Her challenger, David Orkin, a Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed candidate, alleged that the vast majority of her petition signatures were falsely validated by a group of young campaign workers and riddled with forgeries.<\/p>\n
After a day of sparring over subpoenas, Supreme Court Justice Denise Johnson tossed the case, arguing that Orkin\u2019s attorneys had not filed its witness list and subpoenas according to the state\u2019s precise rules for petition fraud cases.<\/p>\n
\u201cBefore the court can address the substantive issues\u2026 the rules of court must be followed,\u201d Johnson said in her ruling.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
In court filings, Orkin\u2019s election lawyer, Renee Paradis, accused Rajkumar\u2019s campaign staff and consultants of pressuring a group of young campaign workers from ages 19 to 23 to falsely sign witness statements that would have allegedly affected over 80% of the total signatures for Rajkumar\u2019s campaign.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Paradis claimed that the volume of signatures was so large that it was not possible to check all of them for forgeries, but said they had found the documents \u201cpermeated\u201d with fraud and produced around 20 declarations from constituents who said someone had falsely signed their name on the document.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Rajkumar\u2019s attorneys, Gerard Sweeney and Frank Bolz, of the influential law firm that leads the Queens County Democratic Party\u2019s legal operations, called the suit a \u201cfishing expedition\u201d that was not properly pleaded.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Sweeney and Bolz first successfully blocked Paradis\u2019 attempt to subpoena witnesses, including the group of Rajkumar volunteers who were accused of falsely witnessing the petition documents, by arguing that the subpoenas were not properly served and vetted. Then they blocked the other witnesses that Orkin\u2019s campaign had gathered to testify because they had not filed a consolidated list of the witnesses, in accordance with election law.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThey are wasting our time on things that they didn\u2019t do,\u201d Sweeney said in the hearing. \u201cThey have a social media lawsuit going on.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Johnson dismissed the lawsuit without any of the witnesses testifying. Paradis said the campaign was weighing its options as to whether to move forward with an appeal.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat you saw in there was the Democratic machine trying to crush a grassroots campaign,\u201d Orkin told amNewYork after the dismissal. \u201cWhat\u2019s concerning is how afraid my opponent is of hearing from people who worked for her and her own constituents.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rajkumar claimed that the lawsuit was an attempt to block her supporters\u2019 voice.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThis was an ugly attempt by the Democratic Socialists of America to disenfranchise Queens voters, especially minority voters, and to bully a team of young South Asian and minority canvassers who represent the future of our state,\u201d she wrote in a statement. \u201cLove will always win over hate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Among the group of constituents who came to testify about finding their signatures forged on Rajkumar\u2019s petitions, some were supporters of Orkin\u2019s who were outraged to see their names used by his opponent but others said they weren\u2019t tuned into the race before they had been reached by his campaign and felt violated by the experience.<\/p>\n
One of those witnesses, Paul Mastroianni, said that he had originally signed a petition to get Rajkumar on the ballot, but then found his name a second time on a petition with a signature he recognized to be a forgery. He was disappointed that he did not have a chance to get a chance to testify, and see the case run its course.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt feels like a real miscarriage of justice,\u201d Mastroianni said. \u201cIt feels like people in power are insulated in a way that normal people cannot penetrate.\u201d<\/p>\n