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 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                                                                                                                                     

 

 

 

 

                       

Caroline Kennedy’s 800 Pound Gorilla At The OCA

 

              Caroline Kennedy’s  800 Pound Gorilla at the OCA

                                                        By    Harry Reynolds
     When there’s an 800 pound gorilla in the waiting room at the OCA, how do they handle it? 
    
    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 the law’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. (Emphasis added.)  

    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 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 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 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:

“HarryReynolds                                                                                                 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 the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, and without any published explanation by Caroline Kennedy, changed the published registration status of Caroline Kennedy to “Currently registered” when in law she was in default for years and her case should have been transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court “for disciplinary action” as provided by law.

    Could this be true? Was the “Delinquent” Caroline Kennedy rehabilitated at night and woke up on May 3rd as registered and free of a review of her defaults by the Appellate Division? Are we watching an old Shirley Temple movie? Indeed, as 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 the attorneys down in the tween decks?  What happened to Judiciary Law, §468-a? The OCA would do well to publish the miraculous registration statement signed by Ms Kennedy upon which they presumably rely for its making of the unlawful change to the public record. The statement didn’t exist for years before May 3rd, 2013, according to the OCA’s listing of her as “Delinquent” during that period.  

    New Yorkers aren’t Jack and Jane Bimbos. They 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.  We ask OCA now for the number of these lawyers 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 call upon Governor Cuomo and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman both of whom have declared their intention to rid New York of governmental corruption.

    Invite them to start here with the 800 pound gorilla in the waiting room at the Office of Court Administration.


Harry Reynolds 
Attorney at Law                                                                                               
Scarsdale, NY

 May 10, 2013                                                                    

                                                 

 

                   

 

Afghan-Iraq War: Of 6,310 US War Dead, 39 were Jewish

                                           
                                         “Of 6,310 US War Dead, 39 Were Jewish”
                                                                                      by Harry Reynolds
     The Forward, the nation’s premier weekly Jewish newspaper, front-paged in its February 18, 2011 issue an article, Profiles of Our Fallen, the opening statements of which were:
“Later this year, the United States will mark the 10th anniversary of its military involvement in Afghanistan. March 20 will mark the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The Department of Defense reports that as of February 7, 5775 members of the U.S. armed forces have been killed in these theaters of war. American Jews make up only a fraction of these casualties – by a reliable count, 37 men and women who lost their lives in combat.”
 In its editorial in the same issue, the Forward states:
“In the Jewish community, there is often more focus on those Americans who enlist in the Israel Defense Forces than those who have chosen to fight under the stars and stripes.It’s an unspoken, uncomfortable truth: the IDF is the Jewish military. About 650 of the “lone soldiers” currently serving in the IDF are dual American-Israeli citizens****.”.
“By contrast, of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, only 1,500 are Jewish, 1% of the total currently deployed there.”
     In its editorial of November 11, 2011, the Forward stated:    
    “As of this writing, 4,482 American servicemen and women have died in Iraq, and 1,828 in Afghanistan, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. That brings the total to 6,310 lost lives. Jews are a tiny portion of America’s military, the number of Jewish deaths smaller still, but that’s no excuse for our general amnesia. Some synagogues call out the names of the dead before their congregations recite the mourner’s Kaddish, and veterans groups try to remind us to remember.
    “Does anyone really believe that is enough?”
      What facts, if any,  may be inferred from these figures published by the Forward? Would those facts incite anti-Semites? If so, what is to be gained by publishing them?

Lester, My IRA Hero

                                                         Lester, My Uncle and My Hero     

                                                                                    Harry Reynolds

            It was the spring of 1935, or was it the autumn, when my uncle Lester, bachelor brother of my father,  tenant by sufferance in our Lower East Side cold water flat, despised for his drinking by my deaf mother, made me a member of the Irish Republican Army. 

            I was proud of it all, all of it, the rifles Lester said he stored in my uncle Charlie’s pigeon loft around the corner, the escape map  he drew for me, tied round by a rosary, on which he had me hurriedly swear a death oath against England on the steps of St Brigid’s Church across the way from Tompkins Square Park. I inhaled the purity of the adventure of it all, for I was eight and the magic of the new and unexpected had its hold on me as it does even until today.

            Unlike my friends in parochial school, who didn’t seem to have uncles, Lester took me everywhere. Regularly on Wednesdays we went to  Esther’s apartment on Avenue C where he gave her catechism lessons that took a good twenty minutes with me sitting alone in the kitchen reading  comic books he bought me, while Esther giggled like a little girl in the next room, once calling  out Oh my Jesus, a sign to me that Lester knew what he was doing to convert Esther, and then we would traipse over to Vazac’s Club for an hour with me sitting in the rear booth with Heshie Horowitz our numbers man waiting for the 3 p. m. number call, and  then across the way to Berkowitz’s Bakery where with three Irishmen, Lester, his elegant vest thrown on a post and his sleeves rolled up,  would help to unload cases from a covered truck all the way from New Jersey while Berkowitz kept a lookout for robbers, Lester said, and with that done and a  fistful of money he would call a cab and we would go to Times Square to the Belasco, a real theater, not a movie, where I would sit in the front row and watch beautiful girls dancing in lines and chewing gum and kissing Lester’s face as he chose one to meet him in church, he said, with all the girls laughing away and poking at his fat stomach, and then we would walk fast to St Patrick’s where Lester would take  literature from a rack and we would rush down the steps to a cab and back to the Lower East Side where Lester would run up to Charlie’s pigeon coop and  take a swig out of a bottle stashed in a feed bag, and then he would comb my hair and would take me home around the corner and give me to my mother as I handed her the St Patrick’s holy literature, and Lester would stick a five dollar bill in my pocket and run down the steps to an emergency IRA meeting, reminding me with a wagging finger to answer all my mother’s questions but to say nothing because she was a Ukrainian and not one of us in the IRA.

            Then, late at night, when all were asleep in the flat, Lester would tip toe in, kiss the picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus hanging on the wall above my head, and slip into bed, whispering to me to be quiet as he told me of the English freighter he had just left, just blocks away from our house, soon to leave port with something, he couldn’t say what, set to go off when she was at sea. With that, I fell contentedly asleep as did Lester, the red candle light in front of the picture of Jesus flickering above me and around the room, sending us off to sleep in a grand soft light that aureoled the room.