January 23, 2007

The scandal of judgeships for sale in Brooklyn broke open today with the ex-wife of a former judge telling the story of the payoffs they made to get him Democratic nominations for the New York State Civil Supreme Court.
 
The page one headline; JUDGE 'FOR SALE', Ex-wife: Payoffs got my hubby a seat on bench. is followed by a two-page spread on pages 4 and 5, headlined  HOW MY EX-HUBBY PAID TO BE JUDGE   Former wife claims cash & bribery 'package deal'.
 
The exclusive story is by Nancie L. Katz.  This is her lede:
 
"In a shocking new twist in the exploding ‘judgeships for sale’ scandal, the ex-wife of a disgraced Brooklyn Supreme Court judge has revealed details of a systematic payoff scheme that bought
her husband his seat on the bench.
 
Tessa Abrams Mason alleges the couple spent nearly $100,000 cash,-- some of it bribe money -- to boost the legal career of her then-husband, former Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason.
 
In a series of exclusive interviews, Abrams Mason implicated well-known Brooklyn Democrats in the deals -- including former State Sen. Carl Andrews -- who has close ties to Gov. Spitzer."
 
"Her ex-husband was stripped of his post in 2003 after she told that state Commission on Judicial Conduct that he dipped into a client escrow account to fund his campaign -- an accusation that the commission substantiated.  Mason, 57, now a real estate agent in Georgia, has been ducking court-ordered child support payments for years."
 
In another story on page 5, Ms. Katz reports that ”disgraced ex-Democratic boss Clarence Norman is to go on trial today for the fourth time."  Two of his first three trials resulted in convictions, and one led to acquittal.
 
The irony here is that Mason stole from his clients to pay the money he was charged for the judgeship.  Dipping into escrow funds is a crime.  Other judges have taken bribes to decide cases in order to amortize their investment in a judicial position, Judge Mason is not accused of that offense. 
 
Under current practice, candidates are compelled to pay substantial sums to require judicial nominations.  Some of the money is allegedly for printing and campaign services to firms chosen by politicians.  If the candidate has the Democratic nomination, these services are unnecessary because they are assured of election.  The purchase of services is sometimes a ruse to conceal a political payoff.
 
District Attorney Charles J. Hynes's office said they were unaware of Ms. Abrams Mason's charges, and would look into them. "Based on the scope of our investigation, we take any allegations of corruption seriously." said Hynes' spokesman Jerry Schmetterer.
 
If Ms. Abrams Mason tells her story in court, it could mean a fifth trial for Clarence Norman and could prevent Carl Andrews from getting the important position he has sought from Governor Spitzer. Having gone public in the Daily News, Ms. Mason is certain to be called to give evidence in the case that may be brought.
 
In Mason’s case, his first election to the Civil Court, was a primary contested which he narrowly won. In that situation, campaign expenditures were necessary. But when he ascended to the Supreme Court as the choice of a judicial convention controlled by Clarence Norman, there was no need to spend any money other than buying coffee for the poll-watchers. 

The Daily News has called attention to this situation for years in editorials and news stories, along with the Village Voice's Wayne Barrett, Maurice Gumbs, Gary Tilzer, New York Civic, and the late Jack Newfield in the Sun. Light has pierced the
conspiracy, and as Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote, "Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant."

Former Judge Mason has denied all the charges made by his former wife, calling her a "bitter woman".  She says he has been ducking child support orders from New York State courts for years.  The Masons have three children, and if the child support allegations are true, it is understandable that his former wife would be bitter.
 
This type of corruption appears to be endemic in the judicial selection process in Brooklyn.  It may occur in Queens and the Bronx, but it would be more discreet, and possibly fall within the law.  It generally does not take place in Manhattan, which lacks the authoritarian leadership of the other counties.  You notice the difference with the City Council delegations of the different boroughs, with the Bronx and Queens often acting on cue, Brooklyn falling into one or two factions, and Manhattan going every which way.   Remarkably, the last two Council speakers have been from Manhattan, although they were anointed by the political leaders of other boroughs.

The problem with securing testimony in cases like thisone  is that both the judicial candidates and the county leader have an interest in silence, bribery being a crime of consent.  We can surmise that the people exposed so far are not the only ones who engaged in these corrupt practices.  That does not mean that proof can be assembled in other cases, since most of the transactions appear to have been made in cash, rather than by check.  Rule 10: "I wonder why.”
 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed District Judge John Gleeson's decision that the New York State system of judicial conventions, under which Civil Court Judge Mason, among hundreds of others, was selected to be the Democratic Party candidate for the State Supreme Court,  is unconstitutional.  Judge Gleeson wisely stayed the effective date of his ruling to 2007 to give the State Legislature a chance to correct the situation.  Predictably, it did not, with different measures passing in the Senate and Assembly.  The matter now goes back to the judge.
 
What are the potential remedies for this mare's nest of corruption? Governor Spitzer could appoint a Moreland Act Commission with subpoena power to investigate the mess.  He could supersede District Attorney Hynes, but that is not necessarily the right thing to do at this time since, after a decade of torpor, the DA has become active in this area, has made cases against the former county leader, and secured convictions in two of them.
 
The question arises how much fault lies with the sitting judges? Were they victims of extortion, or simply hustlers who bought their robes?  Rule 30-T: "The truth lies somewhere in between."

While some would prefer the nuclear option, abolishing the Kings County Supreme Court, and sending the judges out to practice law, leaving them at the mercy of their successors, that approach would raise significant issues of due process, to which judges are entitled even if they fail to afford it to others.
 
Another approach would be to divide the court in half, with half elected and half appointed.  After five years a study could tell us which method resulted in better judges, fairer and faster outcomes, and more satisfied lawyers and litigants.  One could go further and have a third of the judges chosen by lot from a panel of prequalified lawyers.  That way judges would not owe their seat to anyone, and would be more independent.
 
Last September, we quoted Bill Buckley who said that he would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard University.  We agree with him, and we cite the fate of President Lawrence Summers as a reason. Credentials alone do not make the judge, we look for qualities of mind and heart to find men and women in whom we entrust our fate if we are unfortunate enough to be involved in litigation.
 
With today's news that starting salaries for lawyers in large New York City firms are rising to $160,000, far more than a judge earns, the problem of getting a quality judiciary is exacerbated.  Ironically, the requirements to be hired as an associate at top firms are higher than those to become a judge.  You can't buy a job at a law firm, and if you don’t work out you are a lot easier to fire than a judge. 

There are, however, a number of honest and decent judges on most courts, who should be appreciated.  While lawyers are advocates who serve their clients, judges should serve justice, which is not always easy to determine. Good judges deserve respect, bad judges deserve removal.  And no judge should  have to buy his job.

We believe that the Brooklyn machine is seriously threatened.  But its demise is by no means assured, and too many people have too large a stake in the outcome for wickedness to vanish by itself.  Constant attention and outside assistance will be needed to restore justice to the courts of our most populous borough.
 

 

#346 01.23.07   1535wds