Mediaboss Marketing

Hollywood's post-war period was fraught with rising tension in social and professional circles, a time of paranoia and skepticism regarding one's colleagues, friends, and even loved ones. As the Cold War heated up, with highly publicized witch hunts claiming a number of victims via the Red Scare, the film industry became a national stage for making an example of those who'd dare sympathize with the Communist ideology. But during this time, a number of men and women blazed a defiant trail through a contentious environment, maintaining integrity and self-respect under persecutory circumstances. Released in 1952, the Gary Cooper-starring western, High Noon, found itself caught up in this political and cultural whirlwind due to the personal history of its screenwriter, Carl Foreman.

With a past that ultimately ran afoul of Hollywood's status quo at the time, Foreman's ideological leanings put him in the cross-hairs of controversy. A microcosmic film of its era, displaying themes and social undertones wholly relevant to the societal dynamics surrounding it, High Noon remains a shining example of art imitating life, and eventually for Foreman, an allegorical work of fiction that would reflect his trajectory in Hollywood.

RELATED: 10 Best Western Movies of All Time, According to Rotten Tomatoes

Set in 1898 in the small western town of Hadleyville, High Noon tells the story of Will Kane (Gary Cooper). Having just retired as the town's Marshall and tied the knot with Amy (Grace Kelly), Kane's plans for a peaceful future come to a screeching halt as an old foe from his past suddenly resurfaces. Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald), whom Kane sent to prison years before, has been released and is rumored to be on his way to Hadleyville via the noon train. The outlaw's impending arrival sends the town's residents into a frenzy, with many either opting to flee altogether or abandon Kane as he attempts to enlist help.

As the narrative unfolds in real-time, and the walls of fate close in, Kane wrestles with a moral dilemma, forced to choose between self-preservation and personal integrity. While the easy choice would simply be to get out of dodge and avoid the consequences of his past, albeit at the expense of the safety of those in town, the retired Marshal decides to stay and face the oncoming threat alone. Outnumbered and with the odds stacked against him, Kane's stance in the face of overwhelming odds proves a perfect parable for Hollywood players who, at the time, were compelled to inform on their friends and colleagues or risk losing their careers.

Born and raised in Chicago, Carl Foreman eventually made his way to Hollywood and struggled as a writer in the 1930s. After training with the League of American Writers, an organization founded by Communists in 1935, the young Foreman worked as a script doctor for MGM. While working on U.S. Army films during World War Two, he met and befriended fellow film lover Stanley Kramer, and the two men pursued a vision of filmmaking independent of major studios. Kramer founded his own company, Screen Plays Incorporated (later Stanley Kramer Productions), and he and Foreman soon went to work on their own projects.

Finding success with films like Champion and Home of the Brave, Kramer and Foreman developed a knack for good writing and efficient filmmaking on shoestring budgets. After signing director Fred Zinnemann to a three-picture deal, next on their slate was High Noon with Zinnemann at the helm. While developing the film's script, taking inspiration from Hollywood's increasing tendency to attack and oust political dissidents, Foreman eventually realized that his evolving narrative bore similarities to John W. Cunningham's short story, The Tin Star. Presumably, to avoid accusations of plagiarism, the screenwriter bought the rights to Cunningham's story and proceeded with crafting his own.

The script for High Noon generated buzz in Hollywood, and the combined power of Stanley Kramer's producing talents and Carl Foreman's writing secured funding and star power. Gary Cooper, then an aging but highly respected actor who recognized a good script when he read one, accepted the role of Will Kane for $100,000. After rounding out the cast, which included a then-21-year-old Grace Kelly, shooting for the film commenced in 1951. But as production was underway, Foreman suddenly found himself in the throes of a political witch hunt, and as a result, at odds with his friend and creative ally, Kramer.

By 1951, the House of Un-American Activities Committee, a congressional overseer dedicated to investigating political dissidents in the United States, was hard at work weeding out individuals it considered threats to national security. As High Noon rolled cameras, Carl Foreman received a subpoena by the committee, and as a disillusioned former member of the Communist Party, would be expected to testify and answer questions about his political affiliations. The timing couldn't have been more ironic in considering High Noon's socially-conscious subtext about mob psychology, and one man's efforts to stand in its way.

Realizing he'd be under a harsh spotlight, Foreman told his colleagues about the subpoena. While he had support from Fred Zinnemann and Gary Cooper, the latter of whom was a conservative Republican and even offered to testify on Foreman's behalf, it was Stanley Kramer, a staunch liberal, who showed hesitance to back his friend. Foreman planned on using the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions altogether, a strategy Kramer feared would backfire and make his friend appear suspicious. The two men were also quarreling over High Noon, and Foreman ultimately inserted bits of his current dilemma into the film's narrative. He recalled, "A lot of the dialogue was almost the dialogue that I was hearing from people and even in the company. You could walk down the street and see friends of yours recognize you, turn, and walk the other way.

As High Noon entered its second week of production, the decision was made to have Foreman resign and forfeit his stock holdings in the production company. But a short time later, the decision was reversed due to legal formalities (Foreman never signed an official contract that would defer a portion of his salary). Between a rock and a hard place, Kramer begrudgingly brought Foreman back on board as writer and associate producer. Though their relationship would never be the same, they agreed to wait 60 days and let the situation play out. Foreman implored Kramer, "Let's fight as long as we can."

On September 24, 1951, Carl Foreman testified before a committee in Los Angeles. Donning a suit and what he described as "a very sincere tie," he denied being a Communist and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about political affiliations prior to 1950. While declining to slander the Communist Party, he did confess he'd report anyone he suspected of committing treason. Refusing to buckle under pressure, Foreman's testimony lasted an hour. The following day, however, he discovered that he'd once again been removed from High Noon's production and that his colleagues threw him under the bus. Though he retained credit for his screenplay, Foreman lost his associate producer credit and ultimately received a $150,000 settlement.

Released in 1952, High Noon was a hit with critics and audiences. While not loved by some (John Wayne reportedly hated the film and labeled it "un-American"), it was nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Screenplay for Carl Foreman. The film would take home four awards, one of which was Gary Cooper's second for Best Actor. Ironically, John Wayne accepted the award on his friend's behalf and graciously noted, "Im glad to see that theyre giving this to a man who is not only most deserving, but has conducted himself throughout the years in a manner we can all be proud of." Though Wayne disliked the film, his statement commending Gary Cooper couldn't have been more spot-on, considering that the actor was arguably Carl Foreman's greatest ally throughout the ordeal involving HUAC. When Foreman later expressed interest in starting his own company, Cooper even offered to invest in it until intense pressure and public scrutiny convinced him otherwise.

Just months after being blacklisted, Carl Foreman moved to London. Despite his controversial status, he continued to work throughout the years, famously co-writing 1957's The Bridge on the River Kwai along with fellow blacklisted screenwriter Michael Wilson and the author of the film's source novel, Pierre Boulle. The epic war film won seven Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Screenplay, although Foreman and Wilson's controversial status in Hollywood meant they wouldn't receive awards for their work. But on June 25, 1984, the night before Foreman died of a brain tumor, the Writers Guild of America announced it would restore Foreman and Wilson's writing credits. Speaking on her husband's behalf at a ceremony the following year, Michael Wilson's widow said, I trust that you younger men and women will shelter the mavericks and dissenters in your ranks and protect their right to work. The nation will have need of them if it is to survive as an open society.

See the article here:
The Red Scare Led to One of the Greatest Westerns of All Time - Collider

Power to the People is a column by Donald M. Kreis, New Hampshires Consumer Advocate. Kreis and his staff of four represent the interests of residential utility customers before the NH Public Utilities Commission and elsewhere.

By Donald M. Kreis, Power to the People

Remember the time a famous architect secretly designed a public housing project, and then blew the place up because the complex was not built to his specifications?

Of course you dont. It didnt happen.

If the story sounds familiar its probably because you read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, likely as a brooding and disaffected teenager. Architect Howard Roarks act of violent civil disobedience is the climax of Rands epic novel about individualism thwarted by a society committed to mediocrity while slouching toward socialism.

Maybe thats why it was the Arthur L. Irving Institute for Energy and Society at Dartmouth College, and not the schools English Department, that sponsored the lecture I heard recently about pressing the teachings of Ayn Rand into service in quest of doing something about climate change.

Calling his talk Ayn Rands Climate Moment, Rutgers University Anthropologist David McDermott Hughes used his Dartmouth gig to propose that climate activists find common ground with people who tend to revere the creator of The Fountainhead. He was referring, of course, to New Hampshires libertarian community.

Hughes has been poking around New Hampshire of late, conducting what he calls speculative ethnography. His speculation has to do with the common ground Hughes envisions between climate activists (particularly the four who were convicted after a jury trial in March of trespassing at the coal-fired Merrimack Station in Bow) and the states ever-more-visible cadre of libertarians.

The anthropologist is not talking about the libertarians in the Legislature. Hughes has no use for the ceaseless contradictions implicit in being elected to a lawmaking body when you basically think we shouldnt have a government.

Instead, Hughes is talking about the kind of grassroots libertarian who does things like the antics in Keene nine years ago. Some libertarian activists figured out where the parking enforcement officers would be so they could walk a few steps ahead of them, feed quarters into expired parking meters, and thus thwart the issuance of parking tickets and with it the muscular exercise of state authority.

According to Hughes, stunts like that are prefigurative. Social scientist Carl Boggs coined the phrase prefigurative politics to describe political acts that are self-executing i.e., as Hughes said, you achieve the goal immediately by doing the thing as opposed, say, to waiting for the Legislature or some regulatory agency to agree with you.

What sort of prefigurative politics does Hughes have in mind when it comes to decarbonization? Exactly the thing that led to the trespassing convictions already mentioned. In that case it involved physically preventing a train from getting to Merrimack Station so it could drop off a load of coal to be burned to generate electricity.

And why, you may be wondering, does this anthropologist care about what libertarians would make of such exploits? As Hughes explained at the Dartmouth lecture, and also in the Boston Review recently, its because of jury nullification.

Juries are the last bastion of true, unimpeded democracy. In a felony case, the lawyers present evidence of what happened, and the judge provides instructions as to the statute that prohibits some kind of behavior (e.g., trespassing). But then the jury can do whatever it wants. In other words, the jury can nullify law with which it disagrees.

So, if the jury thinks it would be unjust to convict the defendant say, because jurors believe it was righteous and even courageous for someone to block the delivery of coal to Merrimack Station then the jury can return a not guilty verdict. And that would be the end of the case, thanks to the no double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Hughes figures that the kind of true libertarian who would run around Keene dispensing quarters in an effort to thwart the local parking authorities would also be amenable to jury nullification of this sort. He stressed that he was under no illusions when it comes to libertarians and climate change.

Rather, according to the anthropologist, a dyed-in-the-wool New Hampshire libertarian would see Merrimack Station and the railway that delivers coal there as, essentially, instrumentalities of the state given the various subsidies and bailouts granted to them. So, Hughes reasons, such a juror would deem the applicable law baloney and vote to acquit.

Thus, the hypothetical libertarian juror finds common purpose with the climate activists. And keep in mind that if only one juror refuses to convict, the defendant is found not guilty and goes home scot-free.

Lets cut to the chase. Why would ratepayers, and thus a ratepayer advocate like me, care?

Because the anthropologists hypothesis is that a de facto alliance between libertarians and climate activists could really shut down every last fossil fuel electricity generator, including those that use natural gas. That, he thinks, is what can happen if this jury nullification thing catches on and people figure out they can commit acts of civil disobedience at places like Merrimack Station with no negative consequences to them.

Thus, Hughes foresees a massive direct-action movement of the type that toppled the Berlin Wall in 1989 at the end of the Cold War. The idea, he says, is to make fossil fuels unprotectable.

I am skeptical. For one thing, the New Hampshire Supreme Court made clear in 2014 that while a jurys power to acquit a criminal defendant for any reason it likes is undisputed, judges are not required to inform jurors of this right.

However, people who care about energy and that should be all of us ought to take note of this argument now that it has been made so publicly in New Hampshire. It suggests the extreme lengths that climate activists are willing to go in the face of what they perceive as the systems intransigence.

Hughes is under no illusions about libertarians; he describes his proposed alliance with them a strategy of last resort. According to Hughes, its not the 1970s anymore, we have lost our opportunity for slow and methodical solutions to climate change, and we have to come up with a solution as risky as the crisis.

After hearing Hughess lecture, I am no longer puzzled by civil disobedience at or near Merrimack Station. The activists are not trying to change anyones mind; theyre doing prefigurative politics because they aim to get activities of this sort to catch on until fossil fuel facilities crumble just like the Berlin Wall did.

Do they care about what judges, or legislators, or utility commissioners, or journalists think of that? No, they do not.

That sends a chill down my spine, and not just because I am a lawyer who is part of state government. Is the social compact really that close to fraying, because so many people are that frustrated by government inaction? If so, thats bad for ratepayers.

See the original post here:
The Ghost of Ayn Rand as a Climate Activist? - InDepthNH.org

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board Monday announced it will file suit counter to Walt Disney Company in a pending case involving potential government overreach. In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis established the five-person board to oversee Walt Disney World, which is located within the state, following fallout over Floridas Dont Say Gay law.

The complaint, filed in an Orange County, Florida court, alleges nine counts. Included among the facts of the complaint is that Disney made a development deal with the former Reedy Creek Board members, which would have allowed Disney to retain their governmental and operational control over the property in Florida. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, which is the land where Walt Disney World sits in Florida, was formerly known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), which the Reedy Creek Board oversaw prior to DeSantiss newly established board. After DeSantis appointed the new board, however, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board voted to nullify the agreement.

The current governor of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board argued that the Reedy Creek Board deal was one-sided and approved without proper consideration. As a result, the board asked the court to hold that deal is void and unenforceable.

The board is countersuing in a lawsuit that Disney filed against DeSantis on April 26. The company filed the lawsuit in an attempt to block a state law establishing the oversight board in an attempt to obstruct funding for development of Walt Disney World. The company alleged that DeSantiss move to establish the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board violate the US Constitutions Contract Clause, freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Excerpt from:
Florida oversight board sues Walt Disney Company in ongoing legal ... - JURIST

William David Moore (right) appears at a hearing over suspension of his medical license with counsel (left). (screengrab via YouTube)

Dozens of women and girls have sued an Indiana gynecologist and former county health official who has already been deemed a danger to the public, accusing him of rampant sexual abuse and lawyers say even more victims are expect to come forward.

William David Moore, a 76-year-old obstetrician/gynecologist who practiced medicine in Marion, Indiana since 1994, has been sued for medical malpractice by 83 female patients ranging in age from 15 to 73 years old. The lawsuit alleges that Moore sexually assaulted them during routine exams, photographed their genitalia without their consent, and made inappropriate sexual comments, according to a report by local Fox affiliate WXIN.

The lawsuit names Moore, Dr. Moores Womens Healthcare, Ambulatory Care Center, and Marion General Hospital as defendants.

Moore retired abruptly at the end of 2022, shortly after accusations against him began to surface when a former patients Facebook post accused the doctor of misconduct went viral, sparking a wave of women to come forward with claims of sexual abuse.

In January, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General filed a petition against Moore for suspension of his license and called the doctor a clear and present danger to the public.

At the time, Moore was accused of assaulting patients during pelvic exams, failing to wear gloves, and ordering unnecessary medical tests. Nurses also say Moore was known to have erections during vaginal deliveries, and that medical staff would often cover his lap to hide them.

The allegations raised by the Jane Doe plaintiffs in the attorney generals petition were graphic.

One patient, listed as Patient A, said that during a 2021 medical exam, Moore inserted a speculum into her vagina, took photos with an iPhone, then inserted his fingers and rubbed her clitoris in a sexual manner while asking that she do kegel exercises. Patient A says that after that, Moore had a medical assistant come into the room and take another photograph while he held open her labia.

Patient B said detailed a medical appointment during which Moore allegedly asked her if her boyfriend performed oral sex on her, then said Oh, youre so pure, before telling Patient B, If you arent sexually active within the next year, I will have to manually break your hymen because its hard for me to see.

More Law&Crime coverage: Urologist at prominent hospitals federally indicted after lawsuits allege disturbing sex crimes

One Marion General Hospital nurse identified as A.M. said she was told by fellow nurses that Moore would often have to cover his lap during vaginal deliveries to hide his erections. The same nurse also said that a person who worked at a cellular store told her that after she gained access to the photographs on the cellphone, she found photographs of womens external sexual anatomy.

A.M. says she reported these things to risk management at Marion General Hospital but was told that the hospital could not take action and that she would not be privy to any further investigation or action as it related to Moores alleged erections during vaginal deliveries.

Multiple alleged victims testified against Moore during the hearing over his medical license. The doctor refused to respond to direct questions about whether he sexually assaulted his patients, and instead claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

In March 2023, Moores medical license was suspended.

Moore has denied the allegations and said he is prohibited by patient confidentiality laws from discussing the specific care of any patient.

Moore became the Grant County Public Health Officer in 2019, a role in which he oversaw departments of the environment, food, nursing, emergency preparedness and vital records. At the time, he said that while he had no particular interest in public health, he took the position with the intent of addressing childhood poverty.

When asked about his role at the time, Moore acknowledged that he had what he described as a very different leadership style and maintained a high level of involvement.

I tend to be obsessive-compulsive, and I want to know everything and do everything, he said at the time.

In their medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege not only that Moore himself is liable, but also that the hospital is at fault for having knowledge of the allegations but taking no steps to prevent or report abuse.

Lawyers for the 83 plaintiffs in the medical malpractice lawsuit say that more victims are expected to sign on to the massive legislation.

Under Indianas Medical Malpractice Act, a doctor is liable for $250,000 in damages for any one case. In the Moore lawsuit, each act alleged by each Jane Doe would constitute a separate and distinct incident of malpractice. The lawsuit also claims that Indianas two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims is unconstitutional because women who were victimized could not have reasonably been expected to recognize the scale of Moores actions.

We already represent 83 patients of Dr. Moore and receive calls daily from additional women who are continuing to come forward, said Stephanie Cassman, attorney for the plaintiffs. The staggering number of women victimized and abused by Dr. Moore is a direct result of the medical facilities for whom he worked wholly ignoring reports of his misconduct that spanned decades.

In addition to the civil lawsuit, Moore is also reportedly facing a criminal investigation, according to WXIN.

Counsel for Moore and the hospitals did not respond to request for comment.

You can read the petition for summary suspension of Moores license, via WXIN, here.

See more here:
Suspended gynecologist accused of getting aroused during vaginal deliveries faces massive lawsuit from dozens of women - Law & Crime

The special Suffolk County grand jury investigating why Thomas Valva was killed could bring criminal charges againstor recommend terminations ofcounty employees who received dozens of reports that the 8-year-old was suffering severe abuse yet allowed him to continue living with the couple later convicted of murdering him.

Besides investigating how Suffolk Child Protective Services employeeshandled the case, the grand juryalso might lookat the overall functioning and practices of CPS,and recommendimprovements or reforms to the agency, said Janet Albertson, former chief of the homicide bureau of the Suffolk District Attorneys Office.

Thomas froze to death onJan. 17, 2020, after his father, then-NYPD Officer Michael Valva, and the fathers fiancee, Angela Pollina, forced him and his 10-year-old brother, Anthony, to spend the night in their Center Morichesgarage, which was unheated, when temperatures outside had plunged to 19 degrees.

After Thomas' death, the county promoted three of the CPS employees who played key roles in investigating abuse allegations, and the union representing CPS employees said it was unaware of any agency workers being disciplined.

Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney, whose office requested the grand jury and is guiding the investigation, would determine whether indictments against CPS employees are warranted and, if prosecutors believe they are, ask the grand jury to vote whether to indict,said Fred Klein, former chief of the major offense bureau of the Nassau County District Attorneys Office and a visiting assistant professor of law at Hofstra University in Hempstead. Grand jurors also could ask prosecutors whether indictments are appropriate, he said.

Tierney, through his spokeswoman, Tania Lopez, declined to comment.

Klein said if prosecutors show that CPS workers "knew there was a substantial risk that that kid was going to be killed, and they just disregarded that risk, that could be a crime. It's a very high standard. Reasonable people could differ as to risks, and the substantial nature of the risk.

Charges could be as serious as criminally negligent homicide or, if CPS employees'actions were deemed reckless and "a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do," second-degree manslaughter,he said.

Fred Klein, former chief of the major offense bureau of the Nassau County District Attorneys office and a visiting assistant professor of law at Hofstra University in Hempstead. Credit: Newsday/J. Conrad Williams Jr.

"It's a very high bar," Kleinsaid.

In a grand jury, the votes of 12 of the 23 members are needed for indictment.

Albertson believes indictments are unlikely, because if they had enough to charge any of these people criminally, they would have done that a long time ago.

Klein said the grand jury also could stop short of indictments but recommend employees terminations or other discipline for conduct amounting to misconduct, malfeasance or neglect in their duties, even if this does not amount to a crime.

Retired Suffolk County Judge William Condon, who presided over Michael Valva's trial, saidits up to Tierney and the grand jury whether to single out individual CPS employees actions, but, he said, Something like this does not happen unless either there was malfeasance or there was just lack of professionalism.

Anyone criticized in the report has the right to review and respond to the criticism before the report's release, he said.

Tierneyhas said little about the probe, other than it would be a comprehensive investigation into how this happened and maybe ways in which we can ensure that something like this never happens again, and that were going to make recommendations from those findings.

His office obtained the convictions of Valva and Pollina for second-degree murder and endangering the welfare of a child. Condon in December sentenced Valva to 25 years to life in prison. Pollina received an identical sentence in a separate trial.

The grand jury investigation is one of several that were promised into Thomas' death.

The state completed its probe in early 2021 but wont release results to the public, and other investigations, by the county legislature and the state court system, either stalled or never began.

The grand jury, as an arm of the court, has key advantages other investigative entities do not, including the ability to subpoena witnesses, who are required by law to appear before agrand jury, Albertson said.

You cant compel somebody to come to your office to talk to you, she said. But you can compel them by virtue of a subpoena to produce documents or property, or to offer testimony.

Retired Suffolk County Judge William Condon, who presided over Michael Valva's trial. Credit: Alejandra Villa Loarca

Condon said the grand jury would want to hear testimony from CPS employees who received and reviewed reports that Thomas was being abused, from attorneys appointed by courts to represent the interests of Thomas and his two brothers, and perhaps from Thomas brothers and mother, and Pollinas daughters, and from judges in custody and visitation cases.

Condon said calling as witnesses Anthony or Thomas other brother, Andrew, or one or more of Pollinas three daughters, who lived with Thomas, could be tricky.

If theyre still minors, you dont want to do further harm, he said.

But, said Condon, who as a Suffolk sex-crimes prosecutor had child victims testify before grand juries, If its important to the investigation, if its crucial, then you may decide that the benefit of the childrens testimony outweighs the potential for a negative impact on them.

Condon said there may be no need to go into graphic detail of Thomas suffering.

I don't think that DA Tierney is looking to retry the Valva and Pollina cases, he said. So, for instance, what the kids may have seen and heard on the day Thomas died, or even the days leading up to it, I don't know what value that may add to the investigation. However, they met with members of Child Protective Services. Their testimony, their observations about what questions were asked to them by CPS, and what answers they gave, might very well be germane to the investigation.

Unlike a criminal trial, which is public, grand jury proceedings are secret, and jurors and prosecutors cannot publicly discuss testimony and other matters, said Ian Weinstein, a professor in the Fordham University law school inManhattan.

In New York, people subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury have immunity from prosecution for anything they say, unless they waive immunity, Klein said.

But, he said, although its not a crime to lie to a police officer or prosecutor outside the grand jury room, witnesses who lie before agrand jury can be prosecuted for perjury.

A witness who waives immunity can decline to answer questions by asserting a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Weinstein said. But someone with immunity must answer questions or risk being charged with contempt of court, the same charge for not showing up before a grand jury when subpoenaed, he said.

In addition to subpoenaing witnesses, the district attorneys office can subpoena documents from CPS, the family court system which in 2017 transferred custody of Thomas and his brothers from their mother, Justyna Zubko-Valva, to Valva and other government agencies, Albertson said.

CPS and other agencies may seek to quash a subpoena, arguing that records should not be released because of privacy or other concerns, she said. The judge assigned to the grand jury would then rule whether to compel the release of the documents, Albertson said.

Documents presented to grand juries are sealed and not released publicly.

Suffolk spokeswoman Marykate Guilfoyle said in an email that the county would comply with any requests and subpoenas to the extent permitted by law, but declined to say whether it has turned over documents or planned to do so, or whether it would challenge any subpoena. The county in the past has argued that state law makes CPS documents confidential.

The New York Office of Children and Family Services, which conducted the state investigation into Thomas death and has access to other records in the case, alsowould comply to the extent required by law, spokesman Solomon Syed said.

Special grand jury reports typically are highly detailed, and theres a sense of greater legitimacy to their findings because they are conclusions of random citizenswho bring a different perspective from the insiders, such as prosecutors, Weinstein said.

The Valva grand jury is the second in six years to investigate how CPS and its parent agency, the Suffolk Department of Social Services, protect children.

An 83-page Suffolk grand jury report released in 2017 said lack of coordination among Suffolk, New York City and state child-welfare agencies helped lead to the sexual and other physical abuse of dozens of foster children.

Other previous Long Island special grand jury reports include a 180-page 2003 document that concluded that local Catholic Church officials concealed priest sexual abuse of Long Island children, a 156-page 2016 report on limousine safety following a crash that killed four women, and a 55-page 2019 document on illegal dumping. All the reports included recommendations for new laws or rules.

The district attorney requests a judge impanel aspecial grand jury, and prosecutors write the final report. But the grand jury must approve the findings, Condon said. Grand juries can meet for months, usually a few days a week, he said.

Tierney declined through his spokeswoman to say when the grand jury first convened and how long it is scheduled to meet.

Condon believes it will be a lengthy process.

Albertson said the grand jury may take a very critical, very in-depth look at exactly how that agency[CPS] functions, and how they functioned with respect to this incident.

One result, she said, may be to recommend changes in order to make the agency better, and to ensure that a death like this doesn't happen again.

SOURCE: CPS and court documents

David Olson covers health care. He has worked at Newsday since 2015 and previously covered immigration, multicultural issues and religion at The Press-Enterprise in Southern California.

See original here:
Suffolk grand jury could bring criminal charges against CPS workers in Thomas Valva child-abuse case - Newsday