[GA note: this post borrows the stylistic flourishes of Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher's letter: "Mayor Bhalla thinks his second job is none of our business." Get ready for some drama! Here goes...]
Disbelief. Oh. My. God. My. Hair. Is. On. Fire. Really.... Disbelief. That. My. Head. Is. In. Flames.
That. Was. My initial response to learning that Tiffanie Fisher, Jen Giattino and Peter Cunningham had kept us (You. Me. Us. We.) in the dark. Lights. Out.
Yes. One week ago, Fisher, Giattino and Cunningham received Mayor Bhalla's 26 answers to their 26 questions about his "of counsel" job.
Have any of them informed You. Me. Us. We. about it since?
No. Fisher-Giattino-Cunningham have hidden Mayor Bhalla's 26 answers to their 26 questions.
No mention on Facebook. Nor Hudson County View. Not even a leak to the horseshit site, their blog of choice. What could this mean?
Disbelief. Shock. Need defibrillator. Now. gassssssp.... cough... wheeeeze...
Their selective non-disclosure to date?
2/27- Jen Giattino attacks Mayor Bhalla in press release. Press release fails to disclose that the mayor has answered the Council's 26 questions.
2/28- Ruben Ramos (BFF of Chris Campos & Carmelo Garcia) attacks Mayor Bhalla in press release. Press release fails to disclose that the mayor has answered the Council's 26 questions.
3/1- CRICKETS. Fisher, Giattino and Cunningham do not disclose anywhere (press release, Facebook, leak to horse shit site) that the mayor has answered the Council's 26 questions.
3/2- Cunningham attacks Mayor Bhalla in press release. Press release fails to disclose that the mayor has answered the Council's 26 questions.
3/3- Tiffanie Fisher attacks Mayor Bhalla in whiny, insipid, intellectually dishonest lamentation. Fisher discloses that the mayor has answered the Council's questions, but hides the answers from public view, claiming they "raise more questions".
Most. Insipid. Dishonest statement. By. Math expert cum legal expert. Fisher's hairball: "He says he is not “practicing law” but if true, he wouldn’t need malpractice insurance or bar dues paid by his firm."
WRONG. GA did what Tiffanie did not- I reviewed this issue with a flesh and blood law firm partner.
"Of counsel" may be subject to liability if the firm gets sued. As "of counsel" he cannot have an expired license.
None of this is rocket science nor nefarious. Tiffanie Fisher could have obtained a legal opinion if she cared about accuracy and honesty- she, Giattino and Cunningham are for all intents and purposes, functioning as political operatives to manipulate public opinion against the mayor. Why?
GA heard this opinion, "they are scared to death about 2019."
Who knows. Frankly, they are moving further and further away from a public that wants to see a Council able to work with the mayor of Hoboken.
BHALLA'S ANSWERS TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS:
Some questions are answered in Bhalla's Agreement (below), provided after 2/21.
BHALLA'S OF-COUNSEL AGREEMENT WITH LSAC
CONCLUSION: WHAT WE KNOW
We know that Fisher-Giattino-Cunningham sat on the mayor's 26 answers for almost one week.
We know that Fisher-Giattino-Cunningham have not shared the mayor's answers with the public to-date.
We know that by that not disclosing the mayor's answers to the public Fisher-Giattino-Cunningham are hiding the fact that the mayor is cooperating with them fully. and that the mayor understands that his business is the public's business.
We know that Fisher-Giattino-Cunningham's actions are not transparent, some may call them dishonest.
We know that concurrent to hiding the Mayor's answer's from us, they have been churning out a drumbeat of press releases attacking his of-counsel job, pretending they don't have answers to their questions.
We know that Fisher-Giattino-Cuningham are engaged in a political campaign to influence public opinion against the mayor and turn him into a lame duck with 3 1/2 years to go.
We know that turning Bhalla into a lame duck plays right into Ramos' and DeFusco's hands.
Disbelief.
"Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions." - Wikipedia
ReplyDeleteForgetting the dishonesty (no on still has an expectation of honesty from these butt holes, do they?) what kind of traction do they expect challenging an income stream for the father of small children in a city with an extremely high cost of living? Rhetorical question. They are purely reactive and have consistently failed to think through any of these publicity stunts.
ReplyDeleteThese weekly rants from the council members are started to make me hope for fingers that stop typing and a strain of laryngitis to go around.
ReplyDeleteJust when you think they can't do any worse, they never disappoint and prove you wrong. Boy are they doubling down on the dishonesty and deliciousness every single week. Completely disgusting.
ReplyDeleteYou really have to wonder how far Cunningham, Giattino and Fisher's behavior is from what they'd be doing if Lane Bajardi were advising them.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, maybe he is.
Hi GA-
ReplyDeleteJust a note, re: NJ attorney practice. I have admission to NJ bar and NY bar. I only practice in NY. Nevertheless, every year I need to certify and pay a fee. Every other year I need to report having completed mandatory CLE - Continuing Legal Education classes. As a little anecdote re: repercussions of not paying my annual fee (which my firm pays even though I only practice in NY) – last year I missed the deadline to file my annual attorney registration. I then was listed on the ineligible to practice list, paid a ton of penalties to get off the list and then was audited for my CLE. It took months to fix the mess. If you are on the ineligible list for 7 consecutive years, your license can be administratively revoked by order of Supreme Court of NJ. (Rule 1:28-2 of Rules Governing the Courts of the State if NJ) Even if I never intend to practice in NJ, why would I want to jeopardize my ability down the road to practice in NJ? Clearly Mayor Bhalla needs to maintain his law admission and wants that. Anyway, just a little tidbit. It’s gross they are making an issue of the of counsel position paying his annual registration and CLE. Totally uninformed non lawyers opining about legal license requirements, etc.
Thanks for the insight. Has former councilman Mello weighed in on this issue? He has admission to the bar also, unless I'm mistaken, and has been offering his perspective on a range of other issues lately, so does he have a view on this?
DeleteI believe you are incorrect about Mr. Mello's bar admission. I don't believe he has ever been admitted to the bar and works as a High School social studies teacher, not as a lawyer.
DeleteStill, since the legal arguments being made are all bogus, and political grandstanding is certainly within Mr. Mello's skill set, there is no reason for him not to chime in some more.
Who cares what Dave Mello thinks about anything other than housing authority policy? I'm amazed at how much oxygen he's getting. It's what he wants, and he doesn't merit it.
Deleteas she did during the mayoral campaign (much to the detriment of jen's candidacy), fisher continues to be the constant talker with very little of note to say. thank goodness for the internet, where all of her misrepresentations, lies of omission and general unappealing sense of entitlement will live on for all to see during her 2019 reelection campaign (if she's still shameless enough to run by that point).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Real Lawyer. No law firm would allow any attorney to appear on the firm’s letterhead without having that lawyer covered under its malpractice policy. One of the first questions on any malpractice application is a list of all attorneys, partners, counsel, of counsel and associates that are affiliated with the firm. No attorney who is in any way affiliated with a firm would not insist that he/she was left off that list and risk not being covered by the firm’s malpractice policy; to do otherwise is to risk professional and personally financial suicide. Likewise, it is common and routine that firm’s pay for their bar dues, CLE (Continuing Legal Education) courses and other costs associated with maintaining a law license. It is common that a firm is asked in a malpractice application to certify that the attorneys in the firm have complied with their CLE obligations and are in good standing with the state bar. Paying for these costs is a cheap way of self-policing for the law firm and protecting itself from a denial of coverage issue with its carrier. I could explain the concept of denial of coverage to Ms. Fisher, but based upon her political mutterings, I doubt that she could follow that bouncing ball.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Ms. Fisher had exposed her lack of business acumen with her confusing and disjointed (and ultimately completely wrong) meanderings regarding the issue of “contingent liabilities”, which arose in connection with the Suez contract. Now she has jumped all in and does nothing but expose herself further as someone with a very limited knowledge regarding the way that businesses operate. I noted that the questions posed by the counsel members to the Mayor are openly hostile, assuming that the Mayor and his firm were intending to break the law and engage in unethical conduct. I don’t understand the basis of their animus, but it clearly underscores the sophomoric and grossly political nature of their inquires. Bottom line, the council has much more productive challenges and issues that it needs to consider and address. Poor. Political. Judgment.
It would appear that Giattino and Cunningham are channeling their inner lemming, which is disappointing and does not speak well of their intelligence, business acumen or political skills.
Well they have liked to jump in on a number of issues completely ignorant of those issues. As you pointed out, the Suez contract was a perfect example of them being completely ignorant of the issues surrounding that contract when they were looking to go into full blown attack mode against Zimmer.
DeleteAnd I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of their attacks. They appointed one of the people who voted for that contract as CC President and put another on the NHSA board - so it isn't like they even gave a hoot about that contract. Their only purpose was to attack Zimmer just like they are doing w/ Mayor Bhalla. It is disgusting behavior and I cannot wait until the next election when we can be rid of these hypocrites.
It's a shame that it's going this way. A completely different story could have been written about the Jen, Tiffany, and Peter, both after Dawn made her announcement, and after Ravi won and they came in 4th place. They've instead they have chosen the Bajardi fork in the road, and morphed into politicians who use the City Council dais to politic rather than serve the community. We've seen that story before and it was roundly rejected by the reform base in town. To be honest, I expected this always behavior from vapid Michael DeFusco who would probably be a great frat boy President, but not from the three of them, particularly Peter who I thought was more professional and sober.
ReplyDeleteOf note, as with Dave Mello, there is a long trail of correspondence from Jen, Peter, and Tiffany eviscerating Michael DeFusco and Ruben Ramos who are now their good friends. It's clear as evidenced by their actions that what matters to the three of them now is politics, not public policy. They just can't seem to get over that Dawn was allowed to make her choice as a free human being and didn't choose them, and that they badly lost an election. It's March now. Free advice, smart politics is doing your job as a legislator.