NYPD Coerced me to drop charges or go to jail with a hole in my retina Saturday arrest for Dr Fagelman's savagely violent receptionist Delita's running punch to my eye grabbing my hair trying to drag me down the hall by my hair damaging my neck not fired or arrested I agreed to false arrest Oct 16 immediate than Det John Vergona changed my false arrest date to Saturday oct. 20, 2012 4PM IAB let him and his supervisor retire! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9TedhfthE I am alleging fix, favors and retaliation -- please look at the first page -- it mentions HP tied to 911 Tech corruption as well as mayor Bloomberg Ray Kelly free rides Air Bloomberg....http://www.scribd.com/doc/188752042/NYPD-Commissioner-Ray-Kelly-Charles-Campisi-DI-Ed-Winski-Lt-Agnes-Lt-Angelo-Burgos-IAB-Sgt-Mary-O-Donnell-Sgt-Chen-Det-Andy-Dwyer-Det-John-Ve

Monday, April 28, 2014

CityTime trial is Preet Bharara's fairy tale call 911

Suzannah B. Troy artist: Exclusive Preet Bharara says Mike Bloomberg Joel Bondy practicallySaints CityTime Crime Denault's Lawyer Exposed 911 and Accenture!

Sunday, April 27, 2014

John Liu's Letter to DOITT Puppet Head Merchant appointed by Bloombucks to Cover-up in my Opinion...

September 20, 2013
The Honorable Rahul f'v1erchant, Commissioner
Department Information Technology and Telecommunications
255 Greenwich Street 9th floor
New York. NY
TEL: (212) 669-8459 (212) 815-8559
Re: Final Letter Report on the Audit of Expenditures Submitted by
Accenture LLP for Its Access 1\-'YC Program
Contract with the New York City Department oflnformation Technology and TeJecommunications
Number FM13-082AL)
Dear Commissioner Merchant:
We are sending this Letter Report to provide you with the results of the audit regarding Accentur·e LLP's
(;\ccenture) billing practices for the Access NYC Pwgrarn contract The Access NYC Program provides
New York Citv's residents with online access to Citv, State, and Federal human serv1ces benefit
programs. Our objective 1Nas to determine wltether the expenditures for the Access NYC Program contract were reasonable and justified.
During the course of our review, we identified internal control deficiencies regarding the Department of lnfonnation Technology and Telecommunications· (DoiTT) contract management and pByrnent process that we wish to bring to your attention. Specifically, our audit fcnmd that DolTT did not require Accenture to provide detailed information on its consultants' tirnesheets that would allow verification of work hours Also. haniv.are and sofhvare purchAses lacked delivery slips that would allow us to verify ihe purchases vv·ere delivered as ordered. ln our opinion, Do!TT, as the oversight agency for this contract, should enhance its contro\s over its contract management and payment approval process to better ensure that contract cxpenditu res are reasonable and justified.
On August 8, 20 !3, an exit conference was held and the preliminary letter report dated July 26, 2013, was discussed. We submitted a draft letter report on August 20, 20l3, providing DofTT an opportunity to respond to matters discussed herein. On August 30, 20!3, we received your written response, which appears to disagree with most of our findings and recommendations. We suggest that the agency reconsider our recommendBtions requiring that contractors provide more detailed information on their timeshects and to limit rnark-up percentages that contractors can charge on subcontractor vvork in future contracts because these are areas where significant cost savings can be achieved.
The full text of the response is included as an addendum to this lerter report. Our detailed comments concerning the response to our recommendations are incorporated in th1s letter report.
On September 2007, Do!TT awarded a contract to Accenture to provide systems integration services f,1r the Access NYC Program between November I, 2007, and October 3I, 20l0, with an option to renew

Hon. Rahul Merchant September 20, 20 IJ Page 2of6

the contract for each tvvo one-year renewal terms. Do!TT exercised both options and extended the contract to October 31, 2012. Under the contract, Accenture was responsible for providing services such as program management and reporting services: planning and analysis services; application/system development, support, and related services; and other systems Integration services. The contract's value vvas approximately $11 I mill\on. As of October 20 12, Accenture was paid $\09,406,005.
Findings and Recommendations
DoTTT did not have adequate internal controls over its contract management and payment approval process. Our review found that the consultants· timesheets lacked sufficient detail regarding the work performed. In addition, Do!TT's project manager did not approve those timesheets in a timely manner. According to the contract "DolTT's objective shall be to review as appropriate, approve and return timesheets to the Contractor within three (3) Business Days after receipt by the City's Proy:ct Manager." During January 2009, Do!TT's project manager approved Accenture timesheets from 69 to 90 days after receipt. Delayed approval of t!meshects was also noted in 2012. For example, on June l I, 20 12, Do1TT approved timesheets that were dated February 22, 2012, i l 0 days after receipt. further, Do!TT did not require consultants to enter a detailed description of work performed on the timesheets. Although not
required by the contract without a detailed description of work performed, we question how DolTT's project manager Ct1tlld approve timesheet hours upwards of three months after work was performed The lack of detail on timesheets and the delay in approving timesheets invalidated the timesheet review process and DoiTT's ability to dctenTJine whether work performedjustified payments made.
[n addition. Accenture and Do!TT project managers approved timesheets for tvvo consultants whose work week exceeded the allowable hours during January 2009. Proper authorization, such as prior \vritten approval or a request for a waiver, was not obtained for these excess hours as required by the contract.
Further, as of October 2012, Accenture billed approximately $36 million for the time and material portion of the contract. Although Accenture billed the City at the personnel service rates specified in the contract for its own employees as well as its subcontractors, Accenture was billed by the subcontractors at hourly rates that were significantly lower than the contract rate, In doing so, Accenture in effect added a significant imputed mark-up on services provided by 1ts subcontractors with u 111ark-up rate as high as I78 percent. For the contract period, subcontractors billed Accenture $2,286,371 for services and Accenture added a $1,06 L505 mark-up, \Vith an average mark-up rate of nearly 58 percent. when A.:centure billed the City for those services (total Accenture billings of approximately $3.3 million or about IO percent of the above $36 million ).1 Consequently, the contract did not include a provis1on that v,ould limit Accenture's mark-up or require Accenture to pass any savings on to the City that it gained by having subcontractors perform work on the contract Conversely, the NYS Backdrop contract2 (through which the Access NYC contract \vas procured) states, "Contracfor's principal duty shall be to obtain the "Best Value' for the Issuing Entity who shall be entitled to all savings negotiated by the Contractor on its behalf'' Therefore, Accenture should have been held accountable for those provisions,
During 2012, subcontractors billed Accenture $290,514 for services provided. Accenture subsequently added :£243,890 when it billed the City for those services at the contract-specified rates-- an average mark-up of 84 percent (total Accenture billings of$534,404 out of the SJ.J million).
:: Backdrop contracts were established by the New York State Office of General Services to pre-qualify vendors for provision of service-related contracts. These contracts established standard terrns and conditions, set maximum not- to-exceed prices, and satisfied many legal requirements associated with procurements. Backdrop contracts expired on December 30, 20 I !. Individual conrracts awarded under a backdrop contract before December 2011 continued to be governed under those tenns. 

Hon. Rahul Merchant September 20, 2013 Page 3 of 6
We also reviewed Accenture's invoices related to hardware and software purchases from third-party vendors in January 2009. Accenture billed $2,053,529 for hardware and sofhvare purchased during January 2009. Although the contract required Accenture to provide appropriate backup and all other supporting documentation to substantiate the invoice charges. Accenture did not provide delivery slips as part or· the supporting documents. Without the delivery slips signed off on by a responsible official, we could not confirm that all the hardware and software purchases were delivered as ordered.
Additionally, during January 2009, DolTT delayed submitting payments for certain hardware and software invoices for up to !50 days. The contract states. "ln the event that the City makes payment within thirty (30) days fmm the City's receipt of the Contractor's invoice, the City shall receive a credit of2% of the amount of the payment, applicable to an invoice submitted to the City within the next thiriy days... for services or third party hardware or software.... In the event that the City makes payment within forty-five (45) days from the City's receipt of the Contractor's invoice, the City shall receive a credit of l% of the amount of the payment, applicable to an invoice submitted to the City within the nexJ thirty days.. for services or third party hardware or software." By not paying invoices in a timely manner, DoiTT forwent the sales discount provided in the contract. In January 2009. Do!Tl' only paid tl1ree of the seven invoices on hardware and software purchases within 30 days of receipt and, as a result. DofTT was not able to take advantage of the sales discount for the four remaining invoices. Furthermore, for the three invoices that were paid within 30 days, DolTT did not ensure that the sales discount was applied to subsequent invoices as allowed under the contract.
We recognize that correcting the internal control weaknesses identified above will not have a significant impact on this contract because the contract is over. However, vve believe that if DoJTT enhances its internal controls to address the weaknesses identified in this report, there may be significant benefits for future contracts. Therefore, we recommend that DoiTT should:
I. Strengthen the internal controls for its payment approval process by:
);.- Reviewing and approving timesheets in a timely manner;
> Ensuring that consultant obtains proper written approval/waiver before extra hour(s) of
work performed is paid; and
> Ensuring that hardware and software purchased by the contractor is fully supported by
documentation that the quantity ordered was actually delivered.
Do!TT Response: "We agree that contemporaneous documentation of de!ivenes should be submitted with invoices, and therefore we accept Recommendation 1 to that extent. Extra hours were properly approved on this project, and the vast majority of timesheets were timely reviewed. and therefore we disagree with the suggestion that systemic changes are needed."
Auditor Comment: DoITT's response to our recommendation only reinforces the need for DoITT to improve its contracting payment efforis. As discussed in this report. if the approval process was flawed and unsupported, DoITT could not ensure the basis for contract payment was appropriate. We reiterate our recommendation.
2. When feasible, take advantage of any sales discount available.
Do!TT Response: "We agree that early payment discounts should be taken advantage of when feasible." !n its response, Oorn agreed with our finding that three invoices were paid in time to

l:lon. Rahul Merchant September 20, 2013 Page 4 of 6
quality for the discount allowed under the contract but were not credited to DofTT. Acccnture has agreed to reimburse the $6,833 86 the discount amount.
Auditor Comment: We acknowledge DoiTT's actions and reiterate our recornmcndation tor future contracts.
3. Improve its contract monitoring policy by ensuring that all future contracts:
» Require contractors to provide more detailed information on the timesheets, including but
not limited to:
  • A more detailed description of the \YOrk performed.
  • Work location for each specific task order if the hourly rates are affected by work
    > Include a clause that limits the mark-up percentage (imputed or otherwise) that
    contractors can charge on subcontractor services and equipment.
);> Require contractors to provide proof of delivery tor all hardware and software purchased.
Do!TT Response: "We agree that contractors should be required to submit proof delivery as back- up to invoices, and therefore we accept Recommendation 3 We disagree that tirnesheet detail has been insufficient.
Recommendation 3 (b) appears to be founded on the assumption that the City unilaterally dictates contract terms to its vendors, but of course that is not the case. Contract terms are negotiated, and terms such as mark-ups and hourly work rates are especially closely negotiated. Our contract negotiations are conducted by experienced contract attorneys, and the resulting contracts are subject to a sequence of revie,vs ending with the Comptroller's registration of the contracts. We negotiate for the lowest possible hourly rates and ultimately settle on a level mutually acceptable to us and the
vendor. We therefore disagree with the suggestion that the hourly rates negotiated with Accenture were inappropriate in any regard.''
Auditor Comment: As the audit points out, tile timeslleets submitted by Accenture only report the consultants' cumulative hours on a weekly basis. Therefore, the information provided on the timesheet was not sufficient to justify the consultants' hours for a time and material contract. Because a time and material contract does not provide a positive profit incentive for the contractor to limit billing, appropriate government monitoring is required to ensure work is completed in an efficient, timely, and cost-saving manner. This would include a requirement for consultants to
provide more detailed information on timesheets.
Contrary to Do!TT's interpretation, our report does not recommend that the City unilaterally dictate contract terms. Hov,rever, we strongly believe that the City should not summarily reject alternatives that may result in cost savings to the City, The practice of restricting the mark-up percentages that contractors can charge on subcontractor services and equipment is meant to control cost. Many other municipalities already include a clause limiting mark-up on subcontractor vvork 111 their contracts. It would be in the best interest of the City if DoITT conducts the appropriate cost benefit analysis prior to rejecting an idea that others have found of benefit

Hon, Rahul Merchant September 20, 2013 Page 5 of 6
4_ Consider conducting a market survey of lhe hourly rates being paid for various fT consultant work titles and establish a not-to-exceed rate that should be used as a basis for future contracts_
Do!TT Response: "DofTT constantly monitors industly rates. a:1d the backdrop contract in this case provided not-to-exceed rates -from which \ve negotiated discounts for this project''
Auditor Comment: As reported in this audit, the hourly rates DolTT pays its contractors for work performed by subcontractors is significantly higher than those rates the contractor pays its subcontractors. Because the rates established under the OGS Backdrop contracts are no longer in effect, DofTT needs to reconsider its position and conduct a market survey to identifY the current hourly rates for subcontractors. Tl11S survey \viii not only help Do!TT better negotiate rates but wdl also help other City agencies in their negotiations,
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards_ Those standards require that vve plan a11d perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reason::1ble basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective, We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective, This audit was conducted in accordance with the audit responsibilities of the City Comptroller as set forth in Chapter 5, §93, ofthe New York City Charter.
This audit covered the contract period of November l, 2007, to October 3 I, 20 12,
To achieve our audit objectives, \Ve reviewed the contract betvveen DolTT and Accenture, To gain an understanding o f internal controls over the billing practices and payment approval process, \Ve interviewed relevant personnel from both DofTT and Accenture, We also conducted walk-through meetings with Accenture officials regarding the billing practices and vvith DolTT officials regarding the payment approval process, The results were documented in memoranda and flovvchnrts.
As of October 20 I2, the total expenditures for the contract were $l 09,406.005, To determine the accuracy and cornp!eteness of DolTT's record of payments, we compared the total amount paid to both Accenture's invoices and to the New York City Financial Management System (FMS) Record of Payments.
We judgmentally selected January 2009 as our sample period because it had a mixture of fees charged based on time and materia! rates, fi>-.ed rates, hardvvare/software purchases, and facilities charges_ The total expenditures tor January 2009 were $5, 146,247_ The expenditures are as follo•vs: $2,068,304 in time and material fees, $2,053,529 in hardware/software purchases, $904,476 in fixed fees, and $119,938 in raci!ities charges, We examined all Invoices billed for January 2009 to determine whether they were properly approved by DoTTT
The specific tests described below focused on consultants that were billed on a time and material basis and hardware/software purchases, totaling $4,121.833 during January 2009, The time and material fees and hardware/software purchases totaled $46,699,166 for the entire contract period, For Accenture invoices that billed for services, we reconciled 1imesheets lo hours billed on Accenture invoices. To determine if the correct hourly rate was used for work performed, we obtained and reviewed the consultants' New York State OGS titles on the Accenture roll-on forms and the contract-negotiated

Hon. Rahul Merchant September 20, 20 l 3 Page 6 of 6
rates Accenture used to bill the City. For Accenture invoices that billed hardware and software purchases, we analyzed purchase orders for quantity ordered and item price.
To determine if the correct contract-negotiated hourly rates were applied, we compared the consultants· titles and rates in the sample invoices with the consultants' contract-negotiated hourly rates based on their OGS titles on their roll-on forms and whether the consultants are identif1ed as traveling resources. We analyzed the working hours on the consultants' timesheets and invoices for January 2009 to determine if the work week billed to the City exceeded the allowable hours. \Ve also reviewed the task descriptions on the consultants' timesheets for any administrative services charged to the City during the contract period.
To test the internal controls of DoiTT's payment approval process, we revievv'ed our sample invoices to determine if they were properly approved in a timely manner and suppotted by the appropriate documents. We reviewed Section 4-06 Prompt Payment of the PPB Rules We examined timesheet approval dates from the Accenture project manager and the DoiTT project manager, Accenture invoice dates, invoice received dates from DoiTT, DolTT's Inspector's Certificate dates, voucher dates, and check issued dates.
To fy and calculate the subcontractors' imputed mark-up for services, we compared the contract- negotiated rate stated on the contract with the subcontractors' hourly rate stated on the subcontractors' contracts.
\Ve also reviewed a limited number of invoices and suppo:ting documents in 2012 to deterrnine if similar control weaknesses identined in January 2009 still existed in 2012.
The results of the above tests cannot be projected to the entire population. However, our results provided a reasonable basis for us to satisfy our objectives.
Sincerely yours,
Tina Kim
c: Steven Hurst, Managing Director. Accenture LLP
Patricia Donaldson, Senior Executive, Accenture LLP
Charles Fraser, General Counsel, DolTT
Linda Mercurio, Director
of Audits and Accounts, Do[TT
Elizabeth Weinstein, Director, Mayor's Office
of Operations
George Davis
fll, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Operations
Alma Fana, Assistant Comptroller for Financial Audit NYC Comptroller's Office Michael Morgese, Deputy Director, NYC Cornptrolier's Office 

Note from Suzannah B. Troy 

(Is Elizabeth Weinstein a relation to the Weinstein brothers?  What political figure would put a Weinstein relative in a political office -- any and all..)

Saturday, April 26, 2014

May Day Housing a Human Right



 Confirmed press conference speakers include:

- Carlina Rivera, District Leader/Tenants Rights organizer, Good Old Lower East Side/GOLES
- Shafaq Islam, Senior Staff Attorney, Urban Justice Center
- Phyllissima Abe, Neighborhood Tenant’s Representative (141 Ridge Street)
- Peter Cramer, Allied Productions, Inc. / Le Petit Versailles
- David Orama, 245 East 2nd Street Tenant’s association
- Kembra Pfahler, 245 East 2nd Street Tenant’s Association

Then at 12 noon, members of the Le Petit Versailles and Radical Faerie community will gather to celebrate the beginning of Spring with their annual Beltane ceremony, in which friends of the garden decorate and raise the traditional Maypole, signaling the end of the old year with the promise of a new year that ensures Le Petit Versailles’s continuing mission to provide arts and community to the Lower East Side.

12 NOON.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Cecily McMillian (False) Trial Update Witnesses for Prosecution done Defense Begins!

Cecily McMillian (False) Trial Update Witnesses for Prosecution done Defense Begins!

UPDATE 4/25: this morning we finished hearing witnesses from the prosecution! Their video expert finished his testimony, and they briefly called up a paralegal who worked on interviewing cops about the incident. After that we started hearing witnesses from the defense. Those were Jake Stevens, who was with Cecily on M17, Cecily's father James McMillan, OWS activist Yoni Miller, who was also present on M17, and Susan Kang, who took the photos of Cecily's bruises immediately after her release from custody. Due to a scheduling conflict with one of the jurors, we will not be in court on Monday! The next court day is Tuesday at 9:30am. Thanks to all who came out to support today, and I'll see y'all again next week!

From Suzannah B. Troy -- Cy Vance can't resist as many bad karma points so the first sign that sooner or later what goes around comes around is he is outed as Goldman Sach's puppeteer DA 

stay tuned... it looks like Judge Zweibel is going to have a tarnished legacy re: the GS programmer
being false tried in my opinion and reminder everything on my blog my opinion...


Looks like the Feds, Cy Vance, Preet Bharara, NYPD IAB, Mike Bloomberg, HP Hewlett Packard one of the top twenty military contractors and other including Christine Quinn and most of city council that allowed a billion dollar over-ride may be in for some embarrassing moments but possible worse if the 911 the tech corruption becomes like a Maddoff or mortgage  meltdown where the Feds could have prevented it and did not.....get my point....

I was told by NYC Gov's dept of investigation I had to contact NYPD's IAB to report any tech corruption and I did alerting IAB to contact Preet Bharara to begin a criminal investigation.
I have a complaint number and hope to use that in future testimony.

Stay tuned....

ps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9TedhfthE&sns=em please help this go viral so shame MD, my attacker, NYPD and IAB thank you. 

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Dr Andrew Fagelman Office Patient Rights Violated Patient Attacked 22,000 Views

Who gets to repeatedly violate a patient rights and than repeatedly violate a patient's
body -- my hand/iphone, my face permanently damaging my eye, ripping out  my
earring, grabbing my hair ripping out my hair with the goal to drag my down the hall
and place her bare foot against my vaginal area and LIE ABOUT  it all including to her
NYPD helpers who sealed her false cross complaint instead of bringing it
to the DA and they threatened me with it first insisting I wait until 20 days
later for a arrest on Saturday at 4pm unless I dropped the charges?

Delita Hooks.  http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/Cocktails-With-Delita-Hooks_14378007

Thanks and gratitude to a mosaic of People all colors and backgrounds male and female who helped me obtain just a little bit of Justice via YouTube aka YouTubeland helping me break  22,000 views to shame Dr Andrew Fagelman who ignored how many yelp reviews regarding his staff and I paid the price with a hole in my retina and permanent damage to my eye and my neck.

Than I went to the NYPD and took 20 days to commit the crime of COERCION.

Coercion is a crime not a policing tool.

Internal Affair also turned out to be corrupt as well so thanks and gratitude.

I believe the NYPD via YouTube posted a comment telling me my lawsuit against them would go no where -- the same words I heard when I tried to report the savage attack.

Well the lawsuit is now past the 9 month mark so what ever the Judge rules it has gone some where and there is a Federal record of what was done to me and via their lawyer I got more incriminating evidence including NYPD DOCUMENTS which are fabrication and from NYPD officers that NEVER MET WITH ME!!!!!!!!

The NYPD prevented me from reporting an alleged HATE crime by the detective that was supposed to investigate my case Det John Vergona pre- lawsuit, also they prevented me from reporting the false cross-complaint - I have audio proof which contradicts what the New York Police Department's lawyer stated to me on the phone attempting to defend her client Sgt Chen.  I have audio of IAB Sgt Mary O'Donnell stating case closed.  FYI the case is open.  I have NYPD documents that prove Det Vergona and Lt Burgos lied about me.  Lt Burgos never even contacted me refuse to answer emails asking for BADGE numbers and I sent the email to him to Mr Kelly, Mr Esposito, Mr Campisi and Mr Ed Winski.

Lt Agnes never contacted me.  Reported my allegations unfounded and he is from "the integrity bureau. 

I have more and will get more evidence if I get subponea power. 

Before I was attacked -  note all the bags and FYI my arm was numb with 2 injections in my elbow as well as I held my phone as she repeatedly attacked me.

Det Vergona asked me why did you walk by her.  

I responded if you kept your word and went to the office as he said she would know she sits at the very front of a long closed off reception desk....

MD Office Violence NYPD Coercion YouTubeland Justice Delita Hooks Attacks Me a Patient 22,000 Views

Cumberbatch Penis searched Sorry Did find Benedict Reading Moby Dick


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HT-eVxb6kzI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks and gratitude for making a difference.  
ps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9TedhfthE&sns=em please help this go viral so shame MD, my attacker, NYPD and IAB thank you. 

Suzannah B. Troy's letter to NYPD Commissioner Bratton and Mayor De Blasio asking for a reinstatement + follow-up email w/scan of CCRB Complaint 2 IA trying to frame Joe


April 22, 2014

Dear Mayor Bill de Blasio and  Police Commissioner Bill Bratton:

I write this letter requesting that you reinstate Joe Sanchez, an NYPD hero unjustly dismissed 30 years ago.  In response to a recent request to reinstate Office Sanchez, Commissioner Bratton had an Inspector Sweet, send a letter saying “Your request is denied".  Inspector Sweet’s terse reply was in response to former NYPD Hispanic Society President Detective Edward Martinez as well Officer Herman Velez, Officer Sanchez’s partner the night he was wrongfully set-up.  To refresh the Commissioner’s recollection, Officer Velez had the honor of piloting an NYPD helicopter for him.

Is Inspector Sweet’s terse response evidence of racism and disrespect directed at Hispanic police officers?   One hopes not!   If there are “road blocks” to Officer Sanchez being reinstated, as some have alleged, they were placed in Joe’s file with one purpose: to shut him up and shut him down.   I am making a YouTube Documentary and I have to explain briefly why so I dubbed him the Hispanic Serpico.  Officer Sanchez doesn’t consider himself the Hispanic Serpico but I do. He took a bullet to his career and unlike Serpico he had to provide for four children and his wife.

NYC paid $26.8 million to NYPD Hispanic Officers discriminated against from 1996 - 2003.  What about officers prior to 1996?  0 dollars.   In my opinion any “road blocks” in Mr. Sanchez’s file were  discriminatory and prejudicial yet Mr Sanchez does not want money just an honorary reinstatement. 

It should be noted that former NY State Assemblyman Nelson Denis, has been interviewed by me, and states that Joe Sanchez should be given an honorary re-instatement.   I have filmed a diverse group of NYPD and IAB officers who state that Joe Sanchez should be given an honorary re-instatement. We also have a Petition on change.org with 150 signatures.  I have enclosed letters from Charles Joe Hynes, as well as more documents to underscore Officer Sanchez was wronged, including from a juror who wrote Mr. Hynes, in support of Joe's reinstatement. I have a YouTube interview with her as well filmed 30 years later this asking for his re-instatement.

A respected NYPD retired high ranking officer, whom I had the honor of meeting, asked for Joe’s reinstatement, but was told to FORGET him. Why is the NYPD behaving this way?
My late dad was a decorated WWII Vet, and Joe served with distinction in Viet Nam.  Both were teenagers when they served our country.   Joe was wounded with shrapnel, but his fellow soldiers did not forget him. Everywhere Joe Sanchez has served: Viet Nam  { Purple Heart }, NYPD, Port Authority PD, US Postal Service, to State Correction Officer, he has garnered commendations and respect.

Commissioner Bratton, you are  a Viet Nam vet; would  you forget a fellow soldier or officer or leave him behind? No! Why then would you treat Joe Sanchez this way?

Please do justice for Joe.  We hope that you will do what is right.

However, please know that we will continue on until we get a mayor that wants to send a message to all of New York: stop punishing whistle blowers, especially those in the NYPD. 

One personal note: I have already documented the important facts of Officer Sanchez’s case in two YouTube interviews of IAB officers.  I interviewed the initial investigator who  says
the allegations against Joe were unfounded and that he was surprised at the time to hear Joe Sanchez was indicted and arrested.

 I have dedicated my life to justice and to making the city safer and fairer.  I am a whistle blower and a victim of NYPD's and IAB's vindictiveness. The NYPD acted on a threat made to me that if I took any legal actions, the tables would be turned on me.

I am fighting for justice for Officer Sanchez, an NYPD hero, who won more medals in 10 years of service with the NYPD than many NYPD officers receive during their entire careers. Please have a look at this Wiki page, which shows Officer Sanchez’s many decorations, all attesting to his valor.

The two IAB supervisors Joe Sanchez reported to back in 1983 concerning two of Joe's superiors who were corrupt, were supposed to investigate Joe's information without bias. Instead they tipped off Joe's supervisors and the tables were turned on Joe.  Joe was later wrongfully indicted and arrested on bogus charges of ripping off 6 drug dealers he and his partner, Herman Velez, arrested. You can check out my YouTube video on this incident. Google: Joe Sanchez drug bust. These IAB officers betrayed Joe Sanchez and sent a message: if you speak up you will be retaliated against.   Ask Mr Kelly and all commissioners past and present to name one NYPD officer that has blown the whistle and not been retaliated against: You can’t.

Joe Sanchez and I both hope and pray that we will persevere in both our cases until we find a mayor and NYPD brass that truly respects all People and wants to get to the truth.  

We would welcome a meeting to look at Officer Sanchez’s file and address any allegations that lead to Inspector Sweet’s terse response denying Joe Sanchez an honorable reinstatement.

It should noted my YouTube documentary makes NYPD history with 2 Internal Affairs  investigators as well as other NYPD officers agreeing to be interviewed all stating, give Joe Sanchez an honorary reinstatement.

Thank you,

Suzannah B. Troy 
cc:  Inspector Sweet
      Deputy Commissioner Susan Herman 

Follow up email:

Commissioner Bill Bratton, Inspector Sweet, Susan Herman, Mr Eure:  Please confirm this CCRB complaint against IA officers that tried to frame Joe Sanchez an NYPD hero 7/13/82 is in Joes file.


I am a victim of NYPD  IAB corruption.  When are the NYPD going to reform a system that is broken?  I can prove it!  Past-present w/my own case  I am not PD but a whistle blower.  Joe Sanchez was targeted  here is proof that should be in his file  I am guessing it is not!  Joe is the subject of my YouTube documentary.  I continue to wait for the City and the NYPD to take action re: my case as well including the arrest of my attacker for a false cross complaint and POs for COERCION.  Thank you. cc Mayor De Blasio

ps for my blog audience 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9TedhfthE&sns=em please help this go viral so shame MD, my attacker, NYPD and IAB thank you. 

Proud of my letter to Commissioner Bratton Touches on NYPD History of Racism Discrimination Against Hispanic NYPD

Proud of my letter to Commissioner Bratton Touches on NYPD History of Racism Discrimination Against Hispanic NYPD

Rampant Prosecutorial Misconduct Letter to The NY Times Norman Siegel Ron Kuby ALAN DERSHOWITZ EARL WARD

To the Editor:
We applaud your Jan. 5 editorial “Rampant Prosecutorial Misconduct.” It is essential to the integrity of our criminal justice system that if a prosecutor fails to disclose information of an exculpatory nature to the accused, a judge uphold the principles and values of the United States Supreme Court’s 1963 seminal decision in Brady v. Maryland by requiring prosecutors to turn over the information.
To do otherwise undermines public trust in our criminal justice system. We, as a country and a city, cannot afford that.
You correctly call upon prosecutors’ offices to “adopt a standard ‘open file’ policy” disclosing all exculpatory evidence to enforce this cornerstone legal mandate. But if prosecutors do not maintain such a standard, it is crucial that judges hold the prosecutors accountable for misconduct, and where necessary consider dismissing charges against the accused to enforce the promise of the Brady decision and create an effective deterrent to future prosecutorial misconduct.
New York, Jan. 10, 2014
The writers are lawyers.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Dear FBI IAB Today DOI said All 911 investigated by IAB only and nowMayor de Blasio said DOI will investigate the ambulance ride not IAB

I am turned away twice today by Dept investigation and I tweeted Bill Deblasio as well as emailed him. 

He does a press conference and says Dept investigation is going to investigate the ambulance ride -- isn't that part of 911?

And Mike being discriminated against it again?  No I didn't getting the runaround now for years

Thanks and gratitude for making a difference.  
ps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9TedhfthE&amp;sns=em please help this go viral so shame MD, my attacker, NYPD and IAB thank you.

Dear FBI IAB Today DOI said All 911 investigated by IAB only and nowMayor de Blasio said DOI will investigate the ambulance ride not IAB

Bragging of Safety While Many Live in Fear - NYTimes.com

Bragging of Safety While Many Live in Fear - NYTimes.com

Thanks and gratitude for making a difference.  
ps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh9TedhfthE&sns=em please help this go viral so shame MD, my attacker, NYPD and IAB thank you. 

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Dr Andrew Fagelman Office Violence Lies Violation of Patient Rights and Body

The video above is prove of assault and a false cross complaint...
I want to upgrade to assault second degree but so far the NYPD keep making excuses why I can't -- the newest because I am suing.  I was a patient the medical offices in Soho.

The NYPD prevented me from reporting an alleged HATE crime by the detective that was supposed to investigate my case Det John Vergona pre- lawsuit, also they prevented me from reporting the false cross-complaint - I have audio proof which contradicts what the New York Police Department's lawyer stated to me on the phone attempting to defend her client Sgt Chen.  I have audio of IAB Sgt Mary O'Donnell stating case closed.  FYI the case is open.  I have NYPD documents that prove Det Vergona and Lt Burgos lied about me.  Lt Burgos never even contacted me refuse to answer emails asking for batch number.

Lt Agnes never contacted me.  Reported my allegations unfounded and he is from "the integrity bureau. 

I have more and will get more evidence if I get subponea power. 

Before I was attacked -  note all the bags and FYI my arm was numb with 2 injections in my elbow as well as I held my phone as she repeatedly attacked me.

Det Vergona asked me why did you walk by her.  

I responded if you kept your word and went to the office as he said she would know she sits at the very front of a long post office and desk....