Republicans could be in for a long summer

In Chris Christie:The Inside Story of His Rise to Power, authors Bob Ingle and Michael Symons describe U.S. Attorney Christie’s reluctance to use Solomon Dwek as informant during the Operation Bid Rig investigation in 2006.  “Do I really want to get in bed with this guy?” Christie is described as asking his deputies who were pushing for approval to make Dwek an informant. 

Ironically given how Democrats and defendants have argued that the July 2009 arrests based on Dwek’s sting were politically motivated to help Christie, the Deputy U.S. Attorneys advocating the sting argued to Christie that he would have been acting politically if he did not approve Dwek’s cooperation.

If this Star Ledger article by Matt Friedman is an indication of charades to come this summer, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will make Joe Oxley’s confirmation hearing for his Superior Court Judgeship nomination a payback for the unceremonious end to former House Speaker, Senator and Commissioner of Community Affairs Joe Doria’s career when he his home was raided during the July 2009 federal operation. 

Doria has been cleared of any wrongdoing.  He has a letter from the U.S. Attorney, just like John Bennett does, but his career in public service is over.   Maybe Doria can become Chairman of the Hudson County Democrats some day.

U.S. Senate nominee Joe Kryillos is in the Democrats sites as well.  Dwek is the ammunition.

Democratic State Chairman John Wisniewski Tuesday issued a list of questions for Kyrillos, including how often he met with Dwek, what was discussed, who else was in attendance and whether he was ever contacted by law enforcement about it. “If you deny this and suggest Dwek is lying, does that raise the possibility with you that Dwek’s testimony that convicted others should be questioned?” Wisniewski wrote.

Kyrillos campaign spokesman Chapin Fay did not directly respond to Wisniewski, instead repeating that Kyrillos did nothing to help Dwek.

During the trial of Ridgefield Mayor Anthony Suarez it was revealed that among the diobalical schemes Dwek deployed in the 14 years leading to his 2006 arrest was a life insurance scam.  Dwek paid the life insurance premiums of people close to death who could not afford to keep their policies.  Upon the death of the insured, Dwek would give the deceased’s family 10% of the policy proceeds and pocket the rest.

Dwek’s father tried to get Soloman a pardon from President George W. Bush.  Maybe President Obama will pardon Dwek if he helps knock Chris Christie down a notch and helps keep Bob Menendez in the Senate.

• Tweet

Senate Judiciary Committee Rejects Bruce Harris’s Nomination To The NJ Supreme Court

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-6 to reject Chatam Mayor Bruce Harris’s nomination as a Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The votes were identical to those of Philip Kwon’s nomination to the Court earilier this year.

• Tweet

Oxley’s Nomination To Superior Court Announced By Christie

Photo credit: Scarcini, Hollenbeck

Governor Chris Christie nominated Monmouth County Republican Chairman Joe Oxley to the Superior Court this afternoon.

Oxley, who will complete his second term as Monmouth GOP Chair upon the election of his successor on June, 12, is a graduate of the University of Maryland and Delaware Law School.   He was elected Monmouth County Sheriff in 1995 after defeating William Lanzaro in the GOP primary and served as Sheriff until 2007.   He is a partner in the Scarinci Hollenbeck law firm and an adjunct professor at Monmouth University.

Oxley was elected Chairman by acclamation in June of 2008.  After narrowly losing control of the Monmouth County Freeholder Board in the Obama election of 08, Oxley brought stability and three straight victorious elections to a previously divided party.  He will leave his successor with a 5-0 Freeholder Board and an entirely Republican legislative delegation.

Oxley’s nomination has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing.

Former Senate President John Bennett and State Committeewoman Christine Hanlon are running to replace Oxley as Monmouth GOP Chair.

• Tweet

The Color of Justice

By Evans C. Anyanwu

If abolitionist Frederick Douglas appeared today in New Jersey and asked for political support from the African American community, he might be surprised at the fact that his political affiliation would far eclipse his accomplishments. Douglas was a Republican.

In April of 1865, shortly after the Civil War ended, and President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, Douglas gave a speech at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston. At issue was the voting rights of Black men and to this subject Douglas remarked:

“I have had but one idea for the last three years to present to the American people, and the phraseology in which I clothe it is the old abolition phraseology. I am for the immediate, unconditional, and universal enfranchisement of the black man, in every State in the Union. Without this, his liberty is a mockery; without this, you might as well almost retain the old name of slavery for his condition; for in fact, if he is not the slave of the individual master, he is the slave of society, and holds his liberty as a privilege, not as a right. He is at the mercy of the mob, and has no means of protecting himself.”

Drawing loud applauses from the previous line, Douglas went right into the heart of his speech. He deviated from the conventional thought of most abolitionists, which at the time was that the right to vote should come last. The immediate need for African Americans, most thought, was to end slavery, organize and let voting naturally come at the end of the abolitionist movement. Douglas remarked: “It may be objected, however, that this pressing of the Negro’s right to suffrage is premature. Let us have slavery abolished, it may be said, let us have labor organized, and then, in the natural course of events, the right of suffrage will be extended to the Negro. I do not agree with this.”

Five years after his speech, the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited the States and Federal government from denying African Americans the right to vote. Thereafter, Thomas Mundy Peterson, a Republican, on March 31, 1870 cast the first vote ever by a Black man, under the just-enacted Amendment, during the Perth Amboy, New Jersey, School Board Elections.

The right to vote, not only for African Americans, but for women, was very important to Douglas. So it is with this background that I write about a very important vote to ensue. There is likely to be a committee vote this month to advance the nomination of Bruce A. Harris, Esq. to the Supreme Court of the same State where Thomas Mundy Peterson cast his historic vote.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Former Long Branch Woman Appeals To Christie, Legislature, For Relief From Abusive Judge

Rachel Alintoff

A former Long Branch woman who appealed to Governor Chris Christie for help regarding unfair and illegal treatment by the Monmouth County Judge presiding over her divorce case says she has heard from the State Attorney General’s Criminal Division and the Governor’s office who have referred her case to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.

Rachel Alintoff, 36, told Christie during his town hall meeting in Garfield last week that Judge Paul X. Escandon stripped her of her parental rights of her 2 year old son, Hayden, without the legally required hearing, as punishment for her seeking an order of protection in New York, where she lives now, against her estranged husband Bryan who failed to dispose of a handgun as Escandon had ordered as part of a custody order.

Alintoff also told Christie that Escandon, after his ruling on her parental rights was overturned by the Appeals Court, denied her access to her clothing, money for legal fees and granted her only $1,100 per month in child support from her husband who earns, she says, over $500K per year on Wall Street.

Here’s a link to video of Alintoff speaking to Christie and the Governor’s response.  The video will start with Christie recognising Alintoff.  At the 43:58 mark Christie moves on to Peter, the young student who became famous for asking the Governor for a note to excuse him for missing school.

Here’s the text of Alintoff’s remarks and questions to Christie:

I am going through a divorce in Monmouth County in front of Judge Paul X. Escandon.
In October 2011, Judge Escandon stripped me of all my parental rights to my 2 year old son without the legally required hearing.
I had only supervised visitation. This was a punishment for an order of protection I was seeking in NYC (where I am currently living) when my husband failed to dispose of his handgun as per a court order. My son had to endure a month of barely seeing his mother until Judge Escandon was Summarily reversed by the Appelate Court for his illegal ruling.

Since then, Judge Escandon has gone on to make other illegal rulings against me such as denying me access to my clothing, granting no money for my legal fees and only issuing $1,100 in support a month to my son and me which puts us below the Federal Poverty Level. All while my husband makes on average over half a million dollars a year on Wall Street.

This is not an isolated incident. Judge Escandon has done similar things to other woman and has a habit of financiallly ruining women in his courtroom.

I have a 2-part question:

1) What will you do as Governor to ensure that Judges like Escandon follow the law or are taken off the bench?

2) Judge Escandon is the former law partner of Assemblyman Sean Kean whose main platform is reducing Alimony for women.
What will you do as Governor to make sure that Judges are kept from carrying out their own political agendas from the bench?

Alintoff, who first brought her situation to MMM’s attention as a comment in the post about the Garfield town hall meeting, says she’s heard from Jeanne Ashmore in the Governor’s Office and Detective Charles Crescenz in the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Office, both of whom told her the matter would be taken up by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.  Neither Crescenz nor Ashmore would comment to MMM.  John Tonelli, Executive Director of the ACJC also declined to comment.

Alintoff  emailed every member of the State Legislature today to inform them of her situation.  Her father, Merny Schwartz, Phd, wrote to Chief Justice Stuart Rabner about Escandon’s conduct last December.  Schwartz maintains a blog on his daughter’s case before Escandon, JudgePaulEscandon.blog.com.

• Tweet

Oxley to be nominated to Superior Court

Photo credit: Scarcini, Hollenbeck

Governor Chris Christie has notified the State Senate of his intention to nominate Monmouth County Republican Chairman Joe Oxley to a seat on the Superior Court.

Gannett’s Michael Symons broke the news yesterday on the Capital Quickies blog.  The nomination was not included in the Governor’s email announcement of appointments and nominations yesterday but appears under Senate nominations on the legislature’s website.  Hat tip to Symons for thorough reporting.

Rumors of Oxley being appointed to the Monmouth County Vicinage were feverish throughout the Monmouth County legal community last November when the State Police was calling Oxley’s associates as part of the background check required before a judicial nomination.

Oxley told MMM at the time that unless the nomination was official, he would seek a third term as Chairman.   It appears to be official and the Monmouth GOP would appear to be heading into a race for a new Chairman on June 12th

• Tweet

Sam Thompson: Judges suing to prevent having to make larger pension and healthcare contributions are making a “totally fallacious” argument

By Senator Samuel D. Thompson

In the case of DePascale vs. State of New Jersey just heard by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, it has been argued that a new law requiring Justices and Superior Court Judges to make larger contributions towards the cost of their healthcare insurance and pensions reduces their salary which is prohibited by the Constitution.

 A section of the State Constitution reads:  “The salary of Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges shall not be diminished during their term of office.”

Increasing the amount these esteemed judicial officials must pay to purchase healthcare insurance and pensions does diminish their purchasing power but does not diminish their salary.

If DePascles’ argument is sustained, then it could similarly be argued in the future that anything which diminishes these officials’ purchasing power (although not affecting their salary) would be in violation of the Constitution and hence, illegal.  Note this section does not bar any diminishment of salary only action by the Sate.

Thus, following DePascales’ logic, should federal, state or local governmental entities increase income or property tax rates or Social Security or Medicare deductions, it would be equally valid to argue these actions would diminish the salary of these officials since such actions would diminish their purchasing power.

In fact, if the Court finds for the plaintiff in the cited case, one might even argue that when the price of gasoline, groceries, utilities or housing increases, it “diminishes their salary” in the same way as increasing the price of purchasing their health insurance and pension did.  Consequently, one would conclude they should never have to pay a higher price for anything they purchase during their term of office.

Clearly, this argument is totally fallacious, was never the intent of the drafters of the constitution or the people that voted for its adoption and should be summarily dismissed.

• Tweet

Will Christie nominate a conservative Democrat to the Supreme Court?

Where would he find one?

This morning InTheLobby calls on Governor Chris Christie to call the Democrats’ bluff regarding their resistance to his plan to remake New Jersey’s Supreme Court into judicial body that interprets the law and away from the destructive unaccountable body that has been legislating a liberal agenda from the bench over the last four decades by nominating a conservative Democrat to the bench.

Last week, after a charade of a hearing for Christie’s nominee to the Court, Phillip Kwon, Senate President Sweeney admitted that what the Democrats really want is a Court packed with Democrats.

By nominating a conservative Democrat, one who doesn’t believe in legislating from the bench,  Christie would be calling the Democrats bluff, says InTheLobby.

Where would anyone find a conservative Democrat in New Jersey? 

What about Marlboro Mayor Jonathan Hornik?

Hornik tells every Republican he meets that he’s really a Republican.  On his facebook page, Hornik apologizes for his Democratic registration.  “Democrat, but the people matter the most,” is how Hornik describes his politics.

Hornik first got elected in Marlboro with the help of Republicans for Hornik.  Members of the Marlboro Republican Committee remain supportive of the Mayor.

Hornik impersonated 12th district GOP congressional candidate Scott Sipprelle in 2010.

Is Hornik qualified?  That would be up to Christie’s vetters and the Judiciary Committee to decide, assuming the Judiciary Committee cares about qualifications going forward.  They clearly didn’t in Kwon’s case.

From a legal career and public service perspective, Hornik’s resume is not all that different from that of Bruce Harris, the Mayor of Chatham whose Supreme Court nomination is currently pending in the Senate.  Both of specialize in real estate, finance and commercial transaction.

Hornick doesn’t have Harris’s academic pedigree.  Harris went to Amherst, Boston University and Yale. Hornik went to University of Delaware and Brooklyn Law.    University of Delaware is good. It’s better than Rowan.  Governor Christie went to University of Delaware, so that might be good for Hornik.  Brooklyn Law is no Yale, but Geraldo Rivera, Percy Sutton, David Dinkins, Larry Silverman, Sheldon Silver all graduated from Brooklyn.

What do you think MMM readers?  Is Jon Hornik a conservative Democrat?  Would he be an activist Justice or and interpretive Justice?

• Tweet

Senate Democrats Demand That Christie Appoint One Of Their Own To Supreme Court

Democrats in the New Jersey State Senate are upping the ante in their unprecedented exercise of legislative power over judicial appointments.

In the wake of their rejection of Phillip Kwon’s nomination to the State Supreme Court, the Democrats are now demanding that Governor Chris Christie nominate a Democrat to the Court.

“The governor may be entitled to his own nominees for cabinet posts, but we will not allow him to pack the Supreme Court,” Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) said. “The governor must work with us to put together a balanced tandem of candidates for the court. The Senate will not consider anything less.”

NJ.com reports that Sweeney’s spokesman Derek Roseman said that Sweeney was telling Christie to nominate a Democrat.

During his press conference following the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rejection of Kwon, Christie revealed that he had complied with Sweeney’s demand of diversity in his appointment of Kwon, the first Korean-American ever nominated, and Bruce Harris, an Africa-American who is the first openly homosexual nominee.

Reshaping the Supreme Court into a less activist body that does not legislate from the bench was a hallmark promise of Christie’s gubernatorial campaign.  During his first two years in office, Christie has been openly critical of the Court and unabashed about his commitment to change it.

• Tweet

Senate Judiciary Committee Rejects Kwon’s Supreme Court Nomination

The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Phillip Kwon’s nomination to be an Associate Justice of the State Supreme Court.

The committee voted 7-6 against Governor Christie’s nominee.  Democratic Senator Brian Stack of Hudson County joined five Republicans in voting for the nomination.

Michael Aron of NJTV said that this is the first time in history that the Judiciary Committee has not approved a governor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

At issue for the Democrats voting against the nomination was Kwon’s family finances, his political affiliation and his work in the Christie administration’s Attorney General’s office.

The nomination of Chatham Mayor Bruce Harris was not heard today.

Republican members of the committee, called the Democrats’ rejection of Kwon a politically motivated “indefensible character assassination.” In a joint statement Senators Gerald Cardinale, Kevin O’Toole, Joe Kyrillos, Christopher Bateman and Michael J. Doherty said,

Today, Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee rejected an exceptionally well-qualified Supreme Court nominee for no good reason whatsoever.  From the moment Mr. Kwon was nominated, the Majority engaged in a campaign of intensely personal character assassination centering around issues that were completely immaterial to his fitness to serve on the court.

The Majority’s entire line of questioning and basis for rejecting his nomination centered on events that had absolutely nothing to do with Phil Kwon.

In short, Phil Kwon was railroaded out of sheer partisan animosity toward the governor.  Theirs was a rejection seeking a reason.  Faced with a nominee whom there was no rational basis to reject, the Majority decided to create one based on the actions of others for which he bears no legal, ethical, or personal responsibility.

If the Majority thinks that its own political ends are what matters in this process, they are mistaken.  The only thing that matters is the public’s right to Supreme Court justices that are well qualified, fair, and nominated by a Governor to whom the voters gave this awesome responsibility.

Their petty actions today are a disgrace to the legislature and the people we serve.

• Tweet