Progress Queens

var sc_project=10728757; var sc_invisible=0; var sc_security="cba2abc9"; var scJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://secure." : "http://www."); document.write("");

[fast4foia]

#Fast4FOIA : Day One

I tried to over-eat yesterday (on Sunday), before I was going to begin the #Fast4FOIA. I ate two big bowls of spaghetti, and I bought a bottle of soda. But I could not finish the soda.

On Monday, here is what I consumed.

Breakfast. I drank 2 cups of coffee after I woke up. I had to go to Appeals Court to make some filings in the appeal of my First FOIA Lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice.

Lunch. When, I returned home, and I drank 2 glasses of soda, so that I could finish the bottle of soda from yesterday.  At about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, I fixed a can of Campbell’s chicken broth soup with extra amounts of water. The soup only has 50 calories.

Dinner. For the rest of the day, I had one cup of coffee.

This fast will run for three weeks, which is the length of time that the U.S. Department of Justice was granted an extension of time with which to file its Answer to my Complaint. This Complaint is my Second FOIA Lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice. But the fast may end sooner, if the U.S. Department of Justice files its Answer before the end of the three weeks.

The Second FOIA Lawsuit seeks records of speeches given by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. The U.S. Department of Justice refused to process the underlying FOIA Request on an expedited basis, then the U.S. Department of Justice denied my request for a fee waiver. After I filed administrative appeals of these early determinations, the U.S. Department of Justice never answered my FOIA Appeal, necessitating the filing of the Second FOIA Lawsuit.

Here is the link my Day One YouTube video : https://youtu.be/SoG_60OXDCU

[progressqueens]

Day 01 of the #Fast4FOIA

[progressqueens]

Progress Queens files FOIA lawsuit, seeking records of Preet Bharara's speeches

By LOUIS FLORES

The publisher of Progress Queens filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Tuesday, aiming to compel the U.S. Department of Justice to process and answer a request for records filed under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The FOIA Request sought records about the speeches given by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

In unrelated litigation between the parties, the U.S. Department of Justice has admitted that it deliberately waits until the makers of FOIA Requests file lawsuits in the Courts before the Federal agency processes FOIA Requests, a sign argued by the publisher of Progress Queens of bad faith and of clear intent to violate FOIA. One count in the complaint seeks a Court order to deal with the pattern and practise of the U.S. Department of Justice to violate FOIA.

Dispute over the FOIA Request arose when the U.S. Department of Justice violated the law by not making timely determinations that it would not process the FOIA Request on an expedited basis and that it ignored making determinations in response to a FOIA Appeal filed by the publisher of Progress Queens. In the complaint, the publisher of Progress Queens alleged that, in one self-interested determination, the U.S. Department of Justice decided that the FOIA Request seeking records of the speeches made by U.S. Attorney Bharara was not filed in the public interest, despite the clear negative public interest implications of keeping secret records about speeches made by one of the Government's most influential officials. As was noted in the FOIA Request, U.S. Attorney Bharara makes speeches in private settings, many times outside of New York City, and sometimes behind the paywall of registration fees.

As was alleged in the complaint, "Defendant is in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii), in particular, because the FOIA Request was made 'in the public interest,' as explained in the FOIA Request. Furthermore, it is in the public interest that the U.S. Attorney set a new Governmental example by complying with FOIA, so that the public can affirm its faith in the U.S. Attorney as being one of the few public officials with integrity." In the FOIA Request, it was noted that the release of the requested records would, in part, "significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations and activities of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York with regard to how it conducts it work to combat political, campaign, and business corruption."

In the past, U.S. Attorney Bharara has complained about the "substantial transparency problem throughout New York government."

Working within the framework of the highly bureaucratic and political U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney Bharara has earned praise for the anti-corruption prosecution work done by the U.S. Attorney's Office he heads. Whilst he has also earned accolades for fighting insider trading on Wall Street, he has faced criticism for refraining from prosecuting executives of financial institutions deemed "too big to jail." Important information about the decision-making made within the U.S. Department of Justice to not prosecute financial executives was learned during a 2016 speech made by U.S. Attorney Bharara, who seemed to implicate former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for decisions about who was off-limits to Federal prosecutors, according to a report of the speech filed by the journalist Will Bredderman for The New York Observer. At times, U.S. Attorney Bharara has received higher marks in job approval poll ratings than other Government officials, who must campaign for public office. U.S. Attorneys are appointed to office by U.S. Presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. A 2015 Quinnipiac University poll revealed that a combined 68 per cent. of respondents said that they believed U.S. Attorney Bharara was doing enough or could do more to fight corruption, according to a report published about the poll by The New York Post. Despite having public support on his side and despite inspiring legions of followers for the global reach of the anti-corruption work done by his office, it is not known why U.S. Attorney Bharara would keep his speeches secret, if it appears his work only serve to inspire the public.

The lawsuit had to be filed in the name of the publisher of Progress Queens as Plaintiff for various reasons, including because the Clerk of the U.S. District Court does not allow corporations to file pro se complaints.

Reference Documents

2017-01-03 Flores v DOJ (SDNY Complaint and Exhibits) (Stamped Copy) [Archive.org]

2016-04-25 USAO SDNY Preet Bharara Speeches - FOIA Request [Scribd]

 Recommended Reading

EDITORIAL :  Preet Bharara gives a public speech before the press, but there is no recording or transcript. Why ? [Progress Queens]

[louis-flores]

Wikipedia bans me for questioning pro-Clinton bias in articles

For having questioned the pro-Clinton gatekeeping of Wikipedia articles, I was banned for 31 hours from Wikipedia, and I have been permabanned from editing any articles about politics that cover the time period from 1932 to the present.

Anybody can visit my talk page on Wikipedia.  Scroll down to the section that has to do with the bans and read the tone with which some of the pro-Clinton Wikipedia editors use to talk to me.  Editors are trying to justify the bans in the face of an open and acknowledged problem with Wikipedia. The talk page of the Clinton Foundation article thoroughly notes how the Clinton Foundation article lacks any information that reflects criticism, and complaints have been made about a clean-up being needed and of systemic bias. Mind you, the edits I have made in the last few days to the Clinton-related articles have included qualifying that the nonprofit agency that has given a high rating to the Clinton Foundation has a previous link with the Clinton Global Initiative ; noting the ethically-challenged donation from the government of Qatar to the Clinton Foundation ; documenting that State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D-New York) was in a position to regulate the Clinton Foundation (information which was later removed) ; confirming the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation ; and adding Methodism as the religion practised by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.  These edits triggered the unfounded “warning” of “edit warring” and the subsequent bans by Wikipedia.  The length of the 31-hour ban was deliberate, because it basically prevents me from making edits through Election Day.  The permaban on politics reveals how, despite my good faith efforts to update Clinton-related articles to bring balance to the information in the articles, there are obviously Wikipedia editors, who defend the pro-Clinton bias in the Clinton-related articles.

After I was banned, Wikipedia editors began a purge of information considered unflattering to the Clintons. From the Wikipedia article about the Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy, information about the donation from the government of Qatar, which raised ethical questions, because, in the past, Qatar had supported Hamas, was removed. From the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article, information about the Ready for Hillary Super PAC having received donations from for-profit prison corporations was removed. In the face of this purge and virtual massacre, Wikipedia editors have continued to shame me on my Wikipedia talk page about questioning the gatekeeping of Clinton-related Wikipedia articles.

I have many public officials on my e-mail list.  One of them, a Congressional aide, wrote back yesterday in response to my initial Wikipedia newsletter sent yesterday morning, to tell me that she had reported me to House security for having contacted her. I’ve become accustomed to indifference from the public due to the dissonance that gets triggered from having to deal with the truth about modern American politics. I’ve also dealt with my anti-Bloomberg and anti-Quinn blogs being removed by Google, and I’ve been the subject of scurrilous attacks by other activists. But I wasn’t prepared for being banned by Wikipedia, or to be threatened with arrest for having contacted public officials by e-mail.

What I have learned the hard way in these last few years is that the system will go to any lengths to protect corruption. Imagine what it is going to be like once Hillary is elected ? And all along, people have fanned the flames of fear by claiming that Donald Trump would introduce fascism to America ?

I no longer recommend anybody use Wikipedia, given its compromised state, particularly given to what lengths Wikipedia editors will defend that compromised state. That brings us back to the eternal dilemma that the people face : What platform do we have to hold public officials accountable ? That’s the role that Progress Queens has been trying to provide, if not directly, then at least by transferring the research done by Progress Queens into the public domain. There has to be a platform that serves this purpose. A platform such as this can be no more important than now.

[progressqueens]

From article : NYC water tests from the last four years show increased rates of lead that exceed 15 ppb [Progress Queens]

New York City water officials appear to be allowing lead levels to trend upward.

[progressqueens]

How one union political operative subverts leftist causes

In a tweet posted today, the journalist David Sirota asked how could labor unions, which support the 2016 presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, ignore the fact that she opposes the creation of a single-payer healthcare system, which is supposedly a priority for unions ?

Many people find it difficult to believe that unions could support the neoliberal economic agenda of machine politicians, when that agenda actually is in contravention to the values and politics of labor unions.

What many journalists overlook, as they try to comprehend these contradictions, is that unions can be led astray by the political operatives or the political directors, who determine the political policies of unions.

For example, Peter Ward of the Hotel Trades Council was credited with helping reëlect Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R-New York City) over former New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson in 2009.

Mr. Ward’s support followed, even though former Mayor Bloomberg left many municipal unions without long-term labor contracts.  Former Mayor Bloomberg also favored the outsourcing of municipal work to outside consultants.  This outsourcing led to graft and theft by outside consultants.  No one needs to look any further than at the CityTime corruption scandal that happened as a result of former Mayor Bloomberg’s obsession with outsourcing municipal work. 

The Hotel Trades Council also expressed support for former Mayor Bloomberg after other labor unions, notably the healthcare workers’ union, SEIU 1199, saw many hospitals close under state-ordered austerity mandates that cut healthcare dollars state-wide.  Former Mayor Bloomberg did nothing to fight the hospital closings.  Rather than support the work of other unions, the Hotel Trades Council decided to throw their support behind former Mayor Bloomberg.  The Hotel Trades Council supported former Mayor Bloomberg’s reëlection, even though his 2009 mayoral race was premised on the undemocratic over-turning of term limits.

According to a published report, the Hotel Trades Council also backed until 2012 the Republicans in the New York State Senate, even though the State Senate Republicans supported a big-business agenda that was in contravention to progressive economic policies, like greater tenant protections, that the unions should have instead supported.

What did former Mayor Bloomberg and the State Senate Republicans have to trade with Mr. Ward in exchange for his union’s support ?

Recently, the Hotel Trades Council has backed the twin rezoning proposals of Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City).

It appears that, under Mr. Ward, the Hotel Trades Council hasn’t met one neoliberal economic agenda policy that it hasn’t liked.

Even though the gentrification caused by Mayor de Blasio’s twin rezoning proposals, not to mention their lack of real affordability, would negatively impact all working families in New York City, how did Mayor de Blasio win over the Hotel Trades Council to support his rezoning proposals ?

In 2014, Mr. Ward lobbied Mayor de Blasio, ostensibly to curtail the unchecked spread of AirBnB operations in New York City, which would threaten the union’s workers in established hotels.  But so far, Mayor de Blasio has not been able to place a check on AirBnB’s growth.

Could Mayor de Blasio be trading a new crackdown on AirBnB (one as successful as on Uber ?) in exchange for support on the rezoning ?  

What else does Mayor de Blasio have to trade on ?

And what does this say about how some political operatives of labor unions will negotiate for the acceptance of neoliberal economic policies from machine politicians ?

Whereas Mrs. Clinton has been able to win union support for her presidential campaign, even though she espouses policies that would economically undercut rank and file union members, is anybody asking what Mrs. Clinton has traded with the political operatives of such unions ?

What price is just right for union political operatives to sell out their rank and file members ?

[stop421a]

Everything You Need to Know About NYC's 421-a Tax Program, Poised to Expire Today

Unless an agreement is reached to extend it, the 421-a tax exemption program will expire today. Curious about what that all means? Read on.

So much pro-gentrification bias in this article :  “The program sounds like a good way to bring development to desolate areas” … for example.

[progressqueens]

So much pro-gentrification bias in this article :  “The program sounds like a good way to bring development to desolate areas” … for example.

[stop421a]

Negotiations between construction unions and developers over wages at projects that receive a controversial real estate tax incentive appear to be breaking down.

If an agreement is not reached by Friday, the program, 421-a, will expire.

[progressqueens]

After overseeing sale of LICH, Brooklyn Heights Library and NYCHA gardens, de Blasio begins to sell community gardens

City Hall to begin selling community gardens to real estate developers

By SALLY GOLDENBERG 7:04 p.m. | Dec. 30, 2015

LINK :  http://goo.gl/j3jg0T

The de Blasio administration is ending 2015 by addressing a long-standing controversy over the fate of 43 community gardens on city-owned land with a decision that has prompted mixed reactions among New Yorkers close to the divisive issue.

The administration is preparing to build more than 800 below-market-rate apartments on nine gardens — including two unused ones —while preserving another 34 gardens, according to several sources briefed on the plans.

- - - - - - - - -

In an interview with Crains New York Business, Mary Ann Tighe, the former leader of the Real Estate Board of New York, said of Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City) :  “The real estate industry feels we’re being really well served by this mayor.” 

[progressqueens]

Council member Rory Lancman plans to vote against Willets Point resolution

LINK : http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/12/8585758/queens-councilman-plans-vote-against-willets-point-resolution

City Councilman Rory Lancman said he will vote against a resolution that would allow the Council to file an amicus brief opposing the de Blasio administration's wishes on the controversial Willets Point redevelopment.

The resolution has the support of Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and is likely to pass the 51-member body.

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Lancman, a Queens Democrat, said he will oppose the measure when it comes before the Council on Wednesday.

Lancman said he sides with a lower court judge, who ruled this year that the Queens Development Group — the partnership between the Related Companies and Sterling Equities — cannot build a mall on a parking lot next to Citi Field.

[progressqueens]

Tenants Take the Hit as New York Fails to Police Huge Housing Tax Break

Top developer Two Trees Management overcharged renters for years – but still cashed in on $10 million in tax cuts the city never officially approved.

Tenants Take the Hit as New York Fails to Police Huge Housing Tax Break

Top developer Two Trees Management overcharged renters for years – but still cashed in on $10 million in tax cuts the city never officially approved.

by Marcelo Rochabrun and Cezary Podkul ProPublica, Dec. 4, 2015, 10:51 a.m.

Note that the affordable apartments are being given under "preferential rents," which is subject to exploitation by landlords.  Also, Progress Queens has requested copies of complaints filed by tenants of affordable housing apartments in 421-a buildings with the New York State Attorney General's Office, but the State AG's Office has been jerking Progress Queens around all year long, and finally the State AG's Office denied our FOIL request just recently.  In light of the fact that this Pro Publica article shows that nobody is policing the 421-a landlords, it figures why AG Schneiderman is holding back the complaints -- and their disposition -- from public scrutiny, because apparently he's been doing nothing.  See FOIL denial letter.  Finally, note that the developer Two Trees Management is politically connected to Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Two prior Pro Publica reports, as part of this investigation, are here :

Landlords Fail To List 50,000 N.Y.C. Apartments for Rent Limits

Owners are getting $100 million in property tax breaks while violating the law requiring them to officially register, and city and state officials are unable to explain why.

by Cezary Podkul and Marcelo Rochabrun ProPublica, Nov. 5, 2015, 2:14 p.m.

N.Y.C. Landlords Flout Rent Limits — But Still Rake In Lucrative Tax Breaks

Help ProPublica and WNYC investigate how renters are being exploited under a housing program that will save developers $1 billion in property taxes this year.

by Cezary Podkul and Marcelo Rochabrun ProPublica, Nov. 4, 2015, 4 a.m.

[progressqueens]

Queens Councilman Daniel Dromm Wants to Abolish Rikers Island, but Offers No Plans to Propose Immediate Legislation

Daniel Dromm argued rampant violence and criminal activities are a product of density, and called for a decentralized detention system.

New York City Councilmember Daniel Dromm (D-Jackson Heights) on Tuesday called for the closure of Rikers Island, the city’s troubled jail complex.

After Councilmember Dromm complained about the conditions at Rikers Island, he said, “Ultimately, what we should really be talking about is abolishing Rikers Island completely.”

Councilmember Dromm’s remarks were made during a rally at City Hall as municipal prison officials began debate on expected reforms at Rikers Island, according to a report published in The New York Observer.

However, not long after calling for the closure of Rikers Island, Councilmember Dromm appeared to walk-back his demand, noted the journalist Will Bredderman.

“The abolition comment drew applause from the activists gathered behind him, but the councilman said he had no intention of immediately proposing legislation to disband the 83-year-old facility. He did say he had several bills pending which would institute numerous reforms, though he said he was not at liberty to discuss them yet.”

As reported by Progress Queens, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, the nation’s top federal prosecutor for New York’s southern district, recently announced a framework of a settlement, mandating court-ordered reforms to and the appoint of a monitor over Rikers Island.  The settlement followed demands made by U.S. Attorney Bharara of the de Blasio administration to shore up the Constitutional and civil rights protections of inmates, particularly under-aged inmates at Rikers Island.  When the de Blasio administration stalled its response to U.S. Attorney Bharara’s demands, the U.S. Attorney’s Office joined a lawsuit to gain legal leverage over Rikers Island.  

Amidst the legal wrangling, Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City) appointed Stanley Brezenoff to serve as chair of the Board of Correction, the government authority with oversight over the deliver of healthcare, including mental healthcare, at Rikers Island.  

As reported by Progress Queens, Mayor de Blasio has been slow to address the need to improve the delivery of mental healthcare at Rikers Island.  In January 2015, a Rikers Island inmate, Fabian Cruz, took his own life after municipal prison officials failed to place Mr. Cruz under suicide watch.

Statistics reviewed and compiled by The New York Times estimate that as many as 40 per cent. of the inmates of Rikers Island require some form of mental healthcare.  The municipal and state jail systems are being flooded with people needing mental healthcare due to austerity cuts made to healthcare programs.  In recent years, several hospitals providing mental healthcare have been closed under the Berger Commission and the Medicaid Redesign Team.

[progressqueens]

Mayor de Blasio still hasn’t identified the public housing projects that will be targeted for private development under a controversial new plan, but after a meeting last night, it’s clear that the Lower East Side is a strong candidate for the mix of affordable and market-rate housing.

The East Village and the Lower East Side being targeted for NYCHA's privatization (aka infill plan) to build "affordable housing" on leased lands of public housing developments.  

Critics of the plan initiated by Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City) complaint that developers are going to receive leases at distressed prices but collect rents subject to a per centage of the area median income, or AMI.  Any market-rate rents will be at the high rents typical for these neighborhoods.  

In 2014, the de Blasio administration offered developers a sweetheart deal to buy into a consortium that invested in a portfolio of project-based, Section 8 buildings formerly owned by NYCHA.  In that sale transaction, the developers were awarded rent guarantees from the city that will allow the developers to collect from the federal government subsidies for the difference between subsidized rents and market rate rents. 

[progressqueens]

Opinion: Our Community Board is Violating State Law

By John O’Reilly, retired attorney and former public official

Is Queens Community Board 2 breaking the law ?