January 15, 2007

 
A recurrent theme in these articles is public corruption. We wish it were not so, but, sadly, venality  often underlies appointments, contracts, elections and decisions on public policy.  Our first column, published on March 21, 2002, is available on our website, www.nycivic.org  Entitled A  MONEY TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN, the article tells of a  $115,000 payment by the Kings County Democratic Party to county leader Clarence Norman’s local political club.

Our second column, published March 30, 2002,  HE’S NO ANGEL, reported the arrest of Brooklyn City Councilmember Angel Rodriguez on extortion charges relating to the Council’s approval of a supermarket site.  Rodriguez was convicted in June 2003 of bribe-taking and was sentenced to four years and four months in Federal prison.

Today we send out column 344, and we are back in Brooklyn.  This time, Wayne Barrett and his research assistants on the Village Voice are pursuing bigger fish.

 It is sometimes the case that "everybody knows" that a certain politician or political organization thoroughly corrupt, but no one is able to prove it.   The FBI refers to particular individuals as organized crime figures or associates, without their necessarily having been convicted of a particular crime.

It is the same in local politics, particularly with regard to the Brooklyn judiciary and a few members of the state legislature.  Insiders know who some of the bad guys are, but even if you do know, you tend not to say so in print without proof, or citation of sources.  So a llot of people know, but not officially.
 
That is why we are so pleased about linking to a story by Barrett that the Voice posted on its website Saturday. It is the result of a two-year investigation into the Brooklyn courts. The article also appears to further the reconciliation of the Voice and Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. (Joe) Hynes, first elected in 1989. The paper liked Hynes early on, but he fell out of favor for his failure to prosecute Brooklyn politicians who were believed to be corrupt.
 
In his defense, Hynes maintained that he could only act on the basis of evidence before him. Evidence usually does not walk into a DA's office.  But one day in 2001 it did, in the person of Gary Berenholtz, a Brooklyn lawyer, who complained that Judge Victor Barron had demanded a $250,000 bribe, later reduced to $125,000, to approve the settlement of a negligence case that would have given Berenholtz a fee of $1.6 million.  In January 2002, Barron was recorded in his chambers meeting with Berenholtz,, who gave him $18,000 as a down payment.  Barron was arrested, and under a plea bargain, was sentenced to prison for three to nine years.   He served 23 months at the upstate Clinton Correctional Facility.  Barron was allowed to keep his $97,000 pension.
 
Years later, Hynes began to prosecute Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman for what appeared to some to be minor political violations.  Some people were surprised when Norman was convicted in that case, and subsequently sentenced to prison.  Observers blamed the conviction on Norman's decision, which his lawyer was said to oppose, to take the stand in his own defense, which allowed the jury to take the measure of the man and his credibility.  Norman was convicted of different offenses at a second trial. Now it is reported that he will be prosecuted again, this time on more serious charges
 
The third Norman prosecution is comparable, in a much milder way, to the trial of Saddam Hussein.  He could have been tried for hundreds of crimes, because murder, individudal or mass, was his way of transacting business, and he is responsible for deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Iraqis.   Clarence Norman is nothing like Saddam Hussein, he is not accused of any crimes of violence, and he s far more decent and likeable than the psychopath Saddam.  The point we are making is that if you were to try Norman individually for every judgeship he is alleged to have sold, the trials would go on for a very long time.  Maybe three trials will complete the cycle, and make the point with sufficient clarity.
 
There is a related issue about the culpability of Norman's accomplices, such as Jeff Feldman, who was executive director of the Kings County Democrats, working under Clarence Norman, and those judges who were willing purchasers of robes, like Judge Howard Ruditzky.   Are they to be immunized from prosecution for giving evidence against Norman?  Is their testimony necessary to convict Norman in his third trial?  Should they go free despite their participation in these illegal transactions?

Another question that arises is were these judicial candidates bright, hard working, honest lawyers who were victims of extortion, or were they schmucks who would never have been considered for the bench if they had not paid off the county leader? Rule 30-T: “The truth lies somewhere in between.” Iin Brooklyn, the scale tips heavily toward the latter.
 
We urge you to take the time, if you can, to read Wayne Barrett's article.  It is a long one (4755 words), but it is packed with the results of research by Barrett and his six research assistants, who deserve great credit for their work.  The troupe reminds me of Santa and his elves, in the nicest way. Look at the other two Voice stories HOW HE GOT THAT STORY, and JUSTICE FOR SALE IN BROOKLYN.  They provide a view of the Brooklyn system not readily obtainable elsewhere.  The articles are worth printing out, but it will take more than one subway ride to finish them..
 
Clarence Norman did not invent the sale of judgeships when he became county leader in 1990.  He succeeded Howard Golden, then also serving as Brooklyn borough president, who was compelled to resign one of his two posts under the new City Charter.  Golden was not accused of any wrongdoing as County Leader. He had helped Hynes become district attorney in 1989, and after he retired as borough president in 2001 because of term limits, he was given a sinecure in Hynes’ office, which he left within a year. Golden never forgot his roots, and served as a district leader in Borough Park from 1966 to 2001, according to Wikipedia.

Golden’s predecessor was Meade Esposito, a Brooklyn powerhouse and a politician of the old school.  Esposito owned an insurance brokerage and printing plant.  Everyone needs insurance, and candidates need printing.  He got into trouble for bribing former Congressman Mario Biaggi, and failing to hang up after Biaggi ended their wiretapped telephone conversation, and then asking an aide the celebrated question: “How much are we into him for?”  The answer was ten-two, meaning $10,200.  Esposito was convicted in 1987, given a suspended two-year prison term, and fined $500,000.  A second indictment was dismissed because of his age and ill health.

The single most important political decision Meade Esposito ever made was to support Ed Koch over Mario Cuomo in the Democratic runoff primary in 1977.  Brooklyn had originally supported Mayor Abe Beame, but he came in third, and the choice in the runoff was between Koch and Cuomo.  This raises an issue which is almost philosophical: what is the measure of a man’s life?  How does one balance the good and the bad?  And why should one even attempt that?.

Back to square one: what do you do when a system is corrupt but protected by a code of silence?  The answer lies in good muckraking reporters, competent and fearless federal and local prosecutors, and employing the resources of the state attorney general in those counties where local law enforcement is not effective in dealing with political corruption.

The FBI and United States Attorneys have done a remarkable job in dealing with organized crime nationally.  It is time for state and local law enforcement to recognize its duty to fight political corruption, even though the corrupt are involved in the process by which prosecutors are appointed, elected and promoted.

 Specifically, Clarence Norman and his troops supported Brooklyn State Senator John Sampson for District Attorney in the 2005 Democratic primary.  With 37 percent of the vote in a field of four, Sampson came in second, narrowly losing to Joe Hynes’s 41 percent.  If Sampson had won that primary, this tale would be shorter.

 

#344 01.15.07   1382wds