Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Pro-developer rag enters 2017 race


Did you catch this headline on the cover of The Hoboken Reporter: "District obligated to pay legal fees in ethics violation."

What ethics violation?  

You mean the ethics charges filed with the New Jersey School Ethics Commission against the 4  board members who donated their own money toward the district's legal fees in the pending Appeal against the NJDOE/HoLa?

These charges have not even been found viable yet, much less litigated to any finding of fact.

It is quite possible (more than likely) that the Commission will find that the complaint was filed in bad faith and with malice pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(e):
"The Commission may find, by majority vote, that a complaint was frivolous and may impose sanctions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(e). A “frivolous complaint” means a complaint determined by the Commission to be either (1) commenced, used or continued in bad faith, solely for the purpose of harassment, delay or malicious injury; or (2) one which the complainant knew, or should have known, was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. The Commission may fine a complainant up to $500."
For the HR's information, this is not a civil court; there are no "plaintiffs" and "defendants",  there are "complainants" and "respondents."  

The editorial voice claiming the district is obligated to pay for an ethics "violation" is the same editorial voice that called the perpetrator of a vicious SLAPP suit a "victim" and the actual (Reform blogger) victims "antagonists."  



So, why did the Editor allow such a dishonest, misleading "fake news" headline?  

Well, you know its never too early to start sliming Reform for the next election... and in Hoboken the next election is always right around the corner.

 Expect the  Dark Side's propaganda tabloid to keep beating the "ethics violation" drum in Goebbels fashion until the entire city believes its Big Lie.  

Clearly, the Dark Side wants to dirty up Reform's natural advantage on the "ethics" front.

Which means...

This week's editorial decision to turn an ethics charge into a violation on its cover was no mistake.
  • Neither was calling respondents "defendants" (paragraph 1).
  • Neither was ignoring GA's disclosure that all respondents donated their own funds to cover the District's legal costs in the appeal against the NJDOE/HoLa. (For example, Reform BoE Trustee Sharon Angley is not a respondent because she did not contribute to the legal fund)
  • Neither was ignoring GA's disclosure that the alleged ethics "violation" was in fact, the donation of board members' private monies to cover public legal costs AND that the matter had been publicly vetted by the Board Attorney AND that there is no statute nor legal prohibition which makes Trustees' contributions an "ethics" violation.

Of course Board members will not talk to the press about the pending complaint.  

But the press can find other sources.  If it tries.  Hint: H-o-L-a.

Speaking of sources, poor Al Sullivan.  Now that he's alienated honest Reform sources all he seems to get are Reform malcontents nursing an agenda. This week's column, for example.

He floated a "premature' rumor that Anthony Romano will support Mike DeFusco for mayor (should Romano decide not to run for mayor himself). .

That was contradicted by Max Pizarro's "InsiderAdmin" who wrote:
A Hudson source told InsiderNJ that it’s over; Romano will get the Hudson County Democratic Organization (HCDO) line for his reelection bid and won’t oppose Mayor Daawn Zimmer.

The same source insisted the HCDO won’t get behind Michael DeFusco, who is galloping around the mile square city in search of the mayor’s seat.
So whose unconfirmed rumor is right and whose is wrong? 

I'm with Max.   

11 comments:

  1. The Hoboken Distorter

    Anything we can get somebody to pay us to print.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caren Lissner has a movie coming out at the end of March. A freaking movie. Why in the ever-living f*ck is she still rooting around and the pig slop with the OGs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Finished shooting back in 2014, very limited in theater release March 31 ... VOD on April 4. Smells like ? NOT MONEY !

      Delete
    2. Money is only part of it. She can move into a more interesting world or hang with a dying tribe of half-educated doorway blockers. She's going with option 2. Same as Petrosino.

      Delete
  3. Back in 2007, the same rag ran a front page headline proclaiming the then newly elected 4th ward Councilwoman had been "charged" with over 100 counts of election fraud. Of course Zimmer had not been "charged" with anything. Chris Campos, her opponent had filed a civil lawsuit with lots of unsupported allegations (civil cases have allegations made by litigants not "charges").

    Hoboken has changed for the better in many ways over the years. It seems the same cannot be said for the independence and journalistic and ethical standards of the local rag, which sadly have remained the same.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Distorter is down to so few pages, it is unlikely that it will make it until November. Some people may read it, but I don't know them, and I know a lot of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. might help if they hired some real journalists

      Delete
    2. It's not the journalists. It's the shitty editor.

      Delete
    3. yeah, they've had a half-dozen decent young reporters over the years, all of whom tend to move on to better gigs after 4-6 months. the only people who stay at the HR long term (this editor person, all sullivan) are the ones who can't get a job elsewhere and cling to this shrinking "newspaper". granted, newspapers aren't a growing business where it's easy to find a good job, but still.

      Delete
    4. The fish wrap rots from the head.

      Delete
  5. You wish your blog had the readership of the Hoboken Reporter. Instead you have 10 jerkoffs in an Echo Chamber pining for Stan Grossbard's affection.

    ReplyDelete