Today was the first day of testimony in the complaint brought to Superior Court by the 5th District Democratic Town Committee challenge slate aka the "Kirkley-Bey" slate.
Contrary to what many believe, I actually do work for a living and I was unable to attend the morning session. But from sources that were there, it started off slow. In typical John Rose style, he filed a "Motion to Strike". This was Rose's attempt to end everything before it started. No dice with the Judge, she denied the motion.
For anyone not familiar with Rose's style, when he has no defense he attempts to bury the proceedings in ridiculous motions. I'm sure there will be something submitted when court reconvenes on Tuesday.
A couple of sources in the courtroom were concerned that the plaintiff's attorney was not being aggressive enough in the AM session and the Judge appeared to be somewhat confused by the subject matter.
As a side note, William Beckerman, the alleged arsonist currently on trial for, umm, allegedly torching his home has been the talk of many for his "hairpiece". Beckerman has apparently started a trend in the Hartford courts by sporting his jet black toupee atop his head. Lovely wigs were being sported by some of those who turned out today to put their best foot forward as they sat and watched the proceedings. An almost festive air seeped through the courtroom as the two passed around their zip-lock bag of penny candy to the Giles slate supporters. Grandma, you didn't share with me?
I arrived in time for the start of the afternoon session, prepared to witness a depressing scene of John Rose winning his arguments. Well, those that thought the plaintiff's attorney was sluggish in the morning were able to witness his caffeine kick into overdrive in the afternoon. And the Judge who seemed confused became a quick learner I guess and appeared on point throughout the afternoon.
The afternoon started out with John Rose arguing that this suit shouldn't be heard because only the 5th District was complaining. Rose argued that the petition problem was far greater and wasn't just in the 5th District, it was citywide. HUH? Did I just hear that right. It almost sounds like a defense attorney arguing that his client should not have been arrested yet because he only robbed one bank and there are banks citywide he hasn't robbed yet.
The cross examination of Marc DiBella continued for a while longer with Attorney Sweeney making several objections against Rose's questioning, most of which the Judge, Judge Peck, agreed with and sustained.
After another "comfort break" which lasted longer than expected, testimony resumed with City Clerk John Bazzano taking the stand. Bazzano's testimony was precise as to his actions in handling the primary petitions when they were delivered to his office as required by law. He testified that the petitions were turned over to him and stored in the vault. Bazzano testified that on January 27, 2010, he was approached in the early afternoon by Marc DiBella and was advised that Dibella had found a potential problem with the "Giles" slates primary petitions.
When questioned as to what he did, Bazzano testified that he called the Secretary of the State's office and spoke with a staff attorney, Ted Bromley. Bazzano explained the situation to Bromley and Bromley responded to Bazzano by e-mail. Bazzano then outlined a timeline that appeared to torpedo the defense by Vazquez and Rose. Bazzano stated that Bromley responded to his request almost immediately, but that it wasn't until 3:30PM that he got back to his office and read the e-mail.
After reading the e-mail, Bazzano testified that at 3:45PM to 3:50PM he went downstairs to the Registrar's Office and advised the Democratic Registrar that she "had a problem". He stated that he "didn't recall" having a further conversation other than outlining the problem and then returning to his office.
Bazzano then was asked what happened next and he testified that at approximately 4:00PM Democratic Deputy Registrar Gary Coleman came to his office and told Bazzano that he needed "all" of the petitions back. Bazzano gave him the petitions and Coleman left the Clerks Office. Bazzano also testified that he had looked at the petitions before they left his office, and many were incomplete.
This was in line with the testimony offered earlier by DiBella and substantiated by his copies, that many of the petitions were incomplete.
The 4:00PM time frame is important because in Bromley's e-mail to Bazzano he stated that any changes or corrections made to the petitions after the 4:00PM deadline would not be valid and the petitions should be rejected.
Judge Peck seemed to make a point of Bazzano's timeline as though she clearly understands the 4:00PM deadline. So much for that confusion people thought earlier. The Judge even went so far as to ask Bazzano to repeat his timeline testimony so that she "had it clear" in her head.
Next up was cross examination by Rose. More objections, and more ridiculous by Rose. He even went so far at one point to ask Bazzano if he knew the boundaries of the 5th District. I don't think anyone in the court understood that line of questioning, but then again, it is John Rose. During the cross examination, Judge Peck even stopped Rose at one point and read the section in question, Section C, word for word.
It seemed as if she was trying to advise Rose to stop wasting her and the courts time because his argument was not at all in line with the wording of the form. With the typical arrogance that is John Rose, he stood with his arms folded across his chest as if to beckon the question to the Judge "do you know who I am?". I would say she clearly does and has him figured out.
Testimony will resume on Tuesday at 10:00AM barring a snow day.
Next up: Attorney Ted Bromley from the Secretary of the State's Office
