Fellow Patriots,
Forgive me for telling this story so late following the events of last Friday, but as our campaign winds down the rest of my life (work,work, work) has been catching up with me. But this story tickles me, and I just wanted to share it with all of you. For context, you should be familiar with Jim McCabe's post on the campaign blog, "Nadler Operatives Nuke Sullivan Petitions."
With the challenges to our petitions coming from the Nadler camp, and the prima facie finding by the BoE that I am not a properly enrolled Democrat, notification of a hearing at the Kings County Supreme Court had been issued. Having received the notification, I contacted our legal counsel for one last piece of advice: "Should I go to this hearing, and if so, what should I say?" Our counsel had made clear earlier that we stood no real chance of being on the ballot, and that to default on the hearing would simply confirm a withdrawal of my candidacy. He had also mentioned, though, that going to the hearing might offer an opportunity to grandstand one last time on the impeachment issue. (Sometimes the press is there, he said.)
While I was not certain about how appropriate it would be to grandstand at the hearing, I decided to attend the hearing after discussion with Sharon. What concerned me most was the implication in the Nadler camp's petition that our petitions were possibly "fraudulent." I did not want to be exposed legally, if my failure to appear in court were seen as a tacit admission of fraud; but more importantly, I felt that those who had signed our petitions deserved to be represented, and that they did not deserve to have their wishes dismissed as though part of some political hoax.
Truth be told, I was very nervous to go. I had, in fact, already had to default on one hearing (on a working day for me), which was rescheduled and I could not be sure how the judge would view that. I imagined that it would most likely go smoothly, but I understood that the wrong judge on the wrong day could make my life difficult or worse. Our legal counsel had never mentioned anything like the possibility of a fine, but my imagination was beginning to run away with me. I was most concerned that I and/or the campaign could be left open to future legal complications, litigation, etc.
What happened was something like the opposite.
The hearing was rather informal (as Sharon describes it, "a conference table with an audience"), and the judge a friendly, avuncular and kind-hearted Orthodox Jew named Smith. As I took my place in front of him, three (3!) men in suits sat down opposite me, representing Cooper and Jacobson, Nadler's plaintiffs. One was the lawyer from Stroock, Stroock and Lavan, another introduced himself as general counsel for the BoE (!) and the third...I have no idea who was the third. Another lawyer. The title of Jim's blog was ringing in my head--Nadler's operatives were once again going nuclear. One lawyer would have sufficed, but here were three.
I introduced myself to the judge, whereupon he extended his hand to shake mine. I did, then proceeded to offer my hand to the lawyer (named Goldfeder, I think) from SS&L. I was determined to smile and stay friendly. (After all, I was walking in there to concede, not to fight--but did Nadler's people know it?) The judge then remarked, "Oh, you're the candidate?" I said yes, and he shook my hand again.
Emboldened by his friendliness and apparent good nature, I offered an apology to the judge for missing the first hearing. He said that, well, I was lucky that he was the judge, because he rescheduled the hearing instead of just saying that I'm "out". I smiled and remarked, "I think I'm 'out' anyway." He said, "Well, now you'll be 'out' on the substance, instead of on the procedure."
At this point, mind you, the judge had hardly said a word to the three important men in suits on my right. This would continue for most of the hearing, which was probably not more than four minutes in length.
The judge asked me first for a description of the situation. I told him briefly about how we had discovered that I was not correctly enrolled as a Democrat, and that I understood that this means that I will not be on the ballot. Then the judge blew my mind. Rather than a perfunctory response, or some admonishment for conducting an irresponsible campaign, he said, "I'm sorry."
"Well, I'm sorry," he said, "because I know what it's like to go through collecting all of those signatures."
I was smiling, and my eyes practically welling up, as I responded, "Actually, your honor, that was my favorite part of the campaign. It was a privilege going out and speaking to the constituents about what we were trying to do."
"Well, I wish you good luck," he finished. Then he turned to the guys-in-suits, and asked if they would withdraw their petition "without prejudice". They said, "yes." There it was, on the record, that our campaign was over, yes, but without any intimation of fraud. That was it. I thanked the judge, and he shook my hand, smiling, for a third time. Then I shook the lawyer's hand again, grabbed my bag and headed for the door.
I had to get out fast, because I was suppressing giggles. I could not help but think that the three important guys in suits must be a bit deflated. After all, not only did they not get to say what a bad guy I am and how fraudulent/invalid my candidacy is, heck, the judge barely even addressed them. He chit-chatted with me for a few minutes, and suddenly it was all over but the ride back to Manhattan.
I still have an overall feeling of unfinished business regarding this campaign, and probably always will. But keeping perspective requires making the most of the smallest victories. It may not mean much ultimately, but to me it feels wonderful knowing that the Nadler camp probably spent a small fortune in legal fees to nuke our campaign, a campaign which we all know now was DOA. I love that the three suits were clearly puffed up with self-importance, operatives of the Nadler electoral strategy, only to find that at least two of them didn't need to be there. If none of them had shown up, it might have gone down the same way.
I know this buys us nothing for impeachment, but it meant everything to me to be able to walk away from that hearing laughing. It was a reminder that justice does exist, even if it is only portioned out in small amounts, and that the straw men who think they run the world can be reminded occasionally that they do not. There are mechanisms of this universe which benefit the smallest of us, though some days it may seem otherwise.
I give thanks to God for small favors.
Power to the People,
Adam
2 comments:
Adam,
Regardless of your success, or lack of, unfortunately, in running against Nadler, you have irrevocably shifted the previously complacent ground under his feet. And that is no small, or insignificant, feat and does not diminish, in any way, the credit you deserve. You raised people's consciousness; forced constituents to face their dissatisfaction and Nadler his vulnerability
There is no turning back. I guarantee you, you have opened the door for more people to consider running against him in 2010. Regardless of his outward appearance or day-to-day activities he can never again rest in the belief his seat is truly safe, inviolate. As much as he might want to, he cannot, without great risk to his political career, ignore the now exposed growing dissatisfaction and discontent of his constituents, thanks to you.
This is not to say we shouldn't continue to fight for impeachment; my belief in the need for impeachment has not diminished on iota, however, I can’t ignore my growing belief that the country’s problems extend far beyond anything impeachment, on a practical level, can even address at this point.
The complete disregard and violation of the Constitution, by an overwhelming number of elected officials on both sides of the aisle, raises the question of how effective any remedy, borne of the Constitution, can be at this point. Elected officials so blithely tread all over our Constitution, why would they respect impeachment? In addition, I think it is possible that the inherent, fundamental power and meaning of impeachment was significantly, if not fatally, weakened as a result of its absurd application to Clinton.
Given the continuing exposure of the overwhelming problems, dysfunction and corruption in our system of government and elected officials I'm losing confidence that impeachment alone would even make a dent in restoring our Constitution. Our elected official’s fundamental disregard for the Constitution is rampant. The sentiments and behavior of many in congress is making it increasingly conceivable to me that even achieving impeachment would not fundamentally change anything.
Again, my belief that Bush and Cheney should be impeached only increases with time. I’m just no longer sure, given the breadth and depth of a depressing number of elected official’s apparent lack of respect for our Constitution, that achieving impeachment will provide the requisite effect. Believing impeachment could achieve no appreciable, qualitative difference is frightening, experiencing this would be beyond frightening, but not unrealistic, I’m even more afraid.
It is hard to get someone to uphold something they don’t respect. So before we can hope for our elected officials to uphold the Constitution, we need to get them to respect it once again. And that will only happen once they understand we will not stop demanding we live and be governed by the tenets of the Constitution, and failing that will cost them their political career. Raising the consciousness of fellow citizens and getting them on-board is critical. Adam, you and your campaign were extremely successful in achieving this important first step. You need to trust you have made a significant contribution in our quest to change our future course. And that might be all that we can hope for, right now.
Jill
You are all insane fools.
Post a Comment