Maverick committeeman in Nassau GOP faceoff

advertisement | advertise on newsday

Spin Cycle

News, views and commentary on Long Island, state and national politics.

bio

Maverick Nassau Republican Martin Dekom says he showed up at the law offices of Anthony Capetola for a hearing Thursday called by the Nassau Republican Party to oust him as a GOP committeeman -- but his supporters weren’t allowed to attend what he says should have been a public hearing.

Dekom's allies in the clash posted this video on Youtube of the confrontation in Capetola’s office, which is being distributed locally by Dekom supporter Felix Procacci.

Dekom refused to attend the hearing if it wasn’t open to the public. He left this lengthy statement for the record with the stenographer:.

Statement of Martin Dekom:

A complaint against me for “disloyalty” has been submitted, subjecting me to a process made to appear judicial. Clearly, this process is not to adjudicate anything, but is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), in retaliation for constitutionally protected activity, designed to inflict emotional distress, humiliation, and costs. In short, it is a show trial with no connection to justice whatsoever. Aside from its lack of merit, it has fatal procedural flaws:

1. The location of this hearing is not a public forum. The purpose of being in public is to prevent exactly this type of fake proceeding, as Justice Brandeis said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

2. It is impossible to determine where the complainant ends and where the party begins. But whether it is one person or two, papers were not served as required.

3. The complaints are overbroad, not specific, and do not articulate any damage at all, much less any from which one could gauge a punishment. There is no wrongdoing when a party fails to show they were actually affected by the alleged actions, or somehow prejudiced.

4. “Disloyalty” as a crime, although allowed by statute, is void for being vague as no rules have been made to define it or even parameter it, such as time limitations for a claim. Almost all of the incidents cited are in 2010 and 2011.

5. Disloyalty cannot include the filing of lawsuits, as everyone has an interest in the rules being followed, and there is no lawful interest in protecting those who don’t follow the rules.

6. Even if it did, the matters occurred prior to being subject to the jurisdiction of this body. Nor does the complaint describe when I became subject to these rules. Although the complaint claims that some of these matters are adjudicated and some ongoing, it does not say which ones.

7. The complaint does not allege, much less establish, that I am not in sympathy with the party’s philosophy.

8. I have requested minutes and documents as part of my defense, and been denied access by the party.

9. The complaint is signed by Ryan and Moroney, which is ex parte communication at best, and at worst, makes the ruling body and complainants one and the same.

10. I have not been told who the judges are, and I am entitled to an objective hearing, which is not the case here.

11. I have been prevented from deposing key witnesses whom it was within this body’s power to compel to testify. This includes the accusers. Without an accuser there is no complaint.

12. The complaint itself cites acts of disloyalty which are absurd, as they cannot reasonably be construed as “disloyal”, or even relating to party loyalty, i.e., the demand for a quote for a press release, or that Joe Mondello has little sausage fingers.

13. Likewise, without citing any rule or law, the complaint claims that only through the Republican party can people establish social clubs, another absurdity.

14. I have not been fully apprised of my rights, which would be identical to any proceeding in which my First Amendment rights were in jeopardy. I have not even been apprised of the most basic format, making preparation impossible. This and the lack of procedure violate my right of Due Process.

15. Citing no law or rule, I have been accused of unlawfully using the name of the party, though there is no evidence of this, nor any evidence that I received notice of any wrongful act. Nor has the complaint established that any such use occurred while under the jurisdiction as a member.

16. This process implicates my right to vote in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and also the First Amendment. It also implicates the voting rights of all the Republican voters in Election District 106.

17. Once I get to examine my accusers, again, another right not enumerated in the notice, it will be plain that they lied in the complaint, literally and by quoting me out of context, and proven false by their own exhibits. Lying in a sworn document is perjury, and cannot be the basis for an adverse ruling. The process of actually removing me is so daunting that the accusers certainly knew their complaint would be vexing, as opposed to a realistic expectation of “justice”: even absent my ability to examine my accusers and witnesses, this hearing committee will have to disregard all of the above flaws to make an adverse finding. Then a special meeting would have to be called, according to those rules. A quorum, by both statute and rule, will require a majority of actual members, live and present, including me. This will be particularly challenging given the lackluster attendance at the party’s central event, convention. A resolution will have to proposed, which will be open to debate. The violations of rights, fundamental, VRA, SLAPP, are federal questions. The longer this process goes, the more the rights of the voters, including me, are implicated. Anyone who aids and abets the violation of our rights can expect to be sitting at another hearing, but as a defendant, in federal court in Islip. As for this hearing, membership in the party does not require me to participate in a show trial in which the rules are unknown, and the terms are arbitrarily stacked against me. If you want to hold hearings for disloyalty, define the term and create an equitable procedure. Lastly, there is the irony of my party loyalty being judged by a group which has aggressively sought to endorse Democrats.

This includes ardent and vocal liberals, such as Kathleen Rice, Leslie Gross, and Democratic judges. It also includes selecting numerous candidates who seem to have little if any familiarity with Republican principles. These Republicans In Name Only include a number of electeds who have voted for higher taxes, raising their own pay, and attacking the Second Amendment. The Nassau Republican party has become synonymous with patronage. As a direct result of these RINO policies, there has been an exodus from Nassau, the nation’s first suburb, which has been victimized by profligacy and ruin. The effect on voter registration is undeniable: once the Republican party dominated the voting rolls, now it is the minor party. This is the exception, as throughout the United States, wealthy suburban counties are heavily Republican.

The failures here can be tied to decades of Joe Mondello’s leadership, whose flaccid style has been nothing but a godsend to the Democrats of this county. Thankfully, no law or rule compels me to be loyal to a person, only to the ideology of the party. So it is quite true that I have no loyalty to Joe Mondello, Frank Moroney, or any other architect of this catastrophe. And, as I have stated before, if a person is breaking the law, I will pursue with righteous vigor, as my belief in Republican ideals commands. My adherence to Republican ideals, and my willingness to fight for them, in the courts or by other lawful means, is not “disloyalty.” They are acts of loyalty which you will see plenty more of in this year.

You also may be interested in: