|Dogs make better friends|
Folks, didn't GA tell you 'The Transcript' had been making the rounds?
HHA Director Carmelo Garcia's secretly recorded conversation between himself, the mayor's hubby and a longtime friend is another open secret a county of open secrets; we all know the WHO, the WHEN and the WHERE.
Let's get to the WHY.
Garcia's attorney Louis Zayas will try to convince a Hudson County Superior Court judge that Plaintiff Garcia was a persecuted whistle-blower; that the Mayor had presented her evil ethnic-cleansing Vision 20/20 proposal; the realization of an all-white, all- affluent Hoboken that she and hubby had "embarked on" in their "ambitious political quest" "since arriving in Hoboken". She, her husband and an HHA commissioner persecuted Carmelo because he wouldn't lay ball with the Mayor's evil scheme, instead Plaintiff Garcia proposed his own good Vision 20/20.
That's one version. The Peter Pan one. Or Puff the Magic Dragon.
The other is based on reality: fact, circumstance and the transcript.
The transcript tells quite a story; this is my OPINION of the story it tells.
Garcia, who knows he's on tape 'for use later' couches his language carefully. He uses phrases like "if my career is where I want it to be", "where I am in my career" or "good standing in my career" to mean his dominion over the HHA will stay unimpeded by any reform effort to 'clean house'. Remember the context of the lunch; power struggles between HHA Chairman Stuiver and Garcia over bringing in a new attorney, a new auditor, whether Garcia's employment contract was valid, and creating a Deputy Executive Director position. Garcia, desperate to "call off the dogs" so that his career will be "where he wants it to be", arranges a meeting with the Mayor's hubby, all wired up to entrap him into making a statement which may be used as 'leverage' in a future discussion with the Mayor. In exchange, he offers to throw his best friends and political allies under the bus, and join Team Zimmer.
GA doesn't believe for a minute that Garcia was serious about hiring Joe Garcia though he "all but offers the job" to him. Nope, GA believes that was about entrapping an honest, decent man like Grossbard to agree to contract steering, a federal crime. And that's the story of the transcript.
Now, with those two versions in mind: (1) Zayas' ethnic cleansing/ whistleblower one and (2) desperate, wired guy uses all means to keep his job and absolute control of Hoboken Housing Authority- including setting up the mayor's husband, here is a portion of the actual transcript.
Ruben goes under the bus! Buh-bye, Ruben! Watch out for those tires!
Joe Branco goes under the bus! Buh-bye, Joe! See ya later!
(stenographer error calls him "Joe Garcia")
That's enough, you get the drift. We may speculate about the two versions of the WHY the taping took place: Zayas' and the fact-based one, but it will be up to a judge to make his/her determination on Garica's claims.
Speaking of which, GA forwarded Garcia's complaint to my legal department, Not-Stempler. I removed the attorney's name, etc. and just provided him with the claims.
You provided me with a copy (with the name of the law firm/attorney redacted) of what, upon initial review, appears to be a complaint of some sort that was filed in NJ Superior Court. You asked me to comment on the document. I am at a loss of words to describe the document that you submitted. It barely, and I am being generous, sets forth any legal theory upon which a judge could render a judgment. To go through the muck of race baiting allegations which are set forth in the document, unsupported by any factual statements is unproductive and would give the feckless individual who produced this document too much undeserved attention. Suffice it to say that the drafter (and I have to assume that this was not the final work product of an attorney) fails to set forth the requisite facts to sustain a CEPA claim in NJ. Nor has the drafter plead any facts (as opposed to setting forth wild allegations of ethnic cleansing) which would sustain a hostile work environment claim under the NJ Law Against Discrimination. Similarly, there is nothing factual contained which would support a claim of "extortion", under either criminal or civil liability. The document is so riddled with errors and lacks any foundation for the requested relief that it clearly will not sustain any serious scrutiny and raises questions with regard to the motives behind its filing. Respect for the profession does not permit me to go any further.
Thank you, Not-Stempler.