- 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
Standing Up For Clarence Norman (Who Would Have Thunk It)
Nancie Katz from the New York Daily News called me a while aback just to chat. No big thing. She let slip that she was working on a big story about the sale of judgeships in Brooklyn. I smiled to myself as I wondered if she could dredge up something new from the sewer of Brooklyn’s “taken for granted” politics. After all, the sale of judgeships in Brooklyn wasn’t virgin territory. This call came around the time that Wayne Barrett broke another Clarence Norman/ Carl Andrews innuendo in the Village Voice. I say ‘innuendo” here because it seems like practically all these stories can’t seem to make it to an indictment, far less a criminal conviction. I wonder why; and not that I am vested or invested either way. If there is truth to half of these stories that most of us- who are deep into Brooklyn’s politics- have heard over the years, then why do statutes of limitations keep running out? I am no public-defender of Clarence Norman (although I like the guy on a personal level), but I am really starting to believe that Clarence is getting a raw deal here. I will get to that later. Anyway, Nancie wanted my corroboration on something, and given her sterling reputation as a journalist/reporter, I was happy to oblige. So we talked, and we talked, and we talked. Mostly about things we have heard over the years; political things and criminal-sounding things. Mostly off the record. So for a few weeks we talked and sometimes we chatted instead of talked. You see Nancie still has a passion for her job, even after all these years writing from the middle east of the world, to the mid west of these dis-united states (or somewhere near there). I admire that. I hope that she wins an award of some sort just for her tenacity. She has been around for a while now; chasing corruption in Brooklyn’s courts and also in Brooklyn’s politics. She kinda reminds me of a younger Wayne Barrett in that regard; but then I could be wrong. Until recently I had great respect for Barrett, but lately I am having second thoughts, after seeing him passionately try to defend the indefensible: Alan Hevesi. Was this the same Wayne Barrett who followed Maurice Gumbs around on primary election day of 1988? The same one who talked idealistically about reform and change? But maybe I shouldn’t beat up on Wayne here; after all, most of the voters in New York voted for Hevesi. And you wonder why things don’t change much with political corruption, influence peddling and power-abuse; the enemy is usually living in the mirror. Coming back to Clarence Norman now; I find what is happening- when taken in totality- is wrong. I also find it unjust and RACIST. Lord knows that Clarence and I have lined up on different sides of many a candidate. No big thing. I can say that despite this, Clarence has always been gracious and respectful to me. I could never forget that. Lord also knows that I have critiqued Clarence’s handling of things in Brooklyn’s politics many a time and over again; especially when it came to Caribbean-American empowerment and such. We were never drinking buddies. I think the only campaigns that Clarence and I ever saw eye to eye on, were Reynold Mason’s civil court judgeship of 1994, and Omar Boucher’s senate challenge of 2002. Other than that he was forever on the other side of the political football, starting off with my good friend Maurice Gumbs in 1984. I even supported Ed Roberts against him in 2004 -this was some 20 years after Gumbs. In “black” terms: Clarence has whipped me like I had peed the bed. I still have the political bruises to show. When I managed Joan Gill’s challenge to Clarence in 1996, some people warned that it would come back to haunt me; it sure did. He could have endorsed me in 2000, but he sat on his hands and let the clock run out, in a race I lost by just 900 votes. Payback is a bitch sometimes, and at other times it’s a dirty whore. Given all this as a backdrop, you will probably think that I will be the last one to go to bat for Clarence; but my parents always said in their Trinidadian dialect:”wrong is wrong”. So when you see that all these judges and lawyers who are white, and that they are now getting immunity from prosecution and/ or slap on the wrist deals to squeal against Norman, you have to sit back and wonder about what’s really going on. Is Charles Hynes on some sort of personal vendetta? When you know (or at least, suspect) that there are numerous judges out there who broke the law to get where they are, you start to wonder if they are not still breaking the law to get some more. So where are the indictments Charlie? Let’s go further: aren’t the crimes of Alan Hevesi much worse than those that Norman has been convicted of so far? So then tell me why Hevesi shouldn’t be doing jail time? But the black man will? All this is so racist that it doesn’t even smell stink any more. You don’t need the stench to induce vomiting; throwing-up comes on its own volition. This double standard of injustice here makes District Attorney Charles Hynes (and to a minor extent Soares) look real bad. Hynes appears to be vindictive and racist, since he is ostensibly selective with his prosecutions. Don’t forget that Hynes was in bed with Clarence Norman for years. What actually transpired between those two is anyone’s guess. But something must have happened. Look, I am no naive lil political upstart here. Personally, I suspect that both Clarence Norman and Carl Andrews know where all/ or some of the “bodies are buried”-so to speak. I don’t think that either one of them comes out of all this with totally clean hands. My gut feeling tells me that there has been too much smoke in the Brooklyn air for far too long; and usually, behind a lot of smoke you will find a fire or a pyrotechnic. But the fact is this; that the end result of all the hoopla about corruption in Brooklyn’s politics is that the former county leader and party boss Clarence Norman is headed to jail, while and all the white boys who benefited from his reign get to go home. And if by chance Clarence is convicted on this upcoming one about the sale of judgeships, he will be put away for a long stretch. Add this to the reality that he is already looking at four or five years of jail time accumulated from his two previous convictions (now on appeal). So Clarence doesn’t have a family to go home too? So only the white boys have loved ones at home? Doesn’t Clarence have a young wife and an infant daughter? If he loses another round, he is likely to see his daughter on the outside again when she is a teenager. That is rough; and I say this as a father of a loving daughter. It is not an easy scenario to envision. He has a lot riding on the outcome of his next trial. While some of his white cohorts get to play with their wives, girlfriends, mistresses or lovers, Clarence will be playing with himself; in the penitentiary. Luckily for him he is a man, otherwise he wouldn’t have a natural toy to play with. Plus, he should pray that some big giant of a thug doesn’t choose him for a girlfriend. Apart from this, Carl Andrews continually gets heaped on, like a Staten Island land-fill; and after a while you start to feel for Carl (despite whatever suspicions you may harbor). You start to wonder if all this is fair and just. One of the so-called “good books” has a passage that calls for justice to be swift and certain. Years of suspicion, innuendo, aspersions and the like is not good; the District Attorney (Hynes) should have provided closure on all of this long ago. Justice has been slow and uncertain. People’s reputations have been irrevocably damaged; and yes, that includes Carl Andrews’s. Where are the investigations, or the grand juries being convened, and/or the indictments or non-indictments? Is Carl’s new job with governor Eliot Spitzer now under a cloud again? Is all this really fair to him? Suppose it is/was all lies? Who does he sue now? Then there is the flip side: what if some of the things said and written about Carl Andrews over these years are true? Why then haven’t the DA moved to investigate or prosecute? What is/was the hold up? His connections? His allies? Look, no matter how you slice all this; and no matter what side of the fence you are on: in totality, it sucks. Look, it’s not just about influence peddling, the selling of judgeships, election tampering, political intimidation, campaign irregularities, campaign finance violations, profiteering, theft, graft, nepotism and the like; it is really about public confidence in the political and judicial system. Brooklynites are fed up with this on-going saga. Even in the post-Norman era of the Democratic Party in Brooklyn, stories still abound. And you wonder why voting in the most populous county in the USA (Kings) is so anemic? Many people have lost faith in the system. Another thing that people seem to forget is that Alan Hevesi’s name has been mentioned quite a few times concerning irregular campaign finance activities. Wasn’t the five thousand dollars that Clarence was convicted of putting into his personal checking account, supposed to have come from Diane Gordon in repayment for work done on Hevesi’s mayoral campaign (I think that’s what Clarence said, no)? And why did Mark Green get a pass from any type of prosecution (or rigorous investigation) after revelations of campaign finance irregularities? And what about the Garsons; are they all going to walk away from all the crap they have done? And what about the judges who actually paid to play-so to speak? As they used to say on one of the children’s educational TV programs: “and what about Naomi?” Maybe it is time that Clarence and Carl go on the offensive. Maybe it’s time they look to get some kind of immunity from the Feds, for unearthing some of the buried bodies (if they know of any). After all, why should they take all these hits alone? And why should Carl have to wiggle and squirm every time a new expose like the one in today’s Daily News come out. Is it because both he and Clarence are black? Stay tuned-in folks.
Thank you Rock. I am an ally of Clarence and Carl and have worked with them for years. As Clarence says, "they have criminalized politics". Change the system but expose all of the politicans. Ask maxine Archer to name names.....How can Clarence go to jail and Dunbar and Alter walk the streets. Everybody knows that politicans have street money to pay cash payments to people who do lit drops and door to door. The same system that Joe Hynes brought into to get elected on the blood of Michael Griffith. Watch Clarence win an appeal. You say that black politicans don't get involved in white district races, did you ever think that perhaps that is what's behind the Norman witchhunt?
11:53 has a solid point; not all the crooks and hustlers in this game were wth county. No reason freelance protection rackets shouldn't be targets as well. And Hynes should drop the Yellen/Sikowtiz nonsense, which really is about criminilzing politics, and go onto Ruditzky, which really is about politicalizing crime. The acquittal at the first trial is only going to make conviction in the second more difficult. Now that the first indictment served its purpose (getting Feldman to roll) there's no reason to postpone the inevitable.  Clarence Norman may win his upcoming case (maybe), but winning on appeal the two already tried.............well....... I would be surprised. Didn't he not take the stand and admit that he put the check made out to his campaign committeee in his personal account (among other admissions)?
Firstly, CN hasn't been convicted of selling judgeships; until he is, then there is a presumption of innocence. But let's say he does get convicted of this; then the obvious question is why are all those white judges and lawyers who knew about the scheme(s)-and were directly (or indiresctly) involved- still on the bench or still practicing, and not being punished? Secondly, I deliberately left out Maurice Gumbs and his writings over the years about all this; the reason being that he was the one who championed the cause of "cleaning up Brooklyn's politics", and as a good investigative journalist, he made the case for Hynes and placed the files in his hands, if you may. Hynes dropped the ball here and you all know this. If Gumbs could have uncovered all that he did- all through those years- with just his lil "Footnotes" newspaper, why couldn't Hynes-with all the resources of his office- not finish the job after all those exposees; after all those lenghty investigative pieces from Gumbs? Your bringing up M. Gumbs, only helps shore up my points.
Clarence and Carl could not have been involved in many nefarious schemes all by themselves; that notion is absurd. So what? You only go after the black ones, and give the white ones a free pass? Given his political relationship with Clarence over the years, Hynes should have recused himself, he should have let one of the Manhattan, Bronx, Queens or Staten Island DAs come in and deal with all this; or even maybe the FEDS. SOMEHOW THERE IS THIS DISTINCT FEELING THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HYNES ISN'T GOING AFTER. Humor me and say that I am correct in this feeling; then tell me why isn't he touching these folks?
While not defending Norman, I want to repeat a point I made in an earlier post. Joe Hynes says he first heard about selling judgeships over 30 years ago. Norman's immediate predecessor as County Leader was Howard Golden. Joe Hynes hired Golden and paid him $125,000 a year. Did Joe ever consider that Golden might have been involved in selling judgeships? What is going on with the investigation of removed Surrogate Court Judge Feingberg and Public Administrator Small? Is Hynes waiting for the statute of limitations to run out? "SOMEHOW THERE IS THIS DISTINCT FEELING THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HYNES ISN'T GOING AFTER. Humor me and say that I am correct in this feeling; then tell me why isn't he touching these folks?" If Hynes was making a political calculus to protect some and not others, than he would be going full force after Mike Garson. Instead, he made a prosecutor's calculus, to make the case, even at the price of letting off his good friend's biggest enemy. The sale of judgeships in Brooklyn has historically been a lot more decentralized than most people think. Throughout the years, there have been many district leaders, operating independantly of county leaders, selling judgeships. You do not need a county leader behind you to get elected to the bench. This was definitely the case under Clarence Norman's tenure. It helps if a county leader is behind you, but it is not a prerequisite to getting elected. Because of this decentralized system of corruption, Brooklyn has suffered politically because Clarence only focused on judgeships while giving superficial support to other races. The corruption in Queens and the Bronx, when it did happen (or does), had been more centralized. Clarence, to Brooklyns own peril, allowed several feifdoms to grow and give tacit support to inept judicial candidates getting on the bench. In conclusion, Clarence is being made to appear as a Macchiavelian autocrat by Hynes. Curb-side Analyst. Stand on the curb-side, read, and learn before you offer analysis. For example, it will come as a surprise to you that Supreme Court judges are not elected but get their jobs by NOMINATION at a secret meeting convened by the County Leader. It will also come as a suprise to you that before Margarita Lopez Torres County-wide judges with few exceptions were the candidates chosen by the County leader and his associates. And are you suggesting that Clarence should have been more involved in non-judicial races? Are you exactly out of your mind? Queens County Dem machinery, headed by Hon. Joe Crowley, Mike Reich, Frank Bolz, Gerry Surrogate Sweeney, well taught by the master Tom Manton, make Clarence Norman look like a novice. But then again, who can touch these men/mercenaries? Their kingdom is off limits.
Cousin Rock, I usually on your side, but I'm not sure what you're arguing here: That Norman shouldn't go to jail or that others should join him? I can't read the mind of "Joe" Hines, but Norman hasn't been the first Brooklyn leader to go to jail. Meade Espositio went to jail. Stanley Friedman, the Bronx leader went to jail. Assembly Speaker Mel Miller went to jail. Queens leader Donald Manes committed suicide rather than go to jail. Congresman Mario Biaggi went to jail. While I'm sensitive to charges of selective prosecution based upon the race of the target, what I find it harder to accept the argument that prosecution of highly visible and corrupt African-American political leaders resulting in jail sentences is within itself racist. Inevitably, this argument always comes up when an Afican-American leader goes to jail, without reference to a history of corrupt white leaders heading for the pokey. The essence of what I am saying is this: there were many blacks and whites who were involved in this elaborate scheme, it seems; and yet ONLY one black man is getting prosecuted and will probably do jail time. WHY? Is it racism? You tell me. If you read my article thoroughly, you will see that I implied that my suspecions are, that Clarence and Carl are at least complicit in some things that aren't kosher. The way Hynes has gone about all this , and the end result, will leave Hynes with egg on his face, unless he brings more indictments and some convictions; especially to those who are caucasian.
Rock, I am surprised that you did not mention the mastermind behind many of these deals Jeff Feldman. Feldman had all 22 counts dropped against him so that he can destroy Clarence. The Hynes/Feldman deal is a clear indication that this is very personal for Hynes. Hevesi hired someone to the tune of over $300,000 to take care of his wife on tax payer's dime and he walks. What kind of justice system is this. "Hevesi hired someone to the tune of over $300,000 to take care of his wife on tax payer's dime and he walks. What kind of justice system is this." Why ask Hynes this? Ask the black man who serves as Albany's DA. To Anonymous 12:16AM Thanks for your attempts at clarification. It is good to know that people out there are concerned about judicial reform. Having said that, under Clarence, judicial candidates sometimes pleaded their case directly to Clarence or they could have a district leader do the bidding for them. My comments were not referring to Supreme Court NOMINATIONS but the overall process by which a person communicates to the powers that be that he/she wants to run for a judicial seat. The judicial convention that you make reference to is not a surprise to me or anyone. It is a sham process. And not all of the Supreme Court judges who got in through the judicial convention were personally loyal to Clarence. Their loyalty was to the district leader that brokered the deal. In the case of Civil Court candidates who get ELECTED, their are many who get in despite county opposition to civil and surrogate (i.e. Maragita Lopez Torres) With regard to the question that you raise about Clarence getting involved in non judicial races, it is the job of a county leader to get involved in every race that goes on in a county. Obviously, he had not interest in non judicial races but that is part of the business of politics he refers to when he was first indicted. He was selective in his business/political interests for obvious reasons. Lets keep response comments to the text of what was written without making unnecessary inferences based on what you assume the person is saying or who you think they are or are sympathetic to. BTW, thanks for encouraging me to read and learn more. Far too many folks who give comments think they know it all. I am just a simpleton offering one persons view of the political world from my humble little beach chair on the curbside. I'll see you around Anonymous 12:16am. Sincerely, Curbside Analyst Can someone please step forward and expose the corruption and chicanery of the Queens County Dems-from Mike Reich, Frank Bolz and Congressman Joe Crowley right down? well said curbside. and i also agree that the corruption in queens is so much more entrenched than anywhere with so many stakeholders beholden to the system. the system was there way before manton and will live on.. until somebody seriously looks into the good old boys system set up in queens. Resign now, and skip town with your loot. Or follow Clarence and Brian McLaughlin. Surrogate's Court gave you guys enough. Quit while you are ahead! Go to Switzerland and enjoy!
My colleague, Charles LaCerra, and I wrote a book "Ethnicity and Machine Politics" (UPA 1992) about the rise and fall of the Madison Club in Brooklyn. It was one of the most powerful local political clubs in the country at one time. The home for example of Stanley Steingut, Abraham Beam, Eugene Gold, Emmanual Celler, et al. A major point of the book is that the club organization was able, with much difficulty however, to weather the demographic changes in the district from Irish Catholic to Jewish and Italian Catholics as partners, or leaders but that (with racism) the ascendancy of African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans was too much to handle and the club self-destructed. I assume that many of the issues surrounding the county organization today are remnants of that "delicate situtation." We argued that this was (or would be) a parallel phenomenon to the Borough, the city, the state and by further extension the nation. On a personal note; I was very impressed with young Carl Andrews when I was doing community work and living in Prospect-Lefferts-Gardens. I supported him for his recent run for Congress even though I might have supported Yvette Clark if she had asked me first. I worked with her mom Una as well as Major Owens when together they were struggling against the essentially Euro-ethnics (I don't like the term "white") who tried their very best to keep especially non-white minorities (who became majorities) from taking their rightful position in the party. Brooklyn has produced some very exceptional political talent and some have very rough edges but they are (in my humble opinion) as good as any who have emerged from what we used to call the "machine." I am also amused that the assumption of shady (self-interested) dealing only emerges when one is talking in ethnic or minority group terms. We should stop thinking about politics as though it was a recreational, or leisure time activity of altruists as opposed to the hard-nosed business that it is. Munich shoes? And you also remember the little girl of Hailee Steinfeld? Recently she emerged munich outlet Winter 2011 2012 endorsements. Thanks for this wondrous post, I am glad I observed this website on yahoo.
Post new comment |
Hot Topics
Gov Wire
Political Update
Google AdsSearchRoom Eight Extras |
delicious
digg
You are not without a point, my friend, but some of what you say is msguided:
"aren’t the crimes of Alan Hevesi much worse than those that Norman has been convicted of so far? So then tell me why Hevesi shouldn’t be doing jail time? But the black man will?"
Well:
1) The white man copped a plea and resigned; that usually gets one special treatment.
2) It's the crimes not dealt with thus far that concern everyone. No one would care jackshit about the nickle and dime crap Clarence was convicted of if selling judgships weren't an issue. For why this is worse than anything Hevesi did, i suggest you read the collected works of Mr. Gumbs.
"Apart from this, Carl Andrews continually gets heaped on, like a Staten Island land-fill; and after a while you start to feel for Carl (despite whatever suspicions you may harbor). You start to wonder if all this is fair and just. One of the so-called “good books” has a passage that calls for justice to be swift and certain. Years of suspicion, innuendo, aspersions and the like is not good; the District Attorney (Hynes) should have provided closure on all of this long ago. Justice has been slow and uncertain. People’s reputations have been irrevocably damaged; and yes, that includes Carl Andrews’s. Where are the investigations, or the grand juries being convened, and/or the indictments or non-indictments? Is Carl’s new job with governor Eliot Spitzer now under a cloud again? Is all this really fair to him? Suppose it is/was all lies? Who does he sue now? Then there is the flip side: what if some of the things said and written about Carl Andrews over these years are true? Why then haven’t the DA moved to investigate or prosecute? What is/was the hold up? His connections? His allies? Look, no matter how you slice all this; and no matter what side of the fence you are on: in totality, it sucks."
Yes it does, but it took a long time, some brutal tactics and some ugly deals and some dumb luck to build these cases. It aint't pretty and it's barely defensible, but if one is ever to blow the lid off this stuff and put an end to it, it's what it takes.
"Maybe it is time that Clarence and Carl go on the offensive."
Yes it is time for them to make their deals and names names instead of race baiting out DA who is just acting like a thuggish prosecutir, which is the only kind who could ever make such a case.