Monday, April 4, 2011


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

No comments:

Post a Comment