- Got tips? Send them to tips (at) r8ny (dot) com
- Blog on Room Eight
- sign-up to receive a daily digest by email
- Advertise on Room Eight
- Login / Sign-up
AdvertisementAround Room EightGot Something To Say? Blog It on Room Eight Subscribe
Want a Daily Digest of Room Eight by Email? Sign-up Here! AdvertisersRecent Posts
Advertising SpaceRoom Eight is a member of the NYC BlogAds network. 2008 ContendersBloggersBlog RollNew York Politics National Blogs Misc New Yorkers |
Mission Accomplished For Traitors Vito Lopez & Dov HikindThe inside scoop on tomorrow's Brooklyn judicial convention, which was settled on by the District Leaders at a meeting tonight : - David Schmidt (picked by Dov Hikind) With the exception of Judge Thomas (who is African-American), the slate is white. Last year, it was all white. Out of 67 Supreme Court justices in the 2nd Judicial District (Kings and Richmond Counties), there are just 5 Latinos, a number that has not increased since the late Richard Rivera was selected in 2000 (when Judge Rivera passed away in late 2002, his seat was filled in 2003 by Raymond Guzman). No Latinos have been selected for Supreme Court since 2003. So much for the diversity arguments.... Under the stewardship of the "Latino" county leader, no less.
Actually, El Juez, of the combined populations of Kings and Richmond Counties, Latinos constituted about 1/5 as of the U.S. 2000 census (and probably more now). The defenders of the current judicial convention system argued in the federal courts that the status quo enhanced diversity, whereas in Brooklyn the judicial convention system has overwhelming promoted white judicial candidates (even though whites constitute only about 40% of the population). To the contrary, the real diversity in recent years has come about in the open primaries for Civil Court (and Surrogate Court), where, beginning in 2002, African-American and Latino candidates have defeated white candidates in every contested county-wide race. As someone who had a losing horse in this year's process, I'm personally disappointed, not to say angry, with the results, but while I think conventions are an inherently flawed process, and that the legislature would be best advised to get to work posthaste on a workable electoral process, rather than to engage in a nostagic effort to revive the unconstitutional, I think the attacks on the candidates yielded by this process are misplaced. Judge Rothenberg had an association with Gerry Garson's law firm prior to her election; she was paid to try cases for them; she was never a partner. As far as anyone knows she's never had anything to do with the behavior of Judge Garson once he ascended the bench. Judge Rothenberg is a strong personality, and how one feels about her personally is a matter of taste, but at the Civil Court, her skills merited her merit selection by the Office of Court Administration as the Court's Administrative Judge. She appears to be a very strong administrator. The strongest non-political argument against her elevation is that it will be hard to replace her in her current position. I knew Judge Schmidt before his elevation to the bench. In private conversations's he's always been rather passionate and outspoken in his liberal social views, including his opposition to the death penalty. When he first ran for Judge, his claque of supporters at the clubs included the most left-wing of the National Lawyer's Guild types, including Harvey Epstein, later an activist on the Lower East Side. No one who knows Judge Schmidt feels he reflects the ideological viewpoints of a Dov Hikind, except maybe on Israel, and frankly, though you've cited the Israel thing previously, I'm not sure they it is relevant to this issue. Schmidt is already an Acting Supreme Court judge, virtue of OCA merit selection, and word around the court house is that he is one of the most efficient judges at moving his considerable caseload. Obviously Judge Battaglia raises different questions. It would be silly to deny that politics has speeded his elevation; although others, both good and bad, have gone to the Supreme Court directly without first serving in Civil. As Maurice has unintentionally pointed out elsewhere, such politics effects all judicial selections, even the process known as "merit selection". But, I've never heard anyone question Judge Battaglia's qualities as a judge. The best term that applies is probably "scholar". I defy you to find anyone who will say differently. I defy you to find anyone to say he is not qualified. The major criticism levelled aginst all these judges is guilt by association. This makes as much sense as calling Vito Lopez a Yippie because he was responsible for getting a judgeship for Abbie Hoffman's lawyer, Gus Reichbach. The one judge Maurice chooses to leave alone is Judge Thomas. Certainly, there are similar criticisms to those made about the others, fair or unfair, which can be applied to her as well. Why the reticence, Maurice? Not that such criticisms would be fair; they would not, but they would at least be balanced. Still, since Maurice has not attacked, it saves me from the trouble of having to defend, so I'll say no more about the matter. As to ethnic balance, Maurice's has a partial point; Hispanics are underepresnted on the elected Brooklyn/Staten Island Supreme Court bench; Asains are not represented at all. However, African-Americans are not under-represented, their perecentage is in rough accord with their percentage of the population in these two counties, and I believe the elevation of Judge Thomas actually raises these numbers. Actually, Maurice, the Latino community is joined by one other group in getting the shaft from the current system: white women. Further, "merit selection" has been responsible for a disproportionately white male bench. Just check out Bill Thompson Sr.'s published remarks about our Appellate Division. The convention system is thankfully and hopefully over, but to criticize this year's nominees as unqualified is demonstrably unfair. Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jun 26, 2003; Section:Front page; Page:1
D.A. To Question Rothenberg
Civil Court Judge Not a Target of Probe
By JACK NEWFIELD and COLIN MINER Staff Reporters of the Sun
Prosecutors investigating the selling of judgeships are focusing on how the supervising judge in Brooklyn civil court was first elected to the bench, sources told The New York Sun.
Investigators from the office of District Attorney Charles Hynes plan to question Karen Rothenberg about the circumstances surrounding her campaign in 1997, when she was first elected to civil court, the sources said. She is not a target of the investigation at this time.
Sources told the Sun that the top judicial target of the judgeship buying aspect of the probe is Howard Ruditzky, who was handed a slot on state Supreme Court a week after finishing last in his campaign to get re-elected to civil court.
In that campaign — in which sources said Judge Rothenberg was picked to fill a "Jewish slot" — about $53,000 of the almost $75,000 she spent on the campaign went to consultants tied to Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman and his political club.
Mr. Hynes has convened a grand jury that has heard evidence of judicial candidates being told to hire specific vendors and political consultants or risk being abandoned by the Democratic Party’s get-out-the-vote machinery on Election Day.
The probe became public after the arrest of Judge Gerald Garson earlier this year on corruption charges.
Prosecutors subpoenaed Judge Rothenberg’s campaign records as part of that probe, along with the records of more than two dozen other judicial campaigns, according to sources.
Investigators have focused on a small group of people tied to Mr. Norman who tend to benefit at campaign time. These people include state Senator Carl Andrews, who used to be a political consultant, Ernie Lendler’s Branford Communications — a political printing and consulting company — and the Thurgood Marshall Democrats, Mr. Norman’s political club.
According to public campaign finance filings, Judge Rothenberg’s 1997 campaign paid $3,100 to the Thurgood Marshall Club, $8,300 to Mr. Andrews, and about $41,900 to Branford Communications.
Sources point out that while there is nothing apparently illegal about the payments, investigators — as they are in the cases of several other campaigns — are trying to determine if the payments were used for legitimate campaign expenses or were pocketed or diverted to others.
"I have done nothing wrong," Judge Rothenberg told the Sun yesterday. "I had no agreement with anybody in regards to money and my campaign for civil court."
Judge Rothenberg, who used to be "of counsel" to Judge Gerald Garson’s law firm before he became a judge,said she was never pressured to hire specific people and simply "hired the best people out there."
During that campaign, Judge Garson walked her through the process, frequently accompanying her to political clubs and out on the campaign trail, according to veteran Brooklyn politicos.
Judge Rothenberg was the largest contributor to her own campaign — she loaned or gave herself about $50,000. The next largest contribution was $10,000 — in two installments from the Committee for a Golden Future, controlled by Howard Golden, then the borough president.
The Sun reported yesterday the committee had made an unsecured $125,000 loan to the judicial campaign of Rachel Adams, clearing the field of any competition.
The judicial screening panel of the Brooklyn Democratic Party recently "approved" Judge Rothenberg as a suitable candidate for state Supreme Court this year.
Judge Rothenberg, who became the supervising judge for civil court in 2001, told the Sun she has not been contacted by anyone from the district attorney’s office to set up an interview.
Meanwhile, Marcia Sikowitz — a housing court judge — has met with investigators from Mr. Hynes’ office.
Judge Sikowitz,who ran an unsuccessful campaign for civil court last year,told prosecutors she was directed by Mr. Norman and the executive director of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, Jeff Feldman, to hire Branford Communications and a consultant named William Boone after they had endorsed her.
Also in that meeting was Judge Karen Yellen, who met with investigators last week, telling them how she felt she was forced to hire Branford as well as Mr. Boone. She paid $9,000 to Mr. Boone for get-out-the-vote operations in a neighborhood where she knew she would lose.
Judge Sikowitz told investigators she hired Mr. Lendler’s consulting company — and was happy with the results — but refused to hire Mr. Boone.
ROTHENBERG
GO TO THE WEB AND CHECK ROTHENBERG'S BACKGROUND
Garson's information on the making of judges was considered impeccable by Hynes's office, which was well aware of his close ties to the county leader. Like that of his wife, Garson's promotion to the bench came after years of dutiful homage to the party. As an attorney in private practice, Gerald Garson helped raise tens of thousands of dollars from the yellow taxi industry, whose biggest titans were long represented by his former law firm. With Garson's help, taxi cash flowed into the coffers of all of the party's official committees as well as to the campaigns of Norman and his closest allies.
Garson, still a lawyer and a party district leader at the time, had made himself an even closer Norman confidant when he supported the assemblyman's bid to take over when Golden stepped down. Garson's move was considered crucial to Norman's victory for two reasons. For one, he brought key support from mostly white and Jewish sections of south Brooklyn, where Norman, a black leader from Bedford-Stuyvesant, needed backing. Even more remarkably, Garson defected from the banner of his cousin Michael Garson, another party leader who was making his own strong bid for the party reins.
According to those who know both men, the relationship between the cousins never recovered. But Michael Garson later got a consolation prize‹party backing for a Supreme Court post. Five years later, cousin Gerald joined him there. But even as Gerald Garson was donning his black polyester robes, he continued to be a major influence on Norman's thinking when it came to party nominations for the courts. This was evident in 1997, the same year that Gerald Garson was elected to Supreme Court, when Norman‹badly in need of a civil court candidate after his own choice was forced to drop out‹-turned to a lawyer in Garson's law firm named Karen Rothenberg.
Reality chech: Rothenberg was given a real tough primary by the Genovesi-Fidler forces, and she won it. This would indicate that her campaign expenses were actually legimately spent on campaigning.
There you go again El Juez, changing names, making a personal attack on a blogger who has not attacked you. And who has no idea who you are. And then you guys cry like babies when you get outed. Only this time your attack is down-right stupid. So maybe we should suspect Maurice of being corrupt because he was a teacher in the school system under Fernandez and Crew? How do you compare a teacher who takes a test for a subject area, gets a license? That person gets appointed in rank order. He goes through a probation. So how could you compare this to a person who is selected privately by a bunch of hacks, in a system which the DA finds to be corrupt and the Federal Court terminates as illegal. Jerry Garson never was a District Leader. The article from the Sun presents no evidence that Rothenberg did anything wrong. Nuff said!
Maurice writes: "During the last 6 months I had come to believe that Room 8 was populated by progressive intellectuals and reform-minded activists of Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights and other parts of Brooklyn. " Dorothy replies: "Maurice, I believe YOU may be a progressive intellectual and a reform-minded person, but from what evidence did you get the notion that Room 8 bloggers were progressive, intellectual, reform-minded and activist? Because they called themselves progressives? Exactly what reform-minded activism did any of them do aside from writing blogs favoring their own "reform" candidates? Attend political club meetings promoting THEIR "reform" candidates? " EASTERN PARKWAY FAN OF DOROTHY FOR YEARS WRITES: Dorothy Siegal, YOU couldn't be more correct. If Room8NY reflects a progressive and reform society, God help us. Most of the individuals who post on this site have betrayed their identification as either employees or friends of County people. Or on the waiting list to become employees. In addition, I think they appear to be mostly gay White men of a somewhat lower-class, judging from some of their dialogue. Also unfortunately, some of them have found a way to identify themselves as being Jewish..with no credit to your ancestry and mine.
From: Maurice Gumbs The praise showered on David Schmidt by Anonymous 7:45AM, threw me off altogether. I felt sure that I had been in the Court of a David Schmidt before, but the description didn't seem to fit. So I e-mailed the attorney who had invited me to join him in Court. He was sure it was the same Judge Schmidt, acting Supreme.. Schmidt was conducting Calendar Hearings. He conducted it as though it was a Fish-Market. All the lawyers were babbling away at the same time, and he howled above them from time to time. It was the most undignified proceeding I have ever seen in a Courtroom, and his sloppy appearance contributed to the lack of decorum. The attorney who invited me was handling a libel and slander case. Lawyers for both sides approached the bench, where Schmidt stated loudly that he hadn't read the briefs which were in his possession for about two weeks. When he read the captions and saw it was a matter of Libel and Slander, he quickly said that he knew nothing about Libel and Slander, and asked the defendant's attorney to "teach me about this Libel and Slander" matter. The attorney leaned over towards Schmidt talking to him in a very familiar manner. And it wasn't long before Schmidt stopped the explanation to ask the plaintiff herself what it was she wanted. He suggested to her that she settle for an apology. This was a complaint for hundreds of thousands of dollars. At Schmidt's suggestion the defendant's attorney broke into a broad smile and the plaintiff burst into tears. Schmidt then adjourned the matter, muttering that he would turn it over to one of his colleagues for advice, and picking up a brown paper-bag which contained his lunch he headed for his chambers with a few lawyers chasing after him noisily. And he did turn it over to one of his colleagues. Judge Michael Garson. What a small world!!! Somebody. Quick. Tell me the name of at least two or even one of the District Leaders who did not support Vito Lopez choices. Just don't say that every one of them went with Vito. I don't want to hear it. Shut your mouth.
Maurice: your comments are valid ones except one thing; maybe I'm mistaken (tho I'm sure I'm not) but vito lopez is not hispanic (he's italian I believe). If you are going to put people into categories based on last names, you miss a lot of people - or put them in the wrong box. For example, el juez is right about the civil court judge elections; both are fine women of color (and yes, endorsed by vito). In fact jackie williams is hispanic - she was born in panama and speaks fluent spanish. If you check the history of panama, you'll find that "williams" is a very popular name over there (read the chapter on the cheap labor and "slaves" brought over from the west indies to build the canal...)
But el juez, I don't know who you are counting "hispanic" in the city council, that's such a broad pen stroke. Hell, david weprin's mom is half cuban. Did you count him?
What you are really saying with your coded language is that in your eye, what you perceive as "hispanic" - j.lo, rosie perez, maybe even you - isn't reflective in the selections. As a hispanic woman who doesn't fall in to that light skin, straight hair, thin nose category, I take offense to that.
Both you and maurice ought not put people in to boxes based on last name and skin hue alone. Count "people of color" (and even that can be deceptive), but unless you are going to go around and ask every person their ancestral background, you really don't know. Vito lopez and jackie williams are good examples of that.
From: Maurice. Thanks for finding my comments valid. It gets a little busy on the post, and its easy for you to miss information. The extracts below indicate that Vito's pedigree is well-noted. And the color of not just two of the judges, but four of them is also acknowledged. It takes a little time to read the voluminous amount of information, but in the end it saves you the trouble of having to make corrections. Thanks again for your courtesy. ------------------------------------------------------- posted by maurice gumbs ----There is another troubling issue here. Although Vito changed his name from Lopesino and became Lopez to run in a Latino district, the County Leader appears to be more interested in the nomination of Italian candidates than Latino candidates. For example, Vito pulled out all the strings in his attempt to block Margarita Lopez Torres from becoming the first Latina Surrogate Court judge in New York State. Traitor Vito Lopez's Affirmative Action Family Plan--- posted by maurice gumbs To: Yoda From: Maurice. I suspect that most readers can tell from your determined postings that you are anxious to defend and support Vito. It has probably raised their interest and speculation(not mine) as to your identity. I know you must find what I have said about Vito to be aggravating, and somewhat threatening. So I expect your criticism.. That's fair. But I think it would make for more meaningful dialogue if you and other Vito allies really pay attention to what other posters are actually saying. 10:19 above said that it was clear that "two Black women were going to win those two County-wide positions." Did 10:19 say which two Black women? No. He/she didn't. Again, the fact is that no matter what Vito did or said, or didn't do or didn't say, on the evening of September 12, two Black women were going to emerge as the winners. And all four of these Black women knew that two of them would win. That's why they were willing to spend their money. Vito gets no credit for it. If he wanted to be a champion for Blacks and Latinos, he could have used his influence to get Pataki to appoint Blacks and Latinos to the higher Courts. The racism of Pataki's judicial appointment is incredible. But Vito, instead has made it a selfish personal ethnic and family affair when it comes to current appointments. Traitor Vito Lopez's Affirmative Action Family Plan--- posted by maurice gumbs
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Political Update
Gov WireGoogle AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
Any stats on the percentage of the Brooklyn AND SI population (since like it or not they are part of this judicial district) is Latino? How much MORE than 5/67th's is it?
Let's see, out of 23 Assemblymembers elected in open elections, there are hmmmm TWO LAtinos.
Out of a dozen or so State Senators there is lessseee now...ONE Latino.
Of 19 Council Members there are THREE Latinos.
Out of six or seven Congressman there is ONE Latina. Wait, I think we are being over represented in Congress by Latina's!
Mo, this is your most ridioculous argument yet.
And blogglodites, spare me the "Vito Lopez apologist hack probably a lawyer in the courts" diatribes.
Address the facts instead...ok?
PS And pls make mention of the two new Civil court judges elected this year who were two FINE women of color.
And last....tho I am surely no fan of the Garson's, Karen Rothernberg was NOT a partner in his firm. Hasn't worked with them in well over a decade....and has in fact enjoyed a spectacular reputation on the bench. Her support was largely based on MERIT, as she had no significant political benefactor. So McCarthy away, Maurice. She is guilty of nothing ecept an old association. We are not necessarily who we are employed by...lest I remind you of some of the stellar chancellors who employed YOU in the school system.