WEINER: I'M NO NOACH Though Rep. Anthony Weiner's campaign fund settled its case with the Federal Elections Commission by agreeing to pay $47,000, which is $2,000 more than Noach Dear's campaign agreed to pay the FEC, we should not assume that Weiner's transgressions were worse, Weiner told us. Dear "had the benefit of having a defunct campaign [fund]," Weiner said. With pennies left in Dear's old account, the FEC had to take what it could get.

Weiner's violation actually stemmed from his 1998 race against Dear. Weiner spent his personal savings on the campaign and found himself strapped for cash, so his parents lent him $28,000. The FEC judged that to be a benefit to the campaign, since it effectively replaced personal funds that Weiner used for his campaign. Because Weiner had not repaid his folks when he ran for reelection (defeating Dear again) in 2000, and did not report the loan on his campaign's financial disclosures, it was flagged by the FEC. "If they had given me the money and I had never paid them back, it would have been no violation," Weiner noted. Weiner has moved to Forest Hills, but his parents still live in Park Slope.

Dear's case had more of an appearance of fraud: dozens of sequentially numbered money orders totaling about $40,000 were purportedly donated to his campaign by different people with the same handwriting. It turned out that two campaign aides had written the money orders in the names of people who didn't actually give anything. Whoever actually donated the money might have needed to conceal his identity to avoid surpassing the $2,000 contribution limit. Also, Dear's 1998 campaign reportedly never paid back more than $200,000 of the $564,000 in contributions it received above the legal limit.

HOW JUDGES ARE MADE When Carroll Gardens attorney Richard Leotta ran for Civil Court many years ago, he finished fourth in a field of four. But winning a Democratic primary is not the only way to become a Civil Court judge. There's also a back door, and Leotta has found it. To wit: If Civil Court Judge Sally Krauss of Brooklyn Heights were elevated to Supreme Court by Democratic Party officials, her place on the Civil Court ballot (she's a shoo-in) would be filled by the county committee members of the First Judicial District-not by ordinary voters.

Who controls these county committee members? The predominant club in the district, the Independent Neighborhood Democrats. Who's a former president of IND? Richard Leotta. So if rumors are true that de facto IND leader Assemblywoman Joan Millman wants Leotta to get his judgeship, Krauss would have to go to Supreme Court to open up a spot.

Some insiders see this as the tail wagging the dog, if indeed the primary motivation for elevating Krauss to Supreme would be to enable IND to pick its own Civil Court judge, be it Leotta or someone else. It would also be an end-run around democracy, the very thing that so-called reform Democrats like Millman and her district leaders Alan Fleishman and Jo Anne Simon claim to detest.

Were a Civil Court judge other than Krauss-that is, one not up for reelection this year-elevated to Supreme, the Civil Court vacancy would be filled by voters in 2005 rather than by party insiders this fall. One IND source told us Leotta wouldn't be guaranteed Krauss's seat anyway if Krauss were elevated. IND member Ira Cure, who ran for Civil Court judge last year and lost, is also interested in her seat. So are some of the candidates who lost Civil Court primaries on September 14. The highly regarded April Newbauer, who has a lot of political support, comes to mind.

We asked Newbauer about it via e-mail, and she replied, "Of course I would be interested." Leotta, for his part, didn't help himself by applying for a Supreme Court seat this year only to be rejected by the judicial screening panel, sources said.

We should add that Krauss is no lock to be elevated. At least three Supreme Court vacancies will be filled this fall, and Civil Court Judge Wayne Saitta (backed by Assemblyman Vito Lopez) is likely to get one of them. One of the other two vacancies will almost surely go to someone black, since Democratic Party insiders tend to seek a racial balance to keep the factions happy. A few black Civil Court judges are in contention.

That leaves a host of white Civil Court judges battling for the final Supreme Court vacancy: Krauss, Loren Baily-Schiffman, Eric Prus, Lila Gold, etc. Prus's chances might have been set back by the efforts of his primary backer, Assemblyman Dov Hikind, to get George W. Bush reelected, infuriating some of the Democrats who choose the Supreme Court slate. The Democratic nominees were to be chosen by the district leaders and then rubber-stamped by Democratic delegates at the annual judicial convention on September 23. At the last two conventions, Civil Court Judge Margarita Lopez Torres has been nominated from the floor only to be voted down by the delegates, who are mostly controlled by Assemblymen Clarence Norman and Vito Lopez and other party regulars. Lopez Torres was approved by the screening panel and is again the most senior Civil Court judge seeking the Democratic line for Supreme Court.

TOUGH CHOICE ON G.O.P. JUDGE: The failure of the ballyhooed judicial screening panel to approve Supreme Court Judge Louis Marrero for a new 14-year term has created a conundrum for the Democratic party officials who were deciding whether to drop or renominate him as the September 23 judicial convention approached.

Marrero is a Republican, possibly the only Republican on Brooklyn's Supreme Court. And he lives on Staten Island. Were the Democrats to leave him off their ticket, ensuring his defeat in November, it could look partisan and parochial. However, the screening panel was created by Democratic district leaders last year so judges would be picked based on quality rather than political connections, and the leaders pledged to abide by the panel's decisions. So giving Marrero another term would emasculate the panel.

Another argument for keeping him is the tradition of renominating sitting judges, unless they've proven themselves corrupt or incompetent, which Marrero hasn't. The purpose of this tradition is to insulate Supreme Court judges from political influence. Why did Marrero flunk the screening panel? The Daily News reported that he was condescending to panel members and didn't take his interview seriously. Brooklyn's bench has been accused of poor judicial demeanor and arrogance, so the panel is likely sensitive to that issue. Brooklyn Democratic County Chairman Clarence Norman is said to favor keeping Marrero, but presumably he conducted his annual secret telephone survey of the other 41 Democratic district leaders before deciding whether to include the Republican on this year's Supreme Court slate.

PARKER IN REVERSE

State Senator Kevin Parker did worse in this year's Democratic primary, barely defeating Noach Dear, than he did when first elected in 2002. Why? Parker has cited Dear's fundraising superiority, and surely that was a factor. Dear plastered the district with posters and fliers, and mailed not only piles of campaign literature but also "Community Report" newsletters that had the look of constituent mail from an elected official.

Indeed, there's evidence that many people though Dear was their state senator. One elderly woman having a problem with her landlord sent a letter this summer to a host of elected officials, cc'ing both "State Senator Kevin Parker" and "State Senator Noach Dear." Through August, Dear's campaign had spent $232,571 this year and still had $142,924 in the bank. Parker had spent $80,152 and had $17,505 left.

Parker also blamed Wellington Sharpe's candidacy for splitting the black and Caribbean vote. Had Sharpe not run and polled about 13 percent in the primary, Parker's margin of victory would have been well more than the eventual 400 or so votes. But fundraising and a splintered vote cannot by themselves explain how an Orthodox Jew can nearly defeat an incumbent black senator in a district that's 58 percent black and just 22 percent white. "It should be a wake-up call to Mr. Parker," said one civic leader who attends numerous community meetings in Parker's district and has yet to see the senator at any of them.

Parker also reportedly ran a lousy campaign, failing to publicize endorsements or enlist the help of colleagues who offered it. Parker once told us about being a State Senator, "At the end of the day, it's a legislative job." But legislation (not that Parker has passed any) doesn't get you reelected. Presence in the district does. At the end of the day, all politics is local.

COHEN, KAMINSKY AFTERMATH The eight-week campaign of Inna Kaminsky, though it failed to knock off Assemblywoman Adele Cohen in the Democratic primary, "just shows how weak Cohen is," e-mailed Kaminsky's volunteer campaign manager, Gary Tilzer. Kaminsky "was never in a campaign [before], never had a record of community service and had no money to run a campaign. With all this she got over 40 percent of the vote. If we had more money we would have pulled a vote and protected the vote better and Adele would have been history."

Cohen, despite winning, was furious that The New York Times urged people to vote for Kaminsky to send a message that Albany needs reform. Cohen's anger is exactly the reaction the paper sought-to motivate incumbents to change the system. If Cohen doesn't, perhaps in 2006 the Times will again endorse Kaminsky, who expects to run.

THE ENDORSEMENT GAME Earlier this month, while discussing the endorsements of eventual 23rd Senatorial District Democratic primary winner Diane Savino, fellow Democratic candidate Kelvin Alexander told the Staten Island Advance that he wondered why anyone who already raised "10 times as much money as us" needed endorsements. "People don't look at endorsements," he said.

If so, why after losing the primary did Alexander bother agreeing to endorse Savino's well-financed Republican opponent, Al Curtis? (Alexander quickly rescinded the endorsement on pressure from his boss, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who'd been called by Senate Minority Leader David Paterson.)

LAST LAUGH FOR MAJOR Rep. Major Owens's reelection campaign wasn't planning to use a Village Voice article about Tracy Boyland's fundraising and Yvette Clarke's Republican ties, but ultimately did so to retaliate for his opponents' criticism of Owens. "Copies of Wayne Barrett's Village Voice article were mailed to certain people in order to counter the overwhelming negative attack against Congressman Owens perpetrated by Councilmembers Boyland and Clarke," Owens's son and campaign manager Chris Owens e-mailed us. "Our implied criticism was done in a reputable manner, however, and with facts. Both Boyland and Clarke engaged in some extensive fiction writing. We always had faith in the district's voters, however."

Owens won handily, with about 44 percent of the vote to Clarke's 28 and Boyland's 23. Gabriel Toks Pearse limped home with about 5 percent. On the downside for Owens, most of the people who voted wanted him to retire early. After 22 years in office, that's not the going-away present he had in mind. Owens might have lost had he faced only one opponent. After the primary, Clarke said finishing second makes her a favorite for the seat in 2006. Boyland didn't say if she'd run again. Her City Council tenure ends in 2005.

ARCHER OFF TARGET Maxine Archer's final piece of literature, which arrived in our mailbox the day after Archer lost the Democratic primary for Civil Court, boasted, "She's been endorsed by The New York Times: 'During a decade as a Civil Court judge, Maxine Archer has emerged as a competent…jurist. We endorse Judge Archer for another term.' Sept. 7, 2000" It takes some nerve to dust off a 4-year-old endorsement from a different race, especially since in 2004 the Times endorsed Archer's opponent, Ingrid Joseph. In doing so, the Times described Archer as "an undistinguished former Civil Court judge defeated in a primary four years ago."

In fact, that's not much different from what the paper wrote in 2000. We take the liberty of filling in the ellipses from Archer's literature: "Maxine Archer has emerged as a competent if not particularly distinguished jurist." The paper only endorsed Archer in 2000 because her opponent, Betty Williams, was rated "not approved" by the City Bar Association. Williams still managed to win that race. And this year, the Times endorsement didn't help Joseph win either. Instead, Park Slope Civil Council President Bernie Graham took the primary.

TIDBITS None of the Democratic district leader candidates organized by Sheepshead Bay attorney Alan Rocoff won their primaries, according to Councilman Lew Fidler, who despises Rocoff. "He might take credit for Bill Saunders beating Francis Byrd, but Saunders has never been his guy. He's been Peter Weiss's guy," Fidler said. Byrd was appointed to the 57th A.D. post in 2003 to replace the assassinated James Davis, who'd defeated Saunders in 2002…

State Senator Marty Golden garnered 88 percent of the vote in brushing off an inexplicable primary challenge from fellow Republican Jessica Sutliff…

Former City Council and Assembly candidate Susan Lasher was elected to be a Democratic judicial delegate…

No additional charges will be brought against Kevin Hynes, son of Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes, because prosecutors cannot prove he was drunk when he crashed his car at 5 a.m. in North Castle, New York. Apparently nothing came of the fact that Hynes's passenger-side air bag deployed, indicating someone was in the seat. If Hynes told investigators he was alone, but really wasn't, he could have been charged with obstruction of justice.

Contact Brooklyn Politics at (718) 399-3693.

Borough Politics Archive

2004
September 20 column.
September 13 column.
September 6 column.
August 30 column.
August 23 column.
August 16 column.
August 9 column.
August 2 column.
July 26 column.
July 19 column.
July 12 column.
July 5 column.
June 28 column.
June 21 column.
June 14 column.
June 7 column.
May 31 column.
May 24 column.
May 17 column.
May 10 column.
May 3 column.
April 26 column.
April 19 column.
April 12 column.
April 5 column.
March 29 column.
March 22 column.
March 15 column.
March 8 column.
March 1 column.
February 23 column.
February 16 column.
February 9 column.
February 2 column.
January 26 column.
January 19 column.
January 12 column.
January 5 column.

2003
December 29 column.
December 22 column.
December 15 column.
December 8 column.
December 1 column.
November 24 column.
November 17 column.
November 10 column.
November 3 column.
October 27 column.
October 20 column.
October 13 column.
October 6 column.
September 29 column.
September 22 column.
September 15 column.
September 8 column.
September 1 column.
August 25 column.
August 18 column.
August 18 column.
August 11 column.
August 4 column.
July 21 column.
July 14 column.
July 7 column.
June 30 column.
June 23 column.
June 16 column.
June 9 column.
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.