Conflict of (you know...)

Email returned to GA from OPRA request

Honestly, who has time to read through 2,500 emails?

(Unless of course, you're the target of a scorched-earth, politically-motivated SLAPP suit launched by devious political operatives, "allegedly" paid for by a washed up, wannabe- pol...)

Yep,  2,500 emails were returned on GA's OPRA request to the HHA; a fraction of Executive Director Carmelo Garcia's (approximately) 30,000 emails recovered from HHA servers after his departure.

The above email is one of many that hint at an inappropriate relationship between parties- that is my OPINION.

See what I mean?  The former HHA Executive Director is asking the HHA Counsel to 'proofread' a draft of his lawsuit against the HHA....

But you know, GA is not attorney.  So I shared this email with a real attorney to get his thoughts.

He was shocked, and said:

Daglian's client was the HHA.

Daglian had a fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty to the HHA to warn it of impending litigation.  In addition, Daglian, as counsel, had a duty to guide the Board in how to properly document and handle a claim by an employee that they were being retaliated against for being a whistleblower.  By taking that allegation from Carmelo and sticking it in his back pocket instead of handling it in the way laid out in the employee handbook, he strengthened Carmelo's claim and aided him in building a case.

However, the stinkiest part of this email is that the relationship between Daglian and Carmelo was so close, so over the line, that Carmelo thought it was appropriate to ask for Daglian's guidance on how to sue his employer.

Oh, dear.... GA was right, this relationship DOES stink.

GA has no idea why the case was withdrawn on January 15, 2016. None.

But from the sampling of emails I've read...

Case closed!


  1. Carmelo G. Garcia, SHIM

  2. Isn't what Daglian did kinda unethical?

  3. Tell your real attorney that this is just another waste of time. There's nothing illegal about Carmelo sending Daglian an email, but you know that. Where's Daglian's response, you know, the one that would give ANY weight to this story? What, don't have it? It doesn't exist?
    Oh well.

    1. Somebody appears to be nervous with this line of questioning.

    2. 10:30AM-- Who said this email was "illegal?" Just you.

      The public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent by a federal agency. Both parties on this email are paid with taxpayer dollars. Anyone can OPRA them.

      What's your problem with transparency? Draw your own conclusions, form your own opinion. It's all fair comment.

    3. Keep it up, Anon 10:30, I really need some good spinmeisters right now. I promise I will give you a job, a contract and an apartment if you help spin my way out of this!


      Wire Emeritus

  4. Da Horsey has the bit in his teeth and is running with this story too....GIDDY UP !

  5. Wow. The defendant's attorney (reps the hha) fact-checking the Plaintiff's lawsuit (against the hha)...


Post a Comment