UPDATE: HHA approved settlement to Carmelo Garcia on Nov. 9 (2017)


UPDATE:

Chief Crazy Horse (who did not sell Manhattan for $24 in trinkets, but sold himself for $1,000 in advertising plus unknown funds raised by Councilwoman______) has responded to this post with fake news conspiracy theories and a victory lap.    

The Original
Not addressing the fake news conspiracies. 

I will address one statement, only because it points to the Chief's failure of doing a minimum of journalistic due diligence. 

 "Also the HHA website had nothing available on its agenda in advance of its meetings and transcripts going back months.

Suddenly, all the information appears and the November transcript now shows a settlement approved by the HHA board for Carmelo Garcia on November 9th, two days after the Hoboken election."

Ummm, not exactly.

The transcript from the Nov. 9 meeting has been online for a couple of weeks.  GA scoured the transcripts online going back several months. 

The information was out there in the public domain. I found it, then went to sources.

All inspired by the Chief's wild rumor mongering. 

Once the case is dismissed, the motion papers with the settlement facts will be publicly available.

In the meantime, the injustice of Carmelo Garcia getting a penny for (in GA's opinion) being fired for cause- not "ethnic cleansing", is not lost on anyone. 
___________________

An unreliable cyber-tabloid has been spreading erroneous rumors about settlement offers made to Plaintiff Carmelo Garcia in Garcia v Hoboken Housing Authority, et. al.  

Because that tabloid's breathless "exclusives" are so far afield from the truth, GA feels compelled to set the record straight- for the public. 

Here are the facts. 

(1) The Hoboken Housing Authority approved the HHA's settlement offer to Carmelo Garcia at the November 9, 2017 meeting (see meeting transcript below).

(2) The City of Hoboken was dismissed from the case "a long time ago." 

(3) The City of Hoboken is not paying any of the cost for the settlement.

(4) The settlement is being funded entirely by the HHA and its insurer.

(5) The amount of the settlement is closer to $500,000 than it is to $1,000,000. 

(6) It's in HUD's hands now to approve the payment to Garcia.  

That is all I can say.  Here it is on the November 9 HHA meeting transcript:



There you go.

Comments

  1. That article on our alt-right whackos-only site pulls together the many of the themes that our subscribers come to us for.

    In just a few short sentences, we mock victims of the president's sexual misconduct, deny Russian involvement in the election, link to a far right website, and last but certainly not least, ask for money. Because where else can you go to get that special combination of alt-goofy mixed with local disinformation and undeserved self-congratulation?

    No place. So pay up, losers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a shame they offered that SOB a dime. But it should teach us all a lesson. Never hire an SOB like that ever again for anything, not even to mop floors.

    BTW, finding it particularly interesting someone can't even report straight something that happened over a month ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a serious problem with each "yes" vote on that settlement. Dave Mello? Why are you voting yes on this?

      They had solid grounds to force Garcia out. Even aside from Hoboken, what message does this send to those that try to take advantage of the most disadvantaged citizens -- there's a $500,000+ settlement in it for doing wrong.

      Delete
    2. Wolv, I cannot disagree. Carmelo doesn't deserve one penny. Word is the HHA had to settle when one HHA Defendant gave a interview and flapped their gums about the litigation, whatever was said compromiised the HHA''s legal position. That, I believe, prompted the HHA to settle.

      Delete
    3. garcia gets a half-mil because someone mentioned the litigation in an interview?? wtf? what kind of legal system do we have that makes that possible? the thought of him getting even one dollar turns my stomach.

      Delete
    4. I am curious, who flapped their gums?

      Delete
    5. me- Rule #1 for litigants is to keep their mouths shut during litigation and let the lawyers do the talking. Notice we said nothing until the SLAPP suit was tossed. Whatever was said (and I don't know) most likely validated one of Garcia's legal arguments and undermined the HHA's. It's not the legal system at fault, it's the dope with the big mouth. Yes, Carmelo''s payday makes me sick, too.

      Delete
    6. ah, ok. in that case, maybe hha should sue the dope with the big mouth for $500k.

      Delete
  3. I didn't know the city wasn't paying anything, that's good news. Was the former commissioner part of the city lawsuit or the settled HHA lawsuit? If the former, he must be relieved to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whatever happened to working together? That knife cuts both ways.

    Everyone has pointed out that we couldn't even bring ourselves to acknowledge Unelectable when he occupies the middle third of our picture.

    But did he bother to identify himself to us? Don't we have our hands full running our Government in Exile?? And everyone knows all these bad at math unelectable turban guys look the same.

    He was just trying to make us look petty by hiding behind that little pan-handler and not telling us he was there. Typical sore-winner gotcha politics from the lame-duck future ex-mayor!

    We await your half-assed apology, Unelectable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The real scandal here is GA being "fed" accurate information from a publicly available transcript of a public meeting in November. This is the very worst kind of "fake news."

    We at the Hoboken Persistence will continue to persistently advocate based on our ever reliable "sources" including exposing the evil scheme that led to the hiding of this information in plain site.

    Did you hear about the hotly contested 4 wat "race" for the sewerage position? Over at Sybil's cave those morons keep spreading the hateful idea that merit should play a part in the decision.

    Newsflash to this nitwits. This is a political decision that will be rightfully made by the City Council based on nothing but politics. They will vote for whoever "Tiff" and "Mike" decide on based on the appropriate "say FU to Zimmer, Bhalla and all who supported them criterion" and everyone else should just STFU with their fake reform whining.

    This process is a YUGE improvement in transparency from back in the day when Kurt Gardiner was chosen by Roman Brice who bullied the Council into submission. Tiffanie Fisher was all in for Frank Raia before Roman set her straight.

    This time Roman and Kurt have graciously deferred to "Tiff" and "Mike.".
    permitting the City Council to make the choice themselves . Thank you Roman and Kurt!




    ReplyDelete
  6. IMO- If you are sleazy enough and have an equally sleazy lawyer it not difficult to subvert the legal system. Unfortunately due to the high cost of litigation many cases are settled because the insurers and their legal team's priorities are not truth and justice but minimize their monetary exposure. It is cheaper to settle the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO you don't fight litigation this long and incur these kinds of fees to turn around and settle unless someone screwed up, by opening his/her mouth. Of course, the person in question thinks (s)he did nothing wrong and since (s)he thinks him/her self infallible, no lessons will have been learned. Let's hope the (s)he doesn't cost the taxpayers any more money with his/her stupidity.

      Delete
  7. been away for the holidays, just catching up. wanted to share this Facebook post i saw by dana wefer: https://www.facebook.com/dana.wefer/posts/10213100833828161

    of particular interest is this end section...

    "3) Stan Grossbard is a bad person, in my opinion, and the smartest thing I did during my time as an HHA commissioner was staying far away from him until after I ended up being dragged into this lawsuit- a fact I wish I had gotten to put on the record in a deposition because that also protected the agency.

    4) The thing that drove this settlement is not on anyone's radar and must remain confidential for the moment (one of those things that really has to remain confidential because of litigation), but when it comes out, and I'm sure it eventually will, it will shock people."

    yikes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would think she would stop flapping her gums if things were supposed to stay confidential because of litigation. But nooooooooo, she has to say something. SMH

      Delete

Post a Comment