Sheriff's raise vetoed by Co. Executive

[thelma]

You're right, Swimmy. Someone should remind Leon that he is a Member of the Courts and it is his duty to uphold the legal standards and NOT to bend the rules for his own personal advantage.

All I can say is that Utica and surrounding cities/suburbs is a small community and word of mouth has travelled far enough to where Leon's TRUE reputation is getting more and more well known.

I still remember the time when Brindisi did a pro-bono case for a woman confined to a wheelchair for years ended up shooting her caregiver (a large man) who had been abusing her for a number of years. She had been arrested for Murder and had very little money.

He won an acquittal and won the respect of me (and many others) and proved he was more interested in seeing Justice was done rather than getting top dollar to take on this case and make as much money out of it as he could.

[Clipper]

Wow, did I get blasted on that one!!

I guess you guys are right. I HAVE been away too long! Sorry for the misconceptions I suffered under. I have heard it from every corner of the land now, that Koziol is a dirtbag. Wow! I guess I will file that info away, until the occasion arises when I need to sue the mayor for something. I guess it didn't take the OJ defense team to prove that Julian was a crook, and to bring his misdeeds to the public eye and to the eye of the judge.

I guess I made my call, on what he did for Larry Tanoury Jr. I find Larry to be a fine and upstanding young man with the balls to come on our forum and also on the OD forum and state his opinions and stands on issues.

During the election campaigns I addressed many issues to Tanoury Jr and always got back reasonable and sensible answers, with no sugar added.

Tanoury standing up bravely and making a statement on here, is what I admire about him. I may be proven wrong with time, but I have faith that he is a fine man with nothing but concern for the community. He reminds me of our own Ralph. He steps out boldly for the community, and gives his all. The difference is that Ralph got shit on and stomped into the mud by politics, while Larry, for now anyway, has managed to progress into office. We all should go to his homepage and read his viewpoints and efforts on our behalf.

Tanoury Jr. isn't representing the rich and powerful. He is elected and represents a district that is composed mostly of middle class and poverty class folks with serious quality of life issues. He has a heartfelt concern for their issues and I have faith he will not be distracted from his mission.

I agree with wcup, that Picente is only posturing to pass the blame off onto the legislature and off of his shoulders.

We can discuss all day, but the sheriff's raise is a done deal. Now what we have to do, is lobby for the legislature to get off their asses and negotiate fairly with the deputies and put all of this crap to bed, once and for all.

The fact that they have stalled and delayed for so long and made it a large budget line-item is not the fault of the deputies. The fact is that one big raise could have been negated by having several smaller raises that would have had less impact on the budget. Had they been fair to the deputies all along, it would not be such a major issue now.

I might add one comment. I have corresponded with Tanoury on issues many times during the campaign. I have personally found a respect for his courage and willingness to come out in public with his opinions.

Thusly, I afford him one courtesy. I respectfully address any major political issues or questions to him personally by email through his website. I do not try to, or even inadvertently draw him into a heated, non-productive political fray on the chat forums. You will find that by addressing him personally, you will receive a polite and honest answer to your concerns without any political posturing or bullshit involved. He is an honestly respectable young man with principles and integrity. Read his homepage and you will find his views and agenda interesting to read about. go to www.larrytanoury.com and you will find a link to contact Larry.

Thanks Larry for an inciteful view from someone with inside facts and information. It clarifies some of the issues, but, for me personally, it doesn't detract from or negate the neccessity of the raise for our deputies. The budget issues were caused by the stalling, and cannot continue to be the stonewall that the deputies are up against in achieving a fair and equitable settlement of their contract.

[Swimmy]

I have not had any dealings with Tanoury, Jr. But from what I have observed of him, especially taking the time to expose himself on the OD forums, he's earned my respect. Though sometimes I disagree with his politics, I respect him and wish more government elected "representatives" would be as open and honest as he is.

[dgriffin]

Re Koziol: I'm still waiting for him to get his novel out. "Paradise Under Siege" is a story about terrorism in the Adirondacks. He's suing ... what else is new... Amazon for 11 Million dollars and Booksurge, their Print On Demand subsidiary, for screwing up the editing and production of the book. It seems after a quick write of the novel, he turned the manuscript over to Booksurge to tune up the English. Booksurge outsourced it to India where it was edited by persons who, according to Leon, were unfamiliar with English and who invented new English words and usages!

[Swimmy]

And clearly that's worth $11 million in damages... hahahahaha!

[frankcor]

Obviously it's a violation of his right to free speech.

[Swimmy]

Too bad he's not suing state actors, then he could for a § 1983 claim and get his fees paid for.

[thelma]

This is where we need Swimmy's knowledge of the law. I've read that when an author signs up with a firm to "refine" his writings, he also agrees with the changes that the firm makes. If this firm outsourced it to India, I don't think Leon has a leg to stand on and this lawsuit will go no where.

I doubt very much if Amazon/Booksurge would leave themselves wide open for a liability lawsuit for 11 Million Dollars - they've been in business too long not to have protected themselves somewheres in the contract that Leon signed with them.

They will either offer him a small amount of money to settle this matter out of Court just to shut him up, or they will proceed to take it into Court knowing Leon doesn't have a chance of collecting any monies from them.

[Swimmy]

Thelma,

I appreciate your vote of confidence, but I don't know how that works out. I imagine it would all depend on the contract. It also depends on how things are done in the business. I wouldn't know where to begin looking that up.

Unfortunately, though, thelma, a case like leon's, if it went to the press might show amazon in a bad light and they would risk losing too much business. So I'm sure they will make a hefty settlement offer just to avoid having to deal with any bad publicity. It's similar to when a school settles a suit despite how strong a case it has. Take for example that one teacher's case where the student made a false complaint and it took 12 or so years for her to be exonerated while the student never received any discipline for making a false complaint. It's amazing what a person or business entity will do to avoid a lawsuit.

[thelma]

Every thing you said is so true, Swimmy. Insurance Companies do the same thing - settle out of Court rather than take it to Court and fight a claim. This use to irritate the hell out of me when I was working for the large Ins. Company I retired from. They would settle claims out of Court on Claims where there was no coverage in the policy and could have been fought and won on the Ins. Co. if they took it to Trial/Court.

Their excuse was "It's cheaper to settle than fight it in Court". This is one of the reasons why when people file fraudulant claims, most of the time they end up collecting something.

Our entire legal system needs to be revamped to stop these type of claims. Leon is a lawyer. He knows exactly how these "Big Businesses" operate. But, this lawsuit has to be at least 3 years old so maybe, Amazon will NOT be so quick to make him an offer to settle.

[Swimmy]

I don't know as though it's the legal system that needs an overhauling, I think it's the media and public opinion. For example, how many tv shows imply the suspect's guilt when the suspect calls a lawyer? How many times to the cops on the show say, "if you have nothing to hide there is no need for a lawyer, but go ahead and call, you're only making it worse for yourself."? I was watching an episode of CSI: Miami and that was the quote. Even I am guilty of this one, but how many times do people say, "ok so the court acquitted him, he still did the state just did a poor job of convincing the jury."

People are so quick to convict a person before the legal system can work its magic. And the negative stigma of being brought to court is so great that even if you can prove your complete innocence, unless your case is one of those Innocence Project ones that exonerates you after serving 20 yrs for a crime you didn't convict, you will always be suspected of being guilty.

Insurance companies are an entirely different beast. Books like the Rain maker and actual cases where ins. co's commit similar acts like in the Rainmaker, the ins. co's are viewed as the big bad guys who steal everyone's money and you can't get medical treatment without it. So, of course they will settle more often than not, regardless of the suit's merits or lack thereof, to try and not only save on litigation costs, but also to try and improve its public image.

If anything needs an overhaul, it's the media and public opinion, neither of which will improve any time soon.

[thelma]

I remember back in the late 60s, I was a Member of the NYS Supreme Court as I worked for an NYS Agency under the jurisdiction of the 4th Judicial Branch of the Supreme Court. My "boss" was a former Parole Officer, and the other two case workers were former Probation Officers. Needless to say, I was exposed to many lawyers, FBI, Judges and other Court personnel. Our job was to advise mental patients confined to NYS Mental Hospitals of their legal rights and handle Retention Orders for further commitment made by the Hospitals.
All in all, it was a very depressing job as we only dealth with all the negative aspects that lead a person to be committed to a State Hospital to begin with. We never had the opportunity to see what happened to the patient AFTER they received the necessary treatment for their illnesses.

But - I can remember my Boss (former parole officer) telling me there was a difference between being innocent and an acquittal verdict. He said, "If you're innocent, you would never have been brought to Trial or arrested". Then he explained that an Acquittal only meant the Prosecution didn't do their job good enough to have the Jury bring in a Guilty Verdict and it did NOT meant the defendant was innocent.

I believe you will find many law enforcement personnel thinking the same way.

Insurance companies are condiered the "bad guys" because they provide for an intangible product. No one likes to pay premiums for something they can't see. BUT - when their house burns down, or damage is done to their home due to a hurricane, etc., they are damn glad they paid their premiums to keep their policy in force.

I use to tell people that they were paying for peace of mind knowing that they were covered for the large financial disasters they could be faced with if they didn't have insurance coverage.

But, after 23 years of working with an Insurance Comapny, I agree there is a great deal of "reform" that could be made in this industry - but probably never will happen.

[bobbbiez]

Geez, just give the Sheriff Department the damn raise.
They've been the lowest on the totem pole since the day of time and deserve to be compensated just like all the rest of our law enforcement agencies. They're doing the same dangerous work and it's not their fault their pay scale has been ignored too long now.

[Swimmy]

Yeah, but thelma, from my own experiences, insurance companies love to take your money in pricey premiums only to deny your claim when it arises. I had to have a ciste removed because was painful and inhibited my daily routine. The insurance company thrice denied my claim as cosmetic. It wasn't until my attorney wrote the damn company and threatened suit that the bastards not only denied denying my claim, but then tried to claim I filed too late for the claim and in any case it was a pre-existing injury. Once we filed the complaint, the higher ups saw that they would lose and quickly accepted my claim.

That's why they're the bad guys. I had a legitimate claim that they flat out refused to cover. The procedure was about 6 yrs ago, the reimbursement check was finally sent over 3 years ago.

As for the former parole officer, there are countless cases where the innocent have been wrongly convicted. Innocence Projects all over the country continually find that not only was the defendant not guilty, but completely innocent. It's that reason alone that I'm against the death penalty. Officer Smith in Desire Case's case, another wrongfully convicted person later proved innocent, not just not guilty. In MI, two years ago, the Thomas M. Cooley Law School Innocence Project exonerated a man convicted of sexual misconduct 1st degree (the equivalent to our rape 1st). The man served 12 years of a 22 year sentence. The same dna that convicted him, later proved his innocence 12 yrs later when dna techniques had significantly improved.

Law enforcement always will think that way, unfortunately society is beginning to have that mentality and the "presumed innocent until guilty is in jeopardy of forever being lost. One of the main premises for our country's birth.

[bobbbiez]

Thelma, I have to agree with Swimmy on this one. There are plenty of people who have been convicted and were never guilty in the first place. Many are coming to light because of new means of finding evidence to match the right person and some get convicted by over zealous law enforcement agencies who just wanted to close a case. This does happen and alot more then they'd like us to believe.

My son's friend just got release after serving over 16 years after being convicted of killing his parents. Many believed in him and fought for years to prove his innocence but it took all those years out of this young man's life to prove he DID NOT do it. How does one get convicted and then years down the road they find the true murderer?

You know what is really scary. It could happen to anyone of us. Hitting so close to home I have learned not always to rely on or believe in the system completely. Always question. Not all is good or that black and white. It might be the only thing we have but there is room for great improvement.