Garson Update:

The Dishonorable Gerald P. Garson reportedly has surrendered and begun to serve his prison term. He starts it seven days earlier, so he'll get out seven days earlier.


Update 5 July 2007:


The Dishonorable Gerald P. Garson is now officially New York State Department of Correctional Services Inmate No. 07A3709. According to the Inmate Look-up utility at the DoCS website, Garson's parole hearing date is January 2009, with earliest parole eligibility on 4 July 2009.

Garson Update:

The Dishonorable Gerald P Garson's request for a stay of his sentence has been denied, and he supposedly will surrender this coming Tuesday 26 June to start his time in the slammer.

But it's still only Friday. Don't bet the mortgage money that he'll actually report to the clink on Tuesday! His cancer might act up, or he may get too delirious from his ethanol abuse problem, or find some other excuse. 'Tis many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. The only guarantee that Garson will serve time is if he actually serves the time.



UPDATE (23 June 2007):

I didn't get to read the 22 June issue of the New York Law Journal until after the computer was shut down for Shabbat, but on the first page, in the "In Brief" blurbs, it is reported that Garson has been given an extension to 5 July so that he can detoxify from his ethanol addiction prior to reporting to the slammer to serve his sentence.

On this one I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, it does little to adduce public confidence in the system. I have never really handled any criminal defense cases (except for two traffic violation matters which technically were criminal in nature), but my understanding is that extensions such as the one just accorded to His Dishonor are not available for the asking. Moreover, the New York State Department of Correctional Services does operate an 850-bed Willard Drug Treatment facility in Willard, NY, for nonviolent offenders. What's wrong with sticking Garson there?

On the other hand, Garson's clock doesn't start to tick for another 12 days, which means that he theoretically will remain in prison for an additional 12 days. And the condition of Garson's continuance, as I understand it, is that he be at an in-patient facility for his detox detail. Which means that the expense of the treatment should be underwritten from Garson's own purse and not by the taxpayers.

As mentioned earlier, "The only guarantee that Garson will serve time is if he actually serves the time." I stand by that statement.

Miscellaneous Briefs

Got some papers to grade and work to catch up on, but here are some miscellaneous briefs, in no particular order:


A. The Dishonorable Gerald Garson was released on bail a few hours after he was led away from his sentencing in handcuffs. See prior post.

My speculation: On account of his health issues, perhaps Garson wants to figure out a way to not have to die while he is incarcerated. Brooklyn DA Hynes is continuing his investigation of corruption in the courts. Perhaps Garson and his attorneys are looking into ways for Garson to sing for his freedom.



B. On account of severe financial and budgetary problems, the NAACP is going into retrenchment mode, and will cut back on its staff and close some of its offices.

Hey, isn't this racist? Shouldn't Jesse and Fat Al and Barack Hussein Obama be leading the protest march?



C. Christopher Woods, of Harlem, is suing Novartis, claiming that after drinking Novartis's dietary supplement "Boost," he was afflicted with a persistent erection.

So, pray tell, just what is he complaining about?

If I were Novartis's CEO, I would litigate the case to its fullest, and charge the legal costs to advertising expenses. It would be money well spent!

Updates on IRS and Garson

Well, folks, the IRS has just tacked on a additional week's grace period to file the taxes if you are "affected by the major storm that hit the Northeastern United States April 16." The IRS's benevolence may or may not be appropriate, but my concerns expressed in the previous posting still stand and indeed, are amplified.

As Adam Smith observed:

"The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax‑gatherer, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance, that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty."


By granting an additional blanket extention, the IRS has further diminished the certainty.

The IRS's unusual act of grace may well have been the result of a calculated comparison between the evils of this additional uncertainty on one hand, and the prospect of being confronted with too many individual case-by-case decisions on the other. If so, then I respect and applaud the IRS's decision. But my premise still stands that there is a price to be paid for the IRS's calculated laxity.


In other IRS news, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson will soon step down to become CEO of the American Red DoubleCross. Commissioner Everson brought about some much-needed reforms to the IRS, and can be expected to do some much-deserved toochaskicking at the American Red Cross. I wish him the best of luck, because he will need it.


And ex-judge Gerald Garson, of whom I posted 2 weeks ago, has been convicted on 3 of 7 counts, including the most serious bribery charge. While the theoretical maximum time faced by Mr. Garson is 15 years (if the sentences are consecutive), the time for the most serious charge is 28 months to 7 years. The scheduled sentencing is 5 June 2007, but don't bet against postponements or other complications. Whatever sentence Judge Berry pronounces will tell us a lot about Judge Berry. I shall be quite surprised if Garson actually serves more than 4 years.

And maybe the IRS will review Garson's tax picture, if they haven't done so already. That will give him something to do while he is in prison.

Flushing out the crooked judges

The trial of Gerald P. Garson, former Brooklyn judge now accused of accepting bribes, is being watched by many in New York and elsewhere. The evidence against Garson is overwhelming, especially the secret audio-video recordings made in his chambers. The one weakness in the prosecution's case is that their star witness is Paul Siminovsky, the disbarred lawyer who, as part of his plea bargain, wore the wire and is now singing on the witness stand.

A brief blurb on the front page of the 3 April 2007 issue of the New York Law Journal:

=================
...

On the first day of cross-examination yesterday, Mr. Garson's attorney, Michael S. Washor, tried to fluster Mr. Siminovsky and damage his reputation, mostly by recounting Mr. Siminovsky's disbarment and his undercover work for prosecutors.

"You lied to this man, your mentor?" Mr. Washor asked.

At one point he earned a mild admonition from Justice Jeffrey G. Berry. Mr. Washor was questioning Mr. Siminovsky about his plea to a misdemeanor; when he asked Mr. Siminovsky what date he had pleaded guilty, Mr. Siminovsky asked, "In court?"
"No, in the toilet," Mr. Washor replied.

Mr. Washor also could be heard speaking softly to his co-counsel, "Let me handle it. This [expletive], I'm going to get him."

After dismissing the jury, Justice Berry called Mr. Washor a "talented attorney" but asked him to "tone it down."

Mr. Washor apologized to the jury, but proceeded to ask Mr. Siminovsky if he knew the difference between a court and a toilet.


...

====================

Many have expressed outrage and disgust at the corruption in the courts in Brooklyn.

My comment here is that, having litigated cases in the Brooklyn courts, I am unable to discern all that much difference between a Brooklyn court and a toilet.