No Idea (It’s a Pun!)

 Continuing Legal Education
(as reported on registration forms)

“A principal reason Dear lacks the fitness to be a judge is that he has had little experience practicing law since he was licensed in 1994. Over the past eight years, he has filed sworn statements with the state courts reporting that he is a nonpracticing attorney. His last affidavit was dated Nov. 4, 2006…..But then Dear set his sights on becoming a judge, a position for which it's helpful to have a solid résumé as a lawyer. All of a sudden, he began filing official statements describing himself as an active attorney-at-law.

On June 12, he signed a required ethics form. One question dealt with his 2006 professional activities and specifically asked nonpracticing attorneys to so indicate. Instead, he wrote, "Consultant to clients regarding gov't issues and legal issues." He also gave the Office of Court Administration a campaign biography for the agency's voter guide Web site. It begins: "A practicing attorney since 1994 …"

Dear did not return calls seeking an explanation as to how all his statements could be true. To recap: In one, he swore he hadn't practiced law through November 2006; in another, he reported he had advised legal clients that year. In statements dating back eight years, he said he hadn't practiced law; in his campaign bio, he says he has been practicing 13 years.

The conflicts are glaring enough to warrant investigations by legal and judicial disciplinary authorities. Lying on official court documents is an offense that could trigger removal as both a lawyer and as a judge. “

New York Daily News Editorial – October 30, 2007

The Daily News seems so dead certain that Noach Dear has committed an act which, under New York State Law, would fulfill the elements of felony level perjury. But is it inconceivable that Dear has not committed a crime?

On November 4, 2006, Dear stated in a sworn affidavit that he was a non-practicing attorney. On June 12, 2007, he swore that he’d practiced law in 2006, consulting clients “regarding gov’t and legal issues.” Is that a contradiction? What about November 5 through December 31? Not counting the hours left on November 4, after he filed the statement, that leaves 57 days in 2006 (give or take a few Sabbaths) when Dear could have been practicing law without having lied on either affidavit.

As to the statements in his campaign biography, posted on the Office of Court Administration website, stating Dear practiced law for 13 years, those claims are not sworn under oath, and therefore do not meet the definition of perjury. They are merely blatant bald-faced lies to the voters.

The Daily News should be ashamed of itself.

Frankly, I am willing to give Dear the benefit of the doubt. He states that from January 1, 2001, to November 4, 2006, he did not practice law, and thus claimed exemption from a requirement that he spend a mere 50 minutes a month taking classes in continuing legal education. Surely, Dear can credibly claim a monumental lack of intellectual curiosity, exceeded only by his ignorance and inexperience. And, if he did make such a claim, who among us could produce the evidence to refute it?

Perhaps, Dear views an occasional “LA Law” rerun on the American Life Network, but otherwise, Dear claims he’s had absolutely no contact with the law in nearly a decade (outside of sporadic encounters with bodies investigating irregularities in his campaign fundraising). His background is even less adequate preparation for assumption of a judgeship than service as Governor of Texas is for becoming the President of these United States.

Dear’s opponent (and probably Dear as well) thinks Dubya is doin’ jes’ fine as President. But, as he was on the ranch, the second George Bush has been all hat and no cattle in the White House. Similarly, as he would have been as a Rabbi, Dear will be all yarmulke and no schul in the Court House. As a member of the bench, Dear will be Sanhedrin Headache Number One.

Please do not take this as an endorsement of Republican James McCall. Voters in the 5th Municipal Court District are free to examine the facts, and choose their poisons. While I cannot conceive of a good reason for them to vote for Dear, there are many other options. My favorite is to emulate the example of Buddhist Monks in Vietnam; praise the Lord and pass the petroleum! But, unlike a vote for Dear, it’s possible G-d might forgive a vote for McCall. Just don’t call me and whine if you’re confined to hell for eternity.

I would, however, like to offer two cheers to Democratic District Leaders Ralph Perfetto and Jo Anne Seminara for their principled efforts on McCall’s behalf. Gutsy!

However, with the two cheers come two caveats.

One: such efforts would have been nice if they’d have come instead for Karen Yellen in the Democratic Primary. Might have possibly have forestalled the need to endorse such a pronounced social conservative.

Two: such efforts might have had far more impact if they came accompanied by a resignation. Dear is unqualified, lacking in judicial temperament, a sleazebag, an opportunist and a possible bigot. I only say “possible”, because Dear has never had courage (as opposed to "chutzpah", which he has in carloads) or convictions, let alone the first of his second. He may have only been exploiting the bigotry of others, rather than expressing his own. Moreover, the last evidence which exists of Dear engaging in such exploitation dates to a time [2000] when Dear may actually have been practicing law, thereby qualifying as ancient history. However, Dear, possibly because of lack of gutsy efforts on behalf of his opponent in the primary, is now the duly nominated choice of the Democratic voters of the 5th Municipal Court District. As such, Perfetto and Seminara, as Democratic Party District Leaders and members of the party’s State Committee, have a fiduciary obligation not to endorse his opponent in the general election.

Gatemouth strongly advocates putting an end to the practice of allowing Democratic Party officials to get away with jumping ship on the party’s duly nominated candidates. He would like to see the Democratic State Committee and the Brooklyn Democratic Executive Committee adopt rules mandating the expulsion from party office of any party official who makes such an endorsement.

Yes, no such rule exists. And adopting it ex post facto would not only be inappropriate, but possibly prevent Brooklyn’s Executive Committee from ever achieving a quorum (and who would chair the meeting?). And, yes, this “betrayal” is hardly comparable to endorsing a Republican against an incumbent Democratic State Senator in an effort to help Joe Bruno. But enough is enough! Though stemming from motives pure, the endorsement of McCall by Perfetto and Seminara allows the Carl Krugers and Dov Hikinds of the world to defend their perfidy by saying, “see the liberals do it too.” So, stop doing it!

Last year, in the aftermath of Connecticut’s Democratic Primary for US Senate, New Haven’s City Democratic Chair endorsed the loser of the primary for US Senate, Joe Lieberman, in the general election, and promptly resigned his party position. While I did not approve of this endorsement (even though, to my shame, it tracked the one I made in the primary), the resignation was an act of courage and integrity that served to amplify by many times the endorsement's otherwise minor impact.

If Perfetto and Seminara had resigned, they would have made headlines, and more effectively helped McCall. Their support for him is hardly a disgrace, and may even be inscribed next to their names for a blessing in the book of life. But, that being said, those endorsements still should never have occurred.