Sabotaging the Ticket-Fixing Case?

Len Levitt
Posted 12/05/11 10:58AM ET

Is Police Commissioner Ray Kelly deliberately trying to sabotage the Bronx district attorney’s ticket-fixing case against 16 police officers?

How else to interpret Kelly’s decision to bring NYPD administrative charges against the lead Internal Affairs detective who had developed the corruption case that has implicated hundreds of officers, embarrassed the police department and steamed up the cop union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association?

Kelly reportedly even rebuffed the entreaties of Assistant Bronx District Attorney Tom Leahy who last week personally urged police officials not to lodge those administrative charges, which could jeopardize the criminal cases against the officers accused of making tickets disappear for family, friends and VIPs.

Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson has not denied that Leahy went to Internal Affairs officials in a futile attempt to stop the NYPD from charging IAB Detective Randy Katakofsky. Through his spokesman, Johnson issued the following statement: “We will not confirm, deny or discuss any issue involving this case… We are prepared to address all relevant issues in court.”

Just a day or two after Leahy’s visit, the department charged Katakofsky with conducting an unauthorized “integrity test” of a female lieutenant.

In this so-called integrity test, Katakofsky allegedly leaked false information about the ticket-fixing investigation to former IAB lieutenant, Jennara Everleth-Cobb.

Katakofsky allegedly believed she would then give the information to PBA officials investigation under investigation for fixing tickets. His suspicions may have proved right. Bronx prosecutors charged Everleth-Cobb with leaking confidential information.

Charging Katakofsky infuriated his attorney Rae Koshetz, a former deputy police commissioner of trials. She appeared to speak for many when she accused the department of “trying to hurt the detective” who helped bring the ticket-fixing scandal to light.

“It’s about abusing your power to punish someone who uncovers information they didn’t want to hear,” Koshetz said.

Charging Katakfsky also made PBA President Patrick Lynch the happiest guy in town. Lynch stated that Katakofsky should also be charged criminally. What better way to harm the criminal cases against his members [including some of the union leadership] than to impugn the integrity of the lead detective?

Charging Katakofsky is a further embarrassment for the department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, which under Kelly continues to miss major pockets of NYPD corruption.

In addition to the age-old ticket-fixing, IAB also missed these recent scandals: the seven cops recently convicted of planting drugs on people in Brooklyn to meet arrest quotas; the eight current and former cops currently under indictment for allegedly smuggling guns into the state; and the three cops convicted of the $1 million New Jersey perfume factory robbery, whose ringleader was once a member of a top-secret anti-terrorist unit.

All these corruption cases were brought by the feds and other law enforcement entities — not by IAB.

IAB’s failures are also an embarrassment for Kelly, who took no action to stop ticket-fixing until the investigation became public.

Recently there have been calls for an outside monitor to investigate the police department, as Kelly is increasingly perceived as unable to control N YPD corruption.

God only knows what will happen next in the ticket-fixing case. Kelly is big into scapegoats. Perhaps the department will charge IAB Chief Charles Campisi with failing to supervise Katakofsky.

Police sources have added a new wrinkle to Katakofsky’s actions against Evereth-Cobb, saying that his true intentions in compromising her were romantic, stemming from her having rebuffed his earlier advances.

As one cop put it, “Randy was less interested in the courtroom than the bedroom.” One source described Katakofsky as a “love-sick young cop” with a “schoolboy crush” on Evereth-Cobb, whose subsequent tactics were unknown to both Kelly and Johnson.

“It’s turning into a case of Fatal Attraction,” said the source. “In the movie Glen Close boiled the family bunny. In this case, Romantic Randy has put Rob Johnson and Ray Kelly in the pot and the water is just starting to boil.”

RAY’S SO CRUEL. Commissioner Kelly’s crack about the lack of security at Columbia University after he was heckled at former Mayor David Dinkins’ class appeared to be a dig at the school’s vice president for public safety, James F. McShane, a former NYPD chief and Kelly confidant.

When students heckled Kelly about police tactics in the Occupy Wall Street evictions, Kelly, according to news accounts, leaned over to Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, also a guest, and stage-whispered, “Says something about the security of this school, don’t you think?” Perhaps Kelly made his remark as a joke. Law enforcement officials inside and outside the NYPD weren’t laughing.

Said a former top departmental official: “There was never a physical threat against him. What was he [McShane] supposed to do? Put duct-tape over the kid’s mouth?”

Like many top police officials who considered themselves close to Kelly, McShane’s relationship with the commissioner became a tortured one — and ended badly.

During Kelly’s first go-round as NYPD commissioner under Dinkins in 1992-93, McShane was in Kelly’s inner circle, serving as his legal adviser.

His office was literally next to Kelly’s on the 14th floor, along with civilians Paul Browne and Michael Farrell, both of whom are now Deputy Commissioners.

When Mayor Rudy Giuliani succeeded Dinkins and replaced Kelly with Bill Bratton, McShane declined Bratton’s offer to remain legal adviser.

In another display of loyalty to Kelly, McShane organized one of Kelly’s farewell parties, a cocktail reception for 100 people at the penthouse of the Stanhope Hotel. When in 1994 President Bill Clinton sent Kelly to Haiti in a peace-keeping role, McShane stated publicly that if asked, he would join him.

Meanwhile, McShane became the commanding officer of the 47th precinct in the Bronx and made his adjustment to the new regime. He was close to John Timoney, then chief of department, and was considered a rising star. When Timoney became first deputy commissioner, he brought McShane back to police headquarters to run his office.

Then, events sidetracked McShane’s career. When Giuliani forced out Bratton after just two years and selected Howard Safir to succeed him, Timoney, in a moment of impolitic clarity, called Safir a “lightweight,” and promptly retired, angered at having been passed over for the top job.

McShane organized Timoney’s farewell dinner at the Hilton hotel.

That finished McShane with the Giuliani crowd. Safir transferred him to the Traffic Division, where he languished for the next four years.

When Kelly returned as commissioner in 2002, McShane’s star appeared to rise again. Kelly immediately promoted him, as he did Mike Scagnelli who had also been in the Giuliani doghouse after feuding with the lieutenant in charge of the mayor’s City Hall detail. [Scagenlli had spent the last three years, hiding out in the rear office of the Chief of Detectives.]

It soon became apparent that these two promotions were Kelly’s way of getting back at Saifr and Giuliani.

It also became apparent that Kelly had never forgiven Giuliani for firing him. Nor had he forgiven Bratton for taking his job [and succeeding at it].

It also seemed that Kelly considered it disloyal for many in the top ranks to have remained in the NYPD after he had been fired.

“He perceives that the entire P.D. turned its back on him,” said one of those officers. “He holds everyone who stayed responsible.”

Since returning as commissioner, he has taken vengeance on some of them, by secretly sub-marining their job opportunities outside the NYPD. One of those he has tried to hurt is Joe Dunne, first deputy commissioner under Safir. [More on that subject in future.]

Despite promoting him, Kelly kept McShane in Traffic for the next year. When McShane retired in 2004, Kelly appeared at his retirement dinner for about 30 seconds.

Scagnelli didn’t fare any better. The two also parted badly. When he retired, Kelly appeared at his retirement dinner for maybe 45 seconds.

Mr. Levitt great article as always, but one question. Who was supervising Detective Katakofsky? As micromanaging as the NYPD is, find it difficult to believe that this IAB detective was on some rogue mission conducting a major investigation without being accountable to any police supervisor. If this is not further evidence that an outside city agency (i.e., NYC Department of Investigation) should be responsible for investigating allegations of corruption and serious misconduct against the police department, then do not know what it is going to take.

 

Confirm Ambassador Aponte Now

Rep. Nydia Velázquez; Rep. Jose Serrano and Rep. Pedro R. Pierluisi
Posted 12/03/2011 4:27 PM ET

El Salvador is a country in transition working to consolidate its 19-year-old democracy. As the first opposition president to win office since the end of El Salvador’s civil war, President Mauricio Funes faces significant hurdles related to national unity, investor confidence, and social inclusion.

In addressing these challenges, he and other politicians look to the U.S. Ambassador to help create a neutral space in which to engage. The United States needs an ambassador who can work with President Funes to encourage his centrist policies in the face of divisive rhetoric from both the left and the right. El Salvador requires someone they can trust to tirelessly champion democracy, while also ensuring disputes between old enemies do not drag the country backward into a darker time.

After a long wait for a confirmation in 2010, Mari Carmen Aponte was appointed last fall during a Senate recess by President Barack Obama as the United States Ambassador to El Salvador. Since arriving at the Central American country, she has more than demonstrated that she is uniquely qualified for the job.

The quintessential role of an Ambassador is to effectively represent their country. On all counts, Ms. Aponte has advanced this mission. During his visit to El Salvador in March, President Obama announced El Salvador as one of four countries to participate in the Partnership for Growth, an economic development initiative designed to reduce the primary obstacles to growth in four U.S. low-income but high performance partner countries around the world. Aponte immediately took the Partnership for Growth mantle, working to promote it as a new era in American-El Salvadoran relations. She has brought together both countries’ governments to sign a comprehensive Partnership for Growth Joint Action Plan. Although difficult, the Ambassador’s leadership ensured a smooth negotiation process that resulted in the opportunity to remove constraints to El Salvador’s long term prosperity.

Beyond facilitating economic cooperation between the United States and El Salvador, Ms. Aponte has built bridges between various factions within El Salvador. Her efforts have encouraged dialogue between private sector stakeholders and leftist hardliners on issues like greater transparency, smart budgeting, and development.

Despite a well-meaning police force and a popular military, El Salvador suffers from rampant gang violence and one of the highest homicide rates in the world. From the moment she arrived, Ambassador Aponte embraced the security agenda, quickly becoming the Embassy’s most effective promoter of policies designed to not only combat violence in El Salvador, but also weaken transnational crime links to the United States.

The Ambassador’s outspoken advocacy for American democratic values, however, may be her most lasting impression on the Salvadoran people. She has advocated increased government accountability and fostered U.S. private enterprise in that region of the world. She has overseen the first Salvadoran Government Ethics committee through a partnership with the United States Agency for International Development. Through Pathways to Prosperity, a State Department initiative, she has helped advance the cause of Salvadoran women.

So, given her significant list of achievements, why has her appointment not yet been confirmed? Unfortunately, a small group of extremely conservative Senators remain committed to derailing her nomination, alleging that she is undermining family values in Latin America. Further, they criticize her “bad judgment” regarding one op-ed piece published locally wherein she argues against all prejudices. These attacks are a distortion of her record as a United States Ambassador and they ignore a long list of substantial accomplishments.

What is most troubling is that those who would derail her confirmation fail to recognize the impact their agenda is having on American-El Salvadoran relations. Rather than seeking the most qualified candidate to help our Latin American neighbor move beyond its troubled history, they focus instead on advancing their own parochial, political goals.

Aponte has already made a difference in El Salvador — everyday Salvadorans will confirm that. Her support in that country is impressive and ranges from the government to the opposition. While they have numerous areas of contention, they agree Mari Carmen Aponte has been a positive force for constructive change.

The American people deserve effective representation with our neighbors. Making Latin America more stable will mean great benefit for our nation. We cannot allow extreme, misguided ideologues to block this progress. The Senate should move forward in confirming Ambassador Aponte immediately, so that she may continue her important work.

Representatives Velazquez, Serrano and Pierluisi:Thank you for your support of U.S. Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte; her contribution to the advancement of democracy in Latin America has been evident since her arrival in El Salvador over a year ago. Ms. Aponte has accomplished a great deal in a limited amount of time, but unfortunately there is still significantly more to do. Hope that your colleagues in the U.S. Senate recognize this and confirm her appointment as soon as possible. Thank you all for your service to our great country.

NYPD Stop-And-Frisks Increase 13 Percent In 2011, 4 Million New Yorkers Patted Down Since 2004

Posted 11/30/2011 4:37 PM ET

2011′s seen a 13 percent increase in New Yorkers getting patted down by cops. As of September the NYPD has stop-and-frisked 514,000 people. Andaccording to The New York Civil LIberties Union, a staggering 4 million people have been stopped since the controversial program started in 2004.

Despite a lawsuit against the department claiming the stop-and-frisks discriminate against minorities (in 2008, 80 percent of those stopped were black or latino) and a call from city officials, including Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, for the federal government to investigate the program, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne defended the practice this week as a success in curbing crime.

“Police stops comport proportionately with violent crime and save lives, most of young minority men who are disproportionately the victims of murder and other violent crime,” he said, according to The New York Daily News.

Donna Lieberman, the NYCLU’s executive director, is worried the searches are invasive. “Entire neighborhoods in NYC are turning into Constitution- free zones,” she said. “A walk to the subway or corner deli should not carry the assumption that you will be confronted by police, but that is a disturbing new reality for many New Yorkers.”

A NYCLU statement also notes that of the 152,311 times the NYPD stopped and interrogated New Yorkers between July 1 and September 30, 88 percent of those encounters did not result in arrests or tickets.

The NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk policy; is a policy that has disenfranchised the minority citizens of this great city. The policy as drafted had the intention of providing a transparency, which should have lead to stronger accountability between the police department and the residents of this city. However, the incentivized belief that high numbers of stops lead to lowering of crime is in my opinion flawed. This incentivized structure is documented in two studies; one conducted at the NYPD expense by the RAND Corporation and another by the Columbia University Law School. Unfortunately the recognition of this incentive is not the fault of the policy, but the fault of executive management of the NYPD. A management that is micromanaged to the point that professional independent thought has been eliminated and will leave the NYPD unprepared in the wake of this current administration’s departure.