Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Robert Morgenthau. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg railed against the court system Friday, blaming lawsuits for railroading his agenda in his final term.

"We've got to do something about our court system. Because they just stop everything," Mr. Bloomberg lamented during his weekly radio interview Friday morning with WOR's John Gambling.

Mr. Gambling chimed in in agreement: "Everything gets stopped--everything the city does."

"Every single thing," Bloomberg echoed. "You just can't run a railroad this way."

Mr. Bloomberg said that, while he was "sympathetic" to judges who are "supposed to determine the law," the courts are now being used "as a process to stop things rather than a process to really find out what the law is. And that's unfortunately the direction we've gone. And they're just gonna delay and delay and delay."

The mayor's third term agenda has increasingly been blocked by judges, including his plan to bar the sale of large, sugary sodas, and a plan that would have forced men looking for space in homeless shelters to prove they really have no place else to go.

The comments came as Mr. Bloomberg discussed his final city budget plan, which had to be adjusted because of another suit blocking the city from selling 2,000 new taxi medallions, which the administration projects will raise a whopping $1.5 billion in revenue.

"These people are crazy," he exclaimed. "All they do is go to court."

Mitt Romney petting a dog during a campaign stop in 2008. (Photo: Getty)

The infamous incident where Mitt Romney put his dog in a crate tied to the roof his station wagon during a family road trip in 1983 made a surprise appearance in an Oregon courtroom last week. A defense attorney representing one of two men who was charged with animal abuse after they dragged a pitbull behind a car for several hundred feet after tying the dog to the outside of the vehicle and forgetting to let it back in before driving off invoked Mr. Romney's story to argue everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

"Our presidential candidate tied up a dog and drove off with him for quite a while," the lawyer, Lisa Pardini, said.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Kenneth Walker was not swayed by Ms. Pardini's argument and said he "probably" would have convicted Mr. Romney of animal abuse.

"I would have probably found him guilty for that," Judge Walker said.

The pitbull, Rhino, lost his toenails and suffered cuts on his paws during the incident, which occurred in May, he has since made a full recovery.  Judge Walker found the men not guilty because, though he found them negligent, he said he did not believe they were reckless.

The tale of Mr. Romney's dog, Seamus, has haunted him through two election cycles. It first emerged in a 2007 Boston Globe profile. Since then, it has inspired protests, canine clothing and, most recently, a game.

Congressman Charlie Rangel speaking at his election night party in Harlem.

Six days after election day and a premature declaration of victory for Rep. Charlie Rangel, there is still no official winner in the Upper Manhattan congressional race between Mr. Rangel and State Senator Adriano Espaillat. This afternoon, lawyers for both candidates are headed to New York State Supreme Court to address issues with the Board of Elections' tabulation of the results in their congressional race and alleged instances of "irregular and possibly fraudulent returns from voting machines." Mr. Rangel prepared for the legal battle by sending an email to his supporters saying he's "completely baffled" by the situation and asking for donations to help him in the court fight.

"To my surprise, my opponent's campaign pounced on me on Friday, saying that I had somehow stolen their votes! I'm completely baffled by the situation and the way my opponent has been reacting," Mr. Rangel wrote. "I don't know what will transpire in the coming days, but one thing is clear: I need your help to prepare myself for another battle -- whether it's a legal battle with the Board of Elections or with my opponent."

The BOE initially told the press and both 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. These unofficial results do not include 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. It was subsequently discovered the Board of Elections did not count the votes from over thirty precincts in the district.

After a re-examination, the BOE released unofficial results on Saturday including votes cast in all of the district’s 506 precincts that show Mr. Rangel defeating Mr. Espaillat by a margin of just 802 votes. According to the BOE, Mr. Rangel received 18,075 votes, or 44.29 percent of the total cast, compared to Mr. Espaillat’s 17,273, 42.33 percent of the votes cast. According a BOE spokeswoman, as of this weekend there were 2,110 paper ballots cast in the race so far. The BOE will begin counting paper ballots on Thursday.

If the numbers provided by the BOE are correct this time, Mr. Espaillat would need to earn about 69 percent of votes from paper ballots when they are are counted next week. Though more absentee ballots may still come in and Mr. Espaillat's supporters have claimed most of the paper ballots were cast in neighborhoods favorable to him, if these numbers are correct, it would be a tall order for Mr. Espaillat to earn enough of a majority of the paper ballots to take the win away from Mr. Rangel. However, if the paper ballots bring the margin to within 0.5 percent, all of the votes will be recounted. Not including paper ballots, Mr. Rangel's margin of victory currently stands at 1.96 percent. Whatever happens, considering Mr. Rangel has spent more than forty years without losing his seat and Mr. Espaillat’s performance in this race was certainly impressive, leaving him in strong position to make another run in the district in 2014.

Read Mr. Rangel's email full to supporters below.

By now, I'm sure you've heard that my race is completely not over. It's been days since primary day, yet there are still votes to be counted.

To my surprise, my opponent's campaign pounced on me on Friday, saying that I had somehow stolen their votes! I'm completely baffled by the situation and the way my opponent has been reacting.

As the Daily News reported, "State Sen. Adriano Espaillat's campaign isn't hiding its pleasure at the news that the Manhattan Supreme Court will hold a Monday hearing on the results of his election battle with incumbent Rep. Charlie Rangel."

I don't know what will transpire in the coming days, but one thing is clear: I need your help to prepare myself for another battle -- whether it's a legal battle with the Board of Elections or with my opponent.

Would you please consider making a contribution of $10.00 or more?

Your financial help will allow me to receive legal counseling for the bumpy roads ahead.

I will keep you posted. Thank you for being a friend.

Sincerely,
Charlie Rangel
Member of Congress

Occupy Wall Street protesters marching in Manhattan in October. (Photo: Getty)

A coalition of Occupy Wall Street protesters and attorneys for civil rights organizations filed a Freedom of Information Law requesttoday asking the NYPD to reveal "all information concerning the policies guiding the law enforcement response to Occupy demonstrations since last September." The FOIL request is part of efforts to investigate the government response to the protests.

“Assembly and speech rights are core to our democracy. We have been investigating the police treatment of OWS for months, and the policing of OWS has been abusive and unpredictable,” Emi MacLean, an attorney with the Protest and Assembly Rights Project, said in a statement announcing the request. “Mayor Bloomberg has described the NYPD as his army. It is, of course, not an army but a civilian police force. And even armies require some measure of transparency and accountability.”

The NYPD has come under fire for violent arrests that occurred during the Occupy demonstrations that began last September and the subsequent eviction of the protest encampment in Zuccotti Park last November. Organizations teaming up for the FOIL request include; the OWS Archives Working Group, the Global Justice Clinic at NYU School of Law, the Walter Leitner International Human Rights Clinic, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez at an Occupy Wall Street Protest December 17. (Photo: Osvaldo Ribeiro Filho)

Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez was arrested and charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration and Resisting Arrest during the NYPD's eviction of the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Zuccotti Park November 15. This morning those charges were dismissed in Manhattan Criminal Court. Though the district attorney's office claimed they "determined that the officers who were involved in this defendant's arrest had probable cause to arrest him when he attempted to get past a police barricade," Assistant District Attorney Michele Bayer told the court they moved to dismiss the case because they were unable to identify the officer principally involved in Mr. Rodriguez's arrest.

"As we do not have the testimony of the specific female officer with whom the defendant physically interfered--which is the basis for the Obstructing Governmental Administration charge and the basis for the 'authorized arrest' required for the Resisting Arrest charge--we cannot prove the charges against this defendant beyond a reasonable doubt," Ms. Bayer said in court. "Therefore, the People move to dismiss this case."

Mr. Rodriguez has claimed he went to Zuccotti Park on the night of the NYPD raid to observe and that he was violently arrested after identifying himself as a councilman. Despite the dismissal, Ms. Bayer said the District Attorney's office found no evidence to support his version of events.

"The People investigated the defendant's claims that he calmly identified himself as a New York City council member, asked to enter the restricted area and was instantaneously physically attacked by multiple officers with night sticks for no apparent reason," Ms. Bayer said. "The People found no evidence to corroborate any of these claims."

Ms. Bayer also said the District Attorney's office located video of the "same officers involved in the defendant's arrest at other points on the night of November 15" that showed the officers "acting professionally in a very chaotic environment and excercising tremendous restraint." It was not clear how prosecutors were able to identify video of the officers involved in the arrest and unable to locate the "specific female officer" Mr. Rodriguez was accused of interfering. Inability to locate specific police officers has been used as a rationale in many of the more than 1,500 Occupy Wall Street-related cases that have been dismissed in the past few months.

After he dismissed the case Judge Matthew Sciarino had something to say to Mr. Rodriguez.

"Say hello to Vinny and Jimmy for me," he said, adding, "Your fellow councilmen."

It was not clear whether the judge was referring to Jimmy Oddo, Jimmy Van Bramer, Vincent Gentile, or Vincent Ignizio.

Mr. Rodriguez and his attorney, Andrew Stoll, held a press conference with reporters following the court appearance.

"On November 15, I was wrongfully arrested by the NYPD when they used excessive force against me," Mr. Rodriguez said. "Today, with the dismissal of my case, all I can say is that I'm calling on Mayor Michael Bloomberg and [NYPD] Commissioner [Ray] Kelly to spend as much resources as is needed to keep protecting our city from any terrorist attack to keep our city safe, but also to defend our Constitutional rights."

Mr. Rodriguez said he was one of "hundreds of people" who "went through false arrest by the NYPD" at the Occupy Wall Street protests.

"The NYPD used excessive force in many of those cases," Mr. Rodriguez said. "I believe that we live in a period of time where we have to be sure that we need to keep supporting our men and women in uniform and the hard work that they do to keep our city safe, but at the same time, we want to be sure that from the leadership of Commissioner Kelly to any police officer in the street they know that what New Yorkers expect is for them also to protect our Constitutional rights."

Mr. Stoll described prosecutors statements in court that there was no evidence to corroborate Mr. Rodriguez's version of events as "gratuitous."

"With respect to them saying they don't believe his claims, this wasn't the arena for them to make those comments. Those were gratuitous comments, they didn't belong in this proceeding," Mr. Stoll said. "The fact is, they didn't believe their officers' testimony would persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and I think that speaks far louder and the dismissal speaks far louder than their gratuitous comments on the record about what else they believe or don't believe."

Mr. Stoll also rejected the idea the District Attorney needed the testimony of a specific officer since other officers were on hand for the arrest.

"One officer's testimony as to what he observed, if believable beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict somebody," Mr. Stoll said. "Apparently they did not believe that their two officers' testimony was sufficient to persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

The Politicker asked Mr. Stoll whether he and the councilman would consider a civil suit against the NYPD now that the charges were dismissed. Mr. Stoll seemed to indicate Mr. Rodriguez might be willing to participate in a class action regarding the handling of the Occupy protests.

"I think that to the extent anything further is going to be done about this, it would be part of a larger picture," Mr. Stoll said. "I don't think the Council member is so concerned with his own personal situation at this point as with the fact that his arrest was part of a much broader picture and a broader practice where the police were given a ridiculous amount of discretion to stop whoever they wanted, wherever they wanted."

Lew Fidler and David Storobin

At the end of last week, lawyers representing the two candidates in the special election to replace Carl Kruger in the State Senate agreed to a court proceeding to resolve which candidate ultimately received more votes. Republican candidate David Storobin is currently leading by a single vote, but Democrat Lew Fidler is feeling confident.

The judge has appointed two "Special Referees" to hear ballot objections made by both sides on the contested absentee votes (i.e. one campaign may believe signature similarity on certain ballots indicates the votes were fraudulent).

On April 4th, the judge will review the Special Referees' findings.

This could either close the book on the election by officially placing one of the candidates above the 110 vote threshold needed to avoid a full hand recount, or set the stage for such a recount where campaigns and the courts review all 20,000 ballots cast in this election.

View the campaigns' legal agreement below:

Correction: The original post incorrectly said the process would begin April 4th instead of being reviewed on that date.

Pedro and Connie Espada in better days. (Photo: Facebook)

The wide of embattled former State Senator Pedro Espada is seeking some divine intervention in the trial of her husband and son. Yesterday, as one of Mr. Espada's former employees took the stand and testified against him, his wife, Connie, posted a prayer request on her Facebook page.

"Lord pls pray us & pls keep all my enemies away, let them not be able 2 bring us harm Amen," she wrote.

Mr. Espada and his son, Pedro G. Espada, are currently on trial for allegedly taking more than half-a-million dollars from the taxpayer-funded Soundview Health Clinic network they operated. Their trial began Tuesday. Several of Mr. Espada's family members and associates received jobs with the clinic and the ex-senator allegedly used the cash for personal expenses including a six-figure meal tab.

On the witness stand, Maria Cruz, the former personnel boss at Soundview told jurors of the Espada family's fondness for luxury cars. She also outlined Mr. Espada's scant experience before landing his highly paid health clinic gig.

"I heard he worked in a restaurant — I think he was a cook," Ms. Cruz said.

Soundview Health Clinic is currently engaged in a legal battle to stop the State Health Department from taking its Medicaid licence. In January, Ms. Espada made another Facebook post urging her friends to support Soundview Health Clinic and her family.

"We need to save Soundview Health Center, people outside of our area don't care about Blacks & Latinos. We need united & fight for Soundview that our family & fight for family," she wrote.

Read Ms. Espada's Facebook posts below:

"Professor Persily generally dismisses the Senate Majority Defendants’ (and other parties’) concerns about 'respecting the cores of prior districts,' insisting such claims are merely 'pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents,' they wrote in their letter. "As a threshold matter, incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting principle, as Professor Persily himself has previously recognized."

The letter further argued against placing incumbents politicians in the same districts if at all possible.

"[A]voiding incumbency pairings actually enhances the reality and appearance of judicial impartiality," they wrote, again contending protecting sitting Representatives should be more highly prioritized in the process.

The judge involved in drafting the redistricting plan was more than dismissive of these incumbency-protection claims and there's a reasonable probability the three-judge panel that will effect the final plan will share a similar view.

The specific objections were all centered around Republican districts, notably adding more Republican voters to the districts of GOP Congressional Members Pete King, Bob Turner, and Michael Grimm in the immediate New York City area. For example, the letter argued for a housing project, likely inclined to vote Democrat, to be removed from Mr. Grimm's district and for ideologically conservative Russian and Jewish voters to be added back into Mr. Turner's.

View the full 14-page letter below:

"After thorough review of these plans, I also noticed that racially, the white Congressional Districts would be more solidified with an overwhelming majority population, thereby making it almost impossible for them to lose any power," Mr. Barron, who's a candidate for Congress himself this year, wrote.

"For example, the new 27th District is 92.7% white, the 21st District - 91.6% white, the 23rd District - 90% white, the 19th District - 86% white, the 20th District – 79% white, the 24th District – 83% white, the 1st District – 77.9% white, and the beat goes on. The whites are secured in their power base."

This all contrasts, Mr. Barron said, with majority-black districts which contain much smaller majorities of around 55%. Mr. Barron cited Representatives Ed Towns' and Yvette Clarke's districts as examples. However, if these districts were to be brought up to significantly higher percentages as Mr. Barron requested, they would have to be combined, eliminating an African-American Congressional Member altogether.

Placing as many minority voters into as few districts as possible is a classic gerrymandering technique called "packing," and Mr. Barron's proposal may very well violate the Voting Rights Act. This packing often accomplishes partisan objectives and is partially blamed for the decline of the Democratic Party in Southern states.

"There have been attempts in the past by whites to secure seats in majority black districts," Mr. Barron nevertheless continued. "Remember David Yassky’s attempt to take the Congressional seat formerly held by Shirley Chisholm and Major Owens in Brooklyn. ... Blacks and Latinos must not let them divide and conquer us.  We must stay united and prioritize our people over personal and political interests. "

"Remember our struggle is long but the victory is certain," he concluded.

The court didn't only receive criticism from in their public submissions today. Mr. Barron's colleague, Brooklyn Councilwoman Tish James, wrote in to the court in praise of their draft maps.

Update: After the above submission displayed on the court's website, another submission from Mr Barron, as well as his wife, Assemblywoman Inez Barron, also appeared.

View Mr. Barron's letter below:

Last week, the court presented a draft map which contained a number of substantial changes to the electoral landscape. Notably, Congressmen Bob Turner, Maurice Hinchey, and Gary Ackerman saw their districts dismantled. Two of these districts inevitably had to be cut, as New York is required to lose two Congressional Districts this cycle. The plan additionally created a new Asian-plurality district in Queens that Mr. Ackerman has vowed to campaign for.

(Mr. Turner may be currently exploring a possible run for the U.S. Senate and Mr. Hinchey is retiring.)

Tonight's map is basically identical to the previous submission, but one particularly significant change in New York City stands out. Brooklyn Representatives Yvette Clarke and Ed Towns traded territory so areas of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill would be returned to Mr. Towns' district. As these neighborhoods are the home and base of one of Mr. Towns' challengers, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, Mr. Jeffries may find an easier electoral path forward for his ambitions in the latest set of lines.

View the maps below: