From: Alan Goldston <nycounsel@msn.

com>
Date: May 9, 2010 8:16:19 PM EDT
To: Liz Shollenberger <tigercub78@aol.com>, Ken Jenkins
<jenkins1@optonline.net>, suzanne berger <smberger@bryancave.com>
Subject: FW: Candidates for Family Court Judge - This Morning's
NYDLC Meeting Surprises

With the author's permission, I'm forwarding for your consideration a note which Scarsdale's Cindy Combe, also an
attorney, wrote after the Dem Lawyer's Council meeting at Frank Streng's office last Friday, at which various
judicial candidates appeared. I think Cindy's observations are acute and her perspective valid.
I remain very troubled by Judge Morales' disciplinary record, and am concerned that her renomination by the
WCDC EC will be a liability for the rest of our other judicial ticket, at a time when the electorate is in flux.

Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 22:04:48 -0400

Subject: Candidates for Family Court Judge - This Morning's NYDLC Meeting Surprises
From: cmcombe@gmail.com
To: fstreng@mccarthyfingar.com; jdmalevin@aol.com; markannlewis@msn.com;nycounsel@msn.com

Frank, Jeff, Mark, and Alan:

This morning's meeting produced a few surprises.

1. The biggest surprise was William Edwards, whose carefully modulated, informative, impressive and short
(Yes, short! Who knew?) performance bespoke a new and more humbled appreciation for, and understanding of,
the process of obtaining a nomination. He was all business and not trying to be Mr. Personality. In fact, I thought
he was the single most impressive candidate of the lot this morning.

I thought this new development was highly significant because he certainly came into our last SDC meeting a
bundle of nerves and started out badly in his interaction with us. After today's meeting, while we were both
getting one last coffee, I complimented him on the presentation he made today. His response surprised me. He
quietly told me that he appreciated hearing that, because when he first started out on this journey, nobody told
him what was required of him; he had no idea what this process entailed or what was expected of him in these
individual meetings; and that he realized he had blown several of his presentations because he hadn't known how
to correctly approach them. That is an astonishing mea culpa from such a proud man. I do believe now that his
opening comment to us (the SDC) about how we should get some black district leaders was not meant to accuse us
of racism but rather was just an unfortunate comment that just fell out of his mouth due to nervousness and,
further, he was in fact so nervous at the time that he was unable to fully comprehend our reaction to his comment.
So I've flip-flopped on him. After seeing the new, improved Bill Edwards today, I'm willing to give him the benefit
of the doubt. I believe we would be wrong to deny a permanent appointment to this talented and committed man.

2. Another sleeper was Michelle Shauer. She made a compelling case for deep subject matter experience and
committed professional specialization, as well as having been essentially a judge in all but name in this very
specialty for the past several years. Her confidence in discussing the substantive issues in family law that she deals
with every day was truly something to see. I liked her. She's got my thumbs up.

3. Less compelling was Kathy Ritche (the blonde woman sitting next to me -- I hope I've identified each of these
two women correctly), who just didn't seem to have the chops that the other candidates did. Truthfully? She
didn't exhibit (to me, at least) the pure passion for turning around young lives and helping families function as
optimally as possible that Judge Edwards and Ms. Shauer exhibited. Those two had it coming out of every pore in
their bodies. Clearly, they live and breathe it. Ms. Ritche, on the other hand, seemed like a careful checklist
follower - at least that is what I was picking up, fairly or not. She was my least favorite of the bunch. Thumbs
down, at least this time around.

4. Nilda Morales Horowitz did NOT pass the acid test, in my opinion. I remain strongly opposed to her as a
candidate. Here's why.

(a). What Happened Today: During the meeting, I stated that many of us were familiar with the decision of the
Counsel on Judicial Conduct censuring her, and asked her to speak to it. She began by saying that it could be
interpreted differently by different people, yada yada yada. I asked her how she would handle it if the censure
decision came out in the newspapers in the heat of the race. She again replied that different people could interpret
it different ways, etc. Lastly, I asked her why we should recommend her over other candidates who had not been
censured. She replied to the effect that she had a lot of experience as a judge and was good at it, and then said
that the censure experience "had made me a better judge."

(b) What I thought about her responses to my questions: I intensely disliked her responses to my
questions. To me, it was more of the same unwillingness to just flat out admit that she had committed a grave
wrong for which she was sorry. The stinging dissent written by the Chairman of the Commission on
Judicial Conduct in the censure decision http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/H/horowitz,_nilda.htm
cited her blame-shifting attitude as proof of not sufficiently appreciating the severity of her actions in attempting
to influence other judges, in itself justifying removal because it indicated she would be likely to continue to
behave the same way. Moreover, the Chairman strongly felt that her behavior warranted removal even though she
had derived no personal benefit from it. The facts were clear and undisputed that she improperly attempted to
influence two judges in two separate matters AND that she "gave evasive (or perhaps deliberately false)
testimony" to the Commission during its investigation of her -- a point the Chairman was so angry about that he
hammered her on it twice in his dissenting opinion. Moreover, he also noted that she committed "either two or
seven" violations of the Judicial Code, "depending on how one counts" in addition to having given "evasive, if not
false, testimony" to the Commission. She even stipulated to all of the facts, fer cryin' out loud. It angers me that
she gave that very same "people could interpret things different ways" b.s. justification to us at the NYDLC meeting
this morning that she gave in her testimony to the Commission. Did she learn nothing at all from this? It sounds
like she's trying to weasel out of the stigma of the censure and is actually still secretly unrepentant. It's the same
sentiment she articulated in the case that so infuriated the Chairman. If she were to say that line to an
investigative reporter for the Journal News, New York Times, or other publication, she'd be publicly eviscerated
and, I fear, so would we be for nominating her.

What would have impressed me would be if she had immediately copped to it and said she'd stepped over the line,
was grateful to have been given a second chance, and that she's dedicated herself to earning it every day since.

Also, as to her statement that "It made me a better judge," it sounds good on the surface but, once again, it's
another b.s. answer. It KEPT her a judge. It did NOT make her one whit better in terms of how she, herself,
adjudicates cases or in the subject matter expertise in family law that she brings to the task. So, here again, her
answer -- while superficially impressive and reeking of self-redemption -- was actually evasive and non-
responsive. I think she could really get torn apart in the press. To me, she poses a risk to the Democrats because
the Republicans could skewer us for re-upping such an unrepentant sinner who had so scandalously tried to
intervene for her friends (I'm seeing the screaming headlines already). If we need one or more women on the
ballot for diversity's sake in the eyes of the public, the other two are far preferable to Horowitz, IMO.

Lastly, I'd like to address the remaining reason she gave for justifying us choosing her -- "because I'm a very good
judge." She flipped off a list of buzz-word categories of stuff she deals with, without any details whatsoever and
without any discernible passion for the subject. She might as well have been bragging "I'm an excellent shopper."
Yes, I know she had to get going to her son's graduation ceremony, but surely two minutes of actual substance
and passion was warranted here? To me, at least, it seems like her strategy is to brazen it out by projecting
absolute confidence, as if that alone should be enough to fend off any detailed questions and to lull people into
letting her stay. To which my rather juvenile response is: "I don't theeeeenk so."

I have absolutely no problem axing a woman, Latina or not. The judicial code of conduct applies equally to male
and female judges, and so should our decisions. And should the press (or she, to the press) bash us for our
decision, we can truthfully say that she showed us the same attitude that the dissenting opinion decried and that
we weren't impressed by it either.

Nilda Morales Horowitz -- Ninety six thumbs down.

That's it from the peanut gallery.

Cindy