NY Post Subpoenas Nine Judges in
Libel Case Brought by Another NY Judge

By Mark Fass
New York Law Journalz
May 19, 2009

As part of its defense against a libel action brought by a state court judge, the New York Post has subpoenaed nine current and former Brooklyn judges, including four former administrative judges.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Francois Rivera filed the libel suit in 2006, claiming the Post defamed him in a series of four articles published in October 2005, which stated that the judge had allegedly paid Brooklyn Democratic Party officials $50,000 for his seat. The first three articles also reported that "sources" had said the judge testified before a grand jury regarding other judges in return for immunity.

Specifically, the stories claimed that numerous insiders said Justice Rivera sought easier treatment from prosecutors by testifying about judges who paid then-party leader Clarence Norman for their seats on the Brooklyn bench. Mr. Norman is serving a three-to-nine year prison term after being convicted at three separate trials of soliciting illegal campaign contributions, stealing a check intended for his campaign and forcing a court candidate to use favored vendors.

Last year, Justice Rolando T. Acosta, who was then a Manhattan Supreme Court judge, ruled that the Post could not question Justice Rivera regarding his grand jury testimony - key evidence in the Post's case, if it asserts truth as a defense to libel.

The Post has now subpoenaed nine judges as part of its attempt to show either that the stories were true, or that the paper did not act with malice, the standard Justice Rivera, as a public official, must satisfy.

It is not clear what role or knowledge, if any, the subpoenaed judges may have had.

The nine judges and their present titles are:

• Ann Pfau, the state's chief administrative judge;

• Michael Pesce, presiding justice, Appellate Term, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts;

• Ariel Belen, justice, Appellate Division, Second Department;

• Abraham Gerges, Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.

• Yvonne Lewis, Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.

• David Schmidt, Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.
• Leon Ruchelsman, Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.

• Arthur Schack, Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.

• Edward Rappaport, former Brooklyn Supreme Court justice.

The Post also subpoenaed Luz Bryan, the chief of security for the Brooklyn Supreme Court.

Justice Schack yesterday called the subpoenas "a waste of time."

"To me, it's one big fishing trip. I'll send them a rod," Justice Schack said in an interview, noting that the misconduct alleged in the Post's articles would have taken place before he joined the bench in 1999 and before he met Justice Rivera shortly thereafter. "I have nothing to offer the case."

The Office of Court Administration filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing they were facially defective and that they did not comply with the special rules applicable to discovery from high-level state officials.

"CPLR 2307 provides that a subpoena seeking documents from an officer of the State must be so-ordered by a Justice of the Supreme Court, based upon a motion on notice to the State officer, and CPLR 3120(4) makes clear that this requirement also applies to a discovery subpoena," Deputy Counsel John Eiseman wrote in a memorandum in support of the motion.

"Accordingly, a subpoena duces tecum served upon a nonparty State officer in conjunction with a deposition subpoena must comply with the motion-on-notice provisions of CPLR 2307 and CPLR 3120(4)."

The subpoenas represent just the latest twists in the three-year-old litigation.

Slade R. Metcalf and Katherine M. Bolger of Hogan & Hartson represent the Post. Mr. Metcalf declined to comment on the subpoenas.

A spokesman for the OCA also declined to comment.

Stuart A. Blander of Heller, Horowitz & Feit represents Justice Rivera.

Justice Schack did see one silver lining to being subpoenaed.

"I haven't had a pay raise. I could use the $18" deponents are paid for testifying, he said.

 

NY Jurist Who Reportedly Testified
on Sale of Judgeships Before Grand Jury Takes Leave

By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
June 22, 2007

Brooklyn Justice Howard A. Ruditzky left the bench on medical leave on June 8, Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver confirmed yesterday.

Justice Ruditzky, 62, left on leave at his request, said Mr. Bookstaver, who declined to provide further details.

The judge had been widely reported to have received immunity when he testified before a Brooklyn grand jury examining whether Democratic nominations for Supreme Court judgeships were for sale.

According to several published reports, Justice Ruditzky confirmed for the grand jury that a supporter had paid more than $40,000 in cash and postage stamps to help him get a nomination in 2001.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office has not brought any criminal charges.

Justice Ruditzky's lawyer, Sheldon Eisenberger, did not respond to a request for comment.

Justice Ruditzky, who was elected to the Civil Court in 1990, won the 2001 election for Supreme Court.

Clarence Says Jail & Farewell

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
June 6, 2007

Former Assemblyman Clarence Norman arrives at Brooklyn court yesterday.Three-and-a-half years after the Brooklyn DA's probe into county Democratic boss Clarence Norman Jr. yielded the first corruption charges against him, the former assemblyman yesterday thanked his lawyers in defeat, wished his supporters well - and was finally cuffed and led off to jail.

"God is with me, my family's with me, I have my health," a characteristically upbeat Norman said before being cuffed and starting his two- to six-year prison term.

"Great day. Eventually it'll be behind me."
Former Assemblyman Clarence Norman arrives
at Brooklyn court yesterday.
Norman, 55, had done his best to stave off his trip to jail.

Having been convicted twice on larceny charges - once for accepting an illegal campaign contribution and again for stealing from his campaign funds - the former Crown Heights power broker received the same sentence back in 2005.

But his lawyers obtained a stay from an appeals court, allowing Norman to remain free on bail while the higher court reviewed his case.

In the meantime, two other cases against the former political boss went forward.

In 2006, Norman was acquitted on charges he padded his Albany travel expense account. But earlier this year, he was convicted once again, this time for strong-arming cash out of judicial candidates.

Last week, Norman lost the appeals on the first two cases and was ordered to appear before the original trial judge, Martin Marcus, for execution of sentence.

He did that yesterday, nattily attired in a dark blue, double-breasted suit.

As he waited more than an hour for his lawyer to appear, Norman, surrounded by supporters, including his minister father, appeared unperturbed at the prospect of hard time.

The actual court proceeding, when it finally got rolling, was anticlimactic.

"Mr. Norman is here to voluntarily surrender for execution of sentence," his lawyer, Richard Mischel, told the judge.

"Sentence is executed," Marcus replied, and the cuffs went on.

Norman finally began serving his term on the same day that another disgraced public servant, state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson, was himself sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison.

It's Garson who indirectly led to Norman's undoing.

In 2003, the then-sitting judge was confronted with damning surveillance videos of him accepting cash and cigars, and he offered to help investigators blow the lid off judgeships for sale by the county party boss.

Garson wasn't able to deliver the goods, but Hynes' team put Norman under the microscope, uncovering an illegal $10,000 contribution from a lobbyist and the improper deposit into his savings account of a $5,000 check made out to his campaign.

It's those sentences that Norman began serving yesterday.

An appeal is still pending on Norman's most recent conviction, the one that came closest to Hynes' long-sought goal of nailing his former ally for selling judgeships.

In that case, a jury found that Norman used his position as the county Democratic leader to force aspiring candidates for civil court to fork over thousands of dollars to two preferred campaign vendors.

If the appeal fails, he'll do another one to three years on that case. Hynes yesterday linked the two high-profile prosecutions.

"Our investigation has proven that two powerful men, Gerald Garson and Clarence Norman Jr., used the political and judicial systems to line their own pockets and the pockets of their cronies," the DA said.

"Today, the political and judicial landscape of Brooklyn has changed."

He cited a federal judge's decision last year declaring the state's judicial selection process unconstitutional and ordering the legislature to design a better system.

Norman Gets a Jail Break

By Patrick Gallahue
New York Post
April 18, 2007

A judge is allowing Brooklyn's disgraced former Democratic boss to stay out of jail while he fights his conviction for shaking down a judicial candidate.

Appellate Division Judge Robert Schmidt upheld a stay yesterday allowing ex-Assemblyman Clarence Norman to remain free on $50,000 bail while he appealed his conviction.

Sources speculated it could be several years before Norman begins serving his 1-to-3-year sentence imposed Monday.

He was also ordered to pay back $10,000 he coerced from former civil-court judge Karen Yellen during a 2002 primary.

'King' of the Clink - Norman Is Jail-Bound

By David K. Li
New York Post
April 17, 2007

A judge yesterday sentenced disgraced Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman to one to three years behind bars for shaking down a judicial candidate.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus also ordered "King of Brooklyn" Norman to pay back $10,000 he coerced from former civil-court judge Karen Yellen, $1,000 of which went to a fellow politician and $9,000 to pay a favored get-out-the-vote operative.

It was the third criminal conviction in two years for Norman, who remains free on bail and has vowed to appeal.

Norman was found guilty in February of grand larceny in what prosecutors called a scheme to extort judicial candidate Yellen.

Norman was also found guilty of one count each of attempted grand larceny and coercion, but was acquitted on five other counts.

At two trials in 2005, Norman was found guilty of stealing $5,000 donated to his re-election committee in 2001, and of trying to conceal $10,000 in contributions.

He was acquitted last year of unlawfully billing the Assembly for mileage on a Lincoln Town Car leased by the Democratic Party.

Oral arguments are set for tomorrow to determine whether Norman should be allowed to remain free on bail pending his appeals.

"For now, this is a good result," said lawyer Richard Mischel, as he strolled out of court with Norman.

Yellen sat quietly by herself in a corner of the Brooklyn courtroom as Marcus imposed sentence. Her upper lip quivered before she forced a slight grin as she appeared to fight back her emotions.

"It's somewhat closure for me . . . it was justice," Yellen whispered outside court.

Yellen said it's "unlikely" she'll ever seek election to the bench.

A sitting judge when she lost during a 2002 primary, Yellen testified against Norman and recounted how he yelled in the face of her campaign manager to demand the strong-armed loot.

Prosecutor Kevin Richardson painted Norman as a tyrannical monarch, who didn't hesitate to wield authority against powerless subjects.

"Clarence Norman himself demanded they do it [pay], or they were out!" Richardson said, slamming his fist on the lawyers' table. "At that time, Clarence Norman wore the crown. He was the king of Brooklyn."

With Post Wire Services

 

Disgraced Clarence Norman Guilty of Grand Larceny

The Associated Press
New York Daily News
February 23, 2007

A former assemblyman and head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party was convicted of grand larceny on Friday in what prosecutors called a scheme to illegally solicit and pocket campaign contributions.

In a mixed verdict, the jury also found Clarence Norman Jr. guilty of one count of attempted grand larceny and coercion, but acquitted him of five other counts.

In the last of four criminal cases against Norman, the Brooklyn state Supreme Court jury deliberated about three days before reaching its verdict.

Norman had been named in four indictments stemming from District Attorney Charles Hynes’ probe into whether Norman and other party leaders sold judgeships.

At two trials in 2005, Norman was found guilty of stealing $5,000 that was donated to his re-election committee in 2001, and of trying to conceal $10,000 in contributions. He was sentenced last year to two to six years in prison but remained free on bail while fighting the remaining charges.

At his third trial last year, Norman was acquitted of charges he unlawfully billed the Assembly for mileage on a Lincoln Town Car leased by the Democratic Party.

The longtime assemblyman was forced to resign following his first conviction.

 Norman Put on '$queeze'

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
February 7, 2007

A key adviser to a Brooklyn judicial candidate allegedly shaken down by Clarence Norman told jurors yesterday how he begged the former party boss' right-hand man to back off his demand for $10,000 - but was shown no mercy.

The adviser, Peter Weiss, said his 2002 plea to Norman's then-Democratic Party lieutenant, Jeffrey Feldman, was rebuffed.

"I told him we had no money, that it wasn't fair," Weiss recalled, referring to the re-election campaign of Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen.

"I told him we had done everything that [the county organization] had asked. He said his principal was adamant and the money had to be paid."

Norman faces jail time for allegedly threatening Yellen and another candidate with the withdrawal of party backing if they didn't run their campaigns according to his word.

The former assemblyman's defense team says he was only trying to get the two white candidates to spend their money in minority communities.

Black Judge Dissed

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
February 6, 2007

CLARENCE NORMAN<BR>Was proved wrong.Disgraced Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman would not back a black judicial candidate in 2002 because he didn't believe an African-American could win a boroughwide race, according to bombshell testimony offered yesterday.

But Delores Thomas proved Norman wrong then by winning the Civil Court primary, and now she's telling jurors that the former assemblyman was anything but the crusader for racial equality that his lawyers have claimed.
CLARENCE NORMAN
Was proved wrong.
Thomas, now a sitting Supreme Court justice, testified that she first approached Norman five years ago to ask for the county organization's support in the upcoming Civil Court contest.

She said Norman's first response was to tell her how much work it would be and how much money it would cost and, most important, to remind her that no black candidate had ever won a countywide race in Brooklyn.

"Ultimately, he told me he couldn't support me because he didn't think I could win," Thomas said. "I believe he told me something like I didn't have the right last name."

Norman, 55, faces seven years in prison for allegedly shaking down the candidates he did endorse and threatening to withdraw his support unless they funneled thousands to two of his preferred vendors.

His defense team has consistently cast the embattled former county boss, who is black, as a defender of equality who urged white candidates to spend their money in minority communities.

Yesterday's testimony seemed tailor made to dispel that image.

But defense lawyer Anthony Ricco said the comments merely reflected his client's understanding of the difficulties minority candidates face and was not an approval of those difficulties.

"It is one of many comments that have been made in the case that show that African-Americans have been disenfranchised from the political system in Kings County," said Ricco. "We're glad that they called her [as a witness]."

Pressed further, he added, "This is not a halo trial. This is a trial about politics."

B'klyn Boss Greed's Elex 'Shakedown'

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
February 3, 2007

February 3, 2007 -- A failed Brooklyn Civil Court candidate told jurors yesterday how then-county Democratic boss Clarence Norman went face to face with her campaign manager, demanding she cave in to his demands in return for the machine endorsement.

Karen Yellen, then a sitting judge who went on to lose the 2002 primary, described the fiery exchange inside the party headquarters on Court Street in Brooklyn between Norman and her campaign manager, Scott Levenson.
'Ultimately, the words he used were, 'We     "Ultimately, the words he used were, 'We will
 will dump her.' - Karen Yellen                   
dump her,' " she recalled of the July 2002
 meeting. "He was very angry. It was very, very unpleasant. He rose up out of his seat, leaned across the desk, and was in Scott's face.

"I know I was shocked because the way it was done was not the way one expects it to happen - unprofessional and astonishing."

Prosecutors allege that Norman demanded Yellen take part in a $12,000 joint mailing with two other candidates, which she considered a waste of money since she couldn't trumpet her exclusive endorsements and risk upstaging the other two.

"I was lumped in with these other two people," Yellen said of co-candidates Robin Garson and Marcia Sikowitz. "We weren't the same."

The mailing, prepared by Norman's go-to vendor, Branford Communications, went out with a typo - "aduls" rather than "adults" - in all 91,000 copies.

Norman is also on trial for allegedly squeezing from Yellen another $9,000 for nonexistent get-out-the-vote efforts in central Brooklyn. Yellen broke into tears on the witness stand when asked about the final results of the 2002 primary.

"I lost," she said. "And I was out of a job."

Norman's defense team made much of Yellen's refusal to pony up the $9,000 to Norman's consultant, William Boone, for distribution of literature in central Brooklyn.

According to their theory, the ex-judge thought pouring funds into those minority neighborhoods would end up helping the minority candidates, Margarita Lopez Torres and Delores Thomas.

"Much of central Brooklyn was a minority area," she conceded.

"There were two other candidates who were minority candidates. It was not that we were ignoring the area."

But she bristled when defense lawyer Anthony Ricco accused her of snubbing black voters.

"You said you only wanted to spend money in white neighborhoods?" he asked.

"No," she shot back.

Norman, 55, has already been sentenced to two to six years on two campaign-finance convictions, but remains free on $110,000 bail while the verdicts are appealed. Last year, the former assemblyman emerged victorious from a third trial, beating charges he double-dipped from his Albany travel expense account.

The current charges come closest to - while still falling short of - Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes' goal of exposing the corrupt system of judgeships for sale.

Yellen offered a tantalizing taste of that sort of chicanery late in her testimony when she testified that she forked over the $9,000 the day after the primary - when she knew she had already lost.

"I thought that possibly I could go up to the Supreme Court," she said, noting that nominating conventions for that office followed soon after the primary. "That I could get the nomination from the party if I paid the monies that were demanded of me, that I could save my career."

Norman in Threat: Aide

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
February 2, 2007

A one-time lieutenant of disgraced former Brooklyn Democratic Party head Clarence Norman yesterday said his boss threatened to dump a Civil Court candidate who didn't want to run a joint campaign with local cronies.

Jeffrey Feldman, 53, testifying in exchange for a dismissal of larceny charges he had faced with Norman, claimed that Scott Levenson, a campaign manager for Karen Yellen, angered Norman by questioning orders to cooperate with two candidates in a joint campaign.

Norman "turned to Mr. Levenson and said, to the effect, '. . . If you don't agree to this, you're not going to have any support in this county,' " Feldman said.

Prosecutors allege Norman extracted $12,600 from the Yellen camp for the joint campaign, then $9,000 for literature distribution.

                It Was Pay or Be 'Dumped,' Norman Jury Hears

Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
February 1st, 2007

Clarence Norman was so furious when a judicial candidate balked at paying his cronies thousands of dollars in alleged campaign costs that the Brooklyn political kingpin threatened to "dump" her from the ballot, a judge testified yesterday.

Brooklyn Housing Court Judge Marcia Sikowitz told a Brooklyn jury that when she ran for civil court in 2002, Norman and a top aide repeatedly pressed her and fellow candidate Karen Yellen to pony up thousands of dollars for a well-connected printer and another pal of Norman's or lose the Democratic machine's vital endorsement.

Norman and his aide warned the women in early 2002 that it might cost as much as $150,000 to run for office - but in July they started to threaten the would-be candidates, Sikowitz testified.

"One of the people working for Karen Yellen was upset. He said, 'What if we don't participate, what if we don't do this?'" Sikowitz said. "Mr. Norman said, 'We'll dump her!' He was upset. He was angry."

Both women ended up paying the printer but did not hand over as much cash as Norman allegedly demanded. They got the endorsement but lost the election.

But under cross-examination, Sikowitz said she didn't think it "unusual" for arguments over a political campaign to get heated.

Norman, already sentenced to two to six years in prison on other campaign corruption convictions, is charged with strong-arming the women.

Jury Hears of Threat by Norman

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
February 1, 2007

When a city judge balked at funneling thousands of dollars to a consultant preferred by Brooklyn Democratic kingpin Clarence Norman, the boss had three choice words for her campaign crew.

"We'll dump her," Norman bellowed inside the county party's war room on Court Street, a witness testified yesterday.

The witness, Housing Court Judge Marcia Sikowitz, had hoped to win election to Civil Court in 2002, and believed she was on her way when she got the endorsement from Norman's powerful organization.

But in a series of meetings at the party headquarters, Norman and his right-hand man, Jeffrey Feldman, allegedly laid out demands, including a $16,000 payment to consultant William Boone.

Another candidate, Karen Yellen, openly rebelled, Sikowitz recalled, prompting the rebuke from the county boss.

"I didn't want to be dumped, either," Sikowitz told jurors.

Sikowitz finished last in the primary.

Judge with a Grudge

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
January 31, 2007

January 31, 2007 -- The Brooklyn judge credited with bringing down the borough's corrupt system of filling judgeships took the stand yesterday against the man who ran it - telling jurors that crossing disgraced Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman Jr. nearly torpedoed her 2002 campaign.

Margarita Lopez Torres, now a sitting surrogate, sued state election officials two years ago, winning a stunning victory when a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the entrenched system of Brooklyn party bosses picking candidates for the primary.

Yesterday, she described how Norman, the alleged master of that very system, yanked his support for her in a closed-door meeting at his Democratic club.

Prosecutors trod delicately on the reasons Norman booted her from the party slate in 2002, to avoid prejudicing jurors.

But outside the presence of the panel, they indicated that the surrogate told them she'd refused to hire the daughter of Assemblyman Vito Lopez (D-Brooklyn), a freshly minted law-school graduate, as her law secretary.

Lopez, who is not related to Lopez Torres, has since replaced Norman as Brooklyn's Democratic honcho.

Lopez Torres told jurors she was demoralized when she realized she wouldn't have party backing.

"You're on your own without an organization. You have to start from scratch to build up an organization that can get you elected," she said.

But Lopez Torres pulled off a victory in 2002 anyhow, photocopying campaign literature at Kinko's and relying volunteers culled from her family, friends and neighbors.

Lopez Torres' testimony barely touched on the issues of the trial, Norman's alleged strong-arming of her competitors Marcia Sikowitz and Karen Yellen in return for party backing.

But she did offer her opinion that Norman was managing the two women straight to defeat by forcing them to mount a joint campaign with a third white woman, Robin Garson.

"I found it remarkable that there was a slate of three white women and we didn't think it would necessarily play well in certain parts of Brooklyn," she said.

Defense lawyer Anthony Ricco dove into that opening, striving to cast Lopez Torres as a narrow-minded campaigner who apportioned her resources with a map and a red pen. "Do you ever take these kinds of facts into consideration?" he asked. "This is a minority community? This is a Latino community?"

"Yes," Lopez Torres said.

 How to Buy a Gavel-
Judge Wannabes Used Norman's 'Pay Pal':
Da

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
January 30, 2007

POWERBROKER: Clarence Norman, at trial yesterday, is charged with selling Democratic Party support to judgeship candidates.January 30, 2007 -- When Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen sat down, hat in hand, with Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman, Jr., to ask for his support in the 2002 primary, it wasn't her record he was interested in.

Nor the awards the judge, who was seeking re-election, had received. Nor even the high-profile endorsements she promised.

It was a $12,000 check to a Norman crony for an POWERBROKER: Clarence Norman,       all-but-useless mailing and a $9,000 payment
at trial yesterday, is charged with selling 
directly into the pocket of a shady political
Democratic Party support to judgeship    
consultant, prosecutors alleged yesterday, as they
candidates
.                                   opened their fourth case against the former            assemblyman.

"Because I am the King of Brooklyn, they're going to do it my way or the highway," said prosecutor Kevin Richardson as he gave jurors his best impression of the bullying party boss.

"If they didn't do what he wanted, he was willing to cut off his nose to spite his face."

Norman, 55, has already been sentenced to two to six years for campaign-finance crimes, and was acquitted last year of charges he double-dipped from his Albany travel expense account. He is free on $110,000 bail while the guilty verdicts are appealed.

But the current trial on grand larceny and coercion charges in Brooklyn Supreme Court promises to deliver on Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes' long-awaited vow to expose a system in which judgeships were routinely for sale in the largest Democratic county in the country.

Because Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Brooklyn, winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to winning election. And winning the primary was an uphill battle without Norman's loyal army of volunteers to collect signatures, pass out flyers and litigate, prosecutors said.

Norman's lawyer, Anthony Ricco, meanwhile, compared Norman to Martin Luther King Jr., likening him to a politician fighting for the rights of his constituents.

"Just like that man who wrote that letter sitting in that cell 50 years ago, he's fighting that same fight," Ricco said, alluding to King's 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail.

According to prosecutors, Norman met in May 2002 with the three anointed Civil Court candidates - Margaret Cammer, Marcia Sikowitz and Yellen - and demanded that they form a joint campaign.

Yellen balked, reluctant to pay for a proposed joint mailing that Norman wanted handled by Branford Communications, a favored firm.

"Do it my way or you're out!" Norman allegedly bellowed, slamming his fists down on a table.

"And the room fell silent," said Richardson. "The threat was as loud as a bomb."

Even as late as primary eve, Norman allegedly threatened to keep the boots off the ground unless Yellen ponied up $9,000 to consultant William Boone for election work in central Brooklyn.

It's that last demand that could prove divisive.

Ricco said Yellen and Sikowitz, both white candidates, were wary of "wasting" the $9,000 on voters in predominantly black central Brooklyn.

"These individuals were not extorted by Clarence Norman," said Ricco. "He tried to inspire them beyond their own ignorance. Ignorance of themselves and ignorance of . . . the Brooklyn community."

Ricco promised reams of election data that would show the futility of what he termed a racist approach to campaigns. He said Yellen spent thousands in white districts - only to fare better in the black neighborhoods she'd written off.

7 Judges Face Quiz at 'Boss' Trial

By Alex Ginsberg
The New York Post
January 24, 2007

When disgraced Brooklyn Democratic ex-boss Clarence Norman's trial begins next week, the witness box will look more like the bench.

Seven Brooklyn judges - and the county's current political boss - were included on a list of possible prosecution witnesses submitted yesterday.

Next week's trial, the ex-assemblyman's fourth, will focus on whether he threatened to withdraw county-machine support for civil-court candidates Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz unless they funneled thousands to preferred election consultants. He's already been sentenced to prison for campaign-finance crimes.

The list of possible witnesses includes surrogate judge Margarita López Torres, who was elected in 2005 without machine support. She is likely to detail her shabby treatment at the hands of the Kings County Democratic County Committee.

Current Brooklyn Democratic boss Vito López is on the list as well, though it's anybody's guess what he'll say about how the machine operates now.

The list includes Brooklyn Civil Court Judges Delores Thomas, Johnny Baynes and Robin Garson and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson, as well as former Brooklyn Civil Court Judge, Margaret Cammer.


How My Ex-hubby Paid to Be Judge
Former Wife Claims Cash & Bribery 'Package Deal'

By Nancy Katz
New York Daily News
January 23. 2007

 

Tessa Abrams Mason says her ex-husband, Reynold Mason, was expected to come up with cash for all comers.
Ex-Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Reynold Mason found out early, his ex-wife says, that running for judge meant making big payoffs to pols and hiring people he was told to.

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 - 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.

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, who has been probing court corruption, was not familiar with Abrams Mason's story, said spokesman Jerry Schmetterer.

But Schmetterer added, "Based on the scope of our investigation, we take any allegations about corruption seriously."

The startling accounts were given to the Daily News over the past six months in dozens of interviews and in an explosive unpublished memoir.

Although other jurists have been caught up in the ever-widening probe, it is the details provided by Abrams Mason that make her story so compelling.

She tells how:

* Her husband had to buy a package deal of payoffs to secure the party's backing.

* Andrews allegedly took a $5,000 payoff in an

envelope at Mason's Brooklyn law office - for which no services were received.

* Mason had to hire a campaign manager and an election lawyer at the direction of the local party.

* Once elected, he had to hire a law clerk chosen by the party.

"They didn't care if Mason was competent," his ex-wife, 46, told The News. "All they cared about was [that] Mason had a deep pocket and could raise funds and throw around money without asking questions."

Caught dipping into escrow

Her ex-husband was stripped of his post in 2003 after she told the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that he dipped into an client escrow account to fund the 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. Recently a New York state judge threatened him with jail if he didn't show up to explain why he hasn't paid up the $200,000 he owed.

Reached by telephone last week, Mason vehemently denied the charges of his former spouse, whom he calls "a bitter woman."

"I never paid a bribe to anyone," he said. "What they do is meet with you [and say],

'If you want our help, you gotta do XYZ.' That's all they ever said."

"You work with them," Mason added. "You want to win. You bite the bullet and do what you have to do."

But his ex-wife's startling account of back-door deals and pay-for-play demands seems to mirror much of what Hynes has uncovered in a corruption probe now in its sixth year.

Hynes' work led to the toppling of once-powerful Democratic boss Clarence Norman and the indictment of three state Supreme Court justices and other elected officials.

Norman's lawyer said his client was focused on his next trial, due to get under-way today with jury selection. "Any other allegations are simply a scurrilous attempt to poison a jury pool," said attorney Edward Wilford.

First race an eye-opener

In 1994, Mason was a 46-year-old real estate lawyer just starting to make a name for himself in Brooklyn's West Indian community when he decided to run for the bench.

A native of Grenada, he had married Abrams Mason, who worked as his office manager and paralegal, a year earlier. The couple have three children.

Though Mason had dabbled in local politics, his entry into the judicial race proved an eye-opener for him and his new bride. In heavily Democratic Brooklyn, the primary was the real election and he faced stiff opposition.

Friends led him to pols with close ties to Norman. One of the first stops was a meeting with local Democratic district leader Marietta Small.

Small, who later held a top patronage post in Brooklyn Surrogate's Court, taught the couple the facts of life about judicial politics, Abrams Mason said.

"Small was not interested in money, but influence and power," she said. "Everyone else was interested in payoffs."

To get Norman's backing, Mason was told, he would have to take what his wife described as "the package deal."

That included a campaign manager selected by the bosses who would be paid $15,000, an election lawyer who would get $10,000 and inherit Mason's cases and clients if he was elected, and a law clerk handpicked by Small once he got on the bench.

"At one meeting, Mason was told you have to pay Andrews $5,000 cash and make donations to other candidates," his ex-wife said. "Whatever money politicians asked for, Mason had to have it right then and there. We ended up spending nearly $100,000."

Not all of it was reported by Mason's campaign, she added. Campaign finance records reviewed by The News show Mason's campaign spent $67,895.04.

But other expenditures, like the alleged payment to Andrews, "weren't accounted for in campaign records," she said.

At the time, Andrews was an active Democratic leader in Brooklyn and a close confidant of Norman. He was later elected to the state Senate, worked for Spitzer in the attorney general's office, but lost a bid for Congress despite Spitzer's backing.

Andrews was recently hired by Spitzer to work in his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Village Voice recently identified Andrews as the bagman for a bribe paid to Norman in 2001 to get another judge, Howard Ruditzky, a Supreme Court seat.

Andrews 'insulted' by query

Andrews, 50, did not return repeated calls for comment. But earlier, when asked about the Ruditzky allegation, he replied, "I'm insulted by the question and the implications behind that question. I guess my only crime is being Clarence Norman's friend. Guilt by association."

Yet Abrams Mason says she clearly recalls the day when Andrews showed up at Mason's law office on Glenwood Road in East Flatbush to pick up his cash.

"Mason was annoyed. He said, 'Why do we have to pay this guy $5,000? What is he going to do for me?'"

As it turned out, nothing. She recalled, "Mason took money out of the right-hand drawer of his desk, where we keep our cash and records. He put the $5,000 in an envelope and handed it to him. [Andrews] put it in his jacket pocket. He didn't stick around. That was it!"

"Mason and I thought he took the money to go neutral, because he did nothing. ... He didn't do anything for Mason's opponent either."

"We never saw him again, not even at a fund-raiser," she said.

In a telephone interview, Small also denied any wrongdoing.

"I have no knowledge of anyone taking any bribes," she said. "I would not ever be a part of that. I would never be a part of anything like that. That's the God's honest truth."

Abrams Mason insists thousands in cash went to politically connected operatives who supposedly spent it on such things as neighborhood get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Some of it went to district leaders who controlled large blocs of votes at local housing projects, where "the voters were told who to vote for, and this was a plus."

The support of Norman's army of regulars helped Mason eke out a win in the Civil Court primary by 145 votes.

By the time of his 1996 election to the state Supreme Court, the couple had split. But he would tell her later he had to pay the Democrats even more for that race.

With his expenses mounting, Mason eventually dipped into the client escrow account - a no-no that was exposed by his ex-wife.

The alleged wrongdoing - much of it also detailed in her unpublished memoir, "The Judge's Wife and the Political Mafia" - are unlikely to result in new criminal charges because the statute of limitations has run out.

She decided to go public because the court battle over financial support for their three children has dragged on.

When she could no longer afford a lawyer, she drew up legal papers herself. She eventually won a contempt order against him, demonstrating that of all his political foes, Mason's ex-wife has been the most formidable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/491095p-413659c.html

 

Judge Scandal Could Tarnish Spitzer Shine
Anti-corrupt Gov Hiring Pol Tied to Norman?

By Lisa L. Colangelo, Nancie L. Katz and Adam Lisberg
New York Daily News
January 15, 2007

 

Clarence Norman

Gov. Spitzer took office two weeks ago with a corruption-busting promise - but yesterday he welcomed into his inner circle a man who has been named in connection with an exploding Brooklyn bribery scandal.

Former state Sen. Carl Andrews was one of several insiders who were invited into Spitzer's midtown offices following a news conference where the governor ducked a question about the corruption probe.

"With respect for the alleged improprieties that have been the subject of investigation in Brooklyn, obviously those cases continue and they proceed," Spitzer said.

Andrews is reportedly being considered for a high-ranking post in the Spitzer administration - and while the governor said little, his exit with the well-connected Andrews seemed to show Spitzer was not publicly distancing himself from him.

The Village Voice claimed in a story published Saturday that Andrews picked up a bribe in 2001 - either $25,000 in cash or $3,000 in postage stamps that could be used in a campaign - from a sex therapist named Norman Chesler, who was hoping to get his cousin, Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky, a seat on the state Supreme Court.

Andrews allegedly delivered it to his longtime confidant Clarence Norman, a corrupt Democratic Party boss who could be indicted for allegedly taking as much as $70,000 in bribes to put Ruditzky on the bench, The Voice reported.

Andrews told the Daily News yesterday he has never met Chesler - and when asked point-blank about collecting a bribe, said it was beneath his dignity to answer.

"I'm insulted by the question and the implications behind that question," he said. "I guess my only crime is being Clarence Norman's friend. Guilt by association."

Law enforcement sources told The News yesterday that Andrews is not a target in the long-running probe of whether Brooklyn judges have bought their way onto the bench.

Andrews held a community relations job under Spitzer when he was state attorney general. Andrews later served as a Brooklyn state senator and ran unsuccessfully for Congress last fall.

Ruditzky, Chesler and Norman declined to comment. Norman's lawyer Edward Wilford said he has not been contacted by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes about the allegations.

Prosecutors would not file any new charges against Norman until after his Jan. 23 trial on extortion charges, a law enforcement source said.

Spitzer's office did not respond to a request for comment.

With Nicole Bode and Tamer El-Ghobashy
 

DA: Norman Sold Judgeship for 50g - & 6g in Stamps

By Nancie L. Katz and Rich Schapiro
New York Daily News
January 14, 2007

 

Clarence Norman

Brooklyn prosecutors are seeking to indict deposed Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman Clarence Norman for allegedly selling a judgeship for at least $50,000 in cash and $6,000 in postage stamps, it was reported yesterday.

The alleged corruption, detailed by The Village Voice, has the potential to shake the Brooklyn political establishment and push the Legislature to overhaul how state Supreme Court judges are selected.

Norman - already sentenced to two to six years behind bars for unrelated felony campaign corruption - will be indicted by a grand jury for allegedly demanding payoffs to elevate former Civil Court Judge Howard Ruditzky to the state Supreme Court, The Voice says.

Sources told the Daily News that Ruditzky was granted immunity and recently testified before a grand jury, where he revealed he paid $70,000 for the judgeship.

"A sitting judge told a grand jury that he paid Clarence Norman $70,000 for the nomination," one of the sources said.

The Voice said it had pinpointed only $56,000 in payments.

District Attorney Charles Hynes' case against Norman, according to The Voice, revolves around the testimony of Ruditzky and three other witnesses: Jeff Feldman, the executive director of the Brooklyn Democratic Party; ex-Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson; and Ruditzky's millionaire cousin, an overweight sex therapist named Norman Chesler.

It was Chesler who was at the center of the alleged payoffs, according to The Voice.

In 2001, Chesler began helping Ruditzky in his bid to get reelected to the Civil Court. According to The Voice, Ruditzky wasn't planning to serve if reelected because Norman allegedly had promised to elevate him to the Supreme Court after the balloting.

Norman had the ability to promote Ruditzky because Supreme Court nominees are selected by judicial conventions, a system that allows a Democratic leader in a Democratic county to handpick jurists.

Norman was planning to promote Ruditzky and then select his replacement for Civil Court without having to run that candidate in a primary, The Voice reports.

"If Ruditzky wins reelection, we'll elevate him," Norman told Chesler, according to The Voice.

But that plan crumbled when Ruditzky lost. In stepped Chesler, who, according to The Voice, was allegedly told by Norman, "We could use money for activities in my community."

Chesler's first alleged payment to Norman came in the form of postage stamps, two $3,000 rolls he bought at a post office, The Voice reported.

Chesler, who refers to Ruditzky as "Rudy," also allegedly gave Norman $50,000 - delivering the first half "wrapped in a large brown envelope," according to The Voice.

Bank records reviewed by The Voice reveal a series of withdrawals totaling $43,950 that Chesler made from his company between July and November 2001. Notations contained with the record of the withdrawals, also reviewed by The Voice, said that "CN asked for Rudy to come up and give 50k for services," adding that "since they weren't getting it on their own, they asked for help."

Chesler began cooperating with Hynes' office after being indicted in a car insurance scam, The Voice says.

Ruditzky, Chesler and Norman's lawyer could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Sources told The News last week that Ruditzky's grand jury testimony is being reviewed by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. Commission administrator Robert Tembekjian declined to comment last week.

David Bookstaver, spokesman for the New York State Office of Court Administration, told The News on Friday that "it would be inappropriate to comment about an alleged ongoing investigation."

Grand jury testimony is secret, and when The News asked Hynes on Dec. 21 about Ruditzky appearing before the panel, Hynes declared it was "untrue." Hynes' spokesman, Jerry Schmetterer, declined to comment Friday on whether the office knew about the alleged bribe.

The author of The Voice article, Wayne Barrett, revealed that his mentor, the late Jack Newfield, had been investigating Brooklyn courts before his death in 2004.

According to The Voice, Newfield had scrawled Ruditzky's name into a notebook that contained his last interview.

More than 30 years have passed since Newfield wrote in 1972, "It is common belief on the streets of this city that judgeships are bought and sold by politicians for cash, and that once on the bench, some judges continue to be up for sale - or at least for rent."
 

Norman Pal Deal

By Zach Haberman and Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
October 12, 2006

Slideshow imageBrooklyn prosecutors dropped all charges yesterday against the right-hand man to disgraced Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman, ending their nearly three-year-old case against Jeffrey Feldman in return for a promise of cooperation.

The surprise move fueled speculation that Feldman, who had a front-row seat to the backroom deals of the Brooklyn Democratic machine for more than a decade, was offering up plum details of judgeships bought and sold.

CLARENCE NORMAN                   Feldman, 52, the executive director of Norman's
Disgraced Dem boss
               Kings County Democratic County Organization, had been charged, along with his former boss, with forcing judicial candidates to hire favored consultants in exchange for party backing.

He'd faced up to seven years in prison on the 22-count indictment.

"We have concluded that Jeff Feldman was nothing more than a messenger who delivered demands to judicial candidates," said chief prosecutor Michael Vecchione.

"These demands, which are the subject of this indictment, were at the behest of and on behalf of his boss."

Vecchione told the presiding judge, Bronx Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus, that the DA's office had inked an agreement with Feldman to cooperate on this and future investigations.

"Relieved," was all Feldman would say following the barely five-minute court appearance.

"I am grateful that this personal ordeal has terminated with the dismissal of all criminal charges," he added in a written statement.

"I look forward to continuing my efforts to advance the causes and principles of the Democratic Party and to enable the election of its candidates in all branches of government."

The move was highly unusual in that prosecutors generally do not reward cooperators until after they've testified.

Nevertheless, Feldman's lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, promised that his client would appear when called.

"Mr. Feldman has agreed to fully cooperate with the Kings County District Attorney's Office and if called as a witness will testify truthfully," he said.

Feldman's sweet deal, paired with prosecutors' mention of future investi- gations, all but confirmed suspicions that Feldman was ready to assist in the DA's ongoing probe into judgeships for sale.

"Jeff was in the middle of everything," said one Brooklyn courts insider, adding, in reference to judges suspected of buying their way onto the bench, "I'm sure when they read about this, they won't be too happy."

Another source familiar with the DA's probe said one of the main targets of the investigation was Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Howard Ruditzky, who The Post reported last year ponied up between $50,000 and $100,000 for his spot on the bench.

Ruditzky did not immediately return a message left at his chambers and courts spokesman David Bookstaver declined to comment.

Disgraced Norman in Blame Game

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
gust 1, 2006

Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman is blaming his most recent criminal conviction on the failure of another embattled pol - Assemblywoman Diane Gordon - to step up for him.

In a 100-page brief filed before the Supreme Court's Appellate Division yesterday, Norman's lawyer says prosecutors and the judge should have granted Gordon the immunity she said she needed to take the stand.

"Unquestionably, the defendant was seriously handicapped by the sudden turn of events regarding Assemblywoman Gordon," argues lawyer Richard Mischel in the papers.

Gordon had been expected as a witness at Norman's last trial in December to explain that the $5,000 the Brooklyn boss was accused of pocketing was actually payback for cash he'd advanced to her earlier.

But the East New York assemblywoman unexpectedly declined to testify without a grant of immunity, a development the papers call a "debacle."

Gordon is now under indictment for soliciting a $500,000 bribe from a Brooklyn developer in the form of a free house.

Clarence Bid to Stay out of Jail

By Alex Ginsberg
New York Post
May 18, 2006

Disgraced former Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman, free on $110,000 bail while he appeals a pair of criminal convictions, asked yesterday for a second get-out-of-jail pass that would keep him out of the pokey until mid-September.

In papers filed with the Appellate Division, Norman's lawyer, Richard Mischel, says that the extra 120 days is necessary so that he can draw up the appeals for the embattled pol's convictions.

Norman is seeking to overturn guilty verdicts for accepting illegal campaign contributions and pocketing $5,000 earmarked for his re-election coffers.

Shelly May Rat on Norman

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
March 7, 2006

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver may testify against Clarence Norman at his trial on charges he illegally sought reimbursement for travel to and from Albany.

As jury selection began for Norman's third felony trial in less than a year yesterday, Brooklyn prosecutors identified Silver as one of the witnesses they plan to call.

If he takes the stand, Silver likely would be asked if Norman - his former deputy speaker - was allowed to be reimbursed for travel between Brooklyn and Albany even though the borough Democratic Party he chaired was already paying for it.

Norman, already sentenced to two years in prison for the other convictions, could face up to an additional seven years if convicted of larceny and 76 counts of filing a false instrument for travel vouchers he submitted in 1999-2002 totaling just over $5,000.

Once a Brooklyn kingpin, Norman was knocked from the Crown Heights Assembly seat he held for 23 years and his 15-year chairmanship of the Brooklyn Democratic Party when a jury convicted him of campaign corruption in September. He was also disbarred.

In December, a second jury found him guilty of stealing a $5,000 check made out to his campaign committee.

He has managed to stay out of jail pending appeals of the two convictions.

Norman Due Third Trial

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
February 15, 2006

The state's highest court says ousted Assemblyman Clarence Norman will have to face trial — again.

The Court of Appeals said yesterday they would not listen to arguments by Norman's legal team, who had hoped to get it to toss out charges that he cheated on his Assembly-paid travel expenses.

The dethroned Brooklyn Democratic Party boss, convicted twice last year of skirting campaign-finance rules, will now face his third criminal trial in less than seven months.

Norman is accused of filing vouchers for travel expenses with the Assembly even though the Kings County Democratic Party had already footed the bill.

He allegedly pulled off the penny-pinching scheme at least 76 times for a total of $5,585.

"We are prepared to go to trial on March 6," said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for the Brooklyn DA's Office.

A lawyer for Norman did not return a call for comment.

Norman was sentenced last month to two to six years in prison for not reporting thousands of dollars in in-kind political contributions and pocketing a $5,000 check intended for his re-election committee.

He also faces a fourth indictment for strong-arming judicial candidates into using specific people to print their campaign literature.

He is currently free on $110,000 bail.

2 to 6 Years for Norman

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
January 12, 2006

Clarence Norman, at Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday, said "I accept full responsibility for the situation that I have unquestionably put myself in."

Clarence Norman once served the people now he'll serve time.

Blasting the one-time Brooklyn Democratic Party boss as "devious and manipulative," Judge Martin Marcus yesterday sentenced the beleaguered former assemblyman to two to six years behind bars for violating campaign laws.

"As I stand before you today, I want to make it clear that I accept full responsibility for the situation that I have unquestionably put myself in," Norman said in a statement before the pronouncement of his sentence, which his lawyer had requested be only community service.

"I certainly acknowledge that I'm here today in this situation because I have exercised poor judgment," he said. "Never, never, ever did I deliberately or consciously seek to break the law or circumvent the law."

After apologizing to his family, Norman, 54, said, "I'm sorry that I have really let down my constituents, the people who for 23 years placed their trust and confidence in me, and I certainly hope they will indeed forgive me."

Norman, convicted of not reporting thousands of dollars in political contributions and pocketing a $5,000 check intended for his re-election committee, admitted: "Unfortunately, I took a shortcut."

Upon hearing the news that he will be going up the river, the disgraced political leader — as he had done throughout much of his two criminal trials — folded his hands together and sat with a cold, blank stare on his face.

"The mechanisms by which he [skirted the election laws] were so devious and manipulative, and the excuses he offered that he was preoccupied with other important matters, that he was guilty of sloppiness, not guile were not credible to either of the juries or to me," the judge said.

Norman, 54, got his first taste of prison life immediately afterward, when the judge ordered him to a holding cell behind the courtroom while Norman's lawyer ran over to the nearby Appellate Division.

There, the lawyer argued that the ousted party boss be let loose until a judge in that court decides if the convictions should be overturned.

An Appellate judge freed him  if only temporarily on $110,000 bail pending a decision on whether he should remain out of prison while awaiting a ruling on his appeal.

Former Brooklyn Democratic Boss Sentenced to Prison

The Associated Press
New York Daily News
January 11, 2006

A former assemblyman and head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party was sentenced on Wednesday to two to six years in prison for separate convictions on campaign corruption charges.

At two trials in state Supreme Court last year, juries found Clarence Norman Jr., 54, guilty of stealing $5,000 that was donated to his re-election committee in 2001, and of trying to conceal $10,000 in contributions.

Prosecutors had asked Justice Alan Marcus to give Norman of five to 15 years in prison. The defendant still faces two more possible trials on related charges.

"We respect Judge Marcus' decision and look forward to the next two trials," said Jerry Schmetterer, spokesman for Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes.

A call to Norman's attorney was not immediately returned.

Norman was named in four indictments stemming from Hynes' probe into whether he and other party leaders sold judgeships. The charges allege a pattern of criminal mishandling of political finances, grand larceny and conspiracy.

The longtime assemblyman was forced to resign early last year following his first conviction.

Norman Will Stay Silent to the End

By Zach Haberman and C.j. Sullivan
New York Post
January 9, 2006

Prosecutors hoping to get Clarence Norman to sing about the sale of judgeships will hear only the sound of silence.

The dethroned Brooklyn Democratic Party boss will not look to make any 11th-hour deal this week to avoid serving prison time for two felony convictions and gain leniency on the two remaining indictments he faces, sources told The Post.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office has long suspected Norman of being the ringleader of a circle of dirty jurists who paid hefty sums to get on the bench.

Sources say if Norman keeps mum, the DA's investigation will effectively be "stonewalled."

"You would think he would want to get out from under all this jail time," said a source with knowledge of Norman's legal maneuvering.

A Brooklyn jury first found Norman guilty of campaign-finance fraud in September, while another convicted him last month for a $5,000 contribution check to his re-election committee in 2001.

If he sticks to his guns and refuses to come clean about the purported justice-for-sale scandal, Norman could face as much as 15 years behind bars when Judge Martin Marcus decides his fate Wednesday.

"I'm not worried, this too shall pass," the disgraced politician defiantly told The Post yesterday as he returned home from church. "We rest our faith in God."

Norman's lawyer, Edward Rappaport, insisted, "It's not that my client doesn't want to cooperate.

"It's that he has no knowledge of the things they say he does."

A spokesman for the Brooklyn DA would not comment on any possible deal discussions, saying only, "[Norman] will be sentenced on Wednesday."

Rappaport has filed a memo with the judge asking for a light sentence of probation, sources said, noting prosecutor Michael Vecchione recently filed a similar letter asking Marcus to throw the book at Norman and give him the full 15 years.

Despite Rappaport's best attempts, courthouse insiders say there is very little chance Norman won't be put behind bars.

"That's pretty definite," the source said. "The only question is how much [prison time]. He's probably not going to get a matter of months."

"I think Marcus is going to hit him harder than that."

If Norman does get sentenced to hard time, Rappaport will immediately request Marcus allow his client to stay in the courtroom for a short time instead of being put in a holding cell.

During the interlude, Rappaport would head to the nearby appellate court to file paperwork requesting Norman be freed on bail while the lawyer appeals his two convictions, sources said.

When asked about the real possibility of his client being sent up the river, Rappaport said, "Nobody's happy about going to jail, but he doesn't seem depressed."

"Whatever is going to be, is going to be," he said.

Squeeze Play on Norman

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
December 17, 2005

PHOTOA day after his second straight felony conviction, disgraced Brooklyn political boss Clarence Norman (left) was "in denial" as he faced a stark choice: 'fess up or head to the pen, a source told The Post yesterday.

"The window is closing, and there is a very small opportu nity" for Norman to avoid serious jail time by telling prosecutors what he knows about Brooklyn's alleged judge bribery scandal, said the source, who is close to Norman's case.

But "no one thinks [Norman] understands the seriousness of the position he's in."

Norman faces up to 15 years in the slammer — eight for his first political-corruption conviction in September, and seven more after a jury on Thursday found him guilty of stealing a $5,000 check made out to his re-election committee. He will be sentenced Jan. 10.

He also faces two more felony trials — one for allegedly double-dipping on state travel reimbursements, another for allegedly coercing Clarence Norman                       judicial candidates into paying Democratic Party hacks for "campaign" work.

Another source close to the case said prosecutors' investigation into judges suspected of bribing their way onto the bench has stalled out. So they're eager to cut a leniency-for-information deal with Norman, who is suspected of taking or coordinating the bribes.

Norman's lawyer, Edward Rappaport, did not return a call for comment. A DA spokesman declined to comment on the prospect of a deal.

Norman Guilty of Stealing 2nd Conviction for Ex-Pol

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
December 16, 2005

 

Former Democratic Party leader Clarence Norman leaves court in Brooklyn yesterday after his larceny conviction.

For the second time this year, once-powerful Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman was convicted yesterday of a felony - in this case, for stealing $5,000 intended for his reelection committee.

Norman, 54, did not react when the Brooklyn Supreme Court jury, which deliberated nearly a week, found the former assemblyman guilty of three counts of felony grand larceny and falsifying records for cashing the October 2001 check written by his political club.

"God is good all the time," said Norman, the son of a preacher, outside the courtroom. Prosecutors immediately asked for him to be put behind bars, saying the felled Brooklyn king could take off now that he faces up to 15 years in prison.

"He has every incentive to flee," declared prosecutor Michael Vecchione.

But Justice Martin Marcus set bail at $100,000. Norman, convicted of felony campaign corruption charges in September, was locked in the courtroom until late afternoon, when his parents put up their home as collateral.

It was a precipitous fall for the one-time Brooklyn boss who, until September, was in charge of putting judges on the bench and was a senior assemblyman.

"He's very disappointed," said defense attorney Edward Rappaport, who said he may appeal.

Yesterday was Norman's second conviction out of four indictments. Now, the pressure is on for Norman to cooperate in Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' probe into whether judicial candidates were forced to pay to get the party's lucrative endorsements.

Sentencing for both convictions was set for Jan. 10.

At his trial, Norman denied stealing the check, saying he considered it reimbursement for a $5,000 loan he gave Assemblywoman Diane Gordon in September 2001 to pay election workers for state Controller Alan Hevesi's failed mayoral campaign.

But jurors didn't buy it, one said afterward.

"The evidence was overwhelming. The alibi was only Mr. Norman's word," said real estate broker Michael McGrath, 33. "It would have been helpful if he had someone to back up his story."

Norman's defense fell apart midtrial when Gordon - fearing her own legal troubles - refused to testify. Rappaport had promised jurors she would appear.

 

'Houdini' Norman 'Just Stupid'

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
December 8, 2005

Dethroned Brooklyn political boss Clarence Norman is either a criminal Harry Houdini or just plain stupid, lawyers said yesterday in the wrap-up of Norman's latest political corruption trial.

"Every great magician learns the art of misdirection," said prosecutor Michael Vecchione of Norman's alleged theft of a $5,000 campaign contribution to his own re-election committee. But Norman's lawyer said the only thing his client is guilty of is "stupidity" for cashing the contribution check.

"We wouldn't be here" if Norman had simply ripped up the $5,000 contribution and asked for a reimbursement check made out to his personal account," said lawyer Edward Rappaport.

Norman Case May Go to Jury Today

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
December 7, 2005

The larceny case against Clarence Norman is expected to go to a jury today - after the deposed Democratic Party boss insisted for three hours yesterday he's not a thief.

The former assemblyman underwent grueling questioning by Assistant Brooklyn District Attorney Michael Vecchione over a $5,000 check Norman cashed that was made out to his reelection committee.

Norman has said the October 2001 check was to reimburse him for cash he gave to Assemblywoman Diane Gordon to pay Primary Day workers for Democrat Alan Hevesi's failed 2001 mayoral campaign.

"It was for money I laid out. Unfortunately, the check was written incorrectly," Norman said.

"You never went back at any time to correct the so-called [mistake]?" Vecchione asked sarcastically.

"No, I did not," Norman said.

Both the prosecution and defense rested yesterday and are expected to sum up this morning.

Norman faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.


                                Norman Defense Is $Haky

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
December 7, 2005

Dethroned Brooklyn political boss Clarence Norman stepped off the witness stand yesterday sticking by his innocence, but was forced to concede that his defense didn't always add up.

Norman told jurors repeatedly that he didn't steal a $5,000 campaign-contribution check because, even though he cashed it into his personal bank account, he thought it was reimbursement for a loan.

But prosecutor Michael Vecchione just as often made Norman admit that everything about his handling of the check was unusual.

Vecchione displayed documents showing that virtually every other time Norman sought reimbursement for political expenses, he got them from his campaign treasurer.

And Vecchione got Norman to agree that the night he pocketed the check, he knew members of his political club had recently written it as part of a series of contributions to various Brooklyn political organizations.

The check reads "contribution" on its memo line, not "reimbursement."

But Norman said the word "contribution" was mistakenly written in by political operatives who had made so many donations that night, they forgot Norman's check was a reimbursement.

"I was happy" to get the check, Norman said. "I was worried about getting my money."

Former Brooklyn Party Leader in Rematch With Prosecutor

By Michael Brick
The New York Times
December 6, 2005

Clarence Norman Jr., the former Brooklyn Democratic leader and assemblyman, took the stand in his corruption trial yesterday as its focus narrowed to this question: What was Mr. Norman thinking when he deposited a check written to his re-election campaign committee into his personal bank account?

In a full day of testimony in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, Mr. Norman spent the morning explaining himself and the afternoon parrying questions about his intelligence, literacy and actions from a prosecutor who sought to undermine his account.

This is the second trial for Mr. Norman, who was convicted in September of soliciting illegal campaign contributions, and his long volley with the prosecutor, Michael F. Vecchione, first deputy district attorney, was something of a rematch. Mr. Vecchione cross-examined a faltering Mr. Norman in the earlier case, eliciting statements including, "I have no independent recollection."

In contrast to that performance, Mr. Norman appeared calm and self-assured on the stand yesterday, measuring his replies in soft, explanatory tones even as Mr. Vecchione yelled at him, sighed loudly and spun on his heel.

Mr. Norman is charged with larceny for depositing the $5,000 check, written by a political club he controlled and made out to his campaign committee, into his personal bank account. He contends that the money was a reimbursement for funds he had personally advanced to Assemblywoman Diane Gordon.

Mr. Norman's lawyer, Edward M. Rappaport, had promised jurors that Ms. Gordon would testify, but when she took the stand last month, she invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating herself for failing to report a contribution.

That left Mr. Norman to explain things himself yesterday, and his first obstacle was a copy of the check itself, displayed on a screen before the jury. In the memo line, it said, "Contribution."

Dressed in a dark suit with a pocket handkerchief, Mr. Norman clasped his hands and faced the jurors as Mr. Rappaport led him through his version of events: Ms. Gordon, a Democratic Assembly colleague, told him days before the primary election scheduled for Sept. 11, 2001, that she needed money to support Alan G. Hevesi's mayoral campaign in her East New York district. Mr. Norman gave her $5,000 of his own money and later requested reimbursement. He found a check for $5,000 in an envelope on his desk. He felt confident that it was intended as a reimbursement, and convinced a bank teller to deposit the funds into his personal account.

"I was just trying to get my money back," Mr. Norman said.

When Mr. Vecchione began his cross-examination, Mr. Norman stopped looking at the jury. He raised his eyebrows, and his gaze followed the prosecutor back and forth across the courtroom. Mr. Rappaport often objected and there were frequent sidebars with the judge, Martin Marcus.

Mr. Vecchione asked about Mr. Norman's education and career, seeking to establish his familiarity with election law. The questioning spanned loan procedures, the workings of several political organizations and the competence of certain party officials. Mr. Rappaport's objections slowed the pace, and Mr. Norman derailed some lines of questioning with concessions leading to tangents, but the focus returned repeatedly to two issues.

The first issue, addressed directly, was that Mr. Norman had deposited the check in his personal account.

"Is there an exception in the law for Clarence Norman Jr.?" Mr. Vecchione asked. After an objection was overruled, Mr. Norman responded, "Definitely not."

The second, broached less directly, was the question of what Mr. Norman had been thinking.

"You know, do you not, that larceny is when someone takes something that does not belong to them, would you agree with me?" Mr. Vecchione asked.

Mr. Norman, who passed the bar on the first try and once worked as an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn, conceded that definition, adding a word.

"Intentionally," he said.

The trial is to continue today.

$Tate of Denial

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
December 6, 2005

Dethroned Brooklyn political boss Clarence Norman took the stand yesterday and told a jury he "absolutely" did not steal a $5,000 campaign contribution to his re-election committee.

But a prosecutor then proceeded to poke hole after hole in Norman's explanation — that the check was actually a reimbursement for money Norman had loaned another politician for campaign work.

"Is there an exception in the law for Clarence Norman Jr.?" prosecutor Michael Vecchione asked incredulously after Norman claimed he somehow "knew" the check, made out to his re-election committee in 2001, was really meant for him personally.

"No," Norman conceded.

Norman described how he found the check one evening in an envelope on his desk in his Brooklyn Assembly district office.

He said he put the check "in my bag," and took it to his local Chase Bank branch, where "the people at the bank know me" and let him cash the check, even though it wasn't made out to him.

Norman said he couldn't recall who the "friend" was who let him cash the check. "Just a teller," he said.

Norman said the $5,000 was reimbursement for money he had loaned Assemblywoman Diane Gordon so she could mount a get-out-the-vote effort for mayoral candidate Alan Hevesi.

Norman said he loaned Gordon the money personally because she needed it right away and couldn't wait for cash from one of Norman's political accounts.

But Vecchione produced signed checks showing that Norman's campaign committee was already paying Hevesi expenses the very day Norman made the "emergency" personal loan to Gordon.

And Vecchione displayed bank documents showing that Gordon never used the $5,000 for campaign work. She deposited it, then wrote two checks to herself — one made out on Sept. 11, 2001 — and paid off some old campaign debts.

"I trusted her," Norman said, shrugging.

That Norman even took the stand showed his difficulty defending this case. Every witness who could corroborate his story either refused to testify or was barred by the judge.

At his last political corruption trial in September, which ended in a conviction, jurors appeared unimpressed by the former pol's evasive answers.

The 5g Was My Money, Norman Claims

By Nancie L. Katz
Daily News Staff Writer
December 6, 2005

Decposed former Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman yesterday denied stealing the $5,000 check at the center of his trial for grand larceny.

Taking the witness stand in his own defense, Norman admitted he cashed an Oct. 30, 2001, check made out to his reelection committee for the Assembly.

But he said it was a payback for cash he gave a colleague to get out the vote for state Controller Alan Hevesi's failed mayoral campaign.

"I took the check to the Chase bank because I knew this was the reimbursement check I had requested," Norman told a Brooklyn jury. "The people at the bank knew me. I represented the check as my funds, which it was."

"Did you intend to steal money from the committee?" asked defense lawyer Ed Rappaport.

"Absolutely not," Norman replied.

Norman faces up to seven years behind bars if convicted. In September, he was convicted of campaign corruption and stripped of his post as party leader and the Assembly seat he held for 23 years. He also testified at that trial.

Under blistering cross-examination by prosecutor Michael Vecchione, Norman conceded that election law barred him from cashing a check made out to his committee.

"Is there an exception to the law for Clarence Norman Jr.?" Vecchione asked.

"No," Norman said.

Norman said Assemblywoman Diane Gordon, who refused to testify, threatened to stop working for Hevesi in September 2001 if she didn't get "immediate" cash for workers.

But Vecchione challenged Norman's story, pointing out that Norman's committee or his political club could have forwarded the money. He also asked Norman if he knew Gordon didn't spend his check on Hevesi's campaign.

"I just followed her instructions," Norman said. "I took her at her word."

Norman Will Take the Stand

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
December 2, 2005

Ending weeks of speculation, dethroned Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman revealed yesterday he'll take the stand in a last-ditch effort to salvage his case at his latest political-corruption trial.

Norman will face jurors Monday to flesh out his defense: That he never stole a $5,000 campaign contribution check because the money was payback for a loan he made to another politician, said his lawyer, Edward Rappaport.

But a Fordham law professor who has been watching the case said the move shows Norman's "defense has completely fallen apart."

Disgraced Pol's Trial Chaos

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
December 1, 2005

Former Brooklyn Assemblyman Clarence Norman's criminal defense descended even further into bizarre disarray yesterday when more key witnesses were bounced off the stand and prosecutors refuted Norman's main explanation of his alleged crime.

At times, a circus-like atmosphere reigned, with seven lawyers arguing in the courtroom and the judge, his head in his hands, asking who represented whom.

Norman is on trial for allegedly stealing a $5,000 campaign contribution check made out to his re-election committee.

His defense was going to be that he thought the check was reimbursement for $5,000 he loaned Assemblywoman Diane Gordon for political work she was doing.

But last week, in a sudden about-face, Gordon refused to testify on grounds that she could incriminate herself for failing to report the $5,000 "loan" to her re-election committee.

And yesterday, prosecutors said bank records show that Gordon never used the $5,000 for political work, but instead apparently used it to write two checks to herself and pay off some old campaign debts.

After hearing that, Norman's lawyer, Edward Rappaport, tried a new tactic by seeking to put Gordon's lawyer, Richard Medina, on the stand to testify about the loan.

But Medina said he never promised that Gordon would testify about the loan in the first place.

Then Medina said he was getting his own lawyer.

Finally, Rappaport offered a third defense strategy, promising to call a political consultant named Jacqueline Ward to testify that Norman had told her something about being owed money in 2001.

But the judge said Ward couldn't testify because all she had to offer was hearsay.

Norman May Testify in Check Fraud

Nancie L. Katz
New York Post
November 29, 2005

Dethroned Brooklyn Democratic party boss Clarence Norman may take the witness stand tomorrow after a key witness backed out of testifying in his defense, the Daily News has learned.

Last week, Norman's lawyer, Ed Rappaport, argued for a mistrial after Assemblywoman Diane Gordon refused to testify about a check Norman wrote to her campaign in 2001.

If Supreme Court Justice Marty Marcus does not declare a mistrial, a source familiar with the defense said, the former assemblyman may tell jurors he personally cashed a $5,000 check written to his reelection committee as reimbursement for money he gave Gordon.

Norman, already facing four years for a September campaign corruption conviction, could get up to seven years if found guilty of pocketing the $5,000 check written by his political club.

Last week, Gordon took the Fifth Amendment after prosecutors refused to grant her immunity. She allegedly cashed the check Norman addressed to her campaign committee - the same crime for which the deposed party chairman is being tried.

Norman's Successor Facing Own Scandal

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
November, 25, 2005

PHOTOJust one month after replacing scandal-plagued pol Clarence Norman as Brooklyn Democratic Party boss, Assemblyman Vito Lopez appears headed for his own tub of legal hot water.

Three activists have filed a complaint with the Brooklyn DA, alleging Lopez used a fake address on his voter-registration form and doesn't live in his Brooklyn district.

Instead, say the activists, Lopez for years has shacked up in a Queens condo owned by his Former Brooklyn Democratic party bossgirlfriend, Planning Commissioner Angela
Clarence Norman (above) was indicted
Battaglia, who also happens to be executive
 for four offenses.
                           director of a housing nonprofit Lopez founded.

A spokesman confirmed that the district attorney had received the complaint, dated Oct. 24, but declined to say if an investigation has begun.

Falsifying a voter-registration address is a felony.

When told of the complaint, Lopez's chief of staff, Allison Hirsh, said, "I have no comment," and hung up the phone. Battaglia did not return a phone call to her commission office.

"Vito Lopez is not above the law," said Joseph Garber, one of three signatories on the complaint.

Garber, an activist in Lopez's district who has worked against Lopez-backed judicial candidates, said the pol's alleged fake address has been an open secret among insiders for years.

Garber said he and other disgusted activists decided to air the dirty laundry when Lopez ascended to Norman's throne atop the Kings County Democratic Party in October with vows to clean the organization up.

"Now Lopez is going to be the choirmaster. He'll do just like Clarence Norman, if not worse," said Arthur Steier, another signatory.

Since becoming party leader, Lopez has been throwing his weight around, recently vowing to be a kingmaker in the race for City Council speaker.

Property records show that the address where Lopez is registered to vote, 64 Conselyea St. in Williamsburg, is owned by a woman named Tillie Tarantino.

Tarantino is executive director of the Swinging 60s Senior Center in Greenpoint, which is funded by a Lopez-backed nonprofit.

Reached by The Post at the senior center, Tarantino was asked if Lopez lives at the Conselyea Street house.

"No comment," she said, and hung up.

Shock Silence from
Key Norman Witness

By Jim Hinch
The New York Post
November 22, 2005

PHOTOIndicted former Assemblyman Clarence Norman's criminal defense blew up in his face yesterday when his star witness abruptly refused to testify and the judge weighed whether to scrap the entire trial.

Brooklyn Assemblywoman Diane Gordon who was going to testify that the $5,000 Norman is accused of stealing was actually a loan to her stunned the audience, and even Norman's own lawyer, when she unexpectedly took the Fifth Amendment.

Gordon was put on the stand with the jury out of CLARENCE NORMAN                             Fifth room. She kept silent because, in order
Pol pal takes
                               to corroborate Norman's story, she would have had to confess to committing potentially illegal acts herself.

After she stepped off the stand, Norman's lawyer, Edward Rappaport, said a prosecutor could indict her "in less than . . . an hour" and asked Judge Martin Marcus for a mistrial.

Marcus said he'd think about it, and told everyone to come back next week.

Rappaport was so caught off guard by Gordon's bombshell that he turned on the star witness's lawyer, Richard Medina, accusing him of "misleading" him about Gordon's willingness to testify.

Fifth Amendment."

Medina said Gordon fears that if she testifies, she'll be charged with an election-law violation.

That's because the $5,000 "loan" from Norman was a contribution check to Gordon's re-election committee, which she cashed into her own personal bank account and never disclosed in campaign-finance reports.

Norman Seeks Mistrial as Pol Takes 5th

By Derek Rose
New York Daily News
November 22, 2005

Disgraced former Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman's lawyer wants a mistrial after his star witness - a state lawmaker - yesterday took the Fifth Amendment.

Assemblywoman Diane Gordon refused to testify about a $5,000 check made out to her election committee that she allegedly deposited into a personal account.

"I wish to assert my privilege according to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the state of New York and decline to answer that question," Gordon said in response to a question from Norman's lawyer, Ed Rappaport. The jury was not present.

Already convicted of soliciting bribes from a lobbyist, Norman is on trial for allegedly stealing a $5,000 check made out to his political campaign.

Norman contends he's only guilty of sloppy bookkeeping. The check was simply a reimbursement for cash he had loaned Gordon in connection with state Controller Alan Hevesi's failed 2001 mayoral bid, Rappaport contends.

Without Gordon's testimony, which he had promised the jury in opening remarks, there's no way for Norman to receive a fair trial, Rappaport said.

"The defendant is in an impossible situation," Rappaport said. "I would have tried this case completely differently" had he known Gordon would refuse to testify.

Judge Martin Marcus appeared reluctant to grant a mistrial, but gave Rappaport until tomorrow to detail what he would have done differently.

Earlier in the day, prosecutors refused to grant Gordon immunity from prosecution in connection with her testimony.

"I don't think she's committed any criminal violation but the prosecutors see it differently," said her lawyer, Richard Medina. "The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is there for the innocent as well as the guilty."

Norman Treasurer Buries Him

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
November 16, 2005

Convicted former Assemblyman Clarence Norman's political committees played fast and loose with their campaign accounting, Norman's campaign treasurer told a jury yesterday.

If an illegally large $5,000 donation came in, treasurer Carmen Martinez said she would count some of the cash as rent reimbursement and deposit a legal amount as a contribution.

Norman's re-election committee also funneled thousands to ally Alan Hevesi's mayoral campaign by paying for campaign supplies on Hevesi's behalf, Martinez said.

Norman told Martinez that it was a short-term loan, but Hevesi never paid Norman's re-election committee back, she said. That would have made Norman's spending an in-kind donation in excess of the $4,500 contribution limit in 2001.

Hevesi did pay $20,000 to another Norman political committee. But Martinez said that money never returned to Norman's re-election committee.

Norman is on trial for allegedly swiping another batch of Hevesi-related money: a $5,000 check to his political committee.

Norman claims he knew it was payback for cash loaned to a Hevesi get-out-the-vote effort, and his lawyer says it may have been "

Treasurer: Norman Never Told Me

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
November 16, 2005

Disgraced former Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman never told his campaign treasurer about a $5,000 check written to his reelection committee that he cashed himself, she testified yesterday.

For the second time in two months, Carmen Martinez took the stand against her friend of three decades, saying she was unaware of a check written by the Thurgood Marshall political club that prosecutors contend Norman deposited in his own bank account.

Norman lost his Assembly seat of 23 years and his 15-year post as Democratic boss when a jury convicted him in September of felony campaign corruption. He faces up to four years on that conviction, and seven years if convicted in Brooklyn Supreme Court of stealing the check.

Norman has contended the club's Oct. 30, 2001, check to his committee was reimbursement for cash he lent the failed 2001 mayoral campaign of state Controller Alan Hevesi to pay get-out-the-vote workers.

The check, with "contribution" noted in the memo line, should have been given to her as treasurer, Martinez said.

"Was this check brought to your attention by the defendant?" asked prosecutor Michael Vecchione.

"No," she said.

But under cross-examination, she said Norman's committee bankrolled many of Hevesi's campaign costs.

She also said she considered checks from political clubs as reimbursement for expenses even if "contribution" was written on the memo line.
 

Showing Bad Judge-ment

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
November 7, 2005

PHOTOA handful of Brooklyn Supreme Court justices have raised a whopping $373,000 to get on the bench and spent most of the cash on "donations" to political allies, on shopping trips, limo rides and lavish induction parties, The Post has learned.

The campaign money was raised even though they faced virtually no opposition at the polls. Much of the money came from lawyers arguing cases in front of the judges, according to a Post review of six years' worth of financial disclosures. A regulator said judges are Judge Patricia DiMango                    forbidden from spending campaign funds on themselves.
Photo: Rick Kopstein        
"If we received a report of a judge using money for personal benefit, we'd inquire into it," said Robert Tembeckjian, administrator of the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct.

The commission admonished Justice Martin Schneier two years ago for throwing himself a $19,949 induction party with campaign funds, and giving $10,923 more to a favorite charity. But other judges, too, have used donations for more than posters and fliers.

One judge, James Starkey, paid himself $26,875 in unitemized "reimbursements" more than half of the $41,410 he raised for his 2002 race.

Justice Robert Gigante used donations from lawyers and friends to take a $310 limo ride to a fund-raiser three months after his "campaign" ended.

And Justice Ira Harkavy used the $20,823 he raised to buy himself a $108 judicial robe, throw a $12,551 induction party, and buy a $100 ticket to an "annual birthday bash" for then-county political boss Clarence Norman.

Harkavy did not return calls. Gigante recently had surgery and could not be reached. Starkey referred calls to a campaign treasurer who could not be reached.

Judges who did talk to The Post said they followed the rules.

Justice Patricia DiMango said a $7,654 shopping spree she took at Bloomingdale's and a Hamptons boutique called Chez Morgan was for a leather sofa, two leather chairs, a lamp and other furnishings for her judicial chambers.

DiMango said she bought the furniture "on sale" and that it would remain at the courthouse when she left.

Norman Urged to Sing
He's Got Key to Cleaning up City, Sez Crook-buster

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
November 7, 2005

The Brooklyn district attorney's corruption-buster is calling on the powerful political boss he brought down to do the right thing - and come clean about a crooked system.

Former Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman is the one man who could help authorities cleanse the borough of judicial and political corruption, Michael Vecchione told the Daily News.

"He has the ability to really change - for the better - the entire way that people view the political system," said Vecchione, the man District Attorney Charles Hynes calls his "go-to" guy on corruption.

"Norman can expose the judges, he can expose the people we believe paid for their judgeships," he added.

"He can rid the system of that corruption and be, in a lot of respects, a hero - at least use what he has for good."

Norman, 54, the ex-Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman and assemblyman, was found guilty of grand larceny in September.

He was immediately stripped of his office and party chairmanship and is facing a prison term of 1-1/3 to 4 years.

Today, with colleagues Kevin Richardson and Monique Farrell, Vecchione will be in court as jury selection for Norman's second corruption trial starts.

In the latest case, Norman is accused of depositing a $5,000 check for his reelection campaign into a personal account.

Prosecutors say the borough's Democratic Party charged prospective judges $50,000 or more for the backing, which generally guaranteed them a place on the bench. Norman has denied judgeships were sold and has resisted cooperating with prosecutors.

Vecchione's first judicial corruption case resulted in state Supreme Court Justice Victor Barron pleading guilty to soliciting a $250,000 bribe from a lawyer.

He is also prosecuting Justice Gerald Garson on bribery charges as well as Garson's cousin, Justice Michael Garson, on a grand larceny rap. Both judges deny the charges.

Now, Hynes said, Vecchione is "architect and quarterback" of an ever-burgeoning judicial probe that will probably last two more years.

At the end, the DA predicted, "It will become crystal clear what the game plan was and where we were going."

During four years at the helm of Hynes' Rackets Bureau, Vecchione, 56, has handled some high-profile cases.

In addition to the judges' probes, he's led investigations that resulted in the arrests of two ex-NYPD detectives who allegedly killed for the mob and solved the coverup that shrouded those involved in the murder of college student Mark Fisher.

He heads the DA's inquiry into the illegal sale of body parts by funeral homes.

"By putting the bad guys behind bars, it shows you can still have faith in the system," Vecchione said.

Bid to Bar Norman Pal

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
November 4, 2005

A civil-rights group yesterday sued to stop Brooklyn Democrats from installing a reputed crony of disgraced political boss Clarence Norman into the borough's patronage-riddled Surrogate Court.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund said in the federal suit that the last-minute backroom deal that created the judgeship for Assemblyman Frank Seddio deprived voters of the chance to pick a judge for themselves.

The creation of the seat, approved by legislators this summer, was timed to avoid a primary election. Instead, party leaders got to handpick Seddio, who has no judicial experience.

Seddio's nod for the job was widely considered payback for his political club's support of Norman-backed candidates.

Seddio could not be reached for comment.

Defense-fund head Cesar Perales said he wants a judge to stop Seddio's anticipated Jan. 1 installation and schedule a proper primary election.

He said he also hopes the suit sheds light on the deal-making that got Seddio the plum spot. But "I've been in this business long enough to know if there were [a paper trail, it] went down the toilet a while ago," he said.

Disgraced Judge Wore Wire in Plot

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
October 23, 2005

Indicted jurist judge Michael Garson secretly taped another state Supreme Court justice in a bid to get him to admit he paid $100,000 to buy a seat on the bench, the Daily News has learned.

The revelation comes as disgraced ex-Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman faces a deadline for helping prosecutors probing the alleged sale of judgeships in Kings County.

Garson, 60, was charged last year with looting nearly $1 million from an elderly aunt.

But Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes kept the indictment under wraps for six months after Garson - facing a 15-year jail term - said he could help prosecutors prove Norman was offering judicial nominations for a price, said sources familiar with case.

Garson offered to go undercover in an attempt to squeeze fellow judge Howard Ruditzky, 61.

"He claimed Ruditzky told [a friend] he paid $100,000 for his judgeship," one source said. "They wired up Michael Garson, [who] tried to get Ruditzky to admit it on tape. But people already knew Michael Garson was under investigation."

A Hynes spokesman declined to comment on the matter.

Garson's attorney, Ron Aiello, himself a former state judge, said he didn't want to discuss it either.

"I am not going to comment about it even if it did happen, which it didn't," he said. "Judge Garson has been indicted. Judge Garson is preparing a motion to dismiss that indictment."

But a source close to Ruditzky confirmed Garson's ploy.

"Michael Garson was desperate," the source said. "He was trying to do anything and try to give them any lie that exists. Obviously, nothing came of it."

Ruditzky's lawyer, Sheldon Eisenberger, said the judge vehemently denies ever paying a cent to get his judgeship.

"There's no $100,000," Eisenberger said.

Last week, prosecutors told Norman he had until tomorrow to decide whether to cooperate in their probe or face trial on three outstanding indictments.

Norman, 54, resigned from his post as Kings County Democratic Party leader and from his Assembly seat after he was convicted in a political corruption case last month.

Eisenberger said Ruditzky isn't worried

"Ruditzky is not going to be named by Clarence Norman because there's nothing there," the lawyer said.

2 New Judges Eyed in Chamber Plot$

By Jim Hinch and Zach Haberman
New York Post
October 22, 2005

EXCLUSIVE

PHOTOTwo more judges' names have surfaced as targets of a probe into Brooklyn's justice-for-sale scandal.

Sources say prosecutors want to hear what disgraced former Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman has to say about Supreme Court Justices Howard Ruditzky and Allen Hurkin-Torres, suspected of paying tens of thousands of dollars to get on the bench.

Ruditzky allegedly complained to associates that he had to spend $100,000 for his seat in 2002, which  WHAT THEY WANT TO KNOW:           Norman helped him get just weeks after Ruditzky
Prosecutors will be asking former       
lost a Civil Court primary.
Brooklyn Democratic party boss
Clarence Norman (above) if Supreme
Hurkin-Torres made news two years ago when
Court Justices Howard Ruditzky and    
prosecutors asked his father to explain why he
Allen Hurkin-Torres are part of the      
boasted at a swearing-in ceremony that he paid
same scheme as Francois Rivera.       
$50,000 for his son's judgeship. Ruditzky did not
Photo: Jeff Day
                           return calls to his chambers.

Benjamin Brafman, Hurkin-Torres' lawyer, said: "The allegations that were raised about Judge Torres more than a year ago were thoroughly investigated and found to be entirely baseless. He is a first-class judge who earned his judgeship honestly and does his job with integrity."

Meanwhile, another judge exposed by The Post yesterday as being under suspicion by prosecutors fervently denied the allegation.

"I was so outraged by your story that I must say that this story is an outrageous lie. It is completely and utterly false with no basis in fact whatsoever. I am restrained as a judge from issuing any further comment," said Supreme Court Justice Leon Ruchelsman in a phone message to The Post.

But a source familiar with the investigation said yesterday that Ruchelsman's name remained on the list of suspect judges. And the source reiterated that some of Ruchelsman's associates have been questioned about how he got on the bench.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office has declined to speak publicly about details of its investigation.

The second judge exposed by The Post yesterday was Francois Rivera, who received partial immunity on bribery allegations.

Norman, convicted last month on political-corruption charges, has until midday Monday to tell prosecutors whether he wants to tell all in the judges scandal in exchange for a lighter sentence and leniency on three other corruption indictments he faces.

Some associates of Norman said yesterday that they have encouraged him to roll over. But others said the disgraced pol has all but decided to clam up.

Turns out, though, the DA isn't the end of Norman's troubles. Sources tell The Post that the feds also have probed Norman's role in the bench-for-sale scandal.

Brooklyn's Judge-ment Day?

Editorial
New York Post
October 22, 2005

Brooklyn may be about to lose its ignominious nickname, "Judgeships R Us," as prosecutors try to corral a key figure into singing about the borough's reputation as stop-n-shop for seats on the bench.

If they get the dirt they're looking for, the judge store may be out of business.

Make no mistake: This is huge news.

As The Post reported exclusively yesterday, as many as 10 judges (10 judges!) may be the target of inquiries by prosecutors into alleged payments — of possibly tens of thousands of dollars — made to secure their judicial posts.

The DA gave Clarence Norman (who, as Brooklyn's Democratic Party boss, allegedly was Judgeships R Us' chief proprietor) until Monday to spill his guts.

Or expect no leniency in his sentencing for his conviction on illegal campaign-donation charges. He faces up to eight years for that — with three more indictments pending.

If Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes cracks Norman, it could break open a borough-wide network of judicial corruption.

"What I'm hearing on the street is that a lot of judges [in the Brooklyn courthouse] are scared," said state Sen. Martin Connor, a Democrat.

And that, in turn, would have enormous political consequences, given that it is the Democratic Party leadership — Norman and his cronies — that allegedly sold the judgeships in the first place.

Here's how it supposedly worked: You want to be a judge, so you "donate" to the Democratic Party, or some entity that it backs, or that backs it. Or you "hire" its cronies — to do work for your "campaign," for example. The party then backs you for the bench — and, given the abundance of Brooklyn Dems, you cruise to electoral victory.

Thus, if Hynes prevails, not only may judges soon be trading in their black robes for prison greens, some party operatives may be cranking out license plates, too.

If he fails, expect the sleaze to continue: Though Norman had to give up his leadership position, along with his seat in the Assembly, after being convicted last month, the party leadership is still backing his cronies — such as Assemblyman Vito Lopez as Norman's replacement as party boss.

And the Rev. Karim Camara, a pastor at Norman's dad's church, for Norman's Assembly seat.

And the Rev. Moses Moore for district leader. (Moore, by the way, raked in some $200,000 this year from judges for "political consulting services," Nice work, no?)

Yes, the stakes are high.

Stay tuned.

B'klyn Dems 'Broke'

By Patrick Gallahue
The New York Post
October 22, 2005

The scandal-plagued Brooklyn Dem- ocrats have a whole new headache to worry about — they're almost broke.

The once-powerful county Democratic Party is on the verge of bankruptcy, its incoming leader announced shortly after his election this week.

"What I've been told unofficially is the fact that the county is almost bankrupt," said Assemblyman Vito Lopez, the new Brooklyn boss.

The party, which only a few years ago had tens of thousands of dollars in the bank, will now perform an accounting to sort out the organization's flagging funds.

   Norman Is Given Until Monday to Aid in Case Against Judges

By Andy Newman
The New York Times
October 21, 2005

The Brooklyn district attorney's office has given Clarence Norman Jr., the former Democratic Party boss convicted last month of campaign finance violations, until Monday to decide whether to cooperate with an investigation into judicial corruption, a law enforcement official said yesterday.

The district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, has Mr. Norman in a tight spot. Mr. Norman, a longtime assemblyman until his conviction, has three more indictments alleging political corruption hanging over his head; the first case is scheduled to go to trial Nov. 7. And he already faces up to four years in prison at his sentencing, scheduled for Nov. 28.

On Wednesday, prosecutors met with Mr. Norman's lawyer, Edward M. Rappaport, and laid out their terms, according to the law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing. The meeting was also confirmed by a person briefed on the case who asked not to be identified because he feared reprisals.

They said that if Mr. Norman provided information useful to Mr. Hynes's ongoing investigation of judicial corruption, Mr. Hynes will recommend a light sentence and accept a generous plea deal on the other charges. Otherwise, he can take his chances in court. "The conviction puts his back to the wall," the law enforcement official said. "They ask us what we've got, and what we've got is we can send him to jail for four years. The three remaining indictments are not going to go away. He has to plead guilty to them even if he talks."

The official added, "We're playing hardball because we're in the driver's seat."

Mr. Rappaport declined yesterday to answer questions about Mr. Norman's dealings with prosecutors, and would not confirm that a deal was offered. Mr. Hynes's investigation into judicial corruption began in 2003, after a judge facing arrest on charges of accepting illegal gifts from a lawyer told prosecutors that four sitting judges in Brooklyn had bought their way onto the ballot by paying off local Democratic officials.

Mr. Norman, the head of Brooklyn's Democratic Party since 1990, became a natural target for inquiry, and prosecutors said they turned up evidence of wrongdoing in his roles both as assemblyman and as county party chairman.

Last month, Mr. Norman, 54, was convicted of violating campaign laws by soliciting and then trying to conceal a total of $12,800 in contributions - more than double the legal amount - from a lobbyist for gas stations and repair shops in 2000 and 2002. The money was used to pay for electioneering expenses for his primary campaign, prosecutors said.

The other indictments, all felonies, charge that he misappropriated campaign funds, double-dipped for $5,000 in travel expenses and strong-armed judicial candidates to hire his favorite political consultants.

Dems Fill Top Norman Post with His 'Bagman'

By Patrick Gallahue and Jim Hinch
New York Post
October 21, 2005

Embattled Brooklyn Democrats are filling one of the three jobs vacated by disgraced Clarence Norman Jr., with his "bagman," one angry party worker complained yesterday.

The county organization appointed as district leader Moses "Musa" Moore, who collected more than $200,000 in consulting fees from party-backed judicial candidates, records show.

The choice came only days after the Rev. Karim Camara — a political newcomer from Norman's father's influential Crown Heights church — was named to run for Norman's Assembly seat.

Vito Lopez, a party stalwart, was named county leader.

But party members were most alarmed by Moore, who got money from judicial candidates.

Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes is investigating numerous judges accused of paying to get on the bench.

Norman is suspected of either taking or coordinating the payments.

"We hate to use the word 'bagman,' but that's what it looks like here," complained one Democrat of Moore. "There are a lot of suspicious payments."

Moore was paid $20,000 in "consulting" fees by Surrogate Court candidate Diana Johnson; $46,000 by Civil Court candidate Nor- ma Jennings; $81,000 by Civil Court candidate Cynthia Boyce, and $1,000 by DA candidate John Sampson — all backed by Norman.

"If [money] came to me, it went to overhead on Election Day," Moore said last night. "We hired over 100 people."

                     Kings County Has a New Kingmaker
                            Lopez Tapped as Dem Boss

Hugh Son
New York Daily News
Originally published on October 21, 2005

The scandal-rocked Brooklyn Democratic organization picked Bushwick Assemblyman Vito Lopez last night to take over for former boss Clarence Norman, who last month was convicted of felony campaign abuses.

"I'm hoping today is a new beginning," Lopez said, emerging from the back room of a Brooklyn Heights diner, the party's traditional meeting spot. "I hope we can work collectively together and bring political respectability to the borough."

Lopez won over 28 of his 41 fellow district leaders to gain the nonsalaried post. He'll head a county machine with nearly 900,000 registered voters.

One district leader, Devin Cohen, criticized Lopez for endorsing Republicans Gov. Pataki and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the past - and praising Mayor Bloomberg's affordable-housing plan this week. Lopez countered that he has endorsed Democrat Fernando Ferrer for mayor.

In response to several scandals involving corrupt Brooklyn judges, Lopez announced plans to create a judicial-reform panel.

Assemblyman Joe Lentol, who sought the post before bowing out, said Lopez was "the right man for the job. It bodes well for the county."

B'klyn Ju$tice Testifies

By Zach Haberman and Jim Hinch
New York Post
October 21, 2005


PHOTOA state Supreme Court justice targeted by the           Brooklyn DA for allegedly buying his way onto the  bench has landed an immunity deal, and testified in front  of a grand jury about other reputed dirty jurists, The Post has learned.

The explosive revelation came as Brooklyn's justice-for-sale scandal widened yesterday with yet another CHAMBER-MADE MEN: Francois   judge exposed as a target of investigators.
Rivera (above), who allegedly        
Sources told The Post that prosecutors are probing
bought his judgeship from Brooklyn
whether Supreme Court Justice Leon Ruchelsman
 Democratic boss Clarence Norman
also may have bought his seat either personally or
 testified before a grand jury about
through his political patron, a powerful community
the scandal that has also ensnared
leader who in recent years has appeared to grow
Judge Leon Ruchelsman.
judge        increasingly close to disgraced former borough
exposed as a target of investigators.       
Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman.
                                        
Ruchelsman did not return calls to his office.

The judge who was given an immunity deal in exchange for grand-jury testimony has been identified by sources as Francois Rivera, who allegedly paid $50,000 for his seat. But he's not immune to other scrutiny.

Sources say the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct is looking into accusations that Rivera lied about his residence while running for office, then voted from a fake address two years later all to convince voters he's from Brooklyn even though he lives in Queens.

The commission's investigation could get Rivera bounced from the bench, even though he's not up for re-election until 2010.

"The judge is saddened by the publication of false rumors which impugn his integrity, and is satisfied that, by the mere passage of time, he will be vindicated and the rumors will be put to rest." Rivera's lawyer, James Koenig, said in a statement released yesterday.

"Due to the profound ethical restraints placed upon the judge, he is unfortunately precluded from saying anything further. The judge will continue to maintain a full schedule and continue to perform the duties attendant to his office."

Norman convicted last month on political corruption charges has until Monday to tell all he knows about dirty judges in exchange for a lighter sentence and leniency on other corruption indictments he faces.

Even though Rivera got partial immunity on the bribery allegation, he's not immune from any fresh evidence Norman might provide, sources said.

And prosecutors have been questioning "people close to Ruchelsman" to ask "how he became a judge," a source familiar with the matter said.

When Ruchelsman ran in 2002 to become a full-fledged Supreme Court justice, sources said legal insiders were surprised because Ruchelsman hadn't been considered a high-profile or even likely candidate. "All of a sudden the door opens, the smoke comes out, and here's this Ruchelsman for judge," a source said.

'Pay 50g' - and Be a Judge

By Jim Hinch and Zach Haberman
New York Post
October 20, 2005

Brooklyn prosecutors are targeting up to 10 judges they suspect paid to get on the bench and told former Democratic boss Clarence Norman he'd better dish on alleged dirty jurists if he wants a plea deal, The Post has learned.

The explosive ultimatum came during a hush-hush huddle yesterday between the Brooklyn DA's Office and a lawyer for Norman, the disgraced political honcho who faces up to eight years for taking illegal campaign contributions and then lying about them, sources said.

Norman is also staring at three more indictments on various corruption charges.

The DA might ease up on the indictments and the possible prison term if he sings.

Prosecutors gave Norman a deadline sometime next week to say whether he'd buy into a deal, the sources said.

The targeted jurists are suspected of paying tens of thousands of dollars for their seats either directly to Norman or to a network of party hacks, sources said.

Sources with knowledge of the situation told The Post that among prosecutors' targets is sitting Supreme Court Justice Francois Rivera, who allegedly bought his seat for $50,000.

"I look at it like I bought a graduate degree," a source said Rivera told a friend shortly after his 1996 win.

Rivera did not return phone calls to his chambers. An assistant there told The Post, "If he wants to talk to you, he'll call you."

But his lawyer, James Koenig, indicated that the allegations have surfaced in at least one grand-

jury proceeding even though The Post never asked Koenig about a grand jury.

In response to a question about the allegations against Rivera, Koenig said, "Anyone who's telling you what's going on in the grand jury . . . Someone shouldn't say what's going on in front of a grand jury."

He then hung up the phone.

A source noted that Rivera doesn't even live in Brooklyn. At the time of his election, he was an administrative judge living in Queens who had tried and failed to get on the Civil Court there.

So, the source said, Rivera approached a Brooklyn politician seeking help getting on the bench in the borough.

The politician introduced Rivera to Norman and allegedly told the Dem boss "he had a guy willing to cough up $50,000" to get on the bench, a source familiar with the situation said.

Norman allegedly agreed to give Rivera what all judges need to get elected in Democrat-rich Brooklyn: the blessing of the party establishment.

After winning the election, sources say, Rivera held a fund-raiser at Junior's restaurant in the borough. A puzzled female friend approached him at the party and asked, since he had already won, "What are you raising money for?"

Rivera allegedly replied, "I have to pay back the $50,000 it cost me to get the judgeship."

Sources say Rivera's campaign-finance filings report he spent less than $3,000 on his race. The unreported $50,000, they say, could have been some form of bribe.

After a tipster told prosecutors about the alleged $50,000 payment last year, authorities hauled Rivera in for questioning. But he said that "there was nothing to tell" and that he couldn't recall anything, said a source familiar with the meeting.

Now that Norman looks as if he might talk, sources said there could be a growing constituency at the courthouse: quaking judges.

"What I'm hearing on the street is that a lot of judges [in the Brooklyn courthouse] are scared," said state Sen. Martin Connor, a Democrat.

Democratic Leader's Demise Followed His Organization's Slide

By Sam Roberts and
Jonathan P. Hicks
The New York Times
October 2, 2005

 "Let me just make a confession," Clarence Norman Jr. declared two years ago, as he, while under investigation, celebrated his birthday with campaign contributors at a catering hall in Brooklyn. "Clarence Norman and the Democratic Party, we are involved in politics. And if there is a crime in being involved in politics, then we are indeed guilty!"

Last week, a racially mixed Brooklyn jury convicted Mr. Norman, the county's first black Democratic chairman, of violating campaign finance laws - concluding, in effect, that politics, at least practices in this case, indeed constituted a crime.

Diane Bondareff/Associated Press        The conviction abruptly terminated the political
Clarence Norman Jr., center, no longer   career of the 54-year-old street-smart son and
heads the Brooklyn Democratic Party,     
namesake of a minister. He automatically
which has been in decline for some time.
forfeited the Assembly seat he has held since
1983 and, with it, the post of deputy speaker in Albany. He also lost the chairmanship of Brooklyn's fractured and flagging Democrats, who had all but dominated city and state politics for much of the 20th century and whose ranks produced a number of black luminaries, including Representative Shirley Chisholm.

The developments, then, invited verdicts on the nature and impact of Mr. Norman's more than two decades in state and local politics. Interviews with an array of current and former elected officials produced the following judgments:

As an assemblyman, Mr. Norman was a presence in his Crown Heights district, but was never considered very influential in Albany.

As one of several fledgling black politicians who rebelled in the 1980's against the iron-fisted leadership of Brooklyn's last real boss, Meade H. Esposito, he opted to be no firebrand, but rather an organization man himself.

And as the county chairman, he presided over a largely vestigial structure that, starved of political appointments from City Hall, has grown weaker and become increasingly dependent on, and desperate for, judicial patronage.

In 1990, when his organizational skills finally paid off with the county Democratic chairmanship, Mr. Norman inherited a dysfunctional, fragmented party apparatus that no one would dignify by describing as a machine.

And no formal trial was needed to conclude that - despite his charm, the fierce loyalty he commanded and returned, and the multiple titles he held - Mr. Norman in 15 years as county chairman and apparently armed with power enough to abuse never delivered on Brooklyn's unique political potential as home to 929,459 enrolled Democrats, more than in any other urban county in the country.

The party organization's decline was not unique to Brooklyn, of course. But it was compounded there by infighting and scandal and by wistful comparisons to its storied past and to the promise of enlightened leadership.

Whether his successor as county chairman does any better may depend, in part, on what Mr. Norman does next. Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, hopes that Mr. Norman, facing a prison term and trials on other pending charges, will agree to cooperate with prosecutors investigating the sale of judgeships, which might prompt a wholesale political housecleaning.

"What has to be crystal clear to those people in the Democratic organization," Mr. Hynes said, "is that business as usual has come to an end."

Influence Far and Wide

The chairmanship that Mr. Norman won in 1990 was a mere shadow even of the smoke-and-

mirrors mirage of political power perpetrated by his recent predecessors.

Brooklyn was rarely politically monolithic, but for much of the 20th century it produced party leaders worthy of the sobriquet, or epithet, Boss. When one of those legendary leaders, John H. McCooey, died in 1934, 30,000 mourners thronged his funeral.

In 1974, Meade Esposito was considered so powerful that his sudden disappearance from the hall during a state political convention roll call derailed the nomination of a candidate for lieutenant governor. (Mr. Esposito, as it happened, was merely returning from the men's room at the time.)

The Brooklyn machine's power was also reflected in Albany, and often in the city. With rare interruptions, the Democratic leadership of the State Assembly belonged to Brooklyn - to Irwin Steingut, Anthony J. Travia, Stanley Steingut, Stanley Fink and Mel Miller.

In the City Council, Brooklyn's Thomas J. Cuite dominated as majority leader for nearly two decades until 1985. In the last half-century, the only mayor who hailed from outside Manhattan was a Brooklynite, Abraham D. Beame.

But even in the mid 1970's, when Mr. Beame served, the Democratic organizations - they were still organized in those days, if not always democratic - were already beginning to crumble.

They fractured between regulars and reformers and along ethnic and then racial lines. Their power was diluted by the abolition of the Board of Estimate, on which borough presidents voted, and by the imposition of term limits, public campaign financing and conflict-of-interest rules prompted by corruption scandals.

One of those rules, which prohibited a borough president from also serving as the county's political chairman, created the opening for Mr. Norman in 1990, when he was only 39 years old but was already well known as the son of Clarence Norman Sr., a prominent Baptist minister in Brooklyn.

"I was raised in the church," Mr. Norman said then, "and were it not for the religious environment in which I was raised, I would not be sitting behind this desk; I could be sitting behind bars."

Two other developments hobbled New York City's political leaders.

Jobs are the lifeblood of political organizations, and these have been 12 relatively lean years, at least for Democrats.

The ascendancy of a black as county chairman at the same time a black candidate, David N. Dinkins, became mayor, raised hopes among the party faithful in Brooklyn, but Mr. Norman complained of being shortchanged. (In Albany, as an assemblyman, Mr. Norman won millions of dollars for projects in his district, including grants for Medgar Evers College and the Jewish Children's Museum, but as the deputy speaker, he had little real power.)

One fight that spoke to Mr. Norman's hold, or lack of it, on the politics of Brooklyn was the one he had to wage for his own job. In 2000, he was afraid of losing his Assembly seat to a candidate who had come within 200 votes in the primary two years earlier.

According to the criminal case against him, that fear prompted Mr. Norman to bend the rules. He was convicted last week of soliciting $7,400 in 2000 and $5,400 in 2002 from a lobbyist, knowing that the money exceeded state limits, and then trying to hide the contributions.

In a way, he became a victim of his own reputation. Henry Stern, a former city official, wrote in his blog, New York Civic, after the verdict: "Even though his alleged sins were relatively trivial for a politician, his plea of ignorance of the law was not credible. He was considered too smart not to have known what he was doing, the jury felt that his testimony was not credible. Essentially, he was convicted for personally lying to them, which made the case a contest between his intelligence and theirs."

The verdict dispelled any presumption that blacks, who constituted a majority of the jurors, would be unwilling to convict a black political leader.

"It blows that myth apart," said Mr. Hynes.

The conviction also challenged the apparent paradox that a county chairman was being charged with abusing power he does not have.

"That premise is wrong," Mr. Hynes said. "Clarence Norman Jr., while under indictment, picked a group of people for the State Supreme Court last year, picked the surrogate who will run without any serious opposition. He has enormous power, and the misuse was in the manipulation. He manipulated the system."

Neither Reformer Nor Boss

Meade Esposito used to grouse that when he dispensed a judgeship (a politician who ascended to the bench was said to have gone to his final reward), he made five jealous enemies and one ingrate.

Mr. Esposito's strong hold on Brooklyn politics was eventually challenged by several black assemblymen, Mr. Norman among them. But in his role of party chairman, Mr. Norman was neither a reformer nor much of a boss.

"When you're on the outside, you're a reformer;" he once said. "When you're on the inside, you're a regular. Let's be for real."

In 1996, then, he engineered the defeat of a protéégéé of his archrival and installed Michael H. Feinberg on the Surrogate's Court.

Judge Feinberg was removed from the bench earlier this year for awarding $8.6 million in legal fees to a longtime friend for handling the affairs of people who died with no wills. Acts like that hardly pleased those eager to open, and perhaps cleanse, the political system.

But Mr. Norman did not like the word boss, preferring "coordinator/mediator." "My approach has been to be, not a dictator, but a facilitator, bringing people together and building consensus," he said in an interview. "In the old days, they made a decision and they whipped everybody into line. That style doesn't work any more."

Mr. Norman knew that firsthand. In 2001, another candidate, Marty Markowitz, defeated his candidate for borough president. Last month, an insurgent appeared to have squeaked past the organization's candidate to succeed Judge Feinberg.

Mr. Norman's choice for mayor, Gifford Miller, ran fourth in Brooklyn with a mere 10 percent of the vote. Mr. Norman's nemesis, Mr. Hynes, was re-elected - if narrowly.

Still, before his conviction, Mr. Norman was actually sanguine about the party's future, predicting that the City Council speakership might go to a Brooklynite - not necessarily an organization man, though - and looking ahead to other successes next year, including electing a successor to Representative Major Owens, who is retiring

"The truth is," Mr. Norman said philosophically then, "life goes on."

Others, though, are convinced the life of even the creaky Brooklyn machine is about fully ended.

According to Grassroots Initiative, a civic group, nearly half the 10,000 Democratic County Committee seats in Brooklyn are unfilled.

"Party politics have been in a long and steady decline for years, but the current disarray in Brooklyn merely makes it more visible," said Kenneth Fisher, a former city councilman.

"I don't know that the county organization, as it's been known historically, will ever really exist again," said Councilwoman Yvette D. Clarke. "In terms of what has been demonstrated politically this year and in past years, I'm not sure what it is accomplishing."

Lewis A. Fidler, another Brooklyn councilman, agreed. "Brooklyn organization is an oxymoron."

And in Mr. Norman, it had something of an enigma to breathe its last breaths.

Norman Is Latest Pol in Scandal

By Frank Lombardi
New York Daily News
October 2, 2005

The ghost of the departed and not-so-saintly Meade Esposito was probably making the rounds this week in Brooklyn with the conviction of Assemblyman Clarence Norman.

The gruff-voiced Esposito - aka the Boss of Brooklyn - died in 1993 at age 86. He had served as the undisputed Brooklyn Democratic leader for 16 years - the same post that Norman held - before retiring in 1984.

Three years later, the man who once boasted during a wiretapped telephone call that he had "made" 42 judges in his time was indicted and convicted for having made an illegal gift to Rep. Mario Biaggi.

The gift consisted of picking up the tab for a Florida vacation for the married Biaggi and his gal pal as part of a back-scratching deal to help one of Esposito's insurance clients get government contracts. Yet Esposito escaped prison, getting a suspended two-year sentence because of age and ill health.

Fast forward to Norman, whose 15 troubled years as Brooklyn Democratic leader ended when he resigned in the wake of his conviction Tuesday on state felony and misdemeanor charges of soliciting illegal campaign contributions and falsifying records. He could be sent to prison for eight years when he is sentenced Nov. 29.

But Brooklyn political scandals didn't begin or end with Esposito, nor are they likely to end with Norman.

Here are just a few corruption scandals in Brooklyn's recent past:

Alex Liberman was a city bureaucrat who was active in Esposito's Thomas Jefferson Club in the 1970s and early 1980s. As head of city leasing for the Department of General Services, Liberman pulled off what federal prosecutors said in 1983 was "the largest extortion case ever brought against a public official." He pleaded guilty to extorting $2.6 million in kickbacks from landlords and served some jail time.

Jay Turoff, an Esposito protégé, headed the Taxi and Limousine Commission under Mayors Abe Beame and Ed Koch. He was nailed in 1987 and 1989 on taxi-related scams that got him fines and four months of house arrest.

Anthony Ameruso, another Brooklyn Democratic loyalist, was the city transportation commissioner for eight years, until 1986. The following year he was convicted of perjury during a city investigation into the awarding of contracts and got 16 weekends in Rikers.

Frederick Richmond was a four-term Brooklyn Democratic congressman until he resigned in 1982, the same day he pleaded guilty to tax evasion, marijuana possession and making an improper payment to a federal employee. He served nine months of a one-year sentence.

Vander Beatty was a Brooklyn state legislator for 10 years before serving prison terms in the 1980s for election fraud, tax evasion and stealing funds from a community program. On Aug. 30, 1990, Beatty was shot to death in his campaign office. His accused killer was acquitted.

Brooklyn pol Mel Miller was the Assembly speaker when he was convicted in 1991 of fraud and conspiracy charges arising out of an investment deal. He resigned and served community service, but in 1993 his conviction was invalidated by a federal appeals court.

More recently, Brooklyn Surrogate Michael Feinberg, elected through Norman's efforts in 1996, was booted by the state Court of Appeals. An investigation found that Feinberg improperly awarded $8.6 million in fees to a longtime friend and law school classmate.

But despite this litany of political scandals, there are those who argue that Brooklyn has had less corruption problems than other boroughs.

"To say it's worse in Brooklyn - it's not fair," said Councilman Lewis Fidler, a Hynes supporter and a Brooklyn district leader.

"We've had both eyes blackened, and I think there's no question we have problems," Fidler asserted. "But because we have focused on the corruption and are cleaning up our act it makes us look bad in the short run, but in the long run we'll be better for it."

Dems Jostle for Vacant Leader's Job

By Hugh Son
New York Daily
September 30, 2005

Less than 48 hours after Clarence Norman's 15-year reign as Brooklyn Democratic Party boss ended in a felony conviction, Assemblyman Vito Lopez said he had the votes needed to take the job.

But other Brooklyn officials doubted Lopez had the job sewn up.

Lopez (D-Bushwick) told the Daily News yesterday he had 23 definite backers among fellow district leaders - two more than the minimum needed to win.

"I've gotten broad support, and now the issue is, 'How do I keep it?'" until an election next month, Lopez said.

Although the county Democratic Party is fractured and scandal-racked, the head of one of the nation's largest political groups still wields considerable power. Several leaders are scrambling to fill the void Norman left.

Another candidate, Bay Ridge district leader Joseph Bova, accused Lopez of lying to create an aura of invincibility.

"I don't think he's got 12" votes, said Bova. "Nobody has a clear majority. It's a wide-open race."

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Sunset Park) joined acting party chief Freddie Hamilton and Assemblywoman Annette Robinson (D-Bedford Stuyvesant) as possible contenders.

Park Slope district leader Alan Fleishman, a party reform voice who opposes Lopez, pointed out that the lawmaker had endorsed Republicans Gov. Pataki and Rudy Giuliani.

"Mark my words: Vito Lopez is not the next county leader of Brooklyn. I would bet the bank that he's not," Fleishman said.

Party insiders speculated Lopez will eventually drop out and pick a party boss because he doesn't want scrutiny into the finances of the Bushwick-Ridgewood senior center he founded.

Lopez insisted he wasn't dropping out.

"I'm not doing this to pass it over to someone," he said. "I will serve at least the remainder of Clarence's term."

He will benefit in either scenario, said political consultant Hank Sheinkopf.

"If he has those votes, he could become the leader - or he could make the next leader," Sheinkopf said. "Either way, Vito will come out on top."
 

Norman May Get Itch to Snitch

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
September 30, 2005

Rogue Brooklyn judges, beware Clarence Norman is considering an offer to rat you out in exchange for a lesser corruption sentence and leniency on three other indictments, his lawyer said yesterday.

"The DA sort of laid down a gauntlet," said Edward Rappaport, the attorney for the former Brooklyn Democratic boss who also lost his Assembly seat after being convicted of corruption. "I'm looking at all of the options."

Rappaport was referring to a recent offer by Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes to go easy on Norman in return for the goods on corrupt local judges.

The DA's office declined to comment. But jury selection in Norman's next case on three more corruption counts begins November 7, That would be a de facto deadline for any deal to avert that trial.

Rappaport said that for now, he is preparing for a possible appeal of Tuesday's verdict, which could land Norman in jail for up to eight years. Sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 29.

Boro Dems Look Ahead Hopeful Eyes on Top Spot

By Hugh Son
New York Daily News
September 29, 2005

After the shock of Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman being convicted for felony campaign abuses and stripped of his party post, the question remains: Who will replace him?

Several party leaders are jockeying for the powerful title, including Assemblyman Vito Lopez (Willamsburg-Bushwick) and Bay Ridge district leader Joseph Bova.

Acting party leader Freddie Hamilton and Assemblywoman Annette Robinson also are considering the post, sources said, but neither would comment.

The next party chief needs a majority of votes from the 41 remaining district leaders in a vote that could happen next month.

Norman, a former district leader and deputy assembly speaker, was expelled from the Democratic organization on Tuesday after his conviction for soliciting about $10,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

Lopez told the Daily News he already has backing from about 17 district leaders, but will reach out to other leaders before making a final decision.

"My goal is to bring unity and some integrity to the county," Lopez said.

Bova, a 15-year district leader, said the job would be a tough task after Norman's disgraced exit - but defended the convicted party boss.

"Clarence Norman is a very decent person. He's not a monster," said Bova. "He's done more to diversify candidates in Brooklyn than any of his predecessors."

The county Democratic boss has no official salary, but the job bestows leadership of one of the largest Democratic organizations in the country. There are 858,815 registered Brooklyn Democrats.

Several Norman-backed candidates were defeated in the last primary, but the party boss is still known as kingmaker.

"You become a major player in the Democratic Party in the city, state and country," said Park Slope district leader Alan Fleishman. "You instantly become a possible governor-maker, a possible mayor-maker."

While candidates spoke of reform - Norman was investigated amid rumors of judgeships for sale and rampant campaign abuse - a new boss is unlikely to create lasting reform, judicial activist Anthony DeRosa said.

"I think the Democratic machine is entrenched with back room deal-making and only through law enforcement will we have significant change," DeRosa said.

Assemblyman Norman Convicted of Financial Wrongdoing

Associated Press
September 27, 2005

The longtime leader of the influential but weakening Brooklyn Democratic Party was convicted Tuesday of mishandling campaign contributions in the first of four cases stemming from a wide-ranging probe of judicial corruption.

After a nearly two-week trial, jurors convicted Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr. of two felony counts of violating election law by taking excessive campaign donations, and two counts of falsifying business records.

The felony convictions will force Norman out of his assembly seat and party position.

Norman leaned forward in his chair but remained calm as the verdict was read. He could face up to four years in prison at a November sentencing.

"I will forfeit my assembly seat. I thought I'd be acquitted," Norman said outside the courthouse. "Unfortunately the jury felt differently. I'm certainly not happy about it but life transitions. You can't rewrite history."

Prosecutors said Norman, 54, tried to conceal about $10,000 in contributions in the 2000 and 2002 Assembly primary elections.

The charges were contained in the first of four indictments stemming from Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' courthouse corruption probe into whether Norman and other party leaders sold judgeships in the borough.

The indictments allege a pattern of criminal mishandling of political finances, grand larceny and conspiracy.

Hynes said Tuesday that the prospect of prison time could force Norman to cooperate with 12 simultaneous investigations into the buying of judgeships in Brooklyn. In a county where the Democratic nomination virtually guarantees victory, Hynes said, it is highly suspicious that primary winners go on to spend an average of $100,000 per campaign.

"Where is that money going?" Hynes said. "Clearly the question has been on everyone's mind for eons; 'Are judgeships for sale in this state?' I certainly think we can get the question answered were he to cooperate."

Norman's defense attorney, former judge Edward Rappaport, acknowledged that the 18-year Crown Heights assemblyman failed to report the contributions from the New York State Association of Service Station and Repair Shops, a gas-station lobbying group. Rappaport called that failure an innocent mistake that an overaggressive prosecutor was trying to transform into a crime.

The power of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, a once-mighty machine with influence over the most heavily Democratic county in the nation, has diminished in recent years. The party maintains a heavy influence over local judicial races, however, and a Bronx judge, State Supreme Court Judge Martin Marcus, was assigned to the case to avoid any appearance of conflict.

The other three indictments accuse Norman of using the judicial nominating system to steer contracts to favored consultants, accepting more than $5,000 in reimbursements from the Assembly for travel that had already been paid for by the county party and depositing a $5,000 check made out to his re-election committee into his personal bank account.

When the indictments were announced, Hynes said Norman used the state Legislature, the county party and his re-election committee as a "personal piggy bank."

Norman to Testify at Graft Trial

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
September 17, 2005

Indicted Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman will testify at his political-corruption trial next week that he broke no laws because he thought allegedly illegal campaign donations were actually under the legal limit.

Norman's lawyer, Edward Rappaport, said yesterday that when Norman solicited more than $7,000 in campaign printing payments from an auto lobbyist in 2000, the lobbyist told him he could make the payments from four separate bank accounts.

Each of the payments would then fall under the state's $3,100 contribution limit.

Rappaport denied that he is putting Norman on the stand because the rest of his case is going badly.

"I don't think there's a problem because he didn't do anything wrong," Rappaport said.

Dem Boss in Trouble & Control

By Nancy Katz - in New York
and Joe Mahoney - in Albany
New York Daily News
September 16, 2005

Brooklyn Dem boss Clarence Norman is virtually handpicking one judge even as he appears before another on felony charges, the Daily News has learned.

Veteran Brooklyn Assemblyman Frank Seddio was expected to get the nod of Norman's Kings County machine for a new powerful judgeship created for the borough, sources said.

"He's a shoo-in," a county party insider said of Seddio. "Clarence is pushing for it."

Earlier this year, Gov. Pataki signed legislation creating 21 new judgeships, including a second surrogate for Brooklyn. But since the new seat was created after primary season began, the political parties decide who gets on the November ballot. In Brooklyn, the Democratic candidate is virtually assured victory.

Sources said Seddio emerged as the front-runner after fellow Democrat Joe Lentol, also a Brooklyn assemblyman, opted out.

Surrogate judges probate wills - and can award potentially lucrative fees to lawyers handling estates.

The borough's existing surrogate post was previously held by Michael Feinberg, who was removed by the state Court of Appeals for awarding excessive fees to a crony. Three candidates vied for the Democratic nomination in Tuesday's primary, with Democratic Party-backed Diana Johnson and reformer Margarita Lopez Torres finishing in a virtual dead heat. A recount is underway in that race.

Ironically, Albany lawmakers allowed Norman to essentially pick the new judge at the very time he is on trial for allegedly failing to report $10,000 in contributions from a lobbyist.

Norman also has been indicted in double-billing for travel expenses, strong-arming prospective judges and misusing campaign funds. Yesterday, Brooklyn prosecutors rested their case in the corruption trial.

 Paid Dem's Bills: Lobbyist

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
September 9, 2005

Here's how Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman got more than $10,000 in allegedly illegal campaign contributions: He sat down to lunch at a diner and asked for them.

That's according to yesterday's court testimony by Ralph Bombardiere, executive director of an automotive lobbying group that in 2000 and 2002 paid $10,193 in campaign printing costs for Norman at Norman's request.

Trouble is, $3,100 is the legal campaign-contribution limit, which is why Norman is on trial, for soliciting and failing to report the allegedly illegal donations.

Bombardiere, a stout, canny, 25-year veteran of Albany politics, gave his testimony on the fourth day of Norman's trial.

Norman's Voice Mail Out: Judge

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
September 9, 2005

A judge ruled yesterday that a voice mail from Clarence Norman to a key prosecution witness could not be used in the Brooklyn Democratic boss' corruption trial.

Prosecutor Michael Vecchione charged Wednesday that Norman, an Assemblyman, was trying to intimidate businessman Ernest Lendler when he left a message saying, "Out of sight is not out of mind" - the same day the vendor testified in front of a grand jury against him in August 2002.

But Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus yesterday admonished prosecutors for not bringing up the intimidation allegation before trial.

Marcus branded the voice mail "at best, only slight evidence of guilt ... given the ambiguity of the message."

The ruling came as Lendler took the stand against Norman, who is accused of asking a trade association to pay campaign costs exceeding the $3,100 per entity permitted by law and failing to report the contributions.

Yesterday, Lendler, whose company prints campaign literature, testified he "never" in his 25 years had any other billing request like Norman's. The assemblyman asked him to send two blank invoices and get a trade association to pay the bill for his reelection campaign literature in 2000 and 2002, Lendler said.

Checks showed a state service station lobbying group - at Norman's request - paid about $7,400 of Lendler's bills. But Lendler testified he felt no obligation to report the payments to Norman's campaign treasurer.

"I've never notified anyone I've received a check. I run a small business and part of running a business is trying to get paid," he testified.

Da Raps Norman's Call to Witness

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
September 8, 2005

Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman left an intimidating phone message for a key prosecution witness the same day the witness testified before a grand jury, prosecutors said yesterday.

"Out of sight doesn't mean out of mind. ... You don't need to call me back," Norman allegedly said in a voice mail left for Ernest Lendler, a businessman who is scheduled to testify today at Norman's corruption trial.

Prosecutor Michael Vecchione read a transcript of the Aug. 12, 2003, voice mail in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

Justice Martin Marcus said he would rule today on whether jurors could hear the tape.

Norman is accused of asking trade associations to pay campaign costs in amounts exceeding the $3,100 per association permitted by state law. He also is accused of failing to include the contributions in his campaign disclosure reports to the Board of Elections.

The payments allegedly went to Lendler's company, which printed campaign literature.

Vecchione argued the voice mail was a subtle way to intimidate Lendler, who knew the powerful politician could steer away business.

But defense lawyer Edward Rappaport said Norman meant nothing by the call, arguing the tape would unfairly prejudice jurors. Norman has denied any wrongdoing.

                                      Pol in Phone Threat

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
September 8, 2005

Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman threatened a campaign vendor who testified before the grand jury that indicted him, prosecutors charged yesterday as the embattled assemblyman's trial began.

"Out of sight is not out of mind," Norman said into Ernie Lendler's answering machine in December 2003 on the day the vendor testified before the panel deciding whether to indict the party heavyweight, said Assistant District Attorney Michael Vecchione.

Vecchione said the jury which will decide whether Norman skirted election laws and filed false financial reports should be allowed to hear the message because it shows a "consciousness of guilt," and was a "veiled threat."

But Norman's lawyer, Edward Rappaport, said allowing a jury to hear it would be prejudicial to his client. Justice Martin Marcus said he would decide today.

Earlier in the day, ADA Kevin Richardson detailed to the jury of nine women and three men how Norman asked a lobbyist from the New York State Association of Service Stations to foot the bill for some of his campaign literature.

The lobbyist, Ralph Bombardier, paid nearly $7,400 of Norman's bills to curry favor with the powerful politician, the prosecutor charged.

The literature was printed by Lendler, and Norman asked him to send him different invoices some made out to the campaign, others to Bombardier, the DA said.

Lendler agreed and the bills were allegedly faxed by Norman himself to Bombardier.

The problem, Richardson said, was that Norman "did not tell his treasurer any of it, so when campaign records were submitted, these things were not there."

Norman is accused of taking but not reporting over $10,000 in total from Bombardier.

In his opening argument, Rappaport claimed the assemblyman had no need to fudge any campaign finance records.

Norman had over $165,000 in his re-election committee accounts, said Rappaport, citing figures from the committee's financial disclosures prior to the 2000 primary.

"Why would anyone in their right mind maneuver to hide $7,300?" he said.

On Election Eve, Brooklyn Party Leader Is on Trial

By Anemona Hartocolllis
The New York Times
September 8, 2005

Less than a week before the Democratic primary, the state assemblyman who heads the party organization in Brooklyn was on trial yesterday on political-corruption charges brought by District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, a longtime political opponent.

As opening arguments in the case began, an assistant district attorney, Kevin Richardson, said the party chief, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., had solicited campaign contributions from a gasoline-station lobbying group in Albany knowing that the amounts exceeded state limits and then tried to hide the donations by not reporting them.

His lawyer, Edward Rappaport, challenged the charges, saying the donations did not exceed the legal limits because they were shared by Mr. Norman and two candidates for the Democratic State Committee, and because they were made by separate entities controlled by the lobbying group. He said the failure to report the contributions had been a mistake made by the campaign treasurer, not a crime.

The trial has placed both Mr. Norman and Mr. Hynes in an awkward spotlight days before the primary on Tuesday. Mr. Hynes, a Democrat who is running for re-election in a crowded Democratic field, has made the Norman case the centerpiece of his continuing inquiry into political corruption in Brooklyn, which began as an investigation into claims that judgeships were for sale. Mr. Norman, who has been party chairman since 1990, is one of the state's most powerful black politicians, and publicity about the case could turn black voters against the district attorney, who is white.

Meanwhile, Mr. Norman has been hamstrung as a party leader, spending his days since jury selection began last week cooped up in State Supreme Court in Downtown Brooklyn, listening to potential jurors being questioned about their political activities and whether they were willing to serve on a case that Justice Martin Marcus has warned could last for several weeks.

Brooklyn has one of the last vestiges of a boroughwide political organization in New York City, in which the endorsement of the party machine can be crucial for victory, especially in judicial races.

Mr. Norman, 54, is also the latest in a line of party chiefs throughout the city to face trial on corruption charges. One of his predecessors, the legendary power broker Meade H. Esposito, was convicted of influence peddling; the former Bronx Democratic chairman, Stanley M. Friedman, was at the center of the Parking Violations Bureau scandal in the 1980's; and a Bronx Republican leader, former State Senator Guy J. Velella, was sentenced to a year in jail last year for bribery conspiracy.

Mr. Norman has contended that the charges against him are a way of settling political scores, and has received support on that claim from other public figures, like Edward I. Koch, who has accused Mr. Hynes of criminalizing ethics issues and of humiliating Mr. Norman for the sake of publicity.

At Mr. Hynes's request, Mr. Norman has been indicted four times in Brooklyn since 2003 on charges that he misused campaign funds, billed state taxpayers for $5,000 in travel expenses and strong-armed judicial candidates into hiring consultants for the party. The current case is the first to proceed to trial.

Mr. Richardson, the prosecutor, told the jury that Mr. Norman had solicited two contributions from Ralph Bombardier, a lobbyist for the New York State Association of Service Stations and Repair Shops, of $7,493 in 2000 and $5,400 in 2002, to pay for campaign materials. Mr. Norman then tried to cover up the donations, Mr. Richardson said, because the legal limit for a contribution from a single political action committee is $3,100.

"He did not tell his treasurer any of it," Mr. Richardson said. The prosecutor acknowledged that faxes regarding the expenditures had gone in and out of Mr. Norman's district office in Crown Heights. But he said the campaign treasurer, Carmen Martinez, worked mostly from home.

Mr. Rappaport said Ms. Martinez made a mistake, and an honest one. "Was she just human and made an error by not including it" in campaign filings? he said. Had she been more vigilant, he said, she might have detected at least one payment.

In 1998, facing a serious challenge for his Assembly seat from James E. Davis, a police officer, Mr. Norman hired a political consultant, Ernie Lendler of Branford Communications. Mr. Lendler provided mailings, posters and strategy. Mr. Norman, the prosecutor said, spent less money than Mr. Lendler had advised, and was distraught when he won by only a few hundred votes.

In 2000, the prosecutor said, Mr. Norman was again opposed by Mr. Davis. Determined to mount a more aggressive campaign, he hired Mr. Lendler again. When a bill came in from Mr. Lendler, the prosecutor said, Mr. Norman asked a staff member to fax it to Mr. Bombardier, the lobbyist, who paid it. The money went for campaign materials, like thousands of plastic bags with Mr. Norman's name on them. Another payment followed.

Mr. Rappaport said, however, that the campaign materials were shared by three candidates, including Mr. Norman, which would raise the maximum allowable limit. Furthermore, Mr. Rappaport said, the lobbyist was entitled to make contributions, legally, through more than one entity - an individual, a corporation and a political action committee - an act that would also raise the limit.

The defense also argued that Mr. Norman was not desperate for money, because he had more than $180,000 in his campaign fund before the 2000 primary, and more than $165,000 before the 2002 primary.

With the jury outside the room yesterday, Mr. Norman's lawyer asked the judge to bar the district attorney from playing for them a message left on Mr. Lendler's answering machine on the day he testified before the grand jury that indicted Mr. Norman. The message was from Mr. Norman, saying, in effect, that he had not seen Mr. Lendler for a long time, but that out of sight was not out of mind. Prosecutors contend this was intimidation, while Mr. Rappaport said it was meaningless. The judge reserved decision.

Mr. Rappaport portrayed Mr. Norman as a striving Brooklynite, a minister's son who had gone to Erasmus Hall High School, Howard University and St. John's law school.

If Mr. Norman is convicted on the most serious felony charge, filing a false financial report, he faces up to four years in prison.

The prosecution all but conceded during jury selection that a good part of the case against Mr. Norman is circumstantial and hinges on the question of whether he intended to commit fraud. "Do you believe that you must hear someone tell you or others what they intend to do?" the lead prosecutor, Michael F. Vecchione, asked potential jurors. "Or can you determine it from listening or watching?"

The prosecutor was also clearly worried that jurors might not perceive a white-collar crime, in which there was no victim, as a real crime. One potential juror said that she felt sorry for Mr. Norman, because no one had been hurt by what he was accused of doing; she was dismissed.

War of Words Yet to Start in Norman Trial

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
September 6, 2005

It's been a week since jury selection started, and lawyers for two Brooklyn political goliaths have yet to make an opening statement.

After five days and 200 potential jurors, not one panelist has been picked or even fully interviewed in Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes' corruption case against borough Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman.

But today, prosecutors and Norman's attorneys will begin questioning Brooklyn residents to see if they can fairly judge a case that is a faceoff between two of Brooklyn's best-known politicos.

"We're hoping we'll be able to start before next weekend," said one attorney as court adjourned Friday after 200 potential jurors had been whittled down to 75.

Hynes began investigating Norman in 2002 after Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson - under arrest for bribery - allegedly said Norman gave out lucrative judicial party endorsements for a price.

Norman, an assemblyman whose county political machine backed Hynes in previous elections, has branded the probe a "political witch hunt."

Hynes has yet to file an indictment involving judgeships for sale, but a grand jury has voted down four indictments against Norman on other charges.

The current trial is about the first of those - that Norman allegedly tried to hide about $10,000 of campaign contributions so as not to exceed state limits.

It took all last week to form a large enough jury pool to actually begin selecting jurors.

Both sides say it's hard to find untainted jurors in a case with a well-known defendant and wide media coverage.

Both sides say that the length of the trial - four weeks - has eliminated students and freelance workers who can't afford to miss a month's pay.

Many potential jurors knew Norman, saying they had seen him in church and liked him.

Many also read tabloid articles sardonically depicting the courtroom characters, mainly defense attorney Edward Rappaport - a talkative former judge whose bid tostay on the bench after age 70 was turned down after he allegedly failed toreport he was told a fellow jurist solicited a bribe.

Norman, dressed in a suit and tie each day, has generally declined to talk about the case. "It's not my battle," he said Friday. "It's the Lord's."

Campaign Loot - I'll Be the Judge

By Tom Robbins
Village Voice
September 6, 2005

As Brooklyn Democratic Party leader Clarence Norman was starting trial last week on corruption charges, his peculiar approach to judicial politics continued to loom over local elections. In a case that has even veteran pols shaking their heads, a Civil Court judicial candidate has spent more than any other contender even though she faces no primary.

Genine Edwards, a personal-injury lawyer whose mother belonged to Norman's father's church, had spent $103,000 as of last week, $93,000 of it for the services of William "Tahaka" Robinson, a personable and energetic young campaigner whose own mom, Assembly Member Annette Robinson, is a close Norman ally and who learned his political chops in Norman's club.

Guided by the younger Robinson, Edwards pulled off a minor miracle this spring: While five other candidates sought a Civil Court judgeship, none of them filed for the same seat as Edwards, allowing her to escape a costly and risky primary, and guaranteeing her election.

Norman said he had nothing to do with it. "That's one lucky candidate," he chuckled.

"I asked them not to run against us," explained Robinson, 36, who insisted he is "totally independent" of Norman. Robinson said he earned his pay through savvy maneuvering and hard work delivering literature and putting up posters. "I market candidates like rap stars," he said. Clearly his talents are in demand. Robinson has also hauled in thousands more from other Norman-backed candidates, including $16,000 from mayoral wannabe Gifford Miller, $10,000 from Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, $34,000 from district attorney candidate John Sampson, and $7,000 from Surrogate's Court candidate Diana Johnson.

"That doesn't all go in my pocket. I have expenses," said Robinson, who is no longer working for Miller or Sampson because of unspecified "differences" with the campaigns.

                                   Da Probe of Dem's past Ok'd

By John Marzulli
New York Daily News
August 18, 2005

District Attorney Charles Hynes won a significant pretrial victory yesterday in the corruption case against Democratic boss Clarence Norman.

Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus ruled that if Norman testifies at his upcoming trial, prosecutors can grill him about a false report he presented to the Board of Elections, allegedly to evade contribution limits.

Prosecutors also would be permitted to cross-examine Norman about whether he "stole" two checks totaling $3,400 into his personal account in 1999, which were made out to the Brooklyn Democratic Party and the Clarence Norman Democratic Party, Marcus ruled.

Norman is not charged with crimes relating to those actions, but prosecutors want to be able show a pattern of prior bad acts if the defendant takes the stand and testifies that he made a mistake or didn't understand the law.

In the trial scheduled for Aug. 29, Norman is charged with accepting about $10,000 in unreported campaign contributions.

"We're very pleased by Judge Marcus' ruling," said Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for the district attorney.

The judge did bar prosecutors from offering evidence that Norman stole two checks totaling $6,000 payable to his Democratic club in 2000 because he had the authority to redirect contributions to "political entities and candidates."

Norman's lawyer could not be reached for comment.

'Crooklyn' Pol Loses Legal Round

By Jim Hinch
New York Post
August 18, 2005

Norman, facing four political corruption indictments, goes to trial Aug. 29 on the first set of charges that he hid more than $10,000 in in-kind contributions from auto lobbyists.

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus ruled yesterday that prosecutors tell jurors of Norman's "prior bad acts" including an alleged penchant for soliciting illegal contributions and stealing from his own campaign accounts.

Now, prosecutors believe, Norman will have to think twice before taking the stand because if he does, he'll be grilled on his history of alleged wrongdoing.

"He can't say [his alleged crimes] were a mistake, because he's done it before," said a source.

NY Prosecutor's Illness May Stall Politico's Trial

By Tom Perrotta
New York Law Journal
July 26, 2005

The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office is seeking to delay the first of four criminal prosecutions against Democratic leader Clarence Norman, scheduled for next week.

The lead trial attorney, Assistant District Attorney Kevin Richardson, has a serious illness affecting his lungs, the office said. Mr. Richardson, who was hospitalized briefly and is on medication, is afflicted with something more serious than bronchitis and cannot speak without coughing, said a spokesman for the office, Jerry Schmetterer.

The judge handling the case, Acting Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus, is on vacation in China. Both sides will appear before him to discuss a delay next Tuesday, the day after jury selection had been scheduled to begin.

Mr. Schmetterer said the timing of the possible delay had nothing to do with the upcoming Democratic primary, in which District Attorney Charles J. Hynes is seeking reelection. Mr. Richardson has been the lead attorney on the case for two years, Mr. Schmetterer said, and had been ready for trial until he became ill in the last two weeks.

Mr. Norman faces charges that he solicited campaign contributions from a trade association that exceeded legal limits.

Norman's Office Out of Bounds

By Deborah Kolben
Daily News Writer
July 26, 2005

Embattled Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman is on the way out - of his district, that is.

Complaining about rising rent, the Crown Heights Assemblyman ditched his old office two weeks ago and moved into new digs at 231 Empire Blvd. The only problem: The new offices are about 5 blocks outside his 43rd District lines.

"We looked around my old location, and we could not find any space," Norman insisted. "There was nothing comparable in my district."

"The DA is trying to move him out of the office," said political consultant Hank Sheinkopf, referring to Charles Hynes. "And now he's out of the district, so half of the job is done."

Norman is facing four indictments brought by Hynes - including charges he stole county money to pay his travel to Albany and strong-armed judicial candidates into paying favored vendors to get party backing.

The state Assembly has no rule mandating that offices actually be inside the district lines.

"Our bottom line is what serves the best interests of the constituents - and what is available," said Assembly spokesman Skip Carrier.

Norman's new offices are now within Prospect Heights Assemblyman Roger Green's district.

"It's fine," said Green, who welcomed Norman to the neighborhood. "He needed space, and apparently this was the best space for him."

But not all of Norman's constituents agree.

"I don't understand," said Eunice Givens, 71, who was passing by Norman's old empty office. "These people are the ones that made him, and he's going to go associate with other people? It doesn't make any sense."

With Jimmy Vielk

DA: B'klyn's Dem Chief in 17G Scam

Prosecutors say they have uncovered evidence of more crimes by Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman - including allegations that he deposited nearly $17,000 in campaign donations into his personal bank account.

Although Norman is not getting hit with new charges, prosecutors want to present evidence of the alleged bad acts to jurors if the political powerbroker decides to testify at his upcoming corruption trial.

Norman allegedly pocketed six checks totaling $16,900 between 1999 and 2001 that were supposed to be deposited with various Democratic clubs or reelection committees, according to a court document filed by Brooklyn Deputy District Attorney Michael Vecchione.

Norman also allegedly put the arm on a lobby group, the New York State Association of Service Station and Repair Shops, to pay expenses his reelection campaign owed to a printing company. Norman's lawyer Edward Rappaport said Norman denies the allegations and vowed to fight to keep them out of court.

Jury selection is scheduled to get underway on Aug. 29 for Norman's trial on charges of accepting about $10,000 in unreported campaign contributions to avoid state donation limits.

John Marzull

Court Oks Theft Charge Against Norman

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
July 8, 2005

Embattled Democratic party boss Clarence Norman lost another legal battle yesterday when an appeals court refused to throw out charges he double-billed for travel.

In a 10-page decision, the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division dismissed Norman's contention that Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes overstepped his jurisdiction by indicting him on 76 counts of filing a false instrument and one count of grand larceny.

The indictment charges that Norman asked to be reimbursed by the Legislature for travel from Brooklyn but did not reveal that his auto expenses already had been paid by the Brooklyn Democratic Committee.

The appeal had delayed the grand larceny trial for Norman, who faces up to seven years behind bars if convicted of the charges. He also so facing three other indictments by Hynes. Norman's attorney, Roger Adler, could not be reached for comment.

"This is an absolutely correct decision," said Assistant District Attorney Monique Farrell. "It will now allow us to bring this matter to trial."

Norman is scheduled to go on trial Aug. 1 on charges he deliberately did not report a $2,700 in-kind contribution from a trade association.

Hynes also has indicted Norman for allegedly depositing a check for his campaign into his personal account and allegedly coercing judicial candidates into patronizing vendors favored by the Democratic organization.

In his challenge to the indictment on the travel-expense charges, Norman claimed the Legislature, not Hynes, had jurisdiction in such a case. He also argued that since the alleged crimes took place in Albany, Hynes had no jurisdiction to indict him. The court rejected both arguments.

B'klyn Pol must Face Trial: Court

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
July 8, 2005

An appellate court ruled that Assemblyman Clarence Norman will have to face trial in Brooklyn for allegedly filing bogus travel voucher claims even though he submitted the paperwork in Albany.

The Appellate Division Second Department decided that since the beleaguered head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party started and ended his trips in Brooklyn, the Brooklyn District Attorney's office is within its jurisdiction to put him in front of a jury.

Norman was indicted for submitting 76 travel vouchers valued at more than $5,000 for reimbursement, even though the Kings County Democratic Committee was already paying for the car and its upkeep.

In the ruling, the appellate court stated: "Nobody is above the law," adding that the speaker gave clear "instructions to Assembly members for filing vouchers."

Dem Boss Ready for Day in Court

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
June 30, 2005

The new lawyer for Assemblyman Clarence Norman said the beleaguered Brooklyn Democratic leader is ready to go to trial.

Retired Judge Edward Rappaport, who presided over Lemrick Nelson's murder trial for stabbing Yankel Rosenbaum in the 1991 Crown Heights riots, formally took over the reins yesterday, introducing himself at a Brooklyn Supreme Court hearing as lead council for Norman.

Norman will first face a jury on a count of failing to report campaign expenses paid for by a political-action committee.

Jury selection will begin Aug. 1.

     Former NY Judge to Represent Politician in Corruption Trial

By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
June 1, 2005

Assemblyman Clarence Norman, the leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, has retained former Supreme Court Justice Edward M. Rapport to represent him on an indictment for failing to report a $2,700 in-kind contribution from a trade association, which is expected to go to trial Aug. 1.

Mr. Norman faces four separate indictments, and originally the first case scheduled to be tried involved charges that he double-dipped on travel expenses to and from Albany. But that case was postponed from April 18 to await a ruling by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on the validity of the indictment.

Gary F. Naftalis of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel is the lead lawyer on the double dipping case.

Meanwhile, Mr. Norman has yet to select a lead lawyer for the other two cases. One charges him with depositing a $5,000 check made out to his campaign into a personal account; the other accuses him and Jeffrey Feldman, the Brooklyn party's executive director, with pressuring Civil Court candidates to use favored vendors.

Mr. Naftalis said that when he agreed to take on the double dipping case, he told Mr. Norman that he had too many commitments to handle the other three indictments.

Roger B. Adler, who has been representing Mr. Norman since he was first indicted in 2003, will be the second member of Mr. Norman's trial team in any case that goes to trial.

Indicted Brooklyn Politician Takes Aim at His Accuser

By Jonathan P. Hicks
The New York Times
April 19, 2005

With his trial on charges of misusing campaign funds delayed, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., the Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman, spent yesterday in Albany instead of a courtroom - hurling accusations of hypocrisy and malfeasance at the Brooklyn district attorney who indicted him.

And in an interview yesterday, Mr. Norman made clear that he had no intention either of seeking a plea deal or of resigning as the Brooklyn Democratic leader.

"This nonsense about trying to cut a deal with the district attorney's office is just that: nonsense," Mr. Norman said, responding to some newspaper accounts that he was considering negotiating with District Attorney Charles J. Hynes's office and resigning as party leader.

"There is no way. No way," he said. "We have not even contemplated any kind of a plea deal. These matters will go to trial - if they are not dismissed by the court."

Mr. Norman has been indicted four times in Brooklyn since 2003 on a series of criminal charges. These include allegations that he misused campaign funds, billed state taxpayers for $5,000 in travel expenses and strong-armed judicial candidates into hiring consultants for the party.

The first of the four trials was scheduled to begin yesterday, but a few weeks ago the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court delayed that trial while it rules on a motion by Mr. Norman's lawyers asserting that Mr. Hynes did not have jurisdiction in the case. The second trial is scheduled to begin in August.

In addition to denying the charges against him, Mr. Norman accused Mr. Hynes of soliciting campaign contributions from his own senior staff.

"If you are an executive in the office of the district attorney, you are expected to contribute $600 to Joe Hynes's campaign," Mr. Norman said. "He basically shakes them down."

Mr. Norman added, as he has said repeatedly, that the charges against him were politically motivated. And yesterday, he said that Mr. Hynes's office employed a double standard in its prosecution of a onetime political candidate, John Kennedy O'Hara. Mr. O'Hara, a former lawyer who ran for City Council, was convicted in 1999 of lying about his voting address. He was sentenced to community service and disbarred.

Specifically, Mr. Norman said that Mr. Hynes's office should have applied a similar standard to his first assistant district attorney, Dino Amoroso, who lives in Nassau County and lists his voting address as being in Queens.

In an interview, Mr. Amoroso said that he had a home in Nassau County, but also had a longstanding relationship with the home in Queens where his parents live, which is the residence from which he votes.

"This office has known for years that my address is in Nassau County and that I have voted from Queens," Mr. Amoroso said. "They are trying to draw an analogy to John O'Hara, who was convicted for what the judge said was a sham address. And he did it for the purpose of running for political office."

Also, Mr. Amoroso said, the charge that employees in the district attorney's office were forced to contribute to the Hynes campaign was "preposterous and unconscionable." He added that some workers might have contributed to the Hynes campaign years ago. But he added that several years ago, Mr. Hynes took pains to request that "anyone employed in this office who contributed to his campaign stop doing so."

Scrutiny of Assemblyman Turns to Political Club's Bills

By Al Baker
The New York Times
March 13, 2005

ALBANY - The Brooklyn district attorney's office is investigating whether Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., the Brooklyn Democratic leader who is already facing several criminal charges in Brooklyn, improperly used state taxpayers' dollars to pay the utility bills at his political club, officials said.

Investigators have traveled twice to Albany in recent weeks to interview Assembly officials who have knowledge of the situation and to gather evidence in a possible new criminal case against Mr. Norman, state government and law enforcement officials said. A grand jury investigation has been opened and documents, including e-mail messages, have been subpoenaed but an indictment has not yet been sought, according to officials with knowledge of the inquiry.

The inquiry is the latest development in the long-running legal and political skirmishing between the assemblyman and District Attorney Charles J. Hynes. Supporters of Mr. Norman have accused Mr. Hynes, who is seeking re-election, of using his office for political purposes. Mr. Hynes's backers have said that the law enforcement efforts are serious and that they reveal a suspected pattern of corruption by Mr. Norman. Mr. Hynes has denied any overreaching on his part.

At issue in the new inquiry is the Assembly's apparent payment of utility bills for the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club, a political club Mr. Norman controls, while simultaneously paying the utility costs for his legislative offices. The offices have been in the same building, at 1218 Union Street in Crown Heights, since the late 1990's. But only one gas and electric meter has been in place there, according to the officials and Jeff Corwin, the manager of the property.

Using taxpayer dollars for political costs is a violation of state law, officials said.

A lawyer for Mr. Norman, Roger Bennett Adler, who is representing him in three of four pending criminal cases, said he had no knowledge of the new inquiry. "I am unaware of any such investigation," Mr. Adler said. Mr. Norman did not return several phone calls to his district office.

Officials said that since the early 1990's, the Assembly had paid about $50,000 in state money for the electricity and utility bills generated by Mr. Norman's legislative offices, though it is unclear how much of that money went to cover costs generated by his political club. Though using taxpayer dollars to pay for utilities in Assembly offices is the norm, the sum paid on Mr. Norman's behalf is higher than what most members of the Assembly get for utility costs in their district offices, said the officials, who added that campaign finance records in Brooklyn showed that Mr. Norman's political club has not paid bills for utilities.

Mr. Corwin, the property's manager, acknowledged that state taxpayer money had been used for political purposes for years, but said the entire matter was an "inadvertent error" that "can and should be rectified."

Mr. Corwin added, "It really is such a small issue."

When asked about Mr. Norman, Mr. Corwin said: "I guess it's just, basically, because they are looking at him so closely, it becomes a problem. You're talking about, probably, over the few years, two light fixtures used sporadically, cannot come to more than two or three hundred bucks for all the years, if that."

He acknowledged that Mr. Norman had also used the political office for state business, mostly as a waiting room. Mr. Norman also closed the political club, a large room on the second floor of the building, weeks ago.

Officials familiar with the inquiry said the costs for the political club exceeded hundreds of dollars and included costs for heating and air-conditioning, run through a unit on the building's roof. The political club is used often, especially during election season, they said.

"They are not supposed to mix politics and Assembly business," one of the officials said.

Mr. Norman has been indicted four times in Brooklyn since 2003 on a series of criminal charges, including allegations that he misused campaign funds and billed state taxpayers for $5,000 in travel expenses and strong-armed judicial candidates into hiring consultants for the party.

A spokeswoman for Sheldon Silver, the Democratic speaker of the Assembly, said that the Assembly had recently canceled its lease for Mr. Norman's legislative offices, but she declined to comment further because of the district attorney's investigation.

Eileen Larrabee, the spokeswoman for Mr. Silver, said, "The Assembly is cooperating fully with their investigation."

Brooklyn Judge Refuses to
Dismiss Charges of Political Corruption

By Thomas J. Lueck
The New York Times
March 4, 2005

The sweeping corruption case against Clarence Norman Jr., the chairman of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, moved a step closer to trial yesterday when a judge rejected defense motions to dismiss charges that Mr. Norman and a colleague tried to strong-arm judicial candidates into hiring consultants favored by the party.

Mr. Norman, a member of the State Assembly, and Jeffery Feldman, the executive director of the Brooklyn Democratic organization, had challenged a 22-count grand jury indictment in which they were charged with threatening to withdraw the party's endorsement from two candidates in a 2002 primary race unless the candidates agreed to terms dictated by the leaders.

Lawyers for Mr. Norman and Mr. Feldman argued unsuccessfully before Justice Martin Marcus of State Supreme Court that there was insufficient evidence for the indictments. Roger Bennet Adler, who represented Mr. Norman, also argued that his client had merely tried to assist the judicial candidates in tactical campaign strategy.

"I am disappointed but not surprised," said Mr. Adler after the decision was announced yesterday. "The opinion strikes me as elevating disagreements over political strategy into a criminal case with the obvious potential of jail time for a political official."

Mr. Norman faces several other charges stemming from his conduct as an assemblyman and leader of the Democratic organization in Brooklyn. Jury selection is scheduled to begin on April 18 before Justice Marcus in a case where Mr. Norman is charged with padding his expense account by filing for travel reimbursements from the Assembly and the Brooklyn party organization.

Justice Marcus scheduled a hearing for March 17 at which he is expected to set trial dates for the case involving the judicial candidates, and for two others involving corruption charges. Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for District Attorney Charles J. Hynes of Brooklyn, said yesterday that the charges involving judicial candidates were the most serious against Mr. Norman because they reflected a pattern of corruption in Brooklyn politics.

"This case speaks to the entire system of judicial selection," he said. "It supports our allegation that to become a judge in Brooklyn you have to play Norman's dirty game."

Judge: B'klyn Dem Big must Face Extort Trial

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
March 4, 2005

The judge overseeing the case against embattled Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman decided yesterday the party leader will have to face trial on charges of coercion, conspiracy and extortion.

Justice Martin Marcus denied an attempt by the state assemblyman and his top Democratic lieutenant, Jeffery Feldman, to toss charges that they pressured two judges into using specific vendors for their campaign literature and paraphernalia or risk losing the party's support.

Norman is accused of extorting thousands of dollars from the two potential judges, but there is no evidence any of the money ever went into either the Dem boss' pockets or Feldman's.

"It's a dirty little game" that would cost each nominee tens of thousands of dollars, said a spokesman for Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes.

Nix Judgeship for Sale Probe

By John Marzulli
New York Daily News
March 2, 2005

The feds have been unable to substantiate allegations that two Brooklyn judges paid off a corrupt city councilman and a Democratic party official to get on the bench, the Daily News has learned.

The allegations were leveled by Jonathan Morales, who began cooperating with the feds after he and disgraced ex-City Councilman Angel Rodriguez pleaded guilty in 2002 to shaking down a Brooklyn developer.

Morales dropped a dime on Brooklyn Supreme Court Justices Allen Hurkin-Torres and Raymond Guzman, claiming they bought their judgeships with help from Rodriguez.

"After a very lengthy investigation, the government is not able to make that conclusion," Assistant Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Richard Faughnan said at Morales' recent sentencing.

"I believe Mr. Morales truthfully told us what he remembered, but I'm not satisfied the actual events translated into what he inferred," Faughnan added. "It's possible Angel Rodriguez may have been puffing to [Morales] ... acting like he had more political power than perhaps he had."

The prosecutor did not publicly identify the judges by name, but sources familiar with the case said they were Hurkin-Torres and Guzman.

"Justice Torres fully cooperated and he was completely cleared of any wrong-doing," his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said yesterday. Guzman did not respond to a request for comment.

Federal Judge Frederic Block sentenced Morales to 20 months for extortion. Rodriguez is serving 52 months for orchestrating the greedy scheme.

Federal prosecutors and the FBI are conducting an investigation of judicial corruption in Brooklyn that is separate from a similar probe by Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes.

 

Norman Trial Put off Again

By Zach Haberman
New York Post
January 29, 2005

Embattled Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman will have his day in court eventually.

The state assemblyman, accused of improperly submitting travel vouchers, had his trial date pushed back for the third time in Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday after he officially reshuffled his defense team.

Defense attorney Gary Naftalis will take over for Roger Adler as lead counsel in the first case against Norman, which was originally set to begin last November and had since been moved back twice.

The trial will now start on April 18.

Prosecutors charge that Norman, charged with one count of grand larceny and 76 counts of filing a false instrument, should not have been reimbursed for expenses incurred while using a car issued to him by the Brooklyn Democratic Committee.

Dem's Accusers 'Sore Losers'

Denise Buffa
New York Post
December 21, 2004

Extortion and other criminal charges against Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman should be dropped because the complaints came from two judges who wanted to dine with the Democrats but dodge the tab, his lawyer said yesterday.

Former Judges Karen Yellen and Marcia Sikowitz wanted the Democratic endorsement but didn't want to pay for campaign literature, poll workers and other services to help them win re-election, attorney Roger Adler said at a hearing at Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday.

But prosecutors defended the extortion and grand-larceny charges they've lodged against Norman and his top lieutenant, Jeffrey Feldman, for allegedly threatening to drop the endorsements of the two judicial candidates in the 2002 election if they didn't pay at least $100,000 for campaigning.

Both judges lost their re-election bids. "That's what it's about: a bunch of sore losers who wanted to blame someone," Adler said.

Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Charges Against Democratic Leaders

By Elizabeth Stull
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
December 21, 2004

Defense attorneys argued yesterday for dismissal of charges against Brooklyn Democratic Party leaders Clarence Norman and Jeffrey Feldman.

Charges in Brooklyn Supreme Court include grand larceny by extortion, coercion, conspiracy, attempted grand larceny and attempted coercion of candidates for the bench. The defense lawyers argued that prosecutors are trying to criminalize legitimate political behavior —— specifically, threatening to withdraw the party's endorsement of two candidates if they refused to use certain vendors to print and distribute their campaign literature.

Acting Justice Martin Marcus asked prosecutor Monique Ferrell what made the defendants' actions a crime if they were done in the interests of the party, as the defense lawyers claimed. Ms. Ferrell said the defendants' demands might have been lawful if they were conditions of receiving an endorsement, but that the threat of revoking one invoked fear which negated any consent the candidates' gave to use the specified vendors.

The judge made no ruling on any of the counts against Mr. Norman or Mr. Feldman, the Brooklyn Democrats' executive director. He set a return date of Feb. 23.

Mr. Norman, a state Assemblyman, is under indictment in three other cases. Both the judicial candidates lost their elections in the 2002 primary.

Top Count Against NY Politician Is Sustained

By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
December 17, 2004

Acting Justice Martin Marcus yesterday sustained the top count in one of four indictments against Assemblyman Clarence Norman, the leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party.

Mr. Norman could face a maximum of 1-1/3 to 4 years in jail if convicted of failing to report $10,123 in in-kind contributions for his 2000 and 2002 re-election campaigns.

Though he sustained the top count in the 10 count indictment, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and five others, Justice Marcus dismissed four lesser counts. Previously, the judge sustained two separate indictments accusing Mr. Norman of double dipping on reimbursements for his travel expenses and depositing a $5,000 campaign check into a personal bank account.

On Monday, Justice Marcus will hear arguments on Mr. Norman's motion to dismiss the fourth indictment, accusing him and the Brooklyn Democrats' executive director, Jeffrey Feldman, with pressuring Civil Court candidates to use favored vendor.

         Da Gets More 'Mileage' by Nailing New Rap on Norman

By Denise Buffa
New York Post
November 19, 2004

Prosecutors revealed yesterday they're planning to slam Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman with more criminal charges.

Norman is already accused of improperly submitting travel vouchers as a state assemblyman. But prosecutors reluctantly revealed during a scheduling conference yesterday they have evidence that Norman was engaged in the illegal activity for two more years than originally charged.

Judge Martin Marcus allowed Assistant DA Michael Vecchione to reveal the secret to him privately, then forced Vecchione to tip his hand to the defense. The judge adjourned the case until next month, when, he said, the grand jury may hand up a new indictment.

Norman referred questions to his lawyer as he left the conference in Brooklyn Supreme Court yesterday.

Defense attorney Roger Adler said, "I was surprised, but one is never shocked in this case." Any new indictment, he said, "will be fought as vigorously, if not more vigorously, as the original one."

Prosecutors say the Brooklyn Democratic Committee — and not Norman — incurred the expenses on the car he used. The Dem boss therefore had no reason to be reimbursed by the state, the DA argues.

But the defense says that what Norman wrote on the vouchers was true at the time he submitted them — and the fact that the Democratic committee ultimately paid the expenses is a moot point.

Norman was also charged with taking $5,000 in Democratic Party funds for personal use, but the judge has dismissed some misdemeanors and a felony count in that case. Marcus said prosecutors failed to show the Democratic bigwig willingly tried to fool the Board of Elections by not declaring the contribution.

Norman Faces New Rap

By Bill Farrell
New York Daily News
November 19, 2004

Even an indictment didn't stop Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman from ripping off taxpayers, prosecutors said yesterday.

The latest allegation came at a routine hearing to set a trial date for Norman, who is accused of accepting state payments for expenses covered by his party.

Moments after lawyers for Norman asked Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus for a date in March, prosecutor Michael Vecchione said he'll use the time to seek a superseding indictment.

Vecchione told Marcus that even after Norman's arrest last year he continued to charge both the state and the Brooklyn Democratic Committee for the same travel expenses.

He said the grand jury would hear evidence covering expenses incurred in 2003 and 2004. The initial indictment addresses expenses from 2002.

A spokesman for Norman brushed off the new charge.

"If the fact pattern is the same and their arguments are the same, then this is a matter internal to the Legislature," said Bob Liff. "And, thus far there have been no complaints from the Legislature."

Yesterday's announcement came a day after Marcus dismissed several election law violations against Norman.

The judge did let stand a grand larceny charge that Norman, a state Assemblyman, deposited a $5,000 check meant for his reelection campaign into a personal bank account.

Norman says the check drawn from his political club and written to the Committee to Re-Elect Clarence Norman actually was reimbursement for a personal donation he made to Alan Hevesi's mayoral campaign and should have been made out to him.

Norman faces up to seven years in prison if convicted on the grand larceny charge.

                                 Norman Gets Break From Judge

Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
November 18, 2004

A judge dismissed part of the case against Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman but left it to a jury to decide whether he pocketed a $5,000 check meant for party coffers.

The split ruling left Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes and Norman's lawyer claiming victory.

Norman, a state assemblyman, faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of grand larceny for depositing the check meant for his reelection campaign into a personal bank account in 2001.

But Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus threw out three misdemeanors and one felony out of a seven-count indictment because prosecutors did not show Norman "willingly and knowingly" tried to fool the Board of Elections by not declaring the contribution.

Norman says the $5,000 check drawn from his political club and written to the Committee to Re-Elect Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr. actually was reimbursement for a personal donation he made to Alan Hevesi's mayoral campaign and should have been written to him personally.

"We're pleased that the court agreed that the majority of the counts in the indictment should be dismissed," said Norman's lawyer, Roger Adler.

Hynes' spokesman Jerry Schmetterer said prosecutors were "very pleased" Marcus "upheld the most serious charges."

City Bar Gives Thumbs Down
 on Three NY Judges Up for Reelection

By Daniel Wise
New York Lawyer
New York Law Journal
November 1, 2004

Three candidates endorsed by both major parties in tomorrow's election for the Supreme Court in New York City have been rated "not approved" by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Two of them were also rated "not approved" by their home county bar associations.

The three are Civil Court Judge Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, who has been cross endorsed by the Democratic and Republican parties for one of three Supreme Court seats in the Bronx; Civil Court Judge James J. Golia, who has been similarly cross-endorsed for one of six seats in Queens; and Justice Louis J. Marrero, who is running for a second term in Brooklyn.

Judge Brigantti-Hughes was rated "not approved" by the Bronx Bar Association, as was Judge Golia by the Queens County Bar Association.

Justice Marrero, however, was not rated by the Brooklyn Bar Association because of an administrative problem.

Justice Marrero was rated "not approved" by the City Bar because he did not participate in its review process. Judges Brigantti-Hughes and Golia participated in the process but were rebuffed by the association's Judiciary Committee.

Justice Marrero had previously been found unqualified by the Brooklyn Democratic Party's screening panel, mainly on the strength of objections from defense bar that he was abrasive and prosecution-oriented, according to sources familiar with the panel (NYLJ, Sept. 22). The Brooklyn Democrats re-nominated Justice Marrero despite the finding of their panel because the party's leadership felt that incumbent judges should be renominated in the absence of a compelling reason, such as an ethical issue.

B'klyn Dem Boss Calls Rap Tainted

By Patrick Gallahue
New York Post
October 16, 2004

The Brooklyn Democratic boss would have been spared a humiliating indictment if a fellow lawmaker got a guarantee of immunity to give vital testimony on his behalf, his lawyers said yesterday.

During pretrial arguments in the case against Clarence Norman — who stands accused of misappropriating party funds — the defense argued that state Assemblywoman Diane Gordon had important information but was afraid to appear without the guarantee of immunity from prosecution.

"Had this testimony been heard, I believe an indictment wouldn't have been voted," said Norman's lawyer, Roger Bennet Adler.

Adler claims the accusations that Norman misappropriated $5,000 was simply sloppy cash-swapping in the heat of a political campaign.

He said Norman elected to pay $5,000 out of his own pocket to Gordon's campaign workers during the 2001 mayoral campaign, while waiting for checks from the county machine's endorsed candidate, Alan Hevesi.

B'klyn Dem Boss Slaps Back at Da

By Denise Buffa
New York Post
October 2, 2004

Accusing the DA's office of having a "lack of prosecutorial self control," Brooklyn Democratic Party chairman Clarence Norman has asked a state judge to toss out larceny and coercion charges leveled against him. Norman charged in court papers released yesterday that Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes is trying to use the criminal justice system "as a vehicle . . . to effectuate a unilateral 'change' in local politics."

Norman and a top aide, Jeffrey Feldman, have pleaded not guilty to extortion and grand larceny charges for threatening to drop the endorsements of two judicial candidates in a 2002 election if they didn't pay at least $100,000 for campaigning.

In trying to get the charges dismissed, lawyers for Norman and Feldman argue that political parties should be allowed to impose demands on candidates.

"Stripped to its basics, this is a case about political power — who possesses it, and who exercises it," according to court papers.

A Hynes spokesman said Norman lawyer Roger Adler's "creative language has not served his client in the past, and we will respond appropriately in court."

Norman, who also is a state assemblyman, and Feldman could go to trial as early as next month if charges are not dismissed. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 15 before Judge Martin Marcus.

Lawyers for Norman and Feldman argue their clients were arrested because of an investigation of judicial campaign corruption Hynes' office launched after Judge Gerald Garson — who was busted on a bribe-receiving charge — claimed he could help prosecutors prove judgeships were for sale in Brooklyn.

Garson, who has pleaded not guilty, was hoping for leniency in his own case. He awaits trial.

The court papers also said the charges stem from complaints from former Judge Karen Yellen and former Housing Court Judge Marcia Sikowitz, incumbents who lost their posts to political insurgents Margarita Lopez Torres and Diane Thomas in September 2002.

        Politico Backs "Unqualified" NY Judge to Stay on Bench

By Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal
New York Lawyer
September 22, 2004

Assemblyman Clarence Norman, chairman of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, is backing Justice Louis J. Marrero, a Republican, for a second term despite his having been found unqualified by the party's screening committee.

The party's spokesman, Robert Liff, said that Mr. Norman "strongly believes sitting judges should be renominated absent a compelling reason such as an ethical problem."

The 18-member committee, which was newly reconstituted this year to reduce the influence of political leaders, initially rejected Justice Marrero on Aug. 3. Sources said the principal objections came from criminal defense lawyers who think the judge is pro-prosecution and abrasive. The initial vote, however, was taken without benefit of evaluations by the four administrative judges who oversaw Justice Marrero's handling of criminal cases since he joined the bench 14 years ago.

Martin W. Edelman of Edelman & Edelman, the committee's chairman, said the committee made a "mistake" in not soliciting the administrative judges' views, a standard procedure for screening panels. The judges' positive recommendations, however, went to the question of Justice Marrero "industriousness," not the issue that had caused concerns in the committee, Mr. Edelman said.

At a Sept. 7 appeal, Justice Marrero was one vote shy of the two-thirds majority needed to overturn the rejection.

Since joining the bench, Justice Marrero has handled criminal cases, working mostly in calendar parts. Recently, he has been sitting in a newly created part that handles only probation violation cases.

Brooklyn Democrats Back a Judge
the Reform Panel Would Not

By Andy Newman
The New York Times
September 22, 2004

For a while there, it seemed as if things might have changed in the clubby world of Brooklyn judicial politics.

After accusations of influence-peddling and judgeship-selling exploded last year, and the top two officials of the Brooklyn Democratic Party and one of their handpicked judges were indicted on corruption charges, a panel that included nonpoliticians was formed to screen potential judicial candidates.

Last month, the new panel proved its independence by doing something unheard of in Brooklyn: it found Justice Louis J. Marrero, who is running for re-election to a second 14-year-term in State Supreme Court, to be "not qualified" for the bench.

But last night, the Brooklyn Democratic Party's longtime chairman, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., effectively told the new panel, "Thanks for your help, but no thanks." At the party's annual meeting, Mr. Norman nominated Justice Marrero for another term, over scattered objections from local party leaders.

And today, the party's judicial delegates are expected to put Justice Marrero's name on the ballot, all but ensuring his election in November.

As it turns out, one of the party's reforms - to endorse only candidates approved by the panel - has some fine print: if the panel rejects a candidate who happens to be a sitting judge, the party reserves the right to renominate the judge anyway.

"I think in the case of a sitting Supreme Court judge," Mr. Norman said, "unless there's something really substantive - an ethically challenged situation, dereliction of duty - why should we not have someone who may have served with distinction continue to serve? It should not be a matter of 'What if someone didn't like the person's comportment or demeanor when they came before the committee?' "

The screening panel is not allowed to say why it rejected Justice Marrero. But a letter from the head administrative judge in Brooklyn urging the panel to reconsider its rejection offers a clue. "The perception that Judge Marrero has a pro-prosecution inclination is misapprehended," the administrative judge, Neil J. Firetog, wrote to the panel. Since last year, Justice Marrero has been assigned to deal with people suspected of violating their probation, and much of his current job consists of jailing people.

Mr. Norman noted that this was not a case of Democrats defending one of their own. Justice Marrero is a Republican, one of the few on the bench in Brooklyn.

B'klyn Dem Panel Nixes Gop Judge

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
September 10, 2004

In an apparent first, the Brooklyn Democratic Party's judicial screening panel has found a sitting judge "not qualified" for the bench.

Sources said it had very little to do with the fact that the judge is a registered Republican.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Marrero fell a vote short of the two-thirds needed for approval by the newly independent 18-member screening panel.

The old panel was disbanded last year after critics accused party boss Clarence Norman of controlling selection by appointing all its members.

The new one includes 12 members from bar associations and groups such as Legal Aid.

Marrero, 68, did not return calls, nor did panel Chairman Martin Edelman. But a source familiar with the deliberations said the rejection had more to do with Marrero's "terrible attitude" toward the panel than that he is Republican.

At his interview two weeks ago, the judge "was very condescending. He was very cavalier. He didn't seem to take it seriously," said the source.

"He was found unqualified. He appealed," the source said. "He came back very contrite and apologetic. It was not enough."

The rejection doesn't bar Norman from endorsing Marrero, who was first elected to the bench in 1991 with the backing of both parties.

Marrero has gotten mixed reviews on the bench. In 1990, the city Bar Association refused to approve him as a judicial candidate.


Judge-reform Panel Hit

By Dareh Gregorian
New York Post
July 23, 2004

A panel established to clean up the way the Brooklyn Democratic Party selects judicial candidates isn't doing its job, two former members charge.

Lawyers Jane Barrett and Robert Begleiter resigned from the 18-person panel earlier this week because of their "concerns" about the way it is screening candidates in the scandal-scarred borough.

"We resign with regret, as we both had high expectations that the panel, as reconstituted this year, would further merit selection of judges in Brooklyn and would restore the perception of integrity to a process that has been severely criticized," their letter says.

"Unfortunately, our experience with the panel has convinced us that it will not . . . be a vehicle for that reform."

Barrett told The Post that panel members failed to seek out new candidates and were reluctant to rate as "unqualified" current judges running for re-election or a higher post.

"It was a missed opportunity to bring some openness and transparency" to the system, she said.

Scandal Dems: Who, Us?

By Denise Buffa
New York Post
November 19, 2003

PHOTOBrooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman and his top lieutenant pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges of extortion and grand larceny stemming from an alleged shakedown of judicial candidates seeking the party's endorsement.

Norman and the county party's executive director, Jeffrey Feldman, allegedly threatened to withhold the party's nomination unless Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen and Housing Court Judge Marcia Sikowitz spent $50,000 each on the 2002 primary.

Much of the money was to go to consultants and CLARENCE NORMAN                  political-printing firms selected by Norman and
Pleads not guilty.
                  Feldman, including Branford Communications and
William Boone III, a long-time Norman ally and a party treasurer.

"Mr. Norman and Mr. Feldman made it very clear that unless the payments were made they would be disendorsed," Hynes said at a press conference following the arraignments of Norman and Feldman at Brooklyn Supreme Court.

In overwhelmingly Democratic Brooklyn, the party's endorsement is often tantamount to victory for a judicial candidate. But in an unusual turnaround, both Yellen and Sikowitz lost to insurgent candidates.

Norman's lawyer, Roger Adler, said, "I think that this indictment was based on disappointed political candidates with a healthy dose of self-interest."

Feldman's lawyer, Ron Aiello called the case one of "sour grapes" by failed candidates. Attempts to reach Yellen and Sikowitz were unsuccessful.

Feldman was released after posting $15,000 bail. Norman was released, having already posted $25,000 bail after his indictment last month on charges of stealing $5,000 from the party and $7,000 in travel expenses from the state Legislature.

                             Brooklyn Democratic Leaders
                      Are Arraigned For 'Politicizing Crime'


Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal
11-19-2003

Battle lines were drawn yesterday as the two top leaders of the Brooklyn Democratic Party were arraigned in Kings County Supreme Court on charges of coercing two Civil Court judicial candidates to hire favored vendors.

Supporters of the Brooklyn party's leader, Assemblyman Clarence Norman, and its executive director, Jeffrey Feldman, assailed Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes for "criminalizing politics." To the contrary, Mr. Hynes and his top aides retorted, the two leaders were "politicizing crime."

Both leaders pleaded not guilty, and Acting Justice Martin Marcus set bail at $15,000 for Mr. Feldman, $10,000 less than the prosecution had asked for. Judge Marcus also accepted the prosecution's recommendation that bail be continued at $25,000 for Mr. Norman, who had been indicted in October on charges of misusing party and campaign funds.

If convicted on the top charge in the 22-count indictment, the two leaders could be sentenced to a maximum jail term of 2 1/3 to 7 years.

Mr. Feldman's lawyer, Ronald J. Aiello, also vowed a thorough examination of the circumstances that led to the grand jury's vote to indict his client Friday when five weeks ago it was unable to muster the 12 votes needed for an indictment.

News reports about the grand jury's 10-2 vote in October on the hiring charges, sources said, prompted an unusual visit from the judge supervising it, Acting Queens Justice John B. Latella Jr. At the meeting last Friday, they said, Justice Latella reviewed with the grand jurors their obligation to preserve the secrecy of the proceeding. The grand jury voted the most recent indictment on Friday, Mr. Hynes said. But it was not unsealed until yesterday.

The top count in the indictment, attempted grand larceny of more than $50,000 by extortion, centers on prosecution claims that Mr. Norman and Mr. Feldman demanded that two party-endorsed Civil Court candidates in 2002 —— incumbent Judge Karen B. Yellen and Housing Court Judge Marcia Sikowitz —— each raise $100,000 to $150,000 to fund a joint campaign for a boroughwide race.

Mr. Hynes noted at a press conference yesterday that at the time the demand was made, party workers were gathering the 4,000 signatures needed to get the two judges onto the ballot. Both ultimately lost in a primary. The candidates agreed to the demand at a meeting after Mr. Norman and Mr. Feldman threatened that they would be "disendorsed" if they did not come up with the required funds, Mr. Hynes said.

Ultimately, former Judge Yellen paid $50,000 to the party, vendors and for other suggested uses, Mr. Hynes said. Similarly, he added, Judge Sikowitz paid $8,000.

Also, Mr. Hynes said that several days before the primary, Mr. Feldman demanded that unless both candidates paid $10,000 for an effort to get out the vote on primary day, all party workers would be pulled off operations on the judges' behalf.
Ms. Yellen ultimately paid $9,000 for the get-out-the-vote effort shortly after the primary, according to prosecutors, because she felt that she had a political obligation to do so. Judge Sikowitz never paid for the campaign effort because she did not raise enough funds to make the payment, they said.

During the arraignment, Mr. Norman's lawyer, Roger B. Adler, said that his client had done nothing more than try to impose party discipline and organization on a joint campaign for a slate of candidates. In championing the allegations of "two unsuccessful candidates for entry-level judgeships," Mr. Adler said, the prosecution has subjected reasonable conditions imposed by party leaders on candidates running as a slate "to the risk of a criminal prosecution."

"There has never been such an indictment," he added.

Mr. Aiello, who represents Mr. Feldman, recalled how five weeks ago he had been told by the district attorney's office to be prepared to surrender his client on the evening of Oct. 9. Then, at 3 p.m. that afternoon, he said, he got a call from the prosecution, putting off the surrender because the grand jury had not completed its work.

Mr. Aiello, a former prosecutor and Supreme Court justice, said this was "one of first times in a very long time" that a grand jury had not gone along with a prosecution request for an indictment. Referring to former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler's famous comment about grand juries being willing to indict a ham sandwich, he said, "I guess the ham sandwich was not present."

Mr. Aiello said he was requesting that as a part of discovery, the prosecution turn over attendance records and other materials relevant to the turnabout in the reported grand jury vote so that it could be determined "what happened that fateful day."

Responding to Mr. Aiello's complaints about the grand jury's work, Mr. Hynes said he was aware of the procedures and "not at all concerned that they were improper." It is "a non-issue," he added.

Grand Jury Plans

Mr. Hynes also clarified that the special grand jury, which has been sitting since last April, will continue to serve out its second six-month term. That grand jury, which voted yesterday's indictment, also issued a bribery indictment earlier this year against Justice Gerald B. Garson.

The grand jury during the remainder of its year's service will continue to hear evidence having some connection to the charges that have been filed against Justice Garson and Messrs. Norman and Feldman, an aide said.

A new special grand jury will be convened after the first of the year to hear new matters, and until then, if necessary, new matters will be presented to regular grand juries.



                        2 Brooklyn Democrats Indicted
                            in Judicial Corruption Case

By Andy Newman and Kevin Flynn
N
ew York Times
November 18, 2003

Prosecutors have obtained the first criminal charges directly related to suspected corruption in the selection of Brooklyn judges: an indictment of the borough's top two Democratic officials on charges that they tried to strong-arm judicial candidates into hiring consultants favored by the party, according to law enforcement officials.

The party's chairman, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., who already faces unrelated larceny charges, and its longtime executive director, Jeffrey C. Feldman, surrendered themselves last night to face charges of attempted grand larceny, a felony, and other charges, and are expected to be arraigned as early as today, the officials said.

The indictments stem from complaints made by two unsuccessful Democratic candidates for Civil Court, who told investigators last spring that Mr. Norman and Mr. Feldman had threatened to withdraw the party's support during the 2002 race unless they hired the party's choices to print brochures and work to get out the vote.

One candidate, Karen Yellen, a former Civil Court judge, told investigators she paid a total of $16,600 to the two vendors, against her better judgment. The other candidate, Marcia Sikowitz, hired the printer, Branford Communications, for $7,600, but did not hire the other consultant, William H. Boone III, who is treasurer of the party's fund-raising wing.

Prosecutors had tried to win an indictment of Mr. Feldman on the same conduct last month but failed to muster enough grand jury votes.

The charges do not suggest that the vendors shared any of the money with Mr. Norman or Mr. Feldman.

The latest charges come seven months into a broad investigation begun by the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, after a Brooklyn judge was accused of dispensing judicial favors to a lawyer who plied him with gifts.

Mr. Hynes said at the time that he thought the entire system of selecting judges in New York state and particularly in Brooklyn, where it has long been controlled by a few Democratic Party leaders, was "a sham," and that he intended to prove it.

In October, after investigators spent months poring over Mr. Norman's financial records, he was indicted on charges that he misappropriated campaign funds and billed state taxpayers for $5,000 in travel expenses that had been reimbursed by the party.

Brooklyn Democratic officials have said from the start of the investigation that they felt that Mr. Hynes, a Democrat, was unfairly singling them out in response to public criticism, primarily editorials in The Daily News that accused Mr. Hynes of turning a blind eye to wrongdoing in the party that helped get him elected.

Party officials described the latest charges against Mr. Norman, 52, and Mr. Feldman, 50, as an attempt to redefine standard operating procedure in the bare-knuckled world of local politics as criminal behavior.

"Hynes has been part and parcel of the Democratic Party in Brooklyn and has taken part in the same kind of activities that he is now trying to criminalize," said Bob Liff, a spokesman for the Brooklyn Democratic Party.

Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for Mr. Hynes, would not comment on the matter last night.

Mr. Liff added that even though Ms. Sikowitz declined to hire Mr. Boone, "She received the full support of the county organization in the election." Ms. Yellen and Ms. Sikowitz, who finished third and fourth, respectively, in a field of four, received almost the same number of votes in the 2002 primary —— 31,398 for Ms. Yellen, 31,092 for Ms. Sikowitz.

Ms. Yellen told investigators that she balked at hiring Mr. Boone, a former district leader in predominantly black central Brooklyn, because she felt that her main support lay in other neighborhoods.

Ms. Yellen paid Mr. Boone after she lost the primary, and Mr. Norman's supporters have questioned why she would have bothered to do so if she felt he had done nothing for her.

Law enforcement officials say Ms. Yellen has told investigators that she paid Mr. Boone because she felt she had to honor a political commitment.

Ms. Yellen would not comment last night. Neither Ms. Sikowitz nor Mr. Boone returned a call seeking comment.

According to investigators, Ms. Yellen and Ms. Sikowitz said the party leaders told them whom to hire in a series of meetings in June and July 2002 at party headquarters on Court Street in Brooklyn.

A lawyer for Branford Communications, Richard Guay, said that its principal, Ernest Lendler, "never knew of any such arrangement, and he never would have been involved in one." Mr. Guay added, "He has been told that he is not a target of this investigation."

Democratic officials have said that all Mr. Feldman and Mr. Norman did was advise their candidates on what it takes to win an election. Mr. Feldman's lawyer, Ronald Aiello, said that if Mr. Feldman's conduct was indictable, "I think that, frankly, every politician in this state is in a lot of trouble."

                         Scandal Courts Get New Boss

Tom Topousis
New York Post
November 11, 2003

A new chief judge was named yesterday to oversee Brooklyn's courts, which have been rocked by charges of corruption and an ongoing criminal probe into allegations that seats on the bench are sold by political bosses.

Judge Neil Firetog, a 20-year veteran of the borough's courts, will take over from Administrative Judge Ann Pfau, who will move up to first deputy chief administrative judge, the third highest-

ranking post in the state court system.

Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman praised Pfau for making changes that will help restore confidence in the borough's judiciary.

Firetog handled corruption cases while serving as a prosecutor.

Democrats in Brooklyn Fear for Image

By Jonathan Hicks
The New York Times
October 11, 2003

The indictment this week of the Brooklyn Democratic leader, Clarence Norman Jr., has left many Democratic officials in Brooklyn worried about the tarnished image of their party when, they say, they should be working on organizing for the presidential primary next year.

Others worry that the indictment of Mr. Norman, coming on the heels of scandals concerning Brooklyn judges and the earlier imprisonment of a Democratic City Council member, creates an image of reckless lawlessness that plays squarely into the hands of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a Republican who is seeking to diminish the role of parties in elections in New York City.

"It's certainly another blow to the image of the Brooklyn Democratic Party," said David Yassky, a Brooklyn Democratic member of the City Council and a former professor at Brooklyn Law School.

"I would hate to see the charges against an individual transformed into an indictment of an entire political party and political activists in general," Mr. Yassky said. "But I feel that may happen as a result of this."

Mr. Norman, 52, was arraigned yesterday morning in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn on charges of misappropriating campaign funds and improperly claiming more than $5,000 in travel expenses that were reimbursed by taxpayers. [Page B4.]

Mr. Norman, who is also the deputy speaker of the State Assembly, could face a prison term of up to seven years if convicted of the charges. At the same time, the charges could significantly stir up the power structure of the besieged Democratic Party.

Since 1990, Mr. Norman, one of the state's most influential black politicians, has been the leader of one of the country's largest local Democratic organizations.

Yesterday, after leaving the courthouse, Mr. Norman remained resolute in his intention to remain the party leader in Brooklyn. Speaking in the building where the party offices are housed, he said he had received the overwhelming support of the Democratic district leaders in Brooklyn at a meeting the previous evening.

Mr. Norman has denied any wrongdoing, saying that the inquiry by Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, was "a clear fabrication of an investigation to find some predicate to bring charges against me." He said further that Mr. Hynes's investigation was aimed at distancing himself from the Democratic organization that helped him get elected as prosecutor.

Indeed, the widely expressed view among many Democratic leaders in Brooklyn seemed to be that there was no reason for Mr. Norman to leave as chairman unless he were convicted.

"I don't think he should step down unless he thinks he has become ineffective," said Lewis A. Fidler, a councilman from Canarsie, Brooklyn, who has at times been at odds with Mr. Norman politically. "He is as entitled as any other citizen to being presumed innocent until proven otherwise. If it becomes apparent that he might be unable to do the job while defending himself, perhaps it might be appropriate to reconsider staying."

Not all Brooklyn Democratic officials, however, were quite so sympathetic.

"I think he should step down, so that we can proceed with the business of the party and remove any questions about our activities," said Joanne Seminara, a lawyer who is a Democratic district leader in the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn. "The charges are serious and we can use this opportunity to work within the party in a more open and more democratic manner."

Mr. Norman became Democratic chairman seven years after the end of the reign of Meade H. Esposito, who presided over Brooklyn politics for a quarter-century. Mr. Esposito retired as Brooklyn Democratic leader in late 1983, but remained one of the state's most powerful behind-the-scenes politicians until his indictment and conviction in 1987 for having given an illegal gratuity to another onetime power broker, former United States Representative Mario Biaggi of the Bronx.

At various points in Mr. Norman's stewardship, there have been faint calls from some district leaders for him to step down. Some in the party said they considered his style too autocratic and undemocratic. But he has consistently managed to win the support of the district leaders. Some Democrats point out there are few officials who would want the job. Many officials, including council members and borough presidents, are precluded from serving in partisan political jobs while retaining their municipal positions.

For some Democratic leaders, Mr. Norman's legal woes triggered an emotional reaction. Several, including a number of black officials, said they worried that Mr. Norman was another in a series of black and Hispanic Democrats who have been targets of investigation.

Many also complained that the charges against Mr. Norman have little or nothing to do with the focus of the investigation, that Democratic nominations for judgeships may have been for sale.

"I've run against the Democratic organization's candidates twice, and I'm certainly not a political pal of Clarence Norman," said State Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Democrat who represents the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. "But this investigation has moved from very specific concerns to a witch hunt. It's turned into Whitewater."

Senator Parker added, "What I fear is that we're creating a climate that, when an elected official of color is accused of something, the presumption of innocence is automatically gone."

Bling-bling

By Denise Buffa and Adam Miller
New York Post
October 11, 2003

PHOTO

 While the district attorney vowed that the probe of Clarence Norman isn't over, the Brooklyn Democratic boss was all smiles when he arrived in a court in handcuffs yesterday, holding out his hands to supporters and jokingly referring to the bracelets as "Bling-bling."

The nine-term assemblyman, after spending the night in custody, was arraigned on charges of pilfering public and party funds for personal use.

An upbeat and playful Norman grinned from Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clearence  ear to ear as he sauntered into state Supreme
 Norman enters court in handcuffs yesterday.
Court to hear felony charges that he allegedly
- NYP: S.A. Burnett
                             turned the political system into "his personal
piggy bank." Prosecutors' accusatory portrayals of Norman stood in stark contrast to the political power broker's demeanor.

Norman is charged with stealing $5,000 from the party and spending it on himself. He claimed the $5,000 check was a bookkeeping mistake.

He's also charged with billing the state at least 75 times for gas for his cars for which the party already paid.

The state Assembly and Democratic Party "are not meant to provide a personal piggy bank for Clarence Norman to draw on at will," Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes said.

Prosecutor Michael Vecchione slammed Norman's behavior as an "an utter disregard for the public trust."

After surrendering Thursday evening, Norman spent the rest of the night on an office cot in the DA's headquarters - and not in a jail cell as is customary.

"It wasn't like the Marriott, but better than central booking," he quipped to reporters.

Norman told The Post the worst thing about his surrender was he wasn't able to watch Thursday's Yankee game.

When supporters appeared shocked to see Norman arrive in handcuffs, he held up his hands and jokingly referred to the bracelets: "Bling-bling."

After posting his $25,000 bail, Norman, dressed in a crisp, three-piece suit, left court to cheers from supporters.

He proclaimed his innocence and vowed to stay on as Democratic boss.

"These are difficult times, but I know at the end of the day we'll prevail," said Norman.

"We will be vindicated of these charges."

If convicted on the grand larceny charges, Norman could face up to seven years in prison.

Dem's the Breaks
Brooklyn Democratic Boss Norman Indicted

by Murray Weiss, Tom Topousis and Denise Buffa
NewYork Post
October 10, 2003

PHOTOEmbattled Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman has been indicted on charges of stealing public and party funds for personal use, sources told The Post.

A Brooklyn grand jury handed up two larceny counts against the dapper nine-term assemblyman yesterday afternoon, just as Norman was preparing to meet with supporters at a Brooklyn diner.

The party boss gave reporters two thumbs-up hours ROARIN' NORMAN                    before he surrendered at DA Charles "Joe" Hynes' A Feisty Clarence Norman yesterday     "We'll be vindicated," Norman said. "I have a date
vows to
be vindicated as he              with Joe Hynes. Hopefully, he'll order out and have
prepares for his "date" with the DA.  
cable TV."
Robert Kalfus
After he arrived at Hynes' office around 9 p.m., Norman was taken to central booking to be fingerprinted and photographed, his parents said.

But law enforcement sources said Norman was to spend the rest of the night on an office cot in the DA's complex - and that he might watch the Yankees on TV there.

It was unclear if he'd get takeout. Before he surrendered, he ate a turkey sandwich and fries at a party leaders' meeting at the Park Plaza Diner in Downtown Brooklyn.

In court today, Hynes is expected to seek $25,000 bail. But Norman's lawyers said they want him freed without bail.

The indictment says Norman stole $5,000 from the party and spent it on himself. Norman claimed the $5,000 check was a bookkeeping error.

He's also accused of billing the state at least 75 times for gas for his cars for which the party already paid.

If convicted on the grand-larceny charges, Norman could face up to seven years in jail.

The grand jury did not vote on more serious allegations against Norman, a former Brooklyn prosecutor, and his top lieutenant, party executive director Jeffrey Feldman: that they coerced judicial candidates into donating cash to party coffers to get Democratic support.

That aspect of Hynes' investigation is continuing, along with a probe of claims that borough judgeships were for sale.

Several judges have publicly complained - and testified before the grand jury - that they felt threatened that if they did not contribute to the party, they would not get Norman's backing.

Others complained that they got little if anything in return for their contributions, which sometimes amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

At their diner meeting, the party's 42 district leaders did not suggest Norman should quit. Some later accompanied him to Hynes' office.

"He's doing his job, and if there's a pending indictment, we'll let it take its course," said Ralph Perfetto of Bay Ridge.

Dem Boss Faces Indictment Today

by Tom Topousis and Murray Weiss
New York Post
October 9, 2003

PHOTOA Brooklyn grand jury will be asked to indict Democratic Party leader Clarence Norman Jr. today after a six-month probe into claims that judgeships in the borough are for sale, The Post has learned.

DA Charles Hynes is seeking an indictment against the powerful, nine-term state Assemblyman on larceny charges for his alleged use of party funds for strictly personal reasons and for billing the state for expenses already paid by the county Democrats.
CLARENCE NORMAN
Larceny rap looms in B'klyn
         But sources say Hynes could also ask grand jurors to indict Norman for coercion of judicial candidates, some of whom claim they had to make hefty payments to well-connected lobbyists and political clubs to get the party's nominations.

If the grand jury agrees to the coercion charges, Norman would be joined in the indictment by his top lieutenant, party Executive Director Jeffrey Feldman.

Sources say Norman and Feldman would turn themselves in at Hynes' office at 350 Jay St. after 9 p.m. today. They would be held overnight and arraigned Friday morning, when the grand jury indictments would be made public.

Hynes' investigation began earlier this year when prosecutors arrested state Supreme Court Judge Gerald Garson for allegedly taking bribes to fix cases. Garson then told investigators that party leaders were selling judicial nominations.

Norman has accused Hynes of running a "witch hunt," not a legitimate investigation, focusing on his leadership in the absence of proving that judgeships are for sale.

Meanwhile, the borough's 42 Democratic district leaders will meet tonight to consider what to do if Norman is indicted. They already appear to be clearing the decks to have a potential successor ready if needed.

At tonight's meeting, party vice chairman Pat Guadagnino is expected to step down in order to be replaced by another district leader, who would then take over as chairman in Norman's absence from the helm.

The two leading candidates to replace Guadagnino - and possibly Norman - are long-time Bay Ridge district leader Joe Bova or Freddie Hamilton, executive director of a children's social service agency in Brooklyn.

Another potential successor to Hynes, Assemblyman Darryl Towns, will be confirmed tonight as a district leader, replacing his father, Rep. Ed Towns, who resigned last month in protest over the latest round of judicial nominations.

Bob Liff, a spokesman for the party, said Norman "will seek the collective wisdom of the executive committee and will act in the best interests of the Brooklyn Democratic Party."

"All options are on the table," Liff said.

Additional reporting by Denise Buffa and Kati Cornell Smith

Backers: Lay off Norman

By Nancie L. Katz
Daily News Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 8th, 2003

Supporters of embattled Brooklyn Democrat leader Clarence Norman rallied yesterday against the corruption investigation that could lead to a criminal indictment against the party boss as soon as today.

Yesterday was the last chance that either Norman or his top aide, Jeffrey Feldman, could have testified in front of a special grand jury investigating political corruption in the borough.

That jury was empaneled by District Attorney Charles Hynes in April to investigate whether party leaders were extorting money from judicial candidates in exchange for endorsements.

Party backing virtually assures election in overwhelmingly Democratic Brooklyn.

About 100 party faithful - including a dozen elected officials - rallied in front of Brooklyn Borough Hall, accusing Hynes of making Norman a scapegoat. The contended the investigation may have turned up irregularities in party finances - but denied judgeships were for sale.

"We do not want to stand by and let a credit card lynching take place," declared Rep. Major Owens (D-

Brooklyn). "We don't want to see what happened with Whitewater here. They couldn't find anything for $75 million."

Hynes is poised to indict Norman, who is also a state assemblyman, on larceny charges for allegedly misusing a party credit card and double-billing expenses to the Assembly.

Feldman also could face charges of larceny by extortion for allegedly threatening to throw a Civil Court candidate off the party ticket if she did not pay a favored consultant.

Supporters charged Hynes with hypocrisy for launching an investigation into the same party machine that helped him into office.

Hynes declined comment on the probe and the pro-Norman rally. "It is inappropriate for me to comment in the midst of an ongoing investigation," he said through a spokesman.

Dems Poised for Probe Indictment

By Nancie L. Katz
Daily News Staff Writer
October 2, 2003

Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman and his executive director believe they could be indicted as early as next week by a grand jury investigating whether judgeships are for sale in the borough, the Daily News has learned.

For months, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has been investigating whether Norman and his aide, Jeff Feldman, have been extorting money from potential judicial candidates in return for Democratic endorsements. Because Brooklyn is overwhelmingly Democratic, a party endorsement usually assures a spot on the bench.

Last month, prosecutors warned Feldman that if he didn't come up with evidence of wrongdoing by Norman, they would move to indict him on charges of forcing candidates to fork over money to favored consultants, sources familiar with the probe said. Democratic sources believe Hynes is seeking to indict Feldman on extortion, coercion or larceny charges for allegedly threatening Civil Court judge candidate Karen Yellen in 2001. Feldman allegedly threatened to throw Yellen off the ticket if she did not pay certain consultants, including $9,000 to party treasurer William Boone. Yellen wound up losing the race.

In a minimum of two meetings with Feldman before the November 2001 elections - at least one attended by Norman - Yellen was given an ultimatum, sources said. "Feldman told her, 'This is what we expect you to do. If you don't do it, you're off the ticket,'" a source at the meeting told The News.

Norman, who is also an assemblyman, could be charged with double-dipping in both his accounts as party leader and legislator, a source said. Also possible are charges he improperly used his party corporate American Express card for personal expenses, such as shoes, sources told The News.

"People believe there's going to be an indictment next week some time," a source familiar with the case said yesterday. "It involves the credit cards and some coercion charges involving Karen Yellen."

Neither Feldman nor his lawyer, Roger Adler, could be reached for comment last night. Hynes' office had no comment, but sources close to the investigators called the speculation premature and said the grand jury had not voted on anything yet. Norman has accused Hynes of conducting a desperate "fishing expedition."

Democratic Party spokesman Bob Liff said, "It's no great shock the DA is moving toward a conclusion he seems to have reached before he began his investigation."

                            Brooklyn Justice Admonished
           Over Large Victory Party for Supporters After Election


Tom Perrotta
New York Law Journal
10-02-2003

In a county where one judge was recently jailed for taking a bribe and another faces bribery charges, donating leftover campaign funds to a non-profit group and throwing a lavish victory party at the Brooklyn Marriott might not seem to be terribly serious transgressions.

But they are enough, the Commission on Judicial Conduct signaled yesterday, to bring an elected judge a slap on the wrist and a public rebuke about the ethical obligations that come with his office.

In a determination released yesterday, the commission admonished Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Martin Schneier for throwing a $20,000 party to celebrate the Supreme Court judgeship he won in November 1999, after having served on the Civil Court bench for 20 years. A "modest" party is allowed under the rules governing judicial conduct, but the commission said even the judge agreed that this 250 guest gala was "unreasonably large."

The commission also reprimanded the judge for transferring funds from his re-election campaign for Civil Court to his campaign for Supreme Court, once he received a nomination from the Democratic Party to run for that office. Justice Schneier told his Civil Court supporters in a letter that he would return their donations if they notified him within 10 days, but the commission said he should have returned the money and then solicited for his new campaign.

There were other infractions, too, the commission said, including giving nearly $11,000 in campaign funds to the Respect for Law Alliance, a not-for-profit organization that honors people in the law and raises awareness about legal issues. Excess campaign funds can be returned to donors or used to buy office furniture that becomes the property of the courthouse, but cannot be given to charity, the commission said.

And then there was $710 in post-election expenses at non-political events, such as a $175 dinner at the Brooklyn Bar Association and a $200 dinner put on by the Flatbush Development Corp., another non-profit.

"There is no justification in the rules for using unexpended campaign funds to pay such expenses," the commission concluded.

Martin J. Semel of Molod, Spitz, DeSantis & Stark, who represented the 69-year-old judge at the commission's disciplinary hearing, said the judge would not appeal the ruling. As far as the victory party, he said the cost was so high, in part, because it was kosher.

"It's really not hot Brooklyn news as I read Brooklyn news," Mr. Semel said. "Perhaps in another year and another time [the commission] would not motivate themselves to do this. Why they went ahead with this I just don't know." He added: "Next time he'll buy himself a mahogany desk for $6,000."

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission's administrator, said the commission has reprimanded other judges for similar conduct. He added that the unanimous sanction of Justice Schneier is not a sign that the commission is about to take a more aggressive approach to auditing judicial campaign records in search of ethical violations.

"If we had the resources —— more staff and better funding —— then we would be in a position to more proactively look at campaign filings to determine whether the rules have been obeyed," Mr. Tembeckjian said. "It is something that we should do, but we're pretty much limited now to reacting."

The commission, which has a $2 million budget, receives more than 1,400 complaints a year, Mr. Tembeckjian said. Whether the investigation into Justice Schneier was spurred by a complaint or taken up at the instigation of the commission was not made public, and Mr. Tembeckjian said he could not comment further on it.

Though the conduct commission may not be combing through campaign filings, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes has said he will do just that in his investigation of the borough's judicial election process, which he has consistently described as a "sham" and in need of serious repair since his office indicted Justice Gerald P. Garson on bribery charges earlier this year. The district attorney has said he will examine why large sums of money are often raised in judicial campaigns despite complete dominance by the Democratic Party.

When it comes to sparing no expense on victory celebrations and furniture, at least, campaign records reveal that Justice Schneier is not alone in his borough. Justice Allen Z. Hurkin-Torres, who was elected to Supreme Court in 2001, spent nearly $11,600 on his victory party. Those funds, though, came from his father Eugene Hurkin, who single-handedly financed his son's campaign with $17,500.

That same election year, Justice Patricia M. DiMango spent $9,000 on an event at a restaurant after she won her Supreme Court seat, for which she raised more than $33,000, according to campaign records. She also spent more than $7,500 on office supplies, much of it at Bloomingdale's.

                            Thompson Dad: Indict Dem Big

by Murray Weiss
New York Post
September 23, 2003

The retired judge whose son is the city's comptroller stunned a special commission probing ways to clean up the courts - by calling for the indictment of Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman, The Post has learned.

Former Appellate Court Justice William Thompson - whose son's campaign for comptroller was vigorously supported by Norman - dropped his bombshell at a recent hearing of the Commission to Promote Public Confidence created to find better ways to elect Supreme Court judges.

Asked what could be done to stem the tide of misconduct and bad publicity surrounding the courts, specifically in Brooklyn, where several judges have been arrested, the respected 78-year-old jurist didn't miss a beat.

"Indict Clarence Norman," Thompson declared. "Indict Clarence Norman."

Thompson's candid remarks stunned the room and commission members initially didn't know how to react until several of them and spectators began to laugh nervously, several sources said.

But Thompson remained serious - and then immediately lashed out at the selection of new judges that was taking place in Brooklyn.

"As we speak, right now across the river, they are nominating five incompetents to be Supreme Court judgeships," he said, according to the sources.

He was referring to a judicial nominating convention that selected five party loyalists for Brooklyn Supreme Court judges who were all backed by Norman.

Thompson's testimony last Tuesday capped a day of appearances by city and state officials, including Mayor Bloomberg and Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes.

Bloomberg, the first speaker, said he was ashamed at the allegations of bribery on the bench and that they were destroying the public's faith in the city's judges.

The elder Thompson was elected to the Supreme Court in Brooklyn in 1974, and served for a time as the borough's chief administrator before being elevated to the Appellate Division in 1980. He retired in December 2000.

He was said to be on a cruise yesterday and unreachable, aides at his law office said.

A spokesman for Norman said, "Judge Thompson is entitled to his opinion."

Norman has been under investigation by the Brooklyn DA since the arrest earlier this year of Brooklyn Judge Gerald Garson, who wore a secret recording device for investigators after claiming Brooklyn judgeships were being bought.

Norman supported Thompson's son, William, when he successfully ran for comptroller two years ago.

And one of Norman's closest associates, Jacqueline Ward, later was hired as an $80,000-a- year manager by Comptroller Thompson's office. She quit her post after Hynes asked her to come in for an interview, which she refused, to discuss $153,610 she collected as a campaign consultant to Norman and the candidates he supported in 2001.

'Outraged' Mayor Blasts Judiciary Pick Process

by David Seifman
New York Post
September 17, 2003

Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday that confidence in the judiciary and in political parties is "crumbling" because of widespread reports of corruption in the judicial selection process.

In some of his strongest comments to date on the issue, the mayor said he was "ashamed" and "outraged" at reports of judges fixing cases in Brooklyn.

"Judges should represent the majesty of law - and that's impossible when all that is reported are allegations of corruption," Bloomberg testified before the Commission to Promote Confidence in Judicial Elections.

Bloomberg recommended reforms he said could be implemented "immediately," including:

* Asking each political party to form an advisory commission for judicial candidates, with the majority of members recommended by top lawyers and judges and not party leaders.

* Political parties would pledge not to nominate any judicial candidate not found highly qualified by the advisory committee.

The mayor suggested the current system was rigged in favor of candidates hand-picked by party leaders who then go on to "coronations" in lightly attended general elections.

Meanwhile, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, who is in the middle of a sweeping investigation of how judges are picked in his borough, called for publicly financed primaries to select judges.

Inquiry Takes Note of
 Brooklyn Democratic Leader's Assets

By Kevin Flynn and Clifford J. Levy
New York Times
September 14, 2003

Six months ago, Brooklyn prosecutors, spurred by a judge's arrest in a bribery investigation, began examining whether the Brooklyn Democratic leader, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., had played a role in the possible sale of judgeships, and whether he or his associates profited along the way.

That question, according to people involved in the inquiry, remains an open one, as prosecutors continue to collect financial records while judges, lawyers and party officials appear before a grand Clarence Norman Jr.'s stock        jury. But what has become clear is that Mr. Norman, holdings rose from $140,000 or    with a relatively unexceptional income, has built a
less at the end of 1995 to $2       complex financial empire in recent years involving million or more four years later.    both personal and political funds according  to an
                                           extensive examination of these finances.

He controls at least four political committees that have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and are formidable tools that Mr. Norman uses to help orchestrate the selection of judges —— one of the last areas of influence for local party leaders in New York.

The committees have regularly paid for Mr. Norman's meals and other expenses, and doled out tens of thousands of dollars of work to his associates, campaign finance records show. The committees have also transferred money among one another so often that it is sometimes difficult to track their spending.

His personal holdings have their own mysteries. At the end of 1995, Mr. Norman had a stock portfolio worth $40,000 to $140,000, according to an analysis of disclosure forms that he filed with the state. The forms require that he, like all Albany lawmakers, provide a rough snapshot of the worth of his holdings.

Just four years later, Mr. Norman had accumulated an array of stocks and mutual funds, many of them in the technology arena, that he valued at $2 million to $4 million, according to the analysis. During that period, his income from his government job and part-time work at a law firm ranged from roughly $120,000 to $160,000, the disclosure records show.

Whether the investigation of Mr. Norman by the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, results in any action is likely to be settled soon as prosecutors pore over records of Mr. Norman's political committees, bank accounts, expenses and other documents in an attempt to understand his finances. Investigators are delving so deeply that they have interviewed people to whom Mr. Norman sent flowers paid for with the party's money.

In the meantime, relations between Mr. Norman and Mr. Hynes, who once were political allies, have become embittered. Mr. Norman taunted Mr. Hynes at a fund-raising party last month. Mr. Hynes has suggested that Mr. Norman is an old-style boss with a stranglehold over Brooklyn judges.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Norman accused Mr. Hynes of conducting a witch hunt to bolster his career. Mr. Norman said Mr. Hynes had found no evidence that judgeships were being sold, so he had turned on Mr. Norman to salvage his inquiry.

Mr. Norman said Mr. Hynes was investigating political fund-raising and spending practices that were legal and unremarkable —— and ones that most politicians, including Mr. Hynes himself, follow.

Asked whether he thought he would be indicted, Mr. Norman said: "I have not done anything wrong, so there should not be an expectation on my part that criminal charges will be brought. But I certainly take notice of the fact that Mr. Hynes seems to be doing everything within his power to bring about charges."

Mr. Hynes would not be interviewed. But an aide noted that the investigation began when a judge, who was a former treasurer of a Brooklyn Democratic fund-raising committee controlled by Mr. Norman, told prosecutors that judgeships could be bought.

Based on records investigators have collected and interviews they have conducted, prosecutors appear to be trying to determine whether Mr. Norman skimmed money from the political committees he controls, failed to report contributions to and expenditures by the committees, and double-billed the state for travel expenses.

The district attorney's office is also investigating whether Mr. Norman used his party credit card for personal expenses. In court papers, an assistant district attorney said that the office "has reason to believe that not all Kings County Democratic Committee credit card usage by Norman was related to the business of the Kings County Democratic Committee."

Mr. Norman, 52, became the Brooklyn Democratic leader in 1990, making him a power in state and local politics at a relatively young age. At the time, he promised to bring a conciliatory style to an organization that had been divided by religious, racial and political disputes.

One thing that Mr. Norman did not change was the party's near-absolute control over the selection of justices in Brooklyn for the State Supreme Court, New York's highest trial court. In New York, such justices are elected, and under the law, candidates receive a spot on the ballot at party judicial conventions.

In practice, party leaders stage-manage the conventions to ensure that their hand-picked candidates are nominated. And in overwhelmingly Democratic Brooklyn, the Democratic nomination is tantamount to victory, so Mr. Norman and his allies can essentially dictate who sits on the bench.

Mr. Norman, who is not married and has no children, lives in a one-bedroom co-op in East Flatbush. His taste in jewelry, clothing, cars and restaurants has been more lavish, and some of these items have been paid for by the party funds he controls, according to campaign finance and other records and law enforcement officials.

Over a five-and-a-half year period that ended in December 2002, Mr. Norman spent about $140,000 on his party credit card, according to records of the bills. Much of the money went toward the sort of business entertaining, office renovations and travel that political leaders traditionally engage in to build the party.

Other expenses that Mr. Norman charged on the card, including $1,600 for jewelry and $540 for shoes, according to the records, seem more personal in nature.

In the interview, Mr. Norman acknowledged buying the jewelry, but said he quickly reimbursed the party for it. He said he could not recall using the credit card to buy shoes.

Investigators tracking these expenses have visited the restaurants where Mr. Norman ate to question whether his companions were political associates or, in fact, dates, according to lawyers and others involved in the case. Mr. Norman said they were always political associates.

Mr. Norman said state law and party rules broadly define political spending, giving him the latitude to determine what is appropriate. He said two members of the party's executive committee had reviewed his credit card records this year and had no problem with them.

Investigators have subpoenaed five years of Assembly expense records to see if Mr. Norman was paid by the state for thousands of dollars of travel expenses that had already been paid by the party, according to court records and interviews.

Mr. Norman said it was not inappropriate under Assembly rules to request a mileage allowance for trips in which his gas expenses had been covered by the party. The state money "is, first of all, not a reimbursement," he said. "It's an allowance. And it's not for a specific expenditure."

Investigators are reviewing the propriety of other spending by four committees under Mr. Norman's control: two operated by the party, one that finances Mr. Norman's Assembly campaign and another run by the Thurgood Marshall political club.

Among the matters being scrutinized is the assertion that candidates felt pressure to hire certain vendors or allies of Mr. Norman if they wanted to retain the party's support, according to lawyers and others involved in the case.

For example, two former candidates for Civil Court judgeships have told investigators that party leaders warned them they had to come up with $100,000 for their campaigns and hire favored vendors, according to the people involved in the case.

Mr. Norman said that candidates were not pressured to hire anyone and that the fund-raising goal was simply the cost of winning an election in Brooklyn. He said Mr. Hynes's office was being disingenuous if it contended that something nefarious was going on. Mr. Hynes "certainly knows how we run campaigns," he said.

Mr. Hynes is also looking to know how Mr. Norman ran his private finances. Like many Americans, Mr. Norman became enamored of technology stocks in the mid- and late-1990's. Disclosure forms that he filed with the Legislative Ethics Committee show that by the end of the decade, he held sizable amounts of stock in companies like Amazon, AOL, Cisco, Dell, Lucent and other technology companies.

While his portfolio undoubtedly appreciated in part because of the soaring stock market in the late 1990's, that alone does not appear to explain the startling increase in its value: from as little as $40,000 in 1995 to as much as $4 million by the end of 1999.

Explaining his success, Mr. Norman said, "The stock market rose, and I was a prudent investor." He said he had watched CNBC, and read a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity mutual fund guru.

Asked whether there was some source of undisclosed income that he had used to finance his portfolio, Mr. Norman said that was not the case.

Instead, he said, he had increased his holdings by buying stock on margin. Under such a strategy, which can be risky, an investor borrows money from a brokerage firm to buy stock. In a rising market, margin buying can allow an investor to accumulate large holdings relatively quickly.

Told that he had not detailed margin loans on his disclosure reports to the ethics committee, as is required, Mr. Norman said he did not believe that it was required. Later in the day, a Norman spokesman, Bob Liff, said Mr. Norman had erred in not disclosing his margin loans and would do so by filing amended forms.

By the end of 2000, the market had sagged, and Mr. Norman sold some stocks, records show. With smaller holdings and the market's steep drop, he valued his securities at from $260,000 to $600,000 at the end of 2002.

Mr. Norman's yearly income is largely derived from his Assembly salary —— roughly $75,000 through 1998, and $105,000 since then —— and what he earned as part of a three-member Manhattan law firm run by a lawyer named Ravi Batra.

At the Batra firm, Mr. Norman's salary ranged from $6,000 to $64,000, with an average in recent years of $39,000, said Randy Mastro, a lawyer who represents the firm. Mr. Norman worked at the firm for eight years, until stepping down two months ago.

Mr. Norman's relationship with Mr. Batra has drawn scrutiny because in 1995, the same year he was hired, Mr. Norman appointed Mr. Batra to the Democratic panel that screens judicial candidates.

At that point, judges began appointing Mr. Batra to handle court matters, like guardianships, far more frequently than they had previously, court records show.

In more than a decade of practice before Mr. Norman joined his firm, Mr. Batra had made a few thousand dollars from such work. Since 1995, he has earned $456,000, according to state records. Mr. Batra resigned from the judicial screening panel earlier this year. Mr. Norman said Mr. Batra received court work not because of ties to politicians, but because "he's a brilliant lawyer."

Earlier this year, Mr. Batra helped Mr. Norman get a $80,000 Mercedes Benz by agreeing to make the $1,400-a-month payments, Mr. Norman said. Now that he has left the firm, Mr. Norman said, he pays the tab himself. The Brooklyn Democratic Party also provides him a Lincoln Town Car, at a cost of $998 a month.

Familiar Look as Democrats Pick State Court Candidates

By Leslie Eaton
New York Times
September 11, 2003

The leaders of Brooklyn's Democratic Party gathered last night in a smoke-free, mirror-and-glass-lined room to pick their candidates for State Supreme Court.

But even without the smoke-filled room (and with some heated arguments), the nominees for the five open judicial seats were divided along the ethnic lines many party insiders had been predicting for months: three white Jewish men, one Hispanic man, one black woman.

The party is under intense scrutiny, in the press and by prosecutors, over the way judges are selected in the borough.

District Attorney Charles J. Hynes has called the process a sham and has a grand jury investigating whether judgeships are bought and sold by the party. Iin the last two years, one justice has pleaded guilty to taking a bribe in a case and been sentenced to prison, another was removed from the bench for financial improprieties, and a third, Gerald P. Garson, has been charged with receiving bribes in divorce cases; he has pleaded not guilty.

Last night's session was supposed to showcase the new open-and-above-board Democratic Party. "It was a wonderful meeting and we had some healthy democracy," said Clarence Norman, the party's beleaguered leader.

But dissidents complained that the proceedings were still controlled and choreographed by Mr. Norman and other party bosses. And Congressman Edolphus Towns, a longtime rival of Mr. Norman's, resigned his post as district leader just before the meeting began. Karen Johnson, Mr. Towns's chief of staff, said the congressman believed the judicial selection process was still tainted.

Other district leaders complained about the low representation of minorities and women among the party's candidates, whose nominations require official approval at a convention, scheduled for next week, controlled by party leaders. Because Brooklyn is heavily Democratic, getting the party's nod traditionally means getting the job, even if a Republican runs in November.

"It's a shame we haven't sent more women up to Supreme Court," said Alan Fleischman, a district leader from Park Slope and a leader of the Coalition for an Independent Brooklyn Judiciary.

Last year, the party nominated five men and just one woman for six open slots on the Supreme Court.

This year's female nominee may prove controversial. As a criminal court judge, Bernadette P. Bayne drew protests from Legal Aid lawyers in 1991 after having one of them handcuffed for 20 minutes for being late and "making faces."

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani did not reappoint her to the bench, a fact she used to garner support among Democrats in her successful election campaign for civil court in 1999. Although she ran as an insurgent against a Democratic candidate backed by Mr. Norman, the party leader, she had support from the Rev. Al Sharpton.

The leaders considered only one other black woman —— Judge Kathryn M. Smith of civil court —— at last night's meeting. She faced a primary challenge on Tuesday and was leading her opponent by only 41 votes yesterday.

The leaders once again passed over Judge Margarita Lopez Torres, who stood outside the diner where the meeting was taking place, shaking hands and joking about being an "unofficial greeter."

The judge won a bruising battle to retain her civil court seat last year, after party leaders took the unusual step of refusing to endorse her for a second term; her supporters say she had earned their wrath by failing to hire people they recommended.

That wrath has clearly not ebbed; the district leaders voted against her and in favor of Raymond Guzman, who ran unopposed for civil court in 1999 and now sits in criminal court in Manhattan.

The three candidates who were shoo-ins at the meeting last night were: Bruce M. Balter, a civil court judge elected on the Democratic and Republican lines in 1997; Arthur M. Schack, a civil court judge and former lawyer for the Major League Baseball Players Association, whose wife is a district leader; and Martin M. Solomon, a former state senator who was elected to the civil court in 1995.

Probers 'Steak' out Dem Leader

by Denise Buffa
New York Post
September 9, 2003

PHOTOInvestigators for the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office have swooped down on popular city eateries, demanding records of embattled Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman, The Post has learned.

Investigators seized records from downtown Brooklyn's Gage & Tollner, where Norman - who is at the center of a     judicial corruption probe - spent $4,480, according to his bills on his Democratic Party-issued American Express CLARENCE NORMAN
Meal expenses probed.      
Card from July 1997 and December 2002. The bills show more than $100,000 in expenditures on fancy restaurants, shoes, records, books and health-club fees.

Investigators have also taken records from Greenwich Village steakhouse Knickerbocker, owner Steven Jones said.

Norman's American Express bills show he ate there 16 times for a total tab of $1,323.

Norman took three to four women there during the past three years, Jones said.

"They appeared to be dates," he said.

But he volunteered that Norman never spent extravagantly. The party boss's tabs usually averaged $34 per person - $4 per person less than average for his customers, according to Jones.

The owner of Gage & Tollner did not return calls for comment.

The investigation into Norman stemmed from a judicial corruption probe that was sparked by the bust of Judge Gerald Garson, who is to be arraigned today in Brooklyn Supreme Court on a bribe-receiving charge. Garson denies the charge.

Investigators have said Norman could face grand-larceny charges if he used the card for his own business or pleasure rather than county business.

A spokesman for Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said, "We cannot comment on ongoing investigations."

Bob Liff, a spokesman for Norman, maintained the expenditures were legitimate.

"This is consistent with a fishing expedition that seems to have little to do with the ostensible purpose of the investigation," he said.

Meanwhile, Norman supporters handed out fliers yesterday around the Brooklyn courthouse noting that Norman is authorized by the Brooklyn Democratic Party's bylaws to have a party credit card and automobile, "as was the case of his predecessors."

  For Civil Court
The Politically Handpicked Judges
 

Opinion
New York Times
September 6, 2003

There are 24 Civil Court judgeships up for election in New York City but in reality, most have already been chosen by clubhouse leaders and party pols in a position to award the Democratic nomination and a practically uncontested ride to victory.

Sadly, the burgeoning judicial corruption scandal under investigation by the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles Hynes, has yet to inspire a coherent reform movement. Thus, in the handful of low-visibility judicial primaries that constitute the closest thing to a real judicial election, voters will find the usual mix of mediocrities and downright clunkers, and a few meritorious candidates. These are our Civil Court recommendations for Tuesday's election.

Manhattan, Second District (East Village, Lower East Side, SoHo, NoHo, Little Italy and parts of Greenwich Village and Chinatown): The four-person field in this hotly contested race has three good candidates, and voters will not go far wrong by choosing any of them. The three are Frank Nervo, a private attorney specializing in personal injury cases; Arlene Bluth, a lawyer in private practice who handles an array of civil matters; and Shlomo Hagler, a sitting Housing Court judge. The fourth candidate, Virginia Kolodny, a senior court attorney in Civil Court, is not in the same league.

Ms. Bluth has great people skills, which make her seem well suited to presiding in a hectic court that sees many litigants without lawyers, but Mr. Hagler's judicial experience gives him the edge. We endorse Mr. Hagler while hoping Ms. Bluth will continue her interest in judicial office.

Manhattan, Ninth District (parts of the East Side and West Side, spanning 14th to 96th Streets): In a race with no good options, Robert Lippmann, an incumbent Civil Court judge now serving as an acting State Supreme Court justice, is a hard-working but undistinguished jurist with a bad habit of lashing out at lawyers who appear before him —— a serious temperament problem he has promised to address if re-elected. But he still seems a more worthy choice than his opponent, Linda Stanch, who has her own law practice and is a former lawyer in the city's corporation counsel office; she is rated "not approved" by the New York City Bar Association. We reluctantly endorse Judge Lippmann.

The Bronx, First District (Throgs Neck, Soundview, Pelham Parkway, Pelham Bay, Williamsbridge, Co-op City, Baychester and parts of Wakefield and Hunts Point): The clear standout in the crowded field vying for two Civil Court seats in this district is Larry Schachner, a highly able Housing Court judge. If elected, Mr. Schachner has the potential to play a positive leadership role within the court system, and we are pleased to endorse him. For the second spot, we support Sharon Aarons, the principal law clerk to Judge Lee Holzman, the Bronx County surrogate. Her dedication, demeanor and knowledge of the law make her a superior choice over the other candidates.

Brooklyn (countywide): This race offers two strong candidates, and it is a shame that one of them has to lose. The first, Dawn Marie Jimenez, is an incumbent Housing Court judge whose performance suggests that she is well prepared for elevation to Civil Court. Her opponent, ShawnDya Simpson, is a widely respected bureau chief in the Brooklyn district attorney's office, and an occasional TV legal commentator with an ability to parse complex legal issues so they are understandable to nonlawyers. In a close call, we endorse Ms. Simpson, believing it will take dynamic individuals like her to lift the court system from the muck of scandal.

Brooklyn, Second District (Bedford-Stuyvesant and parts of Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Crown Heights and Ocean Hill): Desmond Green, a lawyer with his own practice and a former assistant district attorney in the borough, has a reputation for competence and fairness. We are pleased to endorse him over Geraldine Pickett, a lawyer in private practice with dubious credentials for the bench.

Brooklyn, Seventh District (Cypress Hills, Bushwick, Brownsville and East New York): Kathryn Smith, an incumbent Civil Court judge serving as an acting State Supreme Court justice, takes her job seriously and has an impressive judicial demeanor. Her overall record is underwhelming, but Ms. Smith's challenger, Kathy King, the deputy chief clerk at the Brooklyn Board of Elections —— one of a string of patronage jobs —— is hardly a suitable alternative. We endorse Ms. Smith.

Judgefest Forced to Find a New Home

By Nancie L. Katz
New York Daily News
September 5, 2003

It won't be politics as usual - at least not at the county courthouse in downtown Brooklyn.

Pressure from state court officials has forced Democrats to scratch plans to hold their annual judicial convention in the courthouse at 360 Adams St., the Daily News has learned.

The announcement yesterday by state Democratic Chairman Herman (Denny) Farrell and Brooklyn party boss Clarence Norman ends a tradition dating back at least half a century.

Instead, the 130 delegates will gather Sept. 16 at nearby St. Francis College to nominate candidates to fill state Supreme Court seats in Brooklyn and on Staten Island, the leaders said.

The change comes a week after The News reported that Brooklyn's chief judge, Ann Pfau, had okayed the gathering.

But her ruling did not sit well with Jonathan Lippman, the state's chief administrative judge, sources told The News.

With Norman and his county committee under investigation for allegedly selling judgeships, sources said Lippman saw clear conflicts in the use of state property for a political function.

The Adams St. building houses both the state Supreme Court and the county Surrogate's Court, as well as the offices of County Clerk Wilbur Levin.

It was Levin who first voiced objections to sponsoring the convention again this year, sources said. He cited the corruption scandal and concerns that the meeting in the grand jury room could delay trials.

But Pfau - appointed last year to clean up the Brooklyn courts after several judges were accused of wrongdoing - said the convention could go on as usual.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Lippman denied he had played any role in the change.

"I believe that [the party leaders] came to this decision on their own," said the aide, David Bookstaver. "We're pleased. ... It's the most appropriate course of action."

Brushing Off the Party Crashers


By Andy Newman
New York Times
August 29, 2003

 

Assemblyman Norman taking care of the cake for his 52nd birthday, at a party that was expected to bring in $11,000 to $15,000 for his 2004 Assembly campaign.

Michael Nagle for The New York Times

On board the party boat Bargemusic in Brooklyn on Wednesday night, the wine was flowing, the chicken wings were disappearing, and a man in a spangly red vest and matching sneakers was lip-synching the disco hit "Got to Be Real." Soon he urged the guests to give it up for the guest of honor, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr.

"Don't you know this man is the deputy speaker of the State Assembly?" the M.C. called out over a vamping bass line. "Don't you know he's the best? And since you know that Clarence Norman is the best, doesn't he deserve the best? If you believe that, put your hands up in the air."

Four or five of the 75 or so guests at the birthday-party-cum-fund-raiser lifted their arms limply.

The D.J. looped a sample from a Martin Luther King Jr. speech over the music. The beat went on.

Mr. Norman, the longtime (and, in recent months, heavily investigated) leader of Brooklyn's embattled Democratic Party, has not had much cause to celebrate lately.

He and the party are being investigated on accusations that Democratic judicial nominations are for sale in Brooklyn. And Brooklyn's district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, has been scrutinizing Mr. Norman's use of campaign funds and party credit cards.

Though Mr. Norman, who turned 52 Monday, has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, there are those who think he may not be having his annual birthday bash in a floating catering hall near the Brooklyn Bridge too much longer, at least not at the expense of party contributors.

But if this was Mr. Norman's swan song, his spirits did not seem to be sagging in the least as he slapped backs and clasped hands from a post in front of the iceberg lettuce salad. The creases in the slacks of his navy pinstripe suit were as sharp as the crocodile-skin pattern on his black dress shoes.

When his turn at the microphone came, Mr. Norman, who seems to have concluded that criminal charges are inevitable, felt free to take a few shots at Mr. Hynes, accusing him of turning against the very system that had put him in power and supported him in his ill-starred runs for statewide office.

"Let me just make a confession for those of you who might happen to speak to the district attorney, Joe Hynes," Mr. Norman said. "There's been all this stuff in the newspapers. And know what my confession is? Clarence Norman and the Democratic Party, we are involved in politics."

"That's right!" several voices shouted.

"And if there's a crime in being involved in politics," he continued, "then we are indeed guilty!"

Mr. Norman's troubles did not hurt the turnout, either. About 150 people agreed to pay up to $125 for their tickets, and the night was expected to bring in $11,000 to $15,000 toward his 2004 Assembly campaign, said Bob Liff, a party spokesman. "That's in the realm of what you usually get," he said.

To be sure, fewer judges than normal turned out —— only a handful, party veterans said. When a short man with a mustache was asked by a reporter if he was Judge Arthur M. Schack of Civil Court, he replied: "Am I? I guess I am," and added, "I really have nothing to say."

But Teri Coaxum, a community specialist in Mr. Hynes's office who said she saw no problem with attending the party, said she saw a lot of new faces. "Usually it's mostly elected officials," she said. "Now I'm seeing all kinds, an array of people from different communities."

During Mr. Norman's 13 years at the head of the party, the biggest local Democratic organization east of Chicago, the once almighty borough machine has grown creaky. Some of the problems —— shifts in the political and economic landscapes —— are beyond his control. (Patronage jobs, for example, are much scarcer than they used to be.) His batting average at getting his handpicked candidates elected, especially judges, has been falling for years.

Still, being the Brooklyn boss carries a certain weight, so when Mr. Hynes announced in April that New York State's party-controlled system of selecting judges was "nothing less than a sham" and that he was going to be the one to fix it, starting in overwhelmingly Democratic Brooklyn, he got plenty of attention. As details of the investigation have trickled out, Mr. Norman's name has come up again and again.

Did he use the party's credit card to charge tens of thousands of dollars worth of clothing and meals? Did he routinely pressure local candidates into hiring his confidants and relatives as consultants?

On Wednesday night, Representative Major R. Owens, a longtime ally, told the crowd that he was not impressed by the accounts. "Credit cards and dinner and taking money from another politician for the election —— all those things are routine, you know?" he said.

Finally Mr. Norman, a tall, trim man with a long mustache, stepped up and went to work, like the lawyer, 11-term assemblyman, former boxer and son of a preacher that he is.

"What we see now is this new paradigm where we have what we call the criminalization of politics," he said. "If you ask a candidate who comes before you or a person who's running for office, `Do you have the resources to run for office?' that's called a shakedown now.

"We have party rules that say the county leader can, in essence, have a credit card and use that credit card in the advancement of the party's interests and activities," he continued. "And those are our bylaws. I ask you: guess who wrote the bylaws that govern that type of activity? Our district attorney, Joe Hynes, who has always been part and parcel of the Democratic Party."

(Mr. Hynes, a lawyer for the party for years, said yesterday through a spokesman, Jerry Schmetterer, that he had not written those bylaws. Mr. Liff said the party stuck by its account of what Mr. Hynes had done.)

"In 1994," Mr. Norman continued in speaking of Mr. Hynes, "when he ran for attorney general, we were there for him. He was our guy, Joe Hynes. Remember that?"

"Yes!" came the response.

"We knew he couldn't win, but he was our guy so we said, `We're going to be with Joe Hynes.' " When Mr. Hynes ran for governor in 1998, Mr. Norman said, his campaign gave $25,000 to the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club, Mr. Norman's home base in Crown Heights, to get out the vote.

"He never asked how the money was broken down or who were the street people who got the money," Mr. Norman said to a chorus of "whoo's." "He knew how our Election Day operations were run."

Mr. Schmetterer said yesterday that Mr. Hynes's party ties were beside the point.

"It's not relevant who contributed money to the Thurgood Marshall Club," Mr. Schmetterer said. "The question before the special investigative grand jury," he said, is how the money was spent and whether it was spent lawfully.

Mr. Norman even broke a little news: Mr. Hynes, he said, had recently subpoenaed his travel vouchers and reimbursement requests for mileage from Albany to present them to the grand jury, although he said he could not see the relevance of that to an investigation into accusations that judgeships had been sold.

"People say you never talk about the D.A. when he's investigating you," he said, "but it's quite obvious that he has already determined what he would like to do."

When Mr. Norman closed with a promise to "speak truth to power," the room erupted in applause. Afterward, he was so buoyed that he blew out most of the candles on his cake before someone pointed out that the revelers had not even sung "Happy Birthday" yet.

After finishing his cake duties, Mr. Norman took to the dance floor with a glamorous barefoot woman dressed all in white, and when the M.C. shouted, "Come on, let's do it," Mr. Norman put his hands in the air.

His dance partner, Joyce Williamson, a retired health care attendant, was beaming afterward.

"He's a very good dancer," she said.


                                           Stormin' Norman

PHOTOby Tom Topousis
New York Post
August 29, 2003

 

Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Clarence Norman, at the center of a probe into judicial corruption, broke his silence during a birthday fund-raiser and lashed out at DA Charles Hynes for engaging in a "witch hunt" targeting party leaders instead of corrupt judges.
Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes
"We recognize that the district attorney is under obligation to investigate any allegation of wrong-doing," Norman said of the probe, which began with the arrest in May of state Supreme Court Justice Gerald Garson, who faces bribery charges.

"But what we thought would be a fair and impartial investigation has turned into a fishing expedition and a witch hunt," Norman fumed Wednesday night while attending a $50-a-head fund-raiser for his Assembly re-election campaign.

Norman said that investigators from Hynes' office last week subpoenaed his travel vouchers filed with the state Legislature to determine whether the seven-term lawmaker was reimbursed by the state for expenses that were also covered by the county party.

"I don't know what travel vouchers in Albany have to do with an investigation into judgeships," Norman said.

Jerry Schmetterer, a spokesman for Hynes, wouldn't respond to Norman's use of the term witch hunt. "The DA is elected to investigate allegations of wrong doing," he said.

Hynes has been investigating allegations that judicial nominations made by Brooklyn Democratic leaders are often awarded in exchange for hefty political contributions and for steering expensive campaign work to well-connected consultants.

But the probe has expanded beyond judicial nominations to include pay-for-play political endorsements, most notably a $245,000 payment by mayoral candidate Mark Green's campaign, during his 2001 bid for City Hall, to a club run by Norman.

Investigators have interviewed judges and candidates for the bench, while also reviewing any of Norman's hefty expenses and credit-card bills that were paid for with contributions to the party by elected officials, candidates and lawyers.

Former officials in the Green campaign have said they received little help from Norman's club and never got a full accounting of how the money was spent.

But Norman defended his club's campaign work on behalf of a number of candidates, including Hynes.

"Mr. Hynes has raised a lot of questions about money contributed to the Thurgood Marshall Democratic Club. He gave $25,000 to the club and never asked for records on how it was spent," said Norman. "It's rather strange he would have all these concerns now."

Schmetterer couldn't confirm the amount of the Hynes payments, but said payments by various campaigns are not the issue under investigation. "What we're looking at is how that money was spent," he said.


                               Judge Testifies on Corruption

By Denise Buffa
New York Post
August 28, 2003

-- The first of about a half-dozen former judges has testified before the Brooklyn grand jury probing judicial corruption in the borough, bringing DA Charles Hynes closer to landing indictments against Democratic Party big shots, sources told The Post yesterday.

The former judges, all women, are coming forward without being subpoenaed, a source said.

The focus of the probe is allegations that judgeships are routinely bought and sold.

Karen Yellen, a judge for 10 years who appeared before the panel yesterday, has maintained she was pressured to hire a political printing and consulting firm and a campaign consultant she had never used before, sources have told The Post.

But she lost her re-election bid, blaming it largely on those she was compelled to employ, saying they did nothing for her, even though she paid them $17,000.

Also expected to testify is Maxine Archer.

A source said the former judge, who had 10 years of experience on the bench, alleges she was asked to pay about $160,000 to keep her job.
 

                 B'klyn Da Raps Dems on Judge Choice Plan

By Melissa Grace and Celeste Katz
Daily News
Friday, August 22nd, 2003

The embattled Brooklyn Democratic Party's new scheme for picking judges is more window dressing than real reform, District Attorney Charles Hynes said yesterday.

Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman and other party officials - under pressure to revamp the judge-selection process amid a widespread corruption probe - floated a proposal this week to establish a new screening panel.

Under the new plan, outsiders would hold 12 of the 18 seats on the panel, which is charged with producing a list of qualified candidates. Elected judicial delegates will still choose which candidates from the list make the ballot.

But Hynes said that because the party controls the judicial delegates, the new scheme does little to offer the public real choice.

"If you look at it, it's nothing more than a transparent attempt to retain political control over the selection of state Supreme Court judges," scoffed Hynes, a Democrat who is investigating charges that candidates have been able to buy their way onto the ballot.

Hynes called for "open, direct" primary and general elections for judges with public campaign financing, "so you would remove the appearance of impropriety that comes with ordinary contributions."

Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Brooklyn), a primary designer of the party's new panel, said he understands Hynes' misgivings but said other systems are equally or more flawed.

Having sitting judges campaigning in large primaries "is not going to eliminate or reduce the effect of politics on judicial selection," Fidler argued. "In fact, I think it would only exacerbate the problem."

             Brooklyn Leaders Adopt Judicial Screening Reform

Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal
08-20-2003

Two competing proposals for overhauling the judicial screening process in Brooklyn were considered by the Democratic Party's executive committee last night.

Under pressure from the arrest of two judges on bribery-related charges in the last two years and an ongoing investigation into how judges are nominated in Brooklyn, Kings County party leader Clarence Norman appointed a 10-member committee in May to examine the party's procedures for screening candidates.

Last night, many of Brooklyn's 42 district leaders met at the Park Plaza restaurant on Cadman Plaza to vote on the committee's proposal and a minority proposal offered by City Councilman Albert Vann. The district leaders unanimously adopted the committee's plan. They also recommended that the screening panel employ some of the more detailed procedures outlined in Mr. Vann's proposal, such as the use of subcommittees to review candidates first with the final decision to be made by the whole panel, and procedures for appealing panel findings.

The two proposals were remarkably similar. The majority plan created an 18-member panel, with six members selected by political leaders. Mr. Vann proposed a 20-member panel with seven members chosen by political leaders.

Both plans authorized the Brooklyn Democratic leader to select the chairman and expanded party screening to include Civil Court candidates. Both also committed the party to appoint only candidates running for open seats who had been found "qualified" by the panel. Both proposals, however, rejected the approach taken by the Manhattan Democratic Party, which limits to three the number of names the panel may recommend for any vacancy on the bench.

The non-political members of the panel under both proposals consisted of an amalgam of bar association members and other professionals.

Despite the surface similarities, Alan Fleischman, a district leader from Park Slope who has pressed for the overhaul, criticized Mr. Vann's proposal for keeping too much control of the process in the county leader's hands. The bar association groups included in the majority proposal are more diverse than those listed in Mr. Vann's proposal, he said. They include the Asian American Bar Association of the City of New York and the Lesbian and Gay Association of Greater New York, added Mr. Fleischman, who as an openly gay Council member has championed gay rights.

The two minority bar groups expressly included in the Vann proposal — the Metropolitan Black Bar Association and the Puerto Rican Bar Association — were also included in the majority proposal. Mr. Vann's version also called for the appointment of one member on a rotating basis from any bar association based in either Brooklyn or Staten Island, the two counties that make up the Second Judicial Department.

Mr. Fleischman also criticized the short notice of yesterday's meeting. The notice was mailed last Wednesday and was not received until Monday, the day before yesterday's meeting, he said.

Even without the historic blackout last Thursday and Friday, district leaders had only four days to "read and digest an entirely new proposal they had never seen in writing before," he said. "In the middle of the summer, four days is not enough time."

The leadership "wanted as few people as possible to see the proposal and come to the meeting," Mr. Fleischman added.

Secrecy Lifted

The screening process in Brooklyn has come under fire for being unduly secretive and controlled by the party leadership. In response to those complaints, the party leadership in April for the first time informed the district leaders of the panel's members and agreed to make its findings public.

In May, two well-known criminal defense lawyers — George Farkas and Barry Kamins, co-presidents of the Kings County Criminal Bar Association — resigned from the panel, with Mr. Farkas publicly complaining that it was too tightly controlled by Mr. Norman.

In June, the committee's vice chairman, Ravi Batra, stepped down amid criticism that he was too close to Mr. Norman, who had practiced as a counsel at Mr. Batra's law firm.

In a cover letter to