Category Archives: POLITICS

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

 

FAILURE OF OCA TO REFER LEGISLATORS TO APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

 By Harry Reynolds       

            When in 2007 the  Office of Court Administration (OCA) unlawfully withheld  from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court the modest 25 year record of Congressman Rangel’s failure  to register, was the cause of the OCA’s decision the fact that the OCA knew that there were New York State legislators who were as guilty as Rangel and that the OCA  had not referred them to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court?

 

            Who had the motive and arrogance to make those decisions?

 

            Did the then Chief Administrative Judge, Jonathan Lippman, now the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, our highest court, know of those decisions?

 

            Did Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the Assembly who was responsible for Lippman’s appointment in 2009 as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, speak to Lippman about any of the guilty legislators?

 

            Who were the New York State legislators blessed by the happy disposition of the OCA towards them? How many guilty legislators since 2007 have left the OCA building in lower Manhattan wearing party hats?

 

            If the OCA was sensitive to the heady air of politics, did it extend to other matters such as delinquent attorneys sleeping in its records as “delinquent” for four, six, and eight consecutive years?

 

            Can you tell by looking at any OCA attorney registration list  the number of consecutive years a registered attorney has been “delinquent”?  Why doesn’t OCA list that information?

 

            Is it fair to state that the Chinatown lawyer, Stanley Chin,  was suspended in his eighties from the practice of law by a court that did not know that the OCA unlawfully refrained from referring legislators to that court for disciplinary action warranted by the conduct for which Chin was suspended?

 

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                        

 

 

 

CHAROLINE KENNEDY ANOTHER BENGHAZI IN THE MAKING ? ARE WE WATCHING A LAUGHABLE HORROR MOVIE?

            The New York State Office of Court Administration’s sudden, unexplained change of Caroline Kennedy’s May, 2013 long registration from “Delinquent” to “Currently registered” may have been done in slip shod haste to satisfy her desire to be nominated by the President as Ambassador to Japan, all as proved by her  newly made May 1st registration application. Her registration application provides for the use of her credit card in payment of the $1,050 in fees owed by her for her periods of delinquency. Her credit card, however, recites its expiration date as July, 2011. Surely in May 2013 she knew of the invalidity of her credit card that had expired in July, 2011. Upon that new registration application the OCA must have relied in changing her status as a “Delinquent”.

            Evidence of a more serious failure in her registration application, however, is her certifying that she was exempt from acquiring the Continuing Legal Education credits that burdens all attorneys admitted in New York State. If her claim of an exemption was false, she may be compelled to face the issue whether in making it and filing her application she was conscious of that falsity. 

            In view of the fact that many people believe that Ms Kennedy, having never held a responsible position in government or elsewhere, should not represent the nation as the Ambassador to Japan, a position in which her ignorance and lack of judgment might well imperil us.

            Put as sharply as possible, we cannot afford another Benghazi, and the President should not put us to that risk simply because in some way it pleases him personally to satisfy this self-centered, multi-million dollar woman, who believes that solely by reason of her birth she is entitled to it.  

 Harry Reynolds

 Scarsdale, NY

 

 

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