"This isn't politics, it is Land Use 101 with consensus from professionals that Mr. Holtzman's conduct was a material, ethical breach."
-Tiffanie Fisher, to The Jersey Journal
"We have informally reviewed this situation (all on a no-name basis) with multiple, experienced New Jersey land use attorneys and professionals who have uniformly confirmed this view."
Revealing. The smear campaign spearheaded by Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher against a longtime Hoboken public servant relies upon "review" and "consensus" of "multiple experienced land use attorneys" and "professionals.. all on a no name basis."
"...all on a no-name basis."
Really? "No-name," huh? They don't have names? Or Fisher, et. al, don't want to share them. I thought everybody has a name. In fact, elected officials are obligated to provide the names of those they accept gifts of value from: that includes in-kind legal advice or opinion on matters of Hoboken municipal government.
Yes, these "multiple experienced land use attorneys and professionals" have provided in-kind services upon which the council is attempting to remove a sitting Board member for cause. So...
WHO are they?
Moreover, do these "no-name" land use attorney and professionals have, or are they seeking, contracts with the City of Hoboken?
How much did they pay for the opinions solicited, or were they in-kind contributions? Oh, they didn't pay for them. Why not? What do these "no name" professionals want from want or expect from the council majority in return?
More: All Hoboken professionals go through a rigorous vetting process. What are these "no-names'" qualifications and experience to assess the Hoboken circumstance?
GA didn't see the statutes cited by these "no name" attorneys and "professionals" cite allegedly broken by Holtzman in your letter to the City nor your multiple media forays.
CONCLUSION:
An elected Council member and her flock- political adversaries of Mr. Holtzman-- solicited "no name" opinions from "attorneys" and "professionals" upon which they drew a legal conclusion that Planning Board Commissioner Holtzman has made a "material, ethical breach" of existing statutes and has publicized it in the press.
Sounds to me like Holtzman has a solid case for defamation. Because "no-name" attorneys and no-name" professionals" are not acceptable proofs in court. And other than ghost-opinions from "no-name" professionals upon which Fisher has drawn a legal conclusion, she has offered no evidence upon which to base her legal conclusion of Holtzman's alleged "material ethical" breach as cause upon which to base removal from a municipal board absolutely improper?
Elected officials with serious claims do not run to the press. They do not ask for "the mayor to remove him from the Planning Board" when the mayor has no legal authority to do so. That is the Council's jurisdiction.
Simply based on Fisher's fundamental ignorance of that basic fact GA would questions the existence of Fisher's alleged "land use attorneys" and "professionals." Surely they would have known that the mayor could not remove a sitting Planning Board member.
Simply based on Fisher's fundamental ignorance of that basic fact GA would questions the existence of Fisher's alleged "land use attorneys" and "professionals." Surely they would have known that the mayor could not remove a sitting Planning Board member.
Pay attention, Gary. Relying on ghost opinions from "no-names" means that Tiffanie Fisher and her flock have no actual, legal basis upon which to accuse you of a "material ethical breach" and to remove you for cause from the Planning Board.
Gary, before these clowns drag you before their tribunal, demand a LIST of NAMES of their "no-name professionals" and "no-name land use attorneys."
I'l bet if these "no-names" exist, they want contracts with Hoboken. Otherwise, why the "no-name basis?" This is a corrupt council.
Any "professional" who opined that this was a "material ethical breach" on a "no name basis" without ascertaining more facts (like does Gary have a financial relationship with the firm's listed) is guilty of a material ethical breach. Perhaps that's why they are unwilling to be named. Of course another possibility - more likely - is that the "opinion" is "Tiff's" not theirs since she is far better at listening to herself rather than listening to whoever she's talking to.
ReplyDeleteConsidering who Tiff helped put on the planning board and his long list of ethical problems she has been completely silent on, pardon me for not giving a crap what she thinks. She is full of crap, period, end of story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe several personalities fighting for space in my skull have concluded that in each individual's legal opinion this was not a material ethical breach. Therefore it wasn't. I will not be releasing any information on where each personality obtained its law degree or where it currently practices law or if it practices law currently.
ReplyDeleteSeems legit, right? Totes believable.
Ha ha! Wait until you hear where Tiffanie Fisher got her legal opinions from! Upon which she bases her hanging party for Gary Holtzman! To smear his good name in the press! Her hands need to be kept far off Hoboken's levers of power.
DeleteLet me guess, a box of cracker jacks? A fortune cookie? Some homeless dude sitting on a park bench drinking out of a container in a brown paper bag?
Delete