Tina Stanford is Ignoring Problems with the CVB

I wrote to Ms. Stanford, chair of the Crime Victims Board, because the problems were revealed to be much WORSE after the conference call. It's her job as director of the agency to address them. This letter is long, but it lays out the many problems.



February 27, 2010

Ms. Tina Stanford
NYS Crime Victims Board
1 Columbia Circle, Ste. 200
Albany, NY 12203

Re: Claim no. xxxxxxx

Dear Ms. Stanford:

I am writing in regard to the above claim and the many false statements your agency continues to make. This has been a regular occurrence, and it should be addressed.

In September 2008, I asked you and your general counsel, John Watson, what I should do with information that had just been given to me by a sergeant in the Albany police. He told me as patrol supervisor he had canvassed my neighborhood and found there are witnesses to stalking. He was surprised that I did not know that, and he explained that's why he believed me. So, I asked you how to bring this to your attention, since your office had frankly lied and said there was no evidence in my first application even after other witnesses contacted the CVB. But you and Mr. Watson both ignored the many attempts I made to ask you how I should bring this information to your attention. (I saved all these records.)

The sergeant agreed to write a letter and sign a sworn affidavit after I told him you and Mr. Watson ignored me when I asked how to handle his information. Your agency received both of these documents in January 2009. I called the sergeant and asked if anyone contacted him and he said no. I advised him to be very careful to remember what he said to the CVB, because the CVB is reckless with facts later. After the CVB finally called him, he stopped by my house and told me what he talked to Ms. Earing about. He said they talked about the letter, and he explained he does not have access to letterhead. He also stressed to her there are four witnesses to the stalking who substantiate it, and that he finds me credible.

After you denied my claim in July 2009, you and I met to discuss it, and you offered to reconsider your decision. I showed you the sworn affidavit, that your agency had had since January. You said you had not seen it before and thanked me for it. After reviewing the affidavit, you said it states the crimes are substantiated, but you wanted the witnesses names. You asked me to get a supplemental police report naming the witnesses, and stating that the case is closed, because the first police report said it was an investigation pending (which is what all APD reports say if there is no immediate arrest).

I also told you about the tremendous problems that resulted from the CVB calling the sergeant's command staff, which took him off the case. You acknowledged the problems your agency caused and said that was a mistake. I also told you that the sergeant was taken off the case and told to have no contact with the case, and you acknowledged that.

I obtained the supplemental report you requested and gave it to you, along with another earlier report I obtained. But for months, you ignored me, even though you had asked me to stay in contact about new purchases, so you could provide feedback. You never did.

Finally, on December 18, 2009, you offered to meet again, to work out a "reasonable" agreement. I reminded you the statute does not limit compensation, and all the security devices were recommended by law enforcement over four years.

Five days later, you blinded me by sending a letter saying you were not able to obtain all the information you needed, so you could not reconsider the claim. This was boldly incorrect. In July, you acknowledged that the sworn affidavit said the stalking was substantiated. You only needed witnesses names, so I obtained a supplemental police report with that information. You knew and acknowledged that the sergeant was no longer available after the CVB's contact with command staff.

At our conference call on February 19, 2010, I was shocked to find that your agency had contacted APD command staff again -- even after you admitted the earlier contact was a mistake in July 2009. And this time you dealt with the commander who was the senior officer at the protest where I am a witness to false arrest.

I also learned that Karen Earing did not honestly report the facts of her call with the sergeant -- which I had predicted when I urged him to take note of what they talked about. At the conference call, she sad they only talked about the letter and lack of letterhead. She failed to note he had stressed there are four witnesses who substantiate the stalking, and he finds me credible.

And I learned that your counsel sought to obscure the fact that he had a copy of the sergeant's sworn affidavit in January 2009, and you suggested it would have mattered if you had seen it earlier.... but your general counsel already had it (and I can prove it).

Needless to say, all along the way, I tried to provide everything I could think of to help you understand this claim based on stalking, and I kept records as your agency made up reasons to reject all of the proof.

I asked you how to file a complaint about the false statements your agency has made, and the outrageous behavior in continuing to contact command staff even after you said it was a mistake. You can reach me at xxx-xxx-xxxx. You are welcome to see all of my records and documents.
Sincerely,

Kate

c: Hon. Jack McEneny

A Conference Call is Being Set Up by Stanford

CVB Chairwoman Tina Stanford is arranging a conference call to discuss the case I've mentioned.

This is a good development, but it's not wise to expect anything different.