WPCNR NEWS COMMENT. By John F. Bailey. July 21, 2004: The latest appeal of Glen Hockley resulting in a temporary stay, (lifted Monday), preventing Larry Delgado from being sworn in and restored to the Common Council which happened Tuesday afternoon at 4:45 P.M. has used the labyrinthine morass of the New York legal system, as well as the confused Appellate Court in Brooklyn, which should know better,  to thwart the voice of the White Plains voter.

THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES: Glen Hockley, at a Council Work Session, May 26, 2004. Photo from  WPCNR News Archive.

Monday, the Appellate Court in another lunacy, reversed the decision of one its judges two weeks ago to grant Hockley another stay. Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Hockley was  removed from the Common Council when Larry Delgado was sworn in by the Mayor.

Mr. Hockley has gone on record, using election law, as refusing resolutely to let the voters of White Plains decide this issue  twice:

 Ducking a Runoff Election Two Times

1.)First, by refusing to go with the Appellate Court call for with a citywide election runoff between him and Mr. Delgado, obviously because he was afraid he would lose, due to Mr. Delgado’s incumbency back in the Spring of 2002. So, instead he appeals to the Court of Appeals and gets it thrown out. 

 Privately, the Court of Appeals did not want the backload of election law cases sure to follow, if they allowed judges to decide elections. Instead they threw out the Nicolai and Appellate Court judgment that a new election be held.

Well in the course of 27 months, a preposterous length of time due to Attorney General footdragging, the quo warranto procedure worked its instant magic. But, Mr. Hockley is not going quietly.

 He is kicking and screaming still. He does not know when it is time to go.He is temporarily gone now.

 Alleging the 103 Republicans Who Signed Affidavits are Lying.

 2.) Second, by appealing for a jury trial in which the 103 voters can be questioned by his attorney, Mr. Hockley is obviously alleging that 103 voters who voted on Election Day in District 18 are lying.

 All 103 voters, when they signed sworn affidavits to the Attorney General as part of the Attorney General quo warranto action on behalf of Mr. Delgado, were saying they voted for Mr. Delgado on November 5, 2001, thereby proving in the Attorney General’s eyes that Mr. Delgado would have won the election over Mr. Hockley that day had the voting machine not jamme

 Whose Interests are Being Served Now?

 By further pursuit of legal action to delay the natural process of quo warranto, Mr. Hockley once again has shown his true colors.

 Mr. Hockley’s contention of his latest legal appeal of Judge Francis Nicolai’s summary judgment  is that a jury trial ought to decide on whether or not each of 103 voters actually did vote for Mr. Delgado in the wreck of the District 18 voting machine on November 5.

 Now should the Appellate Judges look at this again and decide a jury trial is warranted, we can look forward to a parade of jurist selection, which will take weeks to find a non-partisan jury.

 What would be the court definition of juror background?

 How can you find 12 independent jurors not affiliated with either Democrat or Republican Parties? Would they all be from White Plains, or would they have to be all from out of the City of White Plains to be fair and impartial?

 Would they have to be drawn from Rockland, Putnam or Dutchess Counties? What would be the ground rules for serving on the jury?

 And, the CitizeNetReporter predicts that there will be suits filed by Mr. Hockley challenging the jury parameters. It could be months before a jury trial is commenced.

 Hockley only needs to delay this outcome 17 months to serve a complete term. It is not inconceivable that given court calendars what they are that a jury trial could not be completed until well into 2005, when the disputed Hockley-Delgado term ends.

 Hockley Shows No Respect to Voters.

 Mr. Hockley has been an active councilman, and Mr. Delgado has not really participated in government affairs since Hockley took the seat in March, 2002.

However, Mr. Hockley who has not hesitated to cloak himself in the sanctity of New York State Election law to avoid having voters decide, when it is to his advantage, now cannot have it both ways.

 Now that voters on that Election Day in November, 2001, have sworn they voted for Mr. Delgado on that day, he cannot claim they are perhaps lying or misremembering, or whatever sophistry his attorney will use to attempt to shake each individual sworn voter down. He or she will attempt to cast doubt on the sworn voters’ Delgado decision,  to convince the jury these are 103 Republican Delgado stooges.

 A Delaying Tactic at Best.

 A jury trial of each Delgado voter will be very ugly. Every voter is going to say they voted for Delgado. That’s what the purpose of a sworn affidavit is. It averts testimony of a sworn fact.

 By asking for a jury trial, Mr. Hockley disrespects and mocks the very voters he proclaims to be working so hard for on the Common Council.

 It is a delaying tactic to get Mr. Hockley a few more months on the Common Council dole.

 It is time for him to voluntarily step down and let the rule of law: quo warranto, that he was so eager to press for  months ago, rule.

 Mr. Hockley’s “walk abouts,” his speaking out on issues are all admirable qualities. If he is really a champion, he will not disrespect the voters by continuing this bogus appeal.

 He has every right to do so, but it reduces him to the role of politician, who will do anything, say anything, and sell anything to stay in office, which he was not elected to in the first place.