Part 5: ‘Governance of a town so corrupt’

As the year 2001 moved into spring, the ghosts of relationships past came back to haunt Holbrook. Although he had not personally been implicated in any of the multiple scandals swirling around him, Holbrook was viewed as vulnerable, even within his own party. 

Even the police department under Holbrook took on a lawlessness that shocked the conscience. But with the police captain, his investigative unit, and union leaders apparently intent on seeing, hearing, and speaking no evil, it took an outside investigation to uncover the wrongdoings. And what wrongdoings there were!

* Several cops had been found dealing hard drugs, taking them, and/or protecting those who were. 

* One of every six officers on the force was out on disability—an extraordinary occurrence in one of the safest towns in the country. (If you think 16% was an unconscionably-high rate then, consider that over the past 15 years—nine of them under current Supervisor Gromack—43% of retired Clarkstown officers have gone out on a disability retirement, three times higher than the average for police departments across the state. And that’s only the beginning of taxpayers’ financial woes under Gromack.)

* Many community members complained about allegedly over-aggressive police tactics, and the Town found itself as defendant in several high-profile suits, at least one of which is believed to have resulted in a significant confidential payout of taxpayer dollars. (The amount thrown about was $5-7.5 million, but couldn’t be confirmed.) 

These couldn’t be attributed directly to Holbrook, but they all happened on his watch under a police captain who Holbrook had personally anointed.During this general timeframe, the number of Town employees increased significantly, the Town budget grew steadily, and taxes became a particular bone of contention. 

* Did ordinary residents see a cleaner Town? 
* Did they have greater access to government? 
* Did they notice any visible improvement in the condition of their streets, the flow of traffic, a kinder, gentler police force? 

Many would argue the reverse was true in each and every instance.

What the taxpaying public certainly did see, Sluys noted, was a management contract that allowed eight favored high-level Town officers to take all their vacation and sick time, turn it into cash, and then obtain unlimited sick time and no minimum working hours. The cost to taxpayers? Three-quarters of a million dollars in the first year alone, according to Sluys’s calculations. 

Although no stranger to Holbrook’s power grabs, and “cesspool of corruption,” even Sluys was taken aback at this brazen action, rubber-stamped by a compliant Board whose members no doubt kept upper-most in their minds that they were sitting on that Board by the Grace of His Majesty.

Astonished, Sluys commented, “In the history of the Town of Clarkstown, there have been many dark deeds darkly done, but the great Clarkstown giveaway is one of the worst. It is an abuse of power pure and simple to benefit the political cronies of Charles Holbrook.…As these individuals are political appointees, most of them have their own best interests at heart…” High among them, it seemed, were Holbrook’s bosom-buddies, Leonard and Costa.

What Clarkstown taxpayers also woke to find the next morning was a $59,000 payout to Rita Kelly, a political appointee. Kelly was sister-in-law to Mary Loeffler, Clarkstown Personnel Director and Chairperson at this time of the Clarkstown Conservative Party. Holbrook was indebted the year before to Loeffler and Lettre (remember him?) for throwing their weight behind him in the last election, thereby undercutting the campaign of challenger and dyed-in-the-wool Conservative Dusanenko. 

While paltry in its own right, Kelly’s windfall was the result of a Town resolution to retroactively extend the time she would be eligible to receive pension credit. She was its sole beneficiary—and, to make matters worse, at the time the Board rubber-stamped it, Kelly wasn’t even on the Town payroll. Just weeks later, Loeffler would become one of the “eight favored high-level individuals” to benefit by “the last great Clarkstown giveaway.”

* Had Holbrook and the Board discussed any of this in any prior workshop?
* Had Holbrook and the Board even discussed this in executive session, which would have been permitted, being a personnel matter—but which would have required notification by release of a public agenda?
* Had there been a pubic hearing on the matter?
* Had there been 24 hours’ advance notification to the public before being voted on? We are entirely unaware of any of the above activities—certain of them required by law—having been carried out.

As Sluys advised, “Holbrook…had only one concern, making sure that his cronies received the benefits…in exchange for their help in maintaining his tenuous grip on the Town in the election past.” 

Where was The Journal News in all of this? As usual, it was nowhere to be seen or heard from.

Always, it seemed, there were public murmurings about Holbrook’s governance, about his best friend Adler’s less-than-above-board dealings, about Costa’s less-than-entirely-ethical activities. Nor did they stop there, for there seemed to be constant whispers about who else with less-than-clean-hands Holbrook might have been associating with, accusations that he had packed multiple Town committees with hand-picked appointees, questionable contracts, less-than-forthright dealings in other areas, and more. 

As Rockland County Times Editor Sluys aptly put it, “The fact that Holbrook has thus far escaped entrapment in the federal criminal process—except as a witness—is no plus to his beleaguered administration, or to his governance of a Town so corrupt that it would make a Louisiana governor blush with shame.”

Into this void stepped Dr. V.J. Pradhan to challenge Holbrook for the right to be the Democratic nominee in November 2001. A dentist by profession, long-time party member, and seated County legislator, Pradhan was widely known as a quiet, self-effacing, upstanding member of the community. He was an intellectual, respected for his knowledge of local affairs, and considered even-handed. And very clean. As Sluys observed, “Through the length and breadth of Clarkstown, longtime democrats have made it clear that they are voting ABH (anyone but Holbrook), if given a chance.” 

Pradhan hoped to give them that chance. But he hadn’t reckoned on having to Do Battle with the Dark Side. As events would unfold, it became clear that Holbrook would do virtually anything to maintain his iron grip on power, Leonard would be his Iron Maiden—and Pradhan would be their victim.

One of the first orders of business of running for public office is getting petitions signed by registered voters of one’s party. By deadline time for submission, Pradhan had hundreds more than he needed. 

Holbrook was in trouble. In May, at a sparsely-attended Democratic Committee meeting, Holbrook received just 58 votes of a possible 220.

Becoming desperate, according to Sluys, Holbrook set Leonard loose to scheme to have Pradhan removed from the ballot. Leonard, in turn, developed in consultation with Town Senior Deputy Attorney Dave Wagner (father of current Town Attorney Amy Wagner Mele) a “permeated with fraud” strategy: find enough false signatures to get the judge to agree that the entire set of petitions should be thrown out. No valid petitions, no candidacy; no candidacy, no competition. The task would be difficult, since Pradhan had obtained more than 1,100 signatures, where only 500 were required. But it was necessary for Holbrook to persuade the judge in order to eliminate Pradhan’s candidacy.

Wagner was the perfect “inside” man. He was considered the Town’s premier lawyer, a high-level Conservative Party member, and had longstanding ties to Holbrook, Leonard, Loeffler, and other heavy hitters. And he could play hardball with the best. That he could knowingly make diametrically-opposed claims and engage in a blatantly illegal conspiracy, as court transcripts and an official, signed “imminent peril” letter of his in our case thoroughly document, only added to his “creds” to Holbrook.

Leonard’s “hired gun” was Guy Parisi, highly regarded as a power broker in political circles, and widely utilized. Parisi, in fact, was well known to the judge at Pradhan’s trial—Supreme Court Justice Andrew O’Rourke, former County Executive in Westchester—and had earlier represented the Westchester Republican Party, of which O’Rourke was a longstanding member. Conflict of interest, or even appearance of conflict of interest, on the part of the judge, who perhaps should have recused himself? Fuggetaboudit!

Leonard then hired, at a cost exceeding $1,000, a handwriting “expert,” former Pearl River teacher Gertrude Lawrence, who would subsequently testify regarding a select number of questionable signatures.

Leonard then orchestrated a campaign using Clarkstown Code Enforcer Joel Epstein to lead a team of “investigators,” who canvassed Pradhan’s 1,100-plus petition signers, attempting to find husbands who signed for their wives, wives who signed for their husbands, or those who signed for an unrelated person.

Epstein, during this period, was apparently engaged in a full-court press, spending, according to Sluys, “the better part of a week” contacting petition signers. According to one individual, Epstein appeared at her door in the uniform of a Clarkstown code enforcer, and was allegedly driving a Town-owned vehicle. During normal weekday hours? On the taxpayers’ dime? As a civil servant? Fuggetaboudit!

After finding several people willing to testify, Leonard then hired process servers, who subpoenaed them to state—eight in all—that they had never signed Pradhan’s petition.

To make sure they testified, Sluys observed, “it appears that Epstein drove many of the[m]…to the courthouse.” During normal weekday hours, when court would typically be in sessions? On the taxpayers’ dime? As a civil servant? Fuggetaboudit!

Leonard then had Lawrence testify that of more than 1,100 signatures, 22 pairs “looked as if they were made by the same individual.” “Looked as if…?” 

Lawrence’s “looked as if”  “expertise”—in fact, the field of handwriting analysis itself—can be considered, at a minimum, highly questionable. If Lawrence had any professional certification, it was unknown to Sluys.  As for “rigorous analysis,” Wikipedia has this to say, “Graphology is the study of handwriting. As a theory or practice for inferring a person's character, disposition, and attitudes from their handwriting, graphology is generally considered pseudoscience” and is typically frowned upon as grounds for judicial rulings. 

Nonetheless, according to Sluys, “Leonard, or those acting under her…alleged—quite openly in court—that Pradhan had engaged in criminal misconduct.” It looked like Pradhan was in a difficult position—made even more difficult when his own attorney told him that his defense was “unwinnable.”

Two weeks later, O’Rourke handed down his decision: Forty signatures were written by someone other than the represented person and 75 had to be removed from the petition—but Holbrook, Leonard, Wagner, Epstein & Company had not established “pervasive fraud.” Indeed, not a single witness had ascribed to Pradhan any purposely fraudulent statements or actions, nor even that Pradhan had knowingly obtained any invalid signatures. Pradhan had won, but Leonard was to have the last laugh.

On appeal, in the Matter of Leonard v. Pradhan, the Appellate Court fully supported Leonard’s argument that the entirely of Pradhan’s petition should be thrown out on the claimed basis of being “permeated with fraud.” The decision consisted of three sentences.

* Did Holbrook or Leonard or Wagner know the judge who handed down this decision?
* Does a criminal complaint not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt? 
* Is it rational to toss all 1,100 signatures when more than 1,000 were still valid, and where only 500 were needed? 
* Can a claim of “pervasive fraud” be held against an individual when not a single witness had ascribed to Pradhan any purposely fraudulent statements or actions, nor even that Pradhan had knowingly obtained any invalid signatures?

Don’t ask!

“Disgraceful,” said Vince Monte, long-time Rockland County Democratic chairperson. “Anybody who knows anything about VJ knows that his middle name is ‘integrity.’ He is one of the most honorable public servants I know.” 

One might infer a smack-down like that from the county’s highest-ranking Democrat to be a direct slap in the face to Holbrook and Leonard’s ethically-challenged smear campaign. But it didn’t matter, as Leonard’s legal campaign to discredit Pradhan was a resounding success on two levels: 

First, it had weighed heavily on Pradhan’s time, diverted his energies, and drained his resources and finances, all the while allowing Holbrook to campaign, as if he was above the fray and untainted. 

Second, and more importantly, it left a lasting impression on those who would show disloyalty to the Lord of All He Surveyed in the Kingdom of Clarkstown.

Equally important, Leonard’s actions elevated her to the status of Enforcer. Like a “made man,” her success was a badge of honor, a shot across the bow to other potentially disloyal party members, like a rattlesnake’s warning before it strikes.

Holbrook, with the support of Clarktown Conservative Party Chairman Lettre, went on to handily beat Conservative challenger Dusanenko in November, enabling Holbrook to retain and consolidate his hold on power, but many questions linger:

* Who paid for the handwriting expert: Leonard? Holbrook’s campaign? Taxpayers?
* What professional credentials did this “expert” have, and if graphology is widely considered “pseudoscience,” on what grounds did the court find her testimony to be persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt?
* On whose time was Code Enforcer Epstein “engaged the better part of a week” contacting petition signers? His or the taxpayers’? 
* On whose time, and with whose vehicle, did Epstein seek out and then transport witnesses to and from court during normal business hours? The Town’s, as alleged, or his own?
* Out of whose pocket were process servers paid? Were any of them Town employees? And did they conduct any of their business while “on the clock?”
* Who paid for the high-powered, well-connected lawyer’s services? At a probable going rate of $300-$400 per hour at that time, those costs added up faster than filling a Hummer’s gas tank at today’s prices.
* How did Town Senior Deputy Attorney Wagner fly under the radar screen, working on this much-talked-about political showdown, while supposedly simultaneously serving the best interests of the residents of Clarkstown on a full-time basis? Indeed, was he working privately on the clock or on taxpayers’ time and dime?
* Epstein, we had been informed, had been an officer in the Clarkstown Democratic Party prior to being appointed as a Town code enforcer. If so, why wasn’t this surprising?

If this was the cost of democracy, it was expensive indeed. If this was democracy in action, it left a lot to be desired. 

And where was The Journal News in all of this? As usual: nowhere to be seen or heard from.

And you shall be known by the deeds you do and company you keep. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next week, we'll continue with our inside look at Holbrook’s “governance of a town so corrupt that it would make a Louisiana governor blush with shame.” If you like what you’ve read, please take a moment to cut and paste townofclarkstownvgoldberg.org into your browser. You’ll find numerous fully documented articles on the malignant, deceitful, conspiratorial, contemptible, unethical, and illegal actions of Town of Clarkstown officials, Town and State judges, and others who have played with the Rule of Law and ethics like a child plays with putty. If you appreciate what you read, please ‘like’ us and share our web site with all you know. Thank you.