Please note that this column is rated for “mature audiences only”. If one or two “choice” words offend your pristine tastes: then skip this column. And please don’t lecture me in the comments-section about my writing-style unless you are willing to join the Room Eight colony of writers/bloggers, in order to demonstrate how best to do this.
And while I am on to disclaimers, let me state that I work for no political campaign this summer (and that was by my choice). Let me also state that I have no personal dislike for Vito, Bernie or Shawndya, who are the subjects in this two-part series; the issue at hand is bigger than either one of them. Let’s hope that this time around, they (and others) catch my drift; which I don’t even think is an abstract one.
When I did the first part of this column (6/26/07), the attendant thread garnered 104 comments; this was quite a high number by Room Eight standards (though not the record/ another column of mine holds that distinction). I believe that it was the column that paved the way for my appearance on NBC’s News Forum Now television program a few weeks ago; it was either this column and/ or my Barron-Markowitz column. Television producers love controversial articles; they really do.
The column deals with “residency” and the way the issue is dealt with by incumbent elected officials and their cronies (including District Attorneys, Judges, Lawyers, County Leaders, District Leaders and the like); and the unfair treatment that insurgents (and/or any of those challenging the political status-quo) are subjected to, in and outside the courts.
This isn’t the first time I have delved into this issue. Do your home work; go back to my blog and read some of the other columns I have done on this topic. I believe that by now, I have proven that many of us who function in Brooklyn’s political quagmire are not equally protected under the election laws. It’s unfair; it’s unjust; and it’s just plain wrong. My mistake in writing this two-parter was to omit the fourth person who is inextricably tied-in to all of this: Charles Hynes. His name should have been added to the marquee; after all, he is our District Attorney, and has been so for about what: about 20 years?
It’s almost expected that any insurgent candidate in Brooklyn would routinely get a residency challenge from the electeds or the county lawyers; if only to force one to spend scarce money seeking legal help. I remember writing about Joan Gill- a former district leader- who was challenging the county leader (Clarence Norman) and was dragged into court on the residency issue. Mrs. Gill was subjected (in court) to one of the most embarrassing questions of the last half-century in Brooklyn’s Election Courts, to wit: when was the last time she fucked her husband under the roof she then claimed. Mrs. Gill also gave one of the greatest answers of any person on any witness-stand. Go to my blog and read it yourself. That column was done on September 4th, 2006.
I also remember writing about some of those who were knocked off the ballot on the residency issue; people like Maurice Gumbs, Royston Antoine and Wellington Sharpe. I also wrote about the challenges to others like Colin Moore (they actually followed him around with private detectives and videotapes), Robert Hunter, Sandra Roper and yours truly; to name but a few. And it didn’t just stop there; they even went beyond the residency challenges to intimidate, frustrate, discourage and prevent insurgents from doing what democracy is designed to do: facilitate competition. There are so many ways in which this is done; residency is merely one.
Then there is the classic case of John O’Hara. I had the pleasure of working with John on a few campaigns some years aback; he is a very likeable chap. This man was stripped of his law practice-and his ability to make a good living-because he once ran for office (and voted) from his girlfriend’s residence, in order to challenge the powers-that-be. Now, how many of us haven’t lived at our woman’s apartment more so than in the apartment we struggled to hold on to, until there was full commitment to a relationship? Haven’t we not held on to this relic of our bachelorhood even after moving in to our woman’s home? Isn’t that a “male’/ “macho” thing or something?
Poor O’Hara; not only was he tried a few times for this (1 hung jury/ 1 mistrial/ I think), but he was also sentenced to community service and barely dodged going to jail beyond the lock-ups. He was also fined some money I am told, and lost the appeals to booth.
Nebulous and ambiguous election law statutes- like the ones on residency- should be refined before being used to deny a man his profession and such. That’s why I felt that Mathieu Eugene should have defied the City Council and force the courts to seat him, when he won the first of two primary elections earlier this year. It was all too arbitrary; it was done selectively, and that’s discriminatory. There should be one standard for all. The post-primary challenge to Eugene’s residency was a test case for historically flawed residency laws in New York; it should have gone to the courts for full clarification. This issue isn’t over folks; watch out.
What was even more galling about the O’Hara case was the fact that his prosecutor, Brooklyn’s District Attorney Charles Hynes, admitted to having two residences: one in Brooklyn, and the other in Breezy Point, Queens. Only Charlie, his wife, his kids, house workers (if any), chauffeurs and their Gods know which one really constituted his main residence. So tell me who’s zooming who?
And what do I mean by main residence? I don’t mean the address that you use to list your driver’s license; I also don’t mean the address that you use to register to vote. To me your real address is the place where you take the most “dunks” in any one week. You know what I am talking about; your favorite time-out/ personal space; when you snatch your favorite newspaper or magazine and head for the toilet to do what comes naturally: take a dunk. This is where you really live.
Your main residence isn’t where you hang your hat; you can do that at any floozy’s house. Your main residence is the place where you walk around in the nude once the kids and others are out of the house (oops; too much info there/lol). It’s the place where your wife or wives (to all the “Big Love” fans in blogland) live. It’s where your lover, domestic-partner or significant other is; it’s where you sleep most (if not all) nights. It’s where you and your kids live. I think we all know where we “really” live; don’t we?
But this is the same Charles Hynes who has perennially turned a blind eye to the formal and informal complaints about Brooklyn Assemblyman (and Democratic Party / County Leader) Vito Lopez not residing in Brooklyn, but actually living in Queens. The same DA who refused to look into the rampant claims on the streets, in the grapevine and in political circles over the years, about Junior Boyland, Tracey Boyland, Carl Andrews, Yvette Clarke, Clarence Norman, Bernie Catcher, and even former city council member Susan Alter (amongst other electeds), not residing where their voter-registration cards said they were. But he sure went after John O’Hara didn’t he? This is called “selective prosecution”. It stinks; it sucks.
District Leader Bernie Catcher is an even stranger story; here is a guy who is supposedly living in a basement with at least one other family, but not at his home on Ocean Parkway- just blocks from his place of employment. He doesn’t drive and is said to be battling a major illness; so where does he ‘really’ live? You tell me.
It was said that Susan Alter lived in Lawrenceville, Long Island for years, whilst she represented a district in Brooklyn (pieces of the now 40th and 45th districts). They claim that her husband was a practicing rabbi out there. If this is true, then the question is: why didn’t Hynes go after her like he did with O’Hara?
When Carl Andrews claimed to live at certain spots in Brooklyn, it was nearly always ascertained that many other people lived at the same places. Some used to say that Carl must sleep in the bath tub, since things appeared to be so overcrowded at times.
Once, at a candidate’s forum at Medgar Evers College, Joan Gill was debating Clarence Norman; the issue turned to housing. She said that Clarence had in his own unique way, addressed the paucity of affordable apartments in the district: "his voter registration card claimed that he lived with his mother". It was another witty Joan Gill moment; but did this 40-odd year old man truly live with his mother? You tell me.
Look, I am sure that many of those who have been intimately involved with Brooklyn’s politics for as long as (or even longer than) I have, know of many “residency” stories, whereby challengers to the status quo were deprived of ballot status or ballot access. It was even more prevalent in the past. Charles Hynes has been the DA for so long that he should have advanced by now, proposals to revamp the residency laws/requirements, in order to create a more equal playing field. He hasn’t; why? Plus, he refuses to investigate those who cynically flaunt these broken rules/ laws; especially those in power.
All this brings us to Judge Shawndya Simpson. Ms. Simpson is currently running for a surrogate judgeship position in Brooklyn. Four years ago Ms. Simpson won a county wide (Kings) election to the civil court; even then her residency was an issue. Shortly before running for the post, she purchased a co-op in Brooklyn, in an apparent move from her New Jersey address. Now, remember that the New York State Constitution states in Article 6, Section 15B, that a civil court judge must reside in New York State; and further, in Article 6, Section 12, a surrogate judge in Brooklyn must reside in the borough. That’s the law as far as I can ascertain.
In court papers recently filed, challenging Ms. Simpson’s true residency, it is stated that Ms. Simpson and her husband purchased a home in New Jersey in 1998 and have always lived there since. It is further stated that her kids go to school in the district; that at least two of her children were born in the area; that in June last year, they both took out an $800,000 mortgage on the property, from Hudson City Savings Bank of N.J; that on the mortgage papers, they both used her N.J. address in the application. In a scoop of sorts, they claim that Ms. Simpson recently signed to receive a package mailed to her at that said N.J. address, just last month. They say that in March of this year, she and her husband purchased another property- this time in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts- and on those mortgage application papers, the same NJ address was used (again). Further; that on said papers, Ms. Simpson’s Brooklyn address was crossed out and replaced with her N.J. address.
There are many other claims being made in said court papers, which strongly suggest that Ms. Simpson has a “residency” problem, when court re-convenes this upcoming week. It also suggests that she has other legal problems beyond just the residency issue; questions of filing false instruments. Supporters of her opponent are saying that Ms. Simpson is in for a rough ride, since their attorney (Mitch Alter of the law firm: Alter and Barbaro) has subpoenaed documents from left field and beyond. The supporters of Judge Diana Johnson (who is also running for this position), believe that Ms. Simpson will have to answer many pertinent questions, and that she should think twice about answering them. They also believe that when the subpoenas start flying, many will have to resort to perjury if they want to save her ass; including elected officials from Brooklyn, and people from across the Hudson River, who reside in New Jersey.
Aside from the court papers, they say that Ms. Simpson never left her New Jersey residence-even after the year 2003. They believe that her Brooklyn residence is a sham and intend to prove this in court. They say that she and her husband never divorced or separated, and that the kids and the whole family have always resided at that address in New Jersey (see my last column) since 1998. They have PTA records which they claim will show the involvement of both Shawndya and her husband in the education of their kids; they also claim to have documents that will show the extra-curricula indulgences of the family too. They talk about auto registrations, insurance policies, gas and electric bills, bank records, household purchases and so on and so on. They intend to subpoena everything they could think of and more; and they are salivating over the prospect of cross-examining Ms. Simpson and/or her husband on the witness stand. They expect to prevail in court and effectively knock Ms. Simpson off the ballot.
What is being said on the streets is that both County Leader Vito Lopez and Bernie Catcher (District Leader) impregnated Ms. Simpson with this candidacy, and gave her their unconditional support. It is further being said that her hubris, vanity, ego, questionable ethics, stubbornness, arrogance and cynicism have gotten her to this precipice. They wonder why she has sacrificed all she has built over the years, for a position that isn’t paying too much more than she already makes in dollars; they say that she has displayed no common sense. We will soon see the real deal on all this, since some side will be proven wrong; maybe as early as this week. What do you think?
Stay tuned-in folks. It is never over until the fat lady sings and dances.