office.  Every treaty we have ever had with the American Indians of New York has literally been broken or ignored.  We couldn't have a casino at Yonkers or Aqueduct, yet...so they used a loophole and called it a "Racino".  Cuomo is acting like there needs to be a vote to allow casino gambling in New York.  What a crock...we already have it at Aqueduct and Yonkers.  The only difference is there are no live dealers and croupiers yet.  That is all. Go there now, today, they have slot machines, electronic table games, craps, poker, roulette and oh that's right, horse racing as an aside.  It is obvious from the grounds, the money is not being put into the racetrack operations, but all investments seem to be preparing and just waiting for the law to change and then you will have live croupiers and dealers and the "Racinos" will be the true "Casinos" they already practically are.  Bait and switch completed.  The vote is a farce.

If the District Attorney can stay in office in perpetuity, this situation is rife with possibility for corruption.  Mr. Spota can decide to only prosecute those people who are not in his political clique. Some say he is doing that already.

Because of the power of prosecutorial discretion, the district attorney already has, no one is safe from the wielding of Mr. Spota's political agenda being served before justice, if he so chooses.  He can also look the other way to crimes being committed by his friends or friends of friends. It has already proven true with Mr. Spota's "handling" of the Levy matter.  As long as he got the $4 million dollars, he let Levy slide, an action tantamount to accepting a political bribe and yet no one seems to care.  Mr. Spota is not exactly an enlightened despot and who ever gave him that kind of political capital and power anyway?  How could you take it away now?   As long as the political bosses, and I do mean bosses control the pick, the people are sitting ducks for malicious prosecution or failure to prosecute when necessary if the bad guys hurting you are friends of the DA who could be in power until he dies.

Unless people demand politicians to adhere to some kind of ideology that is meaningful to them, whatever that belief is, be it conservative or liberal or whatever, or that we at least as a people demand that the politicians keep our promises to a great people like the ancestors of our nation, what kind of ethical behavior can we reasonably expect from these elected officials?

One answer is publicly funded elections, a limit to the amount of money you can spend, free airtime to legitimate candidates in all cases and a limit to the time you can campaign before any election.

Until and unless you have been grist in the judicial mill you probably believe that the courts are just like on television, like Law and Order.  You might still believe that ultimately ethics and rule of law, justice and right will win the day.  To know the reality of the horror of cross endorsement, show up any morning at Suffolk County Family, Criminal or Supreme Court in Central Islip, to see the long and endless lines of fish ready and waiting for easy shooting in their political pork barrels.

When you have cross endorsements and no term limits you have the death of democracy pure and simple.

Food, Farms, Forests and Fracking: Connecting the Dots

Food, Farms, Forests and Fracking: Connecting the Dots

CHILDREN'S PRIVACY LOST TO OBTAIN PROTECTION?

EDITORIAL OPINION***

CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO TRADE PRIVACY FOR PROTECTION

This is one of the most difficult stories I may ever have to write. The children involved are about to trade their privacy for protection.  It is about the failure of a handful of individuals to protect two small children from the alleged sexual, physical, verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of their politically connected father.

The children in the case are so desperate for help that they have made videos of their allegations, naming the people who both abused their trust and failed to protect them... as was their job.  If the children are forced to release this video to social media as they are ready to do, then a ten year old boy will have to expose his identity and the fact that he has gotten a sexually transmitted disease (according to the child and documented medical evidence) allegedly from improper touching by his own father.  The daughter claims to have had improper touching as well and in the video holds up pieces of paper with the names of some of those who hurt and failed to protect them, including their court appointed law guardian.

These are the words on little slips of paper, the girl holds up one at a time in the video:

Hi!
I'm 13 years old
I love to dance
I have a little brother
He is ten
We need help
We have been hurt
my brother got a bloody nose
We both have gotten our arms (hurt) too
I got a black and blue
and my brother got a
sexually transmitted disease on his butt
I wish Faith Herman CPS worker Lisa Towns
Nancy? Other Cps workers
lots of other CPS workers
& I don't remember names
Thanks to them my dad
Who was the cause of all this
has full custody
I want to go back to my moms
Who did nothing wrong and
she is safe
my attorney-Joy Jorgenson
she wouldn't help us at all
she wouldn't even call my brother in to talk about his
bloody nose and he was in the waiting room
comment below with advice
Thank you!
End of Video

The little girl is planning to release it with her full face showing. The words she wrote on paper and the music playing in the background is the song "Concrete Angel" by Martina McBride.

These are the lyrics:

She walks to school with the lunch she packed
Nobody knows what she's holding back
Wearing the same dress she wore yesterday
She hides the bruises with the linen and lace, oh
The teacher wonders but she doesn't ask
It's hard to see the pain behind the mask
Bearing the burden of a secret storm
Sometimes she wishes she was never born
Through the wind and the rain she stands hard as a stone
In a world that she can't rise above
But her dreams give her wings and she flies to a place
Where she's loved concrete angel
Somebody cries in the middle of the night
The neighbors hear but they turn out the light
A fragile soul caught in the hands of fate
When morning comes it will be too late
Through the wind and the rain she stands hard as a stone
In a world that she can't rise above
But her dreams give her wings and she flies to a place
Where she's loved concrete angel
A statue stands in a shaded place
An angel girl with an upturned face
A name is written on a polished rock
A broken heart that the world forgot
Through the wind and the rain she stands hard as a stone
In a world that she can't rise above
But her dreams give her wings and she flies to a place
Where she's loved concrete angel
                Songwriter(s): Stephanie Kay Bentley
       Copyright: Songs Of Polygram Int. Inc., Hopechest Music

In the video, the thirteen year old girl holds up pieces of paper saying she and her ten year old brother are being abused and that her little brother has a sexually transmitted disease and they need help.  With the music playing in the background it is a heartbreaking image and statement.  It is devastating to see.

It must have been more devastating to make.  It is the opinion of this reporter that these children should not have had to resort to even making this video and now because no one will help them, they are about to put it out on social media trading their personal privacy for protection.  This should not have to happen.  So to prevent that, I am going to try to tell their story using just some of the documented evidence the mother has provided to me and somehow get the children help without actually revealing their identities.  When you read this, if you will call those involved and give your opinion, perhaps it would force them to protect the children.

                                                    THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

Because the father in the story is a political figure and has had fundraisers for many high level Suffolk County politicos, in August, 2012 the Suffolk District Attorney's Office asked Judge James Hudson (Riverhead) to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the case of alleged abuse of the children by the father/attorney/politician.

Last Thursday March 28, 2013 a copy of a letter was sent by E-Mail to Freelance Investigations containing information that reveals these children are allegedly not being protected.  It was a letter from the mother, sent to the Special Prosecutor in the case, requesting his recusal in the case for "his failure to act and protect" her children. The letter was cc'd to Freelance Investigations as well as to several New York State Bar Associations, the Suffolk County District Attorney, The New York State Inspector General's Office, The New York State Attorney's General as well as several others.

According to the mother, last Thursday, when speaking at a meeting with the Special Prosecutor, Kevin Keating and Detective Bruce Croce of the Suffolk County Police Special Victim's Unit (Detective Croce was assigned to the case in July of 2012) the mother said she has provided them with medical evidence of a sexually transmitted disease her son had gotten last fall.  In the document the child admitted his father had been snuggling naked with him and putting his private parts in his buttocks and groin area. The doctor was the only person in this entire case who did the right thing according to the mother. The doctor called Child Protective Services as the law demands when there is a question of sexual abuse.

The daughter told authorities she took the door off the hinges of the father's bedroom to stop him from hurting her and her brother, according to the mother.  The daughter says she is also a victim of sexual abuse by the father and is willing to tell anyone who will listen what has happened to her and her brother, according to the mother.  In the letter, the mother asks why the Special Prosecutor has yet to interview her children in nearly eight months since he was assigned to the case.  The daughter has called the Police to report the abuse, since she and her brother have been put by the Judge in the case in the sole custody of the father since January of this year.

The mother said the Special Prosecutor told her last week he could probably get an indictment against the father if he presented this to the Grand Jury, but then the children would have to go through a long protracted trial, lasting years perhaps.  The mother said the children would prefer that to the continued abuse.  If they are willing to go public she asked him, "Wouldn't it be better to tell their story to the Grand Jury, because it is sealed"?  She said she told him, since he never even bothered to speak to her children, not even once since he got the case over eight months ago, he doesn't know her children at all to make that decision. He doesn't know how courageous, strong and smart her children are and that they would be happy to testify if only someone would listen and then do something to stop the alleged abuse she told him.

The mother also claims the prosecutor lied to her last Thursday, when he told her he interviewed the doctor and he supposedly told the Special Prosecutor that he called the sexually transmitted disease "a simple childhood rash".  The mother claims she spoke with the doctor's office immediately after she left the Special Prosecutor's office and they said the doctor never spoke to anyone from the Special Prosecutor's office, nor him, nor did they have any record of HIPA forms being signed and that would have been necessary for any information at all to be released about her son.  She said obviously, the doctor would never have called CPS if he thought it was a simple childhood rash and that the Special Prosecutor didn't even consider how the child claims he got it.

The Special Prosecutor was called by Freelance Investigations several months ago and he admitted for the record there was an ongoing and open investigation.  He told the mother on Thursday it was still open and asked her if she had any more evidence of the abuse, other than the thirteen year old daughter as a witness, the son's documented admissions of the abuse and the medical report of the son's sexually transmitted disease.  The mother said she replied to him... "What more do you expect the children to give you, a videotape of the abuse and a signed confession?"  She said he did not respond at that point.

Detective Croce on Thursday attempted to paint the mother as a conspiracy theorist, according to her, asking her if she believed the husband had controlled the police and CPS and the courts to his advantage?  The mother believes politics is at the heart of this but denies ever using the word conspiracy. "These are just individuals failing to protect my children, the fact that the system is run by them is just another crime not being prosecuted."

The following is an exact copy of the letter with some names redacted when necessary to protect the identities of the children by connection to the parents.  The other names have been left in tact as they are public figures, most are paid by the taxpayers and all should be held to the highest ethical standards.
              (letter dated March 28, 2013 From the Mother to the Special Prosecutor )

Dear Mr. Keating:
I have spoken with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office regarding your failure to do any investigation involving my children, the victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of their father (name redacted).
I was interviewed in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Government Corruption Bureau for approximately two and a half hours on July 27, 2011.  It was regarding an investigation of  (the father/name redacted) and various public officials.  Headed by Christopher McPartland, and attended by: John Collins, James Burke, Clifford Cid and (my brother), Police Officer (name redacted).
I was asked about the mortgages on my home which was custom built for my family by the Bonavita family. The Bonavita’s also owned the land in Huntington Station that needed a zone change to sell to Avalon Bay for a controversial high-density housing project.
At the meeting in the DA’s Office I was asked about (the father's/name redacted) long term relationships with public officials including; Steve Israel, Gary Ackerman, Steve Levy, Steve Bellone and Gary Melius of Oheka Castle. I was asked about (the father's/name redacted) relationships with Steve Israel and Gary Ackerman as far back as December 1996 when these three were involved in negotiating proposed low and middle-income housing in East Northport.
During this meeting we discussed (the father's/name redacted) obsession with pornography, gambling, and his drug use. I provided the Government Corruption Bureau with pictures of the marijuana and smoking paraphernalia (the father/name redacted) had kept atop his dresser when he resided in our home. I also provided the invoices I had found for Cablevision pornography that amounted to $980 dollars in only a six -month period of October 2010 through April 2011.  We also discussed his campaign contributions and business dealings with Steve Levy and fundraisers that (the father/name redacted) had held for Mr. Levy, Gary Ackerman, Steve Israel, Steve Bellone, and Richard Ambro: the Administrative Judge’s clerk and brother of David Ambro, Editor of the local newspaper who has subsequently written several articles praising (the father/name redacted). We discussed Steve Levy’s appointment of his close friend (the father/name redacted) to the Judicial Screening Committee and the fact that Steve Levy’s wife, Colleen West’s claim that the law firm of (name redacted) was one of her largest accounts at Enright Court Reporting, at the same time (the father/name redacted) claimed to the Court in our divorce trial that his business was failing and he was virtually broke and unemployed.

Also discussed was (the father's/name redacted) relationship with Gary Melius, developer builder, of Oheka Castle and (the father's/name redacted) involvement with Mr. Melius’ land use issues. Also discussed was (the father's/name redacted) frequent gambling- gambling that had taken place at Oheka Castle with (name redacted) and (his brother) and various other long term politicians.  We discussed Mr. Melius’ discounting of (the father's/name redacted) brother’s wedding held at the Oheka Castle and the fact that (the father/name redacted) had been listed as a principle attorney/trustee of St. Matthews Episcopal Church in Las Vegas Nevada.
After this meeting I was assigned to contact Detective Clifford Cid and asked to provide copies of (the father's/name redacted)'s  cell phone records (which at that time were billed in my name) for the information to be investigated regarding gambling, drug use and financial crimes involving (the father/name redacted) and Gary Melius. I faxed the records of (the father's/name redacted) cell phone to Clifford Cid at the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office in August 2011 at which time I was told that the investigation was ongoing and I would be contacted in the fall or sooner if they requested further information.
In November 2011 Steve Bellone was elected as Suffolk County Executive. Clifford Cid called me in late November 2011 saying “something big was going on” but that he would resume the investigation in late January, after the new administration was established.
February 2012 Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota filed suit to repeal the Term Limit for his office, the Suffolk County Sheriff and the Suffolk County Clerk.
Steve Bellone appointed his friend (the father/name redacted) as outside counsel to represent Suffolk County’s position purportedly to uphold the Term Limit.  (The father/name redacted) has no background in State Constitutional law, his only cases involving real estate and personal injury for the most part.  He lost the case and only charged Mr. Bellone $3,000 dollars according to a statement he made in NEWSDAY.  That amounts to about 10 hours of work on this “landmark” case. I believe he purposely was appointed to lose the case and this may be why Mr. Spota refused to prosecute. I never heard another word from Clifford Cid or anyone else from the Suffolk County District Attorney Office regarding (the father/name redacted) and or Gary Melius.
My children have repeatedly complained of escalating abusive and aggressive behaviors they have suffered by their father (name redacted). The children were seen and interviewed at the Child Advocacy Center in Central Islip on July 10, 2012 regarding their complaints of their father's, (name redacted) sexual abuse.
My thirteen-year-old daughter told Detective Croce that her father had been touching her vagina over a period of 3-4 years while in her bed at night and a criminal police investigation commenced. Detective Croce has been given the information regarding (the father's/name redacted)’s history of marijuana use and his unsuccessful attempts to encourage me to try cocaine and has been informed of his extensive obsession with pornography.
On August 24, 2012 Detective Croce gave my daughter his business card and told her to give it to Judge Kent at in camera interview during our divorce trial.  He then asked her what the judge’s response was. She told him the judge asked why she thought the detective had asked her to give him the card and she answered,“I guess he wants you to call him”.
On Sept 14, 2012 my then nine-year-old son was seen at a dermatologist for a rash on his buttocks and upper inner thighs. My son reported to the doctor that his father often snuggled with him naked, or with a towel open in front, in bed, after showering and (the father/name redacted) was rubbing his penis on and between my son’s buttocks. Dr. (name redacted) reported this to Child Protective Services as the rash, called “molluscum” is known to be a sexually transmitted disease. (The doctor/name redacted) biopsied the warts and confirmed this diagnosis on Sept 29, 2012.  Attached is the correspondence regarding Child Protective Services’ mishandling of this information that I have already sent you.

On October 15, 2012, I was informed by E-Mail from Emily Constant of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office that you had been appointed as a “Special Prosecutor” and that all information regarding the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of my children should be directed to you to investigate and prosecute.
I find it disconcerting that after all the information requested of me regarding (the father/name redacted) and his personal relationship/ business dealings with Gary Melius that you have been appointed to prosecute and your office is in a building owned by Mr.Melius.
When I met with you November 8, 2012 you said you had not interviewed the victims, my children, but you did praise the court appointed forensic psychologist Jennifer Flynn Campbell and the Child Protective Service workers who each failed to protect my children. I have also attached the correspondence regarding CPS workers; Bethrina Mccray and Lori Towns and their mishandling of my children’s complaints and the documentation regarding Jennifer Flynn Campbell and her history of unlicensed practice prior to her obtaining her license. She was diagnosing and recommending psychotropic drugs, committing a fraud upon the court allowing her to be called a Doctor in court when she was only licensed to drive a car and to SCUBA dive.  She did this prior to the law allowing students to be mentored and train in the courts.
Today I am providing you with the correspondence between (the father/name redacted) and my daughter’s court appointed counselor, Jane Albertson Kelly, PhD.  As a mandatory reporter of child abuse, Dr. Kelly has ignored and suppressed my daughter’s persistent actual claims of sexual, physical and verbal abuse from her father. The correspondence progressively shows clearly that Dr. Kelly is led by (the father/name redacted) to steer and direct (the daughter's/name redacted)’s counseling sessions based on the E-Mail complaints (the father/name redacted) makes regarding me.  Although now I am being wrongly blamed for this, (the daughter/name redacted) has recorded the sessions of her own volition, as well as her conversations with the Law Guardian,  Joy Jorgensen and her father as he fights with her and continuously berates me.

My Legal Aid attorney in family court has submitted the E-Mail correspondence between Joy Jorgensen (the children's law guardian) and my daughter, which my daughter sent to both Detective Croce and myself.  Ms. Jorgensen is no longer representing the children as the correspondence shows that she actively misrepresented the children’s wishes and failed to provide for their safety and welfare. I have submitted a formal complaint to the Bar Association and the Judicial Grievance Committee regarding Joy Jorgensen’s failure to protect my children and their rights.  In fact when they asked for no overnight with their father and for supervised visits, she actually increased their overnight visits
I have been in contact with James Saladino and Kathleen of Judge Hudson’s chambers who have informed me that you were appointed to this case on August 2, 2012 and almost eight months have passed, and you have failed to even interview my children who are the victims or to speak with the doctor who made the report of the sexually transmitted disease to CPS. There is no excuse for your disregard of my children it is disgraceful.
Since then the children have been placed in the sole custody of their abuser. On Jan 22, 2013  My daughter (name redacted) was attacked by her father while dressing for school, he was touching her bra and pushing her. When she threatened to report his behavior at school, he threatened to destroy her credibility and make her a truant. He threatened to file a pins (Person in Need of Supervision) petition and did not allow her to go to school that day in order to prevent her from reporting his behaviors.
He followed through with this threat kept her home from school causing her to call the police.   The children are so desperate for help they have made a video and intend to go public with their plight using various social media. I have discouraged this as my children should not have to trade their privacy for protection. The reason this is an issue is because you and the other professionals paid to protect my children have failed to do so and instead have chosen to protect their pedophile politically connected father.
The father (name redacted) has said to me and the children if he goes down he will take down several highly ranking political figures with him. He claims he knows where the political bones are buried. Many of these politicians have participated in nefarious activities with (the father/name redacted) over the years and he said he intends to release that information to the public if anyone goes after him. He claims that he is untouchable and you and every person who has failed my children have only served to embolden him in this belief. Your failure to even interview my children in 8 months that you have had this has resulted in his gaining sole custody of my children and I am now on supervised visitation. This is disgraceful as there have never been any accusations by anyone that I have mistreated or neglected my children in any way.
Now I am forced to pay for visitation as my children continue to complain of sexual, physical, verbal and emotional abuse by their father.  Eight months has passed and it has forced me to go to Judge Hudson to have him ask you to do the job you have been appointed for.  He recently sent you a letter asking you to do just that.
My children are on the verge of putting their video on social media – and they reveal the abuse and name the people who failed them and beg for help.  They may be forced to do this, but they should not be forced to trade their privacy for protection.  Judge Hudson’s staff has agreed this may be their only way to get help. It is a disgrace that my ten-year old son should have the only option of revealing the extremely personal details of the sexually transmitted disease he contracted from his father rubbing his naked penis on his buttocks according to his statements to the dermatologist and confirmed by biopsy report in order to get help.
What more would it take, what is necessary in your eyes, what more evidence should be required of my children…a signed confession by the abuser alongside a videotape of the abuse?
Children are told to tell a trusted adult if they are abused, to date they have asked for help from:
Their doctor, law guardian, the police, Child Protective Service workers, their counselors, the forensic psychologist, friends, friend’s parents, Judge Kent and anyone who would listen… actually everyone they could ...except for you. You haven’t even bothered to speak to them in eight months. According to the dermatologist you failed to contact him either regarding his report.  If you had spoken to my children when you got this case in August, my son may not have been exposed to the sexually transmitted disease he contracted from (the father/name redacted) by September.
 If you do not intend to do your job and immediately prosecute this case and speak to and protect my children, then I respectfully request that you immediately recuse yourself so that someone may do the job you have failed to do as my children should not have to suffer another day unprotected at the hands of their abuser.
                                            Thank You,
                                    The mother/name redacted

The children are poised to release all this information in their video to social media, giving up their privacy because no one in authority will help them.  It should be noted that although Freelance Investigations has been documenting this story for over two years, this reporter has never spoken to or met either of the children.  This story is based entirely on documents provided and telephone interviews conducted by Freelance Investigations.

The fact that these children were forced to make this video is disgraceful and beyond reprehensible for those adults involved that have failed them.  These children are brave and bright and willing to speak the truth.  There is documented evidence of the abuse the boy claims he has suffered.  The fact that Mr. Keating, the Special Prosecutor got this case assigned last year on August 2, 2012 and has never even spoken to the children/victims is shameful.  What could possibly be the excuse for this?  When asked in January, he refused to discuss the details of the case, except to admit the investigation was ongoing.

If a Grand Jury would indict the father, then the children would be out of danger at least while the long process of the trial goes on.  The mother said Mr. Keating told her Thursday, he was sure he could get an indictment if he brought it to a Grand Jury with what he has now, but he didn't want to subject the children to the long trial and too many interviews, so he hesitated to indict the father for that reason.  According to the mother she said in response, that her children are ready to release a video to the public because no one is doing anything and they are smart and strong,  you wouldn't know that because you have never spoken to them.

The mother said she has begged anyone who will listen to help her children.  If the mother's and children's allegations are true, then the people who failed these children will have to clean hell someday.

The least the system should do is err on the side of protecting the children who are currently in sole custody of their alleged abusive father ,while according to the Special Prosecutor , the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office and the Police there admittedly is still an open and ongoing investigation of the father.  The father should be on supervised visitation with the children, not the mother who has never been accused of any neglect, maltreatment or anything but being a protective loving mother.
The children have begged to go home with the mother, but now only see her with a supervisor at an exorbitant cost and they are not allowed to discuss any of these issues at the visitation.  This is barbaric to do to children.

The mother said the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Keating, told her last Thursday that she was being too dogged in her pursuit of charges against the father for the abuse.  He said this as if it were a bad thing, according to her.  Any mother who was not dogged in her pursuit of protection of her babies would be derelict of her motherly duties.

The children need immediate protection... that is the only salient point  here.

Contact Information is listed below for some of the officials involved in the case (if you would care to give them your opinion of their handling of this case you can refer to the case as the"You know who you are case...")

Kevin Keating:  Special Prosecutor (516) 222-1099
Kevin@kevinkeatinglaw.com
666 Old Country Road Suite 501
Garden City, New York  11530-2016

Detective Croce: Suffolk County Police Department; Special Victim's Unit (631) 852-6184

Judge William Kent III, Suffolk County State Supreme Court (Gave sole custody of the two children to the father in January, despite medical evidence of sexual abuse and claims by children of abuse,,,forced the mother into paid supervised visitation when never a complaint against her has ever been made.  Father arrested for violation of court order of protection, charged with criminal comtempt, according to the mother. )  (631) 853-5471 

                 NEW CURBSIDE E-WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM 

                                      in HUNTINGTON TOWN


According to the Department of Environmental Conservation, U.S. consumers throw away 400 million units of electronic equipment (e-waste or electronic waste) per year.  Much of that toxic detritus ends up burned in waste-to-energy incinerators and/or landfills.  Now Huntington residents will be able to recycle electronic waste with a simple phone call to make arrangements for a specific day pick up of their e-waste at their curb.

Huntington Town Board members announced the new e-waste program on Tuesday, years ahead of the State law prohibiting consumers from disposing covered electronic equipment in landfills, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2015.

(From Left to Right) Neal Sheehan; Director of Environmental Waste Management, Town Council Members: Mark Cuthbertson, Mark Mayoka, Frank Petrone, Susan Berland, Gene Cook and Huntington resident Jeff Bartels

Town Supervisor Frank Petrone said the Town has made a three minute video to show people how to erase personal information from computer hard drives to prevent identity theft, prior to proper disposal.
Town Councilwoman Susan Berland credited Jeff Bartels, a Huntington resident for alerting the Town Council to the health and financial benefits of curbside e-waste recycling.  Mr. Bartels, likens himself to a "Bird Dog"- pointing out potential environmental issues and problems at Town Hall meetings.  He worked with and thanked Patricia Del Col, Director of Engineering for the Town who helped iron out the details of the new program.  Mr. Bartels pointed to the tremendous health advantages of the new e-waste program in preventing the burning of  Beryllium, which is 1400 times more deadly than lead when burned and according to the manufacturer, Brush Wellman, is deadly toxic in vapor, dust or particle form.  Beryllium is found in almost all modern electronics.

Last year Huntington residents recycled over 330,000 pounds of e-waste at the Town's recycling center including:  laptops, desktops, tablets and e-readers, televisions, cathode ray tubes, small scale servers, computer peripherals, monitors, keyboards, mice or pointing devices, fax machines, document scanners, printers, VCR's, digital video recorders, portable digital music players, DVD players, digital converter boxes, cable and satellite receivers, electronic or video game consoles and batteries of all kinds.

"By calling (631) 351-3239 residents can make arrangements for specific day pickup of their e-waste and detailed instructions on how to remove contents from their hard drives if necessary.  Or residents can continue to bring their e-waste to the Town's Recycling Center at 641 New York Avenue in Huntington between the hours of 8AM and 4 PM Tuesday through Saturday.

The new curbside program is intended to encourage higher volume and more widespread disposal of
e-waste in the most convenient way possible for residents, according to Mr. Petrone.
"Recycling electronic waste keeps thousands of pounds of toxins from the landfills and incinerators including lead, mercury, cadmium and Beryllium" according to Town Councilman Mark Mayoka.