Bill de Blasio voted for "poor door" before he was against it

Extell Development Company, the developer behind the building that won permit to operate segregated entrances based on tenant income, was the target of a subpoena of the now-defunct Moreland Commission.

Now that the U.S. Attorney's Office possesses the Moreland Commission's investigation files, will it expand inquiry into how Extell won approval for de jure segregation at its building at 40 Riverside Blvd. ? One of the wealthy real estate developers that was the target of a subpoena issued by the now-defunct Moreland Commission was Extell Development Company, a developer with notoriously close ties to the administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY). Extell is also the developer of the controversial building in the Upper West Side of Manhattan that now segregates tenants to use different entrances, based on income. The use of the "poor door" was approved by the Democratic Party-controlled City Council in a 2009 vote. In a report in The New York Post, it was said that Mayor Bill de Blasio voted for the provision that allowed Extell to force low-income tenants to use the "poor door." During last year's mayoral race, Mayor Bill de Blasio reportedly accepted over $18,000 in campaign contributions from Extell, according to calculations prepared by Mayor de Blasio's rival, Sal Albanese. Mr. Albanese's calculations were published last year by Crain's New York Business. Last year, Extell became the subject of interest for Moreland Commissioners investigating the pay-to-play corruption in Albany. It was reported that Extell made over $300,000 in related campaign contributions to the campaign committee of Gov. Cuomo in the time leading up to when Gov. Cuomo signed into law tax breaks reportedly worth $35 million over a ten-year span for another of Extell's developments, the $2 billion super luxury condominium tower on West 57th Street known as One57. If the corruption-fighting investigators of the Moreland Commission were interested in the corrupt pattern of pay-to-play in politics that invited large campaign contributions to fix legislative outcomes, then will the way Extell won its de jure segregating "poor door" provision approved by the City Council merit the same kind of scrutiny as did the $35 million tax breaks signed into law by Gov. Cuomo ?

RELATED Bill de Blasio voted for luxury building ‘poor door’ (The New York Post) Sal Albanese Blasts Rivals For Accepting Corrupt Real Estate Donations (Crain's New York Business) In Mayoral Race, Attacking Real Estate Industry but Taking Its Cash (The New York Times) Extell, Silverstein, Thor hit with subpeonas over tax breaks (The Real Deal) Extell upped Cuomo donations during tax bill talks : State law granting One57 an abatement could shave $35M in costs (The Real Deal) Michael Hayes, LMT, has practiced massage for more than 20 years as a licensed massage therapist in New York City. Flatiron Massage offers gift certificates, and their massage studio is located in the Flatiron District of Manhattan.

Will Mayor de Blasio withdraw subpoenas to former Village Voice editor over NYPD Quota Recordings ?

PUBLISHED : WED, 12 MAR 2014, 06:23 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 23 MAR 2014, 01:55 PM

''In what The New York Times described as a 'broadly worded, five-page subpoena,' New York City lawyers are demanding that former Village Voice reporter Graham Rayman turn over tape recordings police officer Adrian Schoolcraft made of his superiors at the NYPD’s 81st precinct in Brooklyn," Time magazine reported last December, adding, "The tapes were the basis for Rayman’s book, The NYPD Tapes, which alleges officers manipulated crime data in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn."

It's questionable why city lawyers are infringing on Mr. Rayman's free press protections under the First Amendment, and many bloggers are concerned that the NYPD is harassing Mr. Rayman in retribution for Mr. Rayman's exposé of police corruption. Because of the legal wrangling with the city, one activist, Suzannah B. Troy, wondered whether the litigation was an excuse used by the new owners of the Village Voice to lay-off Mr. Rayman.

Will @BilldeBlasio Withdraw Subpoenas To Former Reporter For Adrian Schoolcraft's #NYPD Tapes Proving Quotas http://t.co/CpkxcjCrOl

— Bold Progress NYC (@boldprogressnyc) March 8, 2014

"The city should always be challenged when it uses subpoena power against a journalist," Mr. Rayman told amNewYork.

Will the so-called "progressive" new mayor withdraw these questionable subpoenas and end the police department's other violations of the First Amendment ?

• RELATED : Reporter Graham Rayman unyielding on documents (March 10, 2014 * amNewYork)
• RELATED : NYPD Sends Subpoena To Reporter, Reporter Fired, NYPD Ticket Fixing, Other Free Press Updates (December 10, 2013 * NYC : News & Analysis)

AG Eric Holder takes to HRC gala dinner to announce compliance update with landmark SCOTUS marriage equality ruling

Some Federal Civil Rights to be Extended to Same-Sex Couples, Finally

As has been noted by some LGBT civil rights activists, even though the national recognition of some civil rights being announced this evening by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is just a "clear interpretation" of the landmark marriage equality SCOTUS ruling, it's interesting to see how desperate the jockeying is to "take political credit" for the SCOTUS ruling.

“As all-important as the fight against racial discrimination was then, and remains today, know this : My commitment to confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity runs just as deep,” Attorney General Holder's prepared remarks indicated.

While the Attorney General brags about his civil rights record, he is also the very visible Obama administration official, who is leading the charge to prosecute activists, trash the First Amendment, finish off due process, violate freedom of information, and enable the NSA spying program, among other failures. All his talk is cheap. I don't know who can take the Attorney General seriously, how HRC would even revere the Attorney General, or how The New York Times even still accords the Attorney General any credibility in the realms of constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties.

• RELATED : Some Federal Civil Rights to be Extended to Same-Sex Couples, Finally (The New York Times)

Federal recognition of some of our civil rights is being given to us not by the Attorney General, but by virtue of the SCOTUS ruling in the United States v. Windsor case. The Attorney General must apply the SCOTUS ruling across the nation. That's his job, that's all this is, and the timing of this was set to coincide with the Human Rights Campaign's dinner tonight. That is all.

I'm happy to see that the Attorney General can carry out his duties, as instructed by the SCOTUS ruling. If any thanks should go to the Attorney General for doing what he was told to do, then he should be accorded due thanks. How reasonable should it be for LGBT civil rights activists to expect that HRC will ask the Attorney General tonight to rise up to the challenge by asking President Barack Obama to sign the employment non-discrimination executive order referred to as ENDA ?

Candidate Barack Obama in 2007 on Warrantless Wiretapping

Excerpt from President Obama's speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center on August 1, 2007.

... This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works.

We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America ... .

Read more : Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave this August 2007 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Shirley Huntley Reveals Lawmakers She Secretly Recorded ; Jose Peralta Amongst Them

In federal court filing, Shirley Huntley reveals New York lawmakers she secretly recorded. nyti.ms/11jEA57 twitter.com/intelligencer/…

— Daily Intelligencer (@intelligencer) May 8, 2013

“@nypost: 6 state senators, city councilman among those secretly taped by Shirley Huntley in corruption sting nyp.st/11TbTa6”

— Sheri Van Fossen (@sherivf) May 8, 2013

2013 05 08 Shirley Huntley Jose Peralta Wiretapping by Connaissable

AT&T Domestic Cellphone Surveillance

Cellphone carriers filed reports with the U.S. Congress indicating that the telecommunication companies "responded to a startling 1.3 million demands for subscriber information last year from law enforcement agencies seeking text messages, caller locations and other information in the course of investigations. ...AT&T alone now responds to an average of more than 700 requests a day, with about 230 of them regarded as emergencies that do not require the normal court orders and subpoena. That is roughly triple the number it fielded in 2007, the company said," according to The New York Times.

2012-05-29 ATT Response to Rep Ed Markey - Domestic Spying

Read more letters to mobile carriers reagrding use of cell phone tracking by law enforcement on Rep. Ed Markey's website.

Twitter WikiLeaks Legal and Subpoena Update

In violation of due process rights, U.S. Magistrate Theresa Buchanan backs U.S. Department of Justice request for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's friends' online records.

The U.S. Magistrate with judicial power over the U.S. government investigation into WikiLeaks has issued a new court order, which affirms a previous secret court order demanding WikiLeaks-related discovery from user accounts on social media journalism sites, such as Twitter, which have no known connection to WikiLeaks other than for typical online social networking activities, such as ''following.''

The Hon. Buchanan denied legal challenges to her previous court order by prominent owners of Twitter accounts. The magistrate said that U.S. government prosecutors were not seeking the "content of the communications," according to Reuters.

Even though Twitter account owners may follow each other on the website, it does not mean that the account owners are, by association, automatically engaged in questionable online behaviour, some online privacy activists say. There is a freedom of assembly in the United States, whether it be in an assembly hall or over a social media website.

In a further worrisome development, the magistrate also invalidated legal arguments that if Twitter were to provide to prosecutors the Internet Protocol addresses of Twitter account owners, then the act of unreasonable disclosure would constitute a "violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure because it revealed their location," reported Reuters.

"Buchanan originally signed an order for prosecutors seeking about seven months of information from Twitter, including who they communicated with, who they followed, and who followed them. They also requested information about how they logged in, which could identify their location at the time," wrote the Reuters reporter Jeremy Pelofsky.

As reported before, what would the U.S. government be gaining from conducting a court-sanctioned surveillance for this kind of social media account information? Not for nothing, by focusing on subscribers and connection records, among other things, the U.S. government is casting a wide, indiscriminate net into cyberspace, and it is hoping to pull in something -- legal or otherwise, relevant or otherwise, applicable or otherwise. There is no focus to the court order ; its only objectives are to spy and to collect surveillance over both foreigners, over which the U.S. may have no jurisdiction, and citizens, who are being denied due process.

WikiLeaks Twitter Subpoena Denies Subscribers Their Right To Due Process

The First item listed in the secret Order signed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia demands that Twitter turn over ''subscriber names'' of the five individuals associated with WikiLeaks.

On Saturday night, the WikiLeaks Twitter feed included this ominous message : ''Too late to unfollow; trick used is to demand the lists, dates and IPs of all who received our twitter messages.''

Not only have U.S. Justice Department prosecutors cast the data mining aspect of their court order on Twitter to include foreigners, but now prosecutors are trying to ensnare mere subscribers (or, in Twitter jargon, ''followers'') of the five individuals associated with WikiLeaks.

Whereas, the three foreigners, who are targets of the prosecutors' surveillance, have the option to object to the court order served on Twitter, the fact that followers have no say in fighting the reasonableness of the U.S. government's court order call into question the true scope of the legal witch hunt.

Since there appears to be a weak legal underpinning to the court orders, then, more and more, the investigations by U.S. prosecutors appear to be mere acts of retaliation against foreign political dissidents and WikiLeaks.

And caught in the middle are the followers on Twitter. If the followers are foreigners, then a U.S. court may have no jurisdiction over the free speech activities of those foreigners. And if the followers are Americans, then the Americans should be given due process, namely, an opportunity to challenge the court order. Except for harassment or retaliation, what is the purpose for the U.S. government to know who are the Twitter followers ? Certainly, there is no legal reasoning for the U.S. government to know who are the Twitter followers.

WikiLeaks Twitter Subpoena Targets Foreigners

A U.S. Court in Virginia issues Order for Production of Information that Ensnares Citizens of Australia, Iceland, and The Netherlands.

The issuance of a court order to Twitter confirms that prosecutors working for the United States Department of Justice are investigating WikiLeaks over the publications of thousands of classified U.S. embassy cables.

The court order specifically names three foreigners. It is unknown if a domestic U.S. court may extend its jurisdiction to cover the internet accounts of foreigners.

According to an analysis published by The New York Times on the subject of the application or validity of the U.S. court order on foreign individuals, Justice Department prosecutors might be violating the right of free speech of the foreign individuals. The three foreign individuals, who are the target of the Twitter court order, are : Julian Assange, the spokesperson and editor-in-chief for WikiLeaks; Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks activist who is also a member of Iceland’s Parliament; and Rop Gonggrijp, a computer programmer.

''This raised the possibility of a diplomatic quarrel between the United States and allied nations whose citizens were among those covered by the subpoena. They could argue that American laws were being used to stifle free communications between individuals who were not American citizens, and who were not in the United States at the time of the messages.''

It is unclear whether court orders pursued by Justice Department prosecutors in their retaliatory persecution of WikiLeaks can apply U.S. law to foreigners. Indeed, according to The Times, in the case of Ms. Jonsdottir, ''Iceland’s foreign minister ... has requested a meeting with the American ambassador to Iceland to ask, among other things, whether a grand jury inquiry prompted the subpoena.''

If the legal underpinning of the court orders can be called into question, then do the investigations by U.S. prosecutors constitute acts of retaliation against foreign political dissidents and WikiLeaks ?

WikiLeaks Twitter Subpoena Scandal

UPDATE : The Guardian newspaper : WikiLeaks Demands That Google And Facebook Unseal U.S. Subpoenas

WikiLeaks is reportedly demanding that Google and Facebook unseal any secret court orders that the websites received in connection with the U.S. government's retaliation against WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks' demand followed news that was reported that a court in Virginia had issued a secret order to Twitter to produce personal information belonging to accounts of five individuals associated with WikiLeaks.

All of the secret court orders are providing ''strong evidence'' that the U.S. government has empaneled a grand jury to begin a broad, large-scale data mining operation that seeks to collect surveillance in a retaliatory act against WikiLeaks. In late November, WikiLeaks began a coördinated reporting collaboration with several respected journalism outlets, including The New York Times, to publish thousands of United States embassy cables.

In A Clear First Amendment Violation, The U.S. Government Has Issued A Judicial Order To Twitter In An Effort To Collect Information About WikiLeaks And Its Supporters.

Officials from the United States Department of Justice have applied for, and received, a judicial order that has been issued to the social media website, Twitter, in an effort to collect information about political dissidents. In some countries, activists are under constant harassment from their governments.

In growing numbers of mainstream media reports, the news has been reporting that the U.S. government has served Twitter with what are being described as ''subpoenas'' for the private messages, contact information, and other personal forms of information belonging to Julian Assange, who is the spokesperson and editor in chief for WikiLeaks. Other targets of the subpoenas include Pfc. Bradley Manning, who is a U.S. Army intelligence analyst, and Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is a member of parliament in Iceland. Ms. Jonsdottir was also a former WikiLeaks volunteer. Also mentioned in the judicial order are other individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp.

According to Salon.com, the information demanded by the WikiLeaks subpoenas issued by the U.S. Department of Justice is ''sweeping in scope.'' Salon.com has posted online the Department of Justice order for the Twitter information.