HANG EM HIGH

What comes after a typical PIC hearing? Why a self serving decision from the hearing officer and the commission. It’s tough to lose a rigged game. And as I’ve said before I believe there is plenty of evidence in the IG report to find that the three desperados violated the public officers law and the fact that the commission members other than Richard Emery turned a blind eye to the behavior of their high ranking and overpaid staff is particularly troubling since a bunch of them are still serving conflicts and all. And not only are they serving the word on the street is they are the reason Barry is still employed (as an aside for those of you who know movie lines “I still got the shovel”) instead of hanging out with Herb and John in the disgraced former club. Anyway without further complaint that the PIC is still the same group of Spitzer has beens and wanna bes that caused the troopergate cover-up here is my decision and imposition of penalty in the case of the three desperados.


I find just as the IG did that “Herbert Teitelbaum’s conduct apparently violated section 74(3)(c) of the state Public Officers Law, which provides that “no officer or employee of a state agency…should disclose confidential information acquired by him in the course of his official duties nor use such information to further his personal interest”; and that the conduct of both Teitelbaum and Hermann apparently violated section 74(3)(h) of the Public Officers Law, which states that “an officer or employee of a state agency…should endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his trust.”

I also find just as the IG did that “both Teitelbaum, the Commission’s executive director and General Counsel Ginsberg refused to answer basic questions concerning the confidentiality of Commission proceedings. Whether based upon obstinacy, willful obstruction or ignorance, such refusals on the behalf of the senior management of the Commission are inexcusable.” Which I believe is a violation of section 74(3)(d) of the state Public Officers Law, which provides that “No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others,”

I also find just as the IG did that “The statement by John Feerick expressing the view of the Commission that “there was no exchange of confidential information, you know, from our Commission to the Executive Chamber” was totally inaccurate.” And as such I believe is a violation of section 74(3)(d) of the state Public Officers Law, which provides that “No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others,”

Lastly I also find just as the IG did that “When the recordings of the District Attorney’s interviews of Hermann and Constantine were played for the Commission, its General Counsel Barry Ginsberg took notes. When the Commission became concerned in July 2008 regarding the District Attorney’s intention to release his files, and with the commencement of press inquiries, these notes then were incorporated into an official memorandum. Ginsberg’s memorandum, significantly, does not accurately report the statement of either Constantine or Hermann. With regard to Hermann’s statement, the memorandum grossly misrepresents a crucial portion of such statement, resulting in the impression that information which Hermann communicated to Constantine on November 1, 2007 was public information rather than confidential information Hermann had obtained from Teitelbaum. The distinction constituted the very essence of the allegations against Teitelbaum. The statement of Constantine regarding a second conversation he had with Hermann is also inaccurately reported, omitting crucial information Constantine had revealed to the District Attorney which appears in Counsel’s notes, but which he chose to omit from his memorandum. The result of such inexplicable omission converts a damaging statement by Hermann into a benign non-sequitur.” And as such I believe Barry’s actions are a violation of section 74(3)(d) of the state Public Officers Law, which provides that “No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others,”

Taken in its entirety I believe the IG report establishes that the actions of the three desperados and the commission itself support a finding that they pursued a course of conduct likely to raise suspicion that they were acting in violation of their public trust and so violated POL section 74(3)(h).

The penalty is easy Herb and John have resigned in disgrace. Barry and the commissioners that are keeping him employed should also resign in disgrace. For this and a lot of other things I’ve discussed on the blog. And if they don’t than the Cuomo folks should shitcan them forthwith. If the Cuomo folks don’t I’ll predict right now I’ll be writing another NORC within the next year or so that will sound an awful lot like this one.

IT’S HEARING TIME

No surprise I have not heard from Barry regarding my settlement offer and he hasn’t resigned so let’s have a virtual hearing into the charges posited in the NORC. And to be fair after my direct case is made I will allow Barry, Herb and John (hereinafter the three desperados) to use my blog to present their defense. I’ve watched enough of the commission’s kangaroo courts to know how this works. I present my case and witnesses, usually very few witnesses and a lot of hearsay documents. So to make it simple I’m presenting the Inspector General’s entire report. Click Here
Without hearing an objection (even if there was an objection the commissions hearing officer allows it because she can determine later how much weight to give the evidence) the evidence is admitted. To save everyone the trouble of reading the entire report on Herb and Barry’s conduct in this sordid affair just turn to pages 150-156 where you find the following statements of Judge Fisch “Teitelbaum’s and Ginsberg’s demeanor and lack of responsiveness at their interviews by the Inspector General is disheartening.” And “Teitelbaum’s and Ginsberg’s testimonies evince ignorance of a critical aspect of their duties, willful obstruction of the Inspector General’s investigation, or, at a very minimum, refusal to cooperate by sharing information potentially damaging to Teitelbaum and the Commission. In any event, their refusal or incapacity to discuss matters well within the core of their professional responsibilities diminishes their credibility and undermines public confidence in Commission operations.” Or read the following passage of Judge Fisch questioning Barry under oath, it sounds like one of Barry’s “I’m a New York lawyer” radio interviews “Q. Would, if it occurred, disclosure by [Teitelbaum] to Hermann of the sworn testimony of the contents of the sworn testimony of Dopp’s before the Commission, constitute a violation of the [statute]? A. Again, I don’t -- I’m not in the practice of giving shoot from the hips in order to give answers to questions like that. Q. That shooting from the hip? Disclosure of sworn testimony before the Commission, disclosing it to somebody -- to Hermann who had no -- was not -- had no official position?...Teitelbaum to Hermann, sworn testimony by Dopp before the Commission, is that a violation of the statute? Not inadvertent, direct. A. Can you give me more facts and circumstances? Q. What more facts do you need? The testimony is taken under oath, the Commission, of Dopps [sic], he swears under oath, testifies under oath, all right? Dopps [sic] and Teitelbaum -- Teitelbaum refers that to Hermann. Is that a violation of your statute? Hermann is not a member of the Chamber with whom he is -- he has [not] been authorized, designated to be the liaison or to deal with the Commission on any of its investigations. A. I don’t think that I’m here to give you my legal opinions. I am here to answer factual questions and answer them as best I can. Q. The fact is you’re Counsel to the Commission, okay? And I don’t think the attorney-client deliberative process, I don’t think any of that permits you to avoid answering. If you want to cooperate, you want to cooperate with the Commission. It’s a very simple thing.” Sure doesn’t seem that Barry wanted to cooperate but if I had done what he and Herb did I wouldn’t want to cooperate under oath either. And this is the guy running New York’s Integrity Commission. Can you say HYPOCRACY? Or to quote Charlie Sheen the bad guys are “DUH WINNING” Anyway I think the report contains enough evidence to find Barry, Herb and John guilty of violating the Public Officer’s Law. Oh that’s right I’m supposed to give them an opportunity to put on their case. The blog is all yours guys I’ll find you guilty in tomorrow’s edition. One last thing in light of what is being called ethics reform guess who said the following on 5/13/09 in the Daily News “Fisch’s report is further proof that the body (PIC) should be abolished and replaced with a totally independent investigative entity” Here’s a hint he is one of the three men in the room that are now deciding if PIC should survive ethics reform LOL don’t you just love hypocrisy?
Hey Dean you were right then don’t be wrong now