Updated: Oct 26, 2022
I was deeply shocked and dismayed by the way a NY State Supreme Court handled an election case of mine, as a candidate plaintiff. We all condemn suppressing the vote.
We should equally condemn suppressing access to the ballot.
As a candidate for office in Queens for the NY State Assembly District #25, I needed to defend my petitions in court. However, my case was dismissed procedurally the very first day in court because my lawyer having my case for only one day hadn’t yet submitted paperwork to the other side and hadn’t submitted the request to the court to subpoena the Board of Elections for certified records.
The case is somewhat complicated but if you read the accompanying summation you will see clearly how the Democratic Queens-County-promoted-judge favored the case for my opposition, an incumbent in the NY State Assembly, by denying a first time adjournment of ours and to dismiss my case on a(n albeit) procedural basis. Then the judge on the basis of the denial of the adjournment went on to rashly (and superfluously since it was already the ruling by the Board of Elections) rule in my opponent’s favor of a counterclaim to invalidate my petition despite my not having had the reasonable opportunity of presenting the evidence in my case.
Since our case was dismissed only procedurally it went to a 2nd judge and he dismissed my case on the “merits” based on an erroneous application of res judicata (a term meaning that a case has been fully tried and ruled on) of our first case.
An appeals court judge ruled that the 2nd judge had invalid reasoning to apply res judicata to my first case yet still went on to confirm the ruling of the dismissal by the 2nd judge. The reason given for that dismissal was that there wasn’t “particularity” in the rebuttal form that we submitted in the 2nd case. However we followed the format of that rebuttal form but even if our submission was deficient, a demand for further clarification should have been a proper response and an opportunity to cure such deficiencies should have been afforded. To kill a case before it is even started is the hallmark of a draconian court with a political bent.
The reason this corrupt mishandling of my case is so essential for the public to know about, is because society is so divided politically and ideologically but our judicial system has to remain objective and reliable for all who come before it.
Please read the accompanying summation where it clearly delineates what happened and I believe that you will agree with me that a gross miscarriage of justice occured and if that is true that means that free ballot access is denied to those, it is widely believed, who aren’t favored by the “Party Machine” and candidates outside of “County” will encounter large stumbling blocks if they have to end up in such a court.
The Press has written about this and I will point to the article by Ross Barkan in a Daily News article in 2017 to illustrate this. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/lawyers-controlled-queens-dems-party-30-years-article-1.3017007. This is what the article says:
“For 30 years, the same three men have effectively controlled one of the largest Democratic organizations in America. They are Gerard Sweeney, Michael Reich and Frank Bolz, the powerful attorneys who serve... the chairman of the Queens County Democratic Party. Reich is the executive secretary of the party, a spokesperson and wrangler of district leaders. Bolz is the law chairman, entrusted with keeping county-approved candidates on the ballot and knocking their rivals off. The three men, with Crowley’s blessing, still determine what type of justice is served in Queens County. No Queens judge rises through the ranks without the party’s blessing."
It’s time that this fraudulent justice system is brought into focus and exposed more prominently to the public. We need to band together in furthering to educate people about this piece of the election system that is clearly blocking ballot access and is operating in the dark.