CityHallNews.com

Closing arguments were made Thursday morning in the four-day trial in which State Sen. Martin Connor (D-Brooklyn/Manhattan) attempted to prove that challenger Ken Diamondstone missed the residency requirements by at least one day. Diamondstone is attempted to reverse the Board of Elections decision which removed him from the ballot last week. (See previous article: Connor Seeks to Knock Primary Challenger from Ballot) “He didn’t really have much evidence that he moved there before Nov. 7,” said Connor.

Election law requires that state legislature candidates live in the district no less than a year before the day of the general election in which they run.

Connor introduced evidence including phone records, gas activation, credit card charges and rent deposits which he claims refutes all Diamondstone’s claims to have lived with his partner in an apartment on Clinton Street rather than a building on Dean Street which they own.

“Documentary evidence refuted their testimony, which was the only read evidence they had to establish they were there before Nov. 7,” Connor said.

Connor’s proof includes a charge on Diamondstone’s credit card to an Olive Garden on Nov. 1, when Diamondstone says he was moving into the building, and a gas account which was not activated until the end of November.

Diamondstone is the candidate of the Working Families Party in addition to seeking the Democratic nomination. However, if he is found to have failed to meet the residency requirements, he will be ineligible to appear on all ballot lines.

“This is not an election law thing. This is about the State Constitution,” Connor contended. “In my mind, it’s not about whether I have a primary or not. It’s about whether I have a primary from somebody who’s constitutionally eligible to be the state senator.”

Diamondstone said he was “absolutely confident that Judge Harkovy will restore me to the ballot, and I will be vindicated in this absurd action.”

He dismissed Connor’s actions as the sign of “a desperate campaign,” and argued that Connor was using election law as a tactic to avoid talking about issues.

“This whole proceeding has been promulgated by my opponent as a desperate campaign tactic, because he knows he cannot win based on the issues, the issues that he has absolutely no record of accomplishment.”

His version of the court proceedings and the evidence presented differs sharply from Connor’s. He says he was often seen in the building he claims as a former residence because his duties as a landlord required him to be there daily to take out the garbage and sort the mail. The phone calls were made during this time.

As to the fact that he did not activate his gas, he says he and his partner do not cook much, so having that was not a priority.

Among the evidence Connor introduced at the trial: Diamondstone does not hold a valid driver’s license. Connor came across the fact while attempting to contest Diamondstone’s residency. Diamondstone at first said he did not drive, but was then presented with an article which ran originally in City Hall sister publication Our Town Downtown in which he said, “I drive around in a 1981 Chrysler with a stick shift – so much for wealth.” (See article: Diamondstone Making It Rough for Martin Connor)

His full statement from that interview was: “I drive around in a 1981 Chrysler with a stick shift – so much for wealth. I park on the street like working class folks. My car has plenty of dings.”

Diamondstone agreed he had made the statement, though said he felt he had meant “we” rather than “I,” indicating he and his partner, in whose name the car is registered.

“I think of us as one,” Diamondstone said.

Though the judge advised Diamondstone on the stand that he could invoke the Fifth Amendment, Diamondstone said that he had in fact driven without a license.

“For a long time I did not know, and then when I did know, we didn’t remember to renew it,” Diamondstone said later. Diamondstone dismissed the importance of this issue, though Connor seems poised to pursue legal charges as a result. Diamondstone also called Connor’s claim that his residency was official only when his voter registration reflected that address a “vapid, moronic argument,” given how many people have valid residencies despite never registering to vote at all.

Diamondstone said he expected to spend over $100,000 in election lawyer fees over the course of the election, most of which as a result of this case. He called the whole case a distraction from a campaign in which he is trying to publicize what he says is a deficient record of Connor to serve his constituency when it came to health care deductibles, the commuter tax and many other issues.

Speaking of Connor, Diamondstone said, “he’s frightened of this case because of what we know and what we will expose and what we will tell the people.” A decision is expected Friday, August 11. Diamondstone plans to appeal if he loses.