Thursday, May 19, 2011


Welcome to the party Karl the waters fine come on in

Nice to see I’m not the only former head of a NYS Integrity Agency that thinks Barry needs to follow Herb Teitelbaum John Feerick et al out of government. You have to wonder whose reputation will be the next one ruined by the folks over at the commission on public integrity . . . Mitra? Andrew? Its only a matter of time

Tuesday, May 17, 2011


I got an interesting phone call from Boston today and I’m told many others did as well. A woman named Mary Moore called to say she was asked to do a background check on Herb Teitelbaum by a group of investors that were considering hiring Herb as an attorney for a project. She said she had read the blog and seen me quoted in the media speaking about Herb and could I provide my opinion about his integrity. LOL are you kidding me? I told her if you’ve done your research you know what my opinion of Herb is. But if your investor group is serious you need to tell me who they are and what type of work you are thinking of using Herb for. She asked why that was important and I told her that Herb is subject to a 2 year revolving door and a lifetime bar as a result of his previous employment with the State of New York. She paused and said I wasn’t aware of that. Woulda thought Herb might have mentioned that piece of info. She wouldn’t tell me what the work was or who it was for, which was probably a good move because it saved me from having to make a complaint to PIC if it violated either bar. Anyway I encouraged her to read the IG report about Herb and Barry and she replied that one of the people she had already spoken with had worked with Herb at PIC and told her that Herb did some bad things but the IG report was inaccurate. To which I responded that whichever commissioner or former commissioner that told her that was covering his/her own ass as the commission wholly failed to investigate the allegations that Herb Teitelbaum leaked information to the target of the troopergate investigation and both he and current PIC executive director Barry Ginsberg allegedly attempted to obstruct the IG’s investigation. And then it dawned on me Barry just said in his most recent round of interviews related to the ongoing Susan Bruno no show job investigation (by the way do you think it’s smart to be out there in the media talking about the case before the hearing Barry? I like that approach but most folks in government don’t) that he would fire “in a second” anyone who leaked information about the case. Made for a nice sound bite but if Barry really believed it why isn’t he investigating Herb for the troopergate leaks documented by the IG? Oh that’s right if he did that he would have to investigate John Feerick and the rest of the commissioners that ignored the evidence, he would have to investigate himself and now that the current commissioners are aware of the IG allegations, page 154 guys, he would have to investigate them as well because the failure to act (cover-up) is often times worse than the act itself. Barry you keep digging that hole for yourself because I still got the shovel.

And Herb be sure to let us know how that job interview turns out.

Thursday, May 5, 2011


Special counsel Ralfie loves to dish out late fees to lobbyists and clients that file reports even one day late. So you would think the commission would be especially sensitive to filing dates. Well you would be wrong. Like so many other things the commission does it’s a case of do as we say not as we do.

The commission is required by statute to issue its annual report by March 1. They finally got around to issuing it today May 5, 66 days after it was due by law. And one week after I FOILED it and told the chairwoman that her inept staff had not filed it.

By my calculation 66 days at $25 a day is $1650 the commission owes to every lobbyist and client. But feel free to request a waiver Ralf, it can go in the same file Titlebaum kept for his buddies at his previous law firm.

Now you would think with that extra 66 days the commission staff would have come up with something new but you would be wrong again it’s the same report with the same tables that the old lobby commission used in 2006, although they did change the color from red to blue. But then again Jeannine always hated that red cover. And why did some staff members get their new names listed correctly while others are still being listed under their old married names when those names have been changed? Does anybody proof these things.

The list of names does come in handy in case anyone asks who should stay and who should go. I went 2 pages before I found anyone worth keeping. If I get some time next week I’ll post a list of who to get rid of and why.