SHOWCASING A PRICELESS JUDICIAL GEM
Dear Ben,
Thank you for this stand-alone piece, which is generationally significant and historically important: Federal Judge John Gleeson's historic decision to unleash democracy in elective judiciary has been affirmed by the lofty U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit!
Circuit Judge Chester Straub, endowed with his unique and magnificent background, turbo- boosted with additional intellectual firepower of Circuit Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Peter Hall, has delivered an awesome decree that addresses not only the issues before it with the clarity of an eagle’s eye and the unyielding grip of undeniable logic, but even identified some of the remedies that the legislative and executive branches of state government might wish to address now that democracy has been unleashed in electing Justices of the Supreme Court in New York state.
The decision, aside from being poetry-in-action and one of the finest pieces of legal thinking and writing, has secured to our children's children an elective Supreme Court where the voters are important while enhancing judicial independence of their elective siblings. It is also the convergence and coexistence of judicial action and abstention, within the separation of powers regime. It is like the earth itself, rotating while spinning around the sun. This is a masterpiece, like the Mona Lisa.
The wave in the Stars and Stripes and the freedom it effortlessly symbolizes is stronger and brighter as a result of the noble bench; jewels in the crown of justice. Any among us who have not comprehended the genius of our Founding Fathers, need look no further than the 75-page decision of the Circuit Court overlaying its majestic clarity and approval on Judge Gleeson’s historic decision.
The Empire state is stronger today than it has been since 1921; 85 years ago.
Dated: August 31, 2006
/s/
Ravi Batra
Manhattan
I think the mainstream media has largely missed the point concerning State Minority Leader John Sampson’s appointment of attorney Ravi Batra to the new Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE).
That being said, Rock Hackshaw’s recent column on this matter (and other concerns), which I’m afraid many will take seriously, misses the mark by a wider margin than the MSM.
Hackshaw correctly states that Batra’s appointment “ has come under scrutiny and attack since Mr. Batra was once counsel to the former Brooklyn assemblyman (and Kings County Dems leader) named Clarence Norman; who was also a partner in Batra’s law firm for a relatively short period of time.”
Hackshaw’s response to all this is to literally say “whoop-dee-damn-doo”.
He then elaborates:
“Since when does your legal representation (and counsel) of someone, disqualify you from holding down an appointment to sit on a board or agency? Why should someone be saddled with his or her law partners legal woes? It’s ridiculous what they have been trying to do with this selection of Sampson’s. It’s obvious that John is under some kind of political microscope by two-faced pols out to get him.”
I cannot say that I totally disagree. Mr. Batra is an extremely knowledgeable, talented and effective attorney. In my own comment the other day, I said “It would be wrong to call Ravi Batra corrupt…”
But I also said “…but it is indisputable that he attaches himself to power in the manner of flies and excrement–which would seem disqualifying for a member of commission to root out corruption.”
Let me elaborate.
The problem as concerns Batra with Clarence Norman is more just than guilt by association.
As the New York Time noted, there is at least the appearance that Mr. Batra benefitted from the relationship in ways that raise issues:
“Mr. Batra's popularity as a court appointee picked up drastically after he became affiliated with Mr. Norman in 1995…”
Further, the Norman association sparked something which could arguably be branded an ethics scandal. This controversy led to a long report and a complete reorganization of the way the State Courts handle fiduciary appointments.
The report contains a description of the controversy which sparked its very existence:
The report notes that concerns about political influence in the fiduciary appointment process were heightened by a December 20, 1999 letter written by two attorneys active in the Kings County Democratic Party Law Committee, who perhaps coincidentally did a great deal of business representing court appointed receivers. The letter was sent to the Chair of Law Committee (a figure himself now under indictment) and copied to many other Party officials including Mr. Norman
Among their numerous appointments as counsel to receivers was one from the receiver originally appointed to manage the Cypress Hills Cemetery. When the court replaced the original receiver in 1996, the firm was continued as counsel, and the firm was again continued as counsel when the court replaced the second receiver in 1998 with Mr. Batra.
At that point, the Cypress Hills receivership had already generated over $1.5 million in fiduciary fees paid out to date.
In December 1999, Mr. Batra wrote to the firm to advise that he was substituting his own law firm as counsel to the receiver in the Cypress Hills case and in three other pending cases in which he was serving as the receiver. The firm claimed that Mr. Batra was motivated by his desire to obtain legal fees in addition to his receiver's commissions.
Their removal from the cases prompted them to write to the letter and resign their positions as members of the Committee. They also sent copies of the letter to dozens of other Brooklyn elected and party officials. The report notes:
In their letter, the lawyers articulated their understanding that their loyal service to the party entitled them — not Mr. Batra — to a continuing share of fiduciary appointments. They complained that their "diligent work and unquestioned loyalty to the Organization over the many years are clearly not as important as the desires of Mr. Ravi Batra [who] . . . . holds no party or elected position in our County" and "has never assisted the Law Committee on any level whether it be collecting signatures, binding petitions or trying an election law case, etc." The letter went on to state that "[o]ne cannot reasonably expect our firm to continue to avail to the Organization our professional services, the utilization of our employees, and the use of our facilities while the Organization sits idly by and permits Mr. Batra to maliciously injure our practice and reputation without consequence."
One cannot read the letter without concluding that the lawyers in question, seemingly knowledgeable insiders, presumed that Mr. Batra’s fiduciary appointments were themselves a function of his relationship with the leadership of the Party. The clear implication of the letter was that Mr. Batra had used his relationship with the County Leader to game the system, and that others who had done the same were resentful. .
This does not make them right.
In fact, there is a perfectly cognizable argument that Mr. Batra was the innocent victim of two sharp practitioners of patronage politics.
Certainly, Mr. Batra was never indicted, and suffered no disciplinary action.
On the other hand, the same could be said for the two lawyers.
I make no judgment here, except to say that a prudent politician might have chosen someone different to appoint to an ethics commission, if only for the sake of appearances.
But it soon emerged that the sake of appearances mattered even less to John Sampson than the appointment originally indicated.
As The Albany Times Union reported, just weeks before his appointment, Senator Sampson appeared in Court “of Counsel” to Mr. Batra’s firm.
But the relationships with Mr. Norman and Senator Sampson are not merely problematic for the arguable appearance of an impropriety which might not actually exist.
I happen to be of the controversial opinion that the “appearance of impropriety” is a commodity much overrated. The question to me—usually—is whether or not there is actual impropriety.
But let me be clear: there are places where the appearance of impropriety, alone, even when actual impropriety does not exist, should be of paramount concern.
Keeping that in mind, the mere appearance of impropriety should be enough to disqualify one from membership on an ethics panel.
I’m not sure what there is really qualifies as such, but I’m also not sure it matters.
The real problem with the Norman and Sampson relationships is not the appearance of impropriety. It is rather that they are part of what seems to be a larger pattern of Mr. Batra’s rimming of the powerful, as demonstrated by his own purple prose which opens this piece.
I link here a pretty thorough summary of articles dealing with the purported efforts of Mr. Batra to personally befriend members of the bench.
The consequences of such friendship may not have, as the articles imply, helped advance the interests of Mr. Batra and his clients.
However, it is indisputable that they have led to two Judges being censured.
Included in the compendium is this article from the New York Times containing the following excerpt:
Some judges felt uncomfortable…One justice, Milton Mollen [the former Presiding Judge of the Appellate Division, Second Department], who has since retired, said Mr. Batra invited him to dinner at his home 10 years ago. Several days later, Mr. Mollen began receiving calls from other judges, he said, telling him that they would be at the 'birthday party' Mr. Batra was giving for him.
Mr. Mollen said he thought he was being used and told people not to go. But he drove to Mr. Batra's home in New Rochelle. 'I told him off and left,' he said.
Mr. Batra denied Mr. Mollen's account and said the judge had helped to plan the event.
And there are other examples included in the links.
I’m sorry, but in my humble opinion, a person who appears to have such a seemingly intense pattern of wanting to go the extra mile to befriend those in positions of power does not belong anywhere near a panel whose job it is to be a watchdog over the powerful.
Even if that person has never actually done anything wrong.
The fact that Mr. Batra managed to get two sitting members of Congress and a former DA to write letters pleading his case pretty much proves the opposite of what the letters were intended to prove. It proves that Mr. Batra has too much of a vested interested in maintaining the status quo ever to be someone able to cause discomfort among those who may deserve it.
Just to be clear, no one has ever proven Mr. Batra has engaged in any wrongdoing. I think it is only fair to assume that he has not.
I’ll also note that Rock makes some specious assertions:
“The Ravi Batra I have known…has been vetted by the Obama administration and found totally qualified and clean. He has also been vetted by the Patterson and
Cuomo administrations: and ditto.”
Really?
The sort of confidential investigations of potential appointees Rock refers to are closely held and not released to the public. One can generally assume that if one gets an appointment, one has passed such muster, but I do not recall Mr. Batra being appointed to any job by Governor Cuomo, Governor Paterson or the President. While this does not prove Mr. Batra failed such a vetting, it certainly is no proof of the opposite.
So, where exactly did Rock get this “information” which he presents as a matter of indisputable fact?
I will concede that the MSM has missed the point about why Mr. Batra does not belong on an ethics panel, but it is clear he does not belong there.
I suppose Rock is correct that “John Sampson has demonstrated political courage,” in his appointment of Mr. Batra, but it is the courage of the blind—all balls and no brains.
If I were the leader of a Party Conference, this is exactly the sort of appointment I’d avoid; especially given it was so avoidable.
And if I were the leader of a Party Conference already laboring under an ethical cloud, avoiding this appointment would be an absolute no-brainer.
Rock’s assertions that “There is absolutely nothing wrong with this selection: NOTHING,” and that the “real issue” is Mr. Batra’s race borders on the farcial.
Surely, Senator Sampson could have found at least a few people of color in the state of New York more appropriate for appointment to serve on an ethic commission than Ravi Batra.
I know dozens of them.
Of course, these are not the only questionable assertions in Rock’s piece.
Concerning John Sampson:
“He works quietly to find common ground with his republican counterparts.”
During Mr. Sampson’s tenure as Majority Conference Leader, his efforts at finding such common ground were extremely quiet, as his tenure’s limited accomplishments indicate that no such efforts, if indeed they occurred, ever yielded any success.
“He is a consensus builder not an alienator or polarizer.” “When a politician has very few enemies we have to then consider that person a successful pol. That’s John Sampson.”
Given that four members of Mr. Sampson’s conference have broken off and allied with the GOP, and have made clear they will never vote to make Mr. Sampson the Majority Leader, I would say the evidence indicates he has alienated and/or polarized at least some people, and does indeed have some enemies.
“If you look at the treatment David Patterson, Malcolm Smith and John Sampson (all black males) received while holding prominent leadership positions in the senate, you will find a consistent pattern of disrespect coming from mainstream media, and also from some non-black members within their caucus.”
Actually, Mr. Paterson, as Senate Minority Leader, seems to have led such a charmed existence that he was chosen to be Lieutenant Governor.
As to the pattern of disrespect faced by the others, I have two words:
“Racetrack Empire.”
Further, it should be noted, in the case of Mr. Smith, there are other ethical questions as well, and more to the point, that Mr. Smith’s leadership of the Senate was so effective that it collapsed, and that most of the Senators who put the knife to him were persons of color, and that, in the end, the coup de grace was administered to him not be a white man, but by a black man named John Sampson, with the support of virtually every other black State Senator.
“Remember the stunts pulled by Krueger, Monseratte, Diaz and Espada; now examine the stunts pulled by state senators Diane Savino (Staten Island), David Carlucci (Rockland County), Jeff Klein (Bronx) and David Valesky (Onondaga County). Last year, they formed a gang of our and decided they will caucus with republicans. They sold out for 20 pieces of silver. They were rewarded with committee chairs by the republican controlled senate.”
Though I have also been critical of “Snow White and the Three Stooges,” some perspective is in order.
The various permutations of the Amigos twice threw the entire state government into chaos in their successful attempt to use their balance of power to practice extortion.
By contrast, Snow White and her crew do not alter the balance of power. They were bought cheap to give the already existing GOP majority a greater cushion. They have not exploited and caused instability—they have exploited and caused stability (for what little it has been worth).
As such, the Klavino mob is not comparable to the Amigos, but to earlier small time hustles whereby a Democratic Senator has either become a Republican (Olga Mendez), joined the Republican Conference without actually changing their enrollment (Espada), or virtually done so in all but name (Kruger).
To compare Klavino to the Amigos is like comparing a pick-pocket to Bernie Madoff.
“These dogs voted to strip the power of the lieutenant governor (democrat) to break ties in the senate chamber with his vote. They are disloyal democrats. In fact I suspect they are democrats in name only (DINOs). They need to be punished for their insurrection and mutiny.
I remember privately suggesting to John Sampson that he recruit candidates to challenge them all, only to have him rebuff me…”
This may be simple arithmetic. All the Klavinites come from districts which are at least arguably marginal. All have had a real race from the GOP within their current lines. The bad press Mr. Sampson has gotten has not helped the Democrats hold marginal districts, and probably lost them the Majority. The marginal nature of the Klavinites’ districts may in part account for their fury at Senator Sampson.
Senate Dems are badly in debt, and have not been able to raise money at the same level as the GOP. For Mr. Sampson to spend his time raising money to beat Democrats is a waste of the Party’s resources, especially since making these senators fight a primary could end up helping the Republicans pick up some of their districts.
So unless Mr. Sampson is more interested in his staying the Leader of the Minority than he is in his party again becoming the Majority, he really cannot challenge the Klavinites.
If he does so, he will prove himself a more disloyal Democrat than any of them.
“John also needs to sign on (like the governor) to the term-limits initiative for Albany state legislators, which I started in one of my columns: earlier this year. In this initiative, state legislators will have a twelve-year limit starting immediately (2013). Show some more courage John: sign on.”
Mr. Sampson was elected in 1996; if a 12 year limit is imposed, Senator Sampson will be out of
office. Therefore, he does not “need” to do this.
He is also the conference leader of the senate democrats. I want to believe he is actually the senate minority leader but some folks tell me that’s not official.
When Sampson overthrew Malcolm Smith, Pedro Espada was given the title, but not the power of the Majority Leadership, and Mr. Smith was allowed to keep the title President Pro Tem (along with some of its power). Sampson became Conference Leader.
But once the term was over (with Espada gone, and the momentary legal need to keep Smith in his position elapsed), Sampson assumed the title Minority Leader.
Rock really learns to stop believing whatever “some folks” tell him.
Rock also makes some dubious assertions concerning City Comptroller John Liu.
I will not dwell long in these waters, since these assertions are refuted nearly daily in the press, suffice it to say that the fact City’s fiscal watchdog stands accused of raising dubious contributions through unnamed bundlers in a manner which may have gamed the campaign fiancé system is a MAJOR STORY.
Further, it is not like Mr. Liu is the first, or even the second candidate ever to undergo such an investigation.
The first I remember was a Brooklyn Council candidate and District Leader named Anne English (who provided the deciding vote which elected Mr. Norman as County Leader).
Another incident, which resulted in a conviction, involved the former Councilman who used to represent the district adjoining the one once represented by Mr. Liu.
The former Councilman, Sheldon Leffler, is a Jew born in this country, which would seem to refute the idea that such problems only occur as a result of a cultural misunderstandings among recent immigrants.
Further, Rock’s implication that this is part of a media conspiracy to help elect Christine Quinn does not pass the laugh test.
First of all, despite Rock’s assertion to the contrary, the Post is clearly not in the tank for Quinn. She seems to be a major target of the Post herself.
More importantly, getting Liu out of the race does not help Quinn. It hurts her.
Quinn picks up almost no support from Liu, whose departure from the race would most help Bill Thompson and Bill DeBlasio.
Ms Quinn would most benefit if Mr. Liu continued to further divide such votes.
Finally, there is one more assertion by Rock with which I must take issue.
When Bloomberg conspired with Quinn to overturn term-limits, he lost the right to be mayor of this great city.
Actually, since but for his overturning term limits, Bloomberg would now be out of office, I have to believe that the opposite is literally true.