Thursday, December 24, 2015

FRAUD: IMPOSTER signs petition as Mayor's husband!


My goodness, the intrigue surrounding pop-up grassroots Save Our Streets ("SOS") and Concerned Citizens of Hoboken ("CCH") keeps on growing!

First, GA noted the striking similarities between SOS and Citizens for Accountability ("CFA"), including lack of disclosure on identifying the founders/financial backers, and effort to tie Rebuild By Design (federal grant) to local infrastructure repair.

Next, GA saw that a local celebrity, an NBC News Correspondent  had signed the petition:


Then,  at 5:56 AM this morning, an Anonymous commenter alerted GA:
I just scrolled through some of the names on the change.org petition these folks put up. I was shocked to see Stan Grossbard's name there. Any idea if that's actually the Mayor's husband? He said, "Because the DEP has clearly mismanaged this project and must eliminate Plan A."
Here it is (screen cap)-  the alleged Grossbard signature:


So, to answer Anon's question: "Any idea if that's actually the mayor's husband?"

GA will let HIM answer... Grossbard contacted me this morning:
"FYI I did not sign the petition. I suspect the anon who pointed it out knows that..." 
WHOA! That's fraud.

Is this an imposter, too?


Well folks, that's Hoboken- even at Christmas, the hijinks go on!

16 comments:

  1. This is the anon from 5:56. Thanks, GA, for finding out the facts. I have a few comments for Mr. Grossbard. No, I did not know that. That's why I asked. If I'd wanted nothing more than to call attention to your supposed endorsement of the petition, I would have posted my comment in the article about Natalie Morales, which was topmost and getting the most attention at the time. If I'd wanted to point a finger at you I would not have asked GA, right there in the same post, if she thought that was really you.

    Thank you for clarifying that the signature wasn't yours.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't sweat it, Anon. The petition is in the public domain, I would have asked the same thing if I saw it first. Remember STAN + A = SATAN.

      Delete
  2. Russo's comment is probably his, as evidenced by the improper use of the article "a".

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it was common sense it wasn't him but worth asking. No one should take things at face value here and too many people do without asking questions, whether it is someone on your political side or the other side, don't believe everything you read. That includes on blogs and petitions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Common sense" it wasn't him? Out 662 names, why it is "common sense" that one of them is a fraud? Grossbard is entitled to sign a petition and entitled to swallow his foot. Asking "is it him?" is reasonable. I just assumed it was, and he hit the eggnog a little early. But, I was wrong- it was a fraud.

      Delete
    2. Why now is Grossbard so worried that he may be perceived as having an opinion ? He always has and in many cases we are fortunate he's there behind his wife, without Stan things would be a total mess. But why are you still going with Russo and Morales posts were real? Those boards are so easy to hack- most bloggers know that!

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 9:23- I have no idea if "Russo" was "real"- and I don't care. I agree with real/fake Russo, as much as I understand the idea. Morales is actively promoting the petition, and her post is on the first page. Do you think it's a fake?

      You are funny, come again! I wish people would start picking/using names. I promise I won't sue you!

      Delete
  4. Why is this even a story? Let me understand this, Grossbard is calling GA to tell her he's not the Stan Grossbard on the Change.org petition proving that there are trolls playing imposters for him. But then we take it to the ban that Russo's comments were the real Russo and just a few days ago Natalie Morales was crucified for "her" tweets blasting developers. Am I crazy or is there a huge double and triple standard here? Perhaps this is the "Zombie" Apocalypse ?

    People are legitimately concerned and it's time City Hall quit with the snark, arrogance and bunker like accessibility it is fast becoming.
    Whether it's Obnoxious letters by Zimmer's former "chief" of staff now working at a NJ Democratic connected political PR firm or blog posters ( not blog owners ) trashing any dissenting opinions.
    Zimmer is totally out of touch on this one.
    I'd love to se how Deborah Meyer gets attacked by Zimmer's highly paid flaks next week

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. The only thing I will object to is the q: "why is this a story?"

      This is a blog (mine) and I blog what I like. Are you complaining about the subscription fee?

      Delete
    2. Why is illumination of political actions of others deemed "trashing?"
      Natalie Morales is a public figure who clearly doesn't have a clue on the corruption issues in Hoboken. Questioning her and another prominent name, in this case the mayor's husband isn't "trashing" anyone.

      It's funny how the same bullshit of complaints arises when real invesigative journalism surfaces in Hoboken.

      If Natalie Morales or anyone wants to point fingers and yell "corruption" they certainly can. It's of no consequence let alone "transhing" anyone for people to say, "where's the beef?"

      Touchy, touchy. Mason's gone and that tired line with her.

      Delete
  5. This has the used bag man and his loser friends Branco and Ramos written all over it. Biancamano too. They have nothing but time on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same Biancamano many Zimmer supporters "quietly "voted for last year in the BOE instead of the Kid's First Team's African American Candidate ?

      Delete
    2. Anon 11:50- Please refrain from race-baiting here.

      Delete
    3. Facts are facts.... denial is unbecoming

      Delete
    4. You don't have the balls to sign your name to imaginary, race-baiting "facts," keyboard cowboy aka "Anonymous." You're a no-balls loser, go pee in someone else's house. You've been warned.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous @ 11:50 on 12/28

    That is not a fact. It is unsubstantiated statement.

    Here is another statement (or in your terms, fact) you can't proof your fact.

    ReplyDelete