Assemblyman Sean Kean says he and Judge Paul Escandon do not share a political agenda, that his proposed legislation to reform alimony and child support is not anti-women, and that he believes in the integrity, ethics and fairness of Escandon.
Kean was responding to Rachel Alintoff’s comment to Governor Chris Christie, “Judge Escandon is the former law partner of Assemblyman Sean Kean whose main platform is reducing Alimony for women. What will you do as Governor to make sure that Judges are kept from carrying out their own political agendas from the bench?”
“Alintoff has been having lots of people call my office about her case,” said Kean, “we tell them we are not familiar with the case and it would be inappropriate for a legislator to call a Judge about a case.”
Kean is the sponsor of two pieces of legislation regarding alimony and child support.
A685, which is co-sponsored by Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon. The companion bill in the Senate, S1388 is sponsored by Democratic Senator Nicholas Scutari, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Republican Senator Gerald Cardinale. The bill provides for modification of child support and certain alimony cases due to changed circumstances. Kean says this bill makes the Lepis decision, a 1980 NJ Supreme Court decision that defined “change of circumstances” for alimony cases legislated law rather than case law. “This bill puts the current case law into legislation,” said Kean.
A former Long Branch woman who appealed to Governor Chris Christie for help regarding unfair and illegal treatment by the Monmouth County Judge presiding over her divorce case says she has heard from the State Attorney General’s Criminal Division and the Governor’s office who have referred her case to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct.
Rachel Alintoff, 36, told Christie during his town hall meeting in Garfield last week that Judge Paul X. Escandon stripped her of her parental rights of her 2 year old son, Hayden, without the legally required hearing, as punishment for her seeking an order of protection in New York, where she lives now, against her estranged husband Bryan who failed to dispose of a handgun as Escandon had ordered as part of a custody order.
Alintoff also told Christie that Escandon, after his ruling on her parental rights was overturned by the Appeals Court, denied her access to her clothing, money for legal fees and granted her only $1,100 per month in child support from her husband who earns, she says, over $500K per year on Wall Street.
Here’s a link to video of Alintoff speaking to Christie and the Governor’s response. The video will start with Christie recognising Alintoff. At the 43:58 mark Christie moves on to Peter, the young student who became famous for asking the Governor for a note to excuse him for missing school.
Here’s the text of Alintoff’s remarks and questions to Christie:
I am going through a divorce in Monmouth County in front of Judge Paul X. Escandon.
In October 2011, Judge Escandon stripped me of all my parental rights to my 2 year old son without the legally required hearing.
I had only supervised visitation. This was a punishment for an order of protection I was seeking in NYC (where I am currently living) when my husband failed to dispose of his handgun as per a court order. My son had to endure a month of barely seeing his mother until Judge Escandon was Summarily reversed by the Appelate Court for his illegal ruling.
Since then, Judge Escandon has gone on to make other illegal rulings against me such as denying me access to my clothing, granting no money for my legal fees and only issuing $1,100 in support a month to my son and me which puts us below the Federal Poverty Level. All while my husband makes on average over half a million dollars a year on Wall Street.
This is not an isolated incident. Judge Escandon has done similar things to other woman and has a habit of financiallly ruining women in his courtroom.
I have a 2-part question:
1) What will you do as Governor to ensure that Judges like Escandon follow the law or are taken off the bench?
2) Judge Escandon is the former law partner of Assemblyman Sean Kean whose main platform is reducing Alimony for women.
What will you do as Governor to make sure that Judges are kept from carrying out their own political agendas from the bench?
Alintoff, who first brought her situation to MMM’s attention as a comment in the post about the Garfield town hall meeting, says she’s heard from Jeanne Ashmore in the Governor’s Office and Detective Charles Crescenz in the Criminal Division of the Attorney General’s Office, both of whom told her the matter would be taken up by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. Neither Crescenz nor Ashmore would comment to MMM. John Tonelli, Executive Director of the ACJC also declined to comment.
Alintoff emailed every member of the State Legislature today to inform them of her situation. Her father, Merny Schwartz, Phd, wrote to Chief Justice Stuart Rabner about Escandon’s conduct last December. Schwartz maintains a blog on his daughter’s case before Escandon, JudgePaulEscandon.blog.com.
Because The Asbury Park Press Is No Longer Relevant
The Asbury Park Press is outraged that Governor Chris Christie did not make the problems of the Lakewood school system a primary topic of his town hall meeting in Freehold yesterday. The Neptune Nudniks are also upset that Congressman Chris Smith hasn’t returned their calls for comment or held a press conference about the Lakewood schools since the paper and pay site ran their series CHEATED about the problems in Lakewood schools last week.
Christie spent much, if not most, of his town hall meeting yesterday talking about education reform. His focus was on tenure reform as a way to improve results in our failing urban schools and to stop paying “a Kings Ransom for failure” by flushing 15% of the state’s tax dollars into failing schools as New Jersey has done for decades.
If ever there was evidence that The Asbury Park Press has become irrelevant, it is their heavily promoted Cheated series, yesterday’s town hall meeting, combined with today’s rants by the Nudniks that Christie and Smith are not paying attention to them.
Why didn’t Christie talk about Lakewood yesterday to hundreds of residents in the APP’s coverage area? Because no one asked him. The governor was talking about education. The APP had just finished a “special series” on the Lakewood schools. Not one person in the audience of the town hall made the connection and asked the governor a question about Lakewood.
Last month there was something of a controversy over the veracity of the Monmouth University vs the Quinnipiac University polls rating Governor Christie’s performance. Within one week there was an 11 point swing in Christie’s approval ratings. A Quinnipiac poll indicated a sky high 59%-36% approval rating for the Guv followed a week later by a down to earth 50%-38% rating produced by a Monmouth poll. Monmouth University Polling Director Patrick Murray explained the difference by criticising the order in which Quinnipiac asked their questions while acknowledging that his poll is weighted to favor Democrats.
This morning’s Fairleigh Dickinson’s Public Mind Poll asked the Christie approval question three ways and got three different answers in the same survey.
When asked “How would you rate the job that Chris Christie is doing as governor?” 49% said excellent or good. 49% said only fair or poor and 2% were unsure.
When asked if they have a favorable or unfavorable view of Christie, 51% said very favorable or somewhat favorable, 11% said unsure or mixed and 37% said very or somewhat unfavorable.
When given only two choices, approve or disapprove, 56% approve of Christie and 33% disapprove. Only 11% were confused, mixed or unsure after taking that survey.
45% of the respondents identified themselves and Democratic or leaning that way, 23% were Independent, unsure or wouldn’t say, and 32% said they were Republican or lean that way.
34% of New Jersey voters are registered Democrats, 22% Republican and 45% are not affiliated with a major party.
Could Gay Marriage Be An Issue In The U.S. Senate Race?
In an email to his membership this afternoon, Garden State Equality President Steven Goldstein claimed that the New Jersey State Legislature is close to overriding Governor Chris Christie’s veto of the Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act:
This has already been the most productive year in our organization’s history. We passed marriage equality through both houses of the legislature, and quickly followed that up with the passage and signing into law of a new school bullying bill. In recent weeks, we’ve been laying the groundwork to achieve marriage equality through an override of Governor Christie’s veto. Since the legislature voted to pass marriage equality in February, we’ve won over another couple of legislators to our side. If you signed up to form an Override Club of your friends and neighbors in your legislative district to help us strategize and organize for marriage equality locally, we’ll be calling you soon.
Friends, we are closer to seeing marriage equality become law in New Jersey than we ever thought would be possible under a Governor opposed to marriage equality. I swear to God, if someone would have told me a couple of years ago – when we all assumed we’d have to wait until another Governor to win – that we could be this unbelievably close this soon, frankly I’d have told them they were crazy. Our momentum is stunning. Our dream is in our grasp. And we have you to thank. You never stopped believing. Together, we have never let up.
“It’s not happening,” said a GSE sympathiser who asked not to be identified, “Steve must be trying to gin up his troops or raise money. An override is less likely now than it was in February.”
Governor Chris Christie held a Town Hall meeting in Garfield, Bergen County this morning. Two video’s released by his office follow.
In the first video, Christie describes how he’s raring for for the fight with the legislature over the State budget that he expects over the next 60 days and appeals to the crowd for support.
In the second video, Peter, a student asked the governor for advice on how to handle a situation where someone is authority is bullying him. Christie responds as a father and as governor. Peter follows up asking Christie for a note excusing him for missing school.
Which poll is closer to reality? Quinnipiac or Monmouth?
How two respected independent pollsters could have such differing results for Governor Chris Christie’s approval ratings has been the subject of quite a bit of chatter this week since Monmouth University released their poll indicating that Christie’s ratings were 11 points lower than reported by the Qunnipiac poll released last week. Quinnipiac reported Chrisite’s approval rating at 59%-36% while Monmouth said that 50% of registered voters approve of the job that Christie’s doing compared to 38% who do not.
There’s been enough buzz about the difference that Patrick Murray, Polling Director at Monmouth, posted a piece on his blog (cross posted on Politickernj), that took a swipe at Quinnipiac for framing their approval question in such a way that Christie’s numbers would be higher. Murray said that because Quinnipiac first asked if Christie would be a good selection as a Vice Presidential nominee, respondents were more likely to give him higher marks when asked to evaluate his job performance.
Quinnipiac, on the other hand plays around with the order in which they ask the governor’s job rating question.In 8 polls over the past year, they asked Gov. Christie’s job rating as the first question in 3 cases and the 3rd question in one case.For the remaining four polls, the governor’s rating question was slotted from #10 and #13 in their questionnaire.
When it was the first question, the governor’s positive job rating was only 44% to 47%.At the number 3 slot, it was 53%.At #10 or later in the interview, it ranged from 55% to 59%. It’s worth noting that the lower poll numbers came early last year, and were either closer to or even lower than other polls conducted at that time. Hmmm.
In the most recent Quinnipiac poll, one of the questions preceding Gov. Christie’s rating presented him as a potential nominee for Vice President.In other words, the survey framed the governor as a national figure before asking voters to rate his job performance.Could this be why his rating among Republican voters in particular shot up to an astronomical 92%?
Pollsters know that job approval ratings can be impacted by the context of a poll interview.That’s why most pollsters try to place these key trend questions in the same place in every questionnaire.This increases our confidence that any changes in a politician’s ratings are due to real shifts in opinion and not an artifact of questionnaire inconsistencies.
I’m willing to venture that first naming Chris Christie as Mitt Romney’s potential running mate before asking New Jerseyans to rate their governor might have had a wee bit to do with the two polls’ divergent trends.
Mickey Carroll, Director of the Quinnipac Polling Institute, is not interested in getting into a pissing match with Murray. “Patrick Murray is a very good pollster,” Carroll said three times in a seven minute phone interview with MMM. “Every poll is different, something could have happened in the week in between the two polls,” Carroll said, “we asked the question the same way.”
When told that Murray said that Quinnipiac framed the approval question by first asking a question about Christie being a potential VP, Carroll said, “that could make a difference, but I think we asked the approval question first. Didn’t we? Patrick Murray is a good pollster, a savvy analyst and a smart guy.”
Republican strategists, who would only speak on background, were quick to criticise Murray and side with Quinnipiac.
“The Quinnipiac poll from last week showing the Governor’s job approval at 59% is closer to reality,” said one strategist who cited internal GOP numbers, “The problem with the Monmouth University poll is that it samples, ADULTS, rather than registered voters, or better still, likely voters.It is cheaper and easier to poll adults, because thereare a lot more of them and they are easier to qualify.It is harder, and more expensive, to find and poll a likely voter – especially a likely voter who votes in non-Presidential year elections.”
When told that Murray blamed the difference on how Quinnipiac framed the question, the same strategist said, “Patrick is out of his mind.”
In fairness to Murray, MMM verified that Quinnipiac and Monmouth both sample adults who then self identify as registered voters. However, on their website Quinnipiac says that they ask screening questions, plural, to determine who is a registered voter. Murray said Monmouth only asks one question to determine if a respondent is registered to vote or not. He said that 80% of his respondents tend to be voters. 78% of New Jersey adults are registered to vote.
In his blog post, Murray acknowledged that his Monmouth poll results are consistently more favorable to Democrats while Quinnipiac’s are consistently more favorable to Republicans. MMM asked Murray how that could happen consistently if both polls were using random computer generated phone numbers. “Is it how you weight the sample?” we asked. “That’s part of it,” Murray said, “the rest is that we (Monmouth) call a greater percentage of cell phones. Cell phone users tend to be younger and more Democratic.”
With that answer, that weighting his samples more heavily towards Democrats and cell phone users, Murray seemed to be confirming the Republican complaints.
“That’s fine, I’m the only one who consistently asks the trend question in the same place,” was Murray’s retort, “that’s polling 101.”
Another Republican strategist was more upset about how Murray wrote up his poll release that he was with the numbers. “Political sands are shifting?” asked the Republican.“It’s a margin of error shift!Murray sounds like he is writing press releases for the Democratic State Committee, not acting as an independent pollster from an esteemed New Jersey university.”
A third Republican scoffed at the notion of even taking Murray’s numbers seriously, pointing out how badly Monmouth Gannett polled the 2009 gubernatorial race between Chrisite, former Governor Jon Corzine and Chris Daggett. “Murray’s last poll in that election had Corzine winning by 2 points and Daggett getting 8% of the vote. Christie won by 5 points a few days later.”
MMM set out to find a Democratic strategist to weigh in on the difference between the two polls, but no one would talk to us. “Try Patrick Murray,” was the best answer we got.
UPDATE
Murray called shortly after this piece was posted to ask that if his 2009 gubernatorial results were going to be used against him, that his correct calling of the 2010 CD-6 congressional race also be mentioned.
During the 2010 congressional race, MMM analysed a Monmouth Poll that indicated Congressman Frank Pallone was leading Anna Little by 11%. MMM concluded, using Monmouth’s data, that Pallone’s lead should be 9%. Murray agreed, “your turnout assumptions are as good as mine,” he said. Things got funky when the Little campaign issued a press release announcing that Murray had revised his numbers based upon MMM’s analysis and that Pallone’s lead was then in single digits. Murray issued a release stating that his “official” numbers hadn’t changed. He issued a later poll that indicated Pallone’s lead was down to 7% and in the final days of the campaign said a Little victory “could well happen.”
When Pallone eventually won by 11%, Murray said he was right all along.
It was all great fun for MMM, except that Murray stopped taking our calls for a while.
In his call this afternoon, Murray reiterated that the primary difference between the recent Quinnipiac poll and his poll about Christie’s approval ratings, is that Quinnipiac changed their methodology by altering the order of the questions.
Regarding polling adults vs polling registered voters, Murray said he was not in the business of electing or reelecting any candidate. He said his job is to report on what New Jersey residents are thinking.
Murray also said that his “poltical sands are shifting” comment in the poll release was a reference to New Jersey Democrats who being more aggressive in how than they go after Christie than they have been in the past. It was not a reference to the public’s approval of Christie, he said.
Signs Executive Order to Form Interagency Council on Homelessness and Develop Ten-Year Plan
Trenton, NJ – Today, Governor Chris Christie signed Executive Order 92 creating the Interagency Council on Homelessness to combat homelessness as part of the Administration’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable New Jerseyans. The Council is tasked with better identifying and addressing the needs of homeless New Jerseyans as part of a longterm plan to help assist those individuals affected by homelessness and to prevent homelessness from taking hold in the future. This cooperation and planning will strengthen existing efforts by improving the coordination and delivery of programs and services to those in need.
Governor Christie signed Executive Order 92 at HomeFront in Ewing, an organization that works to combat homelessness by increasing the availability of adequate, affordable housing for New Jersey families in need of assistance. The Governor was joined by Department of Human Services (DHS) Commissioner Jennifer Velez and Deputy Commissioner of Community Affairs (DCA) Charles Richman. The Council will be co-chaired by the commissioners of DHS and DCA.
“Homelessness in our society often touches each of our communities in a personal way and too often fails to get the attention it deserves. It is our neighbors, friends and sometimes family members who, having fallen on difficult times, struggle to have their basic housing needs met,” said Governor Christie. “Right now, New Jersey has a strong set of services available to assist our homeless residents get back on their feet, but they are not applied in a strategic and coordinated way. We can do better to serve families who need help now, and deliver services in a more organized way to prevent homelessness from occurring in the first place.”
According to a January 2012 report from the National Alliance to End Homelessness, New Jersey’s rate of chronic homelessness has decreased by 20 percent, indicating progress in identifying and working with individuals with substance use disorders, disabilities, mental illness or medical issues. However, overall homelessness has increased over that same period (7%), which means there is still work to be done to support families and veterans.
“Without a place to call home, it’s incredibly difficult to secure and retain a job or nurture a family,” said Human Services Commissioner Jennifer Velez. “Safe, permanent housing truly is a key factor in helping people attain self sufficiency.”
Governor Christie’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget proposal acts on a commitment to provide housing assistance for New Jerseyans who are in need. In addition to providing $2.3 million to expand the successful Veteran’s Haven – the veterans transitional housing program – to the northern part of the state, Governor Christie’s budget provides critical funding for housing assistance programs such as the State Rental Assistance Program ($21 million), the Homelessness Prevention Program ($4.4 million), and Shelter Assistance ($2.3 million).
In addition, the Department of Human Services serves many homeless residents through its General Assistance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs. Both provide supports that include temporary shelter placement, rental assistance, medical coverage, food assistance and job training. The Governor’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget protects $78.6 million in funding for the WorkFirst New Jersey program, which helps people get off welfare, secure employment and become self-sufficient through job training, education and work activities. Other state services also are provided to homeless individuals who have mental health or addiction disorders.
These programs have helped make New Jersey a leader in preventing chronic homelessness in New Jersey, but homelessness continues to affect too many New Jersey families. The Governor’s action today will mobilize the state government in a more efficient, coordinated and strategic manner around the goal of finally ending homelessness in the state.
“Today, we are taking action to more effectively address the needs of homeless New Jerseyans across every aspect of state government, with the goal of identifying and preventing the many different causes of homelessness. Ultimately, I believe that as leaders we must set high, achievable goals for the serious challenges we face, which is why the Council also will be charged with developing a 10-year plan to combat homeless over the long-term,” added Governor Christie.
The Interagency Council on Homelessness will be established within the Department of Human Services, be comprised of 15 public members, and operate until December 31, 2014. Its duties and responsibilities include:
·A review of the findings contained in the Interim Report of the Council on Preventing and Reducing Homelessness;
·Identifying and evaluating the statutory and regulatory impediments to the effective delivery of services to homeless individuals and families;
·Providing recommendations to improve relevant laws, programs and policies to better utilize state resources directed to homelessness and homelessness prevention;
·Preparing a 10-year plan to end homelessness in New Jersey; and,
·Reporting annually to the Governor on the Council’s work and progress.
The Council’s membership will be comprised of the Commissioners of the following Departments: Children and Families; Community Affairs; Corrections; Education; Health and Senior Services; Human Services; Labor and Workforce Development as well as the Executive Director of the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency; Chairman of the State Parole Board, the Adjutant General and a representative from the Governor’s Office.
Eleven public members will be appointed by the Governor and will include a representative of county government; a representative of municipal government; one person who is or recently was homeless; a representative of the private sector; four representatives of non-profit agencies providing housing, social, behavioral health, or health-care services to homeless individuals or families; a representative from a non-profit providing statewide coverage, technical assistance, and affiliation with a national non-profit; a representative of public housing authorities; and, one representative from the faith based community.
In addition, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Senate Minority Leader, and the Assembly Minority Leader each may appoint a member of the Legislature, or his or her designee, to serve on the Council.
“I’ve never seen a less optimistic time, in my lifetime, in this courtry. And people wonder why. I think it’s really simple. It’s because government’s telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you. We are turning into a paternalistic entitlement society…”
“….more importantly, there will be more money, more hope, more aspirations, in the hearts of our children and grandchildren than there are today. And that’s what will make the 21st century the second American century. That more than anything else, will allow the United States to export hope, and liberty and freedom around the world. Not by just saying but by living it everyday in the way we conduct ourselves and in the way we govern ourselves.”
~Governor Chris Christie
Chris Christie believes that unrestrained by oppressive and “paternalistic” government, that ordinary people can and will live lives of accomplishment.
Tom Moran, that sanctimonious polyhistor responsible for The Star Ledger’s editorial page, thinks that makes Christie conceded.
The Asbury Park Press editorial board, the Nudniks of Neptune who have fewer orginal thoughts that Joe Biden, agrees with Moran.
Christie made his remarks at a George W. Bush Presidential Center gathering in New York on Tuesday, April 10. Moran posted his rant calling the governor’s message “condescending” early yesterday morning, the 12th. The Nudniks followed yesterday evening calling Christie’s message “hectoring,” “insulting” and “condescending.”
The editorialists of New Jersey’s two largest news outlets must be appalled by Christie’s soaring popularity.
It was the content of Christie’s remarks in between the two phrases I quoted above that got to the liberal regressive pundits. Without naming the president, Christie had the audacity to point out that the Obama agenda has not resulted in hope, but in pessimism. That if it continues we will be financially and morally bankrupt, waiting for the check to show up rather than striving for bigger checks.
Here’s what Christie said, unfiltered by the bias of Moran, the Nudniks or MMM:
