tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90671835422814171372024-03-14T00:38:45.688-07:00Why is the Press So in Love with Lew Fidler? WHENUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-18846968598370946672008-10-29T18:42:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:44:10.109-07:00Fidler Campaign Paid Brandford Almost 70,000 in 2003 When He got 87% of the vote and $82,500 from the CFB"During two hard-fought primary campaigns, Assemblyman Clarence Norman Jr., the Brooklyn Democratic chairman, told a political consultant to just send over badly needed supplies like posters and leaflets, saying he would "get someone else to pay for it," the consultant testified yesterday in Mr. Norman's political corruption trial. The consultant, Ernie Lendler, said that in a series of telephone calls, Mr. Norman instructed him to prepare blank invoices for the campaign materials, totaling several thousand dollars, and to fax the invoices to his office. Soon after, Mr. Lendler said, he received checks in the mail from an Albany lobbying group, the New York State Association of Service Stations and Repair Shops. Although he had never heard of the group, Mr. Lendler said, he matched the amounts of the checks with the invoices and credited Mr. Norman's account." New York Times 9/5/2005<br /><br />"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. <br /><br />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." <em>New York Times, 11/18/203</em><br /><br />Of late, hardly a day has gone by without daily newspapers telling of political shenanigans in the world of judicial selections. As overdue as some of these stories are, not all of them have been fair. An undeserving victim emerged in the person of Ernie Lendler, a Brooklyn Heights resident who runs Branford Communications, which handles publicity and campaign literature for candidates. Lendler's portrayal as a cog in a corrupt political machine sprang from a complaint by former Brooklyn Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen, who told Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes's investigators that she hired Lendler as a condition of her endorsement by Assemblyman Clarence Norman, the Democratic county leader. <br /><br />From this, the Daily News concluded that Lendler was an arm of the county organization. Stories in the other dailies implied as much, but the News's editorial board was particularly harsh. Unfortunately, no one bothered to look first at Lendler's clientele over the years, which includes plenty of candidates who were not endorsed by the machine and some who were openly at war with it. The News assumed the opposite would be true, and set out to do a follow-up story. But it quickly came across a snag: a judicial race last year which didn't fit the supposed pattern because Wavny Toussaint was endorsed by Norman but did not hire Lendler, while one of her opponents, Desmond Green, did. A News editorial even asked rhetorically why Brooklyn Civil Court candidate Robin Garson hired Lendler and spent $50,000 on her campaign when she lacked an opponent in the Democratic primary, and thus was assured of winning. <br /><br />The answer is simple: she spent the money before her opponent Jim McCall was knocked off the ballot several weeks before the election because of a petition cover-sheet error. Had she known all along that a free ride was in store, Garson would have saved her cash for a future campaign for Supreme Court (a dream since derailed by the indictment of her husband, Supreme Court Judge Gerald Garson). The News has also taken to saying Norman "made sure" Garson would have no primary opponent, which implies that he pegged her for a free slot. If that were true, Judge Maggie Cammer would have run rather than retire and leave the slot for Garson and McCall to fight over. <br /><br />Perhaps the News was blaming Norman for McCall's removal from the ballot, as if (A) there's something wrong with challenging someone's ballot petition, when in fact any candidate who noticed a fatal error on an opponent's petition would file an objection, and (B) Norman owns the judiciary and can have anyone knocked off the ballot, when in reality he's failed on numerous such attempts (in part because he doesn't own the appellate court). <br /><br />Councilman Lew Fidler, who with Lendler's help staved off an all-out effort by Norman to oust him as district leader a few years ago, said, "The stuff about Ernie Lendler has been blood-boiling outrageous. Joe McCarthy wouldn't have had that much nerve. The Daily News should apologize." Lendler's not holding his breath, we bet. Fidler, incidentally, believes what Yellen told investigators was leaked not by Hynes but by supporters of Housing Court Judge Dawn Jimenez, eager to portray Jimenez's Democratic primary opponent for Civil Court, Shawndya Simpson, as Norman's pawn. Simpson, you see, is endorsed by Norman (though she doesn't use Lendler, according to her campaign manager Gary Tilzer). <br /><br />Fidler worries that the News will therefore blast Simpson as a judgeship-buyer and endorse Jimenez a week before the primary, and that Jimenez will mail the newspaper clippings to tens of thousands of likely voters. That might well be unfair to Simpson, who has convinced even Norman's enemies that she's independent of the county leader, evidenced in part by her choice of campaign manager, Gary Tilzer, who guided Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres to reelection last year despite a furious effort by Norman to unseat her. Fidler is correct that Jimenez's campaign is trying to use the Norman connection to undermine Simpson, but the rest of his theory is dubious: that Jimenez's people heard second-hand what Yellen told the D.A. and converted that into a flood of media coverage. <br /><br />The systematic appearance of the Yellen story, first in the New York Sun and the next day in the other dailies, and the specific, anonymous quotes corroborating it, point to Hynes's office as the likely source. A Jimenez campaigner could not have placed half a dozen articles by calling newspapers with a hearsay account of a private, secret interrogation. Newspapers generally demand sources with first-hand knowledge of the story, and in this case that means either Yellen (who's uneasy with the press) or Hynes. <br /><br />Our money's on Hynes, in part because the Yellen story fit the pattern of numerous other leaks about Hynes's investigation. It would seem to be the work of the same source. Not that we're criticizing Hynes for the leaks. Investigators commonly leak stories about ongoing probes because it elevates their own profiles and because the news coverage generates leads. Unfortunately, in this case Hynes might not have anticipated Ernie Lendler becoming a collateral casualty of a careless media onslaught. <br /><br />As for Jimenez, if her people are spinning tales, it's certainly not her idea. She is a political novice (unlike her handlers) and has built her career more on talent and work than back-room maneuvering. This "shortcoming" has cost her some political support, like when she was pitching herself to State Senator Marty Connor and naively offered that Assemblyman Dov Hikind supported her-a comment akin to pointing out a pimple on your date's forehead. But given the recent revelations of politicians' influence on the judiciary, Jimenez's lack of political savvy could well be a positive in voters' eyes. Perhaps that should be the premise of her campaign. <br />June 30,2003Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-26609526009010921682008-10-29T17:24:00.000-07:002008-10-29T17:27:49.174-07:00Pork Pig Fidler’s Media Friends Put Lipstick On HimYou would never know it from the media that Councilmember Lewis Fiddler funds one of the city’s largest non-profit patronage operations in the city. Coming in with the third highest amount of member items in the council, with just over $700,000, Lewis Fidler, assistant majority leader and Chairman of the Youth Services Committee, said he is proud to be considered the third "biggest pig" in the council. The Councilman uses the city’s budget to provide jobs for his friends, campaign workers and to continue the illusion that a once-powerful club is still going strong.<br /><br /> <br />Today’s reporters do not cover politics like Jimmy Breslin, Jack Newfield, Pete Hamill, Murray Kempton and other members of their hard-working greatest generation, who understood neighborhood politics and never quoted politicians like celebrities. Reporters of Newfield’s era understood that elected officials always had motives, and that truth could only be reported by analyzing their words and investigated their actions. Fidler is one of the most quoted councilmembers in the city’s newspapers and blogs on virtually every topic and issue, except for one: what he does with the member items money in his district. <br /><br /> <br />Some people claim that the way the media covers Fidler shows a racial bias in its reporting of political corruption. By reading the dailies we know how Councilmembers Erik Martin Dilan and Leroy Comrie sent member items funds to nonprofits that hired their wives. Maria del Carmen Arroyo sent money to nonprofits that employed her sister and nephew. Darlene Mealy tired to find a nonprofit to hire her sister. Hiram Monserrate, Larry Seabrook and Kendall Stewart used nonprofit money to help in their campaigns.<br /><br /> What is never covered is a more complicated corruption in the white community where member item funds and campaign contributions go through interlocking nonprofits, lobbyists and special interests developers. Umbrella nonprofits like Fidler’s Millennium Developers are just the tip of the iceberg of corruption; Emily Giske of Bolton-St. Johns, Parkside’s Evan Stavisky, Jeff Plaut’s Global Strategy, George Artz, Yoswein, Geto & De Milly, and Knickerbocker SKD help campaigns more than Councilman Hiram Monserrate’s nonprofit Libre get a free ride from the media’s corruption coverage. <br /><br />Putting racial motives aside, it is clear that the owners of the mainstream media control how and when it reports on political corruption. Not one word has been printed about the councilmember items slush fund scandal since all the major papers’ editorial boards came out for extending term limits. Earlier this year, for a few months, there was a story almost every day about the council’s member item’s “little tin box”.<br /><br /><strong>Fidler’s Member Item-Funded Nonprofit Reelection Industry is a Widespread Practice </strong> <br /><br />The late former Assemblyman Tony Genovese, who made the Thomas Jefferson democratic club into a powerhouse with the late county leader Meade Esposito, invented the scheme which uses member items and other government funds to build political power for their club in their district. They set up an umbrella nonprofit called New Perspectives that received and distributed government funds to most of the local nonprofits in their community. Genovese wanted all power to emanate from his club. His clubhouse hack pal Alan Weisberg ran Perspectives. Genovese’s Assemblyman Stanley Friedman was the last elected official in the city to open up a district office outside the Jefferson Club. In the days of Tammany Hall all elected officials operated their district office out of the clubhouse. Genovese and Esposito’s genius created the umbrella nonprofit funded by the government tied to the clubhouse to keep the Thomas Jefferson Club powerful in an era in which most clubs were dying off.<br /><br /> <br />Since that time, elected officials and consultants throughout the city have copied Genovese’s umbrella nonprofit model. Brooklyn Democratic Leader Vito Lopez, an early protégé of Genovese, funds the Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Center as an umbrella-type nonprofit with millions of dollars in government patronage to his district. Bolton-St. Johns’ Emily Giske uses the High Line and the health care industry to build an umbrella for her team, including $50,000 to Speaker Quinn for her mayoral campaign from High Line supporters. The Parkside Group used their relationship with former Speaker Miller, former Queens Democratic leader Tom Manton and convicted felon Brian McLaughlin to pull in over $7 million in consulting fees from nonprofits receiving council funding. Former Thomas Jefferson Club leader Bruce Bender, now working for as chief lobbyist for Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner, helps fund Borough President Markowitz’s umbrella nonprofit Best of Brooklyn. Pedro Espada just defeated State Senator Efrain Gonzalez with the help of his nonprofit organization, Soundview Healthcare.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><strong>Fidler and the Jefferson Club’s Nonprofit Patronage Networks </strong> <br />After Genovese’s death New Perspectives got in financial trouble, so Fidler and the other new stewards of the Jefferson Club simply closed it down and transferred Perspectives’ functions to a new nonprofit, Millennium Development. Paul Curiale, the husband of Fidler’s council aide Debbie Malone, runs Millennium Development. Both are heavily involved in the operation of the Thomas Jefferson Club and regularly collect signatures for candidates endorsed by Fidler’s club.<br /><br /> Another way Fidler controlled government money was to appoint Georgia Hamilton, the wife of his driver Daniel MacBride, to Neighborhood Advisory Board 18. The board distributed city and federal youth money in Fidler’s district. Fidler knows a lot about how funds are distributed through the Neighborhood Advisorary Board system as chairman of the Council’s Youth Services Committee. With the Councilman’s knowledge, Hamilton illegally continued to serve on the Advisory Board after she moved out of the community. Fidler said in a recent blog post that he received the most discretionary funding last year at $985,000, and snagged a considerable amount of capital too, because he chairs the Youth Services Committee, which oversees a lot of the programs in the city that would be eligible for these types of grants. "Which is also why I am able to put together a pot of properly vetted discretionary items,” said Fidler. <br /><br /><strong>What the Press Did Not Report </strong> <br /><br />As Chair of the Youth Services Committee, Fidler oversaw the funding of the Donna Reid Memorial Education Fund. Two staffers of Councilman Kendall Stewart, including his chief of staff Asquith Reid, were indicted by U.S. Attorney Garcia for skimming at least $145,000 from the Donna Reid fund, a charity that had received council funds. Fidler’s committee funded the Memorial Education Fund after the Department for the Aging rejected the group's application for city money in 2004 after noticing that its office address was identical to Asquith Reid's home address. Reid, like Fidler’s staffer Georgia Hamilton on Board 18, was a member of his Neighborhood Advisorary Board – Board 17 – which funded youth groups like Donna Reid in his community. Councilman Erik Martin Dilan’s North Brooklyn Community Council and Councilman Hiram Monserrate’s Libre are other nonprofits that have been funded with council funds dispensed by Fidler’s Youth Service Committee that have been written about in the press for their practice of hiring the councilmembers’ family members and helping in their reelection bids. Not one word has been written in the press about how the questionable funding was approved for these and other nonprofits by Fidler’s Youth Committee, which, by the way, he gets paid $10,000 extra a year for chairing.<br /><br />Judging by a series of recent loses by the Thomas Jefferson Club, Fidler’s funding of the nonprofit Millennium network is about the only thing keeping the councilman’s club from falling apart. Last year, the club lost its control over the Brooklyn Surrogate Court when its candidate Judge Shawndya Simpson lost to Judge Diana Johnson. Judge Johnson only lost by 200 votes in the club’s 59th district and won in the Assembly District where Fidler is District Leader (the 41st AD) two to one. The Club’s former Assemblyman and Surrogate Judge Frank Seddio was pressured into retirement, according to The Daily News, because of illegal contributions from his Assembly account to Fidler and other elected officials of the Jefferson Club when he was running for the surrogate judgeship. The club lost the other Surrogate position in 2005 when Judge Margarita Lopez Torres beat their candidate. In addition, the Jefferson Club only managed to get 11% for the candidate it backed in the 2005 Democratic Mayoral Primary, Gifford Miller. In the General Election that same year, Fernando Ferrer, the Jefferson Club’s endorsed candidate, only got 27% in its district. Moreover, in 2001, the club’s candidate in the Democratic Primary runoff, Mark Green, failed to carry the Jefferson Club’s district or Fidler’s District Leader district. Finally, in the primary that same year, the club’s City Councilman Herbert Berman lost the controller’s race to William Thompson. <br /><br /><strong>Fidler’s smart enough to know his good relationship with reporters allows him to get away with almost anything </strong><br /><br />Fidler represents a boutique niche market lending company called LawCash. Fidler’s cousin was made V.P. of the company right after he graduated college. New York Supreme Court Justice Ira Warshawsky said that LawCash, which advances money to plaintiffs while their civil lawsuits are pending, charges high usurious rates. The judge blasted LawCash for making a high-interest loan to a poor African-American family. LawCash has charged 50% or more in interest for one of their loans. Fidler’s loan company operates like subprime mortgages in that they both take advantage of the uninformed poor. A representative of LawCash said his firm can charge such high rates because, unlike banks, its money is "advanced," not lent, to plaintiffs, and this is a high-risk investment. When elected officials use their position to make money and deliberately fail to protect the public by promoting weak laws and regulations, the people suffer. Wall Street called derivatives trading “barter” instead of an insurance policy to avoid government regulations. Now the federal government must bail out that $600 trillion dollar business. Many of the high level consultant firms in the city today call their services education to avoid lobbying regulations. They make secret deals between each other in a type of exclusive “Star Chamber” that runs campaigns, nonprofits, and healthcare institutions without any legal requirement to report their cooperation on city or state financial forms. <br /><br />Fidler is the District Leader in the 41th Assembly District, which has a minority population of at least 65%. Not only is the Councilman not protecting his own voters from high-interest lending operations, he profits from one. Yet the press reports that Councilman Fidler is fighting predatory lending. If you Google Fidler on predatory lending you will find articles that quote him speaking out against subprime mortgage lending. Fidler supported Frank Seddio for Surrogate Judge. Right after Seddio left the Surrogate Court he advertised in local newspapers his services to get homeowners subprime mortgages in Canarsie as a mortgage lawyer. According to Crain’s, Canarsie has the highest subprime default rate in the city. Fidler was also frequently quoted in the press how he was trying to reform Brooklyn’s corrupt judicial systems with a Blue Ribbon Commission, while he and his club backed every Norman machine judge, many of who were removed from the bench. Some went to jail.<br /><br /> <br />What never gets printed in the press is how Fidler uses his control of nonprofit funding to eliminate political opposition in his community. When minority Assembly candidate H. R. Clark showed up to protest overdevelopment at a City Planning Commission’s local hearing in a building owned by a nonprofit funded with government funds, he was thrown out. According to neighborhood activist Mark Fertig, Fidler was under pressure by Assembly candidate H. R. Clark and community leaders since their meeting last year with mayoral candidate Tony Avella to downsize zoning in his district. To this day the area has not been downzoned. According to Fertig, all Fidler wanted to do is show the appearance of doing something while protecting his developer friends from downzoning. <br /><br /> <br />Fidler has even figured out how to rip off the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) to make money for his friends when he runs for reelection. Fidler wrote a letter to the CFB in 2003 to qualify for full campaign finance funding after the CFB ruled he would only get 25% of the matching funds because he did not have a serious primary or general election challenger. All that is needed to quality for full funding is a letter from the elected official to the CFB saying they have a competitive primary. Fidler got $82,500 in 2003 in matching funds, the full allowable amount, and went on to get 87% of the vote in his so-called “competitive race.” He wrote the same letter to the CFB in his 2005 reelection bid and received full public funding in both a primary and general election he won overwhelmingly.<br /><br /> <br />Besides using the government for political gain Fidler has not show much loyalty to his supporters. Fidler supported Ferrer for mayor in 2005, going back on the endorsement commitment he gave to Gifford Miller after the Speaker passed that year’s city budget, which contained Fidler’s pork requests for his district. Two-timing is something Fidler has always been known for. He supported Anthony Weiner for City Council against his own cousin, Michael Garson. When Weiner’s council seat became vacant in 1998 after he was elected to congress, Fidler supported Michael Nelson against Irma Kramer, despite the fact that Kramer was one of Fidler’s earliest supporters. <br /><br /> <br />Sometimes Fidler’s double crosses are a work of art. At the same time Fidler’s committee was funding Councilman Stewart’s indicted aide’s nonprofit, according to Wellington Sharpe, Stewart’s 2005 Council opponent, Fidler was helping Sharpe with his ballot access. Sharpe was later knocked off the ballot after Stewart’s lawyer brought him into court and produced a mortgage prepared by Fidler that was supposed to turn over a house to Sharpe’s kids, but actually showed Sharpe as the primary resident of the house, which was outside of Stewart’s district.<br /><br /><strong>“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” <br /><br /> - Thomas Jefferson </strong><br /><br />The false way Fidler is covered by the media, while he rips off government funds to accumulate power is just a warning sign of how the press is endangering the lives of New Yorkers. Our City and Republic are in jeopardy because today’s media has abandoned its role of informing the public, leaving the people powerless to defend themselves. What the press did not tell the public during the term limits debate was that the two-term restrictions were voted for by a public that was upset with the corruption in the Koch Administration in the 1980’s and the role that the City’s impossible-to-defeat incumbents played in allowing that corruption. Now even that small safeguard against incumbent protection in our society is gone. George Orwell would have to write a new chapter in 1984 to explain how 34 City Councilmembers under investigation for illegally using the member items slush fund were able to receive press coverage that basically said that extending their time in office would increase choice, democracy and improve our economy.<br /><br /> <br />Without an informed public, elected officials act like organized crime mobsters, working against the voters’ needs for personal gain. They create government-funded umbrella-type nonprofit reelection organizations to stay in office. They also create a dysfunctional, unregulated government with no legal accountability to carry out their greedy friends’ scams to make money at the cost of the public good. Our city would be a lot better off if it listened to a few independent voices about the dangers of repealing the Glass-Spiegel Act, rather then constantly devoting their coverage to political celebrities and their meaningless news conferences. <br /><br /> <br />Look at what Gordon Gecko’s greed has done to Wall Street. New York City is next!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-5627038106103953772008-10-29T16:36:00.000-07:002008-10-29T17:36:42.906-07:00Lew Fidler: As always, InappropriateSubmitted by Laurie Garson (not verified) on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 6:59pm.<br />I am tired of Lew Fidler hauling out my family members every time he gets bad press,of one sort or another. I am also tired of him using his connections as a well known and transparent "anonymous source" to try to bring harm to anyone he perceives to be getting in his way, including his own family. It is Lew, unfortunately, who continuously makes potentially libelous statements, yet feels that he is impervious to damage. For example, alleging to the press that he is a member of my husband's family, was an outright untruth. <br /><br /> Addressing Lew directly: at least have some respect for those family members who are reasonably close to you. You have done quite enough damage to the entire family, already. Shame on you. One day you will find out that no fame or fortune is worth the path you have decided to take. Perhaps some intensive psychoanalysis to uncover the anger that obviously wells up inside of you in such an uncontrollable, inappropriate fashion, would be advisable. When you are challenged, this difficult trait is often unleashed in a wildly manic way. <br /><br /> To your comments: If, in fact, "Oneshirt" is a pseudonym for Gary Tilzer, a man whom, to this point, I know only in passing, albeit, over many years, here is where I disagree with your analysis of his abilities. He has, in actuality, shown himself to be be quite formidable in past campaigns. You would be wise to grasp that detail, for as you have shown, no one is infaillable. <br /><br />Too, if you have anything to say to your brother-in-law, and mentor,Mike Garson, without whom, you would be nowhere, or to me, your sister-in-law, you really should have the decorum to do so privately. It is not my intention to make commentary on our family history via this method. I am sure that what I have to offer up for public consumption would be quite embarrassing, so I would prefer not to go that route. Again, please resist continuing to use my family for your perceived benefit. It would be much appreciated.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-12747569759605343482008-09-22T13:26:00.000-07:002008-09-22T13:27:21.564-07:00Who is the TeamComing in third with just over $700,000, Lewis Fidler, assistant majority leader and chair of the youth services committee, said he is proud to be considered the third "biggest pig" in the council. <br />And it's not just his leadership position that locked in his funding either, Fidler said. Although the council speaker can have ultimate veto power, Fidler said other people scrutinize the member items. <br />"Some of it gets decided by the member," Fidler explained. "Some of it gets decided by the borough delegation. Some of it gets decided by the speaker and some of it gets decided by the budget negotiating team." The process, he said, is multi-faceted. <br /><strong>Who is the team?</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-87422996240926321292008-04-15T17:40:00.000-07:002008-10-29T17:44:27.316-07:00Kiss Ass Press<strong>Chicken Little Was Right</strong><br />Councilman Lew Fidler gets his mortgage catastrophe<br /><br />by Katharine Jose | April 15, 2008 | Tags: PoliticsLew Fidler<br />This article was published in the April 21, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.<br /><br />Councilman Lew Fidler spends a lot of time dealing with other people’s misfortune.<br /><br />He makes his living as the general counsel for LawCash, a company that advances money to people who are expected to win personal-injury settlement suits. <br /><br />More publicly, in his capacity as an elected official, Mr. Fidler is the self-appointed Chicken Little of the mortgage crisis.<br /><br />He first started talking about the potentially calamitous subprime housing situation to anyone who would listen three and a half years ago, when he began lobbying for a City Council grant to begin educating homeowners about a crisis that hadn’t happened yet. (In 2006, he got the grant—$750,000 to a nonprofit group dedicated to the issue.) <br /><br />Last November, concerned by what he considered to be the alarming indifference of his constituents, he circulated a flier that showed his head imposed on the body of Disney’s Chicken Little character. <br /><br />“You have to get their attention somehow,” Mr. Fidler explained.<br /><br />Asking him how he knew what would happen elicits a five-minute monologue. “I continued to see closings,” he said. “One hundred percent loan-to-value.”<br /><br />“It doesn’t take you very long, if you’re really thinking about it, to say: ‘What’s going to happen if real estate values stop going up—forget about going down—just stop going up?”<br /><br />Mr. Fidler was elected in 2001. Before that he was, at various times, a Democratic district leader, an attorney, the campaign manager for several of Charles Hynes’ bids for Brooklyn district attorney and the chairman of a community board. <br /><br />Despite some health problems—he is an overweight diabetic with bad eyesight, and he sometimes walks with a cane—he is a vigorous campaigner, and was reelected by a landslide in 2005. <br /><br />More unexpectedly, as chair of the Council’s Youth Services Committee, he has led a quiet, politically unprofitable campaign to direct resources and money toward helping homeless youth in the city, many of whom are gay.<br /><br />His office, down the hallway off the waiting room, looks like a place where an accountant in Brooklyn in the 1970s might have worked. Fidler, who is 51, would not have been out of place there. Wearing a short-sleeved collared shirt, a narrow tie and large geometric glasses, he leaned back in his chair and occasionally paused to take a phone call. <br /><br />“You’re one of my favorite people,” he said to one caller, “if not one of my favorite agencies.”<br /><br />Mr. Fidler grew up in East Flatbush, not far from where he lives now, in Sheepshead Bay. He represents a section of the borough that also includes Bergen Beach, Canarsie and Flatlands, and he is eager to talk about how the mortgage crisis affects his district.<br /><br />“I know that Canarsie and Flatbush in Brooklyn is really hard,” he said. “So, for me, that’s a third of my district—and I call it ground zero.”<br /><br />There’s a loud catcall whistle. “Sorry, that was the computer,” he said.<br /><br />“If I was willing to live in Podunksville, I could buy myself 12 acres. So, I think people are going to start making decisions like that if we don’t pull out of the recession.<br /><br />“It’s very circular,” he added. “Very cyclical and circular, both, and I mean those in different ways. The economy is cyclical, but the process here is somewhat circular.” <br /><br />There’s nothing the city can do to help people who are facing foreclosure, other than on a one-by-one basis, Mr. Fidler says. <br /><br />This approach is reflected in legislation sponsored by Mr. Fidler that created the Center for NYC Neighborhoods, a public-private partnership that will provide legal and other aid on an individual basis to New Yorkers with foreclosure issues. <br /><br />When the subject of Mr. Fidler and the subprime collapse comes up on local political blogs—which it fairly often does—almost inevitably an anonymous commenter accuses him of being in a position to profit from frequent foreclosures. Mr. Fidler says this is “utter drivel” and based on a misunderstanding of what LawCash does. In other words, LawCash lends “expensive” money, in his words, but not for mortgages. <br /><br />“It’s even in our contract,” he said. “‘Make sure you’ve exhausted every other source of money before you come here.’”<br /><br />“Does the business make money?” Mr. Fidler asked himself. “Yes, the business makes money. But, I mean, God bless America.”<br /><br />More often than not, Mr. Fidler responds to the attacks in the comments section of the same blog posts, usually under the name “Lew from Brooklyn.” He does this, he explained, partly because of the Google factor—when people search for him, he doesn’t want them to see the attacks without also seeing his response—and partly because blogs have become “a very legitimate manner of public discourse.” And also because, he says, “I have also discovered that the way to hear from reporters is, they check the blogs and see who’s talking about stuff.”<br /><br />So there we were, with him telling me how we can get out of the recession.<br /><br />Good old-fashioned capital projects are the answer, Fidler thinks, and he has some ideas. “Building the cross-harbor freight tunnel, building a tunnel to Staten Island,” he began, “sinking the Gowanus Expressway, opening the West Brooklyn waterfront.”<br /><br />The computer made the catcall whistle again. This time we both ignored it.<br /><br />“If we do that, and do it now, instead of cocking around for 12 years while we plan it, those are real jobs. And that’s the way F.D.R. did it.” He paused. “Well, cynics will say he did it by getting us into World War II.<br /><br />“But we’ve already got the war. Now it’s time to do the economic stuff. And that—that—is sound economic policy and good planning, rolled into one. To me, it’s a no-brainer.”<br /><br />Chicken Little doesn’t see anything new on the horizon that New Yorkers should worry about, other than the continuing foreclosure crisis.<br /><br />“I’d like to say I see a recession coming—because I saw that, too. But now it’s too late to say I see it coming, because it’s here.” He thought for a few seconds and said, “I see the Mets winning the pennant.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-59693565899989072852008-01-14T17:49:00.000-08:002008-10-29T17:50:46.829-07:00Why Does Feddler Support Sub Prime Frank Seddio<strong>Home to Roost<br />As other politicians respond to sub-prime crisis, Lew Fidler explains why he saw it first</strong><br />Elie Mystal <br />January 14th, 2008<br /><br />Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn), the Council member who is also the general counsel for 1-800-LAW CASH, sees two reasons to keep the Council officially part-time. <br /><br />The first is practicality.<br /><br />“The idea that people are going to come into a term-limited office, give up their vocation for eight years, give it their all, still pay college tuition and all that stuff, and then go back to the farm? It is just not realistic,” he said.<br /><br />But just as important, Fidler says, is avoiding isolation in what he calls the ivory tower of the government world to better serve constituents. Fidler credits his private legal practice in Brooklyn as the reason he predicted the collapse in the sub-prime lending market two years ago, long before market analysts and government officials from Wall Street to Washington caught on to the problem themselves.<br /><br />Fidler estimates that 85 percent of the real estate closings he participated in before he got to the City Council involved some type of sub-prime or balloon rate loan. <br />“We were encouraging people to do it,” he said.<br /><br />Later, Fidler represented some of those same clients at foreclosure proceedings.<br /><br />“I saw the beginning, I saw the process, I saw the end, and I think I saw reality setting in,” he said.<br /><br />In 2005, Fidler joined with Council Member Leroy Comrie (D-Queens) in an attempt to get publicity for what he was already calling a looming crisis, but they could not obtain government funding to help affected homeowners. <br /><br />As the foreclosure crisis deepened—especially in his home turf of Canarsie, which Fidler called “ground zero” for the mortgage foreclosure crisis—he started passing out fliers to other Council members with a block of text explaining the problem and his head superimposed on a movie poster from the Disney film Chicken Little. That caught his colleagues’ attention. <br /><br />Fidler was able to secure $1 million for the Mortgage Foreclosure Emergency Prevention Program, which matches at-risk homeowners with legal and financial counseling services. That program and others were precursors to the Center for New York City Neighborhoods, the $5.3-million program recently announced by Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Unaffil.), Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) and Fidler. The center is geared toward enhancing the city’s financial educational and counseling services.<br /><br />Many proposed remedies, such as stiffer penalties for predatory lenders or an adjustable rate freeze, are beyond the purview of city government. But Fidler is not content to simply wait for a market correction. <br /><br />“I’m a Democrat, I believe this is a government problem,” he said. <br /><br />Fidler hopes that the national politicians now paying attention to the sub-prime market remember that local communities have been suffering from the foreclosure crisis for years. <br /><br />And he also would not mind if his colleagues in government remembered his long-standing advocacy on the issue.<br /><br />“It is funny to watch when Rev. [Jesse] Jackson comes to New York. I see my colleagues crowding around him as he gives the same speech I gave two years ago,” Fidler said. “It’s like they all found religion.” <br /><br />Fidler will be term limited out of his Council seat in 2009. But though he is interested in continuing in politics, he says he has made no decisions about what he might run for next. “I’m not running for anything in particular, and I am not retiring,” he said. <br /><br />But even if he had already been in higher office, Fidler pointed out, he would not necessarily have been able to do more to stop sub-prime lending and avert the current crisis. Just trying to convince his fellow Council members was trouble enough, he said. <br /><br />“I don’t think I would have been able to get that accomplished,” Fidler said. “If I had to sell 150 colleagues in Albany, or 435 colleagues in Washington on passing legislation to end sub-prime lending, I think they would have taken me out to the loony bin.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-66336799225136983872008-01-02T20:37:00.000-08:002008-10-29T20:46:13.263-07:00Councilman Lewis Fidler's Crude Response Adds to his Disingenuousness: Unanswered Questions, Unsatisfying JusitificationsAfter doing a bit of research on Mr. Fidler’s relationship with the lending company that he claims only to represent in the same way he represents other clients, it is a curious fact that the Councilman’s “law office” has been in the same building, and same suite as the lending company, for a period of time that for all intents and purposes, mirrors his time on the City Council. The shared offices are at 26 Court Street, suite 1104. In light of Mr. Fidler's claim, this distubing fact would lead one to believe that this connection is quite different from other attorney-client associations, contrary to what Mr. Fidler states in his response. <br /><br />It is also curious that Lew Fidler says that his company has had no relationship with the City. This does not seem factual, since the woman who complained about the extraordinary interest rates (she said approximately 50% per year), stated that she had gotten injured on City property (no further details to protect her identity). And as she seemingly had no apparent reason to lie, I take her at her word. According to her, Mr. Fidler’s company loaned the money against a suit she had with the City. <br /><br />Mr. Fidler, as the attorney for this lending company, would be responsible for collection of the money owed it, were a borrower to default on the loan/lien. This would amount to the borrowed principal, plus the extraordinary interest fees. Collections attorneys are notorious for sending letters that threaten some sort of action if the loan/lien is not paid in a timely fashion. Of course Mr. Fidler must advocate on the part of his company/client, or else he would be useless to them. And when, in his attorney capacity, he sues debtors who have collected money from the City, the company would then be receiving City money, contributed to the coffers by the taxpayers. <br /><br />So exactly what is Mr. Fidler’s value to this company? It would seem to be much more than he has indicated. Dare I wonder what political benefit the Councilman might bring to the table? According to research, Mr. Fidler was an immigration attorney with a meager practice before being elected to the city council. With no banking background, his association with this company is indeed curious.<br /><br />It also seems that the Councilman’s company probably does profit from City tax dollars. If the company loans money/takes a lien against future earnings from a lawsuit against the City, then City tax dollars must eventually flow into the company's accounts. <br /><br />When Mr. Fidler claims that his company “levels the playing field” for the poor, he sounds disingenuous. First of all, the interest rates are too high to help anyone, and as I first posted, no one who owns a home, and who could therefore borrow against it at a 6% rate would opt to borrow from a company who makes loans, or takes liens against potential future proceeds, at a 50% per annum rate. The people who borrow from Mr. Fidler’s company/client, do not own homes, nor have access to credit cards, or a relative who can be of help. <br /><br />Mr. Fidler’s claim that his company helps borrowers keep their homes is difficult to believe. And if there is a rare borrower who does own a home, and if that borrower should default on the lien taken by Mr. Fidler’s company against future proceeds of the injured party’s lawsuit, does Mr. Fidler turn the other cheek, and say, “Oh, well, we’ll let this one go. If we insist upon suing for enforcement of the lien, the poor fellow might lose his home. After all, I am a public official, and the dire circumstances of some poverty-stricken individual should not be used to feather my personal nest.”? I doubt it.<br /><br />It is obvious, that when a borrower defaults, it is the attorney’s job to collect, or sue. That is what Mr. Fidler does for his company/client, hardly a job for someone who claims to advocate for the poor. Rather than advocating for those in dire need, Mr. Fidler's function seems emblematic of corporate America oppressing the indigent. This is unconscionable for a public official.<br /><br />It is unseemly for a public official to be “feeding at the public trough” so to speak, especially one who owns an “infinitesimal” percentage of a bank. No doubt, this bank probably is affiliated with Mr. Fidler’s lending company/client? And what does 0.01 percent of an unknown dollar amount mean? Is it several hundred, several thousand, several hundred thousand dollars? What is the relationship between this bank ownership and Councilman Fidler's client? Is there ownership involved here, or is there not?<br /><br />As an aside, I would urge Mr. Fidler to contain his nasty language. Although I am but a retired school teacher, I am an adult voter, and active community participant for the past many years. I am above all, a human being and constituent who deserves to be addressed civilly by anyone, let alone a public official who relies upon the goodwill of the voters to remain in office. A potty -mouth and haughty attitude do not deter me. In fact, that kind of unbecoming behavior only encourages further questions.<br /><br />The suggestion by the poster who posed an investigation by the Conflicts of Interest Board, is probably a worthy one. That would be a good place to start—That, and a big bar of soap to wash out Mr. Fidler's dirty and condescending mouth.<br /><br /><br /><br />email this blog|| delicious|| digg<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />For history alone<br />Submitted by Lew from Brooklyn (not verified) on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:48am.<br />Obviously, the ever anonymous "bigapplecharm" didn't quite get a rise out of anyone with this personal and unsubstantiatable attack on my character. Nonethless, as google has made history a different kind of medium, I will address the further drivel that was posted above.<br /><br /> An amazing coincidence that my law office address is at the company office. After all, I am in house counsel. This work represents 90% of my non council legal work anyway.<br /><br />Whaqt is my value as an a "former immigration attorney of meager practice"? Sister, that is such a tell as to your identity that I have to laugh out loud. I guess during our non-communicative years, you were unware of my role as counsel to a health care financing company. some of this comapny's principals are the same as those at my present comopany. In fact, while we worked in the financing business, I helped to develop the documents and systems that are used to operate this current business.<br /><br />And for the record, I have a fairly significant cv. I have been practicing law now for 29 years havng been admitted to practice shortly after my 22nd birthday. I am a graduate of a top law school (NYU)-- inthe top third of my class---and sister, you do know how important that is, right? I have been in the general practice of law (not "just" immigration work, where I did hearings, trials and argued before the Second Circuit Appeals), but in a full civil practice for that entire period, save for two years when I was law clerk to a Supreme Court Justice. and during that time, I have not had a single grievance found against me whatsoever. Jealous?<br /><br />Now, the nonsense about the City. The company I work for does business in 48 states of this country. Within that massive portfolio, I am sure that there are a few cases in which we have advanced money to persons who may be suing the City of New York. No doubt. So what? I refer you to the other entry for an explanatin of how this business works. Once money is advanced to a litigant, the company has absolutely NO role whatsoever---as specified in the contract---in the conduct of the case. The company does not advise, does not appear in Court. Nothing. If the case is lost, nobody pays the company back. Period. If you win, when the defendant pays, the company's lien is satisfied from the proceeds through the litigant's personal attorney. If the company is defrauded, and not paid, it is the personal attorney and/or the litigant who are liable. So the defendant is not an issue. Ever. In 7-8 years of doing over 100 million dollars in business, a defendant has not been sued ONCE. <br /><br />So much for taxpayer's coffers and conflict of interest. Got it?<br /><br />Another tell as to your identity is your elitist view that when I noted that 80% of the money advanced by the industry goes to keep the litigant in their home, and you ASSSUMED it meant HOUSE. Dear, people pay rent to live as well and when you can't pay the next month's rent, the pressure on you to succumb to the economic duress of the insurer's lowball offer is even more intense thn if you had a home. At least if you had a home you have a CHANCE of getting an equity loan. Sorry to burst your ivory tower bubble there.<br /><br />Finally, this retired school teacher nonsense is laugh out loud funny. Sorry if I call "bullshit" for what it is. If it truly offends you as you hide behind your anonymity, make up a fictional "friend" (do you still have any? Wanna wear a wire on them?) and attempt to assasinate my character. I guess I call it the way I see it....and if it walks like BS, smells like BS.....<br /><br />So I have this suggestion for you, since getting a life appears to be out of the question. The next time you want to post about this stupidity, use your real name, and offer up the name of this real person. Otherwise, people will continue to see your posts as nasty personal invective all predicated upon your personal agenda.<br /><br />Sorry if that sounds "haughty" to you. It's just the truth.<br /><br />Lew from BrooklynUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-58263682920656511382007-12-29T17:45:00.000-08:002008-10-29T17:47:56.968-07:00What Gives Councilman Lew Fidler the Nerve to talk about Predatory Lending?posted by bigapplecharm<br />Sat, 12/29/2007 - 10:43pm<br />A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting sponsored by Lew Fidler that had to do with the current sub-prime mortgage mess. He referred to this tragic circumstance as "predatory lending." This really surprised and annoyed me, since I recently spoke with someone who is in a terrible financial situation and made the mistake of borrowing money against a pending lawsuit, which should have netted her a good deal of money to help pay for medical bills due to a severe injury caused by the people she was suing. This person will probably be nursing her injuries for the rest of her life.<br /><br />Instead of collecting the large sum awarded her, which would have helped pay for the medical care she desperately needs, she wound up owing Lew Fidler's company (a lending institution that loans money at rates often higher than 50% to people in financial trouble), the entire amount of the final settlement.<br /><br />It seems that Fidler's company seeks out people in financial trouble, who have a lawsuit pending in the courthouse. Then Fidler sends a letter to these people, asking if they need money while they wait for their settlement. Only the poorest of the poor would take this opportunity, since the interest rates are so usurious. My acquaintance claims that she paid interest of over 60%! <br /><br />Most people who need money would ask a family member, or take out a second mortgage, or use credit cards. Only someone who does not have any other option would borrow at such a thieving rate. This usually means people who are so tight for money that they cannot obtain a credit card, or afford to own a home. So the offer of what looks like easy cash is very tempting, even at such enormous interest rates. Lots of time people who are in dire striats do not look at the end game. In this case that would be winding up with much, much less, if any money at all. The high interest rates certainly do add up, eating up all of the money a person would have gotten, if they had only been able to wait rather than borrow against the future proceeds. This is out and out robbery, in my opinion.<br /><br />This acquaintance said that she was drawn in because she was told that if she lost her case, she would owe Fidler's company nothing. But first Fidler's company determines the value of the case, before offering the loan. The company claims that technically what it is doing is not loaning money, because if the borrower looses the case, they would not owe anything. But, as I said, first Fidler decides the monetary value of the case before offering the loan. The trouble is, the poverty-stricken person, who is put in the position to borrow money against the proceeds of their case, usually winds up with NO MONEY BECAUSE IT HAS ALL GONE TO FIDLER'S COMPANY IN INTEREST.<br /><br />So, really. Who is the predator? We have a New York City councilman preying on the poor, taking their money as if it was his own. And not even caring. He is using his position to trade on the misery of others. I wonder if his company has any dealings with the city? Are any of the people that he loans money to in the process of suing the city of New York? Is he getting New York City's money too? Taxpayers money too?<br /><br />This is all very upsetting. I am wondering if anyone else has heard about this?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-84884373448013823892007-09-27T19:02:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:05:05.347-07:00Fidler Protects Lopez's Ass<strong>Brooklyn Judicial Screening Chairman Speaks</strong><br /><em>September 27, 2007</em><br />Martin Edelman, chair of the Judicial Screening Committee for Kings and Suffolk counties, said today he believes it’s a violation of the Brooklyn Democratic Party’s own rules for party leaders to support candidates who either don’t come before the committee for a review or are deemed unqualified.<br /><br />“Based on my understanding of the rule, the chairman and members of the executive committee should not be endorsing judicial candidates who are not on the list of approved candidates,” Edelman told the DN. “It? unfortunate if the chair or the executive committee would endorse a candidate not on the list. As for other district leaders, in my opinion the rules should be clarified on whether or not is appropriate for an individual district leader to endorses a judicial candidate not approved by the screening committee.”<br />Edelman noted that this question became an issue this fall in the Civil Court primary that pitted former Civil Court Judge Karen Yellen against former Councilman Noach Dear after the candidate who was screened and recommended by the committee, Charles Finkelstein, dropped out.<br /><br />Neither Yellen nor Dear asked to be considered by the committee, Edelman said, and thus neither the party nor any of its leaders, according to his interpretation of its rules, should not have endorsed them.<br /><br />The executive committee did not formally back Dear, but Party Chairman Vito Lopez did, as did a number of other elected leaders including, most surprisingly, Dear’s longtime nemesis, Assemblyman Dov Hikind, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. Lopez is, of course, both a DL and chairman, but Edelmen said he didn’t think a distinction should be made.<br /><br />Edelman, who is an enrolled Democrat but not a member of the Brooklyn Democratic Party (he has an office in the borough but lives in Manhattan), stressed that he has no control over what the party does and noted its leaders are the final arbiters of how the rules are interpreted.<br /><br />Noting that it takes approximately six months to complete the screening process, Edelman also said he would support a “clarification” that would require the party to support candidates screened by the committee and not ignore its recommendations. He also insisted that the committee doesn’t have the authority to screen Surrogate Court candidates, and suggested a party rule change would be in order here as well.<br /><br />Councilman Lew Fidler said he doesn’t believe it’s possible to bar individual members of any organization from supporting any candidate they see fit, calling this “a First Amendment issue.”<br /><br />“I know that I personally take that position and I think it’s the right thing to do,” Fidler said. “But I think the party rules can only govern the actions of the party, not its members.”<br />Fidler noted that the changes adopted by the party Monday as recommended by the blue ribbon panel (but not yet formally codified in its rules) call for all candidates for elected judicial office to be screened going forward. The panel’s tenth recommendation also states:<br /><br />“In order for the screening panel to have any respect, it is essential that the executive committee respects the determination and role of the panel. It would be wholly counter-productive for the executive committee to act in contravention of the penel’s fundings.”<br /><br />Mark<br /><br />September 27, 2007<br />5:33 PM<br />Filder talks reform and always supports the county chooice regardless of what happens in the screening panel. <br /><br />Can anyone with an IQ over 50 explain what Fidler quote means: "But I think the party rules can only govern the actions of the party, not its members."<br /><br />Double speak to protect Vito's ASS<br /><br />I know Fidler and Fidler is machine bought and sold.<br /><br />Fidler is an expert at getting his name in the paper talking reform. He told several reporters 2 years ago ( after Judge Lopez Torres won the Surrogate seat) that the Blue Ribon committee would clean up the process at that time.<br /><br />And Edelman was on the screening committee in 2005 that interview Lopez-Torres, Knipel and Johnson for Surrogate Judge. Where is there a statutory law that says a screening panel can or cannot interview a judicial candidate, it is all made up, like everything else Vito and company does<br /><br />Vito told several reporters during the summer that the Surrogate opening occured 2 late to go before the screening panel. <br /><br />All Vito and the machine which includes the screening panel have left is there pathetic lying spin.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-71848744605246997592007-08-24T19:51:00.000-07:002008-10-30T19:52:46.585-07:00Lew Fidler Laments Impending Loss of Parking Permit<em>by Aaron Naparstek on August 24, 2007 Streetblog</em><br /><br />The Daily Politics' Liz Benjamin captured this little off-the-cuff gem in her interview yesterday with Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler. Fidler, who called the 17-member congestion pricing commission "a sham," is emerging as one of City Council's most outspoken congestion pricing critics:<br /><br /><br />"I am not retiring, but I have not decided what I'm going to do," Fidler said. "I'm not running for mayor, comptroller, public advocate of borough president. There are lots of ways to serve in government, and they're not always elected positions...I enjoy being a councilman more than I could tell you. I wish I wasn't term-limited, but I'm not going to run for an office I'm not likely to win, trying to jam a square peg in a round hole, just to keep the parking permit."<br /><br />Tell it like it is, Lewis!<br /><br />4 CommentsLast comment by MF <br /> nobodyAnd this guy calls himself an environmentalist? Looks like he could use some time out of the car.<br /><br />Lose the permit, Lew.<br />August 24, 2007 at 9:03 am Link # 1 EricMaybe it's time for Lew to put together a resumé and try life in the private sector.<br />August 24, 2007 at 9:54 am Link # 2 Charles SiegelHe looks like a fairly round peg to me. As one of my High School teachers used to say: "How can someone so round be so square?"<br />August 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm Link # 3Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-82817749716418424332007-05-15T18:04:00.000-07:002008-10-29T18:07:19.450-07:00Hack Attack A disbarred lawyer wins a patronage job with Christine Quinn's councilHack Attack<br />A disbarred lawyer wins a patronage job with Christine Quinn's council<br />Tom Robbins<br />Tuesday, May 15th 2007<br />You Can't Escape the Canvasser's Pitch <br />'Got a minute?' The young bleeding-heart carnivores who hunt you down on your lunch hour<br />The Coen Brothers Make Another Mockery with Burn After Reading <br />Remarkably consistent, there's nothing these boys can't hold up to ridicule<br />No Witness Protection for Mobster Turned Snitch Joe Campy. PS: He's Hiding in Plain Sight. <br />PPS: He has a web site.<br />Mickey Rourke is The Wrestler <br />The onetime Hollywood A-lister climbs back in the ring with Darren Aronofsky's latest<br />Midway Through the Toronto Film Fest, and Things are Looking Bleak <br />Oh, Canada<br />A Hip Young Couple Clears Out Low-Rent Tenants for its Television and Playroom Needs (42) <br />Generation excess comes to Prospect Heights<br />The Book of Sarah (Palin) (28) <br />Strafing the Palin record<br />The N-Word Is Flourishing Among Generation Hip-Hop Latinos (22) <br />Why should we care now?<br />Watching the V.P. Debate with Young, Black, Palin-Proud Republicans (20) <br />Watching the chronic winker with her outnumbered, seemingly unlikely supporters<br />Bill Maher Makes an Adolescent Case Against Religion in Religulous; Muslim Comics Play It Safe in Allah Made Me Funny (14) <br />Oh, God! You devil's advocate<br />You Can't Escape the Canvasser's Pitch <br />'Got a minute?' The young bleeding-heart carnivores who hunt you down on your lunch hour<br />No Witness Protection for Mobster Turned Snitch Joe Campy. PS: He's Hiding in Plain Sight. <br />PPS: He has a web site.<br />Baby-Mama Drama and Deadbeat Dads <br />Cathy Middleton has become black radio's favorite expert on child support<br />What We Learned about the Election in This Summer's Movies <br />From the multiplex to the stump: It's caped crusader versus community organizer, and the end is nigh<br />Should the New 9/11 Museum Tell the Whole Truth? <br />Victims' families say yes.<br />Part of the promise that surrounded Christine Quinn's election last year as City Council Speaker was the hope that the former activist would bring the best and brightest into government with her. That optimism endured even after she quickly purged 61 longtime council staffers—including several who were considered standouts. The upbeat explanation was that the new leader was just clearing the decks for her own team, rather than making way for the patronage picks of the political insiders who had endorsed her. <br />But that fails to explain the resistible rise of one Michael D. Benjamin, a disbarred former attorney whose résumé was quickly and successfully floated to Quinn by a political ally after the mass firing opened up scores of vacancies on her staff. <br /><br />Benjamin, 55, lost his license to practice law back in 1994 when an appellate court upheld 15 charges against him of professional neglect. His disbarment, however, hasn't noticeably harmed his political career. He has spent 30 years in one decently paying patronage post or another. Much of that good fortune stems from his roots: Benjamin is a veteran officer, and petition-carrying foot soldier, of Brooklyn's Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club, the powerful Canarsie-based organization that has spawned a string of the borough's leaders and judges. While the clout held by most old-time political clubs has ebbed, the Jeff Club has endured and remains Brooklyn's single greatest locus of power. That influence stems in part from its ability to reward loyal troops such as Benjamin. <br /><br />When Quinn sought the speakership, the support of Brooklyn's Democratic Party organ- ization was key to her victory, and one of the Jeff Club's favorite sons, city councilman Lewis Fidler, became a crucial ally after he jettisoned his own hopes of capturing the job. <br /><br />At the time the new hiring opportunities arose, Benjamin was earning $36,000 a year as an aide to Fidler, handling council legislation. It was one of two political jobs he held simultaneously: The party loyalist also collects $25,000 a year as a part-time assistant to State Senator John Sampson, a South Brooklyn politician who has also received clubhouse support. Benjamin's duties in that job are to attend one or two community events each week as Sampson's representative. <br /><br />Benjamin's political appointments began right after his 1977 graduation from law school when he went to work as an assistant counsel for another Jeff Club stalwart, former State Assembly speaker Stanley Fink. When Fink passed his assembly seat to his aide, Anthony Genovesi, in 1986, Benjamin remained on staff as a $50,000-a-year lawyer. Benjamin still managed to hang on after Genovesi's death in 1998, lasting on the payroll until 2003 when Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver tired of his services. "All his rabbis were dead," explains a Benjamin ally, referring to his political benefactors. <br /><br />Fidler says he didn't remember whether he had approached Quinn directly, or spoke to her chief of staff about hiring Benjamin for a job on the council's central staff. But the answer was the same. "They said, 'Send the résumé in.' " He did, and his friend Benjamin was soon made a legislative policy analyst at a new salary of $60,000. <br /><br />"Was it a favor to me? OK, maybe it's a favor to me," Fidler tells the Voice. "But is he qualified? He is well qualified." <br /><br />Fidler cites Benjamin's role as a director of a civic organization in Bergen Beach, and as vice chairman of a local school-advisory panel. "This is a guy who's active in his community," says Fidler. Still, the councilman acknowledges that he didn't immediately tell Quinn that his aide came with some baggage. The disciplinary panel that won Benjamin's disbarment charged that he had failed to follow through on numerous matters for his clients. In one instance, Benjamin failed to file the required paper-work after an 85-year-old man gave the lawyer a $1,000 retainer to handle his divorce. A woman gave him $1,500 to fight a child-custody case but Benjamin never followed through. He was supposed to help a 12-year-old boy win a personal-injury claim but he never got the papers in on time. <br /><br />Fidler says that he had read the appellate court decision on Benjamin's disbarment and decided that it "didn't involve any dishonesty. This stuff was all in the 1980s and early '90s. It's 13 years ago. We forgive criminals faster than that." <br /><br />Fidler says Quinn learned soon enough about the old problem and wasn't put off by it. "I didn't have to tell her," Fidler says. "He did. At the interview he disclosed that he was disbarred, as he should have." <br /><br />Fidler says he has often urged Benjamin to apply to have his law license reinstated, but that he has failed to do so. "My one criticism is that he's dragged his ass on that. But he did nothing venal and I said I'd write a letter for him when he reapplied." <br /><br />In his council job, Benjamin helps to study proposed legislation for several council panels, including the Youth Services Committee, which is headed by Fidler. "He doesn't perform any legal work for the council," Fidler says. Actually, the 1994 court order forbids Benjamin from even providing an opinion about the law "or any advice in relation thereto." And documents show that Benjamin has written resolutions for Fidler's committee, as well as memos offering legal interpretations to staff attorney Laura Popa, which would appear to violate the order. <br /><br />Reached at his council post, Benjamin politely returned the Voice's calls but declined to comment on his status. Sampson, who still employs Benjamin to serve as his occasional representative at community meetings, also ducked questions about his staffer. As for Quinn, spokesman Anthony Hogrebe says that he can't talk about anything in Benjamin's personnel file because "the law forbids it." But he says that before being hired, the candidate had been subjected to a background investigation "including a review of credentials." Staff policy analysts are not required to be lawyers, he adds, "and most of them are not lawyers." He did not respond to questions as to why Quinn had hired a disbarred attorney.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-1911962847542067292006-12-20T18:02:00.000-08:002008-10-29T18:03:49.318-07:00Fidler On The Black Roof (Part One)posted by Rock Hackshaw<br />Wed, 12/20/2006 - 10:25am<br />A rather militant black political-activist associate of mine, called a short time ago, and uttered this remark in apparent disgust; “why is it that Lew Fidler seems to always involve himself in the politics of black districts?” My reply was ambiguously nuanced yet simple, to wit: all politics is local, and all local elected officials have a right to be involved; more so when the jurisdiction that he or she represents, has contiguous borders with districts where the racial make-up maybe somewhat different to his or hers. He then retorted; “but do you see local black elected officials in the middle of things in say Bensonhurst and/ or Bay Ridge?” He further queried; “do you ever see black elected officials interjecting themselves in the elections that take place in these white areas and amongst the white candidates?” I didn’t respond to those questions. No sireee Bob; I couldn’t touch them with even a ten-foot pole. Fact is, I don’t recall at anytime- in my near 34 years involvement in Brooklyn’s politics- where black electeds were deeply involved in white races. Maybe Gatemouth could help me out here, since he has a firmer grasp on the political history than I- especially in the white areas of Brooklyn.<br /><br />My militant associate then went on to chide me for hitting out at inept black electeds in my blog, while giving white ones a free pass. I had to explain that I was more involved in the politics of black districts much more so than white ones; and also, that I mostly write about my experiences within the districts I usually peregrinate. I told him that I try to write mostly from my background as a community/ political activist; this way I could verify things that may be hazy in my mind, because I could always pick up the phone and call someone who I shared these experiences with. Yet, I did start thinking about what he said concerning Lew Fidler- the current council member from the 46th district. And as time went by, I sat in my shoes and wondered: is there something to this remark?<br /><br />What had precipitated this call was the news that Lew Fidler was enthusiastically backing a white-Jewish candidate, in the special election to replace Yvette Clarke in the city council (40th district). The district itself is over eighty percent non-white in population. In this race there are over two dozen potential black candidates lined up to run; a single white candidate has a tremendous chance of winning this race. Lew Fidler knows this, and as such, he is opportunistically exploiting the situation. Of course he has a right to do this, but is it necessary? Should he be doing this now? <br /><br />In a city where whites make up roughly one-third of the demographics, they (whites) make up over a half of the city council’s members. The questions then became: is this inclusive enough? Is political power being shared fairly amongst the diverse racial, ethnic and nationalistic groups in NYC? Shouldn’t minorities seek to be more empowered? Shouldn’t whites be more sensitive to this? <br /><br />Now that Yvette Clarke is moving up to Congress, not only do we lose a woman (and my belief is that there are not enough women holding elected office, at all three levels of government, all over this country/ likewise: positions in all three branches of government), but we are also losing a black (ditto/ same as women/ above), and also someone of Caribbean–American heritage, in a district that is heavily Caribbean. So what is Lew Fidler‘s motivation here? What is his overriding objective? Is he a friend of minority-empowerment? Can’t he see that there are too many times when people of color, are just nowhere in sight when big decisions are being made in New York-at both city and state levels? The kinds of decisions that impact more heavily on their lives, than say the quality of life for white residents. Can’t he see that way too many times, there are only whites (especially men) seated at the tables of power? Look at the three players who hold the controversial Atlantic/ Bruce Ratner project in their hands; a project that will impact millions of lives. Look at all the power positions in government; take a body count. Look at the hundreds of city and state boards and public entities, take a demographic count. Does Lew see what we all see? Or better yet: do we all see the disparities in race, ethnicity, gender and nationality? And let’s not talk about the private sector. As some of those sassy black mamas say: “let’s not even go there.”<br /><br />Racial-exclusion is alive and kicking in New York City and state. Don’t tell me that Lew can’t see this. Don’t tell me that Lew (wearing those powerful lenses as he does) is totally oblivious to all this. I am sure he sees his way to the dinner table quite well, since he hasn’t lost a pound since I first met him eons ago. In fact he has gained a few over the years. Many people of color don’t eat as well as you do Lew/lol.<br /><br />In political circles all over Brooklyn, people are poised for a “David Yassky redux”; they are talking about déjà vu all over again. So why Lewd Fidler would be pushing a white candidate into this special election, right on the heels of the divisive “Yassky” imbroglio- during the last congressional primary in the 11th district- is anyone’s guess. Lewd Fidler wins no awards for sensitivity this year folks. Tell him not to expect too many Christmas gifts next Monday; Santa aint coming his way. <br /><br />It’s only a matter of time before the mainstream media picks up this budding story (first broken by Helen Klein from the Flatbush Life newspaper), about what I have called “Yassky2”. That’s when we will all see whether or nor Lew Fidler intends to go through with this insensitive plot. Isn’t our community divided enough from the last fallout? Do we need this so quickly on its heels? And by the way, don’t think for one minute that Harry Schiffman doesn’t have the right to run for the seat: he does. It’s just a matter of timing. This development could further polarize things here folks. Given the events of last thanksgiving, where police excesses have again compounded race-relations in this city, shouldn’t we go the Rodney King route and try to “all get along”? Should we not nip things in the bud before they fester like an ugly sore? You tell me; all of you out there in “out-there-land”; all of you who come on this site, to blog, or observe, or whatever.<br /><br />This past Monday, Lew Fiddle was out parading his candidate (Harry Schiffman) around the Thomas Jefferson club, during their annual Christmas party. And when a candidate is squired around by “Biggie Smalls Lew”, people take notice. Just like when E.F. Hutton speaks about the stock market people listen, so it is too when Lew Fidler pushes a candidate. Ask Clarence Norman; Lew Fidler tormented him with Joan Gill for years. He was the architect of Joan’s election as female district leader in the 43rdAD. He was behind her all the way. He always supported her challenges to Clarence. He also supported James Davis when he (James) challenged Clarence in 1998 and 2000. <br /><br />In races all over Brooklyn, Lew's fiddle has been (for many years) playing in the background. Whether it is for judgeships, or for senate, assembly, council or district leader, Biggie Lew has played his strings. But now some blacks are getting angry at fiddler Lew folks; I am just the messenger here, so don’t beat up on me in your comments to this thread. You see Lew’s hands have been fiddling on many a black roof for quite a while now. In 1993, he orchestrated the successful “stop Colin Moore” initiative that prevented the militant Caribbean-American attorney/political-activist/black-nationalist from becoming the councilmember from the 45th district. He has always supported Rhoda Jacobs in the 42nd AD, where the demographics show that over 85% of the residents are non-white. Ms. Jacobs has held that office for almost 30 years. In fact, in the 209 year history of the New York State legislature, that area has never been represented in the Assembly by a non-white; same for the 41stAD (Helene Weinstein).<br /><br />In the conversation with my associate, he stated emphatically that Lew Fidler is no friend to black empowerment (Afro or Carib/ same difference). He said that Blacks, Asians and Latinos in New York, should challenge the powers, in all the areas where their numbers are high. He cited Lew’s council district as an area where so-called minorities make up the majority in terms of demographics. He said that Lew is also the district leader of the 41st AD, and he hasn’t had a challenge in more than 10 years. That district is also majority-minority he says. He believes that with all the problems facing blacks and Latinos in NYC (AIDS, housing, education, health-care, crime, high unemployment, police-brutality, drugs, recidivism, etc., etc.), that there is an overriding need for more black and Latino officials to be elected to state and city offices, in order to slice those apple-pies larger (state and city budgets), to bring more resources into communities of color, so that we can better tackle these deadly and crippling issues. <br /><br />Returning to the 40th council district, and the specter of a white candidate in the special election, my associate believes that people like Kendall Stewart, Nick Perry, Vito Lopez, Yvette and Una Clarke (and other prominent electeds), need to have a sit down with Biggie Lew, and tell him in no uncertain terms: to back up. What do you think? <br /><br />Stay tuned-in folks.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-12779435221356820982006-12-01T17:54:00.001-08:002008-10-29T17:59:05.821-07:00Councilman Lew Fidler's Holiday Bonus<em>Friday, December 01, 2006</em> Random Insane Rants<br />"I am proud to be a member of the City Council, and if I could and I had to, I would do it for nothing. But I can't get Ithaca College to give my son room and board for nothing, I can't get Sunoco to give me free gas, and I can't get my mortgage company to waive my mortgage."<br /><br />--Quote provided by Gotham Gazette, said in the November 15th New York City Council's "Stated Meeting." (The City Council Votes Itself a Raise)<br /><br />"I am not in the luxurious position that Mayor Mike Bloomberg is in, to be able to do his job for $1 a year."<br /><br />--Quote provided by The New York Times (Council Votes to Raise Pay of Top Officials, November 16, 2006)<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />--City Councilman Lewis A. Fidler (D-46th Councilmanic District) on paying his bills by voting himself a $22,500 raise.<br /><br /><br />Because it's not like being a City Councilman is officially a part-time job and Councilman Fidler isn't also making between $90,000 and $260,000 above and beyond the Council salary and his stipend as Assistant Majority Leader...right?<br /><br />Although this is already half a month old, with the coming of December and the holiday season (and Bill O'Reilly's horror that I used the word "holiday") upon us, this is an opportune time to revisit the hefty bonus the City Council voted for itself. Upon seeing the quote from the Gotham Gazette's report of the Stated Meeting, this is a good time to address Lew Fidler on his actions.<br /><br />According to Citizens Union, states the Times, Fidler did indeed report an additional income that is between one and three times the base salary from the Council. Including the $15,000 stipend awarded by the Council, this means that Fidler made between $195,000 and $385,000. This is based on the previous base Council salary of $90,000. The new $112,500 base salary was retroactively applied to begin on November 1, 2006. With Fidler's stipend, his Council earnings alone, given a full year, would amount to $127,500.<br /><br />A chart provided by Gotham Gazette shows Fidler's total income, including various other salaries and bank accounts and his Council salary and stipend, amounts to "at least $179,000" for 2004.<br /><br />This does not mean that Fidler is sitting in the lap of luxury the way top athletes, executives, and Mayor Bloomberg enjoy. However, for Fidler to suggest that he is struggling with his bills and thus deserves a 25% raise on his part-time Council salary is in extremely poor taste and only makes him look like a man stuffing his pockets with no oversight, which, many would argue, he is.<br /><br />Most of the residents in the 46th also struggle to make ends meet and ensure that their families are given the care they need. However, since they do not have the luxury of being able to vote for their own 25% raise just in time for holiday shopping, they have to find other ways to stretch their paychecks to pay their bills. Instead of arguing that he needs a pay raise, Fidler could have paid those bills by cutting expenses.<br /><br />Fidler seems to have been in a position to be able to have saved for his son's education. However, if he was unable to do so, like many families, he could have looked for scholarships with his son or have taken loans to finance his son's education. The downside of the loans, as those who take them find out, is that they cost more money in the long run. This is the price for not being able to pay for college up front. But, it is a worthwhile investment, from someone that is currently taking heavy loans to finance an education.<br /><br />Instead of paying Sunoco money for gas, Fidler can instead take mass transit, as many in the 46th do. He would find out that it is normally a pain in the ass to commute from most parts of the 46th to Manhattan as there is a lack of mass transit options available. The best options from the 46th are the several express buses formerly operated by the Command Bus Company, although the trip from deep within the district takes one hour or more one-way on most days. It would be a great incentive to lobby for an expansion of mass transit options for the people residing in the 46th Councilmanic District.<br /><br />To pay for housing, assuming he has already taken advantage of the low mortgage rates in the years past, a move might be in order. Whether it is to a cheaper home or even to a rental, many people do have to move to cut back on expenses. It does not seem like Fidler would need to move into an apartment like the two-room postage-stamp sized apartment that I have, but such a move would mean savings on monthly expenses and also on property taxes.<br /><br />When there's a will, there's a way, especially considering all of the options that Fidler could choose from given his combined incomes. I did intern for Fidler's office briefly and I still do consider him one of the finer members of the Council. I'm even disappointed that my apartment sits on the wrong side of the border cutting through this street and has locked me into Kendall Stewart's 45th District. However, this act and his less-than-classy comments are very disappointing, to say the least.<br /><br />Since the act has already been done and there is no way to review and possibly revise, the only thing that Fidler must do now is to be a leader and to help his constituents and New York City residents reach a position where they can worry about paying bills on the level that he has to worry about them. Many people are truly struggling and much work remains to be done.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-42428315022749183552006-03-22T20:57:00.000-08:002008-10-29T21:03:02.938-07:00B'KLYN JUDGE PROBED. ALLEGEDLY GAVE CAMPAIGN BUCKS TO POLSB'KLYN JUDGE PROBED. ALLEGEDLY GAVE CAMPAIGN BUCKS TO POLS<br />BY NANCIE L. KATZ DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER<br /><br />Wednesday, March 22th 2006, 7:20AM<br /><br />ANOTHER BROOKLYN judge may be in trouble.<br /><br />Surrogate's Court Judge Frank Seddio is under investigation for allegedly violating rules barring judges from giving campaign money to political candidates or charities, the Daily News has learned.<br /><br />The state's Commission on Judicial Conduct is probing allegations, first reported on The News' editorial page, that the former state assemblyman gave more than half of $55,090 in unspent campaign money to party pals and to a political club whose backing he needed to get on the bench.<br /><br />He gave the rest to religious groups, a volunteer ambulance corps, a youth anti-drug group and other organizations in his home base of Canarsie.<br /><br />Under the state rules, Seddio was supposed to return all funds to the donors to avoid any appearance of impropriety.<br /><br />Seddio, a Democrat, made it to the bench after Brooklyn received a second Surrogate's Court judgeship as part of a deal between Gov. Pataki and the Legislature.<br /><br />He joins Margarita Lopez Torres on the Surrogate's Court bench.<br /><br />She succeeded Michael Feinberg, who was booted by the state's highest court after an exposé by The News revealed he routinely awarded excessive fees to a pal he appointed.<br /><br />Seddio could face public censure if found guilty of the ethical infractions. <br /><br />He did not return calls yesterday.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-7080833240132497662006-03-01T19:05:00.000-08:002008-10-29T19:13:04.400-07:00<strong>BESIDES SPIN TO THE PRESS ABOUT HOW YOUR TRYING TO CLEAN UP JUDGESHIPS IN BROOKLYN WHAT HAS THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE DONE FIDLER SINCE IT WAS PUT TOGETHER 2 YEARS AGO<br /><br />Blue ribbon committee on judgeship screenings</strong><strong>By Thomas Tracy, Courier Life Publications, March 1, 2006</strong><br /><br />While politics may never be fully extricated from the Kings County Democratic Party? judicial candidate screening process, it can be made more independent, members of a special Blue Ribbon Panel learned Wednesday.<br /><br />?s politics a natural part of the judicial selection process? Yes. Should it be? I say hell yes!?City Councilman Lew Fidler told members of a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel given the charge of changing how judicial candidates for the Democratic party are selected for endorsement. ?e are not only selecting the people who are the most qualified for the job here. There is an ideology involvedŠan inherent philosophy that the candidates we back have to support.?<br />Despite his beliefs, Fidler said that the Kings County Democratic Party has ?ost credibility with the public?in light of a string of headline-grabbing reports of unethical and criminal activities conducted by party-backed judges.<br /><br />?till, politics is inherent in the process,?said Fidler, recommending that politics should not have a capital P in the screening process ?the first step in a judicial candidate? run, where a panel determines if he or she is qualified to receive the party? support.<br />The judicial selection committee was created a few years ago after widespread rumors arose that judgeships were being bought and sold by Democratic Party heads.<br />Currently, Democratic District Leaders are able to choose members who will be on the judicial selection committee, which is responsible for determining if a candidate is ?egally qualified?to run.<br /><br />The committee either votes to approve or reject a candidate based on the person? record, knowledge of the law and a host of other factors. The names of those approved are then given to the party to endorse.<br /><br />Critics charge that the judicial selection committee is the first and only line of defense against the placement of incompetent or corrupt judges on the bench. Since the borough is overwhelmingly Democratic, the candidates endorsed by the party are usually elected.<br />Fidler, a Democratic District Leader for the 41st Assembly District, said that if the Blue Ribbon Panel wanted to answer the public? cry to make the selection process more open and inclusive, then the panel should ?ake a step forward?and make sure that the district leaders have ?o political input in the screening panel.?<br />Roughly ten speakers shared their opinions with the Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel during an open forum at St. Francis College on Remsen Street Wednesday evening. Speakers included Fidler, attorney Paul Wooten, retired judge Lorraine Miller and Joanne Simon, the female Democratic District Leader for the 52nd Assembly District in Park Slope.<br />The panel, co-chaired by St. Francis College President Frank Machiarolla and <br /><br />Assemblyman Joe Lentol, is currently wrestling over a number of recommendations they believe will improve the party? judicial screening committee, including adding non-lawyers to the committee, term limits for those who are on the panel and the length and breadth of the appeals process, where judicial candidates determined not qualified can have their case revisited.<br /><br />Attorney Martin Edelman, chair of the party? judicial screening committee since 2003, said that the committee selects candidates based on their record as well as for having an innate sense of fairness and a good demeanor when dealing with colleagues.<br /><br />That being said, under his watch the committee decided to reject two sitting judges preparing their re-election campaigns, who thought that appearing before the committee was simply a formality.<br /><br />That? where the appeals process became a sticky subject and politics raised its ugly head, Edelman explained.<br /><br />?uddenly we?e getting all of these calls from other judges and lawyers that argued in front of these judges,?Edelman said. ?he party didn? support our findings.?Bowing to the pressure, selection committee members ?eversed their decision?upon appeal.<br /><br />Edelman said that he has no problem with the Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel making recommendations to change the current committee.<br /><br />?e could always do better,?Edelman said. ?The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel] is to reform judgeships in a borough that has suffered some terrible scandals. To do it right, they have to have both commitment and integrity.?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-12295046297769961142006-02-13T21:01:00.000-08:002008-10-30T21:02:44.834-07:00Cost of a Judgeship?<em>February 13th, 2006 </em><br />The Daily News focuses on the dealings of Frank Seddio, a new surrogate judge thanks to Democratic Party bosses. After the state created a new Surrogate Court seat in Brooklyn, Seddio won the endorsement of Democratic Party leaders for the post. And the paper’s editorial said, it may not be due to Seddio’s legal prowess: “Campaign filings indicate he doled out far more money to the machine in his quest for elevation to the bench than previously reported.” The paper found he gave out at least $32,000, including $22,500 to the Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club, $5,000 to the judicial campaign of Larry Knipel, $2,000 to the judicial campaign of Richard Velasquez and $2,000 to Councilmember Lew Fidler, also a district leader.<br /><br />Seddio did, however, join with his fellow surrogate, Margarita Lopez Torres, who won election as a reformer, to fire Louis Rosenthal, counsel to the court’s public administrator. The state Court of Appeals last June removed Surrogate Michael Feinberg from the bench for improperly awarding Rosenthal nearly millions of dollars in fees, but Rosenthal had managed to hang on to his job until earlier this month.<br /><br />In case this all sounds fairly arcane, It Takes a Blogger reminds us why it matters: “The Surrogate Court is the cash cow of the local political machines. Political bosses and their cronies have amassed fortunes from the fees for court work assigned by that court.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-80740733271117371392006-02-12T21:06:00.000-08:002008-10-29T21:08:54.081-07:00Seddio Illegally while running for Surrogate Judge Contributes $2000 to Fidler and $10,000 to the Thomas Jefferson ClubSeddio's money trail<br /><br />The evidence mounts that former Assemblyman Frank Seddio committed wholesale violations of judicial ethics rules when he began throwing money around as the Brooklyn Democratic Party was deciding whether to tap him for a surrogate's judgeship.<br /><br />Campaign filings indicate he doled out far more money to the machine in his quest for elevation to the bench than previously reported.<br /><br />The party bosses shoehorned Seddio into a judgeship created in a back-room deal in June by the Legislature and Gov. Pataki. According to judicial ethics rules, Seddio was barred from political activity, including campaign donations, once he was a candidate for the bench. Exactly when that happened is unclear, but on Aug. 10 Crain's New York Business magazine reported "word is spreading" that Seddio "would happily become the nominee." Shortly thereafter, he was generously using his money to win the support of fellow Dems.<br /><br />Records show Seddio gave $250 to Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez on Aug. 17; $250 to Councilman James Gennaro on Aug. 19; $5,000 and $7,500 to the Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club on Aug. 22 and Sept. 1; $5,000 to the judicial campaign of Larry Knipel on Sept. 1; $2,000 to the judicial campaign of Richard Velasquez on Sept. 2 and $2,000 to Councilman Lew Fidler, also a district leader, on Sept. 6.<br /><br />Fidler and the other district leaders designated Seddio the party's candidate on Sept. 15. Thereafter, as disclosed here last week, Seddio gave a total of $10,000 more to the Jefferson Club, the Assembly campaign of longtime aide Alan Maisel and state Sen. Carl Kruger.<br /><br />All told, from what's been discoverable, Seddio doled out $32,000 in well-placed donations, not that far off from the perhaps mythical $50,000 that judgeships are commonly believed to cost in Brooklyn. More than ever, this is a case for District Attorney Charles Hynes and the state Commission on Judicial Conduct. 2/12/06 Daily News EditorialUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-91950004730509014972006-01-31T18:08:00.000-08:002008-10-29T18:10:34.780-07:00Ratner and the Jefferson ClubMind BenderMay. 31st, 2006, 6:30 am Tags: Real EstateBrooklynBruce BenderForest City Ratner CompaniesMike Nelson<br />We had been wondering why so many politicos from the deep south of Brooklyn had endorsed Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project. State Senators Carl Kruger and Martin Golden and City Council Members Lew Fidler and Mike Nelson all wrote letters of support last summer to the M.T.A. <br />We wondered, are these guys all for it because their constituents are going to get some of the jobs targeted to "the community" that the arena complex is supposed to help? Or do they just happen to have a lot of Nets fans living there?<br /><br />Then we hit upon a map for the 59th Assembly district, which is governed by the Thomas Jefferson Club, the Democratic clubhouse whence Bruce Bender sprang. Bender worked for Ed Koch, Peter Vallone and now Forest City Ratner, as the executive vice president for community and government affairs. He does all the outreach to politicos from, among other places, the deep south of Brooklyn.<br /><br />The 59th A.D. includes Canarsie, Mill Basin, Bergen Beach and Flatlands--exactly the neighborhoods that Messers. Kruger, Golden, Fidler and Nelson represent. Bender is, in other words, quite the homeboy<br /><br />-Matthew SchuermanUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-27351995547616801502005-04-18T19:13:00.003-07:002008-10-29T19:14:17.044-07:00Fidler's LawCashA New York Decision That May Imperil Plaintiffs' Ability to Finance Their Lawsuits:<br />Why It Should Be Repudiated, Or Limited to Its Facts <br />By ANTHONY J. SEBOK <br />anthony.sebok@brooklaw.edu<br />---- <br />Monday, Apr. 18, 2005 <br /><br />A New York state court ruling reported in the New York Law Journal on April 1 seems, at first glance, to challenge the legal status of outside litigation financing in New York. Such financing allows plaintiffs to fund their expenses - from medical care, to expert testimony, and the like - without wholly relying on their contingency lawyers' coffers to do so. <br /><br />The decision, Echeverria v. Lindner, casually suggested that New York courts should view investments in lawsuits as loans, which would therefore be regulated by New York's usury statutes. (The usury statutes prohibit the charging of excessive interest.)<br /><br /> In this column, I will explore why Echeverria is a troubling decision. I will argue that it ought to either be repudiated by other New York judges, or be limited to its very special facts.<br /><br />The Basic Facts of Echeverria, and the Issue on Which the Judge Focused<br /><br />On September 1, 2000, Juan Vicente Echeverria was working as a day laborer on a construction site in Long Island when he fell off of an elevated platform . His injuries were so serious that he eventually required back surgery. <br /><br />Echeverria sued under New York's Labor Law § 240. That law holds contractors and property owners strictly liable if a safety measure designed to protect a worker from an "elevation-related hazard" turns out to be inadequate, fails, and causes an injury. <br /><br />On June 4, 2003, Echeverria was able to obtain a default judgment against two defendants, and on August 2, 2004 Echeverria was able to obtain default judgments against three more defendants. On October 27, 2004, just before trial, Echeverria settled with the remaining defendants. <br /><br />The damages issue was left to the judge. Judge Ira B. Warshawsky decided, after some misgivings, to award Echeverria $2.1 million in damages. Echeverria had suffered considerable medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering as a result of his fall. In addition, the judge noted, Echeverria also had had to pay a company named Lawcash $14,806. <br /><br />What was this for? On November 25, 2003, Lawcash handed Echeverria a check for $25,000. In its contract with Echeverria, Lawcash described the $25,000 as an investment in Echeverria's suit. <br /><br />Under the contract's terms, if Echeverria was successful in his litigation, Lawcash would get all or some of its money back (depending on how much Echeverria himself was able to obtain), as well as a significant additional payment. If Echeverria lost his suit or recovered nothing, Lawcash would receive nothing, losing its $25,000 "investment."<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky noted that Lawcash received almost $39,000 in return for its "investment" of $25,000, for a "profit" of almost $14,000 in less than a year. He was clearly bothered by what he saw as a more than 50% rate of interest. And he wondered if the contract that opened up the possibility of an interest rate this high was illegal.<br /><br />This was an odd issue for the judge to focus on, because Lawcash was not a party to the proceeding, and had already been paid. <br /><br />Had Echeverria sued Lawcash to try to void the agreement, it would have been logical for this issue to be raised. But it was not logical in the proceeding to determine how much the defendants would pay Echeverria to compensate him for his losses.<br /><br />So why did the judge raise the issue of the legality of the Lawcash contract? Maybe he was trying to send a message about the whole outside litigation financing business. <br /><br />Was This Rate of Interest Illegal? Some Possible Bases for Thinking So<br /><br /><br />First, Judge Warshawsky explored the possibility that the contract between Echeverria and Lawcash was invalid because it was champertous. <br /><br />I have examined the strange history of the rule against champerty in the United States in a number of earlier columns - including this one. The rule basically tries to limit the "stirring up" of litigation by officious intermeddlers (or lawyers) by prohibiting individuals from purchasing another person's lawsuit.<br /><br />But it turns out that New York has a very limited rule against champerty - one that does not view an investment in a suit that has already been filed as problematic. After all, absent very unusual circumstances, an investment by a third party after a plaintiff has sued cannot be the cause of the lawsuit. Such investments might enable a suit go forward but they don't usually "stir it up"; thus, in New York's view, they aren't champertous.<br /><br />What about the idea that the agreement interfered with Echeverria's ability to make independent decisions about whether and when to settle? An Ohio court had so held, with regard to all agreements regarding outside litigation financing, in 2003 in Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. - a decision that I criticized in an earlier column. <br /><br />But Judge Warshawsky did not echo the Ohio court's reasoning. Indeed, he noted that litigation financing might actual actually help plaintiffs in retaining their independence, by giving them the leeway to resist the temptation to settle too cheaply. And that dynamic certainly may have been true in the case of Echeverria himself - an illegal alien working in a blue-collar job, who very probably had little savings.<br /><br />Was the Agreement a Contract for a Usurious Loan?<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky next took up the question of whether the Lawcash agreement was void because it was a usurious loan.<br /><br />New York, like most other states, has criminal and civil laws against usury. New York's law generally prohibits loans charging interest higher than 16%. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky held that the agreement between Lawcash and Echeverria was a loan agreement. And he noted that it explicitly provided for a return of at 3.85% per month if Echeverria succeeded in his suit. Thus, he concluded that it was usurious. Judge Warshawsky held that Lawcash should have received no more than $4,000 in addition to the return of its initial $25,000 investment. <br /><br />But why did Judge Warshawsky view this as a loan agreement in the first place - rather than an investment agreement (which would then fall outside the usury law)? <br /><br />The judge deemed Echeverria's claim a "sure thing" because he was suing under a statute that imposes strict liability. (Strict liability is not dependent on a showing of negligence; it follows directly from a showing of causation and harm.)<br /><br />Why Judge Warshawsky Was Wrong to See The Lawcash Agreement as a Loan<br /><br />There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of Judge Warshawsky's argument.<br /><br />First, the idea of any lawsuit being a sure thing is a little silly. Until a judgment has been collected many things can go wrong.<br /><br />Second, this lawsuit was far from a "sure thing" in 2003, when Lawcash invested in the case. At that point, two defendants out of a set of seven or eight had defaulted (that is, failed to appear in court). Thus, no one could know if they had any assets, or if they did, how difficult it would be to reach them. Moreover, Echeverria's illegal alien status might reasonably have seen as complicating his ability to win and collect a judgment. What if he were to be deported before the case could proceed? <br /><br />Third, strict liability is not absolute liability. The plaintiff has to still prove that the accident was caused by the absence or failure of a required safety measure that failed to give the proper protection. <br /><br />So the plaintiff was to prove more than merely that he suffered an "elevation-related" injury while in the employ of the defendant or on its property. This proof could have gone wrong - or been rebutted by defendants - in any number of ways. <br /><br />If scaffolding cases were truly open and shut, why would defendants ever go to trial with them? Yet they do. And Judge Warshawsky, as a trial judge, must know that. <br /><br />The Problematic Implications of Judge Warshawsky's Ruling<br /><br />In the end, Judge Warshawsky's ruling is not only ill-reasoned, it is so vague as to be useless. That is why I believe other courts should shy away from following it. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky cannot really be saying that all civil cases based on strict liability are "sure things." They plainly are not. So he must be saying, instead, that judges should decide, case by case, whether a given case was a sure thing - and if it was, strike down any agreement with an entity such as Lawcash. <br /><br />This is recipe for disaster. Judges' assessment of cases will be inevitably affected by twenty-twenty hindsight, when the question is really what the case looked like when Lawcash entered into its agreement with the plaintiff. And the end result will be that the firms that provide litigation support will charge more for their services, out of fear that they will not know whether any given agreement will be deemed usurious or not. <br /><br />Some firms may limit their activities or leave the market. Plaintiffs will inevitably be hurt; some may not be able to get their litigation financed at all. <br /><br />Imagine if this had happened to Echeverria. He <br /><br />got his back operation only a few months after Lawcash invested in his suit. What if Lawcash had not invested? Would he still have received decent medical care, and gotten a $2 million judgment? <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky never offered facts to suggest that Echeverria was made worse off as a result of the deal he struck with Lawcash. If anything, the facts suggests Lawcash's money was important in Echeverria's litigation success.<br /><br />The Wrong Way to Reform Litigation Financing<br /><br />It may be the case that the litigation financing industry needs to be regulated in ways that insure that firms like Lawcash do not take advantage of a poor and vulnerable laborer like Echeverria. But rulings like this are the wrong approach. <br /><br />The theoretical concerns that the judge might have about litigation support have not yet been supported by evidence. Furthermore, the solution offered by the judge--to apply a cap of 16% return to those cases that are determined after the fact to be "sure things"--would make it more difficult than ever for litigants to get help.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-49565973167204561372005-04-18T19:13:00.002-07:002008-10-29T19:14:06.156-07:00Fidler's LawCashA New York Decision That May Imperil Plaintiffs' Ability to Finance Their Lawsuits:<br />Why It Should Be Repudiated, Or Limited to Its Facts <br />By ANTHONY J. SEBOK <br />anthony.sebok@brooklaw.edu<br />---- <br />Monday, Apr. 18, 2005 <br /><br />A New York state court ruling reported in the New York Law Journal on April 1 seems, at first glance, to challenge the legal status of outside litigation financing in New York. Such financing allows plaintiffs to fund their expenses - from medical care, to expert testimony, and the like - without wholly relying on their contingency lawyers' coffers to do so. <br /><br />The decision, Echeverria v. Lindner, casually suggested that New York courts should view investments in lawsuits as loans, which would therefore be regulated by New York's usury statutes. (The usury statutes prohibit the charging of excessive interest.)<br /><br /> In this column, I will explore why Echeverria is a troubling decision. I will argue that it ought to either be repudiated by other New York judges, or be limited to its very special facts.<br /><br />The Basic Facts of Echeverria, and the Issue on Which the Judge Focused<br /><br />On September 1, 2000, Juan Vicente Echeverria was working as a day laborer on a construction site in Long Island when he fell off of an elevated platform . His injuries were so serious that he eventually required back surgery. <br /><br />Echeverria sued under New York's Labor Law § 240. That law holds contractors and property owners strictly liable if a safety measure designed to protect a worker from an "elevation-related hazard" turns out to be inadequate, fails, and causes an injury. <br /><br />On June 4, 2003, Echeverria was able to obtain a default judgment against two defendants, and on August 2, 2004 Echeverria was able to obtain default judgments against three more defendants. On October 27, 2004, just before trial, Echeverria settled with the remaining defendants. <br /><br />The damages issue was left to the judge. Judge Ira B. Warshawsky decided, after some misgivings, to award Echeverria $2.1 million in damages. Echeverria had suffered considerable medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering as a result of his fall. In addition, the judge noted, Echeverria also had had to pay a company named Lawcash $14,806. <br /><br />What was this for? On November 25, 2003, Lawcash handed Echeverria a check for $25,000. In its contract with Echeverria, Lawcash described the $25,000 as an investment in Echeverria's suit. <br /><br />Under the contract's terms, if Echeverria was successful in his litigation, Lawcash would get all or some of its money back (depending on how much Echeverria himself was able to obtain), as well as a significant additional payment. If Echeverria lost his suit or recovered nothing, Lawcash would receive nothing, losing its $25,000 "investment."<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky noted that Lawcash received almost $39,000 in return for its "investment" of $25,000, for a "profit" of almost $14,000 in less than a year. He was clearly bothered by what he saw as a more than 50% rate of interest. And he wondered if the contract that opened up the possibility of an interest rate this high was illegal.<br /><br />This was an odd issue for the judge to focus on, because Lawcash was not a party to the proceeding, and had already been paid. <br /><br />Had Echeverria sued Lawcash to try to void the agreement, it would have been logical for this issue to be raised. But it was not logical in the proceeding to determine how much the defendants would pay Echeverria to compensate him for his losses.<br /><br />So why did the judge raise the issue of the legality of the Lawcash contract? Maybe he was trying to send a message about the whole outside litigation financing business. <br /><br />Was This Rate of Interest Illegal? Some Possible Bases for Thinking So<br /><br /><br />First, Judge Warshawsky explored the possibility that the contract between Echeverria and Lawcash was invalid because it was champertous. <br /><br />I have examined the strange history of the rule against champerty in the United States in a number of earlier columns - including this one. The rule basically tries to limit the "stirring up" of litigation by officious intermeddlers (or lawyers) by prohibiting individuals from purchasing another person's lawsuit.<br /><br />But it turns out that New York has a very limited rule against champerty - one that does not view an investment in a suit that has already been filed as problematic. After all, absent very unusual circumstances, an investment by a third party after a plaintiff has sued cannot be the cause of the lawsuit. Such investments might enable a suit go forward but they don't usually "stir it up"; thus, in New York's view, they aren't champertous.<br /><br />What about the idea that the agreement interfered with Echeverria's ability to make independent decisions about whether and when to settle? An Ohio court had so held, with regard to all agreements regarding outside litigation financing, in 2003 in Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. - a decision that I criticized in an earlier column. <br /><br />But Judge Warshawsky did not echo the Ohio court's reasoning. Indeed, he noted that litigation financing might actual actually help plaintiffs in retaining their independence, by giving them the leeway to resist the temptation to settle too cheaply. And that dynamic certainly may have been true in the case of Echeverria himself - an illegal alien working in a blue-collar job, who very probably had little savings.<br /><br />Was the Agreement a Contract for a Usurious Loan?<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky next took up the question of whether the Lawcash agreement was void because it was a usurious loan.<br /><br />New York, like most other states, has criminal and civil laws against usury. New York's law generally prohibits loans charging interest higher than 16%. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky held that the agreement between Lawcash and Echeverria was a loan agreement. And he noted that it explicitly provided for a return of at 3.85% per month if Echeverria succeeded in his suit. Thus, he concluded that it was usurious. Judge Warshawsky held that Lawcash should have received no more than $4,000 in addition to the return of its initial $25,000 investment. <br /><br />But why did Judge Warshawsky view this as a loan agreement in the first place - rather than an investment agreement (which would then fall outside the usury law)? <br /><br />The judge deemed Echeverria's claim a "sure thing" because he was suing under a statute that imposes strict liability. (Strict liability is not dependent on a showing of negligence; it follows directly from a showing of causation and harm.)<br /><br />Why Judge Warshawsky Was Wrong to See The Lawcash Agreement as a Loan<br /><br />There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of Judge Warshawsky's argument.<br /><br />First, the idea of any lawsuit being a sure thing is a little silly. Until a judgment has been collected many things can go wrong.<br /><br />Second, this lawsuit was far from a "sure thing" in 2003, when Lawcash invested in the case. At that point, two defendants out of a set of seven or eight had defaulted (that is, failed to appear in court). Thus, no one could know if they had any assets, or if they did, how difficult it would be to reach them. Moreover, Echeverria's illegal alien status might reasonably have seen as complicating his ability to win and collect a judgment. What if he were to be deported before the case could proceed? <br /><br />Third, strict liability is not absolute liability. The plaintiff has to still prove that the accident was caused by the absence or failure of a required safety measure that failed to give the proper protection. <br /><br />So the plaintiff was to prove more than merely that he suffered an "elevation-related" injury while in the employ of the defendant or on its property. This proof could have gone wrong - or been rebutted by defendants - in any number of ways. <br /><br />If scaffolding cases were truly open and shut, why would defendants ever go to trial with them? Yet they do. And Judge Warshawsky, as a trial judge, must know that. <br /><br />The Problematic Implications of Judge Warshawsky's Ruling<br /><br />In the end, Judge Warshawsky's ruling is not only ill-reasoned, it is so vague as to be useless. That is why I believe other courts should shy away from following it. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky cannot really be saying that all civil cases based on strict liability are "sure things." They plainly are not. So he must be saying, instead, that judges should decide, case by case, whether a given case was a sure thing - and if it was, strike down any agreement with an entity such as Lawcash. <br /><br />This is recipe for disaster. Judges' assessment of cases will be inevitably affected by twenty-twenty hindsight, when the question is really what the case looked like when Lawcash entered into its agreement with the plaintiff. And the end result will be that the firms that provide litigation support will charge more for their services, out of fear that they will not know whether any given agreement will be deemed usurious or not. <br /><br />Some firms may limit their activities or leave the market. Plaintiffs will inevitably be hurt; some may not be able to get their litigation financed at all. <br /><br />Imagine if this had happened to Echeverria. He <br /><br />got his back operation only a few months after Lawcash invested in his suit. What if Lawcash had not invested? Would he still have received decent medical care, and gotten a $2 million judgment? <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky never offered facts to suggest that Echeverria was made worse off as a result of the deal he struck with Lawcash. If anything, the facts suggests Lawcash's money was important in Echeverria's litigation success.<br /><br />The Wrong Way to Reform Litigation Financing<br /><br />It may be the case that the litigation financing industry needs to be regulated in ways that insure that firms like Lawcash do not take advantage of a poor and vulnerable laborer like Echeverria. But rulings like this are the wrong approach. <br /><br />The theoretical concerns that the judge might have about litigation support have not yet been supported by evidence. Furthermore, the solution offered by the judge--to apply a cap of 16% return to those cases that are determined after the fact to be "sure things"--would make it more difficult than ever for litigants to get help.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-49881878002326110892005-04-18T19:13:00.001-07:002008-10-29T19:13:57.292-07:00Fidler's LawCashA New York Decision That May Imperil Plaintiffs' Ability to Finance Their Lawsuits:<br />Why It Should Be Repudiated, Or Limited to Its Facts <br />By ANTHONY J. SEBOK <br />anthony.sebok@brooklaw.edu<br />---- <br />Monday, Apr. 18, 2005 <br /><br />A New York state court ruling reported in the New York Law Journal on April 1 seems, at first glance, to challenge the legal status of outside litigation financing in New York. Such financing allows plaintiffs to fund their expenses - from medical care, to expert testimony, and the like - without wholly relying on their contingency lawyers' coffers to do so. <br /><br />The decision, Echeverria v. Lindner, casually suggested that New York courts should view investments in lawsuits as loans, which would therefore be regulated by New York's usury statutes. (The usury statutes prohibit the charging of excessive interest.)<br /><br /> In this column, I will explore why Echeverria is a troubling decision. I will argue that it ought to either be repudiated by other New York judges, or be limited to its very special facts.<br /><br />The Basic Facts of Echeverria, and the Issue on Which the Judge Focused<br /><br />On September 1, 2000, Juan Vicente Echeverria was working as a day laborer on a construction site in Long Island when he fell off of an elevated platform . His injuries were so serious that he eventually required back surgery. <br /><br />Echeverria sued under New York's Labor Law § 240. That law holds contractors and property owners strictly liable if a safety measure designed to protect a worker from an "elevation-related hazard" turns out to be inadequate, fails, and causes an injury. <br /><br />On June 4, 2003, Echeverria was able to obtain a default judgment against two defendants, and on August 2, 2004 Echeverria was able to obtain default judgments against three more defendants. On October 27, 2004, just before trial, Echeverria settled with the remaining defendants. <br /><br />The damages issue was left to the judge. Judge Ira B. Warshawsky decided, after some misgivings, to award Echeverria $2.1 million in damages. Echeverria had suffered considerable medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering as a result of his fall. In addition, the judge noted, Echeverria also had had to pay a company named Lawcash $14,806. <br /><br />What was this for? On November 25, 2003, Lawcash handed Echeverria a check for $25,000. In its contract with Echeverria, Lawcash described the $25,000 as an investment in Echeverria's suit. <br /><br />Under the contract's terms, if Echeverria was successful in his litigation, Lawcash would get all or some of its money back (depending on how much Echeverria himself was able to obtain), as well as a significant additional payment. If Echeverria lost his suit or recovered nothing, Lawcash would receive nothing, losing its $25,000 "investment."<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky noted that Lawcash received almost $39,000 in return for its "investment" of $25,000, for a "profit" of almost $14,000 in less than a year. He was clearly bothered by what he saw as a more than 50% rate of interest. And he wondered if the contract that opened up the possibility of an interest rate this high was illegal.<br /><br />This was an odd issue for the judge to focus on, because Lawcash was not a party to the proceeding, and had already been paid. <br /><br />Had Echeverria sued Lawcash to try to void the agreement, it would have been logical for this issue to be raised. But it was not logical in the proceeding to determine how much the defendants would pay Echeverria to compensate him for his losses.<br /><br />So why did the judge raise the issue of the legality of the Lawcash contract? Maybe he was trying to send a message about the whole outside litigation financing business. <br /><br />Was This Rate of Interest Illegal? Some Possible Bases for Thinking So<br /><br /><br />First, Judge Warshawsky explored the possibility that the contract between Echeverria and Lawcash was invalid because it was champertous. <br /><br />I have examined the strange history of the rule against champerty in the United States in a number of earlier columns - including this one. The rule basically tries to limit the "stirring up" of litigation by officious intermeddlers (or lawyers) by prohibiting individuals from purchasing another person's lawsuit.<br /><br />But it turns out that New York has a very limited rule against champerty - one that does not view an investment in a suit that has already been filed as problematic. After all, absent very unusual circumstances, an investment by a third party after a plaintiff has sued cannot be the cause of the lawsuit. Such investments might enable a suit go forward but they don't usually "stir it up"; thus, in New York's view, they aren't champertous.<br /><br />What about the idea that the agreement interfered with Echeverria's ability to make independent decisions about whether and when to settle? An Ohio court had so held, with regard to all agreements regarding outside litigation financing, in 2003 in Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. - a decision that I criticized in an earlier column. <br /><br />But Judge Warshawsky did not echo the Ohio court's reasoning. Indeed, he noted that litigation financing might actual actually help plaintiffs in retaining their independence, by giving them the leeway to resist the temptation to settle too cheaply. And that dynamic certainly may have been true in the case of Echeverria himself - an illegal alien working in a blue-collar job, who very probably had little savings.<br /><br />Was the Agreement a Contract for a Usurious Loan?<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky next took up the question of whether the Lawcash agreement was void because it was a usurious loan.<br /><br />New York, like most other states, has criminal and civil laws against usury. New York's law generally prohibits loans charging interest higher than 16%. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky held that the agreement between Lawcash and Echeverria was a loan agreement. And he noted that it explicitly provided for a return of at 3.85% per month if Echeverria succeeded in his suit. Thus, he concluded that it was usurious. Judge Warshawsky held that Lawcash should have received no more than $4,000 in addition to the return of its initial $25,000 investment. <br /><br />But why did Judge Warshawsky view this as a loan agreement in the first place - rather than an investment agreement (which would then fall outside the usury law)? <br /><br />The judge deemed Echeverria's claim a "sure thing" because he was suing under a statute that imposes strict liability. (Strict liability is not dependent on a showing of negligence; it follows directly from a showing of causation and harm.)<br /><br />Why Judge Warshawsky Was Wrong to See The Lawcash Agreement as a Loan<br /><br />There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of Judge Warshawsky's argument.<br /><br />First, the idea of any lawsuit being a sure thing is a little silly. Until a judgment has been collected many things can go wrong.<br /><br />Second, this lawsuit was far from a "sure thing" in 2003, when Lawcash invested in the case. At that point, two defendants out of a set of seven or eight had defaulted (that is, failed to appear in court). Thus, no one could know if they had any assets, or if they did, how difficult it would be to reach them. Moreover, Echeverria's illegal alien status might reasonably have seen as complicating his ability to win and collect a judgment. What if he were to be deported before the case could proceed? <br /><br />Third, strict liability is not absolute liability. The plaintiff has to still prove that the accident was caused by the absence or failure of a required safety measure that failed to give the proper protection. <br /><br />So the plaintiff was to prove more than merely that he suffered an "elevation-related" injury while in the employ of the defendant or on its property. This proof could have gone wrong - or been rebutted by defendants - in any number of ways. <br /><br />If scaffolding cases were truly open and shut, why would defendants ever go to trial with them? Yet they do. And Judge Warshawsky, as a trial judge, must know that. <br /><br />The Problematic Implications of Judge Warshawsky's Ruling<br /><br />In the end, Judge Warshawsky's ruling is not only ill-reasoned, it is so vague as to be useless. That is why I believe other courts should shy away from following it. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky cannot really be saying that all civil cases based on strict liability are "sure things." They plainly are not. So he must be saying, instead, that judges should decide, case by case, whether a given case was a sure thing - and if it was, strike down any agreement with an entity such as Lawcash. <br /><br />This is recipe for disaster. Judges' assessment of cases will be inevitably affected by twenty-twenty hindsight, when the question is really what the case looked like when Lawcash entered into its agreement with the plaintiff. And the end result will be that the firms that provide litigation support will charge more for their services, out of fear that they will not know whether any given agreement will be deemed usurious or not. <br /><br />Some firms may limit their activities or leave the market. Plaintiffs will inevitably be hurt; some may not be able to get their litigation financed at all. <br /><br />Imagine if this had happened to Echeverria. He <br /><br />got his back operation only a few months after Lawcash invested in his suit. What if Lawcash had not invested? Would he still have received decent medical care, and gotten a $2 million judgment? <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky never offered facts to suggest that Echeverria was made worse off as a result of the deal he struck with Lawcash. If anything, the facts suggests Lawcash's money was important in Echeverria's litigation success.<br /><br />The Wrong Way to Reform Litigation Financing<br /><br />It may be the case that the litigation financing industry needs to be regulated in ways that insure that firms like Lawcash do not take advantage of a poor and vulnerable laborer like Echeverria. But rulings like this are the wrong approach. <br /><br />The theoretical concerns that the judge might have about litigation support have not yet been supported by evidence. Furthermore, the solution offered by the judge--to apply a cap of 16% return to those cases that are determined after the fact to be "sure things"--would make it more difficult than ever for litigants to get help.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-18477056197651700652005-04-18T19:13:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:13:56.608-07:00Fidler's LawCashA New York Decision That May Imperil Plaintiffs' Ability to Finance Their Lawsuits:<br />Why It Should Be Repudiated, Or Limited to Its Facts <br />By ANTHONY J. SEBOK <br />anthony.sebok@brooklaw.edu<br />---- <br />Monday, Apr. 18, 2005 <br /><br />A New York state court ruling reported in the New York Law Journal on April 1 seems, at first glance, to challenge the legal status of outside litigation financing in New York. Such financing allows plaintiffs to fund their expenses - from medical care, to expert testimony, and the like - without wholly relying on their contingency lawyers' coffers to do so. <br /><br />The decision, Echeverria v. Lindner, casually suggested that New York courts should view investments in lawsuits as loans, which would therefore be regulated by New York's usury statutes. (The usury statutes prohibit the charging of excessive interest.)<br /><br /> In this column, I will explore why Echeverria is a troubling decision. I will argue that it ought to either be repudiated by other New York judges, or be limited to its very special facts.<br /><br />The Basic Facts of Echeverria, and the Issue on Which the Judge Focused<br /><br />On September 1, 2000, Juan Vicente Echeverria was working as a day laborer on a construction site in Long Island when he fell off of an elevated platform . His injuries were so serious that he eventually required back surgery. <br /><br />Echeverria sued under New York's Labor Law § 240. That law holds contractors and property owners strictly liable if a safety measure designed to protect a worker from an "elevation-related hazard" turns out to be inadequate, fails, and causes an injury. <br /><br />On June 4, 2003, Echeverria was able to obtain a default judgment against two defendants, and on August 2, 2004 Echeverria was able to obtain default judgments against three more defendants. On October 27, 2004, just before trial, Echeverria settled with the remaining defendants. <br /><br />The damages issue was left to the judge. Judge Ira B. Warshawsky decided, after some misgivings, to award Echeverria $2.1 million in damages. Echeverria had suffered considerable medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering as a result of his fall. In addition, the judge noted, Echeverria also had had to pay a company named Lawcash $14,806. <br /><br />What was this for? On November 25, 2003, Lawcash handed Echeverria a check for $25,000. In its contract with Echeverria, Lawcash described the $25,000 as an investment in Echeverria's suit. <br /><br />Under the contract's terms, if Echeverria was successful in his litigation, Lawcash would get all or some of its money back (depending on how much Echeverria himself was able to obtain), as well as a significant additional payment. If Echeverria lost his suit or recovered nothing, Lawcash would receive nothing, losing its $25,000 "investment."<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky noted that Lawcash received almost $39,000 in return for its "investment" of $25,000, for a "profit" of almost $14,000 in less than a year. He was clearly bothered by what he saw as a more than 50% rate of interest. And he wondered if the contract that opened up the possibility of an interest rate this high was illegal.<br /><br />This was an odd issue for the judge to focus on, because Lawcash was not a party to the proceeding, and had already been paid. <br /><br />Had Echeverria sued Lawcash to try to void the agreement, it would have been logical for this issue to be raised. But it was not logical in the proceeding to determine how much the defendants would pay Echeverria to compensate him for his losses.<br /><br />So why did the judge raise the issue of the legality of the Lawcash contract? Maybe he was trying to send a message about the whole outside litigation financing business. <br /><br />Was This Rate of Interest Illegal? Some Possible Bases for Thinking So<br /><br /><br />First, Judge Warshawsky explored the possibility that the contract between Echeverria and Lawcash was invalid because it was champertous. <br /><br />I have examined the strange history of the rule against champerty in the United States in a number of earlier columns - including this one. The rule basically tries to limit the "stirring up" of litigation by officious intermeddlers (or lawyers) by prohibiting individuals from purchasing another person's lawsuit.<br /><br />But it turns out that New York has a very limited rule against champerty - one that does not view an investment in a suit that has already been filed as problematic. After all, absent very unusual circumstances, an investment by a third party after a plaintiff has sued cannot be the cause of the lawsuit. Such investments might enable a suit go forward but they don't usually "stir it up"; thus, in New York's view, they aren't champertous.<br /><br />What about the idea that the agreement interfered with Echeverria's ability to make independent decisions about whether and when to settle? An Ohio court had so held, with regard to all agreements regarding outside litigation financing, in 2003 in Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. - a decision that I criticized in an earlier column. <br /><br />But Judge Warshawsky did not echo the Ohio court's reasoning. Indeed, he noted that litigation financing might actual actually help plaintiffs in retaining their independence, by giving them the leeway to resist the temptation to settle too cheaply. And that dynamic certainly may have been true in the case of Echeverria himself - an illegal alien working in a blue-collar job, who very probably had little savings.<br /><br />Was the Agreement a Contract for a Usurious Loan?<br /><br />Judge Warshawsky next took up the question of whether the Lawcash agreement was void because it was a usurious loan.<br /><br />New York, like most other states, has criminal and civil laws against usury. New York's law generally prohibits loans charging interest higher than 16%. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky held that the agreement between Lawcash and Echeverria was a loan agreement. And he noted that it explicitly provided for a return of at 3.85% per month if Echeverria succeeded in his suit. Thus, he concluded that it was usurious. Judge Warshawsky held that Lawcash should have received no more than $4,000 in addition to the return of its initial $25,000 investment. <br /><br />But why did Judge Warshawsky view this as a loan agreement in the first place - rather than an investment agreement (which would then fall outside the usury law)? <br /><br />The judge deemed Echeverria's claim a "sure thing" because he was suing under a statute that imposes strict liability. (Strict liability is not dependent on a showing of negligence; it follows directly from a showing of causation and harm.)<br /><br />Why Judge Warshawsky Was Wrong to See The Lawcash Agreement as a Loan<br /><br />There are a number of reasons to be skeptical of Judge Warshawsky's argument.<br /><br />First, the idea of any lawsuit being a sure thing is a little silly. Until a judgment has been collected many things can go wrong.<br /><br />Second, this lawsuit was far from a "sure thing" in 2003, when Lawcash invested in the case. At that point, two defendants out of a set of seven or eight had defaulted (that is, failed to appear in court). Thus, no one could know if they had any assets, or if they did, how difficult it would be to reach them. Moreover, Echeverria's illegal alien status might reasonably have seen as complicating his ability to win and collect a judgment. What if he were to be deported before the case could proceed? <br /><br />Third, strict liability is not absolute liability. The plaintiff has to still prove that the accident was caused by the absence or failure of a required safety measure that failed to give the proper protection. <br /><br />So the plaintiff was to prove more than merely that he suffered an "elevation-related" injury while in the employ of the defendant or on its property. This proof could have gone wrong - or been rebutted by defendants - in any number of ways. <br /><br />If scaffolding cases were truly open and shut, why would defendants ever go to trial with them? Yet they do. And Judge Warshawsky, as a trial judge, must know that. <br /><br />The Problematic Implications of Judge Warshawsky's Ruling<br /><br />In the end, Judge Warshawsky's ruling is not only ill-reasoned, it is so vague as to be useless. That is why I believe other courts should shy away from following it. <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky cannot really be saying that all civil cases based on strict liability are "sure things." They plainly are not. So he must be saying, instead, that judges should decide, case by case, whether a given case was a sure thing - and if it was, strike down any agreement with an entity such as Lawcash. <br /><br />This is recipe for disaster. Judges' assessment of cases will be inevitably affected by twenty-twenty hindsight, when the question is really what the case looked like when Lawcash entered into its agreement with the plaintiff. And the end result will be that the firms that provide litigation support will charge more for their services, out of fear that they will not know whether any given agreement will be deemed usurious or not. <br /><br />Some firms may limit their activities or leave the market. Plaintiffs will inevitably be hurt; some may not be able to get their litigation financed at all. <br /><br />Imagine if this had happened to Echeverria. He <br /><br />got his back operation only a few months after Lawcash invested in his suit. What if Lawcash had not invested? Would he still have received decent medical care, and gotten a $2 million judgment? <br /><br />Judge Warshawsky never offered facts to suggest that Echeverria was made worse off as a result of the deal he struck with Lawcash. If anything, the facts suggests Lawcash's money was important in Echeverria's litigation success.<br /><br />The Wrong Way to Reform Litigation Financing<br /><br />It may be the case that the litigation financing industry needs to be regulated in ways that insure that firms like Lawcash do not take advantage of a poor and vulnerable laborer like Echeverria. But rulings like this are the wrong approach. <br /><br />The theoretical concerns that the judge might have about litigation support have not yet been supported by evidence. Furthermore, the solution offered by the judge--to apply a cap of 16% return to those cases that are determined after the fact to be "sure things"--would make it more difficult than ever for litigants to get help.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-79523610356408819922005-02-21T19:54:00.000-08:002008-10-30T19:55:57.255-07:00Brooklyn Politics by Erik EngquistFeb 21, 2005<br /> REALITY CHECK FOR NY TIMES: The New York Times called it “an unexpected setback” to Rep. Anthony Weiner’s mayoral campaign when the Democratic clubs of Councilman Lew Fidler and district leaders Bernie Catcher and Mike Geller endorsed other candidates.<br /><br /> Our question is, unexpected by whom?<br /><br /> Given that Weiner has no patronage or pork to offer, his chances for endorsements by clubs and other politicians are minimal. We’re not sure why the Times ran a story at all.<br /><br /> Certainly endorsements by these (or any) clubs are not crucial to a campaign. As one reader noted, Geller’s Kings Highway club backed Mark Green for mayor in 2001, yet Mike Bloomberg got 71 percent of the vote in the club’s 45th Assembly District.<br /><br /> In 1998 the club also endorsed Joel Garson over the late Lena Cymbrowitz for Assembly (Cymbrowitz won with 40 percent, Garson was a distant third with 17 percent) and Dan Feldman over Weiner for Congress (Weiner won, Feldman finished fourth).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-6033661364458009272004-03-19T21:29:00.000-08:002008-10-30T21:31:36.690-07:00SUES OVER HOW JUDGES ARE PICKED<em>March 19, 2004 Friday Daily News</em><br /><br />SUES OVER HOW JUDGES ARE PICKED<br /><br />By JOHN MARZULLI<br />A Brooklyn civil court judge is charging in a lawsuit that the system of selecting state Supreme Court justices by party bosses is a "sham" and unconstitutional.<br />"If you were to ask people how Supreme Court justices are selected, they would say, 'There's an election,' but very few people have an understanding how those names get on the ballot - and they would be horrified," said Judge Margarita Lopez Torres. <br /><br />The judge is the lead plaintiff in the suit, filed yesterday against the state Board of Elections in Brooklyn Federal Court.<br /><br />Elected to the bench in 1992, Lopez Torres has sought the Democratic nomination for Supreme Court since 1997 but has not gotten the support of the county leadership because she reportedly refused to hire a party-backed attorney as her law secretary.<br />"All too often under the current system, a candidate's loyalty to the party leadership is much more important in obtaining a place on the general ballot than the candidate's legal experience, ethics or integrity," said Frederick Schwarz, who represents the plaintiffs. He also is senior counsel to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, which brought the suit.<br /><br />The suit before Federal Judge John Gleeson seeks to junk the current system of holding nominating conventions controlled by Democratic and Republican Party leaders to select judicial candidates. The suit charges that the process effectively shuts out challengers and cheats voters out of their right to choose.<br /><br />Until the state Legislature replaces the system, direct primary elections could be held - an alternative that critics say is problematic, too.<br /><br /><strong>Direct primaries "would be grotesquely unseemly," said Councilman Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn). "You'd have sitting judges raising money and campaigning. It would be a sad sight."</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9067183542281417137.post-58015476879138209962003-12-04T19:58:00.000-08:002008-10-30T19:59:13.360-07:00LeadershipLinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy MIKE MCINTIRE (NYT); COMPILED BY ANTHONY RAMIREZ <br />Published: December 4, 2003<br />Councilmen Bill de Blasio and Albert Vann announced yesterday that they had enough support to wrest control of the 17-member Brooklyn delegation of the City Council from Councilman Lewis Fidler. No date has been set for a vote by the delegation, but Mr. Fidler said yesterday that he would fight any attempted ouster. The councilmen produced a petition signed by 12 delegation members endorsing Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Vann as co-chairmen for the 2004 term. ''We didn't achieve as much as we think we were capable of doing,'' Mr. Vann, a Democrat, said. ''The overriding issue is, members really want to see new leadership every so often.'' The move would also place Mr. de Blasio in a better position to fill the speaker's job in 2005, when Gifford Miller must give up the post because of term limits. Mike McIntire (NYT)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0