Yep, it's true.
Liebler v Hoboken, et. al. was "case closed" on January 19, 2018. A final dispute over the parties' confidentiality agreement was resolved on February 14, 2018, moving the settlement to Hoboken's City Council.
Liebler v Hoboken, et. al. was "case closed" on January 19, 2018. A final dispute over the parties' confidentiality agreement was resolved on February 14, 2018, moving the settlement to Hoboken's City Council.
And tomorrow night the Council will vote on a resolution to approve the settlement agreement, putting this episode into our collective rear view mirror.
HISTORY
For those who may not know...
On November 27, 2015, well-known Hoboken political operative David Liebler filed a lawsuit against Defendants City of Hoboken, Hoboken City Council, Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Councilpersons: Ravinder Bhalla, Theresa Castellano, Peter Cunningham, James Doyle, Jennifer Giattino, Elizabeth Mason, David Mello, Timothy Occhipinti, and Mike Russo.
On November 27, 2015, well-known Hoboken political operative David Liebler filed a lawsuit against Defendants City of Hoboken, Hoboken City Council, Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Councilpersons: Ravinder Bhalla, Theresa Castellano, Peter Cunningham, James Doyle, Jennifer Giattino, Elizabeth Mason, David Mello, Timothy Occhipinti, and Mike Russo.
Liebler's claim?
That his First Amendment rights were violated at the City Council on Oct 21, 2015. In a nutshell, Liebler was interrupted at the mic during his public remarks,refused to listen to the Council President, became disorderly and had to be escorted out of the chambers by police. No, Liebler did not complete his public remarks. Hence, he alleged his First Amendment rights were violated.
And he sued the city, his initial demand was $150,000 plus an apology.
And he sued the city, his initial demand was $150,000 plus an apology.
Here's the funny part:...
Dave Liebler entered the public eye in 2011 as a taxpayer watchdog for legal expenses in Hoboken. He became locally famous for his OPRAed stack of City Hall's legal invoices, starring in the Hoboken Reporter feature: "Legal bills skyrocketing: Litigation could cost city $2 million in 2011."
Now look at him-- 7 years later...
Liebler is on the handout-line of his own cartoon.
LIEBLER'S PAYDAY (KA-CHING)
Confidentiality agreement or not, the street is sharing a figure which may or may not be accurate.
The settlement figure that GA heard came from the Ramos camp. Now, Liebler has been a Ramos, DeFusco supporter. One degree of separation? If true, who blabbed?
Anyway, the unconfirmed rumor I heard on the settlement amount was $130K. Another source heard $135K.
Ka-ching! ka-ching! ka-ching!
Dave Liebler entered the public eye in 2011 as a taxpayer watchdog for legal expenses in Hoboken. He became locally famous for his OPRAed stack of City Hall's legal invoices, starring in the Hoboken Reporter feature: "Legal bills skyrocketing: Litigation could cost city $2 million in 2011."
 |
| Liebler's OPRA: a giant stack of Legal Department invoices |
Resident David Liebler, who has worked for an anti-Zimmer candidate in the past, filed an Open Public Records (OPRA) request recently asking for all of the legal expenses for the city of Hoboken since 2008. “All I heard was legal, legal, legal at every council meeting,” Liebler said last week. He said it took him a month to review the thousands of documents that he received. Then he organized a spreadsheet with the costs, which he certified as correct by the city’s Legal Department. Liebler provided the documents to the Reporter.“What I found was astonishing,” he said. “The spending is out of control.”
Now look at him-- 7 years later...
Liebler is on the handout-line of his own cartoon.
 |
| Dave Liebler's original cartoon mocking the amount of taxpayer money Hoboken dispensed on litigation claims |
LIEBLER'S PAYDAY (KA-CHING)
Confidentiality agreement or not, the street is sharing a figure which may or may not be accurate.
The settlement figure that GA heard came from the Ramos camp. Now, Liebler has been a Ramos, DeFusco supporter. One degree of separation? If true, who blabbed?
Anyway, the unconfirmed rumor I heard on the settlement amount was $130K. Another source heard $135K.
Ka-ching! ka-ching! ka-ching!
makes me queasy just thinking about him getting any money, never mind that amount. so much for principals, he just chased the pay day like all the others. i'd be ashamed to show my face in town if i were him, after soaking taxpayers with this BS.
ReplyDeleteMakes me sick that he gets anything.
ReplyDeleteHe is such a scumbag and hypocrite. I will vote against any candidate he shills for.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is this case settled for three reasons none of which has much if anything to do with it's merits - fee shifting, the cost of litigation and insurance.
ReplyDeleteThanks to those three factors, filing frivolous lawsuits against government entities is a pretty profitable business for scumbag lawyers and their clients and it costs taxpayers a fortune.
And you have to love how Liebler once stood on his soapbox and complained about that - and then turned around and found a scumbag lawyer to file a frivolous suit on his behalf. He really is the lowest of the low.
Deleteif he's such a staunch defender of the right to free speech, he should donate that settlement to the ACLU or other relevant non-profit social good organization. if he's such a staunch defender of the right to free speech, he wouldn't even think of profiting off his righteous action.
ReplyDeletebut he'd never do that because he's just as shameless as all the others who files suits against the city. yup, a real role model, that guy.
It's been a slow moving train wreck. Glad it's over.
ReplyDeleteAs I said at the time I didn't think Bhalla had much choice. It muddies the water that it involved Stan. But, change the players. Let's say, someone approaches the dais and makes clear that they are about to disclose private information about the Russo clan (non-elected elements).
Everyone would understand you can't let that happen; that you are opening the city to a lawsuit, and it isn't worth the juicy details you wish the world would hear. The city, in the form of council leadership, has to protect that privacy.
Now re-insert Stan. Suddenly, that argument goes away. Why? Because he's "with us"? Doesn't work that way. You have to shut it down. But understand that you might still get sued by the faux social justice warrior/asshole who called Stan "blood diamonds boy."
So here we are. Liebler is no more a "victim" than Carmelo Garcia or Angel Alicea or Perry Belfiore or whoever comes next. Honest people know that. Dishonest people will make a lot of noise to compensate for their low numbers. Won't work.
Didn't Garcia, Alicia, Belfiore and Liebler all actively work on the Michael "I am a victim" DeFusco's mayoral campaign ?
DeleteYeah, they could have formed a boy-band. Vic and the McVictims.
DeleteThat's what I've heard. Previously, I believe he worked on political campaigns for Frank Raia and Peter Cammaramo. I've also heard that emails exist suggesting that Liebler offered to work as an unpaid consultant for Garcia advocating for the visionv20/20 redevelopment project when Garcia was ED of the HHA.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that he applied for the City communications job that ultimately went to Juan Melli and was extremely angry that he wasn't hired by Zimmer.
When he was in Raia's employ, I once saw him ranting in the street at a Zimmer supporter that Raia was going to be the next mayor and people were going to have to line up to kiss the ring. I couldn't tell from where I was standing but he looked to have either badly cut himself shaving or to be suffering from some sort of facial herpes outbreak. Regardless, he was leaning into this unfortunate accostee spewing saliva spray and blood/scab shrapnel, loudly insisting that Raia was the next big thing.
Delete