ONE SECRET WE'LL KEEP We appreciate the phone calls. Really. But in this case, Mr. Anonymous Caller, you might save your dimes, because we are well aware that a certain judge's election campaign has employed an attorney whose license to practice law was suspended.

But for once, we're going to refrain from naming names. Doing so might result in the attorney not being hired by any more candidates, and we're not looking to deprive anyone of his livelihood. Furthermore, there's nothing stopping opponents of candidates who employ the disgraced attorney from publicizing his history by means other than anonymous calls to political columnists. Candidates who lack the guts to attach their names to such criticism shouldn't count on the press to do their dirty work.

We will acknowledge, given the recent scandals involving corrupt judges, the irony of candidates for judge employing a campaign consultant with a history of ethical lapses in the practice of law. However, in this case, the lapses occurred a decade ago. And yes, we do believe in second chances. So do judicial candidates and Brooklyn politicians, several of whom continue to employ the embattled counselor.

But we realize you might be curious about just what he did all those years ago. That, we will tell. In 1979, the attorney was hired by a cousin of eventual Supreme Court Judge Michael Pesce (on Pesce's recommendation) to purse a medical malpractice claim against her gynecologist. The attorney hired a medical expert for $600, but the doctor and other lawyers told him the case was hopeless. Unfortunately, the lawyer didn't tell his client. In 1982, the statute of limitations expired. Another nine years passed, and still the client didn't know it was too late to sue.

In 1991, the client filed a complaint alleging that her attorney had neglected the case. The attorney then claimed that he had obtained an $11,000 settlement to which the client had agreed. But there was no settlement. And the attorney didn't have the money. The disciplinary committee initially bought the attorney's story and was about to dismiss the client's complaint when, in 1992, she reported that she'd still received nothing.

The attorney then delayed matters by pretending that an insurance company was about to issue the client a check. As the inquiry continued, he mailed the client some forged legal documents announcing the settlement and said a check for $6,900 was enclosed. The client said she got the documents but not the check. The attorney insisted he'd enclosed it. Nobody could prove otherwise, but the attorney had bought himself more time to come up with the cash. He finally mailed her the check in late October 1992.

But the disciplinary committee smelled a rat. It subpoenaed the attorney on December 28, 1992 and asked for the name of the insurance company that settled the case. In February 1993, he admitted that he'd never even filed suit because he'd forgotten about the case, but didn't have the guts to tell his client or her cousin, Pesce, who today is presiding judge of the Appellate Division.

It gets worse. The attorney had paid the fake settlement with another client's money. While it's never a good idea to raid a client's escrow account, in this case it was particularly bad, since the cash was owed to a financially strapped mother who'd just been abandoned by her husband and was facing eviction.

Both clients were ultimately paid, but in 1994, the attorney was hit with a two-year suspension. That should have been long completed, but sources said the attorney turned up in court before it ended, representing a wife seeking a divorce. The husband, an election lawyer, got a bill from his wife's attorney and did some checking. He turned up the suspension and reported it, resulting in it being extended indefinitely.

HELENE'S FROZEN FINGERS Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein's heart must have skipped a beat when she picked up The New York Times on May 1 and found herself singled out by the first masthead editorial, headlined, "Brooklyn's Courthouse Gang." The piece blasted the judicial selection process "in places like Brooklyn, [where] the new judges are chosen not for their judicial temperament or intelligence or legal skill, but for their [party] loyalty."

The editorial later turned its attention to "politicians who have done nothing" to promote merit-based nomination of all state judges. "Helene Weinstein, chairwoman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and a resident of Brooklyn, has barely lifted a finger to make any serious reforms in the way judges are selected. Where has she been while her own home borough has slid into such a shameful condition?"

Perhaps there is actually something wrong with Weinstein's finger that prevents her from lifting it. How else can one explain her failure to dial us at 1-718-399-3693 to defend herself against the Times's accusation? We even called her press person twice and waited three weeks for Weinstein to reply. But neither Weinstein nor her press person ever called back, even to decline to comment. Could the assemblywoman be getting too comfortable after 22 years in office?

We checked out Weinstein's Web site to see what she's been up to lately. We found but a single item-a press release from six months ago offering senior half-fare MetroCards. Weinstein has, in fact, sponsored a number of pieces of legislation this year. It doesn't appear that she's been doing nothing.

What we may have here is a complete disregard for public relations. Perhaps she's striving to be the antithesis of another southern Brooklyn legislator, State Senator Carl Kruger.

HYNES DETERS STAFFER'S BID Any thoughts that Teri Coaxum had of running against Councilman Charles Barron were effectively dashed when her boss, Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes, told her she'd have to resign first. You could forgive Coaxum if she felt Hynes were being unfair, given that Hynes ran for governor without resigning from office.

Hynes's spokesman Jerry Schmetterer said the circumstances are not analogous. "She's a community associate. She's out there as a liaison with different communities," Schmetterer said. "He's an elected official. It's a different situation."

It seems to us that regular people have as much right to run for office as elected officials do. If campaigning would conflict with Coaxum's job in Hynes's community relations office, she could have been allowed to take time off. But Schmetterer said, "There's no provision for a leave of absence."

Could not Hynes simply make a provision? He is the boss, no? We're not sure why the D.A. discouraged his employee from running for office, which would only strengthen her community ties. It can't be that he is protecting Councilman Barron. "I don't think that's on the radar screen," Schmetterer said. Our call to Coaxum went unreturned.

WEINER SKIPS TOWN In February, as he was denying a false rumor that he was moving his entire Brooklyn office to Queens, Rep. Anthony Weiner added that he was himself still a resident of Avenue V in Sheepshead Bay. Not anymore. Weiner, who grew up in Park Slope, in late May moved to Forest Hills, Queens, "in keeping with his intention to remain close to the center of his district," according to his spokesman, Anson Kaye.

Indeed, Weiner's district is 70 percent Queens and only 30 percent Brooklyn. But he knew that three months ago, when he mentioned that he still lived on Avenue V. Surely he had an inkling then that he would be relocating. Weiner told us Monday that he'd been thinking about buying a place for a while, after renting for years, and had house-shopped in Brooklyn and Queens. He eventually chose Forest Hills largely because it was closer to LaGuardia Airport and to places like Bayside, where he attends meetings. That makes sense.

But it does seem to us that living in Queens makes Weiner less susceptible to an election challenge from a Queens-based contender. And it better positions himself for a mayoral run, since he strengthens his ties to Queens while still being able to claim Brooklyn roots. For the record, Weiner contends that moving to Queens is "a political liability" because "people say I'm abandoning Brooklyn."

Whatever the case, should Weiner be criticized if he moved purely for political reasons? We would hope elected officials' allegiance to Brooklyn would outweigh political considerations. But then, we'd be deluding ourselves. On the other hand, what if Weiner simply considers Forest Hills a nicer place to live than Sheepshead Bay? Obviously, he couldn't admit that.

Of his new home, Weiner said, "It's a nice neighborhood, like the one I left." He later added, "My home borough is Brooklyn and Queens." Two very polished and politically astute quotes. However, Weiner erred in failing to formally announce his move, thus allowing disgruntled constituent Donald Duncan of Kensington to spread the news to the press by means of an e-mail message that quickly made the rounds.

The congressman said he didn't make an announcement because "I frankly don't think it's your business" even if his address is "a matter of public record." Even his Web site, as of June 2, still declared, "Weiner is single and lives in Brooklyn." At least it's half right.

LEAD FEET ON PAINT BILL ALLEGED Advocates for a bill to better protect children from poisonous lead paint are targeting several Brooklyn councilmen who've refused to co-sponsor the bill. Advocates have already gone door-to-door in northern Brooklyn asking constituents to call Councilman Erik Malave Dilan and demand that he support the bill.

Councilmen Lew Fidler and Kendall Stewart may also soon be so aggressively lobbied, sources said. The bill would address a loophole in the current lead-paint law (pushed through by then Council Speaker Peter Vallone some years ago) allowing landlords to ignore lead paint dust, which causes more lead poisoning than paint chips. The new bill would define lead paint dust as a hazard, forcing landlords to paint over it. Landlords, of course, oppose the bill, but one supporter of the bill said it wouldn't impose a great expense on property owners.

"To me, it's pretty shocking that the main way kids get poisoned isn't dealt with," the source added. Fidler said he would decide whether to support the bill after a hearing on it is held by the Housing and Buildings Committee, on which he and Stewart sit. "There's an enormous amount of rhetoric around this bill on both sides. I want to evaluate the bill and not the rhetoric," Fidler said. "My colleagues have signed on because they thought it was a litmus test of some kind."

No doubt they didn't want to be called anti-children or pro-landlord, or even worse, racist, given that 94 percent of lead-poisoned children are black, Latino, or Asian. The bill has 35 sponsors among 51 councilmembers. Fidler insisted, "If we need to change the law to protect the health of children, then that's what we'll have to do, not just because one group of lobbyists say we have to pass this bill." Two other Brooklyn councilmen, Mike Nelson and Simcha Felder, are also not co-sponsors of the bill, but they're not being threatened with door-to-door lobbying because they're not on the committee where the bill has stalled.

Also on the committee are Diana Reyna, a sponsor of the bill, and Jim Oddo, who is not. Other sponsors include Charles Barron, Tracy Boyland, Yvette Clarke, James Davis, Bill deBlasio, Sara Gonzalez, Domenic Recchia, Al Vann, David Yassky, and Vinny Gentile.

SPAMMERS LURK IN BROOKLYN: The recent scandals involving Brooklyn judges prompted a Brooklyn Heights couple to email the press rambling grievances about several members of the Kings County bench. We got the lengthy email message three times, which we initially suspected was an effort to make sure we didn't miss it.

Then it came three more times, and then four more. We sent an acknowledgement and requested no more copies of the message. But it kept coming. This wasn't political outreach. This was spam! But it turns out we got off easy. A few years ago, the couple, Neil and Penelope Wotherspoon, reportedly bombarded three Manhattan investment firms with 80,000 email messages and phone calls, prompting a lawsuit against them.

The couple claimed the firms stole more than $1 million from them.

Borough Politics Archive

2003
June 2 column.
May 26 column.
May 19 column.
May 12 column.
May 5 column.
April 28 column.
April 21 column.
April 14 column.
April 7 column.
March 31 column.
March 24 column.
March 10 column.
March 3 column.
February 24 column.
February 17 column.
February 10 column.
February 3 column.
January 27 column.
January 20 column.
January 13 column.
January 6 column.

2002
December 30 column.
December 23 column.
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
Novemer 25 column.
Novemer 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.
October 28 column.
October 21 column.
October 14 column.
October 7 column.
September 30 column.
September 23 column.
September 16 column.
September 9 column.
September 2 column.
August 26 column.
August 19 column.
August 12 column.
August 5 column.
July 29 column.
July 22 column.
July 8 column.
July 1 column.
June 17 column.
June 10 column.
June 3 column.
May 27 column.
May 20 column.
May 13 column.
May 6 column.
April 29 column.
April 22 column.
April 15 column.
April 8 column.
April 1 column.
March 25 column.
March 18 column.
March 11 column.
March 4 column.
February 25 column.
February 18 column.
February 11 column.
February 4 column.
January 28 column.
January 21 column.
January 7 column.

2001
December 10 column.
December 3 column.
November 19 column.
November 12 column.
November 5 column.
October 22 column.
October 1 column.
September 6 column.
September 4 column.
August 30 column.
July 23 column.
July 2 column.
June 25 column.
June 11 column.
May 28 column.
May 21 column.
May 14 column.
May 7 column.
April 30 column.
April 23 column.
April 9 column.
April 2 column.
March 26 column.
March 19 column.
March 12 column.
March 5 column.
February 26 column.
February 19 column.
February 12 column.
February 5 column.
January 29 column.
January 22 column.
January 15 column.
January 8 column.
January 1 column.

2000
December 25 column.
December 18 column.
December 11 column.
December 4 column.
November 27 column.
November 20 column.
November 13 column.
November 6 column.
October 30 column.
October 23 column.
October 16 column.
October 9 column.
October 2 column.
September 25 column.
September 18 column.
September 11 column.
September 4 column.
August 28 column.
August 21 column.
August 7 column.
July 31 column.
July 24 column.
July 17 column.
July 10 column.
June 26 column.
June 19 column.
June 12 column.
May 15 column.
May 8 column.
April 24 column.
April 10 column.
March 13 column.
March 7 column.
February 21 column.
February 14 column.
February 7 column.
January 31 column.
January 24 column.
January 17 column.

1999
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
November 25 column.
November 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.