It seems Seth Agata is having some difficulty understanding what the term "force and effect of law" means. Espescially as it applies to the illegal JJOKE lobby regulations.
He is quoted in Chris Bragg's story https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/JCOPE-s-new-regs-constrained-by-settlement-13478865.php as saying "Those who violate the regulations will face thousands of dollars in fines under the Lobbying Act"
Which is quite a bit different than what he said in this story https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/JCOPE-chair-Lobbying-regulations-will-carry-12389588.php "would not create a separate actionable violation of the law," and were meant to "maximize guidance"
Hmmm that sounds a lot like the language we used in the settlement. Duh Seth I was trying to do you a favor by using that language so that you could say you were right a year ago when your Chairman Mike Rozen was quoted as bitch slapping you by saying "there is some confusion about the status of the commission's lobbying regulations which currently are under consideration. I want to be very clear: The commission is in the middle of a rule-making to develop and adopt regulations, which will have the force and effect of law."
in response to your "would not create a separate actionable violation of the law," and were meant to "maximize guidance"
Maybe we should let New York's Attorney General have the last word. According to the Times Union "Attorney General Barbara Underwood's office, which was representing JCOPE, agreed that the new regulations will not in and of themselves have the force and effect of law"
Seems pretty clear Agata was right before Rozen was wrong before Agata was wrong.
Of course I was right from the very beginning.