monkeeys

monkeeys

Friday, December 22, 2017

Merry Christmas

For those of you waiting for this years version of Twas the night before rhyme I have to disappoint you.  I've just been too busy servicing my clients, what with all the growth I have experienced and all the issues JJOKE has created.

But that's not to say it has not been a merry holiday season as I just received written notification from JJOKE Director of Lobbying Andrew Bechard that he has withdrawn 36 separate late fee billing notices that JJOKE had wrongfully imposed on my clients.  In response to my written objections pointing out how JJOKE was wrong in imposing the late fees in the first place Mr. Bechard (whom I have never met) admitted that the late fees never should have been imposed by JJOKE staff to begin with and stated that they had reviewed my arguments citing the proper application of the Lobby Act and "arguing against the late fees . . . and find them to be persuasive".

Now ordinarily I would share with the regulated community the basis for my arguments since I am sure JJOKE has imposed late fees on many other lobbyists under the same legal theory I just successfully challenged, but that wouldn't be fair to the clients that pay me for that advice and protection.  Suffice to say if JJOKE has imposed a late fee you don't think was fair call me for a consultation.

Twas the night before Christmas and all thru the regulated community
Lobbyists have realized its cost effective and safer to just hire ME


Monday, December 18, 2017

Commission Meeting Quiz

Following up on the last post discussing the jackasses at JJOKE trying to discuss proposed regulations that they lack the authority to issue or the knowledge and intelligence to discuss I thought I would pose a simple question and see if any of the Jgeniuses could answer it at tomorrows JJOKE meeting also known as the gathering of the clowns.

The proposed regulations state that a coalition is :

"Coalition means a group of otherwise-unaffiliated entities or members who pool funds for the primary purpose of engaging in Lobbying Activities on behalf of the members of the Coalition."

The proposed regulations then state:

"A Coalition that expends or incurs more than $5,000 in annual Compensation and Expenses related to Lobbying Activity shall either:

(a) File a Lobbying report with the Commission identifying itself as a Lobbyist and/or a Client, provided the Coalition identifies a Responsible Party and it maintains an up-to-date written instrument with the Commission disclosing all Coalition members who exceed $5,000 in cumulative annual Lobbying compensation and expenses; or

(b) If the Coalition does not file its own Lobbying report, then each member who is required to file a Lobbying report (either through the Coalition activity and/or other Lobbying Activity engaged in by the member) must disclose in such report their own contribution to such Coalition, including the contribution amount and name of the Coalition to which it contributed."

With that definition in play here is the question

How does a coalition spend or receive funds?

Simple question lets see how McAuliffe and the rest of the mensa types answer it.

Here's a hint go to your local bank and try to open an account in the name of a coalition as it is defined above.

Good luck.

Unless JJOKE expects coalitions to use cash or bitcoin they will be unable to spend or receive funds.

And before you say you are just following the old lobby commission opinion allowing this activity I wrote that opinion BEFORE source of funding was required.

All a coalition is, is a fancy way to allow an alias to be used.

If you can spend or receive funds you actually exist and should register and report under your actual corporate or individual existence.

Maybe McAuliffe was on to something with his unincorporated 501c3 nonsense. 

Try to contribute a campaign donation in the name of a coalition and see what happens.

I look forward to tomorrows JCOPE meeting and a lively discussion about coalitions.

Friday, December 1, 2017

A camel is a horse designed by a committee and JJOKE regulations are laws designed by jackasses

Anyone that watched the latest JJOKE meeting was treated to the glaring reality that JJOKE commissioners have no clue what the Lobby Act they are supposed to be enforcing actually says.

And no I'm not talking about the most recent flip flop where they publicly emasculated their executive director and said that the proposed lobby regulations now do have the force and effect of law even though Agata was very clear last time that they were merely guidance.  The fact that Mike Rozen was so clear that the proposed regs are actually regulations is a good thing.  There can be no doubt now about the issue for my Article 78.  I say JJOKE doesn't have the authority to issue lobby regulations JJOKE says they do, we will let a court decide.

No I'm talking about how foolish the JJOKE commissioners that commented on the proposed regulations sounded.  They proved the adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.

Case in point Commissioner McAuliffe.  I had heard from some friends that knew him from out west that he is a blowhard that loves to hear himself speak.  His performance at the meeting validated the assessment.  Here are a couple of his better moments:

At approximately the 30 minute mark during a conversation about coalitions (we will discuss coalitions shortly) McAuliffe chimes in with this beauty "this will include unincorporated 501c3 organizations correct?"   WTF?????    There is no such thing as an unincorporated 501c3 organization.   Does McAuliffe know what a 501c3 is? does he know what the term unincorporated means.  How is it even possible for the two terms to be combined?  It's like saying a pregnant gelding.  Gelding . . . get it like Agata after Rozen issued his statement on regulations.

McAuliffe had preceded that beauty with his discussion of applications by commissioned sales people for exemptions from being lobbyists.   Does he understand anything about procurement lobbying?  Does he know why commissioned salespeople are exempt?  Why there is no process to apply for an exemption?  Clearly not, he just wanted to hear himself bloviate.  And he topped it by referencing the "quarterly reporting obligations"   Quarterly?   Who reports quarterly?   Lobbyists report on a bimonthly basis.  Bimonthly you know every other month.   And nobody, not the staff nor the other commissioners correct him.

Then McAuliffe asks if reportable business relationships covered under 943.14 are effected by 943.4a2 that exempts lawyers providing legal services from the definition of lobbyist but requires registration after they are retained to lobby.  Staff look at each other in utter confusion as the two sections have nothing to do with one another but no one says what the fuck are you talking about.   Clueless clowns

Lastly a lively argument breaks out about who has to be included in coalitions for expense reporting purposes but no one seems to realize that coalitions can not report expenses as they do not exist and have no legal standing   They can not have bank accounts, they can't deposit funds or expend them.  They are merely aliases for groups each spending their own funds.   Chew on this one guys and gals   If I register a coalition how can that coalition report source of funding when they can not legally receive donations and or contributions?   All you are doing with regulations allowing coalitions to register is promoting a mechanism to hide lobbying expenditures.   And before you bring up the old lobby commission opinion allowing coalitions to register I wrote that opinion so I actually understand it.  And I know it was written before source of funding disclosure was required.   I would never have written that same opinion today.  I'd follow New York City's lead and only allow actual legal entities to register as lobbyists or be reported as clients.   But thanks for creating even more ways for my clients to follow your rules and shelter disclosure    DOPES

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

How will Agata get out of this mess?

The mess I'm referring to is the year long waste of time and resources otherwise known as the proposed comprehensive lobby regulations aka the we never bothered to check to see if we had the authority to issue lobby regulations so lets call them guidance now that Grandeau made us look foolish again.

Various JJOKE commissioners who have extensive experience with the legislature and regulations have been asking some difficult questions since Monday.  Questions like which staff member (Martin or Monica) will take the blame for this glaring legal mistake?  Or what can we do to salvage this PR disaster?  Or when will Agata get back from vacation and fall on his sword and resign?  Some are even trying to follow the Agata company spin and are telling people and the media it's all just a big communications mistake these were never meant as real regulations only "guidance regulations". 

Will the commissioners with reputations in government service go along with Agata's big lie?  Yates, Weismann, Levine and Dearing know you need legislative authority as an agency to issue formal regulations.  How foolish are they willing to look saying these were never really regulations?  Just take a look at all the material JJOKE has published calling them regulations . . . for Gods sake you published them in the state register under title 19 as



"Title 19 NYCRR Part 943 is added to read as follows:


OFFICIAL COMPILATION OF CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

TITLE 19. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

CHAPTER XX. JOINT COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS
PART 943: LOBBYING"


And yes I've printed all the proof to use in my Article 78 proceeding.

Here is a suggestion that JJOKE staff can do the exact opposite of since we all know if I say black they will say white.

Next meeting put out amended regulations oops guidance for further comment.  Title the document "guidance" and hope everyone forgets you spent a year doing regulations you were never authorized to issue.  Pass the source of funding regulations and when asked act like those were the only regulations you were working on.  Hold a vote on the guidance next year and I will not have standing to bring an Article 78.

Given enough time you can use the strategy of calling them best in the nation guidance.

Except those of us that know about these things will always know Agata stepped on his dick but so did all the experts that submitted comments that failed to note the lack of authority to issue lobby regulations.

Is it any wonder why I keep adding clients?   JJOKE making Grandeau richer every time they screw up.

 
 

Friday, November 3, 2017

How many JJOKE lawyers does it take to screw up regulations?

ALL OF THEM

Read todays story by Chriss Bragg in the Times Union http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Long-discussed-lobbying-rules-now-only-advisory-12327130.php

JJOKE has been touting all the work they have put in on these "regulations" for well over a year and they just now decide that they really aren't enforceable regulations they are just guidance regulations.  TOO FUNNY what exactly is a guidance regulation?

It's the best Seth Agata could come up with after I again alerted them that JCOPE did not have statutory authority to issue regulations.

How is it possible with all those genius lawyers at JJOKE that none of them bothered to check if they had statutory authority to issue lobby regulations?

INCOMPETANCE  plain and simple.  Think about all the lawyers that now look like incompetent fools:

Seth Agata
Martin Levine
Monica Stamm
another dozen or so JCOPE staff lawyers whose names I don't remember but I'm sure all wrote chapters for Agata's book Lobbying Compliance for Dummies or was that Lobbying Compliance by Dummies?

Well over a million dollars a year in staff salaries wasted on proposed comprehensive lobby regulations that they now can't issue as regulations but will have to call guidance.

And JJOKE was not alone think of all the lawyers and groups that submitted comments and never bothered to verify that JJOKE had the authority to issue these lobby regulations.  Lobby compliance firms and good government groups alike missed this basic legal point - should they really be the ones anyone relies on for compliance advice?

But they are welcome to join me in the Article 78 if Agata and JJOKE insist on issuing regulations.

And right now Agata and the JJOKE commissioners are pulling their hair out they know I am legally correct that they lack authority to issue lobby regulations but they would rather slam their collective dicks in a car door than publicly admit that.  They need to buy time, delay postpone and hope they can convince the legislature to pass yet another best in the nation lobby reform that grants them the authority to issue these regulations.

Now if I was a lobbyist, and I'm not or if I was a PR firm I would do all I could to insure that doesn't happen.  wait a minute did I just engage in grassroots lobbying under the new regulations?  Do I have to register?  Or because they are not enforceable regulations but merely guidance am I in the clear.

Lets make it easy for JJOKE   I make way more that $5000 for advocating against your regulations, I'm not registered as a lobbyist please please please bring an enforcement action against me for failure to register as a lobbyist and lets let a court decide.

And one last thing what did Agata do after creating this cluster fuck?


To: "Grandeau@ix.netcom.com"

Subject: Automatic reply: JJOKE regulations .... excuse me "guidance"

Date: Nov 3, 2017 10:08 AM

I will be out of the office beginning Thrusday, November 2d and returning to work on Monday, November 13th. 

Even Nero hung around while Rome burned.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Dick Dadey ridden hard and put away wet

I can't believe I actually agree with Rich Assonfire or Azzopardi.

Dick Dadey and his fragile ego are hypocrites.  Truer words were never spoken.

That Dadey is upset that the governor's people have not spoken to him about ethics reform is priceless.

Dick they've been giving you, Blair and the rest of the goo goos a mercy reach around for years and now you are upset that you have to jerk yourself off?  Too funny.   Look at the bright side at least this year when it comes to the goo goos and ethics reform the pleasure given will equal the pleasure received.

It's not like you were ever relevant when it came to changing ethics in NY government

I've ridiculed Dick for years  here are some of my favorites:

http://davidgrandeau.blogspot.com/search?q=Dadey

But I don't remember seeing Dick at JJOKE meetings.  Too busy covering for the Gov in the old days when Steve Cohen was on his board.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

JJOKE back in the slow lane

March 2, 2017 -  3993 registrations had been filed for 2017 and 3587 were still being processed which means 406 had been approved.  406 in over 2 months.  That's about 10 a day.

 March 3, 2017 - 3999 registrations had been filed and 3575 were still being processed which means 424 had been approved.  That's 18 registrations approved March 3, 2017.

 March 6 - 4013 registrations had been filed and 3549 were still being processed which means 464 had been approved.  That's 40 registrations approved March 6.

 March 7, 2017 -  4017 registrations had been filed and 3532 were still being processed which means 485 had been approved.  That's 21 registrations approved March 7.

March 8, 2017 - 4021 registrations had been filed and  3512 were still being processed which means  509 had been approved.  That's  24 registrations approved March 8.

 March 9, 2017 - 4030 registrations had been filed and  3476 were still being processed which means  554 had been approved.  That's  45 registrations approved March 9.

 March 10, 2017 - 4041 registrations had been filed and  3458 were still being processed which means  583 had been approved.  That's  29 registrations approved March 10.

 March 13, 2017 - 4051 registrations had been filed and  3429 were still being processed which means  622 had been approved.  That's  39 registrations approved March 13.

March 14, 2017 - 4053 registrations had been filed and  3431 were still being processed which means  622 had been approved.  That's  0 registrations approved March 14.

Today 4075 registrations had been filed and  3431 were still being processed which means  644 had been approved.  That's 22 registrations approved March 15.

22 registrations approved and 22 new registrations filed that's called being stuck in the mud.  At this rate JJOKE will never be finished  that's Agata's idea of job security.

How long can they continue at a snails pace before someone notices that Agata couldn't manage an ice cream stand in the Sahara.  Agata couldn't manage a whorehouse in Spitzers neighborhood.

In a word Agata should be ashamed to take a paycheck.