On October 5, 2002, a Brooklyn jury found Antonio Casanova not guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree. Dr. Antonio Casanova, represented by defense attorney David M. Schwartz, maintained his innocence throughout the two year period of his incarceration. The trial lasted one month, whereby the District Attorney relied solely on circumstantial evidence.
The case originates from a fire that took place on July 22, 2000 at 27 Breevort Place in Brooklyn. This fire was intentionally set and led to the death of Ashley Simms. The owner of the building was Dr. Antonio Casanova. Dr. Casanova, was studying medicine in the Dominican Republic during the time period of the fire. The District Attorney presented evidence that Dr. Casanova flew into New York the night before the fire and flew back to Santa Domingo the night of the fire. He was observed with 1st and 2nd degree burns on his hand and face. The police claimed he lied to them about flying into New York. The District Attorney argued to the jury that Dr. Casanova sustained the burns by setting his building on fire on July 22, 2000 and fled to Santa Domingo when he realized that Ashley Simms was killed in the blaze.
Mr. Schwartz argued and presented evidence that Antonio Casanova was burned in a car accident that took place in Santa Domingo days before the fire. Mr. Schwartz presented pictures of the car that Dr. Casanova was driving during the accident. Mr. Schwartz found a witness from Santa Domingo, who testified that he was in the car when Casanova sustained the burns in the car accident. He further proved to the jury that Casanova flew in and out of New York on a constant basis and that it was a mere coincidence of the timing of his trip. Furthermore, Mr. Schwartz successfully argued that the reason why Casanova flew back to Santa Domingo was because the burns became infected and that he needed to be treated back home. Mr. Schwartz also brought in evidence that Casanova's burns had to be older, based on their smell. During summations, Mr. Schwartz argued that Casanova is "a healer, not a killer". The jury deliberated for three days before finally finding Casanova not guilty.

A Bad Idea" Revisited
We Told You So!

"A Bad Idea" is one of several editorials written during the legislative session of 2002 in opposition to the enactment of a whopping 1775% New York City cigarette excise tax increase. Industry unanimously forewarned of the unmitigated damage that would ensue. In addition, letters sent to you, our elected officials and various association white papers similarly predicted the inevitable consequences of:

i. A net reduction in total city and state combined revenues*
ii. Underage smoking and adult smoking would each increase
iii. Funding for terrorism by smuggling would become more prevalent
iv. Violent and organized cigarette related crime would greatly amplify
v. Cigarette manufacturer pass through payments to our counties would fall precipitously
vi. A few Native Americans, backed by foreigners, would get much richer, while thousands of local storekeepers and all taxpayers would pay the price.

Over the voices of reason, the smoking obsessive Mayor Bloomberg and the Leadership in Albany convinced the New York State Legislature to pass the enabling legislation and the City Council of New York City to vote into law, on July 2, 2002, this misguided, excessive and unenforceable new tax.

All of these admonishments have clearly come to pass. The losses of revenue, the increases in smoking, the overwhelming of law enforcement and the funding of terrorism are each documented by State, City and Federal agencies.

During the budgetary process last year and over an executive veto, you mandated that, the major source of untaxed cigarettes in our state, Indian sales to non-Indians must be regulated and taxed. The executive branch is charged with the responsibility of compliance with Chapters 62 (Part T3) and 63 (Part Z) of the Laws of 2003.

We now recognize that nearly all of the contraband sold in our streets by teenage "school yard dealers" and the smuggling terrorist activities that have been uncovered by Federal Agencies originate with cigarettes that are purchased from the Native American untaxed stores and also through their internet sites. At the current rate of growth, within one year, more untaxed cigarettes will be sold to our citizens by Native Americans than all of the taxed cigarettes being sold by the more than our 20,000 licensed and regulated stores statewide! The ones that charge taxes, pay taxes and lose their licenses, if caught selling to minors.

Incredibly, Government has refused to either enforce this law, the substance of which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 1994, or the Internet Cigarette Law, which you passed two years ago and the Attorney General successfully defended with our tax dollars. This administration would have us believe that the Native American Tribes are actually "negotiating in good faith" when those same few opportunists are spending millions on
"pity me" advertising

Surreptitiously backed by collaborating foreign and non-Indian domestic financiers. These financiers are involved in exploiting and benefitting at the public's expense the huge tax advantage the Indians enjoy. It is now rumored that an effort by leadership is being considered to actually convince you to repeal these laws.
[2]

The lobbying and political tribute that comes from the more than one billion dollars per year that these few have been permitted to pillar from our tax base and our legitimate economy cannot be allowed to continue.

Why should we continue a statewide revenue loss in excess of $100 million per month or over $1.2 billion per year, every year?

Why should citizen 'A' living in NYC pay $75 for a carton of cigarettes, when citizen 'B' living in NYS pays $55?
Why should either of them pay any taxes at all, when they can buy those same smokes for only $30 from the Indian stores or Internet? Is it any wonder that, already, two thirds (2/3) of the cigarettes that are consumed in NYC are untaxed?*

Can it be the purpose of tax laws are to create less revenue, rob from the poor to give to the rich, help fund terrorism, foster criminal activity, destroy legitimate small business, cause an increase in underage smoking and treat half of our consumers as second class citizens?

The Legislature must act during this session to correct the conditions that you created:

1. Repeal the extra $15.00 per carton of New York City excise tax.
2. Level the New York State Excise tax throughout.
3. Cause our tax to be economically viable with surrounding states.
4. Finally, do what's right and collect the taxes due from non-Indian, Indian sales.
5. Vigorously enforce the non-sales to minors, Internet Bill.
6. Demand that you expect immediate enforcement and compliance with the laws you have enacted.

* When an untaxed carton of cigarettes is consumed in NYC, the State loses more revenue than does the City!
Every taxed pack of cigarettes that is sold in New York City carries an affixed 'JOINT' tax stamp that evidences the prepayment of:
• $15.00 City excise tax
• $15.00 State excise tax
• Approximately, $6.00 in combined sales taxes
• $3.24 Manufacturer State Settlement Payments
The total revenue to the State and City is $39.24 per carton.

Ownership of a Landmark Homerun Baseball

There is little confusion among the general public over who owns a homerun baseball hit into the stands at a major league baseball game. Any person who has been to a major league ballpark could tell you that a baseball hit into the stands by a batter is considered to be a souvenir for the fan lucky enough to catch it. That is the general custom of all major league ballparks and many even have signs posted informing fans that they are entitled to keep balls hit out of play either foul or as home runs. Sometimes, however, when the ball caught by a fan is of some historical importance and value the baseball team breaks its usual rule and attempts to take the ball back from the fan. When security guards swarm a fan and coerce them to hand over a valuable souvenir ball hit into the stands it is a violation of the fan's property rights over the ball in blatant violation of the long-established rules of ownership embraced by teams across major league baseball.
According to Professor Paul Finkelman, there are two legal theories that support the long-undisputed rule that a ball hit into the stands belongs to the fan that can possess it. Paul Finkelman, Fugitive Baseballs and Abandoned Property?: Who Owns a Home Run Ball, 23 CARDOZO L. REV. 1609, 1610.
Professor Finkelman says that a souvenir ball could be viewed as belonging to the fan under abandonment doctrine as well. Id. at 1618. Abandonment takes place when there is an intentional "total desertment or relinquishment" of an item by the owner. Id. (citing Ray Andrews Brown, The Law of Property 8 (Walter B. Raushenbush ed., 3 ed. 1975)). Regardless of who can be said to own a baseball the fact that when one is hit into the stands that entity rarely, if ever, attempts to collect it suggests that the ball is abandoned. See Id. at 1620-21. Also since hitting the ball is the point of the game it is clear that ball hit into the stands is intentionally abandoned. Thus, as abandoned property, the ownership of a ball hit into the stands falls to the first fan who can possess it in the stands. Indeed, a California court agreed and held that upon being hit a ball becomes intentionally abandoned property that belongs to the first fan who can become the sole possessor of the ball. Popov v. Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731, at *3 (citing generally Finkelman, supra).
Professor Finkelman also argues that the "common law of baseball" developed over about the last 80 years where fans have been allowed to keep home run baseballs and other balls hit out of play and teams have encouraged fans to bring gloves to the park for just this purpose creates legal grounds for the theory of fan ownership. Id. at 1621-23. The last major league team to actually attempt to make fans give back ball hit into the stands was the Cleveland Indians, and the practice was so unpopular that it was short-lived. Id. at 1620. Many ball parks have signs, advertisements or announcements also encouraging fans to keep balls hit into the seats, Id. at 1621-22, and some even have rules that punish fans for attempting to throw balls hit out of play back onto the field. Id. at 1617. Based on this evidence of tradition and special custom in major league baseball, the fan is given an implied legal property interest in any ball hit in the stands which they possess. In fact, since the chance of catching a potentially valuable souvenir ball could draw a fan to buy a ticket there is a cogent argument that a fan has an implied contractual right to ownership of any souvenir ball.
Since both courts and scholars have accepted the view that a fan who takes sole possession of a ball hit into the stands gains sole property rights over that ball, any attempt to coerce such a fan to give up the ball, particularly for items of lesser value, would be illegal. In fact, Professor Finkelman examined the case of Mike Piazza's 300th home run ball. Piazza hit his 300th home run at Shea stadium while he was playing for the Mets, and a fan caught the ball and gave it to his six-year-old daughter because she was a big fan of Piazza. Id. at 1624. Stadium security immediately swarmed the two fans and demanded that they turn over the ball to Piazza. Id. The security guards promised the fans that in return they would give them the bat Piazza used to hit the home run. Id. However, the fans never got the bat. Id. The shameful act received coverage in newspaper and television media. Id. In the end, the Mets arranged for the six-year-old girl to meet Piazza, and gave her some other memorabilia of comparably inconsequential value. Id. However, according to Professor Finkelman, the fan in that case would have had a "solid case against the Mets for conversion or trespass [to chattels]." Id. at 1625.