Stop Wasting Money

We’re in the homestretch of the Stop Wasting Money campaign. I’d like to recap the issues that are the center of this campaign, with links back to those posts.

Obviously the theme is Stop Wasting Money. The first area within this theme, and the biggest waste of money, is how much we waste overseas.

This is about the $200 billion we spend defending rich countries. We’ve been defending Europe, Japan and South Korea for 60, 60, and 50 years. They are wealthy countries and are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. We should focus on defending our borders, and spending a lot less money doing so since that’s such an easy thing to do.

During the campaign, North Korea tested an atomic bomb. That prompted another post about how we waste money defending rich countries from lesser countries. North Korea is a great example, surrounded by China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, the smallest of the four with a high-tech economy 40 times the size of its northern neighbor. I also discuss this in the post on South Korean Pork.

The general issue is a great contrast between myself and my opponent. You can see us debating this and the other issues in Redlich – McNulty 1 and Redlich – McNulty 2. He insists on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but refuses to set any timetable for Europe, Japan and South Korea. I say we get out of all of them as soon as possible. My opponent is really in the Washington mindset, and my disagreement isn’t just with him, but with all of Washington.

Pork barrel spending is a great example of wasted money. There are posts on farm subsidy pork, the reasons for pork, the magnitude of pork, Homeland Security waste, Congress’ sneaky earmark process, and how my opponent Mike McNulty supports pork consistently.

I also talked about how we waste money on the War on Drugs, in the way we approach drunk driving, and immigration.

I’ve discussed several other issues in the campaign, but the wasting money theme is the big one and the above posts cover it. You can also see comments on a variety of other topics by searching this blog (see the very top of the blog) or by looking at the list of topics on the right side.

One last issue, to be clear about the contrast between myself and my opponent: He voted for the war in Iraq. He continued to support it for a long time. Recently he’s said it was a mistake and that we should get out soon. But he’s never apologized for his vote, and he voted just a few weeks ago to continue funding the war he supposedly wants us to withdraw from.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. We should have finished Afghanistan before getting involved anywhere else. The Iraq distraction sucked the wind out of our effort in Afghanistan, and has greatly damaged our prospects there. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US. Several other countries were bigger threats both in WMD and in supporting terrorism. Pakistan was and is near the top of both lists, yet we call them an ally.

As a side note, McNulty referred to Pakistan as a stable government in one of our debates and defended that statement. This kind of misperception is quite dangerous, but is commonplace in Washington. Pakistan is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and there have been at least two assassination attempts on Pervez Musharraf. He is holding it together for now, but who knows how long he’ll hold out. Meanwhile many suspect his government has aided Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The discussion started with his reference to North Korea’s supposedly unstable government. While I agree that country is in a tough situation, its government has been stable for many decades and as far as I know there are no threats to its stability.

Endorsing Gillibrand: Sweeney an Example of What’s Wrong with Washington

November 1, 2006

GOP House Candidate Endorses Democrat Gillibrand
Warren Redlich Says John Sweeney Is Symbol of Washington Corruption

Albany, NY: Republican congressional candidate Warren Redlich (21st District) announced today he is endorsing the Democrat congressional candidate in his neighboring district, Kirsten Gillibrand (20th District), as an act of conscience designed to alert voters to the drastic need for change in Washington.

“Congressman John Sweeney (R-20th District) is the classic illustration of what happens over time when incumbents feel secure,” said Redlich. “His corrupt, big spending ways are far too frequent byproducts of a failed electoral process that is producing self-serving career politicians from both parties.”

Redlich endorsed Gillibrand, Sweeney’s opponent, because “Gillibrand has been able to do what few candidates can do — offer a competitive challenge to an entrenched incumbent.”

Redlich released “The Sweeney File,” a compilation of Congressman Sweeney’s corrupt behavior and his big spending record in the House of Representatives. The corruption includes funneling campaign cash to his wife and junkets with lobbyists to Pacific islands and a posh ski resort.

“Republicans were once thought of as fiscal conservatives,” said Redlich. “Congressman Sweeney’s zero score on pork spending (see attachment) demonstrates he no longer feels accountable to anyone except the special interests that furnish his lavish junkets.”

Redlich’s campaign theme has been Stop Wasting Money. His campaign website is www.wredlich.com

“In good conscience, I cannot keep silent for the sake of party unity,” Redlich said.

Redlich, a Guilderland attorney and small business owner, is the Republican candidate for Congress in the 21st district that includes all of Albany, Schenectady, Montgomery and Schoharie counties, and parts of Fulton, Rensselaer, and Saratoga counties. The 20th district includes all or parts of 10 counties: Dutchess, Columbia, Greene, Otsego, Delaware, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington, and Essex.

-30-

Contact:
Warren Redlich, (518) 225-3710 or 1-888-733-5299
E-mail: wredlich@gmail.com
Website: www.wredlich.com
(Attachment: The Sweeney File – see below)

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington lists Sweeney on its “20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” list.

Sweeney File

Corruption

1 – Wife Gets Campaign Funds

Congressman Sweeney’s campaign fund paid $42,570 to Creative Consulting, a firm owned by his wife, Gayle Ford, between April 2003 and January 2004 (see T-U, May 8, 2005). Despite the revelation, Sweeney’s campaign gave $5,500 to his wife in August (see FEC website). Ford’s company received its first payment from Sweeney’s campaign on April 11, 2003, just one day after papers were filed with the Albany County Clerk’s office establishing Creative Consulting as a business under the name “Gaia Mashanta Ford.” It used a Cohoes address. It is violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act and House rules to convert campaign funds to personal use.

2 – Pacific Trip With Infamous Lobbyist Connection
In 2001, Sweeney took an all expenses paid trip to a Pacific island (Northern Mariana Islands) with an associate of infamous convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The U.S. territory was a major client of Abramoff. Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges.

3 – Utah Ski Weekend With Drug Lobbyist
In January, Sweeney held a ski-weekend fundraiser in Park City, Utah, including a dinner at the home of a drug industry lobbyist (Jeff Kimbell). The “Skiing with Sweeney” weekend involved $2,000 per-person contributions and room rates were $349/night.

4 – Boat Bill and Campaign Contributions

In May, Sweeney introduced the Boating Safety Tax Incentive Act (H.R. 5274) providing tax breaks to boat manufacturers. In July, The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) gave Sweeney a $3,500 campaign contribution. NMMA’s contributions make Sweeney the third highest recipient of contributions from NMMA’s PAC. Also, NMMA has hosted fundraisers for Sweeney on its yacht, raising more than $12,000.

5 – Lake Placid Junket

In January, Sweeney invited more than 50 people to a “Congressional Winter Challenge” in Lake Placid where they used the Olympic facilities for their leisure, financed by taxpayers.

Big Spender Sweeney
Zero Score on Pork
“Hostility to Taxpayers”

1-Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake’s 19 anti-pork amendments have placed every House member on record regarding his or her positions on earmarks. In the list of 19 pork items, Sweeney voted for pork on every one of them, scoring a zero (0 for 19)

(www.clubforgrowth.com has list). The group calls a zero score “hostility to taxpayers.”

2- The National Taxpayer Union gave Sweeney a score of just 50 in its analysis of 201 roll call votes on federal spending in Congress in 2005. That is 10 points below the Republican average in the House.

3- Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent taxpayer group devoted to cutting wasteful government spending, gave Sweeney a score of just 12 percent for 2004.

4- Effective January 1, Sweeney’s pay will have risen 23% since coming to Congress.

He has never voted to deny himself the raises.

5- As a majority member on the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman Sweeney has played a significant role in the vast increase in federal spending.

***

McNulty’s excuse

Listening to McNulty on Alan Chartock’s show on WAMC from September at the moment. I’ve called on him to apologize for voting for the Iraq war. He refuses to apologize, saying that he cast the right vote given the information that was provided by the administration.

This is a dodge. Roughly 73 members of the House voted against the war. McNulty’s excuse essentially says that those 73 were wrong, and that they should have voted for the war based on the information they had at the time.

I would have voted against the war with that information. McNulty makes no apology for voting for it, which means he’d do it again in similar circumstances. If you oppose the war in Iraq, and want to make sure we don’t get caught up in more foolish wars like this, your choice is clear.

Debate #2

The second debate in our 21st congressional district race is now available. I suggest that you right-click on the following link and “Save Target As …” so it will download to your computer and viewing will then be smoother:

Redlich – McNulty Debate for League of Women Voters in Schenectady

Listen to McNulty’s closing statement at the end. I have referred to his views as socialist at times during the campaign. In his closing he reacts and proudly proclaims his socialist vision for America. As I say in the debate I know that socialism is a loaded word, but think about what he is saying. It is plain socialist thinking.

Thanks again to SACC-TV for taping this and to Todd Wilson of SACC-TV for encoding it digitally.

Times Union endorsement – Not me!!

Here’s a shocker. The Times Union endorses McNulty. Of course I disagree with their endorsement, but they did say nice things about me anyway. Read it at: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=529774&category;=OPINION&BCCode;=HOME&newsdate;=10/29/2006

Debate #1

The first debate between myself and Congressman McNulty is here: Redlich – McNulty Debate Video from SACC-TV. I recommend downloading first (right-click and “save target as”) and then double-clicking the file. It will probably take several minutes to download on RoadRunner, and far too long on dialup or other slow connections. Thanks to Todd Wilson from SACC-TV for encoding the video so I could do this.

It will be aired this weekend, both Saturday and Sunday at 9 am, on WNYA-51. For most people that’s Channel 4 on cable, but a complete list of channels is below.

Where to Watch
SYSTEM CHANNEL
OVER THE AIR – ALBANY 15
OVER THE AIR – PITTSFIELD 51
ADELPHIA CABLE-BENNINGTON 5
ADELPHIA CABLE-EDINBURG 3
ADELPHIA CABLE-GLENS FALLS 3
ADELPHIA CABLE-LEE 9
ADELPHIA CABLE-NORTH ADAMS 9
ADELPHIA CABLE-NORTHVILLE 3
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS-CHATHAM 3
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS-WEST STOCKBRIDGE 16
MID-HUDSON CABLEVISION INC 9
TIME WARNER CABLE-PITTSFIELD 8
TIME WARNER CABLE-PORT HENRY/TICONDEROGA/CROWN PT 13
TIME WARNER CABLE-SCHROON LAKE 11
TIME WARNER CABLE-ALL OTHER SYSTEMS 4
DIRECT TV 51
DISH NETWORK 7112

Complaint — PDF format

The Complaint is also available in PDF format.

complaint1a.pdf

Prosecutorial Misconduct — The Complaint

Below is the text of the Complaint that is being filed today regarding the Rensselaer DA’s office. I post this not to focus people on this particular case, but rather to raise awareness of prosecutorial misconduct and the consequences of such conduct in general around the country. As congressman, I will fight for federal legislation to eliminate the absolute immunity prosecutors currently have for much of their misconduct. That immunity does not apply here to extradition, and it does not apply to the failure to train and supervise employees, but in far too many cases it is a shield protecting bad prosecutors.

————–

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________
JEREMY PHILLIPS and KELLY CHADWICK, individually
And as parent and natural guardian of COURTNEY PHILLIPS
and SHELBY PHILLIPS,
Plaintiffs,
v. COMPLAINT

PATRICIA DEANGELIS AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF RENSSELAER COUNTY, JOSEPH AHEARN,
WILLIAM ROBERTS, JOHN DOE, an unidentified
employee of the Rensselaer County District Attorney,
and RENSSELAER COUNTY,

Defendants. JURY TRIAL
__________________________________________________ DEMANDED

1. This is a civil action brought to redress the violation of rights secured to the Plaintiffs under federal law and the United States Constitution.

PARTIES
2. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and residents of the State of Illinois, County of Cook, Town of Streamwood.
3. Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips was wrongfully accused of Grand Larceny, wrongfully extradited by the Rensselaer County Defendants, and wrongfully detained for a period of 29 days due to the misconduct of the Rensselaer County Defendants.
4. Plaintiff Kelly Chadwick is the wife of Jeremy Phillips.
5. Plaintiffs Courtney and Shelby Phillips are the daughters of Plaintiffs Jeremy Philips and Kelly Chadwick ages 12 and 6, respectively.
6. Defendants Ahearn, Roberts and Doe, residents of the State of New York, are Assistant District Attorneys employed by Defendants Rensselaer County District Attorney and County of Rensselaer.

FACTS
7. Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips, then a resident of the State of Massachusetts, was employed as the store manager of Advantage Auto Parts in the State of New York, County of Rensselaer, Town of North Greenbush, from roughly October of 2003 to January of 2004.
8. In January of 2004, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated.
9. On or about July 17, 2005, the New York State Police filed a Felony Complaint against Plaintiff in the North Greenbush Town Court, accusing Plaintiff of Grand Larceny.
10. Plaintiff Phillips was and is innocent.
11. On or about July 25, 2005, the New York State Police obtained a warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff Phillips from the North Greenbush Town Court, Hon. Raymond Elliott.
12. On or about February 21, 2006, the New York State Police requested that Defendant William Roberts, in his role as Assistant District Attorney for the Rensselaer County District Attorney and the County of Rensselaer, issue a warrant for the extradition of Plaintiff Phillips.
13. Defendant William Roberts issued the extradition warrant on or about March 7, 2006.
14. Defendant Roberts’ action was illegal, improper, unconstitutional, and exhibited a depraved indifference to the welfare and constitutional rights of Plaintiff Phillips.
15. Defendant Roberts did not read the file before ordering the extradition.
16. On information and belief, Defendant Roberts consulted with Defendants Ahearn and Doe before ordering the extradition, and obtained their approval.
17. Defendants Ahearn and Doe did not read the file before approving the extradition.
18. The District Attorney Defendants knew or should have known that there was insufficient evidence in the file to sustain a felony complaint.
19. The District Attorney Defendants knew or should have known that there was insufficient evidence in the file to authorize extradition.
20. Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips was arrested on March 8, 2006 in Streamwood, Illinois and held in custody in Chicago by a warrant issued in North Greenbush Town Court.
21. The felony complaint charged Plaintiff with the crime of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a D Felony, and allegedly arose out of his work for Advantage Auto Parts in North Greenbush around the dates of December 2003 and January of 2004.
22. The Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office ordered, directed, and commanded that plaintiff be extradited from Illinois.
23. Neither Defendant Roberts nor Defendant Ahearn nor anyone else in the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office reviewed the file before ordering extradition.
24. Pursuant to the order of the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office, on March 7th 2006, a day before plaintiff was arrested, Defendant William Roberts stated that his office would be willing to extradite Plaintiff back to New York and advised police officers in New York to arrest Plaintiff.
25. The sole basis for the felony complaint was a hearsay statement by an employee of Plaintiff’s former company, Gary Betts.
26. In his statement, taken on January 27, 2004, Betts says “I was told by someone, I don’t recall exactly who told me, that money was missing that should have been deposited.”
27. Betts’ statement consisted entirely of hearsay, and did not identify the Plaintiff as the perpetrator of any crime.
28. There was no other factual basis for the complaint or any warrant to be issued.
29. Defendant Roberts stated that the US Marshalls Office would be used to bring back Plaintiff and that the US Marshalls were in contact with the County District Attorney’s Office.
30. On March 16th, Plaintiff waived his extradition hearing allowing him to immediately return to New York.
31. The US Marshall’s Service refused to provide transportation for plaintiff because they were not involved in the initial case.
32. Defendants knew or should have known that the US Marshall’s Service would not provide transportation.
33. Defendants’ negligence in coordinating with the Marshall’s Service led to a substantial delay in plaintiff’s extradition.
34. Defendant William Roberts, and Defendant Joseph Ahearn, also an employee of the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office, both refused to consent to bail while the plaintiff was in Chicago.
35. Neither Defendant Roberts nor Defendant Ahearn reviewed the file at the time they refused to consent to bail.
36. Defendant Ahearn stated reason for not getting Plaintiff here in a more timely manner was: “We’re not travel agents.”
37. Plaintiff was finally extradited back to New York on April 5th. Plaintiff spent 29 days in custody.
38. Plaintiff had to pay his own way to get home to Chicago after getting out on bail.
39. The Plaintiff and his family were required to expend $5000 to make bail.
40. The Plaintiff and his family were also required to expend $5000 on attorney fees to represent him in defense of the criminal charge.
41. Plaintiff was employed in Illinois at the time of his arrest with a wife and two children, ages 5 and 11, plaintiffs herein.
42. The delay in bringing Plaintiff to New York was not attributable to Plaintiff, but rather to the District Attorney’s Office for their utter indifference to plaintiff and his family.
43. The Rensselaer County Grand Jury returned a “no bill” for Plaintiff on September 29, 2006.
44. During the course of Plaintiff’s unlawful incarceration for 29 days, Plaintiff was unable to see his young children and his contact with his wife was severely limited.
45. The Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office has been cited for numerous violations involving prosecutorial misconduct in the past.
46. Most recently, the C
ourt of Appeals cited Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis for “deplorable” conduct in the prosecution of Robert Gorghan.
47. The Appellate Division, Third Department of New York had previously overturned the initial conviction of Gorghan in 2004 and said at the time that DeAngelis “repeatedly strayed beyond the bounds of permissible conduct.”
48. In August of 2006, although not specifically cited as the reason for reversal, in the overturning of a murder conviction of Christine Wilhelm, prosecuted by the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office, the Third Department, Appellate Division said “prosecutors have wide berth to advocate for their case, there are limitations….and should not seek to lead the jury away from the issues by drawing irrelevant and inflammatory conclusions which have a decided tendency to prejudice the jury against the defendant”.
49. In January of 2006, a rape conviction against Burton Hunter was overturned because the Assistant District Attorney handling the original trial failed to disclose a prior accusation of rape by the victim, which the Court considered Brady material.
50. The District Attorney’s Office has also been cited for misconduct in the handling of Jack Carroll’s prosecution for rape and sexual abuse including specifically for allegations of misleading the jury.
51. In a case against Thomas Levandowski, District Attorney DeAngelis was again cited for misconduct. In a decision, the Appellate Decision, Third Department, the Court said, “the prosecutor’s conduct through the course of the trial was so pervasive as to deprive defendant of a fair trial.”
52. On information and belief, Defendant District Attorney was also admonished for prosecutorial misconduct in 1998 for her actions in front of a Grand Jury.
53. Defendant County was aware of these and other instances of misconduct by the District Attorney’s Office, and failed to adequately train and supervise that office.
54. With this as a background, Plaintiff, through counsel, does hereby complain and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION

55. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1341, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory and punitive damages for the deprivation, under the color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and §1983.
56. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law Malicious Prosecution by Wrongful Extradition
57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 56.
58. The United States Constitution protects citizens from malicious prosecution by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from prosecuting and extraditing individuals where there is no probable cause to believe that they have engaged in criminal conduct.
59. The actions of Defendants Rensselaer County District Attorney, Joseph Ahearn, William Roberts, John Doe, and the County of Rensselaer above violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution. It was not objectively reasonable for these Defendants to extradite Plaintiff for the felony of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree based upon Gary Betts’ statement that “I was told by someone, I don’t recall exactly who told me, that money was missing that should have been deposited.” In short, the allegations created no probable cause whatsoever that plaintiff committed the said crime.
60. Defendants’ actions were motivated by bad faith, malice, and indifference to Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips and his family, including Plaintiffs Kelly Chadwick, Shelby Phillips, and Courtney Phillips.
61. The criminal prosecution of Plaintiff was terminated in his favor after a no bill at Grand Jury.
62. Plaintiff’s prosecution resulted in his loss of liberty, given that he spent 29 days in custody and had to endure costly criminal court proceedings to clear his name.
63. This conduct on the part of defendants also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff has been irreparably injured.
65. Defendants District Attorney and County are vicariously liable for the misconduct of Defendants Roberts, Ahearn and Doe.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law
The Application of Excessive Bail

66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 65.

67. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from the imposition of excessive or punitive bail by law enforcement officials and mandates that an individual be provided with bail no higher than that necessary to assure his appearance at court.

68. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was initially denied bail by the East Greenbush Town Court because Defendant Roberts and Defendant Ahearn failed to read Plaintiff’s file and also made false representations that Plaintiff was a fugitive from justice.

69. The actions by Defendant Roberts and Defendant Ahearn violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from the imposition of excessive bail as detailed in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

70. Defendant’s actions were motivated by bad faith, malice, and an indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

71. This conduct on the part of Defendant Roberts and Defendant Ahearn also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 given that their actions were undertaken under the color of state law.

72. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff has been irreparably injured.

73. Defendants District Attorney and County are vicariously liable for the misconduct of Defendants Roberts and Ahearn.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law
False Arrest and Imprisonment

74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-74.

75. Based upon the misconduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff was arrested and illegally imprisoned.

76. At no point was Plaintiff free to leave.

77. Defendant’s actions were motivated by bad faith, malice, and an indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

78. This misconduct on the part of Defendant Roberts and Defendant Ahearn also represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 given that their actions were undertaken under the color of state law.

79. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff has been irreparably injured.

80. Defendants District Attorney and County are vicariously liable for the misconduct of Defendants Roberts and Ahearn.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law
Derivative Claim

81. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-80.
82. Plaintiffs Chadwick and the infant plaintiffs suffered the loss of companionship and services of their husband and father as a result of the misconduct of the Defendants.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Punitive Damages Against Defendant County Of Rensselaer

83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-82.
84. The actions of Defendants Ahearn, Roberts, Doe, and the District Attorney’s office herein described were extreme and o
utrageous.
85. Based upon the past misconduct of the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s Office and failure to remedy past complaints against the office, an award of punitive damages is appropriate to punish Defendant Rensselaer County for its cruel and uncivilized conduct.

DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

86. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief:

A. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips against the defendants on the First Cause of Action, jointly and severally in the amount of $3,000,000.00;
B. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips against the defendants on the Second Cause of Action, jointly and severally in the amount of $3,000,000.00;
C. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff Jeremy Phillips against the defendants on the Third Cause of Action, jointly and severally in the amount of $3,000,000.00;
D. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff Chadwick, and the infant plaintiffs Courtney and Shelby Phillips against the defendants on the Fourth Cause of Action, jointly and severally in the amount of $3,000,000.00;
E. Award punitive damages in the Fifth Cause of Action in the amount of $40,000,000.00;
F. A monetary award for attorney’s fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
G. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

Warren Redlich
Attorney for Plaintiff
255 Washington Avenue Ext.
Suite 108
Albany, NY 12205
888-733-5299

Dated: October 24th, 2006
Albany, New York

Press Conference tomorrow

We’re doing a press conference for the campaign tomorrow. This relates to a case I’ve had for a while. My client was extradited from Chicago on Grand Larceny charges. He spent 29 days in jail, and did not see his kids for that entire time. Problem is that he is innocent. It’s not just me saying that. The Grand Jury found there was not enough evidence to go forward. That means there was not enough evidence to extradite him.

So we’re suing the Rensselaer County District Attorney’s office. At the press conference we’ll announce the suit and I will discuss my proposal to eliminate the “absolute immunity” that prosecutors have under federal law. The immunity does not apply in this particular case (extradition is not a “prosecutorial” function), but this case serves to highlight a substantial national problem that gets little attention.

I’m occasionally asked by people how I, a criminal defense attorney can defend someone who I know is guilty. The easy answer is that I do my best to get them the best deal I can, and that in many cases I feel the penalties are too harsh and/or that the criminal law should not apply to their behavior (such as non-violent drug cases).

But I always respond with a question: Have you ever asked a prosecutor how they can prosecute someone they know is innocent?

This is usually met with a blank stare. That’s because the question doesn’t make sense to people who aren’t involved in the system. They don’t realize how bad our criminal “justice” system is. They don’t understand how often police lie – even when the defendant is guilty and they’ve got him cold. They don’t understand how many judges are biased in favor of the police and prosecutors, and against defendants.

Most of all, they simply have no idea how often prosecutors disregard the rights of criminal defendants. This happens in so many ways. Even the “good” prosecutors do things I think are wrong. This is probably why I’m a defense lawyer.

To the average person on the street it is inconceivable that a prosecutor would prosecute someone they know is innocent. But it happens, and I’ve been surprised at how often. If you search for cases on this, as I did in preparing for this lawsuit, you find things that shock the conscience. Prosecutors and police lying and hiding evidence that shows a man is completely innocent. In Walker v. NYC a man spent 19 years in prison for murder. The police relied on an informant. That informant was unable to pick Walker out of a lineup, and told police that another man was at the scene of the murder – that man happened to be in jail at the time and couldn’t have been there. Police and prosecutors covered up those details and put the informant on the stand at trial even though they knew he was lying. One of the prosecutors even stated in open court that there had been no lineup even though he knew there had been one.

Some cases are even worse. One Supreme Court case I read had the prosecutor, like Walker, putting a witness on the stand he knew was lying. Even worse, that prosecutor fabricated evidence to get the conviction. It later came out and the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant could not sue the prosecutor because he had absolute immunity.

There are many cases in the casebooks like this. And there are many more that never make it into the casebooks because lawyers know not to bother suing prosecutors because of this immunity.

That is why I’m calling for federal legislation to eliminate the absolute immunity that prosecutors have. That immunity eliminates any incentive for prosecutors to treat defendants like human beings, as my client found out in our case.

Many prosecutors do not fall prey to this. The Saratoga DA’s office is known for being excellent. They get paid reasonably well and do not have the same crushing caseload one sees in Albany and Schenectady. As a result they are able to keep their ADAs. They get quality, experienced prosecutors. They also have good leadership and common sense throughout the office. The quality of prosecutors varies depending on where you are, and most of them are pretty good. Albany and Schenectady suffer from higher turnover, but most of the ADAs there are still reasonable. In smaller counties like Schoharie, Fulton and Montgomery, you have much smaller offices. The head DA usually does a lot of the real prosecution – something you don’t see much of in the bigger counties. Having the DA on the front lines means they stay in touch. They’re not perfect, but they often have a strong feel for juries and good relationships with the judges and defense lawyers.

Then there’s Rensselaer. For reasons I can’t explain, it seems to have become prosecutors gone wild – like Lord of the Flies. The press likes to pin this on the current DA, Patricia DeAngelis, but the problems go back before she was in charge. Time after time they have been tagged by the courts for prosecutorial misconduct, and they just don’t stop. And that’s because of the perceived immunity. I know of one case that was brought and then quickly dropped because of it. This emboldens them. And it does the same for prosecutors in various places across our state and the whole nation. The only way to bring this under control is to eliminate the immunity so that those who are wronged can hold the malicious prosecutors accountable.

Segments from WTEN

WTEN (Channel 10, the ABC affiliate here) had candidates in for 50-second bits on two issues, Iraq and the federal response to local flooding.

You can see my answers, and the answers of Sweeney and Gillibrand, here: http://wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=5545644&nav;=menu30_1

McNulty did not appear, probably because of his knee injury.