Gauging the Impact As a federal investigation and an investigation by Judge Judith Kaye into court patronage proceed simultaneously, the fallout from Thomas Garry and Arnold Ludwig's letter could have a very wide radius. On a broad scope, said one source, whatever questionable practices may be underway at 360 Adams Street will most likely stop for the time being."Everyone is astir [at the courthouse]," said the source. And partly due to Assemblymember Clarence Norman's close reelection victory in 1998 party insiders are now wondering how much the county boss will be damaged.

For Norman, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the letter is its claim that attorney Ravi Batra, with whom Norman shares a business relationship, was using his party connection to slake an outsized financial thirst. "The fact that he's admitted that Batra is his business partner creates a real stench that he has to deal with," said one source. ì"he insinuation is that he takes the stuff and cuts Batra in on it." Norman serves as "of counsel" to Batraís firm, an arrangement under which Norman refers clients to Batra and works on some cases, said Norman. Norman staunchly denied any insinuation that he benefited from Batraís receiverships.

At the least, said one source, the connection between Norman and Batra is unseemly enough to arch quite a few eyebrowsónot only about patronage in Brooklyn but also about Normanís own standing as the county leader. As the county leader, Norman will have to answer investigator's questions of whether there was indeed a patronage system controlled by the Brooklyn Democratic party.

One insider said that court patronage, if it existed, was not systematically controlled by county. "I don't perceive county as being a tightly knit ship with a real leader at the helm. I think that's giving Clarence more credit than he deserves. Yes, I see a few favorite sons, but I just donít see it as controlled," said the source. Norman has repeatedly denied the existence of such a system, saying that the letter, first reported here on December 30, was an issue between three lawyers.

Nonetheless, one source said that doubts persist about Norman's standing. "There are a lot of people who are feeling that this is the beginning of the end for Clarence Norman, if not by action of the district leaders, then by the electorate," said the source.

Norman's 43rd Assembly District covers Crown Heights and parts of East Flatbush, neighborhoods filled with blue collar and low-income residents who will resent any perception of greed among their elected officials. However, the public has historically possessed a short-lived memory, and unless the federal or state investigations find something substantial to tie county in, the issue could be prehistoric when September rolls around. As for the possibility of action by the district leaders, the source was hesitant, saying, "I look down the list of district leaders and I don't see anyone capable of doing that."

Also working in Norman's favor is the fact that some of the term-limited officials seeking citywide, statewide or borough-wide office would benefit from a strong county party and abhor the prospect of emerging from a fragmented and tattered infrastructure. Norman said that he welcomed an investigation in one respect. "Maybe there should be (an investigation) so we can dispense this perception of some linkage between the party and the courts, and get rid of it once and for all. Let's put this issue to rest," he said.

The impact and scope of Kaye's investigation will be determined partly by who she appoints to lead it. That appointment is supposed to come down in the next few weeks. One source said that ìlegal authorities' were currently examining whether ìa specific penal statute has been violated,î or whether only ethical and disciplinary codes have been breached.

A Question of Motivation What were Garry and Ludwig thinking when they wrote that letter? The question has been getting a lot of play on the local political scene, and the answer is essentially divided into two schools of thought. The first, which holds that the pair was acting in its financial interest, relies on a certain level of calculation. "If the loss of this (receivership) business functionally ruined their business, they may have taken this kamikaze approach, like If we can't have it, then no one can," said one source. According to reports, Gary and Ludwig billed $98,475 for legal services rendered over one and a half yearsónot an astronomical amount, but certainly a nice chunk of change that no one would want to lose.

Wanting to torpedo the patronage system they had been cut out of, Gary and Ludwig hit the typewriter intending full exposure, according to the theory. The list of individuals copied on the letter -- which takes up a full page in and of itself -- could speak to that intent. "They mailed it to people so outside the pale, how could they depend on it staying discreet?" asked another source. "They wanted to blow the top off this thing," said one elected official who requested anonymity.

But that theory is undercut by the simple notion of self-preservation. "They had to realize that in a lot of respects they were expressing indignation at being cut out of their piece of a conspiracy," said the source. And that expression is not legally prudent, something that any lawyer would realize. Which brings us to the second school of thought: that they wrote the letter out of anger and stupidity. "It doesn't seem like a great deal of brainwork went into their thought process," said another source.

But aren't Garry and Ludwig -- men with law degrees, men who hold positions as the treasurers of the county party and Brooklyn Democrats, respectively -- aren't they too intelligent to make a mistake like this? "Supposedly, but I question that right now," said one insider.

Neither Garry nor Ludwig returned a call seeking comment.

Borough Politics Archive
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
November 25 column.
November 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.