Hits: 0
WPCNR MR. AND MS. AND MRS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. March 21, 2005, UPDATED MARCH 22, 2005, 4:30 P.M. E.S.T.: Glen Hockly told The CitizeNetReporter today his attorneys have not arrived at a recommendation as to whether they believe he should begin the deposition of affidavit signes. Hockley said they are evaluating past cases and simply have not reached a conclusion. Mr. Hockley is pondering whether to proceed and conduct legal depositions on the 103 affidavit-signees who swore they voted for Larry Delgado, November 5, 2001. Hockley has until June 30, 2005, to conduct the depositions at his expense.
Mike Amodio, a local attorney close to the case says the Appellate Court of the 2nd Circuit in Brooklyn has given Mr. Hockley a hard choice. Here is Mr. Amodio’s “take:”
Dear Mr. Bailey:
I have read your description of the Appellate Division Decision on the Delgado-Hockley case and I think it needs some clarification.
The Appellate Division has basically affirmed Judge Nicolai’s decision without specifically saying so. The Appellate Division decision lists every one of Mr. Hockley’s attorney’s arguments and dismisses them all except one. The only argument that they will even consider is the argument that the Affidavits submitted by the AG and Mr. Delgado were not valid. After noting that a challenge to a person’s assertion of how they voted would be difficult, the Appellate Division decided to allow Mr. Hockley’s lawyers an opportunity to do so. However, this is not what Mr. Hockley’s attorneys wanted. They challenged the validity of the Affidavits and argued that only the voter’s sworn testimony at a trial would be sufficient. Thus, they argued, summary judgment in favor of Delgado should have been denied and a trial should take place. A trial would have placed the burden on the AG and Mr. Delgado to produce the 103 witnesses to testify that they voted for Mr. Delgado.
This the Appellate Division did not do. Instead the Appellate Division has placed the Appeal on “hold” (until June 30th) while it allows Mr. Hockley’s lawyers to depose the 103 voters who signed Affidavits swearing that they voted for Mr. Delgado. Thus the burden is now on Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to issue Subpoenas to each of the 103 voters and cause a deposition of each of the 103 voters in the hopes that the voter will recant his/her previous sworn statement. This will cause Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to pay for the service of a subpoena on 103 voters (at about $20 to $25 per voter), pay a witness fee of approximately $20 per voter and pay for the deposition transcript for each 103 voters.
Because Mr. Hockley’s attorneys have attacked the validity of the Affidavits, each deposition will require Mr. Hockley’s attorneys to ask the voter if he/she knew what he/she was signing and then to ask to voter is he/she was telling the truth when he/she signed the Affidavit.
As the notary public who took the testimony of a good number of the voters, I can state unequivocally that the voters I dealt with knew what they were signing and were eager to sign the Affidavits. I testified to this fact when I was deposed in the proceeding.
I do not think this decision is a victory for Mr. Hockley’s Attorneys nor should it be categorized as such.
Michael P. Amodio




