Slaying the Mythical Beasts: The Legend of Phillips, Roper and O’Hara

posted by Gatemouth
Thu, 10/05/2006 - 7:49pm

How does a columnist rise to the occasion of the combined Hevesi/Pirro fiascos? Mere commentary, no matter how sarcastic, seems unequal to the task. The absurdity of the election deserved an absurdist response, and I started to spin wild fantasies which, although no weirder than the day’s headlines, just didn’t fit into my normal modus operandi. As such, I decided to do an “Adam Green” type column, which started to take upon a life of its own; an item about Al Pirro’s driving segued into a joke about the driving of a former top Pirro aide related to the Brooklyn DA , but before, as planned, the Kevin Hynes jokes segued into a sequence about Al Pirro driving Hevesi’s wife, they took an unexpected detour, streaming gently into some absurdity about his dad, Charlie Joe; to wit:

“Reached for Comment, Hynes’s father, the Brooklyn DA refused to comment about his son, but denied he would be requesting appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations he had celebrated dismissal of Sandra Roper’s lawsuit by lighting cigars with the remaining $200 of Judge John Phillips’ estate ignited over the burning embers of Mark Green’s political career. ‘You’ve got to stop reading Maurice Gumbs’, laughed Hynes ‘He’s as credible as the Jeff Feldman indictment.’ Hynes' companion, identified only as ‘Dennis’, then put his cigar out in my face.” Gatemouth (parodying Adam Green) 9/30/06

Well, thank goodness I didn’t try to tackle the Foley scandal, complete with a cartoon of Tom Reynold’s as Sweet Sweetback working the meatpacking district. But, the real nightmare came soon enough; a few days later I recoiled in horror as my sweet absurdity inspired a dead fucking serious column by Maurice Gumbs; to wit:

“Worse than all is the matter of former Judge John Phillips. In addition to having been a judge, John Phillips was the owner of almost a block of property on Herkimer Street in Brooklyn. He also owned a theatre on Fulton Street, and several buildings on Nostrand Avenue. Phillips’ estate is estimated by some to have been worth as much as 50 million $$$$ today. Shortly after he announced that he would run against Hynes, the DA’s office claimed that Phillips was the target of a plot by predators.

Somehow the DA’s office succeeded in providing the Court system that Phillips was incompetent to handle his own affairs, and he was put under the charge of guardians. Under the care of these guardians we understand that much, if not most of Phillips estate has disappeared. Rumors in Bedford/Stuy are that part of his estate was “sold” to persons connected to a Brooklyn judge, and other parcels to politically-connected individuals who are friends of the DA.” Maurice Gumbs 10/4/06

What had Gatey wrought? Although, like Maurice Gumbs, I voted for Hynes in 2005, I certainly carry no brief for him. In fact, I have my own complaints, which although interesting (and no, they do not relate to any current indictments), would cause the column to veer wildly off-course (but perhaps another day, perhaps). Suffice it to say, like Gumbs, my 2005 vote for Hynes was also a prudential one.

But the Phillips case seems an unlikely tree for use by the Hynes hanging posse. Phillips, a marshal arts enthusiast, who twice won election to non-consecutive terms on the bench, running (I kid you not) as the “Kung Fu Judge” was always a little off the beaten track, most noteworthy for operating a Bed-Stuy theater charmingly known as “The Slave”, which Alton Maddox and company used for their pep rallies. In 2001, at age 77, Phillips decided he was running for District Attorney, an absurd thought, since there was no way New Yorkers were ever going to select someone of that age to be DA, when there were 85 year olds available for the position.

However, by 2001, many believe Phillips may have graduated from eccentricity to dementia; others disagree. Hynes’s detractors have drawn a line between Phillips’ absurd candidacy and the subsequent appointment of a guardian to handle Phillips’ affairs. Hynes admits to seeking the appointment of a guardian, based upon evidence uncovered by his investigators that Phillips was being bilked out of his assets by persons seeking to exploit his condition. Upon reviewing the evidence, a judge decided to appoint the guardian. Questions have subsequently been raised about the handling of Phillips’ assets. I’m certainly in no position to answer those questions, but I submit that neither is Maurice Gumbs, whose comments on the matter are entirely a matter of rumor, innuendo and conjecture. While conjecture is often part of the Gumbs arsenal (and mine as well; no shame in drawing reasonable inferences from the facts), in this case, the there there which is supposed to underlie such conclusions does not seem to be based upon anything concrete. Even if Mr. Phillips’ estate has been looted by those appointed by the Court, rather than those who may have preyed upon him before the appointment of the guardian, what evidence is there that Mr. Hynes had anything to do with this besides blowing the whistle on the original (and perhaps only) perpetrators?

But Gumbs has more:

“And there was Sandra Roper who was brazen enough to run against Joe, and suddenly found allegations being made against her by an ex-client who frequented the District Attorney’s Help room. Roper quickly lost her job as a Law Clerk, and facing a long, and expensive “John O’Hara” trial which she could not afford, agreed to settle the matter without a decision.”

This might actually be a serious problem if Joe Hynes’ Office had been the one who had prosecuted Ms. Roper. But, faced with someone who wanted to press criminal charges against the boss’ opponent, Joe Hynes’ office did the only appropriate thing; it dropped the matter like a hot potato. To even vet such charges would only be opening the door to trouble, so, as was appropriate, Hynes sought the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. It was the Special Prosecutor which examined the evidence proffered by the complainant against Ms. Roper and subsequently sought the indictment. Hence, the dismissal by a Federal judge of the suit filed by Ms. Roper against Mr. Hynes.

And Gumbs has even more:

“On the other hand, Hynes has a different level of energy when it comes to prosecuting his enemies. Take John O’Hara, a young lawyer who voted from an address where he did not live, was tried and re-tried, and re-tried to set a record in Kings County for retrials. And finally John was convicted, disbarred, fined $20,000, and assigned to clean parks because he committed the same offense that more than 100,000 voters in Brooklyn probably commit every year, and candidates are found guilty of committing, and are not even reprimanded.”

This is actually a “executive summary” rehashing an absurd article by Christopher Ketcham which was published in Harper’s Magazine in 2004. Ketcham (whose parents essentially function as Chicken Little and Turkey Lurkey for Brownstone Brooklyn NYMBYites trying to prove that the sky is falling), has since published a series of articles, in papers like the NY Press, concerning The Hynes Hater’s Trinity of O’Hara-Roper-Phillips (many can be found here). These articles serve as the Holy Grail for folks like Maurice. I’ve not had the time or the inclination to do a thorough autopsy on all of them, but the Harper’s article concerns events with which I have some limited familiarity, and careful analysis of it should suffice to inform the discerning reader concerning the value of Mr. Ketcham’s “journalism” and the complaints leveled against Hynes concerning this unholy trinity.

John O’Hara is not my cup of tea (albeit, a tea cup whose punishment does not seem to fit the crime for which he was convicted). There is an old joke that there are two types of reformers; those who throw rocks at the clubhouse because they want to get inside, and those who throw rocks because they like throwing rocks. While too often we see examples of the former, Ketcham portrays John O'Hara as the latter, but the real John Kennedy O’Hara (as he used to call himself at campaign time) is neither. Ketcham’s portrayal of O’Hara as the McGovernite who never abandoned his principles, and always ran against the clubhouse, is laughable; in almost every election he’s run, O’Hara has been the candidate of the local reactionary element, the type of Democrats who favored Nixon, and in fact, political consultant Gerry O’Brien, who’s himself run against O’Hara’s main detractor, Assemblyman Jim Brennan, has been heard in public declaring that, far from being a McGovernite in 1972, O’Hara was a young Republican who campaigned for Nixon.

O'Hara was actually the political creation of Regular Democratic District Leader Anthony Carraciolo and the late election lawyer Robert Muir, one of New York’s most charming rogues. During the 80s, O’Hara not only tried to create the impression that he was a "regular", but also a conservative. In one offensive and ignorant O’Hara speech, he publicly stated that it was his mission to make sure that all homeless shelters were located at least one block outside of the district he was running in. John parlayed his regular connections into a seat on the Community Board (by appointment of our very "Regular" Borough President, Howard Golden) and also served on the Area Policy Board. When he ran his one close race, for Assembly in 1992, he was essentially the "Regular" candidate, supported by the incumbent Democratic District Leader Anne English, who had provided County Leader Clarence Norman with the deciding vote which elected him (although, in fairness to Anne’s memory, it must be noted that Norman’s opponent was Mike Garson), and O’Hara jointly petitioned and campaigned with several public and party officials, including Congressman Steven Solarz. This was not the portrait of a rebel; this was the portrait of a young man in a hurry, by any means necessary. Perhaps his near victory in 1992 changed John into an embittered insurgent, but that was not always the case.

Likewise, virtually every other fact Ketcham uses to build his portrait is wrong:

1) Ketcham portrays the assassin of the late Councilman James Davis as an embittered "insurgent who had been forced off the ballot one too many times and, apparently been driven nuts by the system". This is truly disgusting. Othneil Askew was a delusional psychopath. He was never forced off any ballot; during his only (aborted) run for office, he did not even bother to file his nominating petitions (although, after the filing deadline, he may have left them outside the door of the Board of Elections). Mr. Ketcham owes the Davis family an apology (and it takes an awfully big sin to be required to ask Geoffrey, "The Official Crumb of the Davis Family", for forgiveness).

2) Ketcham calls Brooklyn DA Joe Hynes a "pure creature of the Brooklyn Machine". Currently still under indictment by Mr. Hynes’ office, after a prior felony conviction, is one Clarence Norman, who as Brooklyn Democratic Leader would seem to have been the machine personified. This certainly clouds the issue of whose creature Mr. Hynes is. Ironically, some of the loudest screaming I’ve heard about the Norman indictments has come from buddies of O’Hara. Does that make them creatures of the machine as well? Or is it just another case of the enemy of thine enemy?

3) Ketcham asserts that before Mr. O’Hara’s effort in 2001, "no one in living memory can testify to the last time a county-wide judgeship had been won outside the ranks of the Democratic regular machine" and then goes onto say that "reformers" had never really tried. These assertions would be news to Judges Laura Jacobson, Lila Gold, and Lorin Baily Schiffman (there may be others as well) who all beat County in the 1990's. Thus, during the decade prior to Mr. O’Hara’s involvement in judicial elections, insurgents fielded county-wide candidates at least half the time, and won in at least half of the years they did; not too shabby.

4) Contrary to Mr. Ketcham’s assertions, O’Hara didn’t lose in 1992 to Jim Brennan’s handpicked candidate, he lost to Javier Nieves, a Brennan enemy. In 1992, Brennan, the victim of a nasty reapportionment, was too busy barely hanging on to his seat in an adjoining district to take any role in beating O’Hara; his supporters in O’Hara’s district fragmented between the 3rd and 5th place candidates. Further, Ketcham’s assertions about Brennan’s holding great sway among Latinos are just nonsense; Brennan did eventually help elect Felix Ortiz to the Assembly, but it was by making Ortiz seem kosher among white voters in Park Slope. Brennan backed neither Angel Rodriguez nor Sarah Gonzalez, and while District Leader Jake Gold once bragged that Felix Ortiz was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brennan empire, no one would say that is true today (and it probably wasn’t rue at the time, either).

5) Brennan is portrayed as the proprietor of his own machine, which is somewhat laughable. Within his own constituency, Brennan’s support is certainly an asset, but in the last contested primary for a City Council seat which largely tracked his Assembly District, Mr. Brennan’s handpicked candidate Jack Carroll ran third (2nd within the Brennan’s Assembly District); some machine. His relationship with the County organization can best be described as "tenancy by sufferance". Occasionally, there is cooperation where their interests coincide, but, if, as Ketcham asserts, judgeships are the heart of the County organization’s power, then Brennan must be considered the organization’s enemy, as he has consistently opposed County’s position at contested judicial nominating conventions. In Albany, Brennan was part of the last failed coup attempt against the Assembly’s powerful Speaker Sheldon Silver(County Leader Clarence Norman served as the Speaker’s handpicked Deputy). Brennan is hardly the sort of person a County Leader would assist in getting the DA to do a heavy lift (then again, if our last County Leader could have gotten the DA to do him a heavy lift, he probably wouldn’t be under indictment, or stand convicted of a felony). At any rate, the County organization is openly disdainful of using the penal law as a tool in election matters; when asked to comment upon Green Party attorney Ray Dowd’s s efforts to get people prosecuted for ballot access fraud, Jeff Feldman said he considered politics "a contact sport, but not blood sport". It is absurd to think that Norman or Feldman had anything to do with the O’Hara indictment (O’Hara’s partisans seem to agree).

6) It seems highly unlikely that Joe Hynes would go out of his way for Jim Brennan’s crew; although Brennan’s club backed Hynes in his first race for D.A., Brennan himself backed his Assembly colleague Dan Feldman; moreover, the club spoiled their Hynes endorsement later in the race, when, at Brennan’s urging, they publicly censured Hynes for some act of political incorrectness; and neither Brennan nor his club have done much since then to endear themselves to Hynes; they’ve never backed him in his subsequent efforts to obtain higher office, nor in the 2005 DA’s race. While it is a Brooklyn legend that Joe Hynes is capable, purely out of spite, of indicting his enemies and those of his friends (a constant cry heard from members of the Garson family), I am unaware of anyone, outside O’Hara’s circle, who believes that Hynes would indict someone on behalf of a pol who’s not only never done him any favors, but actively opposed him at nearly every turn. In fact, if Joe Hynes were the sort of man to use a prosecutor’s office to go after his political enemies, there is at least an arguable case that Jim Brennan would rate near the top of his target list. And, if the alleged favor wasn’t political, it is even harder to believe it was personal; those who know all three men would be hard pressed to say that the cerebral, Ivy Leaguer Brennan is Joe Hynes’ sort of Irishman; the hardscrabble O’Hara certainly fits that bill a lot better, and there was a time when they were even known to have a drink together.

7) Ketcham treats the “legends” among Brennan supporters of O’Hara mayhem as a joke, citing absurd incidents where no one was hurt and where there was nary a police report. The “legend”, as I’ve heard it (and I may have a few of the details wrong),is somewhat chilling: in 1996, shortly after the State Board of Elections responded to a complaint by Brennan allies with a report which found O’Hara to have committed criminal acts, a prominent Brennan ally, who I will refer to as “St. Juste”, was assaulted by someone wielding a hammer, and hospitalized; a police report was filed, though no one was ever apprehended. It is unquestionable that this attack took place. It may be “legend” that the attack was carried out by an O’Hara supporter, and even if the attack were carried out by an O’Hara supporter, it would hardly implicate O’Hara, but, of one thing there can be no doubt; Brennan supporters really believe the “legend”.

Others who tangle with O’Hara’s allies tell similar tales. Back in 1993, when O’Hara allies like the late Bill Thomas, a vociferous anti-Semite and homophobe (who never hesitated to use either prejudice in his public and private discourse) were leading the opposition to the shelter at the Park Slope Armory (O’Hara was their attorney), they had spread a rumor that the City had moved in 60 beds. Staff from the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Homeless Services responded by conducting a public inspection tour (six beds were found). When the City employees returned to their car, all four tires were slashed.

Ketcham also neglects to examine the specious nature of the criminal charges stemming from an incident he cites which began when Brennan aide John Keefe legally tore down an O’Hara poster illegally hung on a lamppost. Keefe was charged with sex abuse, for allegedly grabbing the breast of Mr. O’Hara’s girl friend. This would probably be a first for Keefe, who is openly gay (the charges were ultimately dismissed). All of this puts the seemingly irrational bitterness concerning O’Hara amongst Brennan supporters, which Ketcham documented, into a somewhat different light.

There is little doubt that Brennan supporters pressed for an O’Hara investigation by Hynes. However, Ketcham offers nothing beyond this alleged bitterness as the possible motivation behind such efforts, which normally occur with about the same frequency as Republican victories on the Upper West Side. Mr. Ketcham should perhaps consider the possibility that this animosity is rooted in more than just distaste for competitive elections. And, just maybe, this bitterness, and the “legend” behind it, sheds a light upon what the DA’s office was thinking as well. Perhaps they were thinking it was like going after Capone for income tax evasion. I can think of no other rational explanation for what otherwise would appear to be a colossal waste of taxpayer resources; something Joe Hynes would not normally expend to please a political enemy like Brennan, when the money could be better spent on a chauffeur for Howie Golden.
Someone should find out what really occurred here; it’s too bad Mr. Ketcham (and Mr. Gumbs) never did.

The indictment, prosecution and conviction of John O’Hara certainly raises a lot of questions. In his extremely interesting article, Mr. Ketcham seem less influenced by Lincoln Steffens, who he cites as his inspiration, than by John Ford’s "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence". He has printed “the legend” (or at least O’Hara’s version of “the legend”), learned largely (as Ketcham admits) on a barstool, unencumbered by the slightest shred of credible evidence. It would be nice to have an explanation for what transpired, but, as Woody Allen once said of the Warren Report, I’m still waiting for the non-fiction version.

Perhaps one day Maurice will do the necessary research. Until he does, he should probably refrain from repeating what basically qualify as myths.

(NOTE: In response to a valid complaint made by a person whose real concern was probably not gentility, a gratuitous insult was deleted from the piece as originally posted, and has been re-written; please rest assured that the deleted material was not particularly funny, or I probably would have left it in).

You're So Wrong, Gatey

Submitted by Maurice (not verified) on Thu, 10/05/2006 - 10:01pm.

Gatemouth, I just had a quick read of your posting above. I must tell you that I had not, and have not so far read the previous posting to which you referred. I have been busy wrapping up a number of other unfinished matters.

So I hate to disappoint you. My column was in no way inspired by your piece. Actually, if you have followed my writings as you claim, you would know that I have written on the subject of John Phillips, John O'Hara, and Sandra Roper on more than one occasion. I have expressed my concern to District Attorney Hynes by way of these articles.

More than that, I have met with Joe Hynes in person and voiced my concern that he was unjust in all three of these situations. Mr. Hynes was kind enough to engage in lengthy dialogue with me. He attempted to convince me that there was no malice in his actions. He basically provided me with the identical explanations that you present here.

I have known Joe Hynes far longer than any of the three individuals involved. In fact I considered myself far more of a friend to Joe Hynes than to Roper, Phillips or O'Hara. However, I have read the legal papers in all three cases and I have spoken to both O'Hara and Roper at length several times since their matters were in Court. So I suspect that I might have a better-educated perspective than you do. And in spite of the explanation given to me personally by Joe Hynes I am convinced that the DA acted out of vindictiveness and spite in all three situations.

Joe Hynes was not able to convince me otherwise. And I told him so in no uncertain manner. You also need to know that even after I disagreed, and was unhappy with his actions, I still proceeded to support him last year at a time when he critically needed exactly the kind of support I could offer. And even while supporting him, I openly stated my unhappiness about his behavior towards Roper, O'Hara, and Phillips. This should be clear to you and others who might rush to the conclusion that my judgment is clouded by any animosity towards Joe Hynes.

I would suspect that my information on these 3 matters is much more balanced and relevant than what you have provided, and my attitude far more objective than yours.

Much of your lenghty dissertation has been spent on story-telling about O'Hara, whom you gratuitously choose to call a "pig." These anecdotes though entertaining, are irrelevant. The John O'Hara matter is simple. As someone who has a long familiarity with voting, voters, and the Courts, you cannot denty that that at every election, not just voters, but candidates commit the John O'Hara crime, and at best are given a warning. You will have to agree that such offenses are never prosecuted. The prosecution and multiple re-trials of John O'Hara were indefensible, selective and malicious. .

Your version of how a complaint happened to be lodged against Sandra Roper by a, somewhat confused, elderly woman who frequented the DA's office again comes from Joe Hynes. It is what I also was told. There is another version which I find far more credible. The befuddled testimony of the elderly lady in Court confirms it.

Finally, you need to know that the reference to Roper, O'Hara, and Phillips is part of the promised wrapping up of my monitoring of Brooklyn politics. You choose to ignore the fact that it is of a piece with my demand for fairness and equitable treatment for those who are unempowered. It also reflects my opposition to abuse of power.

By taking this position I have alienated and antagonized a powerful and vindictive public official who could have been a helpful friend if I chose to have it so. So, tell me how dishonest I am, Gatey. Or how lazy and unprofessional I have been in my research or maybe how dumb.

Save Room Eight!

Advertisement

Advertisers

Bloggers

Advertising Space

Blog Roll

Slaying the Mythical Beasts: The Legend of Phillips, Roper and O’Hara

Post new comment

Hot Topics

Gov Wire

Political Update

Google Ads

Search

Room Eight Extras