Nancie Katz from the New York Daily News called me a while aback just to chat. No big thing. She let slip that she was working on a big story about the sale of judgeships in Brooklyn. I smiled to myself as I wondered if she could dredge up something new from the sewer of Brooklyn’s “taken for granted” politics. After all, the sale of judgeships in Brooklyn wasn’t virgin territory. This call came around the time that Wayne Barrett broke another Clarence Norman/ Carl Andrews innuendo in the Village Voice. I say ‘innuendo” here because it seems like practically all these stories can’t seem to make it to an indictment, far less a criminal conviction. I wonder why; and not that I am vested or invested either way. If there is truth to half of these stories that most of us- who are deep into Brooklyn’s politics- have heard over the years, then why do statutes of limitations keep running out? I am no public-defender of Clarence Norman (although I like the guy on a personal level), but I am really starting to believe that Clarence is getting a raw deal here. I will get to that later.
Anyway, Nancie wanted my corroboration on something, and given her sterling reputation as a journalist/reporter, I was happy to oblige. So we talked, and we talked, and we talked. Mostly about things we have heard over the years; political things and criminal-sounding things. Mostly off the record. So for a few weeks we talked and sometimes we chatted instead of talked. You see Nancie still has a passion for her job, even after all these years writing from the middle east of the world, to the mid west of these dis-united states (or somewhere near there). I admire that. I hope that she wins an award of some sort just for her tenacity. She has been around for a while now; chasing corruption in Brooklyn’s courts and also in Brooklyn’s politics. She kinda reminds me of a younger Wayne Barrett in that regard; but then I could be wrong.
Until recently I had great respect for Barrett, but lately I am having second thoughts, after seeing him passionately try to defend the indefensible: Alan Hevesi. Was this the same Wayne Barrett who followed Maurice Gumbs around on primary election day of 1988? The same one who talked idealistically about reform and change? But maybe I shouldn’t beat up on Wayne here; after all, most of the voters in New York voted for Hevesi. And you wonder why things don’t change much with political corruption, influence peddling and power-abuse; the enemy is usually living in the mirror.
Coming back to Clarence Norman now; I find what is happening- when taken in totality- is wrong. I also find it unjust and RACIST. Lord knows that Clarence and I have lined up on different sides of many a candidate. No big thing. I can say that despite this, Clarence has always been gracious and respectful to me. I could never forget that. Lord also knows that I have critiqued Clarence’s handling of things in Brooklyn’s politics many a time and over again; especially when it came to Caribbean-American empowerment and such. We were never drinking buddies. I think the only campaigns that Clarence and I ever saw eye to eye on, were Reynold Mason’s civil court judgeship of 1994, and Omar Boucher’s senate challenge of 2002. Other than that he was forever on the other side of the political football, starting off with my good friend Maurice Gumbs in 1984. I even supported Ed Roberts against him in 2004 -this was some 20 years after Gumbs. In “black” terms: Clarence has whipped me like I had peed the bed. I still have the political bruises to show. When I managed Joan Gill’s challenge to Clarence in 1996, some people warned that it would come back to haunt me; it sure did. He could have endorsed me in 2000, but he sat on his hands and let the clock run out, in a race I lost by just 900 votes. Payback is a bitch sometimes, and at other times it’s a dirty whore.
Given all this as a backdrop, you will probably think that I will be the last one to go to bat for Clarence; but my parents always said in their Trinidadian dialect:”wrong is wrong”.
So when you see that all these judges and lawyers who are white, and that they are now getting immunity from prosecution and/ or slap on the wrist deals to squeal against Norman, you have to sit back and wonder about what’s really going on. Is Charles Hynes on some sort of personal vendetta? When you know (or at least, suspect) that there are numerous judges out there who broke the law to get where they are, you start to wonder if they are not still breaking the law to get some more. So where are the indictments Charlie?
Let’s go further: aren’t the crimes of Alan Hevesi much worse than those that Norman has been convicted of so far? So then tell me why Hevesi shouldn’t be doing jail time? But the black man will? All this is so racist that it doesn’t even smell stink any more. You don’t need the stench to induce vomiting; throwing-up comes on its own volition.
This double standard of injustice here makes District Attorney Charles Hynes (and to a minor extent Soares) look real bad. Hynes appears to be vindictive and racist, since he is ostensibly selective with his prosecutions. Don’t forget that Hynes was in bed with Clarence Norman for years. What actually transpired between those two is anyone’s guess. But something must have happened.
Look, I am no naive lil political upstart here. Personally, I suspect that both Clarence Norman and Carl Andrews know where all/ or some of the “bodies are buried”-so to speak. I don’t think that either one of them comes out of all this with totally clean hands. My gut feeling tells me that there has been too much smoke in the Brooklyn air for far too long; and usually, behind a lot of smoke you will find a fire or a pyrotechnic. But the fact is this; that the end result of all the hoopla about corruption in Brooklyn’s politics is that the former county leader and party boss Clarence Norman is headed to jail, while and all the white boys who benefited from his reign get to go home. And if by chance Clarence is convicted on this upcoming one about the sale of judgeships, he will be put away for a long stretch. Add this to the reality that he is already looking at four or five years of jail time accumulated from his two previous convictions (now on appeal).
So Clarence doesn’t have a family to go home too? So only the white boys have loved ones at home? Doesn’t Clarence have a young wife and an infant daughter? If he loses another round, he is likely to see his daughter on the outside again when she is a teenager. That is rough; and I say this as a father of a loving daughter. It is not an easy scenario to envision. He has a lot riding on the outcome of his next trial. While some of his white cohorts get to play with their wives, girlfriends, mistresses or lovers, Clarence will be playing with himself; in the penitentiary. Luckily for him he is a man, otherwise he wouldn’t have a natural toy to play with. Plus, he should pray that some big giant of a thug doesn’t choose him for a girlfriend.
Apart from this, Carl Andrews continually gets heaped on, like a Staten Island land-fill; and after a while you start to feel for Carl (despite whatever suspicions you may harbor). You start to wonder if all this is fair and just. One of the so-called “good books” has a passage that calls for justice to be swift and certain. Years of suspicion, innuendo, aspersions and the like is not good; the District Attorney (Hynes) should have provided closure on all of this long ago. Justice has been slow and uncertain. People’s reputations have been irrevocably damaged; and yes, that includes Carl Andrews’s. Where are the investigations, or the grand juries being convened, and/or the indictments or non-indictments? Is Carl’s new job with governor Eliot Spitzer now under a cloud again? Is all this really fair to him? Suppose it is/was all lies? Who does he sue now?
Then there is the flip side: what if some of the things said and written about Carl Andrews over these years are true? Why then haven’t the DA moved to investigate or prosecute? What is/was the hold up? His connections? His allies? Look, no matter how you slice all this; and no matter what side of the fence you are on: in totality, it sucks.
Look, it’s not just about influence peddling, the selling of judgeships, election tampering, political intimidation, campaign irregularities, campaign finance violations, profiteering, theft, graft, nepotism and the like; it is really about public confidence in the political and judicial system. Brooklynites are fed up with this on-going saga. Even in the post-Norman era of the Democratic Party in Brooklyn, stories still abound. And you wonder why voting in the most populous county in the USA (Kings) is so anemic? Many people have lost faith in the system.
Another thing that people seem to forget is that Alan Hevesi’s name has been mentioned quite a few times concerning irregular campaign finance activities. Wasn’t the five thousand dollars that Clarence was convicted of putting into his personal checking account, supposed to have come from Diane Gordon in repayment for work done on Hevesi’s mayoral campaign (I think that’s what Clarence said, no)? And why did Mark Green get a pass from any type of prosecution (or rigorous investigation) after revelations of campaign finance irregularities? And what about the Garsons; are they all going to walk away from all the crap they have done? And what about the judges who actually paid to play-so to speak? As they used to say on one of the children’s educational TV programs: “and what about Naomi?”
Maybe it is time that Clarence and Carl go on the offensive. Maybe it’s time they look to get some kind of immunity from the Feds, for unearthing some of the buried bodies (if they know of any). After all, why should they take all these hits alone? And why should Carl have to wiggle and squirm every time a new expose like the one in today’s Daily News come out. Is it because both he and Clarence are black?
Stay tuned-in folks.