Thursday, May 12, 2016

HHA Attorney Daglian: "why don't you have Stack fast track the old housing bill..."

left: The Honorable State Senator Brian Stack, right: HHA attorney, Charles Daglian and HHA Executive Director Carmelo Garcia 

Holy cow, have you read the 27-page "Housing Authority of Hoboken, Plaintiff v. Carmelo Garcia, Defendant" posted on MSV?

In GA's opinion, its a crushing litany of incontrovertible proofs that the former HHA Executive Director performed his duties incompetently, unethically and with help from silent enabler, HHA attorney Charles Daglian. 

For instance, here's what HHA v Garcia says [page 4] about Carmelo Garcia's employment contract.

Housing Authority of Hoboken, Plaintiff v. Carmelo Garcia, Defendant 

Who wrote Carmelo Garcia's "Improper Employment Agreement?" 

Take a look:

Carmelo Garcia's Employment Contract with the Hoboken Housing Authority-page 5

Ask yourself: why would the the HHA Attorney assume that any clause of his contract might be "illegal under Federal or State Law?" Further, if clauses were found to be "illegal", why preserve the "remainder" of the contract?*

[*Correction:  per Anonymous May 13, 2016 at 10:15- "The savings clause extremely common and in pretty much every contract that exists"]

Let's say, you bite into an apple, and find its infested with worms... do you eat around the worms or throw away the apple? 

Here's more, page 16:

Housing Authority of Hoboken, Plaintiff v. Carmelo Garcia, Defendant 

That HHA 'apple' was chock full of worms.   

That's what the jury will hear. 

Well, GA has 2,500 emails returned on my OPRA request to the Hoboken Housing Authority.  From many I have read, Daglian provided much more than a shoulder for Carmelo to cry on.

The HHA Attorney Daglian actively participated in efforts against Commssioners who opposed the renewal of his [Daglian's] HHA contract.   For example, HHA Chairman Stuiver repeatedly opposed the renewal of Daglian's contract, and wrote in a Patch Op-Ed:
"The attorney, Charles Daglian, has repeatedly sidestepped his professional ethics and objectivity in favor of functioning as what has been accurately referred to as a private consigliere to Director Garcia."
The email below, dated June 20, 2013  shows the extent of collusion between HHA attorney Charles Daglian and Executive Director Carmelo Garcia to rid them of the 'troublesome' Chairman Stuiver.  Note, Stuiver had recently moved out-of-state, but was permitted by law to keep his board seat.

read email from the BOTTOM up

email returned on OPRA request to the HHA
Quite an eyeful, no?

The management of federal dollars is an issue of public interest and public concern.

Further, Hoboken taxpayers have already been stuck with a $150K bill for defending the City against Garcia's garbage lawsuit.  Hoboken taxpayers now have to worry about getting stuck with  bills if the City's insurance company forces a settlement.

That, in my opinion, is a big mistake.

UNRELATED...



Didn't GA tell you that Senator Brian Stack had a BIG Heart?  This invitation is for HHA residents. 




15 comments:

  1. One would hope a lawyer might be smart enough not to put all of this in writing on a server that's opra-able. Good for us that he wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Garcia is probably seething that the State doesn't provide Assemblymen Emeritus with a P.R. apparatus to respond to these types of things!

    Perhaps Charlie will help out if he's not already busy answering an inquiry from the Bar Association.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ethic Cleansing, the Carmelo WayMay 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM

    I thought Charles Daglian worked for the HHA Board. He was working for Carmelo against the board the whole time?

    Isn't that like illegal or something?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is Carrie Pilby over at the Bankrupt Reporter interested in this story? She was really quick on the trigger with all the other suits and the email dump and even had their chief political operative/correspondent blogging and Facebooking about it quite aggressively. One would think they are still interested in this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm stunned. Garcia didnt know he'd be completely exposed by his own litigation? Discovery, depositions, countersuits. He's as stupid as the Bajardis.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not stunned, he's delusional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AND talks to God on the can while he's taking a dump, to his WIRE.

      Delete
  7. Why and how did Carmelo Garcia know what City Attorney Melissa Longo was saying in closed city council sessions (from his email on 6-20-2013)? Is that illegal for those council members to share? It's obviously unethical

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be unethical, if true. What a surprise!

      Delete
    2. I am sure Mr. Garcia will be asked exactly who told him what was said under closed session of the City Council and it will be under under oath. Snitches end up in ditches.

      Delete
  8. Daglian needs to be brought up on ethics charges. That's outrageous behavior for an attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not commenting on the substance of the post, but just as an FYI, that first clause is extremely common and in pretty much every contract that exists (it's probably even in Blogspots T&C's). It's a severability clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

    Lots of practical reasons it exists. For example, let's say an employment agreement between the state and an employee is 100 pages long. Let's also say this employment agreement has 50 specified instances in which the state can fire the employee. Then assume this contract has a 7 year term. Now assume that employment agreements are not permitted to be longer than 6 years under NJ law. If the employee commits one of the instances and the state wants to fire them, we wouldn't want the entire contract to be thrown out because one of its provisions conflicts with state law (7 year term vs 6 years permitted). With this clause, that provision (the term) would be adjusted or voided, and not the entire contract. Allowing the state to fire the individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, ok thank you. To my layperson's eyes, it didn't look "right." GA never publishes anything which I know to be false. So, I will edit accordingly. You must be a lawyer! You aren't going to bill me for this, right?

      Delete
    2. No sweat. And of course this was gratis :)

      Delete
  10. It would be interesting to have Mayor/Senator Brian Stack questioned under oath about his relationship with Carmelo Garcia. Just say'n

    ReplyDelete