Shirley Huntley. (Photo: WIkimedia)

Former State Senator Shirley Huntley, who pleaded guilty in February to falsifying evidence and attempting to cover up her embezzle efforts, was sentenced in court today to a year and a day in jail. In addition, she will have to pay $87,700 in restitution, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

“The crux of this case has always been the defendant Shirley Huntley’s greed and self-interest," United States Attorney Loretta Lynch announced in a statement. "Promising to provide much needed assistance to the parents of New York City public schoolchildren, ... Shirley Huntley violated the public trust and betrayed her constituents by stealing public funds for her own benefit.”

Ms. Lynch added, “Today’s sentence should send a clear message: we will bring to justice those who corrupt the system of laws upon which our community relies.”

Ms. Huntley's sentencing was made more notable by the documents that were released alongside it, including yesterday's letter detailing her cooperation with authorities, secretly recording colleagues in an attempt to lessen her sentence. Sudden revelations emerged that a small slew of her fellow lawmakers were also under investigation.

Among the names in Ms. Huntley's sentencing letter were State Senators Malcolm Smith and John Sampson, both of whom have been charged in their own schemes in recent weeks. They are but a drop in the bucket of an increasingly extensive list of New York lawmakers accused of wrongdoing  in recent weeks, months and years--earning the Empire State's government a more dubious reputation with each arrest.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Sampson have maintained their innocence--as have Councilman Dan Halloran, Assemblyman William Boyland and Assemblyman Eric Stevenson, all currently facing charges.

Ms. Huntley, 74, was first elected to the State Senate in 2007  by defeating another troubled senator, Ada Smith, who, among other things, was convicted of throwing hot coffee on a staffer who commented on her weight.

Albany. (Photo: Wikimedia)

This afternoon, courts released a sentencing document for State Senator Shirley Huntley, detailing her cooperation with federal authorities in the wake of her arrest in a bribery scheme. After a slew of corruption scandals have rocked New York State politics in recent weeks, including several of Ms. Huntley's Albany colleagues, particular attention was placed on the names of officials and staffers caught in Ms. Huntley's wiretaps. There are nine names on the list.

In documents filed with the court, the U.S. Attorney's Office wrote that "eight of these nine individuals remain the subjects of ongoing criminal investigations.” According to Ms. Huntley's lawyer, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI recorded and photographed the following individuals on multiple occasions:

State Senator John Sampson
Melvin Lowe (former political consultant and associate of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman)
State Senator Eric Adams
State Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson
State Senator Jose Peralta
State Senator Malcolm Smith
City Councilman Ruben Wills
State Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Curtis Taylor (former staffer for Malcolm Smith)

The U.S. attorney's office refused to tell Politicker which individual is not subject to the ongoing investigation.

But Mr. Wills' campaign said he was the innocent one.

"My attorney has been in contact with federal law enforcement authorities and he has been informed that I am NOT the target of any investigation arising from proceedings involving Shirley Huntley," the councilman said in a statement. "I have personally not been contacted by any law enforcement officials to date and I look forward to continuing the work of the people of southeast Queens that elected me.”

Mr. Wills' statement is echoed by one from Mr. Adams. “I have not been contacted about any investigation. I believe deeply in transparency and the pursuit of justice—and that is why I committed 20 years of my life to law enforcement,” he said. “I am more than willing to help with any investigation.”

A spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman declined to comment but a source in his office pointed to all of the work Mr. Lowe, one of two non-electeds named on the list, has done for other officials. Mr. Schneiderman once indicted Ms. Huntley so there may be a tense relationship that led to the attorney general being singled out. "The notion that Schneiderman had a business relationship with Lowe is ridiculous," the source said.

All of the officials on the list are Democrats. Among them are two pols campaigning for higher office--Mr. Adams and Mr. Peralta for Brooklyn and Queens borough president respectively. Politicker has reached out to the offices of Ms. Hassell-Thompson, Mr. Peralta and Ms. Montgomery and has yet to receive a formal response to the news. Mr. Smith and Mr. Sampson have already been indicted in separate cases.

"This is an extremely trying time in Albany. If any charges are brought the conference will take appropriate action," Senate Democratic Conference Spokesman Mike Murphy said in a statement. A spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference declined to  comment.

This post will be updated with additional information as it arrives.

View the sentencing letter below:

(Photo: Getty)

Earlier today, the state Supreme Court blocked New York City's controversial attempt to ban large cups for sugary drinks in restaurants and other food establishments. The ruling, which you can view below, blasted the ban as "arbitrary and capricious," ultimately creating "an administrative Leviathan." The rules were scheduled to go into effect tomorrow.

"It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds and the loopholes inherent in the Rule, including but not limited to no limitations on re-fills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule," Judge Milton Tingling ruled.

Fundamentally, Judge Tingling concluded that the city's Board of Health lacked the authority to implement the regulations.

"The Portion Cap Rule, if upheld, would create an administrative Leviathan and violate the separation of powers doctrine," he argued. “The Rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it. Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages."

The city has vowed to appeal the ruling and Mayor Michael Bloomberg already scheduled a City Hall press conference on the topic later today, so the drama is still far from over.

"We plan to appeal the sugary drinks decision as soon as possible, and we are confident the measure will ultimately be upheld," the mayor's office wrote on Twitter. "We believe [the Board] has the legal authority and responsibility to tackle causes of the obesity epidemic, which kills 5,000 NYers a year."

View the ruling below, via Capital Tonight.

Jenny Hou leaving the courthouse this evening.

This afternoon, just as comptroller and likely 2013 mayoral candidate John Liu appeared alongside Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a press conference discussing the post-Sandy state of the city's finances, legal arguments got underway this afternoon in the trial of his supporter Xing Wu "Oliver" Pan and his young campaign treasurer Jia "Jenny" Hou, who are being accused of participating in a conspiracy to direct illegal contributions to Mr. Liu's war chest. In the courtroom today, Judge Richard Sullivan rejected four pre-trial motions requested by Mr. Pan and Ms. Hou's attorneys and ordered the trial to begin as scheduled February 4. 

The first motion argued before the court this afternoon was presented by Mr. Pan's lawyer, Irwin Rochman. He said the case against his client should be dismissed entirely due to "outrageous government conduct," namely that FBI agents continued their undercover investigation of Mr. Pan though he said they should have known "Mr. Pan had no interest in engaging in a violation of campaign finance law." He based this argument on the claim wiretap recordings indicate Mr. Pan repeatedly told an undercover agent who posed as a Houston businessman eager to have funds in excess of the maximum allowed amount funneled to Mr. Liu through a system of straw donors about Mr. Liu's campaign "self-imposed limit of $800" on contributions. Mr. Rochman also said his client had been "terrorized" by law enforcement agents who subjected him to an "ominous vague threat" by indicating they knew the whereabouts of his wife and children. The lawyer said this was especially traumatizing to Mr. Pan because he spent his "formative years" in the "totalitarian regime" of the People's Republic of China.

Judge Sullivan indicated Mr. Rochman's motion had no legal precedent and said he felt like he was being asked to rule based on "squishy stuff in the pit of my belly" rather than the rule of law.

"This is a court of law, not a psychiatrist's couch," the judge said.

Unsurprisingly given his reaction to the argument, Judge Sullivan ended up rejecting the motion and siding with the prosecution's contention the issues raised by Mr. Rochman did not constitute a violation of due process.

Ms. Hou's attorney, Gerald Lefcourt, was up next. He argued a trio of motions; a request for Ms. Hou to be tried separately from Mr. Pan, another to suppress the search warrant that allowed investigators to seize the messages in her email account (which are central to the case against her) and for a limitation on the scope of the evidence that could be taken from Ms. Hou's electronic messages. Mr. Lefcourt argued the warrant should be suppressed because prosecutors failed to tell the judge who issued it the full story behind a conversation Ms. Hou had with Mr. Pan about a bounced check. Mr. Lefcourt said the case against Ms. Hou heavily rested on the idea she communicated with Mr. Pan about the bounced check from one of the alleged straw donors, however he said the judge who issued the warrant was not aware that Mr. Pan specifically sat down with Ms. Hou to deliver the check and that the donor in question was Mr. Pan's brother. Justin Anderson, one of the prosecutors, responded to this by saying he could not be certain agents requesting the warrant were aware of this fact and, furthermore, that they were only required to present the judge with "facts necessary for probably cause" and not other information that might be "relevant" to the case.

Mr. Lefcourt's request to have the scope of the warrant limited was based on the fact investigators combed through five years of her emails, which he described as a violation of her privacy. Mr. Anderson countered by saying the investigators combed through 20,000 emails and found 1,900 that were pertinent for the case.

Oliver Pan (right) with his attorneys.

Lastly, Mr. Lefcourt argued the cases against Mr. Pan and Ms. Hou should be tried separately because Mr. Pan's involvement in the alleged conspiracy began far before Ms. Hou's and a joint case would include substantial discussion of things that were not relevant to her case. Prosecutors described these elements as the "background" to Ms. Hou's case. Mr. Lefcourt also said Mr. Pan had admitted guilt and that he acted alone while he was initially cooperating with the FBI (a notion that was refuted by Mr. Pan's attorneys later on when they spoke with reporters outside the courthouse). Because of this Mr. Lefcourt said it would be imperative for Mr. Pan to testify in Ms. Hou's trial and that it would be easier for the court to "compel" him to do so if the cases were kept separate.

When Judge Sullivan ruled, he rejected the notions there were any improprieties in the process by which agents obtained and executed the warrant that yielded Ms. Hou's electronic communications. He also declined to split the cases arguing it was "not clear" Mr. Pan would be any more likely to testify in separate cases. Though he rejected all of the defense attorneys' motions, Judge Sullivan said the different arguments presented by the defense on behalf of their clients "might be very persuasive" when their clients' cases were put before a jury.

"There are lots of good arguments to be made at trial, but I think, in this case, the defendants should be tried together as originally scheduled," said the judge.

After Judge Sullivan made his decision and the participants made their way our of the courtroom, Mr. Lefcourt told reporters he was "very disappointed" the judge did not decide to separate the cases. Mr. Rochman turned to Mr. Lefcourt and said, "We're in this together."

Mr. Rochman subsequently told Politicker he was optimistic about how his client would fare once the case was put in front of a jury.

Outside the courthouse, Mr. Rochman indicated it was highly probable Mr. Pan would testify at the trial. He also said the experience had been extremely difficult for Mr. Pan who had been seen tearing up at one point during the arguments.

Neither Mr. Pan or Ms. Hou were as talkative as their attorneys. As Mr. Pan left the courtroom, a reporter jokingly asked him, "No comment right? As always." He replied with a slight laugh. Outside, we asked Ms. Hou how difficult the experience has been for her. She replied to our query as well as several other questions from the assembled reporters with a simple, "Thank you very much."

The case will resume February 4.

(Photo: Facebook)

Bronx Councilman Larry Seabrook, who ended up in a deadlocked jury last December as he was facing 12 charges, was retried and found guilty on 9 of those charges earlier today, which reportedly include bribery, money laundering and fraud.

“Councilman Larry Seabrook abused the power of his office to influence public contracts and to fund his own corrupt friends and family plan,” US Attorney Preet Bharara said, according to the New York Post.

He continued, “Today’s conviction ensures that the councilman will pay for betraying the public trust. Rooting out public corruption and restoring the public’s faith in honest government remains a vital mission of this office.”

The Associated Press has more:

"Prosecutors had accused the 61-year-old Democrat of misdirecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money meant for community projects.

The evidence included a receipt for a $7 bagel sandwich that allegedly had been doctored to put the cost at $177. Prosecutors accused Seabrook of using it to make a phony reimbursement request to a political club he controlled."

Leo Glickman, Adriano Espaillat's attorney, speaking to the press after today's hearing.

This morning, New York State Supreme Court in the Bronx held a hearing in the matter of Adriano Espaillat vs. The Board of Elections in The City of New York addressing issues with the counting of ballots and alleged voter suppression in the increasingly close congressional race between veteran Congressman Charlie Rangel and State Senator Adriano Espaillat. Lawyers for both candidates and the Board of Elections appeared before Judge John Carter who, in a small victory for the Espaillat campaign, ruled all ballots cast in the June 26 election must be preserved and barred the BOE from transmitting results to the New York State Board of Elections once they are certified so that the Court may review any disputed paper ballots, alleged instances of voter supression and issues with the results from the electronic voting machines. Those issues will be examined in another hearing scheduled for July 11. Judge Carter's ruling also left open the possibility that a "new primary election" will be held "upon a finding that there has been such fraud and irregularity as to render impossible a determination" of who won last week's election.

Mr. Rangel was initially declared victorious after the June 26 election, but the results initially given to the press and both campaigns by the BOE were later determined to have left votes in many precincts uncounted. The results first issued by the BOE showed Mr. Rangel defeating Mr. Espaillat by 2,331 votes. After a review, that margin shrunk down to 802 votes. Neither result includes the paper ballots cast by absentee voters and affidavit ballots submitted by those whose name is not on the voter rolls when they arrive at the polling place. The BOE began counting those paper ballots today.

In court, Mr. Carter began today's hearing by noting, "I live in the district and I vote, I just want to make sure that's on the record."

Leo Glickman, who is one of Mr. Espaillat's attorneys along with election law guru Marty Connor, said he was concerned about being able to view the inspection of voting machines used in the election "to determine any irregularities caused by machine related malfunctions." He also raised the issue of "possible voter suppression" noting, "we have identified many instances in which people were turned away from the polls and were treated to quite hostile conditions by board of elections workers."

Stephen Kitzinger, one of the attorneys representing the BOE said the Board is simply using "duly adopted policies and procedures" in counting the votes. Both Mr. Kitzinger and Mr. Rangel's attorney, Arthur Greig, accused Mr. Espaillat's lawyers of attempting "to slow down the counting process." Mr. Kitzinger also said it was "highly inappropriate" and "disturbing" for Mr. Espaillat and his supporters have raised the spectre of voter fraud and voter suppression in court and at press conferences without first going to the BOE.

"It's disturbing to the Board that those allegations were made without being reported to the Board," he said. "It's one thing to say to the press that we have allegations of fraud and voter suppression, but to not bring those allegations to anyone with the power to investigate seems highly inappropriate."

Mr. Kitzinger also noted that the allegations "lack specificity."

Mr. Glickman said his team is still "gathering" information about these instances of alleged voter suppression.

"This was an election that just happened last week and complaints have been coming in since then," he said.

The Espaillat campaign has promoted a telephone hotline for voters to share their tales of issues at the polls.

All of the attorneys will return to Judge Carter's courtroom next Wednesday to discuss any disputed paper ballots, issues with the voting machines and the instances of alleged voter suppression. The other three candidates in the race, Joyce Johnson, Clyde Williams and Craig Schley, will also be notified of the hearing, though none of them obtained enough votes to be in contention at this point.

Congressman Charlie Rangel arriving at his election night party. (Photo: Getty)

Nearly three days after polls closed in the congressional race between Rep. Charlie Rangel and State Senator Adriano Espaillat, the final result still hasn't been announced and lawyers for Mr. Espaillat are headed to State Supreme Court on Monday to seek an injunction against the City Board of Elections to be allowed to observe the ongoing vote count. On election night earlier this week, the Board of Elections released numbers that indicated Mr. Rangel had won with an insurmountable margin of victory. Since then, reports have emerged of uncounted votes and Mr. Espaillat's supporters have called for a federal monitor to step in.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to hold a hearing on the Board of Elections’ proceedings in the 13^th Congressional District race," Mr. Espaillat said in a statement announcing the court date. "Three days after a winner was declared in this election, there are still votes to be counted. There are more than 70 election districts where votes have not been accounted for....Our campaign has not been allowed to adequately monitor the Board of Elections’ proceedings, as required by law. The BOE continues to stonewall not only our campaign, but also the news media, which is particularly disturbing given that it blocks the free flow of information and transparency – the bedrock of our democratic system.”

Lawyers for the Espaillat campaign led by attorney Leo Glickman have been at the Board of Elections headquarters monitoring the situation, but they claim they have been prevented from watching the count and kept in the dark about the ongoing results.

“The Board of Elections staff is not allowing us to get the tallies. They are very nice but they are apparently acting on orders,” Mr. Glickman told The Politicker yesterday. “We are watching people put the  memory sticks from each election district from 15 feet away without being able to see the information on the sticks.”

The Board of Elections initially told The Politicker and both the Espaillat and Rangel campaigns that unofficial results showed Mr. Rangel beating Mr. Espaillat with 16,252 voters or 45.7 percent to Mr. Espaillat’s 13,921 votes, 39.1 percent of the total with 100 precincts reported. Unofficial results do not include affidavit ballots submitted by absentee voters and those whose name is not on the rolls when they arrive at the polling place, however the numbers initially reported by the Board of Elections gave Mr. Rangel a 6.6 percent margin that was more than enough of a cushion to weather any changes caused by the outstanding affidavit ballots. Since then, the Associated Press published a report claiming results from 33 of the 506 precincts were not counted.

According to the Daily News' Juan Gonzalez, the AP, which received detailed results from the BOE as they come in, realized 79 precincts in the Upper Manhattan congressional district were listed as having had no voters. Most of those precincts where votes did not come in were in areas favorable to Mr. Espaillat. When the AP, re-examined the results, they found votes in 46 of the 79 districts and the margin between Mr. Espaillat and Mr. Rangel shrunk dramatically.

Board of Elections spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

This afternoon, a woman who answered the phone in Ms. Vazquez's office told The Politicker, "I'm sorry it's taken so long, there's just a lot of fires she has to put out."

David Storobin (Photo: YouTube)

The March 20th special election for the State Senate in southeastern Brooklyn just got one big step closer to a resolution earlier today when over a hundred ballots that were alleged to be fraudulent by the Democratic candidate, Lew Fidler, were counted after a judge dismissed his lawsuit last week. The Republican candidate, David Storobin, is now 27 votes ahead.

However, New York State law mandates an automatic hand recount of all of the ballots counted in an election if the final margin is less than 0.5% of the total votes cast, and with over 20,000 ballots in this election, Mr. Storobin's margin is well, well within that threshold.

So, while Mr. Storobin currently holds the advantage, this election is still far from being over and either candidate has a plausible path to victory.

Ultimately, this elongated process has minimized some of the influence the eventual winner will yield. Unless Governor Cuomo declares an extended legislative session, there won't be a great number of votes either candidate would be able to cast in Albany before the Legislature adjourns. And, with the district in question being somewhat dismantled in redistricting, whoever wins would be running for reelection in a substantially different district without the typical benefits of incumbency.

Update: The official tally was 3 points more in favor of Mr. Storobin than the unofficial results, which had the candidate up 24.

(Photo: YouTube)

Congressman Michael Grimm didn't mince words earlier today when he discussed the ongoing trials of individuals accused of helping mastermind the infamous September 11th attacks.

"At this point, it's a complete circus," Mr. Grimm said, referring to the mocking antics some of the accused put on display for the victims' families watching. "The world though is seeing that these are just animals, thugs, low-life criminals that are void of humanity, and that they don't have any cause at all."

Mr. Grimm also called for the judge to intervene to cut off the odd display, saying, “I just hope though that the judge does start to reign it in now and not allow these victims to have to go through any more of this crap, and that's what it is."

He also questioned the claim made by the alleged terrorists that they've been tortured and abused while detained in Quantanamo Bay.

"If you've just been tortured for as long as they say they've been tortured, they would be very demure, very meek, very mild-mannered," Mr. Grimm, who's a former FBI agent, explained. "You can see here what this is. These are just disgusting animals that have no regard for anything whatsoever, and the world is seeing that, unfortunately, at a great cost for these families and for America as a whole."

Watch the the exchange below:

Lew Fidler and David Storobin.

After 20,000 votes cast in a state senate special election that took place over a month ago, Republican candidate David Storobin still leads by 3 votes.

The legal teams of Mr. Storobin and his Democratic opponent Lew Fidler met in court earlier this afternoon to continue hashing out their arguments over absentee votes and fraud allegations. And, according to the campaigns, not a lot seems to have happened. One or two dozen more ballots challenged by Mr. Storobin got green-lighted to eventually be counted, which benefits Mr. Fidler, but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

The biggest issue currently on hand is the Fidler campaign's allegation that a Storobin campaign staffer fraudulently collected absentee ballots. Mr. Fidler's lawyers contend the evidence suggests an illegal write-in campaign was conducted (in New York State, voters cannot vote absentee by choice and have to have a legitimate reason to do so) while Mr. Storobin's lawyers are likely arguing that the benefit of the doubt should be given to votes cast by legitimately registered voters.

Notably, the judge agreed to a subpoena against the Storobin staffer in question. "My understanding is that she has been ordered to appear for a deposition at Brooklyn Supreme court on Thursday morning," Mr. Storobin's spokesman, David Simpson, wrote in an update sent to reporters this evening, again calling the fraud allegations "bogus."

"The subpoena became necessary because the Storobin campaign refuses to produce this individual in court," Mr. Fidler's campaign manager, Kalman Yeger, wrote in his own update tonight. "We're confident that when this individual is brought before the court, the gritty details of Mr. Storobin's scheme will become public."

The judge may rule on the fraud allegation later this week, or maybe not. Regardless, an automatic hand recount of every ballot in the race seems fairly likely, which would drag on the process even further.

View Mr. Simpson's statement and Mr. Yeger's response below, which, like past statements, involve Mr. Storobin's charge that the ballots were challenged based on the Russian ethnicity of the voters who cast them rather than the campaign staffer who collected them.

Mr. Simpson:

Here’s a quick update from today’s hearing. Not much news I’m afraid.

First off, Judge Martin denied our motion for summary judgement (as we expected). It has little if any affect on how this will move forward except to make sure that 20-some ballots will be counted among the nearly 400 remaining unopened ballots.

Second, he reserved judgement on the fraud issue. We still have a motion pending to dismiss Fidler’s bogus fraud claim. As today --- just as was the case on Thursday of last week --- Fidler’s camp has yet to produce a single shred of evidence or a single witness to substantiate their claim that there was any fraud. It is only an unsupported theory at this point. The judge ordered Fidler’s attorneys to submit a “bill of particulars” which would, in theory, contain supporting evidence to support their fraud claim. We have no idea what that bill of particulars will contain because they haven’t given us any clue in court.

The judge also signed a subpoena order for Alla Pometko, the former Storobin campaign employee who helped produce the 177 absentee ballot applications that are in question and are the supposed subject of Mr. Fidler’s fraud allegation. My understanding is that she has been ordered to appear for a deposition at Brooklyn Supreme court on Thursday morning. That deposition would NOT be open to the public or to the press.

I will once again point out that most if not all of the absentee applications that are the subject of Mr. Fidler’s fraud claim are all native Russian speakers to the best our our knowledge. Ms. Pometko herself is also a native Russian. We maintain that this is systematic targeting of ethnic voters on the part of the Fidler campaign and the Democrat Party and a clear case of voter intimidation.

Finally, the judge ordered all parties to reconvene in court on Thursday morning at 10am. I am assuming that there will be arguments / discussion on the bill of particulars that is to be produced by Mr. Fidler’s attorneys the day before. There may also be some further discussion on Ms. Pometko’s deposition. Judge Martin may or may not rule on our motion to dismiss their fraud claim, or it could take a little longer. Although I will say the judge made it clear he wants to get this thing moving and wrapped up as soon as possible. ...that makes at least two of us.

That’s all for now. Check back with me on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Yeger:

"As Mr. Storobin's illegal voting scheme continues to unfurl, we're not surprised that his spin bears no relation to the truth.

"The court issued a subpoena for the Storobin staffer who appears to have coordinated Mr. Storobin's illegal voting scheme. The subpoena became necessary because the Storobin campaign refuses to produce this individual in court. We're confident that when this individual is brought before the court, the gritty details of Mr. Storobin's scheme will become public.

"If the challenged absentee ballots are from Russian-speaking voters, it is only because Mr. Storobin's campaign targeted its illegal voting scheme on his own community. It is a felony to vote by absentee ballot if you are not entitled to receive one. Some of Mr. Storobin's 'permanently disabled' applicants for absentee ballots managed to make it to the polls and vote a second time. There are also an additional 50-60 ballots obtained by Mr. Storobin's staff, but never returned to the Board of Election. We believe these facts merit a full hearing so the people can learn how Mr. Storobin tried to steal this election, and what happened to those missing ballots.

"Today, in a well-thought opinion, the court denied Mr. Storobin's request to discard ballots cast by people who have been permanently registered absentee voters FOR YEARS. Justice works."