7.26.2020

"Protected Voices Initiative" Commentary Part 1


The FBI recently disseminated a series of videos seeking to educate the public about ways to protect against online foreign influence operations and cybersecurity threats, within the context of elections. They refer to it as the “Protected Voices Initiative.” 


After watching several of the videos I wanted to offer some comments, which I was unable to do on YouTube, where the videos reside natively.* 

The video in the series entitled “Foreign Influence” was especially interesting. Viewers are reminded to vet people, to be sure they are who they say they are.

This advice is a reminder that a lot about cyber is truly about fundamental concepts and focusing on the fundamentals has long been my refrain in this domain. 

One of the reasons this basic premise is too often ignored in the relevant presupposed context, IMO, is due to a lack of formalism in the operations of grass roots and volunteer political campaigns. 

Anyone who has ever had to recruit or vet volunteers might agree with the sentiment that it is difficult enough to identify and retain volunteers, and this at times can serve as a disincentive to ask too much from them. 

Years ago I organized a grass roots event attended by a number of volunteers and days later attended an event where some of the same people were in attendance. One of these attendees asked me to write him a recommendation. 

The request made me pretty uncomfortable because I had just met him that one time, but I was reminded that he did take the time to attend my event. I asked him if he would be willing to give me a copy of his drivers license, or something along those lines, so that I could verify his identity. 

He asked me if I was discriminating against him- which placed me in a difficult situation. 

While working in pro bono I have often been the only person in the room who is what we now refer to as "diverse." I could empathize with his perspective. 
But I could also see how he might not be who he said he was, and my credibility could be impacted by vouching for someone I met once. Further, now that the ball was rolling, what if he ended up suing me for discriminating against him because I didn't want to write the recommendation? Even if a #12B6 or analogous prevailed in such a scenario, that was still a *lot* of grief for having chatted with a volunteer. 

In retrospect, the best way to address some of the risks engendered by the above scenario, I think, would be to formalize a process of vetting volunteers, and have a third party conduct the process, before meeting with any vols in person. 

I would posit, however, that it is not a particularly apt climate for this.

Right now very esteemed people in law enforcement are forcefully debating the merits of the legal rights of people who are undocumented or have issues with immigration (I'm a bit of a hardliner on this issue, and remind that interfering with immigration is a RICO predicate). 

So, in this climate, what would happen to an event organizer who requested proof of identity? This is legitimately something to consider with the next presidential election less than 100 days away. 

Political parties often supply kits to their volunteers, downloadable forms that contain call scripts, pitches, asks, et cetera, so interested parties can take the initiative on a particular candidate, area, or issue. 

It may be helpful to consider what a template for vetting volunteers could look like, for both US political parties, and for any other relevant actors in this area. 

*Original date of publication: July 26th 2020 at 4:13PM EST. That version was deleted and the above identical  except for this notice version was republished on July 27th, 2020 at 10AM EST after the July 26th publication was vandalized. 

4.12.2020

Hope is a Waking Dream -Aristotle⁖




Happy Holidays.



Hope



is



a



Waking



Dream 




-Aristotle








 With thanks to Smithsonian Open Access

3.21.2020

Please see below for links to US resources regarding #COVID19

Please see below for links to US resources regarding #COVID19. Please note this list is not exhaustive, it is offered “as is” and all warranties are disclaimed. 


Please feel free to copy, modify & distribute. 


US Attorney General’s Notice on Reporting Suspected Fraud:  




State Related Resources:

Alabama:

Alaska:

Arizona:

North Carolina:

North Dakota:

Ohio:

Oklahoma:

Oregon:

Pennsylvania: 

Rhode Island:

South Carolina:

South Dakota:

Tennessee:

Texas:

Utah:

Vermont:

Virginia:

Washington:

West Virginia:

Wisconsin:

Wyoming:

District of Columbia: 



Other Resources: 

US Small Business Administration Guidance & Resources:

US Interagency Council on Homelessness:

CDC Resources Available in Multiple Languages:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/factsheets.html



Museums You Can Visit Virtually:






2.25.2020

The XXVIIIth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The 28th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Article 5 of the United States constitution sets forth the process for amending the United States Constitution. There are two processes available: An application by 2/3 of the states for a constitutional convention, which then must go through a ratification process or a proposal for an amendment is tendered by 2 thirds of both houses of Congress, which must then undergo a ratification process ( https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html ).

Back in the 20th century, constitutional amendments were proposed and ratified with some regularity, but that changed since 1992, when the 27th Amendment was passed. In May 2020 it will be 28 years since the US Constitution was amended. 

Two separate processes for amending the constitution exist, however, historically, the process whereby the Congress proposes an amendment which is then subsequently ratified has been more effective. In the interests of promoting a greater harmony between the Senate and the House, which more recently have publicly displayed the growing acrimony the prevailing interests of each chamber has for the other, please allow me to humbly suggest some potential topics to be addressed by the 28th Amendment:


Revise Article V
One option for the 28th Amendment could be to revise Article 5 and, for example revise, revoke, or clarify the existing process for revising the constitution itself. Such a revision could require more or less consensus or could proscribe an entirely different process by which to amend our constitution. 

Court to review SCOTUS Decisions
Article 3 Section 1 of the US Constitution could be revised, to provide for a court to review decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Such a court could concern itself only with reviewing Certiorari decisions. The existence of the possibility to review Certiorari decisions would encourage the articulation of a more defined jurisprudence in this area, thus relieving the SCOTUS of its current burden. Another possible role for such a court could be to offer an avenue for review for SCOTUS decisions that were reached with a 5-4 vote by the justices. Such review could serve to promote an even greater focus on consensus building when the SCOTUS is deciding cases. 
The Justices for this, created by the 28th Amendment Court, could be appointed to fixed, non-renewable 2 year terms. For example, if such a court were to have 4 justices, two could be appointed by the Senate, and two could be appointed by the House. If there was concern about a four jurist Certiorari Court of Appeals deadlock, perhaps such a court could have 5 justices, the 5th justice could be appointed by the POTUS or the SCOTUS. 
The published decisions that such a court would encourage would likely refine all legal practitioners’ thinking and process, and, further, would provide an additional forum from which future Supreme Court justices could be vetted and selected. 


Revocation of Existing Amendments
The cooperation that is needed by the process that is required to amend the Constitution suggests that amendments should focus on the most fundamental aspects of the operation and makeup of our republic. 

One possible use of the 28th Amendment could be to revoke or revise the 22nd Amendment, which directs that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”
Living former presidents are about as rare as living former Supreme Court justices. Currently, those wishing to maintain or recapture their former power can aspire to be appointed to the SCOTUS, or have their spouse run for office. Revocation of the 22nd Amendment would alter the balance of power for these individuals, as well as for the current POTUS.   

Another possible use of the 28th Amendment could be to repeal the 16th Amendment, thus leaving taxation of income to the states. While it’s hard to imagine marshaling the support needed to pass such an amendment, it is, at the least, a useful exercise to help us imagine scenarios distinct from our present reality under which the US Government could operate. Thinking about what a government without a 16th amendment would look like also helps us to grasp the possibilities available to us when reimagining the future of our republic. 


Preservation of Presumption of a Market Economy

The 28th Amendment could articulate and direct that the United States is a republic centered on a market economy, that trade and industry are to be controlled by private owners for profit and that, wherever unenumerated, the power of the government should be construed in favor of same. 
“Private ownership of means of production and operation shall be for profit.”


There are, of course, so many options for the 28th Amendment; the preceding suggestions are some food for thought. Happy Fat Tuesday, all! 

Have fun. Be nice. Think Bigger :) 


Link to all existing constitutional amendments: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education/all_amendments_usconst.htm

11.21.2019

What Lessons Are You Grateful For?


When I was a kid, growing up in Queens, one of the many part time jobs I held was at a lab. I didn’t know it at the time, but one of the owners of the lab had, before I started to work there, been accused of very serious business misconduct, in another jurisdiction. 

In that matter, the complainant sought an order permanently prohibiting one of his business colleagues from acting as an officer or a director of a public company. “Banned for life” is a very serious remedy. 

So there I was, an impressionable and very young adult, learning about business practices from a person with this type of history. The lab is long defunct. None of this matters much anymore, because it’s ancient history. 

Except for one thing. 

Earlier this year I changed my voter registration from “Dem” to “No Party”. This has been my way of adapting to the new reality in Queens, and registering my discontent with same. 

I am referring specifically to the local pols' abject and deplorable rejection of the Amazon HQ2. 

Some of the reasoning that was put forward at the time by those opposed was that the deal was secret, and that it would squash small businesses. People of course, have the right to their opinion and to free assembly, et cetera. 

But what about the right of the local teenagers and young adults to learn from a conveniently located after school job at a publicly traded organization with a global footprint? These organizations often lead the way in best practices. 
What about the economic opportunities of the kids in the neighborhood? Despite whatever earnest (or not) intentions the HQ2’s detractors may have had, those same parties cannot replicate this kind of economic and educational opportunity for the local youth.

It has gotten really popular in Queens to be a hater. To hate corporations, to hate billionaires, to hate people whose opinion diverges from the convention, even a little bit.

Some have accused me of being an apologist, and again, people are always entitled to an opinion. It’s my opinion, however, that it is not particularly beneficial for the future of Queens to have such a narrow view of capitalism. 

One of the great lessons for me, of the HQ2 debacle was humility. I have learned that pols who presume they are more important than 40000 or so jobs do not have enough of it. 

What lessons are you grateful for?

Best wishes all, for a Happy Thanksgiving.

9.01.2019

Very Brief Proposal (KISS) & Best Wishes for a Wonderful Holiday

Very brief proposal to create a public classification system for cyberattacks, not entirely dissimilar to what we do with storms: Five categories, measured by number of computers or LANs or VPNs affected, with a variable for "whether loss of life occurred as a result of the cyberattack" (but for test? nexus test?).
Attribution is important and may also be an issue to be considered.

Happy holidays all! 

7.12.2019

A Brief History of Nino's Block*


William Hallett is oft cited as the first known inhabitant of Astoria, Queens. Learning the truth about his descendants and what may have happened to them has its challenges due to the lack of primary records from that bygone era. After reviewing the various links cited below, I am pleased to share a brief history and context of the first recorded capital crime in Queens County, New York, which took place on January 24, 1707 or 1708.  -MCC,ESQ.

Thank you to everyone who has researched and/or written about these parties, and who shared such information, thus making this blog post possible. The two texts that were most helpful in conducting this research and in confirming secondary sources were:   

Riker, Jr., James.  The Annals of Newtown, in Queens County, New York; containing its history from its first settlement, together with many interesting facts concerning the adjacent towns: D. Fanshaw, 108 Nassau Street, New York, NY,  1852.  https://archive.org/stream/annalsofnewtowni00rike#page/n4/mode/2up  10 Jul. 2019.

W.W. Mussel & Company.  History of Queens County, New York, with illustrations, portraits, & sketches of prominent families and individuals 1663-1882: Press of George Macnamara, 36 Vesey Street, New York, NY, 1882. 

located with thanks to blog posts from a Pratt Institute Library Science Course:  (https://researchnychistory.wordpress.com/about/



The Parties
The William Hallett family is of great historical significance in Queens, especially in Astoria, because William Hallett, sr., was, as mentioned above, the first known inhabitant of Astoria, Queens. In order to place the events pertaining to Queens' 1st capital crime in context, it is necessary to consider three generations of William Halletts. We will refer to them as "William Hallett, sr." for the oldest Hallett, "Captain William Hallett, jr." for the second generation that we are considering in this blog post, and "William Hallett III" as the third generation of Halletts we must consider to make some sense of the events. The records reviewed are generally consistent with this, however, there are some discrepancies. 

William Hallett, sen. was one of the 1st sheriffs of Flushing. 
Some of the posted records reflect that William Hallett, sr, who was likely born in 1616 in England, died on August 17, 1729. This is highly unlikely, as he would have been 111 at the time of his demise. William Hallett sr. died in either 1705 or 1706 (https://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/https://www.geni.com/people/William-Hallett/6000000006442555617). Thus, William Hallett, sr. died before the murders took place.

William Hallett, sr., in addition to being the father of Astoria, Queens, seems to have been a builder. Records reflect he was a contractor on the 1st court house built in Jamaica, Queens (Mussel p.52, 90). In 1655 his house and plantation near Hell’s Gate, Queens were destroyed by Native Americans (Mussel p.90). Afterwards he moved to Flushing, and in 1656 was appointed sheriff (Mussel p.266, also please see: https://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/). While residing in Flushing he experienced some legal controversies and afterwards, relocated back to Hell’s Gate, Queens and purchased land in a recorded sale in 1664. 

In 1688 (Mussel p.267), William Hallett, Sr. divided his property between his sons Capt. William Hallett, jr (b. 1648)  and Samuel Hallett (b. 1650), with William receiving the lands “south of the road” which since became Greenoak street, St. George’s place, and Newtown avenue. Samuel Hallett received the lands north of this road. 

The names of those streets are no longer in use, but here are two links to a map in the Library of Congress that show the names of the streets as they were then known, when Astoria was part of what was “Newtown, Queens”: 
"Map of the town of Newtown, Queens Co., NY, 1896"
However, please note that the map, from 1896, is nevertheless almost two centuries older than the events under consideration. The image below is an excerpt of the maps indicated here. 

Capt. William Hallett, jr. was born in 1648 and died in August of 1729. The records reviewed diverge on the exact date in August of his death,(https://hackerscreek.com/norman/HALLETT.htmhttps://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/william-hallett-jr-b-1648/), assuming at least a modicum of accuracy on the part of the genealogies posted online. As previously observed, he is, in some records referred to as "Captain" William Hallett (http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~stellacotrill/family/william-hallet.htm), as well as "jr." Capt. William Hallet, jr., in 1688 received the property "south of the road" (Newtown avenue) (Mussel p.267), from his father, William Hallett, sr.
Capt. William Hallett, jr.'s brother, Samuel, received the lands north of this road. Thus, according to the historical texts, Capt. William Hallet, jr. was a young child, approximately seven, when his father's home, where the Halletts presumably resided at the time, was destroyed by Native Americans. Capt. William Hallett, jr.'s brother Samuel would have been even younger; perhaps, five years old. 

William Hallett III, born on December 10th 1670, was the son of Captain William Hallett, jr. and of one of his three wives, Sarah Woolsey. All of the records reviewed, except for (https://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/william-hallett-jr-b-1648/) reflect that William Hallett III died on January 24th, 1708. The William Hallett website (https://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/william-hallett-jr-b-1648/) reflects that William Hallett III died on January 24th, 1707. William Hallett III is described as a "thrifty farmer" "who held a portion of the land which his paternal grandfather had purchased of the natives" and who "served the town in various public capacities" (Riker p.142-143).

William Hallett III is the subject of the unfortunate events that have drawn the attention of Queens history buffs, Criminal Law historians, and people who are interested in ghost stories (Venn Diagram unavailable). 

While reviewing these various sources, it was noted that the name of William Hallett III's wife was denoted variously as Sara, Elizabeth or Ruth. (See for example: https://www.geni.com/people/William-Hallett/6000000000485194504.) It is fair to conclude that William Hallett III's grandmother was Elizabeth, and his mother was Sarah. The use of Ruth is inconsistent, however, the genealogies note Captain William Hallett, jr. had at some point a wife named Ruth, in addition to William Hallett III's mother Sarah.
The inconsistency of the name of William Hallett III's wife is important not only because she is one of the murder victims, but also because many of the sources reviewed allude to the same original text (Riker) and in that text the name of Mrs. Hallett III is not mentioned on page 142 where the murders are described; Riker merely describes her as Hallett's “fond wife”. It is however, clear that the persons who were murdered were descendants of William Hallett, sr., and that Mrs. Hallett III was pregnant at the time of the murders. 

Another important factor to consider is that William Hallett III's and wife's and children's murders are mentioned by at least one of these sources as being the first capital murder case in Queens, New York. I was not able to independently corroborate this, again because many of the persons used the same source materials and the materials themselves were written and published in the 1800s, at least a hundred years after these chilling events took place, and the historical records freely acknowledge that the narratives are conveying facts and circumstances relative to events for which records have been destroyed. Also of note is the fact that none of the genealogical records, nor any of the historical texts identify any of William Hallett III's five murdered children by name. Also, with respect to the records reviewed, the gender of William Hallett III's unidentified murdered five children are unknown. This could be potentially significant, for example, because, generally speaking, the gender of offspring could have an impact on how property was bequeathed. 

Before 1670 there was no jail in Queens County (Mussel p.50), instead "criminals were sometimes sent to New York for imprisonment." In 1666 it was ordered that a prison be built in Jamaica, Queens, and a tax was levied on several towns to pay for it. However, by 1669, the court wanted to fine the contractor, William Hallett (sr, presumably), for failing to perform under the contract to build the prison (Mussel p.52). Further, in 1708, the year of the murders and executions the subject of this blog post, the inhabitants of Queens (Mussel p.52 ) petitioned "for the enactment of a law to repair or build anew... the common jail."  The historical sources also note that before the 1800s Queens had no district attorney of its own (Mussel p.50), rather, an attorney from New York (county) performed that duty; the office of District Attorney was not created until 1801(Mussel p.54), and with respect to probate of wills, the first surrogate in Queens County was appointed in 1721 (Mussel p.53). 


The Murders
Parties absorbed by the history of Queens County will be interested to know that the location where the gruesome axe murders took place is identified as "a hollow west of the intersection of 31st Ave. and Newtown Rd. near 44th St.” (From text of website: https://researchnychistory.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/william-hallett/ 
“homestead was apparently in a hollow west of ...") From the map that is linked above, we also know that 31st Avenue at that time was known as "Jamaica Avenue" and that this area generally was labelled as "Long Island City" on the map.

Thus according to the sources reviewed, William Hallett III, his pregnant wife and their five children were murdered with an axe "while the victims were asleep" on January 24th, 1708 (Riker p.142), in what was recorded as the first capital crime in Queens County. The crime took place at approximately the intersection of present day 31st Avenue and Newtown Road in western Queens.



According to (https://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/william-hallett-jr-b-1648/) which cites "Abstracts of Wills Vol I 1665-1707, New York Historical Society Collections, 1892, abstracts of wills on file at the Surrogates Office, City of New York, 1665 to 1701" William Hallett III, his pregnant wife, and five children were "barbarously murdered on ye 24th day of January, 1707, by two of his own slaves." Of note is the date discrepancy, with the year of the murders identified as 1707, rather than 1708, which is the year of the murders of William Hallett III and his family, as conveyed by the historical texts. 

The date inconsistencies caused me to consult a calendar. According to the calendar consulted, January 24th, 1708 was not a Saturday, it was a Tuesday, and the nearest Saturdays were the 21st or the 28th. However, this inconsistency is addressed when one acknowledges that we now usually use a Gregorian calendar, and Riker is likely using a Julian calendar to convey his dates, in which case, the 24th was indeed a Saturday. This detail is significant because the murders allegedly took place on a Saturday night, according to Riker and Mussel. Around that era, calendars had become misaligned with the moon and sun by as many as 11 days, which prompted a calendar change in 1752. Although Riker's book was published in 1852, 100 years after the calendar change, he was alluding to events that took place before the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar by the colonies. 
However, the fact that the William Hallett website (https://williamhallett.com/william-hallett-b-1616/william-hallett-jr-b-1648/) is the only example, of all of the materials reviewed, that cites to an actual record from the 1700s (a will) must absolutely be considered. And, according to the part of that document that is quoted, there is no mention of the murders taking place on a Saturday, specifically, as is alleged by Riker and Mussel. 

Beyond the details from the links that indicate that the murder weapon was an "axe", utilized while the victims were at home sleeping, the various sources provide no further details of the crimes, for example, whether the victims died immediately or if there was a struggle, the order in which the victims may have been attacked, medical attention they may have received, if any, and whether the murder weapon was recovered and/or in the possession of law enforcement in the aftermath of the crime. 

Although the genealogical records cited throughout this blog post reflect some discrepancies, all of the records reviewed reflect that the name of William Hallett III's five murdered children are unknown. 

The Punishment
According to Mussel (p.51), on “Feb 2, 1708" "slaves of William Hallett jr., of Newtown" were publicly executed "for the murder of their master, his wife and five children." According to Riker, those publicly executed were a married couple, and it was her idea to kill the Halletts; she allegedly believed Hallett’s property would become her husband's after the Hallett’s demise (Riker P.142-143). Also as per Riker, in an effort to cast suspicion off of herself and her spouse, she went to a neighbor in Hallett's Cove the day after the murders and indicated Hallett and his family had been killed, and that she and her husband had escaped the attack, but then eventually confessed. The identity of the individual(s) in Hallett's Cove to whom she made these utterances is unknown, based on the documents reviewed. The historical texts do not identify Queens' first murderess by name, rather she is identified by her gender ("woman"), her race (Mussel p.51), as a "female fiend" and "guilty creature" (Riker p. 142), and by her status as a "slave."

In addition to the motive described above, another motive ascribed to her was "revenge" for being "restrained for going abroad on the Sabbath." This is interesting for two reasons: 1. It may contemplate the idea that the murders took place on a Saturday night as conveyed by Riker and Mussel and 2. William Hallett sr., who had previously resided in Flushing and was a sheriff there, relocated back to Hell's Gate after a legal controversy: William Hallett, sr. was fined and imprisoned for allowing a Baptist Minister to preach in his house and for "receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper from his (the Baptist Minister, Rev. William Wickenden) hands." A quick trip to Wikipedia tells us that Rev. Wickenden (1614-1671) was "jailed and fined for baptizing Christians in Flushing, Queens."
Thus, throughout the narrative that attends the three generations of Halletts and the persons executed for the murder of the Halletts III, there is an ongoing tension that relates to the family's religious practices, which were clearly, at some point, a source of public controversy. 

Since we are talking about dates, now is a good time to consider that Miranda warnings date back to 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona). Thus there is a 258 year span from the time these gruesome murders, “the first recorded capital crime in Queens County” took place, to the moment when the United States Supreme Court famously addressed the issue of the right against self-incrimination.

Another aspect of this history to note with respect to the dates is the short amount of time that elapsed between the time of the murders, on January 24th, 1708, and the time at which the slaves were put to death, on February 2, 1708. Nine days elapsed between these horrifying events, during which, according to Riker, “the prisoners were arraigned for trial, and being found guilty were executed.” (Riker p.142-143). If the reader chooses to accept instead, that the murders took place in 1707, then this becomes less of an issue. Please note, no transcript of the court proceedings, nor judicial opinion was reviewed for this blog post, and it is unknown to me whether any such records may exist.

If you read Riker, you will see that he describes the punishment of the murderers of Hallett and his family as "torture". She was burned at the stake and he was “hung in gibbets, and placed astride a sharp iron, in which condition he lived some time, and in a state of delirium…”

Now may be an opportune time to mention that:

William Hallett jr. (how he is referred to in the text of The Annals of Newton, In Queens County, New York) was one of 4 men empowered by the Town of Newton to resolve a land/border dispute that had been taking place around that time. The other three men empowered to act on behalf of Newtown, Queens, were Thomas Stevenson, Joseph Sackett, and Sen. Richard Alsop. The land dispute arose around Spring 1706 with a riot that took place on the disputed territory. 

The parties to the dispute were:
Newton (Queens County)
As well as:
Flatbush, Brooklyn & Bushwick (King’s County)

Apparently, a survey was conducted during the course of the dispute, without any representation present from Newton, and the survey found 1200 acres of land between Newtown and Bushwick was ungranted, and would thus become the property of the government if the survey could be confirmed. In terms of historical context, the reader should recall that the events we are considering took place before the existence of the United States of America, at a time when Queens was part of an English colony.

On December 27th, 1706 Newtown publicly resolved, apparently referring to then Governor Cornbury’s Council, which was adjudicating the land dispute, that they were not willing to “leave the above said difference to that board” (Riker p. 141). The dispute continued to move forward, and on September 10th, 1707 there was a hearing at the council chamber, where representatives for Newtown & for the Town of Bushwick (Brooklyn) argued their claims. 

Thus, it was amidst the backdrop of this ongoing dispute that William Hallett III, his pregnant wife, and his five children were murdered. 

The Native American slave executed via gibbets for the crime was identified in the historical documents as having been named “Sam”. At least two observations may be drawn from this fact: Sam was the spouse of the female slave who was burned at the stake for these murders, and although the idea to commit these crimes was, according to the historical record, hers, she was not identified by name in the records reviewed. Also, "Sam" is similar to William’s relative's name (Samuel), we know this because William sr., divided his property between his two sons, Capt. William jr. and Samuel, and this was apparently recorded (p.267 Mussel).

Eventually, after the murders and executions, the acres subject of the ongoing dispute between parties from Newton and Bushwick, which the survey apparently suggested were undeeded, and thus property of the government, were gifted to Governor Cornbury's friends. However, aspects of the dispute went on for some time, for example, in 1717 a bill was introduced in assembly; “An Act for better ascertaining the division line between King’s and Queen’s County, on the Island of Nassau”.

Going back to 1708, also with respect to the murders, it should be further noted that two additional men were executed as accessories to these murders, several days after the public executions on February 2nd, 1708 (Riker, P. 143, Mussel p.51). 

The Hallett Family Cemetery was originally located at what is currently known as Two Coves Community Garden in Queens, New York. The family cemetery was relocated to Mount Olivet in 1905, also in Queens and currently adjacent to All Faiths Cemetery in Middle Village. Before Mount Olivet was a cemetery, it was William Hallett III’s farm (http://robtutton.com/2013/08/astorias-father-the-relatively-unknown-story-of-william-hallett/#1). However, whether William Hallett III, his pregnant wife and five children who were murdered, were ever interred there, is unclear. 

Shifting forward a century and a half from the historical texts, and perhaps to the interest of ghost story aficionados, published accounts of a ghost, dubbed "The White Lady" for her white colonial dress, a few hundred feet from the location of William Hallett III's homestead, have been alleged to be the spirit of the unnamed murdered Mrs. Hallett (https://qns.com/story/2017/10/12/6-haunted-spots-western-queens/).

Hopefully you have enjoyed the preceding summary of the parties and events involved in the first recorded capital crime in Queens County, New York. While an examination of the historical record of these events may leave us with questions, placing three hundred and eleven years of legal history in context, can hopefully assist in informing the future. 

Best wishes for a wonderful summer. 🌆 



*In Loving Memory Antonio Pellegrino 1973 - 2000