“Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” - “Let's Break The Silence Together”: Recent Episodes
Valentina Veleva, BRAVE Trail Blazing Woman
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. In order to track bad actors in borough district attorney's offices and other law enforcement agencies throughout NYC who refuse to investigate, arrest and prosecute crime perpetrators, we need to document the blowback and victim-blaming that women often hear from both the police and the district attorneys when we use the criminal legal system to attain justice. The Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz is refusing to address the misconduct of her staffers and members of NYPD. These are telephone conversations between me and high-level members of the Queens District Attorney's office of Melinda Katz. PO Miguel Delacruz is an active member of NYPD. He committed multiple felonies and misdemeanors against me. PO Delacruz unlawfully surveilled our intimate encounter, threatened me, disseminated multiple video files, concealed the physical evidence. The Queens District Attorney's Office of Melinda Katz is not only refusing to prosecute PO Miguel Delacruz but is refusing to initiate a special proceeding in The Supreme Court, Queens County, Criminal Term, before the Honorable Joseph A. Zayas, Administrative Judge of Queens County, Criminal Term, seeking the appointment of a special district attorney. I’m so thankful to have Maya, Larry, Priscilla, Adam, Rocco, Molly, David, Diego and other reporters working on my story. I am forever grateful for the tremendous support from my family, friends, my attorney, Joe Murray, and his whole team. "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" - " Let's Break The Silence Together " Melinda Katz NY1 Debate, October 23, 2019 and Melinda Katz Twitter, April 8, 2021
Assistant District Attorney Yvonne Francis:
On September 5, 2017: ADA Yvonne Francis informed Valentina that “we have made a decision that we are not moving forward. I need you to also understand that because one person records something without the other person’s consent, does not make that a crime. Only one person to that recording needs to consent, its enough that he consented.” Shockingly, ADA Francis, a senior member of the Public Integrity Bureau, was completely wrong on her interpretation of Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree. See, People v. Piznarski, 113 A.D.3d 166, 977 N.Y.S.2d 104, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8089, 2013 NY Slip Op 8157, 2013 WL 6284001.
It is important to note during this conversation that ADA Francis repeatedly stated to Valentina that, “it’s not that we don’t believe you,” (emphasis added).
Valentina, who was confused by ADA Francis’ incorrect explanation of the law, asked, “ok, I just want to understand because I am not an attorney. In the statute in New York penal law says that it’s illegal to record somebody when they are naked.”
ADA Francis responded that “his recording you is not enough for me to arrest him … I know that you don’t like him having the recording and the fact that he did it without your consent …**it’s not that we don’t believe you.”
Bureau Chief of Public Integrity Unit, James Liander:**
On September 8, 2017, Valentina’s family court attorney emailed Bureau Chief James Liander informing him of the interpretation of Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree in People v Piznarski (supra) in addition to quoting the elements of the statute and how they were supported by the facts. Moreover, her attorney threatened that he would transfer the family court case to criminal court if the Queens District Attorney did not voluntarily initiate a criminal case because Valentina’s case did not belong in family court. The same day Bureau Chief Liander responded, “I requested that ADA Francis reevaluate her position on this matter. She will contact your client on Monday to set up an interview.”
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
Supervising ADA Kadijah Mohammad-Starling:
October 13, 2020: SADA Mohammad-Starling referred back to their refusal to move forward a year ago and informed Valentina again that “at this point we’ve made a determination we’re not proceeding in this matter” At no time did SADA Mohammad-Starling provide any further details except that, “we had insufficient evidence, to proceed any further, we could not prove that a crime was committed … the video was not sufficient enough for us to conclude that a crime was committed – the video was insufficient.” Amazingly, SADA Mohammad-Starling stated that, “we knew that the family court didn’t have jurisdiction, but we wanted to know what the decision was in the family court.”
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
NYPD Sergeant Cliff Nieves investigation and arrest
Members of the Queens District Attorney clearly mishandled Valentina’s case and obviously never had any intention of arresting Delacruz. Rather, they were just stringing Valentina along, using her as a straw-victim to continue their investigation of Sergeant Cliff Nieves, who was assigned to Valentina’s case. This was essentially confirmed in a telephone call between Valentina and Public Integrity Bureau Chief, James Liander.
Bureau Chief of Public Integrity Unit, James Liander:
Sergeant Cliff Nieves was arrested on September 12, 2018. On September 14, 2018, Valentina contacted Bureau Chief James Liander who confirmed to Valentina that, “that’s one of the reasons why we had to delay things. We we we handled his case, and we were aware we couldn’t interfere with the case that you just read about [Cliff Nieves] by doing something and then have him be the officer in charge of your case. It it’ll be transferred to somebody else. But we couldn’t, we knowing what we knew about him we couldn’t tell you, and we that we had to make sure that we took this case down and then we’re gonna deal with your case. It it’s an issue that would’ve made your case worse if we went forward with it. It was the same unit that was going after Nieves that was handling your complaint”
In essence, Chief Liander confirmed that nothing was done with her case up until September 14, 2018, but he further stated to Valentina that, “I just spoke with somebody from victim services also … yea, I explained to them that we intend ta trying to move forward on this thing and they are going to see what they can do to help you.”
So, after stringing Valentina along from March 14, 2017 to September 14, 2018, unnecessarily delaying the investigation and arrest of Delacruz, the Queens District Attorney’s Office jeopardized the integrity and availability of the evidence because memories fade, and information is lost.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
ADA Yvonne Francis and SADA Kadijah Mohammad-Starling:
On October 1, 2019, during a meeting at the Queens District Attorney’s Office ADA Francis, in the presence of SADA Mohammad-Starling, informed Valentina that they were not going to move forward with her case due to problems with evidence and credibility issues with Valentina. When Valentina requested what the specific evidence and credibility issues were, the both refused to respond and Valentina ended up walking out of the meeting.
As a crime victim, who had been waiting over two and a half years for the NYPD and the Queens District Attorney to conduct a proper investigation, Valentina was certainly entitled to a comprehensive detailed explanation as to why they were not moving forward with her criminal complaint against Police Officer Miguel Delacruz. Their inability to provide Valentina any details evinces their own lack of credibility and sincerity.
Bureau Chief of Public Integrity Unit, James Liander:
October 13, 2020: Bureau Chief Liander informed Valentina that “the matter was closed.”
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
Executive Assistant District Attorney of Investigations Division ADA Gerard Brave:
October 14, 2020: Valentina appealed to EADA Brave to review their refusal to move forward with the case.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
Supervising ADA Kadijah Mohammad-Starling:
October 14, 2020: SADA Kadijah Mohammad-Starling again informed Valentina that it was determined that the video was insufficient evidence to proceed, without providing any details as to why.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
Executive Assistant District Attorney of Investigations Division ADA Gerard Brave:
October 14, 2020: Valentina appealed to EADA Brave to review their refusal to move forward with the case. Later that day EADA Brave called back and completely misstated the law to her that the statute requires that the recording of her be taken in an “identifiable manner.” Valentina then confronted EADA Brave with the case of People v Piznarski (supra).
EADA Brave then abandoned his position that Valentina was not identifiable and then made the incredible assertion that he believes that she consented to the video, simply because Police Officer Delacruz said that she consented to the video. EADA Brave then pitifully attempted to argue to Valentina that Delacruz could not possibly have more videos of her beyond the 12-second clip that he sent her because she only was with him once.
EADA Brave made the incredible statement to Valentina, “look, look, Ms. Veleva, we can agree that he is a jerk, but he is not a criminal, he didn’t commit a crime.”
Is this the policy of the Queens District Attorney to completely credit the male perpetrator’s version of facts over a female victim’s assertions? EADA Brave was shamefully making excuse after excuse and offering wildly baseless assumptions favorable to Delacruz.
In this conversation EADA Brave acts more like Delacruz’ criminal defense attorney than an executive member of the Queens County District Attorney’s Office.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
Executive Assistant District Attorney of Investigations Division, Gerard Brave:
December 1, 2020: Valentina informed EADA Brave of the existence of People v Zapata, 41 A.D.3d 109, 837 N.Y.S.2d 110, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6719, 2007 NY Slip Op 4687 to dispute EADA Brave’s mistaken assertion that the victim must be identifiable on the video. In Zapata, the image was merely of the girl’s legs and her underwear.
This was a painful conversation to listen to in which EADA Gerard Brave stated that (1) Valentina is “unidentifiable;” (2) that she is a “witness without credibility” (as he is laughing at her); (3) EADA Brave makes the wild and baseless accusation that Valentina is seeking an advantage in her civil action by bringing this criminal complaint, essentially gaming the system; (4) EADA Brave stated that every single prosecutor that has reviewed Valentina’s case found her to be not credible, and that that was the primary reason for not going forward with her case; (5) that Valentina is unstable and would make a terrible witness. EADA Brave made further insulting remarks about Valentina and that he was confident at some point that her civil case would be dropped. EADA Brave closed by saying they were not prosecuting her case for “all of the above” reasons.
This was absolutely disgusting behavior that I DEMAND A PUBLIC APOLOGY TO BE MADE TO MY CLIENT! Listening to EADA Brave’s conversation with Valentina makes clear why so many women are so afraid to come forward with their complaints against men. It is this very sexist, misogynist, and demeaning conduct that women fear most from law enforcement in deciding to come forward with their allegations.
MOST RECENT RESPONSE FROM QUEENS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
“We take every complaint of this nature very seriously, and Ms. Veleva’s was no exception. This matter was thoroughly and carefully reviewed before investigators determined there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal case.” See, Larry Celona and Priscilla DeGregory, “NYPD cop illegally taped one-night stand, then blackmailed woman: lawsuit” New York Post, April 1, 2018 8:54 pm.
This statement is insulting and disrespectful to the People of the State of New York. In all of my time serving as a New York City Police Officer and now as an attorney I have NEVER seen any law enforcement professional treat a crime victim in a more disgusting manner than Valentina was treated, by members of your office, the worst being EADA Gerard Brave. That also goes for you too, Ms. Katz, in your failure to personally respond to Valentina’s two letters and numerous requests to speak with you.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
Executive Assistant District Attorney of Investigations Division, Gerard Brave:
November 2, 2020: Valentina again spoke with EADA Brave who was apparently directed to respond to Valentina by Chief Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Naiburg. EADA Brave again affirmed his incorrect interpretation of the law that Valentina must be “identifiable” on the recording. EADA Brave made another factually incorrect statement that “there’s no evidence that there are any other videos.” Again, Valentina informed EADA Brave that Delacruz threatened her that he had more videos. EADA Brave responded by saying that “he threatened you that there were more videos to try and get you to stop contacting him, which apparently, after these many weeks now, I can see is a personality trait that you possess.” Here, EADA Brave is essentially justifying and sympathizing with what Delacruz did to Valentina because EADA Brave was so offended by Valentina continuing to call him to get a comprehensive answer as to why they were not proceeding with her case.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva
2020 Gender Survey authored by the NYS Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts
The 2020 Gender Survey authored by the NYS Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, showed overall a marked improvement from a similar 1986 survey, in how women are treated in the courts, including women attorneys, litigants, and court employees. However, what is very telling of this report relevant to Valentina’s treatment by EADA Brave and others, is the area of “Credibility and Court Interaction,” as reflected in the report’s findings. Id. at 69. The report found the data to reflect “although much improved continue to reflect a strain of bias against women participants in the judicial process that cannot be countenanced.” Id. We cannot be complacent, and we must be ever vigilant and mindful of the historic gender biases that has existed for years in the Courts. Similarly, given the richness of our immigrant community in Queens County we must also be mindful of cultural differences and family dynamics that could also make certain litigants more sensitive to gender biases.
My sister was one of the most protected girls in New York growing up with five older brothers looking after her. Similarly, my daughter has a brother, two parents and a large extended family ready to defend her in times of need. I am quite sure that even EADA Gerard Brave also enjoys the comfort of immediate access to his family and extended family for support during difficult times. Valentina immigrated here from her native home in Bulgaria alone. She has courageously fought this long hard battle by herself. I am absolutely humbled by her incredible passion and tenacity, which will be well received by both a Queens grand jury and petit jury.
For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully request that you initiate a special proceeding in Supreme Court, Queens County, Criminal Term, before the Honorable Joseph A. Zayas, Administrative Judge of Queens County, Criminal Term, seeking the appointment of a special district attorney pursuant to NY CLS Uniform Rules, Crim Cts, 22 NYCRR § 200.15, and NYS County Law § 701.
I further respectfully request an immediate internal investigation into the disgusting treatment that Valentina received from very senior members of your office, especially, Executive Assistant District Attorney of the Investigations Division, Gerard Brave. Upon doing so, I have no doubt that you will conclude, as I have, that EADA Brave cannot and should not continue to serve the People of the State of New York.
Joseph W. Murray
Attorney for Ms. Valentina Veleva