Category Archives: Political hypocrisy

Governor Andrew Cuomo:New York’s Frightened Candidate

 

          During his first campaign for governor, Andrew Cuomo should have been reported to the police as a missing person, so much so that at one newspaper a wall clock was maintained showing the weeks and months during which he fled the prospect of press interviews. And so he is today. The reason? He is unable in fright to control his temper when questioned by the press and more so he seems to live in a state of anguish because intellectually he has a short stick.

          He seems to prize cunning, feeding the public as if it were a dancing bear, laughing at them from backstage. His shallow voice coats his shallow thoughts. No scholar this one and surely no Spitzer is he. If ever these two were in a debate, Cuomo would end up like meat passing through your butcher’s grinder.

          How incredible that the Democrat Party, my party, would push him down the public’s throat, a person notoriously obsessed with becoming the president, a nervous walk-on character right out of The Sopranos, good when crouched over a deal in the dark, but in real life lacking the depth that evokes the respect of others. Give him a sneaky way to con the public, and he’ll kiss your feet. He is the hustler whose idea of a good faith offer is a pail of milk with a dead rat lying at the bottom.

          Read Cuomo’s words when he was caught lying about his self-serving intervention in the work of the Moreland Commission: “it’s my commission”..;”it is mine”…”it is controlled by me”. He had proposed setting  up the Commission as the high water ethical mark for our state government and then grievously wounded it in order to satisfy the whores who suck money out of their governmental positions.

 Would you lend Andrew Cuomo your lawn mower? If you died, would you rest in peace with Andrew Cuomo in charge of your estate or of your dog?

 

Harry Reynolds

 

Yuri

 

   YURI

When I was a boy in knickers, history was a story about events we saw around us, but there came a day when suddenly I saw that there was an unseen, unspoken, history of what was going on when we were not looking.

On that day, many decades ago, I was sitting in the dimly lit classroom of a parochial school when there was a knock on the door followed by the entry of the Principal, Sister Norbertine, a kind, dwarf-like German nun who had in tow a tall, lean youth, his head bent, looking straight ahead, walking in slow, hesitant steps, as if he was disabled. He seemed several years older than the rest of us. Sister Norbertine looked about and said, as if in explanation of his appearance, “This is Yuri Kirov, he’s from the Ukraine. He will be our guest for two days.” She directed him to the desk next to mine. I greeted him, hand extended. As he sat down, he looked not at but towards me, as if I were not there. He did not shake my hand.

At the end of the school day, Sister Norbertine signaled to me from the hallway and in a whisper asked me if “for the sake of Jesus” I would take care of Yuri who had suffered for Jesus in the Ukraine, she said. “What happened to him?” I asked. “I can’t say”, she said. “Is he from our neighborhood?” I asked. “He was sent by that Ukrainian Church on the West Side. Just do it for Jesus,” she said crankily, and glided away as nuns seem to do when they move.

I bent towards Yuri and told him that he would be eating with us tomorrow in the school’s cellar. He didn’t answer, and then suddenly said “Yes”, looking at me as if he knew something that I didn’t know.

The cellar was long and narrow, its walls covered with a paint that long ago had faded from white. Small electric bulbs gave off a weak light over a scarred, wooden table with wooden benches astride it. Fixed into the wall was a life size wooden crucifix from which hung the bleeding Christ. At lunch time the next day I took Yuri to the cellar. The class, in the main made up of Russian boys, thought Yuri weird, and so followed behind us.

When we were all settled, I turned to Yuri and told him that my father was Irish but my mother’s family were Ukrainian Cossacks. He stared at me and said nothing. I then asked him to tell us about himself, and that then we would eat the inevitable cabbage soup that the German nuns had prepared.

Yuri shot up, straight as a rod. With an imperious, almost laughably melodramatic look around the cellar, his hands at his waist, he began in a sing song voice, rapidly, as if a gun were being held against his head, to name his village, his farm’s location, its area, its age, every piece of machinery on it, its products, his horses, cows, pigs, chickens, and then his parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins and then, without a sign, he stopped as if controlled by a turn table in the sky….and, looking at the ceiling directly above him, he yelled, not shouted, but yelled with all his might at the ceiling at the top of his voice.WHERE ARE THEY? DEAR AMERICAN COMRADES, WHERE ARE THEY! MILLIONS DEAD EVERYONE EVERY THING DEAD! AND IN YOUR PAPERS NOTHING! MILLIONS OF UKRAINIANS DEAD IN CRAZY STALIN LAND AND NOTHING IN YOUR TIMES PAPER! PEASANTS HANGING FROM TREES AT RAILROAD STATIONS, GRAVES IN CITY PARKS, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEASANT KIDS IN WAREHOUSES STARVING, LOCKED UP BY OGPU, PEOPLE HOLDING ON TO ONE ANOTHER’S BELTS FOR PIECES OF BREAD, LITTLE GIRL – LISTEN TO THIS – SHE WENT TO HEAD OF BREAD LINE AND WAS BEATEN TO DEATH BY THE BAKER!

Some boys began to laugh, nervously. One of them said, “Get this freak out of here! He’s nuts. Is this a joke?” But everyone was afraid to move. And then, Yuri strode over to the huge crucifix and leaning against it on his elbow, as if he was pretending, mockingly, to be a passing friend of the hanging Jesus, he whispered in Jesus’s ear, “Tell them what I saw in the barn, Jesus. Go ahead. Tell them about Aunt Sophie and what I saw. Tell them. Tell them! Go ahead, tell them how I was beaten after I ran yelling across the field and told my father what I saw and he ran to the barn and came back and grabbed me by my mouth and beat me to keep me quiet…..Tell them, Jesus, tell them I saw my aunt Sophie eating her dead baby! I SAW MY AUNT SOPHIE EATING HER DEAD BABY! I SAW MY AUNT SOPHIE EATING HER DEAD BABY! I SAW MY AUNT SOPIE EATING HER DEAD BABY!”

Comrades, my dear comrades, I’ll bet you didn’t see that in your glorious newspapers!

And with that, Yuri sat down, his seizure over. Reaching for his spoon he wiped it against his sleeve and ate his cabbage soup as if it was his last meal.

We didn’t know what to do. And so we watched him, without moving, without touching our soup, without uttering a word.

When he finished, he crossed himself, rose, and trudged up the cellar steps and disappeared in the peaceful quiet of the tenements of the Lower East Side. We never saw Yuri again.

A Ukrainian priest came to bless the cellar the next day. When we asked his reason as he cast holy water on the crucifix, tables, and walls, and particularly where Yuri had sat, he said nothing except that Stalin had starved several million Ukrainians to death because he wanted their farms. In a flash, I realized why the Ukrainian Church had sent Yuri to a school filled with Russian children.

In four months, Germany would invade Poland and an unending, catastrophic tsunami of human blood, eventually called World War II, would begin, having long been hiding in a little cove of unspoken history where no one had been looking.

CAROLINE KENNEDY’S POLITICAL USE OF THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

 

                                                                                               June 13, 2013

Fax: 212 514 7158
Office of the Inspector General
Office Court Administration
25 Beaver Street
New York, New York 10004

                              Re: Caroline B. Kennedy (Registration No.  2373751)

Dear Inspector General:

          This letter, an addendum to my letter of June 10th, is a factual statement of issues that, in my opinion, require investigation by your office:

          Caroline Kennedy, admitted to the bar in 1990, failed to file two recent registration statements with the OCA and accordingly twice invoked the law’s provision that her default constituted “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred [by the Office of Court Administration] to the appropriate appellate division of the supreme court for disciplinary action” which could include suspension from the practice of law. (Judiciary Law, §468-a) 

          Caroline Kennedy when in default failed to affirm that she had not stolen client’s money or other property, and failed to obtain the more than forty continuing legal education credits required of all New York Lawyers.

          Contrary to the mandate of Judiciary Law, §468-a, the OCA, without any authorization in law and in violation of  the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge who oversees the OCA, twice did not refer  Ms Kennedy to the Appellate Division for disciplinary action. Instead, OCA  recorded her failures to file registration statements by listing her as “Delinquent”, a procedure wholly without any basis in Judiciary Law §468-a,  the Rules of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, or the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, a procedure that requires the attention of the Legislature for it surely never intended it. It intended that every attorney in default would be sent to the Appellate Division. It intended by §468-a a simple process for the obtaining of revenue by OCA administrators who would make administrative and not judicial decisions. It did not intend the keeping in OCA’s files of thousands of attorneys in default, in many cases, for individual multiple registration cycles.

          Respectfully, your office should inquire into why, during her long period of “delinquency”,  Ms Kennedy’s default was not sent to the Appellate Division in accordance with Judiciary Law §468-a.

          OCA’s record describing Ms Kennedy as “Delinquent” was published by it on May 2d, 2013 when my comment concerning Ms Kennedy was published by The New York Times in connection with Michael Shear’s column about the vetting of proposed appointees of the President:

“Harry Reynolds                                                                                                                         Scarsdale, New York

It would be prudent for the President to inquire into why Ms Kennedy is listed as “Delinquent” in the public records of the New York State Office of Court Administration because she has failed to file one or more registration statements which include her affirmation, in substance, that she has maintained her financial records as an attorney in accordance with the rules of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

In short, as in the case of every attorney who registers, an answer must be given to the question whether Ms Kennedy has unlawfully taken or used moneys entrusted to her as an attorney.                                          

Her failure to file requires the Office of Court Administration to refer her to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for disciplinary action which could include her suspension from the practice of law for conduct hindering the administration of justice.

Further, the prospect of Ms Kennedy’s appointment at a time of critical tension with North Korea must have politicians in both parties wondering about the President’s judgment. What would he do if Ms Kennedy, after her appointment, were suspended from the practice of law for conduct hindering the administration of law? Would he laugh and tell the Japanese jokes while they look closely at him for any sign of imbalance?”

          On or about May 1st or May 2d, 2013, the Office of Court Administration, contrary to Judiciary Law §468-a, changed the registration status of Caroline Kennedy from “Delinquent” to “Currently registered” when in law she had been in default for years and, in violation of §468-a, her default had not caused her matter to be transferred to the Appellate Division as provided by §468-a. OCA made that change without any factual or legal justification in a public record. Indeed, OCA thoughtfully provided that her status of “Currently registered” was retroactive to the beginning of the period of several years in which OCA had declared her publicly to be “Delinquent”.  Surely, whoever was attending to the matter of Ms Kennedy was intent on rendering that full service expected by the State of New York.

          Respectfully, your office should inquire into whether there was a lawful basis for the change in Ms Kennedy’s status the timing of which was on its face caused by OCA’s purpose to satisfy Ms Kennedy’s desire to be appointed Ambassador to Japan.  Had the prospect of that ambassadorship not arisen, Ms Kennedy’s file at the OCA would not have been moved from the place in which it had been kept for years.                                                         

            To add speed to the character of what was afoot, Ms Kennedy in payment of her retroactive fees tendered a credit card having an expiration date in 2011. The fees I am informed by OCA were paid.   Looking to the future, however, Ms Kennedy, in my opinion, falsely certified that she was exempt from the obtaining of CLE credits.

          Respectfully, your office should inquire into the scandalous condition caused by OCA’s  policy of not referring to the Appellate Division lawyers who default in their obligation to file registration statements,  some of whom may not have reported for as many as six or eight years, which brings us to the matter of Congressman Charles Rangel. 

          Congressman Charles Rangel failed to comply with the registration statute between its enactment in 1982 and 2007, an Olympic leap of a quarter-century that would excite any pedestrian’s admiration for its length. He suddenly became registered in or about 2007 after what must have been a unique discussion with the OCA. The OCA disposed of his default without sending it to the Appellate Division as required by Judiciary Law, §468-a. If ever there was a case ripe for review by the Appellate Division it was that of Rangel. He may have had a good defense, but it was one determinable only by the Appellate Division under §468-a and not by an administrator at the OCA which, however one turns it in the light, does not have any judicial powers.

          What does one in New York do when there is the appearance of wrong doing in the OCA itself?  One hopefully lays the facts before the Inspector General of the Office of Court Administration. 

                                                    Sincerely,

 

                                                Harold Reynolds                        

 

 

 

CAROLINE KENNEDY FOIL REQUEST AT THE OCA

                                                                                                          May 14, 2013

 Counsel’s Office

Office of Court Administration

25 Beaver Street

New York, New York   10004

            Pursuant to Public Officers Law, Article 6, I respectfully request copies of the following records of the Office of Court Administration concerning Caroline B. Kennedy (Registration Number: 2373751):

(a)  records and papers concerning, causing, or otherwise related to the registering of Caroline B. Kennedy as “Currently registered” as of May 3, 2013;


(b)
communications to, from, or on behalf of Caroline B. Kennedy between January 1st, 2009 and the date of the receipt of this request;


(c) 
communications about Caroline B. Kennedy made between any employee or public office holder of New York State since January 1st, 2013 and the date of the receipt of this request;


(d)
the names of all New York State employees and public office holders who individually or with others caused the change in the registration status of Caroline B. Kennedy from “Delinquent”, as it  appeared immediately prior to May 3, 2013, to “Currently registered” as it appeared on May 3, 2013;

(e) 
the names of the individual or individuals, whether employees or  public office holders of New York State, who by their personal acts caused the publication of the May 3, 2013 registration status page of  Caroline B. Kennedy;

(f)   Copy of the most recent biennial registration statement of Caroline Kennedy executed by her and received by the Office of Court Administration on or about May 3, 2013; and


(g) 
Copy of the registration statement of Caroline Kennedy executed by her and received by the Office of Court Administration for the biennial period preceding that of the most recent registration statement of Caroline Kennedy.

 

                                                            Respectfully,

 

CAROLINE KENNEDY HARRY REYNOLDS COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

 

                                                                                                May 11, 2013

                                                           

Eric Schneiderman                                                                                          Attorney General                                                                                              120 Broadway                                                                                                   New York, N.Y.  10271-0332

Dear Attorney General:

            I set forth herein my complaint of the unlawful conduct of the Office of Court Administration (a) in its failure to refer the registration defaults of Caroline Kennedy to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, as mandated by Judiciary Law, § 468-a, and (b) in its changing of the registration status of Ms Kennedy from “Delinquent” on May 2d, 2013 to “Currently registered” on or about May 3rd, 2013.

                                                  Complaint

            Since 1982, the Judiciary Law, § 468-a, requires every New York attorney to file every two years a registration statement with the Office of Court Administration (OCA).          

          Caroline Kennedy, admitted to the bar in 1990, did not file two recent registration statements with the OCA and accordingly twice invoked Judiciary Law, §468-a’s provision that her defaults constituted “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred [by the Office of Court Administration] to the appropriate appellate division of the supreme court for disciplinary action” which could include suspension from the practice of law.

            The purpose of the registration statement is not only the collection of a fee. Its purpose includes the attorney’s affirmance, in substance, that the attorney has not stolen his client’s money or other property.

          Caroline Kennedy by her defaults failed, among other things, to affirm that she had not stolen or otherwise unlawfully dealt with a client’s money or other property.

            Contrary to the mandate of Judiciary Law, §468-a, the OCA, without any authorization in law and in violation of  the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge who oversees the OCA, twice did not refer  Ms Kennedy’s defaults  to the Appellate Division for disciplinary action. Instead, OCA during her defaults recorded her failures to file registration statements by listing her as “Delinquent”, a procedure wholly without any basis in Judiciary Law §468-a, or the Rules of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals or the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge.

          OCA’s record describing Ms Kennedy as “Delinquent” was published by it on May 2d, 2013 when my following comment concerning Ms Kennedy was published by The New York Times in connection with Michael Shear’s column about the vetting of proposed appointees of the President:

“Harry Reynolds                                                                                                                  Scarsdale, New York

It would be prudent for the President to inquire into why Ms Kennedy is listed as “Delinquent” in the public records of the New York State Office of Court Administration because she has failed to file one or more registration statements which include her affirmation, in substance, that she has maintained her financial records as an attorney in accordance with the rules of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

In short, as in the case of every attorney who registers, an answer must be given to the question whether Ms Kennedy has unlawfully taken or used moneys entrusted to her as an attorney.

Her failure to file requires the Office of Court Administration to refer her to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for disciplinary action which could include her suspension from the practice of law for conduct hindering the administration of justice.

Further, the prospect of Ms Kennedy’s appointment at a time of critical tension with North Korea must have politicians in both parties wondering about the President’s judgment. What would he do if Ms Kennedy, after her appointment, were suspended from the practice of law for conduct hindering the administration of law? Would he laugh and tell the Japanese jokes while they look closely at him for any sign of imbalance?”

            On the following day, May 3rd, 2013, the Office of Court Administration, contrary to Judiciary Law §468-a, and without any lawful authorization of the Chief Administrative Judge or of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, changed the published registration status of Caroline Kennedy to “Currently registered” when in law she was in default for years and her case had not been transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court “for disciplinary action” as provided by law. In short, no one in public office at the OCA had the power to change the registration of Ms Kennedy from “Delinquent” to “Currently registered”.  It could only have been done in the abuse of public office.

            Did the “Delinquent” Caroline Kennedy go to sleep on May 2d and awake on May 3rd as “Currently registered”, free of a review of her defaults by the Appellate Division?  Indeed, as a bonus is she free of making up for all of those more than forty hours of Continuing Legal Education credits that she had not sat through like the rest of New York’s  attorneys?  What happened to Judiciary Law, §468-a? Was it cut unlawfully to suit the political schedule of the President or of Ms Kennedy? If that was OCA’s apparent purpose, shouldn’t the President renounce it?

          New Yorkers know quick change artists when they see them.

            The action of the OCA in the Kennedy case raises the question whether the OCA is open to its subjection to political uses by its unlawful policy of not referring to the Appellate Division lawyers who default in their obligation to file registration statements, all as mandated by Judiciary Law, §468-a.          

          Further, OCA should disclose the number of  lawyers in default and the number of the two-year periods attributable to each of them, for some may not have reported for as many as six or eight years, which brings us to the matter of Congressman Charles Rangel.

            Congressman Charles Rangel failed to comply with the registration statute between its enactment in 1982 and 2007, an Olympic leap of a quarter-century that would excite any pedestrian’s admiration for its length. He suddenly became registered in or about 2007 after what must have been a unique discussion with the OCA. The OCA disposed of his default without sending it to the Appellate Division as required by Judiciary Law, §468-a. He may have had a good defense, but it was one determinable only by the Appellate Division under §468-a and, in any case, the OCA does not have any judicial powers.

            What does one in New York do when there is an 800 pound gorilla in the OCA’s waiting room and the smell of garbage in the air?

          One should turn to you, Attorney General Schneiderman, who, unlike Governor Cuomo, has no familial relationship with Caroline Kennedy. You have declared your intention to rid New York of governmental corruption.

                                                  Respectfully,

                                          

                                                   Harry Reynolds