Charges Against Brooklyn's Democratic Leaders Stand
Tom Perrotta, New York Law Journal, 03-04-2005

A state Supreme Court judge yesterday sustained grand larceny and coercion charges against Assemblyman Clarence Norman and Jeffrey Feldman, two leaders of the Brooklyn Democratic Party who allegedly threatened to "dump" two judicial candidates if they did not hire certain vendors to distribute campaign literature.

Acting Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus, writing in People v. Feldman and Norman, 7189/03, said the 22-page indictment sufficiently alleged a crime and did not violate free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The decision will be published Wednesday.

"Judge Marcus' ruling supports our contention that in order to become a judge in Brooklyn, you had to play their dirty game," said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Norman, the chairman of the Kings County Democratic Committee, and Mr. Feldman, the committee's executive director, told the two candidates that they needed to contribute $100,000 each for a campaign effort that included mailings, phone calls and TV advertisements.

Former Civil Court Judge Karen B. Yellen eventually paid more than $50,000, prosecutors allege. She still lost her re-election bid, despite the party's support. The other Civil Court candidate, Marcia Sikowitz, dropped out of the race and remains a Housing Court judge.

Attorneys for Messrs. Norman and Feldman said the ruling criminalized legal political speech and decision-making by party leaders.

"I feel that the opinion elevates disagreements over political strategy into a serious criminal case with the obvious potential of jail time," said Roger N. Adler, who represents Mr. Norman.

Mark M. Baker, who along with Benjamin Brafman represents Mr. Feldman, said that he and Mr. Brafman were disappointed by the ruling.

"Even if you accept the validity of the testimony, it is not criminal because it is political conduct," Mr. Baker said. Both he and Mr. Adler said they were exploring whether they could challenge the ruling before the case goes to trial.

Mr. Norman also faces three separate indictments on political corruption charges. If convicted on all four indictments, he could face up to 10 years in prison, Mr. Adler said. The case before Justice Marcus is Mr. Feldman's only indictment.

Prosecutors allege that Messrs. Norman and Feldman demanded that Judges Yellen and Sikowitz pool campaign costs, use Branford Communications to distribute three joint mailings and pay another political consultant to run their campaign operations in Central Brooklyn.

When the candidates expressed reluctance and worries about the cost, the defendants allegedly threatened to rescind the party's endorsements. As one of Judge Yellen's advisors told the grand jury, Mr. Norman said, "If you're out, you're out."

Mr. Feldman subsequently reminded the candidates of this fact on behalf of his "principal," namely Mr. Norman, Justice Marcus' opinion said.

Assemblywoman Annette Robinson, also a member of the party's executive committee, testified on behalf of Mr. Norman that the party recommends vendors, including Branford, based on past success. But, Justice Marcus pointed out, she said candidates did not have to use recommended vendors and added that it would be inappropriate for the party to condition its support on that choice.

Justice Marcus noted that in Brooklyn, Democratic candidates for Civil Court, a low-profile race, are "virtually certain" of election.

The importance of the party's endorsement, he suggested, weighed heavily on Judge Yellen's eventual decision to comply with the demands as election-day neared. Nonetheless, Justice Yellen lost her re-election bid, a fact that has been emphasized by the defendants' attorneys.

Justice Marcus wrote: "First, it is apparent from the evidence before the grand jury that candidates for judicial office in jurisdictions that are dominated by one party or another are particularly vulnerable to the demands Party leaders make in exchange for securing or maintaining the Party's support, and that the power this gives to Party leaders is susceptible to abuse. In this case, as the People contend, the grand jury could infer from the timing of the defendants' demands - first, in the midst of the window of time when signatures could be gathered, and second, days before the primary election itself - that the defendants exercised that power in order to maximize its coercive effect, and in a manner that was not for the Party's benefit."

Justice Marcus rejected the notion that the coercion and extortion statutes violated the right to free speech or the right to association.

He added that "threatening to engage in conduct that would not materially benefit a political party - the threats the defendants allegedly made in this case - embodies neither legitimate political decision-making nor a legitimate exercise of party discipline."

Tom Perrotta can be reached at tperrotta@alm.com.

Biography from Clarence Norman's website

Clarence Norman, scapegoat
by J. ZAMGBA BROWNE, Amsterdam News Staff, 10/9/2003

Several big names in Kings County's Democratic Party were joined on the steps of Brooklyn Borough Hall Tuesday by supporters in a dramatic show of unity and to shed crocodile tears for their leader, Assemblyman Clarence Norman.

The deputy Assembly speaker, who serves as county leader, faces imminent indictment on a variety of allegations ranging from the sale of judgeships to the shaking down of candidates for elected office.
Led by veteran lawmaker Rep. Major Owens, the group wasted no time in sharply accusing District Attorney Charles J. Hynes of waging a so-called "witch hunt," using Norman as a scapegoat.
Owens said that when Hynes' probe into judicial corruption found absolutely nothing to link Norman to the allegation, he decided to try other tactics.

He accused the district attorney of mounting a fishing expedition, trying to find a smoking gun but coming up with issues entirely unrelated to his original probe, such as Norman's credit-card spending spree and political contributions made to Brooklyn's Democratic Party and his political club.

"Under no circumstances will we allow a so-called credit card lynching to succeed in Brooklyn, especially when it is aimed at tarnishing the reputation of our political leader," the congressman declared.
Owens compared the district attorney's probe to the celebrated Whitewater investigation mounted by an alleged Republican conspiracy against President and Mrs. Bill Clinton.

"You all recalled that when nothing was found in this investigation," Owens continued, "they tried other things and finally came up with Monica Lewinsky. We will not allow this to happen in Kings County."
However, at deadline Tuesday this week, no one in District Attorney Charles J. Hynes' press office would say precisely when the boom would be lowered on the Kings County Democratic boss.
As a matter of fact, Hynes wouldn't even comment on his investigation. He said through an aide that it would be out of order to discuss a pending probe, especially with the media.

However, Norman's supporters said they came to Borough Hall to protect his good name and to let the district attorney know in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't tolerate any harassment of him.
The assemblyman is under fire for, among other things, allegedly selling judgeships and fiscal improprieties. But his supporters dismissed the charges and said that he is being used as a scapegoat.
"With the heat of the selective persecution and scrutiny of judges focused on Brooklyn, the critics and the media have conveniently overlooked the fact that the Brooklyn process is more open than elsewhere," said Owens.

The congressman charged that the media have led New Yorkers to believe that judicial selection process is a Brooklyn leadership creation, which is not true.
"The problem is a statewide process, not a product of the Brooklyn leadership," Owens explained. "What is really at stake," according to Owens, "is the scramble for control of the borough, which is the nation's largest Democratic county."

He noted that with 900,000 registered Democrats, it should come as no surprise that this Democratic stronghold has recently become the center for destruction as the Republicans prepare to take New York by storm in 2004.
Speaker after speaker referred to Norman's 13-year record as county leader and what was achieved by his sensitive approach to diversity.

Of the 80 judges in Brooklyn, they said that there are 12 more females, a 200-percent increase.
In addition, they noted that there are 13 more African-American judges, an increase of 163 percent. And since Norman became party boss, the number of Latino judges increased to six, a jump of 600 percent.
"With an increase of 400 percent, the Orthodox Jewish community gained four new judges, and the gay, lesbian and transgender community gained the first openly gay female judge," according to the supporters.

"It is this kind of track record we should be applauding Assemblyman Norman," said Councilman Albert Vann. The group made some comparisons with what took place under past leaders to what happened on Norman's watch.

"Several years ago when Judge Sol Wachtler, a member of the state's highest court was arrested and convicted, no one blamed the governor's process," a written statement released by the group noted. Also, when then-presiding Chief Administrative Judge Francis X. Smith of Queens was convicted, there were no charges made against the Queens Democratic leadership. And when the more than 20-year reign of District Attorney Eugene Gold ended with a charge of child molestation brought against him, no one blamed the Meade Esposito political machine.

The group also underscored that District Attorney Hynes, an "admirer and protégé" of Gold who obediently served the Esposito machine, has embarked on an opportunistic and selective prosecution that is proposing a new set of rules and criminalizing long-standing election financing procedures.

How to Become a Judge
"Today," Judge Ciparick said in her welcoming remarks, "you will meet the people who can help make it happen for you." "It," of course, being a judgeship - the judge-makers being the city's Democratic political bosses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following editorial, which appeared in the New York Daily News on December 15, 2002, describes the process of becoming a judge in New York. Similar corrupt practices were exposed earlier by attorney Doris L. Sassower, who in 1991 was rewarded for her whistleblowing activities by having her license suspended without due process.

SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL

This [editoral] page has written extensively about how political bosses in New York turn their handpicked cronies into (unqualified) judges - particularly state Supreme Court justices. Yet who would have suspected the existence of a vocational conference that brazenly and audaciously explains the whole sleazy process? Welcome to "How to Become a Judge," a day-long session held a week ago Saturday at, of all places, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, a supposed bastion of judicial reform. So much for bastions.

In attendance were a couple of hundred lawyers/judge wanna-bes. Along with a member of the Daily News Editorial Board who thought the public ought to know what transpired. It was a sad spectacle. Made sadder by the appearance of the state's respected chief judge, Judith Kaye, as keynote speaker - her presence giving an undeserved imprimatur of probity to the day.

Another speaker was Kaye's Court of Appeals cohort, Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, who, it turns out, also is vice president of the bar association. What's wrong with that? Plenty. A member of the state's highest court should not be an officer of what is essentially a lawyers' lobby. The bar association does many fine things, but it is a private organization that promotes the narrow interests of one group of citizens: lawyers. Judges work for the people - all the people, not a single profession.

"Today," Ciparick said in her welcoming remarks, "you will meet the people who can help make it happen for you." "It," of course, being a judgeship. The judge-makers being the city's Democratic political bosses: Brooklyn's Clarence Norman, Tom Manton of Queens and Staten Island's John Lavelle. They were joined by Manhattan and Bronx honchos and the chairmen of the mayor's and governor's judicial screening committees.

As Deputy Mayor Carol Robles Roman explained, she was there "to share ... the inside story, secrets, tips, lucky charms" on how to become a judge. She should know. Last month, her husband was made a Supreme Court justice through an uncontested election. His lucky charm was the Bronx Democratic machine.

The most intriguing panel focused on how to become a judge in Brooklyn, Staten Island or Queens. Norman was the star speaker, deriding merit selection in favor of the phony elections he controls. "I believe in democracy," he declared. Sure. The kind of democracy where nonmachine candidates get tossed off the ballot by clubhouse-appointed judges. The kind of democracy that favors closed judicial nominating conventions with handpicked delegates and candidates over party primaries open to all comers.

Only New York countenances such cronyism. The other 49 states have competitive elections or merit selection of judges, a system that weighs experience, temperament, judgment, scholarship, knowledge of the law. Here, it's all about the bosses.

Norman used his platform to condemn The News' editorial "crusade" that has been documenting the judicial disaster in his county and advocating merit appointment of judges. Thanks, Clarence. We appreciate the recognition.

The News didn't fill the Brooklyn bench with hacks. Norman did. In the last year, 10 of the borough's 60 elected Supreme Court justices have been found guilty of criminal acts or ethical violations.

Lavelle also blasted us, harrumphing: "I'm tired of reading the Daily News. They seem to know what's best for everyone. It infuriates me." He then proceeded to advise would-be Staten Island judges to "get known by the party organization." Manton, king of Queens, where the judicial quality rivals Brooklyn's, was even more upfront. "Membership in your local Democratic club is not hurtful at all," he counseled, because the party's "nomination in Queens is tantamount to election." He didn't need to say "tantamount."

Perhaps the most profound comment of the day came from one of the attendees, a young lawyer who said she had always wanted to pursue a career on the bench. By lunch, she was crestfallen. "I have no chance to become a judge," she said. Why? She's a Republican.

By the way, there were no GOP leaders at the confab. Not one. As a panelist explained: "When was the last time we had a Republican [elected] in Kings or Queens? Since it's not a circumstance we have to consider, we didn't invite them."

That's Clarence Norman's "democracy" for you. Only the invited need participate.

The New Politics of Judicial Elections