Letitia James' "Peek-A-Boo" Law-Fare: NY High Court Rejects Castronuova's Appeal, Sanctions AG's Tactics
Republican Candidate’s Ballot Hopes Dashed Amid Accusations of Judicial Bias and Political Maneuvering
By Dick LaFontaine and Richard Luthmann
The Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, delivered a significant blow to America First Republican senatorial candidate Cara Castronuova’s campaign on Thursday. By declining to hear her constitutional challenges to New York ballot access laws, the court effectively halted Castronuova’s bid to secure a spot on the Republican primary ballot later this month absent Federal Court intervention.
Republican US Senate Candidate Cara Castronuova's Battle for Ballot Access in New York
Castronuova’s legal battle was not just about the ballot access laws but also about what she termed Attorney General Letitia James’s “peek-a-boo” litigation tactics. In her court filings, Castronuova argued that the New York Attorney General’s office strategically avoids state courts, creating jurisdictional issues that allow other parties to challenge constitutional matters based on the NYAG's absence.
“In many ways, NYAG Letitia James plays ‘peek-a-boo’ between the State and Federal Courts,” Castronuova’s papers said. “The NYAG stays away from the NYS Courts, and other parties use their absence as a jurisdictional defect. Yet the NYAG is at the bar in federal court – every time. It is a transparently unconstitutional modus operandi that only This High Court can curtail.”
However, the New York State Court of Appeals, composed of elected judges from the “uni-party machine,” chose to do nothing, effectively sanctioning the “Peek-A-Boo” practices, according to Castronuova’s camp.
The biggest losers are Republican Party voters because New York State’s highest court says injuries to their constitutional rights are not worth consideration.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson, dismissed Castronuova’s appeal without costs, stating “no substantial constitutional question was directly involved.”
This ruling follows previous decisions by the New York State Board of Elections and lower courts, invalidating Castronuova’s petition for insufficient valid signatures.
The ruling was precipitated in large part by NYAG Letitia James’ Office’s questionable procedural tactics, which used a shyster trick to keep constitutional questions of Republican voter disenfranchisement out of several NYS judges’ hands.
The “Peek-a-Boo” Law-Fare Tactics
Castronuova’s filings detailed the Attorney General's use of Executive Law § 71 as both a sword and a shield. The AG's office avoids state court proceedings, creating a jurisdictional vacuum that frustrates the resolution of constitutional issues.
Castronuova argued, “The Attorney General’s Office was given valid notice of these proceedings under Executive Law § 71 and CPLR § 1012(b)(1).”
This means that while the NYAG's office is informed of proceedings that require their input, they strategically choose not to participate in state court cases.
By doing so, the Attorney General’s office avoids having to defend state laws in state courts, which could lead to rulings challenging their constitutionality. Instead, they remain present and active in federal court, asserting that only the highest state court, the Court of Appeals, has the authority to determine the constitutionality of state laws. This tactic creates a jurisdictional loophole that prevents state courts from addressing constitutional issues, effectively stalling any substantive review.
Castronuova’s brief cited several precedents, including Roe v. Wade and Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, to argue that these issues are capable of repetition yet evading review.
“The classic example of a dispute that is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ is the only portion of Roe v. Wade that remains good law - constitutional standing to challenge litigation of political significance that can rarely be fully resolved in a short time frame,” said an Election law expert who wished to remain unnamed. “Once a woman gives birth, the matter is technically moot, but the Courts may still assert jurisdiction to resolve the continuing controversy. The quick time frames mirror Election law parameters.”
Board of Elections Battle
The controversy that sparked the legal battle began when the New York State Board of Elections made a contentious decision. They reduced the petitioning period to 35 days, two days less than the 37 days mandated by statute.
Castronuova argued that this was a significant legal error that compromised the fairness of the electoral process. Despite her objections, the court upheld the Board’s decision, siding with the respondents.
Ballot Brawl: Cara's Crusade for Justice in NY's Rigged System
Castronuova’s counterclaims were dismissed as untimely, despite her argument that they were defensive and thus exempt from the strict 14-day statute of limitations under Election Law § 16-102. She maintained that her filings were timely as they were made in direct response to “Uni-Party Law-Fare” - objections against her otherwise valid designating petition.
Judicial Bias and Political Maneuvering
Castronuova’s case highlighted what she described as a biased judicial system that protects political insiders. She argued that the New York judicial system is effectively a one-party system that fails to recognize the constitutional rights of America First Republicans and Independent voters from all parties and parts of the political spectrum.
Castronuova criticized the political influence over the judiciary and the Board of Elections in a detailed memorandum, noting every New York State Supreme Court Justice is an Elected Official whose black robes came through dealings with the “uni-party” machine.
Easter Egg Hunt in NY GOP Politics: Luthmann Releases State Chair Ed Cox Bombshell On Frank Morano's Radio Show
“The NYSBOE and NYCBOE are tentacles of the same creature of state government,” she wrote, alleging that both entities work together to undermine fair electoral processes.
Castronuova pointed to Ed Cox, chairman of the New York State Republican Committee, as a critical figure in this political maneuvering. She accused Cox of compromising the Republican Party to gain political favors from Democrats, a move that has left many America First Republicans feeling betrayed and outraged.
America First Republicans’ Call to Action
In response to the Court’s decision, some Castronuova supporters are urging America First Republicans in New York to express their dissatisfaction by “voting only for President Trump and leaving the remaining ballot blank.”
They believe this action will send a strong message to the New York State Republican establishment, potentially leading to the ouster of figures like Ed Cox and the party's rebuilding on America First principles.
Castronuova’s supporters argue that selecting Sapraicone, a “Trans-Republican” known for his past support of Democratic candidates like Letitia James, betrays the party’s core principles.
“America First Republicans should send a signal on Election Day by going to the voting booth and voting for President Trump - and President Trump alone,” one Castronuova supporter urged. “This action could potentially lead to the ouster of figures like Ed Cox and the party's rebuilding on America First principles, a crucial Step in preserving the integrity of the Republican Party.”
A Federal Court ‘Hail Mary’
Castronuova still has a chance to get back on the ballot, but the odds are slim. She has a companion case in Federal Court and is seeking relief in that forum.
“It’s a Hail Mary,” said a New York Election law expert who did not wish to be named. “Generally, the Federal Court will not intervene unless the matter is clearly a constitutional violation and is usually deferential to the state court adjudication.”
However, the expert did see a glimmer in a recent Supreme Court Election law ruling.
“In a Per Curiam ruling in 2014, SCOTUS scrutinized and ultimately rejected a political scheme where a litigant gained a campaign advantage, achieving ‘maximum disruption of their political opponents’ who are ‘forced to divert significant time and resources to hire legal counsel and respond to discovery requests in the crucial days leading up to an election.’ The Driehaus case would be interesting because Castronuova alleges “Law-fare,” the A.G.’s alleged evasion tactics, and the [NYS] Court of Appeals’ silence. Remember, the Supreme Court has five ‘Trump’ votes right now, and the optics here that Sapriacone ‘paid-to-play’ through Tish James contributions are terrible,” the expert said. “But the clock is about to run out on [Castronuova].”
The Bigger Picture: New York’s Political Landscape
This case brings to light the perceived fundamental unfairness of New York courts and the government apparatus towards Republicans and Independents, especially in the aftermath of the Trump "show trial." Critics argue that New York has become a political wasteland, dominated by a “uni-party” system that stifles dissent and marginalizes non-Democrat Party voices.
“New York is effectively lost to politics because of the uni-party,” said another Castronuova supporter. “It is a one-party ‘People's Republic’ that might be better off floating into the sea. The taxpayers and job creators are fleeing in droves to free states like Florida and Texas, and New York City is beginning to look like a cross between Downtown Detroit, Beirut, and Guadalajara.”
The criticism extends to the potential future of New York politics.
“Could it get any worse? Yes. Three words: Governor Letitia James.”
This sentiment underscores the deep frustration felt by many Republicans and Independents who view the current political environment as hostile and biased.
Takeaway
The Court of Appeals’ decision marks a significant moment in New York’s political landscape. As Castronuova's legal avenues narrow to Federal intervention, the spotlight turns to the tactics of the Attorney General’s office and the broader implications for electoral integrity in the state. The case highlights ongoing tensions within the Republican Party and sets the stage for future political battles in New York.
The broader impact of this ruling may be felt in the upcoming elections as disillusioned voters seek to challenge what they perceive as a compromised and biased electoral system.
Castronuova’s fight may be over for now, but the issues she raised will likely continue to resonate with voters and candidates alike.
https://www.silive.com/crime-safety/2021/08/trial-by-combat-lawyer-richard-luthmann-released-from-federal-custody.html