can you tell the difference between Rob Cohen and Cosmo Kramer?
monkeeys
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
SETTLEMENT OFFER
So the NORC against Barry, Herb and John has been on the blog for over a week. I haven’t received any response from the three defendants (could it be they haven’t read it since Mitra told them to stop wasting state resources and to stop using the state’s computers to read my blog? C’mon fess up I get more hits from PIC than anywhere else. That can’t be it tho because Walter still reads it and he would tell Barry et al). Well it’s only fair that I offer them a settlement so here it is. If you plead guilty to the charges of violating the Public Officers Law and resign we can call it even. But wait, John and Herb have already resigned in disgrace so that just leaves you Barry. Resign before they fire you and I will mark the blog as closed. You have until next week to give me an answer otherwise on Monday we will have a hearing on the blog. I’ve invited Steve Hensel to be the hearing officer and my entire case will consist of using testimony given to the IG UNDER OATH. I’m almost positive I’m going to prevail. Now you know how Dopp felt.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
NOTICE OF REASONABLE CAUSE
After watching yesterdays Star Chamber regarding the NYS Theater Institute employee charged by Bridgette Hoolohan (by the way Bridget did you work on that case when you were at the IG? Settling some scores huh?) I was moved to bring my own charges against some PIC employees. This is my opinion and folks should form their own conclusions but since the New York State Commission on Public Integrity (“Commission”) has wholly failed to investigate and determine if there is reasonable cause to believe Herbert Teitelbaum, Barry Ginsberg and John Feerick violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c)(d) and (h), I am doing it for them. In doing so I will quote at length from the Inspector General’s report on the matter. And since the commission has just presented a case against an employee of the NYS Theater Institute on far less serious facts I will use the same form that the commission did for that NORC. Here goes:
I believe Herbert Teitelbaum, Barry Ginsberg and John Feerick violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c)(d) and (h), when they were interviewed by the Inspector General’s office and “Teitelbaum’s and Ginsberg’s demeanor and lack of responsiveness at their interviews by the Inspector General is disheartening. Despite the fact that Teitelbaum, as the Commission’s Executive Director, is entrusted with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Commission, and Ginsberg serves as its chief legal officer, both shared the same tactic and refused to provide the Inspector General with their opinions or even minimally elaborate on the confidentiality rules which govern their daily professional lives and the lives of other Commission staff whom they directly supervise. As discussed above, the applicable confidentiality statutes, in particular, Executive Law § 94(12), are not obscure provisions of law which only warrant recognition at the Commission in unusual and infrequent circumstances. Rather, as reflected in the confidentiality statements executed by Commission staff, these confidentiality rules pervade the Commission’s operations on a daily basis and reside at the very core of its functional life. Notwithstanding the importance of these confidentiality provisions and Teitelbaum’s and Ginsberg’s respective roles at the Commission, both aggressively professed a logic-defying inability to discuss even a straightforward application of these confidentiality provisions and, when pressed, expressed outrage at the audacity of the prospect that it was rational to assume they possessed a conversational knowledge of these foundational concepts. High-ranking state officials are entrusted by the public with great authority and discretion and correspondingly owe the public a high degree of accountability and candor. 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.”
At the time of their above described conduct they were aware that the Office of the State Inspector General was conducting an investigation regarding the leaking of information by the commission to a target of an investigation. (I took that language from the commissions NORC in the NYS Theater case). Additionally “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.” In addition “The Commission’s response to the Inspector General’s investigation stands in sharp contrast to the position it took during its Troopergate investigation. The Commission refused to examine its own newspaper files to confirm the Inspector General’s finding that certain information in Hermann’s possession was confidential and never publicly reported, which was a highly significant issue. However, during its Troopergate investigation, the Commission requested that the then-Governor himself search for a particular newspaper article. Similarly, 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.” Under these circumstances Herbert Teitelbaum and Barry Ginsberg used and attempted to use their positions as the commission’s executive director and general counsel to facilitate Mr. Teitelbaums attempt to mislead the IG into determining that Teitelbaum had not acted unlawfully or unethically with respect to the use of commission resources an unwarranted privilege for Teitelbaum.
In addition there is reasonable cause to believe Ginsberg may have violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(d) and (h) when he directed commission employee Bridget Hoolihan to review the Inspector General’s report to determine if there were inaccuracies about him and Teitelbaum within the report while on state time (you forgot Barry that former commission counsel Steve Hensel saw Bridget doing it and asked you about it and you told him it was none of his business). Under these circumstances Barry Ginsberg used and attempted to use his position as the commission’s general counsel to misuse commission resources an unwarranted privilege for himself and Teitelbaum.
Lastly there is reasonable cause to believe Teitelbaum may have violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c) as “the Inspector General finds 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.”
Based on the foregoing I think the commission could make a case, even now some 2 years later, that Herbert Teitelbaum, Barry Ginsberg and John Feerick violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c)(d) and (h). They won’t but they could and after the NYS Theater case I watched yesterday if they find that poor employee guilty of anything and they don’t investigate their own top staff they will personify the Spitzer edict of do as we say not as we do.
And Mitra its been over a month since you were appointed the chair I hope you have read the IG’s report by now if you haven’t I would strongly recommend you do so at your earliest convenience it will tell you all you need to know about Barry and the commissioners that served back then and are still on your commission keeping Barry employed (what’s that line we all sink or swim together). And anyone thinking that a new ethics bill is the answer read the report and come watch these clowns in action. You don’t clean up the mess that is Albany by buying a new mop you clean it by rolling up your sleeves and getting on your hands and knees with your old sponge and pail of disinfectant and doing a little work. A mop only helps when someone will actually use it.
I believe Herbert Teitelbaum, Barry Ginsberg and John Feerick violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c)(d) and (h), when they were interviewed by the Inspector General’s office and “Teitelbaum’s and Ginsberg’s demeanor and lack of responsiveness at their interviews by the Inspector General is disheartening. Despite the fact that Teitelbaum, as the Commission’s Executive Director, is entrusted with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Commission, and Ginsberg serves as its chief legal officer, both shared the same tactic and refused to provide the Inspector General with their opinions or even minimally elaborate on the confidentiality rules which govern their daily professional lives and the lives of other Commission staff whom they directly supervise. As discussed above, the applicable confidentiality statutes, in particular, Executive Law § 94(12), are not obscure provisions of law which only warrant recognition at the Commission in unusual and infrequent circumstances. Rather, as reflected in the confidentiality statements executed by Commission staff, these confidentiality rules pervade the Commission’s operations on a daily basis and reside at the very core of its functional life. Notwithstanding the importance of these confidentiality provisions and Teitelbaum’s and Ginsberg’s respective roles at the Commission, both aggressively professed a logic-defying inability to discuss even a straightforward application of these confidentiality provisions and, when pressed, expressed outrage at the audacity of the prospect that it was rational to assume they possessed a conversational knowledge of these foundational concepts. High-ranking state officials are entrusted by the public with great authority and discretion and correspondingly owe the public a high degree of accountability and candor. 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.”
At the time of their above described conduct they were aware that the Office of the State Inspector General was conducting an investigation regarding the leaking of information by the commission to a target of an investigation. (I took that language from the commissions NORC in the NYS Theater case). Additionally “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.” In addition “The Commission’s response to the Inspector General’s investigation stands in sharp contrast to the position it took during its Troopergate investigation. The Commission refused to examine its own newspaper files to confirm the Inspector General’s finding that certain information in Hermann’s possession was confidential and never publicly reported, which was a highly significant issue. However, during its Troopergate investigation, the Commission requested that the then-Governor himself search for a particular newspaper article. Similarly, 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.” Under these circumstances Herbert Teitelbaum and Barry Ginsberg used and attempted to use their positions as the commission’s executive director and general counsel to facilitate Mr. Teitelbaums attempt to mislead the IG into determining that Teitelbaum had not acted unlawfully or unethically with respect to the use of commission resources an unwarranted privilege for Teitelbaum.
In addition there is reasonable cause to believe Ginsberg may have violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(d) and (h) when he directed commission employee Bridget Hoolihan to review the Inspector General’s report to determine if there were inaccuracies about him and Teitelbaum within the report while on state time (you forgot Barry that former commission counsel Steve Hensel saw Bridget doing it and asked you about it and you told him it was none of his business). Under these circumstances Barry Ginsberg used and attempted to use his position as the commission’s general counsel to misuse commission resources an unwarranted privilege for himself and Teitelbaum.
Lastly there is reasonable cause to believe Teitelbaum may have violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c) as “the Inspector General finds 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.”
Based on the foregoing I think the commission could make a case, even now some 2 years later, that Herbert Teitelbaum, Barry Ginsberg and John Feerick violated Public Officers Law sections 74(3)(c)(d) and (h). They won’t but they could and after the NYS Theater case I watched yesterday if they find that poor employee guilty of anything and they don’t investigate their own top staff they will personify the Spitzer edict of do as we say not as we do.
And Mitra its been over a month since you were appointed the chair I hope you have read the IG’s report by now if you haven’t I would strongly recommend you do so at your earliest convenience it will tell you all you need to know about Barry and the commissioners that served back then and are still on your commission keeping Barry employed (what’s that line we all sink or swim together). And anyone thinking that a new ethics bill is the answer read the report and come watch these clowns in action. You don’t clean up the mess that is Albany by buying a new mop you clean it by rolling up your sleeves and getting on your hands and knees with your old sponge and pail of disinfectant and doing a little work. A mop only helps when someone will actually use it.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
DUH DUH DUH DATS ALL FOLKS
Any one that wants to truly understand why it is critical to eliminate the Public Integrity Commission or at a bare minimum its top staff and commissioners needed to be at the commission offices today to witness the latest edition of the insane clown posse in action. An unpublicized public hearing of an ethics case involving a former employee of the New York State Theater Institute was held at 9:30 am. Prosecuting the case was none other than Bridget Hoolihan in all her riotous fury and anger. At the table with her was last week’s name that dope Bobby Shea and seated directly behind them the wooden Indian and the commission’s executive director (hopefully for not much longer). That’s a lot of firepower, must be a big case, in this age of elected officials and lobbyist being indicted left and right by the feds you would think a case that could bring out the commission’s popguns must be pretty serious.
In her opening statement Bridget laid out a course of conduct by this employee that was shocking in its breath and scope. This employee, if Bridget is to be believed, backdated cash receipts totaling under $500 to assist his boss in failing to cooperate with an IG investigation and also failed to provide a vendor a 1099 form for snow plowing. I don’t know about you but I’ll sleep better tonight knowing the guardians of public ethics spent over a year preparing to prove these extremely serious alleged violations (more importantly the lobbyists and public officials not yet indicted or being investigated can rest easy)
Well after listening to Bridget’s case, which consisted of two witnesses and maybe 15 minutes of testimony I must tell you that any doubts I had about her talent after the Yankee ticket fiasco are answered. Can exchair Mike get his buddy to come back and help out again?
The first witness certainly proved that the IG was investigating the theater institute and the second witness at best testified that the accused at some point told her she did not have to send the snowplower a 1099 form. But that’s it. The rest of Ms. Hoolihan’s case seemed to consist of a document with the defendant's handwriting that neither witness could testify they saw him write or when he wrote it and a letter that the defendant’s lawyer sent the PIC. Note to all attorneys be careful what you say during settlement negotiations as Bridget seems more than willing to make opposing counsel a witness (rest assured when I get my chance to have a hearing there will be a parade of commission employees and commissioners up on the stand swearing to tell the truth LOL). The defense lawyer properly moved for a dismissal of the case for failure to prove the elements required in the NORC. And I’m sure Ms. Kopec (the hearing officer) will deny his motion and state that viewed in the light most favorable to the PIC there is enough evidence to establish a prima facie case (after all if she doesn’t Bridget and Barry may go after her for improper use of the state computers to play solitaire while at work). But if the new chair wants to see what is wrong with her commission just read the transcript of this hearing. A complete waste of state resources that failed to prove a trivial violation of the public officers’ law that the PIC staff was unable to competently present to a wholly owned hearing officer.
One has to wonder if they could devote resources to this case why not go after Teitelbaum, Ginsberg and Feerick for what they did in leaking information in the troopergate investigation and in failing to cooperate with the IG? In fact Mitra, if you want to take a page from Mike Cherkasky’s playbook ask me to come in and investigate and prosecute Herb, Barry and John for what they did in troopergate. It’s a serious matter and I would be happy to perform those services pro bono. Heck you could even get a real hearing officer I won’t need a rigged deck to win that card game.
And the blame doesn’t stop with the PIC staff and its commissioner’s. Governor Cuomo you own these clowns now. If you don’t change it it’s just as bad as if you created it.
In her opening statement Bridget laid out a course of conduct by this employee that was shocking in its breath and scope. This employee, if Bridget is to be believed, backdated cash receipts totaling under $500 to assist his boss in failing to cooperate with an IG investigation and also failed to provide a vendor a 1099 form for snow plowing. I don’t know about you but I’ll sleep better tonight knowing the guardians of public ethics spent over a year preparing to prove these extremely serious alleged violations (more importantly the lobbyists and public officials not yet indicted or being investigated can rest easy)
Well after listening to Bridget’s case, which consisted of two witnesses and maybe 15 minutes of testimony I must tell you that any doubts I had about her talent after the Yankee ticket fiasco are answered. Can exchair Mike get his buddy to come back and help out again?
The first witness certainly proved that the IG was investigating the theater institute and the second witness at best testified that the accused at some point told her she did not have to send the snowplower a 1099 form. But that’s it. The rest of Ms. Hoolihan’s case seemed to consist of a document with the defendant's handwriting that neither witness could testify they saw him write or when he wrote it and a letter that the defendant’s lawyer sent the PIC. Note to all attorneys be careful what you say during settlement negotiations as Bridget seems more than willing to make opposing counsel a witness (rest assured when I get my chance to have a hearing there will be a parade of commission employees and commissioners up on the stand swearing to tell the truth LOL). The defense lawyer properly moved for a dismissal of the case for failure to prove the elements required in the NORC. And I’m sure Ms. Kopec (the hearing officer) will deny his motion and state that viewed in the light most favorable to the PIC there is enough evidence to establish a prima facie case (after all if she doesn’t Bridget and Barry may go after her for improper use of the state computers to play solitaire while at work). But if the new chair wants to see what is wrong with her commission just read the transcript of this hearing. A complete waste of state resources that failed to prove a trivial violation of the public officers’ law that the PIC staff was unable to competently present to a wholly owned hearing officer.
One has to wonder if they could devote resources to this case why not go after Teitelbaum, Ginsberg and Feerick for what they did in leaking information in the troopergate investigation and in failing to cooperate with the IG? In fact Mitra, if you want to take a page from Mike Cherkasky’s playbook ask me to come in and investigate and prosecute Herb, Barry and John for what they did in troopergate. It’s a serious matter and I would be happy to perform those services pro bono. Heck you could even get a real hearing officer I won’t need a rigged deck to win that card game.
And the blame doesn’t stop with the PIC staff and its commissioner’s. Governor Cuomo you own these clowns now. If you don’t change it it’s just as bad as if you created it.
Monday, February 28, 2011
LET’S HAVE A THREESOME
I’ve received a flurry of letters from the guardian of public ethics in the last two days. So rather than write three separate blog entries I’m going to do more with less and put all three in one blog entry. This blog will contain a new name that dope, a Barry “informal opinion” and the latest example of the commission making a mistake that they will expect everyone to understand but if the lobbying community did it special counsel ralf would impose one of his unconstitutional non-authorized by statute late fees.
First NAME THAT DOPE
I got a letter from this dope stating that “A matter has come to the attention of the Commission on Public Integrity(‘Commission”) involving the name of one of my clients which is different from the matter currently before the Commission in which you represent the name of one of my clients. Please advise whether you will be representing the name of one of my clients in this matter as well.”
Which dope wrote that gem? I know the dopes at the commission think I am all powerful (and really from their perspective can you blame them LOL) but I do not possess a crystal ball and have no clue what the dope is talking about since I am not fluent in dope.
Here are some hints:
This dope is the boss of a previous dope.
This dope supervises someone whose head looks like a crystal ball.
This dope travels with a good luck charm in the form of a wooden Indian
Give up? It’s the commission’s own Inspector Clouseau Chief Investigator Robert J. Shea. Good work Bobby how many brain cells did you use up putting pen to paper to write that example of “duhhhh”? And this is the careful precise work of a trained investigator? No wonder they showed a blind governor a check and asked if it was his signature. I am afraid Bobby I need a little more information to answer your question maybe you can get Clark and the wooden Indian to help you write the follow-up.
Second I got another “informal opinion” from Barry the only problem? I never asked him for one because there is no such thing as an “informal opinion” so why would I bother. I asked for a commission advisory opinion pursuant to statute (that make 7 I’m waiting for now) on the gift ban. I’m sensing a split amongst the commissioners on how they interpret the gift ban so getting an advisory opinion might provide more clarity then the last 8 discussions they’ve had on the subject at commission meetings. Anyway I reminded Barry that I could care less what he thinks and will now forward my request directly to the chair so that she can see just how much he doesn’t share with her. But in reading Barry’s analysis I was shocked to learn that “An actual intent to influence is not required for there to be a violation of the gift ban.” WOW all the commission needs is to believe is the following “an inference of intent to influence such public official is one among any inferences and such inference is not unreasonable under the circumstances” HOLY SH*T All Barry needs now is to convince himself that the inference he draws from that mess he calls a brain is not unreasonable to him and you are guilty of a misdemeanor. A show of hands who thinks Barry Ginsberg should be the conscience of Albany? Remember this is the same Barry Ginsberg that the IG said helped disgraced ex executive Director Herb Teitelbaum cover-up his role in leaking information to the target of an investigation. The same Barry Ginsberg whose wife is a lobbyist. The same Barry Ginsberg that decided Commissioner Alonso’s law firm did not give a gift of his services to the New York State Senate based on the fact Barry thought that that inference was unreasonable. The same Barry Ginsberg that is handling the Jeff Sachs investigation once someone tells him what to do. You know what Barry? I want to see the commissioners put in writing that offering something of value to the spouse of a public official when the offeror (lobbyist) has no matters before the public official, could lead anyone to the reasonable inference of an intent to influence such public official. Only in Patrick the starfish’s world of bikini bottom does that make sense Patrick oops I mean Barry.
Third I got two letters from the commission today one was about one of my clients that made a mistake and registered a client in error but the second envelope although addressed to me contained a letter for a lobbyist and client that I have no connection to. Hey mistakes happen but if you’ve ever been on the wrong side of a special counsel ralf rant that he will not waive a late fee because you or your client made a mistake you can appreciate how much I am going to enjoy not telling them which letter they mailed warning of a failure to register was not received. If you get fined by the commission and they never sent you a warning letter get in touch I may have your golden ticket. To the commission employees that write letters be nice it could be your signature on that letter.
I’ve gotta admit that was my first threesome and it felt so good I’m sure I’m gonna do it again sometime soon. All I need is a little help from my friends at the commission.
First NAME THAT DOPE
I got a letter from this dope stating that “A matter has come to the attention of the Commission on Public Integrity(‘Commission”) involving the name of one of my clients which is different from the matter currently before the Commission in which you represent the name of one of my clients. Please advise whether you will be representing the name of one of my clients in this matter as well.”
Which dope wrote that gem? I know the dopes at the commission think I am all powerful (and really from their perspective can you blame them LOL) but I do not possess a crystal ball and have no clue what the dope is talking about since I am not fluent in dope.
Here are some hints:
This dope is the boss of a previous dope.
This dope supervises someone whose head looks like a crystal ball.
This dope travels with a good luck charm in the form of a wooden Indian
Give up? It’s the commission’s own Inspector Clouseau Chief Investigator Robert J. Shea. Good work Bobby how many brain cells did you use up putting pen to paper to write that example of “duhhhh”? And this is the careful precise work of a trained investigator? No wonder they showed a blind governor a check and asked if it was his signature. I am afraid Bobby I need a little more information to answer your question maybe you can get Clark and the wooden Indian to help you write the follow-up.
Second I got another “informal opinion” from Barry the only problem? I never asked him for one because there is no such thing as an “informal opinion” so why would I bother. I asked for a commission advisory opinion pursuant to statute (that make 7 I’m waiting for now) on the gift ban. I’m sensing a split amongst the commissioners on how they interpret the gift ban so getting an advisory opinion might provide more clarity then the last 8 discussions they’ve had on the subject at commission meetings. Anyway I reminded Barry that I could care less what he thinks and will now forward my request directly to the chair so that she can see just how much he doesn’t share with her. But in reading Barry’s analysis I was shocked to learn that “An actual intent to influence is not required for there to be a violation of the gift ban.” WOW all the commission needs is to believe is the following “an inference of intent to influence such public official is one among any inferences and such inference is not unreasonable under the circumstances” HOLY SH*T All Barry needs now is to convince himself that the inference he draws from that mess he calls a brain is not unreasonable to him and you are guilty of a misdemeanor. A show of hands who thinks Barry Ginsberg should be the conscience of Albany? Remember this is the same Barry Ginsberg that the IG said helped disgraced ex executive Director Herb Teitelbaum cover-up his role in leaking information to the target of an investigation. The same Barry Ginsberg whose wife is a lobbyist. The same Barry Ginsberg that decided Commissioner Alonso’s law firm did not give a gift of his services to the New York State Senate based on the fact Barry thought that that inference was unreasonable. The same Barry Ginsberg that is handling the Jeff Sachs investigation once someone tells him what to do. You know what Barry? I want to see the commissioners put in writing that offering something of value to the spouse of a public official when the offeror (lobbyist) has no matters before the public official, could lead anyone to the reasonable inference of an intent to influence such public official. Only in Patrick the starfish’s world of bikini bottom does that make sense Patrick oops I mean Barry.
Third I got two letters from the commission today one was about one of my clients that made a mistake and registered a client in error but the second envelope although addressed to me contained a letter for a lobbyist and client that I have no connection to. Hey mistakes happen but if you’ve ever been on the wrong side of a special counsel ralf rant that he will not waive a late fee because you or your client made a mistake you can appreciate how much I am going to enjoy not telling them which letter they mailed warning of a failure to register was not received. If you get fined by the commission and they never sent you a warning letter get in touch I may have your golden ticket. To the commission employees that write letters be nice it could be your signature on that letter.
I’ve gotta admit that was my first threesome and it felt so good I’m sure I’m gonna do it again sometime soon. All I need is a little help from my friends at the commission.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
HERE WE GO AGAIN
In the middle of an attempt to get “ethics reform” (can someone please define that for me because as far as I am concerned getting rid of the public integrity commission or at a minimum its top staff is ethics reform) the New York Times writes an editorial that puts them in the same boat as the goo goos. Well meaning, working hard but in the end missing the point.
After following up Times Union reporter Jim Odato’s work on Jeff Sachs the Times has uncovered specific acts that if true raise very troubling issues for Mr. Sachs and numerous members of the Cuomo administration. And depending how the Governor handles the scandal perhaps the Governor himself (does anyone remember “troopergate”). And that brings us right back to the failure of the public integrity commission to be an honest cop on the beat. I don’t know if the allegations in the newspapers are true or accurate. Nor do I know if Mr. Sach’s statements explaining his actions are true or accurate. We don’t know what the administration’s staffers are going to say about their involvement and if it will be true or accurate.
Here’s what we do know. Barry Ginsberg the public integrity executive director (yes the same one the inspector general said helped impede the investigation into disgraced former executive director Herb Teitelbaum role in troopergate) will be the one to answer those questions and he knew three weeks ago about Mr. Sach’s activity. What has he done with that information? Who has he spoken with?
Has he already spoken with the targets of any investigation he might undertake?
Has he taken direction from folks outside the commission?
Has he briefed his commissioners on the issues to give them an opportunity to provide him direction?
Or is he paralyzed and afraid to take any action until he knows what effect it will have on his future tenure.
Or maybe he will take a page out of his Yankee ticket playbook and wait for the legislature to pass an ethics bill, if it affects him he could always ramp up the investigation take testimony from the governor and his staff and see if that ace up his sleeve will get him another veto.
Unfortunately the questions above would never need to be asked if we had faith in Barry or the commission to do the right thing and perform a professional unbiased investigation without outside influence and keep the public and media apprised of what they discover. But as troopergate has shown us that is too much to ask from the cockroaches at the commission. I wonder which commission staffer will be sacrificed this time? (Does anyone remember the commission lawyer that testified to the IG about “troopergate”?)
So with Barry holding the key to the answers as to what really is going on with Jeff Sach’s and his connections what does the New York Times editorial say is the answer? Here it is:
“Governor Cuomo has a larger obligation. As he pushes for ethics reform, he should call for a tougher lobbying law — one without loopholes.”
Here we go again we need ethics reform that gets us honest cops in the form of an integrity agency we can trust and the editorial board wants to change the law to one without loopholes.
Let me say it loud and clear
ITS NOT THE LAW IT’S THE PEOPLE THAT ENFORCE IT.
And until people realize that we will continue to have ethical scandals because one person’s self dealing is another person’s trusted friend.
After following up Times Union reporter Jim Odato’s work on Jeff Sachs the Times has uncovered specific acts that if true raise very troubling issues for Mr. Sachs and numerous members of the Cuomo administration. And depending how the Governor handles the scandal perhaps the Governor himself (does anyone remember “troopergate”). And that brings us right back to the failure of the public integrity commission to be an honest cop on the beat. I don’t know if the allegations in the newspapers are true or accurate. Nor do I know if Mr. Sach’s statements explaining his actions are true or accurate. We don’t know what the administration’s staffers are going to say about their involvement and if it will be true or accurate.
Here’s what we do know. Barry Ginsberg the public integrity executive director (yes the same one the inspector general said helped impede the investigation into disgraced former executive director Herb Teitelbaum role in troopergate) will be the one to answer those questions and he knew three weeks ago about Mr. Sach’s activity. What has he done with that information? Who has he spoken with?
Has he already spoken with the targets of any investigation he might undertake?
Has he taken direction from folks outside the commission?
Has he briefed his commissioners on the issues to give them an opportunity to provide him direction?
Or is he paralyzed and afraid to take any action until he knows what effect it will have on his future tenure.
Or maybe he will take a page out of his Yankee ticket playbook and wait for the legislature to pass an ethics bill, if it affects him he could always ramp up the investigation take testimony from the governor and his staff and see if that ace up his sleeve will get him another veto.
Unfortunately the questions above would never need to be asked if we had faith in Barry or the commission to do the right thing and perform a professional unbiased investigation without outside influence and keep the public and media apprised of what they discover. But as troopergate has shown us that is too much to ask from the cockroaches at the commission. I wonder which commission staffer will be sacrificed this time? (Does anyone remember the commission lawyer that testified to the IG about “troopergate”?)
So with Barry holding the key to the answers as to what really is going on with Jeff Sach’s and his connections what does the New York Times editorial say is the answer? Here it is:
“Governor Cuomo has a larger obligation. As he pushes for ethics reform, he should call for a tougher lobbying law — one without loopholes.”
Here we go again we need ethics reform that gets us honest cops in the form of an integrity agency we can trust and the editorial board wants to change the law to one without loopholes.
Let me say it loud and clear
ITS NOT THE LAW IT’S THE PEOPLE THAT ENFORCE IT.
And until people realize that we will continue to have ethical scandals because one person’s self dealing is another person’s trusted friend.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
NO THANK YOU NECESSARY BARRY
Big New York Times story today about the governor’s friend and whether he should have been registered as a lobbyist.
It’s a pretty straight forward issue and on the facts available in the story an easy question to answer. But count on the cockroaches at the Public Integrity Commission to touch it and make it something no one wants to go near. And this was the easy question.
They had three weeks to think about it since Jim Odato and the Times Union wrote about it January 31.
They had a commission meeting where Barry could have briefed the entire commission between gorging himself on that catered lunch.
They could have answered the question without upsetting this governor because it happened BEFORE January first, which makes it a Patterson problem.
But Barry refused to go on television and discuss it even though he initially said he would. (Do you think he changed his mind after finding out I would be on the live interview with him? Or did he get orders from on high to keep his mouth shut?) Either way it makes you and the commission look bad, Barry.
Please please please tell me you briefed your chairwoman today when you saw the Times story. You could have explained all the above as you just being a good new york lawyer. But if you didn’t brief the Chair today Barry you got a lot of explaining to do. Are you just incompetent? Was it because you don’t like reporting to a woman? Where you waiting for direction from the commissioner’s you are beholding too?
There is no good answer if you didn’t call your chair first thing today and bring her up to speed on an issue that will test the new administration’s ethical mettle. It’s your troopergate Barry and we all know what a bad job you and Herb did on that one. Do you think your Chair will handle this one better than Feerick did troopergate? Only if she is kept informed on a timely basis.
And that’s what you should thank me for I did your job for you already. I only wished Feerick had been as interested in doing the right thing as Ms. Hormozi is.
If I was you Barry I’d come up with some answers in a hurry, but don’t worry Barry no thank you is necessary.
It’s a pretty straight forward issue and on the facts available in the story an easy question to answer. But count on the cockroaches at the Public Integrity Commission to touch it and make it something no one wants to go near. And this was the easy question.
They had three weeks to think about it since Jim Odato and the Times Union wrote about it January 31.
They had a commission meeting where Barry could have briefed the entire commission between gorging himself on that catered lunch.
They could have answered the question without upsetting this governor because it happened BEFORE January first, which makes it a Patterson problem.
But Barry refused to go on television and discuss it even though he initially said he would. (Do you think he changed his mind after finding out I would be on the live interview with him? Or did he get orders from on high to keep his mouth shut?) Either way it makes you and the commission look bad, Barry.
Please please please tell me you briefed your chairwoman today when you saw the Times story. You could have explained all the above as you just being a good new york lawyer. But if you didn’t brief the Chair today Barry you got a lot of explaining to do. Are you just incompetent? Was it because you don’t like reporting to a woman? Where you waiting for direction from the commissioner’s you are beholding too?
There is no good answer if you didn’t call your chair first thing today and bring her up to speed on an issue that will test the new administration’s ethical mettle. It’s your troopergate Barry and we all know what a bad job you and Herb did on that one. Do you think your Chair will handle this one better than Feerick did troopergate? Only if she is kept informed on a timely basis.
And that’s what you should thank me for I did your job for you already. I only wished Feerick had been as interested in doing the right thing as Ms. Hormozi is.
If I was you Barry I’d come up with some answers in a hurry, but don’t worry Barry no thank you is necessary.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY COMMISSION – IS THEIR A MORE CONFLICTED AGENCY IN NEW YORK GOVERNMENT?
Following up on yesterday’s news about Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos’s ties to a law firm with clients that do business with New York (seems like a remake of Casablanca – gambling in this establishment? I am shocked) today the New York Daily News has a story that former PIC commissioner Dan Alonso’s law firm charged the New York State Senate (in the democrats control at the time) $376,000 to provide legal work in getting rid of Hiram Montserrate. Now I don’t know which is more shocking that it took that much effort to get rid of Montserrate or that no one has a problem with the senate employing a member of the Public Integrity Commission. The same commission that would be charged with investigating gifts to members of the senate. I can see the executive session now between gorging themselves on a catered lunch they unanimously state “A gift to a senator I am shocked”. I did ask the commission to investigate Alonso doing his legal work for free (seemed to me a lobbyist like his law firm should not be doing work for a public official for free – that is a gift) but of course Barry “my wife is a lobbyist” Ginsberg saw no gift. Can’t you hear the piano playing in the background?
So as long as we are talking about PIC and conflicts here is the list I know of I’m sure I’m missing some.
1. Barry Ginsberg (executive director) married to a registered lobbyist –don’t we all wish we could get the same treatment as Mrs. Ginsberg?
2. Herb Teitelbaum (disgraced ex executive director) married to a client of a lobbyist
3. John Feerick (disgraced ex chairman) serves on the Board of Directors of two clients of lobbyists.
4. Michael Cherkasky (ex chairman) god only knows how many conflicts he won’t tell us but he had to resign he had so many.
5. Howard Levine (commissioner) senior counsel to a registered lobbyist (law firm)
6. John Brickman (commissioner) serves on the Board of Directors of two clients of lobbyists.
7. Joseph Spinelli (former commissioner) worked for a client of a registered lobbyist
8. Dan French (former commissioner) was a registered lobbyist
9. Dan Alonso (former commissioner) employed by a registered lobbyist
10. Mark Peters (commissioner) employed by a lobbyist law firm, stay tuned I’ve got more on this one
11. Christine Kopec (hearing officer) employed by the client of a registered lobbyist
12. Ralph Miccio (special counsel) owns a horse regulated by NYRA a client of a registered lobbyist.
That’s quite a large card game for such a small gin joint.
By the way all of the foregoing is available on the financial disclosure reports and lobbyist filings database. Remember look but don’t touch
So as long as we are talking about PIC and conflicts here is the list I know of I’m sure I’m missing some.
1. Barry Ginsberg (executive director) married to a registered lobbyist –don’t we all wish we could get the same treatment as Mrs. Ginsberg?
2. Herb Teitelbaum (disgraced ex executive director) married to a client of a lobbyist
3. John Feerick (disgraced ex chairman) serves on the Board of Directors of two clients of lobbyists.
4. Michael Cherkasky (ex chairman) god only knows how many conflicts he won’t tell us but he had to resign he had so many.
5. Howard Levine (commissioner) senior counsel to a registered lobbyist (law firm)
6. John Brickman (commissioner) serves on the Board of Directors of two clients of lobbyists.
7. Joseph Spinelli (former commissioner) worked for a client of a registered lobbyist
8. Dan French (former commissioner) was a registered lobbyist
9. Dan Alonso (former commissioner) employed by a registered lobbyist
10. Mark Peters (commissioner) employed by a lobbyist law firm, stay tuned I’ve got more on this one
11. Christine Kopec (hearing officer) employed by the client of a registered lobbyist
12. Ralph Miccio (special counsel) owns a horse regulated by NYRA a client of a registered lobbyist.
That’s quite a large card game for such a small gin joint.
By the way all of the foregoing is available on the financial disclosure reports and lobbyist filings database. Remember look but don’t touch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)