November 15, 2012 - WestchesterGuardian.com
November 15, 2012 - WestchesterGuardian.com November 15, 2012 - WestchesterGuardian.com
Page 10 THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THURSDAY, november 15, 2012HISTORYJack Reed and Louise BryantContinued from page 9Reed and Bryant had wiredSenator Overman offering to testify aswitnesses but received no reply.On Sunday afternoon, February2, Louise was in Washington for anappearance at Poli’s Theater at 15thStreet and Pennsylvania Avenue. Afterher talk, she remained in Washingtonand managed to get arrested in frontof the White House. She was releasedfollowing a brief hunger strike.Louise attended the hearings andlistened to a series of friendly witnesses.During a recess she confronted thechairman and demanded to be heard.He promised to tell her the next daywhen she would be called to testify, butfailed to keep his promise.Only after she stood up during ahearing, identified herself and publiclydemanded that her testimony bescheduled was she called before theOverman Committee. She testified fortwo days as the first unfriendly witness,starting on February 20.Bryant’s treatment during hertestimony initiated the practice ofcongressional witch-hunting thatwould culminate in the discreditedHouse Un-American ActivitiesCommittee under J. Parnell Thomasand Sen. Joe McCarthy’s ArmedServices Committee hearings in the1950s.InquisitionThroughout her testimonyOverman Committee members wereboth bullying and belligerent. Atthe outset, they grilled her at lengthabout her belief in God. Althoughshe admitted that she believed inthe sanctity of an oath, Senator Kingpressed on, stating. “A person who hasno conception of God does not haveany idea of the sanctity of an oath, andan oath would be meaningless,” heinsisted.Unsatisfied with her concessionof belief that there was a God, she wasasked by Senator Wolcott whether shebelieved “in a punishment hereafterand a reward for duty.” An exasperatedLouise Bryant responded, “Itseems to me as if I were being tried forwitchcraft. Very well, I will concede--Iconcede there is a hell.”Senator King asked Louise whereshe stayed in Washington. She toldhim that it was at the headquarters ofthe National Women’s Party, a militantsuffragist group. He asked whether shebelonged to the NWP “picket squad”that had actively picketed the WhiteHouse.She responded, “I do not knowwhat that has to do with the truthabout Russia, but I did. I believe inequality for women as well as men,even in my own country.”“We want to know somethingabout the character of the person whotestifies,” he told her, “so that we candetermine what credit to give to theirtestimony.”Under further questioning bySenator Nelson, she admitted thatshe took part in the burning of thepresident in effigy, an act for whichshe was jailed. After probing questionsabout her first and second marriages,Senator King asked if she participatedin Bolshevik meetings. She repliedthat she took notes at such meetings,as other reporters did.She was asked about Jack Reed’semployment by the Bolsheviks.Holding copies of propaganda documentsprinted in German, Louiseproudly admitted that her husbanddid a lot in Russia to bring about theabdication of the Kaiser.Senator Nelson maintained thathe wanted facts. Bryant insisted thepapers she was holding were thefacts. Nelson cautioned her: “Don’tbe so impertinent.” When spectatorsapplauded, the chairman warned thathe would clear the room if the noisewas repeated. It was and he did. Louiserefused to testify in a closed session.After about an hour, spectators wereallowed to return, with an admonitionagainst “cheering.”Senator Overman asked about herlecture at Poli’s Theater. “Its purposewas to protest against interventionin Russia.” she explained. “I, as anAmerican, believing in self-determination,cannot believe in intervention.I do not see how we can fight fordemocracy in France and against itin Siberia. I believe we ought to takeour troops out of Russia. It would bebetter for both nations to have friendlyrelations.”Senator Nelson demanded toknow whether she was “anxious” forthe Bolsheviks to remain in power.“I am anxious—” she began.“Answer my question,” SenatorNelson interrupted. “Are you anxiousto have the Bolshevik governmentthere as a permanent thing?” hethundered.Louise replied calmly, “I think theRussians ought to settle that.”He posed the question again, andshe replied, “I answered you. I said Ibelieved in self-determination.”“Self-determination at the pointof a gun?” he asked.“All governments have had to beself-determined at the point of a gun.There never has been the governmentestablished except after a war,” was herreply.When the hearing opened thenext day, Louise Bryant asked thechairman to be allowed “to speak awhole sentence before this committeewithout being interrupted.” Heassented.She criticized the hearings,pointing out that previous witnesseswho did not support the revolutionwere allowed to talk at length, butshe was not allowed to answer questionsfully. She had been treated like “atraitor,” she charged.Chairman Overman told herpatronizingly: “You seem to want tomake a martyr of yourself, when youhave not been treated unfairly that Ican see. You’re a woman and you donot know anything about the conductof an examination such as we have inhand here. We’re going to treat youfairly and treat you as a lady.”Louise’s answer has become aclassic: “I don’t want to be treated asa lady, but I want to be treated as ahuman being.”She wanted the record to showthat she believed she had been “lecturedat” and subjected to “a sort of thirddegree” by Senator Nelson. She wastold by Senator Sterling, “You were notgiven lectures. You were cross-examined.”Senator Nelson described her as“deluded,” adding, “You are young, too,and I feel sorry for you.”The chairman declared that as ajudge on the bench in Utah the senatorfrequently had before him witnesseswho were charged with having no faithin the Christian religion. Bryant counteredby asking, “How would you havetreated me if I had been a Jew?”Jack Reed followed Louise as awitness. His answers were crisp andclear. The committee obviously had nodesire to tangle with him, and he wasallowed to depart quickly.Back in CrotonIn April of 1919, Jack and Louiseacquired a German shepherd puppyand began gardening and laying flagstonesat the house on Mount Airy.Reed fell ill in the influenza epidemicsweeping the country and becamedelirious. “For some days he seemednot to understand anything,” Louisenoted. Getting a doctor to make housecalls or finding a nurse was impossible.A phone call to Dr. Harry Lober inNew York brought the advice “givehim aspirin and eggnog with plenty ofbrandy.”She was wife, doctor and nurseto Jack. Because the little house wascold, she moved the bed to the livingroom near the fireplace. Each day shegave him an alcohol rub, “starting withhis toes and working all over his body.”She turned him regularly to preventbedsores from developing.Widespread fear of contagionmade it futile to ask neighbors for help.Louise chopped wood and brought inarmloads of logs for the fire. Whenhe slept, she hurriedly descended intothe village for groceries and suppliesand struggled back up steep Mt. AiryRoad.Louise had ordered some trees.With a recovering Reed sitting bythe window and giving instructions,Boardman Robinson and Louiseplanted a small red hawthorn where hesuggested. She later wrote a touchingpoem about it:All the fruit-trees were in bloom.They were little girlsGoing to communion.But the hawthorn broke my heart.It was the little sonI dreamed about and never had.As strength slowly returned, Jackbegan to dream about making his wayback to Russia where so much washappening. Louise was furious at theidea of another separation.Robert Scott is a semi-retired bookpublisher and local historian. He lives inCroton-on-Hudson, N.Y.CURRENT COMMENTARYWaiting for the Dead to Step ForwardBy LARRY M. ELKINAs a rule, dead folksare not very diligentabout exercising theirrights. Some life insurancecompanies haveprofited from this tendency for a longtime, but their free ride on the backsof policy beneficiaries may be comingto an end.American International GroupInc. and MetLife Inc. have agreed topay large settlements to beneficiariesof unclaimed life insurance policiesand to change their procedures to helpidentify policies that might otherwisego unclaimed. Under the settlements,which followed recent state reviews,AIG is expected to pay around $300million, and MetLife is expected topay about $500 million.A life insurance policy is a contractualpromise to the policy’s owner thatthe insurer will pay the designatedbeneficiary when the insured persondies. Often, the policy owner is theperson whose life is insured, whichmeans that, upon death, the owner isnot in a position to notify the insurancecompany that it is time to issue a check.Usually, the beneficiary is aware of thepolicy and will claim the death benefit,but sometimes a policy’s existence iseither unknown or overlooked.In that situation, insurers donot get to just hold on to the moneyand wait. States require unclaimed orabandoned property, including insurancebenefits, to be turned over tothem for safekeeping in the event therightful owner is later identified. NewYork state’s unclaimed insurance fundcurrently holds one uncashed policyworth $1.7 million and others of lesservalue.Once the money is in state hands,it quickly becomes available for otherpurposes. Anthony Forchino, assistantdirector at the Arizona Department ofRevenue, told The New York Timesthat the unclaimed benefit moneyhis state collects “goes into a generalfund each year until it’s claimed.”That seldom happens. Including theContinued on page 11
THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THURSDAY, november 15, 2012Page 11CURRENT COMMENTARYWaiting for the Dead to Step ForwardContinued from page 10single $1.7 million policy, New Yorkstate received over $400 million inunclaimed life insurance propertybetween 2000 and 2011. It only paidout about $65 million.Joseph M. Belth, professor emeritusof insurance at Indiana Universityand editor of the Insurance Forum,conducted a study of unclaimedbenefits that suggested insurers haveat least $1.3 billion in total unclaimedpolicy liabilities. Around $351 millionwas transferred to states in 2009, heestimated.Although insurers must ultimatelysurrender unclaimed policies,LEGALBy HEZI ARISNEW YORK, NY-- Judge ColleenMcMahon of theFederal DistrictCourt in Manhattanlast week upheldthe convictions against formerYonkers City Councilwoman SandyAnnabi and of former Yonkers CityRepublican Chairman Zehy Jereis.Jereis testified before a jury thatit was love for Annabi that had drivenhim to give her gifts over many yearsrather than prosecutorial assertionsthat he did so to persuade Annabito endorse the then proposed ForestCity Ratner project that wouldbecome the recently opened RidgeHill Development. The governmentfurther alleged Annabi eventuallygave support to the Ridge HillDevelopment believing doing sowould assist Jereis in gaining employfrom the Ridge Hill developer ForestCity Ratner.Prosecutors had accused Ms.Annabi of taking about $195,000in secret payments over the yearsfrom Zehy Jereis in return for droppingher strong opposition to aproposed 81-acre luxury mall andhousing complex in Yonkers calledRidge Hill, and a second project.The government had also contendedthat Ms. Annabi eventually gave theRidge Hill Development project hervote and support in order to helpJereis obtain a no-show job from thethey still get a significant benefit frombeing less than vigilant in tracking thedeaths of customers and in locatingbeneficiaries. Depending on the state,insurers are allowed to wait until apolicy has been inactive for two toseven years before surrendering it.During that time, they are free toprofit from the money. Also, sincesome policies do not require regularpremium payments or other actionson the part of policyholders, insurerscan continue to consider policies to beactive even as the long-out-of-touchinsureds achieve remarkable apparentfeats of longevity.Under their settlements, AIGdeveloper, Forest City Ratner.“The jury was entitled toconclude that the thing that changedSandy Annabi’s mind about theRidge Hill Project was her benefactorZehy Jereis’ financial interestin getting the project approved,”wrote Judge McMahon in herdecision.Judge McMahon raised theissue of whether the governmenthas proven its case against thetwo defendants over the issue ofconspiracy as its related to RidgeHill. That concerned was expressedby Judge McMahon and wouldreverberate in media as to theintegrityof the case against Annabi/ Jereis. While the issue is likelythe most stellar of concerns to thepublic’s understanding of whetherthe case is impervious to futurescrutiny simply lacks judicial integrityis one which Judge Mahon hasdeclined to rule. The reader shouldand MetLife have agreed to use theSocial Security Administration’sDeath Master File to actively identifycustomers who have died. Thedatabase is based on Social SecurityAdministration payment records.It does not contain records of everydeath, but it should serve as a usefulstarting point.All U.S. insurers should regularlymonitor the Social Security database.The life insurance business is, fundamentally,built on trust. We buy lifeinsurance so that the people we careabout will be financially protectedwhen we are no longer here to lookafter them. If we lose faith that theinsurer will hold up its end of thebargain, an important financial planningtool is compromised. Insurersrecognize that Judge McMahonexpressed her opinion when the jurywas sequestered in the deliberationroom outside of anyJudge McMahon expressedskepticism as to the love relationshipexpressed by Jereis for Annabidespite the supportive evidenceafforded the court of email communicationbetween the protagonists.Prosecutors said the email evidencewas fabricated.“The jury would not have actedirrationally had it drawn the inferencethat the e-mails were fakes,”Judge McMahon wrote. “Neitherwould it have been irrational for thejurors to conclude that Jereis’ story ofhis seven years of unrequited courtshipwas most likely a fiction as well.”Annabi and Jereis were eachrespectively convicted on March29, 2012; both are scheduled forsentencing on November 19, 2012.that place the onus on beneficiariesto step forward are putting their credibilityand business reputations at risk.As soon as a company loses touchwith a policy owner, it ought to makeevery effort to determine whetherbenefits are due. Investigating possibledeaths sooner rather than later willmake it far more likely that insurerswill be able to locate beneficiaries andfar less likely that benefits will end upin the lost-and-found.While the AIG and MetLifesettlements will partly address theissue, individuals should also makea point of ensuring that potentialbeneficiaries, including secondarybeneficiaries, are aware of their policiesand have access to records. Insituations where beneficiaries mightinclude young children, this requiresspecial planning.There will still be situations inwhich beneficiaries are unaware ofpolicies or are unable to file claims.But as regulators force insurers to stepup, we can hope that in the future,even when records are lost, benefitswon’t be.Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®, presidentof Palisades Hudson Financial Group afee-only financial planning firm headquarteredin Scarsdale, NY. Website:www.palisadeshudson.com.Federal District Court Judge Conviction in Annabi / Jereis Case Stands
- Page 1 and 2: PRESORTEDSTANDARDPERMIT #3036WHITE
- Page 6 and 7: Page 6 THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THU
- Page 8 and 9: Page 8 THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THU
- Page 15: THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THURSDAY,
- Page 18: Page 18 THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN TH
- Page 21 and 22: THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THURSDAY,
- Page 23 and 24: Advertising SalesNancy King: 914-83
THE WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN THURSDAY, november <strong>15</strong>, <strong>2012</strong>Page 11CURRENT COMMENTARYWaiting for the Dead to Step ForwardContinued from page 10single $1.7 million policy, New Yorkstate received over $400 million inunclaimed life insurance propertybetween 2000 and 2011. It only paidout about $65 million.Joseph M. Belth, professor emeritusof insurance at Indiana Universityand editor of the Insurance Forum,conducted a study of unclaimedbenefits that suggested insurers haveat least $1.3 billion in total unclaimedpolicy liabilities. Around $351 millionwas transferred to states in 2009, heestimated.Although insurers must ultimatelysurrender unclaimed policies,LEGALBy HEZI ARISNEW YORK, NY-- Judge ColleenMcMahon of theFederal DistrictCourt in Manhattanlast week upheldthe convictions against formerYonkers City Councilwoman SandyAnnabi and of former Yonkers CityRepublican Chairman Zehy Jereis.Jereis testified before a jury thatit was love for Annabi that had drivenhim to give her gifts over many yearsrather than prosecutorial assertionsthat he did so to persuade Annabito endorse the then proposed ForestCity Ratner project that wouldbe<strong>com</strong>e the recently opened RidgeHill Development. The governmentfurther alleged Annabi eventuallygave support to the Ridge HillDevelopment believing doing sowould assist Jereis in gaining employfrom the Ridge Hill developer ForestCity Ratner.Prosecutors had accused Ms.Annabi of taking about $195,000in secret payments over the yearsfrom Zehy Jereis in return for droppingher strong opposition to aproposed 81-acre luxury mall andhousing <strong>com</strong>plex in Yonkers calledRidge Hill, and a second project.The government had also contendedthat Ms. Annabi eventually gave theRidge Hill Development project hervote and support in order to helpJereis obtain a no-show job from thethey still get a significant benefit frombeing less than vigilant in tracking thedeaths of customers and in locatingbeneficiaries. Depending on the state,insurers are allowed to wait until apolicy has been inactive for two toseven years before surrendering it.During that time, they are free toprofit from the money. Also, sincesome policies do not require regularpremium payments or other actionson the part of policyholders, insurerscan continue to consider policies to beactive even as the long-out-of-touchinsureds achieve remarkable apparentfeats of longevity.Under their settlements, AIGdeveloper, Forest City Ratner.“The jury was entitled toconclude that the thing that changedSandy Annabi’s mind about theRidge Hill Project was her benefactorZehy Jereis’ financial interestin getting the project approved,”wrote Judge McMahon in herdecision.Judge McMahon raised theissue of whether the governmenthas proven its case against thetwo defendants over the issue ofconspiracy as its related to RidgeHill. That concerned was expressedby Judge McMahon and wouldreverberate in media as to theintegrityof the case against Annabi/ Jereis. While the issue is likelythe most stellar of concerns to thepublic’s understanding of whetherthe case is impervious to futurescrutiny simply lacks judicial integrityis one which Judge Mahon hasdeclined to rule. The reader shouldand MetLife have agreed to use theSocial Security Administration’sDeath Master File to actively identifycustomers who have died. Thedatabase is based on Social SecurityAdministration payment records.It does not contain records of everydeath, but it should serve as a usefulstarting point.All U.S. insurers should regularlymonitor the Social Security database.The life insurance business is, fundamentally,built on trust. We buy lifeinsurance so that the people we careabout will be financially protectedwhen we are no longer here to lookafter them. If we lose faith that theinsurer will hold up its end of thebargain, an important financial planningtool is <strong>com</strong>promised. Insurersrecognize that Judge McMahonexpressed her opinion when the jurywas sequestered in the deliberationroom outside of anyJudge McMahon expressedskepticism as to the love relationshipexpressed by Jereis for Annabidespite the supportive evidenceafforded the court of email <strong>com</strong>municationbetween the protagonists.Prosecutors said the email evidencewas fabricated.“The jury would not have actedirrationally had it drawn the inferencethat the e-mails were fakes,”Judge McMahon wrote. “Neitherwould it have been irrational for thejurors to conclude that Jereis’ story ofhis seven years of unrequited courtshipwas most likely a fiction as well.”Annabi and Jereis were eachrespectively convicted on March29, <strong>2012</strong>; both are scheduled forsentencing on <strong>November</strong> 19, <strong>2012</strong>.that place the onus on beneficiariesto step forward are putting their credibilityand business reputations at risk.As soon as a <strong>com</strong>pany loses touchwith a policy owner, it ought to makeevery effort to determine whetherbenefits are due. Investigating possibledeaths sooner rather than later willmake it far more likely that insurerswill be able to locate beneficiaries andfar less likely that benefits will end upin the lost-and-found.While the AIG and MetLifesettlements will partly address theissue, individuals should also makea point of ensuring that potentialbeneficiaries, including secondarybeneficiaries, are aware of their policiesand have access to records. Insituations where beneficiaries mightinclude young children, this requiresspecial planning.There will still be situations inwhich beneficiaries are unaware ofpolicies or are unable to file claims.But as regulators force insurers to stepup, we can hope that in the future,even when records are lost, benefitswon’t be.Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®, presidentof Palisades Hudson Financial Group afee-only financial planning firm headquarteredin Scarsdale, NY. Website:www.palisadeshudson.<strong>com</strong>.Federal District Court Judge Conviction in Annabi / Jereis Case Stands
Change language