Today a comment and a rant. First the comment. A number of you have written me at rudyveritas@gmail.com asking about the post that's coming in 66 days. For those of you unfamiliar with what that number means in the upper right hand corner, it is a countdown until I publish the big Rudy story I have been keeping until the end. I hope I haven't over-hyped it based on your comments. Let me just say this. If you're expecting something akin to discovering, finally, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or revealing absolute proof that Oswald didn't act alone, then you are probably going to be disappointed. It's a post on a topic that has been of enduring interest to Rudy watchers and will shed light on a previously undisclosed episode of, I believe, significant account. So if you are anticipating evidence that the moon launches were actually filmed in Culver City - disappointment. If your expectations are more reasonable, I think you'll be fascinated.
Now the rant. Like many of you New Yorkers I have Con Edison as my electricity provider. I live in a small one-bedroom in a complex in Westchester. My apartment is all electric; water heater, stove, heat. I pay for it all, the building pays for none of it. I complained a few months ago to Con Ed about my bills, they were regularly over $200 a month. Well it turned out in the first instance that they were metering me wrong. This may be of interest to some of you as it turned out they were incorrectly metering 50% of the people in my complex. If you use electric heat to heat your home, you have to be charged a different rate than those who don't; a lesser rate. It's called S7 as opposed to S1, which is what the majority of you pay. S7 is also the rate for religious institutions. Well my bills have increased geometrically, even after I was switched to the correct lower rate. I started a few months ago to turn off all the electricity at the circuit breaker every morning when I left. I was told that things still sucked juice even when turned off.
Well it's winter and I have to heat my home. So for 12 hrs a day I use heat. The thermostat is either at 65 or down to 50 overnight. My apartment is always cold. My latest bill was for $400. It is unbelievable. I have brought in the Public Service Commission to investigate. But this rant is not about any of this. Con Ed at some point in the last few years has accomplished the most remarkable feat. I am charged a fee that is 100% above my electricity usage for them to 'supply' me with the electricity. If my electric usage is $100 worth of kilowatts, I am charged another $100 for them to 'supply' me with this. It may be the greatest scam any utility has pulled off. Can you fathom Time Warner or Cablevision charging you $80 a month for cable and then another $80 for 'supplying' the content through their fiber optic wires? Con Ed makes the case that they have to maintain their plants and that is what this is for. TW could claim that they have to air condition thousands of servers and it is costing them a fortune in electricity. But they don't. Why? Mainly because no one would stand for it. How does Con Ed get away with this? We in Westchester can't be the only ones suffering from this 'fee'. How is it that consumers are not marching on Albany? I remember when for $400 you could get 2 beds and 2 baths. Maybe I am too old but it's just ridiculous. I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone has on this. Sorry if I am abusing the blog for petty personal matters. But I am just fascinated by how this practice is permitted to exist and continue. Please post any thoughts in the comment section at the bottom of the page. Thanx.
3/5/09
First, let me say I think it's hysterical that according to the NY Post the FBI, DEA and ATF all took Monday off due to the snow. That is thousands of personnel who didn't show up to fight "The Terrorists", as GW would say. Clearly the average postman has more job dedication and perseverance than the tough Kevlar befitted, head shaved, goatee sporting tough guys who spend their days arresting pot dealers and pimps in the name of the federal government. Can anyone imagine the NYPD counter-terrorism unit taking a day off because of a few inches of snow? Clearly we should be shifting our resources in the "War on Terror" from the FBI to the USPS. At least we all got our mail on Monday.
Next, I have received a number of e-mails regarding the details of Fred Sawyers and Tom Robbins' fabricated chats that appeared in J'ACCUSE IV. I have been asked, "do I believe Fred"? Well, it goes without saying at this point that Fred is a pathological liar and a psychopath. But with that acknowledged, I do believe him. There is no question that he probably engaged in some blame shifting. I'm sure of that. However, I could list the myriad of things that Fred could not have known on his own that would confirm his contention that he received significant help in fabricating the chats, but let me give the most slam dunk example. In the chats Fred has me talking about my expenses in detail and my expense account in general. In the four years I knew Fred on-line the subject of expenses or expense account never came up once. If you accept that, then where could he have come up with the accurate examples he has me stating? He didn't FOIL HDC, we know that. Those specific examples were only known to Robbins since he had them as a result of his FOIL, long after I stopped speaking to Fred and after I left HDC. Prior to them being in the Voice those expense details were known to a handful of people none of whom knew Fred Sawyers and certainly not to Fred Sawyers himself. Fred himself says that he couldn't have written the chats on HDC expenses because he never knew them. Does it pass the smell test that these innocuous chats would be saved for, in some cases, 2-3 years as Fred claimed back in 2002? Who would do that? Even if one is nuts why save random meaningless chats for years? Since we now know I never told him any of the alleged illegal activities mentioned in the chats (i.e. bribes, prostitutes, gambling, etc.) of course he didn't save them because they never existed.
As I say, Fred may well be shifting some blame to Robbins but the sum and substance of his claims I believe are truthful. Is the Fred origin of chats story of 2002 more credible than the Fred story of 2005? I don't think so. Even psychopaths are capable of being truthful sometimes.
Lastly, a lot of people have asked why I didn't sue the Voice and Robbins. Some of you wrote me some very kind e-mails offering to help. I will explain why I didn't sue back then and what a mistake that was. I am just sticking to the chronological pace. It all gets explained.
3/2/09 PLEASE SEE NEW POST: J'ACCUSE - Part IV
2/24/09
First, let me say I was able to block those Bloomberg ads, so no more irony. I need to rant a little this morning. One of the worst aspects of doing time is the feeling of injustice. You'll read about cases similar or even much worse than your own and discover a much lighter sentence handed out or more lenient post release conditions. It's natural and common and all inmates go through it at some point. But it is the glaring examples of a totally corrupt and biased system that really rankles. I know there are hundreds of inmates at Devens FMC - a prison I was at - who are doing very hard time for minor sex crimes, the vast majority 'hands off.' This morning they are waking up to read about two cases, both federal; one in Texas and one in Connecticut. In the CT. case a Pfizer exec was found to posses child pornography and I take it also sent some. He was given 78 months in federal prison, ordered to pay $200,000 to a woman who has been identified as one of the girls in the images and will surely have to register for the rest of his life as a sex offender. He was not accused of any 'hands on' crime.
Then you have a federal judge - yes, a federal judge - who serially groped female court employees. When questioned about it by authorities, he lied and denied doing it. He was indicted by the feds for various sexual crimes and obstruction of justice for his lying. He cut a deal yesterday and was sentenced. In exchange for dropping all the sex charges he plead to the obstruction of justice. He will get less than three years in prison - he could have been sentenced to 20 - and not have to register as a sex offender. Has justice been served? Is society better protected as a result of the outcome of these two cases?
On the one hand you have a man who was never accused - and from what I can tell it was never suggested that he ever intended - of sexually assaulting anyone, minor or adult. He is getting nearly seven years in prison, registration for life and forced to pay $200k to someone he has never met nor caused the initial harm. On the other you have a man who was given one of the most exalted positions we can bestow in this society, that of federal jurist. He abused that position and assaulted a number of women in the workplace; directly, not indirectly, causing much shame and suffering, I am sure. He obviously cannot control himself. He went that extra leap from fantasy to action. Now he will do his modest time and when released retain his anonymity. None of his new neighbors will know that here is a guy who cannot keep his hands to himself. He will not be required to attend sex offender classes because those charges no longer exist. He will go to a Camp instead of a higher security prison since those charged with even the smallest sex offense are ineligible for a Camp. It's clearly good to be a federal judge.
If society is so morally outraged that we need to register and brand our citizens for certain crimes; if it has gone to that extraordinary step, then surely it simply cannot be that because of the old boys network so glaring an example of inequity exists. I don't believe in registration for anyone for anything. It is just plain wrong to do that in this country. But if you are going to do it can you administer and respect it with a straight face when it is making those prosecutors and judges who compile the lists into such hypocrites. I feel the pain this morning of those inmates at Devens who didn't study harder and become federal judges.
2/23/09
Please see new post - SENATE DAYS - Part I. Also there is an irony in that, as any regular reader to this blog knows, I do not support Mayor-for-Life Mike or his reelection. Yet Google Ads puts up huge banners for his campaign to the left of this post. I may have to take down the Google Ads. The irony is just a little too much for me.
Out of Touch
It's becoming way too easy to ridicule the Bloomberg Administration and Mayor-for-Life Mike himself. This weekend gave us all fresh evidence of just how wildly out of touch he and his agencies are. Any regular reader of this blog knows that I have said for awhile that it is a complete puzzlement to me why the electorate is so fond of a man who clearly disdains them. You need no more proof then Saturday's Daily News story. As Rudy did before him, Mayor-for-Life Mike likes to take his commissioners on the road to town hall meetings. Of course the obvious difference between his town halls and Rudy's is that in the old days you'd get answers to your questions from the commissioners or feel the wrath of RWG.
In the Bloomberg era the commissioners have no answers and the Mayor could care less that they provide any. That's bad enough. But Mayor-for-Life Mike, so serene in the coming plebiscite on his reign, doesn't even make the slightest effort now to hide his contempt for the citizenry. Person after person asked him serious questions dealing with painful issues most relating to the economy and its effect on some area of their life. Instead of, at a minimum, attempting to 'feel their pain', he mocked them and made jokes. He mocked one woman's concern about a water issue by telling her to get a plumber and then proceeded to tell a plumber joke. This was made worse by the fact that he ripped the joke off from Ronald Reagan who popularized it. It's an old joke having to do with a man who pays for his Soviet car 10 years in advance as he is required to do. When he goes to the ministry to give the money and get all his paperwork stamped he asks the official whether he should come back in the morning or afternoon. "Morning or afternoon?" The official exclaims. "What difference could it make, it's 10 years from now." The buyer responds, "It matters to me I've got the plumber coming in the morning." Actually much funnier than they way the Mayor told it. But the impression the audience came away with was that he isn't feeling any pain and he sure as hell can't or won't empathize with theirs.
Today's papers carry a story about a real Bloomberg Admin. boondoggle. The Economic Development Corporation (really the IDA) used post 9/11 Liberty Bonds to finance this idiotic Sports Museum near Wall Street. I work near that museum and can tell you that it was ill conceived and poorly planned. Any simple marketing study would have told you that the vast majority of tourists to the Wall Street area are foreigners. Why in the world would an Italian or a Japanese tourist pay $27 a head to see Ben Hogan's golf club or a rodeo star's saddle? Maybe if this thing had been located on upper or lower Fifth Avenue. OK. But Wall Street?
So the thing failed. It happens. But EDC apparently used $52 million dollars of tax-exempt bonds for this. Now what most people don't realize is that those bonds had a dual purpose, as does the recurring federal tax-exempt bonding under the 1986 Tax Reform Act. They can be used for either economic development or housing. Now I know from personal experience that housing developers kill for those bonds, and would have, had HDC had $52 million dollars in extra Liberty Bond financing. Think about the permanent middle-income housing that could have been created. Instead this museum, open and closed in 4 months. Those bonds are gone, cannot be reused. In a city where a recent study pointed out how unaffordable housing has become for the vast majority of New Yorkers, was this the wisest use of these bonds? A sports museum or permanent housing? I worked at both EDC and HDC and can appreciate the value of each. But prudence suggests that more care be shown in ones stewardship of this resource. As President of HDC I would regularly fight with Charlie Millard, President of EDC, about EDC's use of those bonds. He would hoard them hoping they would find uses for them. And when they couldn't would grudgingly hand them over to HDC at the last minute. That bonding authority, referred to as Volume Cap, expires annually on Dec 31. To HDC's great credit they always used whatever allotment they received. Even having received it from EDC one year on Dec. 23rd. It's worth asking now that it's over why a sport museum and not housing?
But the much larger problem is an old axiom of politics. You can't beat something with nothing. So far Weiner and Thompson are sadly amounting to nothing. Even with his 52% approval rating unless there is some coalition to defeat him it looks like four more years. I hope men and women of good faith come together to stop this man from perpetuating himself in office. I will say this though, I'm becoming more intrigued with Weiner's skillful Chuck Schumer like use of the populist weekend press conference. He makes a nice contrast to the out of touch Mayor-for-Life Mike. Maybe that's a start. We'll see.
2/20/09
As promised - a very rudimentary 'who's who' to help those having some difficulty following along. It will improve - I promise. CAST OF CHARACTERS
2/19/09
PAYBACK IS A BITCH
The New York Times reports today that Mayor-for-Life Mike is scrambling to repair his relations with the leaders of NY's political parties now that he has decided the plebiscite shall go forward. It is fun to see him have to humble himself. Eating a large plate of crow is not the usual fare served up on those gold charger plates in his mansion.
I'll go out on a limb here and make some early predictions. The Working Families Party will spurn him and nominate Bill Thompson. Although I have little regard for their platform they have proven themselves to be a party of principle. The Republican and Independence parties, however, are both for sale and will yield to his checkbook. I cannot even imagine the figures he is promising to donate and personally raise from his accountant and others for those two parties. To the leaders they must seem staggering. Clearly the Republican leaders don't remember 1981 when they nominated Democrat Ed Koch and not only weakened the party but received nothing in return. Nor do they seem to remember 2001 when they nominated Mayor-for-Life Mike and how that turned out for them. This will be a test for both the city and state leadership of my party. Have they learned anything from their dealings with him and from the election results. Is the state and city party still for sale? I predict the answer to that question will sadly be yes.
But just to show you what political putzes Mayor-for-Life Mike and his "Brain Trust" are, had he stayed a Republican he could have petitioned for a primary against whomever the county leaders put up. With his money and targeted get out the vote effort he would have surely won. He would have had a nice prominent spot on Column B. In fact, had he enrolled in any party he could have done the same thing. But as he is a registered independent, belonging to no party, he now requires a Wilson-Pakula authorization from the county leaders in order to appear on the ballot under their banner. Nice planning ahead. Way to go keeping your boy's options open, Kevin.
2/19/09
THANX FOR THE NOD
I want to thank Mayor-for-Life Mike and EDC President Seth Pinsky for the great compliment they paid me yesterday at the Mayor's unveiling of his new business revitalization plan. Didn't hear my name? Oh, it was there. You see the plan he announced yesterday is an update of two programs I initiated 12 years ago.
Hard to remember now but back in late 1996, early 1997, Lower Manhattan was a ghost town. Businesses were moving out and the 75-100 year old office buildings that marked the landscape were completely inappropriate for the new, coming Internet age. Moreover, with the exception of Battery Park City, no one actually lived in Lower Manhattan. Office building after office building was standing empty. Investors were buying them up for coin.
First came the Lower Manhattan Revitalization Plan drafted by Deputy Mayor Fran Reiter. It envisioned incentives to convert many of those buildings into housing. Then Sharon Greenberg and Anne Weisbrod from the Downtown Alliance came to see me at EDC. At that time I was Exec Vice President for Corporate Communications at the City's Economic Development Corporation. My department included a large marketing and creative services component. Moreover, we had a large budget with a lot of discretionary spending. The Alliance wasn't all that keen on remaking lower Manhattan into a new Peter Cooper Village or Stuyvesant Town (two large middle-income housing projects in mid-town Manhattan). They wanted to keep the focus on business not housing. I agreed with them. I couldn't see anyone seriously wanting to live in Lower Manhattan with absolutely no amenities or services (I still can't). So they proposed the outlines of a program that would entice landlords to invest in converting parts of their ancient Class B and Class C office stock into wired -Internet ready - office space. We take it for granted now, but back then it was very rare to find old space that had Internet access. Only new buildings or total rehabs were being wired.
In exchange EDC and the Alliance would market this space under a unified program and create a simple lease and program requirements. I think it was EDC's marketing division that came up with the name 'Plug N' Go' but it might have been the Alliance. The idea was to attract Internet start-ups and offer them small, wired, turn-key ready space for an attractive rent. The program initially centered around $11 a square foot space for offices that ranged from 150-350 sq.feet. Sharon and Anne would enlist the building owners and we would market and pay for the program.
To make a long story short 'Plug N' Go' was a huge success. Building after building signed up for the program and the tenants poured in. As the program and Fran's plan started to work we had to keep upping the price per sq.ft . Lower Manhattan was becoming a desirable address and the value of that space went up as well. As time went on more and more landlords opted out of the program because they were now able to rent large floors of their buildings for much higher rents than the program was offering. Additionally, many landlords who initially filed conversion plans to remake their office buildings into housing, withdrew those plans and opted instead to modernize the space for offices. But that was OK, that was the point of the program. We were happy to put ourselves out of business because the program had worked and achieved its objectives. As a conservative I was very proud of the fact that we had started a government program with a clear set of goals, met them, and then ended the program. How often do you see that happen?
'Plug N' Go' went on to win numerous awards and the Alliance would kindly credit me with co-creating it. EDC would eventually spend less than a million on the program. Looking back, what a great investment. We had kept the area business focused and help spawn many future IT successes.
Simultaneous to that, although independent of the program, we at EDC began a large, multi-million dollar, multi-media, marketing outreach to 7 business sectors that we deemed most promising. We designed a large marketing campaign, domestically and internationally, towards attracting businesses in those targeted sectors. It was also a huge success. Mayor-for-Life Mike and Pinsky are proposing a similar program now. I would advise them that rather than reinventing the wheel they just dig out our materials from a decade ago. I have no doubt they will not achieve the low cost per job or response that we did back then. They simply don't have the team capable of doing it. But I thank them none-the-less for the tip of the hat yesterday. Very kind.
UPDATE 2/18 - I neglected to add a crucial component to the piece I posted yesterday, J'ACCUSE - Part III. I have corrected that error. For the many of you who have apparently already read it, please go back and give it a second reading. In the next few days I will post Senate Days - Part I. Additionally, I will post Cast of Characters, a so far rudimentary background on many of the names mentioned in the various posts. I will work to improve and refine it in the days ahead.
2/17 - Please see the new post J'ACCUSE - Part III
2/13 - I have received a flood of positive reaction to the story of my case, J'ACCUSE. Two issues seem to pop-up in the responses. One, in a request relating to the Rudy pieces, is that I post some sort of index or biography giving background on the players and events mentioned. Since people all over the world are apparently reading this they are clearly not as familiar with who Peter Vallone was or how Peter Powers came into the picture, as those in New York City. In the next few days I will attempt to put up something that should help with that.
The second issue relates to the financial piece of my indictment and plea. Some seem troubled by the $417,000 and are not sure what to make of it. I've thought of breaking with the narrative and outlining now, in detail, what comprises that number and how unimaginable it is for me to have stolen $417,000 and why I plead to it. Further, I would have explained the significance of that number to the prosecution. Just as the number 11 is no accident in the number of images I was charged with - it has tremendous meaning - so the number $417,000 is no mere accounting sum.
But I decided to let the narrative play out and talk about these things in the context of the unfolding story. All I can say to you is this: I am not taking you on a journey only to wind up careening off a cliff at the last minute. Moreover, there will be no late reveal of any MacGuffin, as Alfred Hitchcock might say. There is no revelation of molestation of busloads of kids that no one has yet detected. There won't be an admission of a secret $10 Million dollars of HDC money stashed away somewhere. The injustices done me are total, complete and absolute. There is no hedge. I ask for your patience and trust, as I said on the 'WHY' page, until such time as I no longer deserve it. Veritas, my friends, Veritas.
2/11 - Here's my question for the day. Now that Mark Green has announced he wants his old job back, is anyone going to ask him about his affair with a member of his Intel detail the last time he was Public Advocate? If Tony Carbonetti was correct, and there's no chance he was not, shouldn't a public official sleeping with one of his assigned cops be asked about it? Is there possibly a judgment question at issue? Mark Green's private life is his own - I am the first to agree to that. But as silly as it is that the Public Advocate gets 24 hr. police protection, I think we would all agree that those cops should at least be protecting him and not shagging him instead (see original post PUBLIC LIFE).
DAILY NEWS STORY:
The NY Daily News ran a story about the issues mentioned in the 2/10 post below. I feel the need to comment on it. As people mistakenly tend to believe everything they read in the newspapers, there were factual errors in the piece that if I don't correct no one else will. Further, if I don't correct them and just it let pass, as has happened with dozens of stories on me, they will be believed as fact and I will be tagged with them forever. My policy is to always return reporters phone calls, I was in the PR business for 10 years after all. I make exceptions to that rule. One exception is that I generally do not deal with Daily News reporters. Tom Robbins was a reporter there for a few years and my experience throughout this matter has been that they carry his water. Some of the most vituperative and error filled pieces have been in the Daily News. I did not return this reporter's call, as he said. I found his piece to be fair and I am not complaining. But - there were some factual errors. I am not seeking to stop anyone from registering me. I could not if I wished. My issue was evidence to be used in the process, not stopping the process. The quotes regarding fairness and equity had to do with the U.S. Attorney not informing me, as they are legally and ethically bound to do, of papers they filed. Thereby depriving me of a chance to respond to the Court. That's it. I just want the record to be clear.
2/10
Something happened today that I need to comment on. As you know, if you read SORA Feelings, I am currently undergoing a registration process for sex offenders in Westchester County. The charge against me and what I plead to was possession of 11 images of child pornography. Unlike most court proceedings all evidence including here say and news reports can be used as evidence. The D.A. in Westchester attempted to obtain from my federal prosecutor information on my federal case including chats that they claim were taken from a computer of mine seven years ago. The federal prosecutor sent them along. I contacted my federal judge who has final say in these matters seeking clarification. I understood these chats to be sealed as they had never been proven to be authentic and had no evidentiary value since they were not part of the crime alleged. In the course of sending him this letter I sent a copy to the Government as I am required to do. Judge Kaplan ruled against me today stating, "he endorsed the Government's response of Feb 2".
The way you achieve fairness and equity in the justice system is everyone plays by the rules. When one side cheats, especially the more powerful side, there can be no justice. The Government - the federal prosecutor Dan Braun - never sent me a copy of their Feb. 2nd response as they are bound to do. Therefore, I had no ability to respond to it. The reason Judge Kaplan waited from Feb 2. until Feb 9th was to see if I had a response (this was an expedited matter so 7 days is in fact a long time). Of course I had no response, I wasn't aware there was anything of which to respond. The Government didn't send me their response and I couldn't comment. There's was the last word. This is not only cheating it is a serious violation of the rules of criminal procedure. The only reason I know about this at all is because a reporter called me asking for comment. I have another matter in Judge Kaplan's court and he appointed me a pro bono attorney. I have not heard from that lawyer in nearly four months so I was obliged to handle this matter myself as it clearly stated in the letter.
I'll describe at length the treatment received by me in Judge Kaplan's court during my case. As my then attorney remarked often he'd, "never seen anything like it." As part of J'ACCUSE, the story of my case, I have written and will be posting justice as I knew it in Lewis Kaplan's courtroom. Whether you think me a good guy or a scumbag I am fully prepared to let you be the judge as to whether or not I received a fair shake after you read my story. Not a single person familiar with what went on in that courtroom for 2 1/2 years believes I received anything approaching justice. But as I said, after you hear me out, I am happy to let you decide.
People have told me, reporters included, that I am crazy if I tell the truth about my case. I still have ongoing matters before Judge Kaplan and it would be suicidal to lay out what happened. Well, I promised to tell the truth when I started this blog and while it is not only possible but assured that I will be harmed by it, I stand by that commitment. I have been as frank as possible about others. It would be self serving and cowardly to do otherwise when it comes to myself. Veritas, friends, Veritas.
2/10/09
Today I am beginning a countdown to posting the Big Story that I have promised . 90 days from today I will post that piece. I can promise it will be worth the wait. You will see a number on the top right counting down daily. In the meantime, during the coming weeks some of the pieces I will be posting include: the '89' campaign, commonly referred to as The Zoo; including the background on the Dinkins Love Letters. I will recount some stories of my days in the US Senate working for Al D'Amato. I will also be describing life during the nearly seven years we had to endure Cristyne Lategano. That piece is entitled, 'Reign of Terror'. Plus, of course, the continuing story of my case, J'ACCUSE. I think you'll find it all worth sticking around for.
New Post 2/9/09
Today I continue the story of my case with J'ACCUSE - PART II
New Post:
HERE IS A PIECE I WROTE A FEW MONTHS AGO AND NEVER POSTED. NOTHING EARTH SHATTERING BUT AS RUDY GETS MENTIONED AS A POSSIBLE CHALLENGER TO SEN. GILLIBRAND I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT FIND REVEALING HIS LEVEL OF INTEREST IN FOREIGN POLICY. THE MAJOR & THE MAYOR.
Also don't forget to look at J'ACCUSE - Part I. The beginning chapter in the story of my case. Part Two will appear Monday.
Lastly, Monday I will begin the countdown to the promised piece that I mentioned awhile back. It will surely be the most revealing piece posted on this site - or anywhere else for that matter - about Rudy Giuliani.
I lied, one more thing..I just found out that the folks at HDC are trying to pin a phony rap one me. Comptroller DiNapoli has done an audit of HDC's Board structure and governance. It emerged that one of the board members, Michael Kelly, had been added to the corporation's health coverage in September 2001. Board members are not permitted to receive compensation (health coverage having a substantial value qualifies as compensation). No question that I was president in September 2001, the corporation wouldn't have recovered so quickly after 9/11 had I not been. But I never put Michael Kelly on HDC's insurance and moreover he never asked me to. Frankly, had he I probably would have, but he never asked me. He was going through tough times back then having recently lost his job. Further, Sr. VP Luke Cusack - scapegoat number 2 - surely wouldn't have added him without talking to me. This is as they used to say, 'a put up job'. My guess is that he was put on after I left and for some reason, possibly health issues, was put on retroactive to 9/01. Either that or it was done so it would appear as though I did it. Since no one wants to fess up to having done this they're blaming me. The corporation's leadership makes a point of saying no one from management of that era is still around to ask. As I said to a reporter when asked about this matter, the person who knows the answer is David Brown, VP of Human Resources. I assume he's still there and if not can be easily reached. It doesn't matter how many Exec VPs or Sr VPs have come and gone, the person who would have actually made it happen was David Brown. His name is conveniently left out of that report. Ask him who instructed him to do it. Wasn't me.
1/22/09
My father used to tell me that I preface too much. Well for those of you not interested in my relationship and views of NY Yankees President Randy Levine and want to go straight to today's new post, you can click here - Trusting Randy Levine. It concerns the deal done by EDC & the IDA in 1997 for Bear Stearns at the behest of then Deputy Mayor Randy Levine. Come back and read this section later if you decide to skip it now. You might find some of it interesting.
I have known Randy Levine and his wife, Mindy Franklin, since 1989. I met them during Rudy's 1989 campaign. I was there the night they got engaged. For some bizarre reason - and completely without romance - Randy proposed in one of the dusty back offices at Radio City, the campaign HQ. For a few years I was Mindy's closest friend. She had a lot of acquaintances in her life but very few friends. For nearly two years we would meet nearly every weekday to work out at the gym and have lunch afterward. Mindy is a deeply troubled soul. Coming from a broken home following her adoption left her an emotional basket case. She has a good heart and can demonstrate it but she is the most insecure person I have known. Her judgment - especially on matters political - was the worst. She had great sway over Randy. Rudy, out of Randy earshot, would often refer to it as the "Mindy Problem." Randy suggesting something that everyone knew had come from his wife. It was usually some harebrained idea but Randy couldn't see that.
Most people who know them aren't aware that Mindy is actually Randy's second wife. He was married at a young age to a girl from his hometown on Long Island. Mindy hated this woman; she considered her white trash. That contributed to the strange schism in her mind about her fiance/husband. She loved Randy but she was also embarrassed by him. He was this very outgoing, middle class, Jewish guy from L.I. Mindy was this very outwardly appearing well brought up girl from society Milwaukee. Hers was the kind of upbringing where you would deny your racism by citing the names of your black acquaintances, usually the maid. Mindy saw Randy as a guy who wore see-through mesh shirts and drove a Pontiac Fiero, both of which he had owned. For some reason that Fiero was the kiss of death for her. It seemed to sum up all the work she had ahead of her in making him into something presentable. His parents and sister hated her for the airs she put on although she made considerable efforts to try and win them over. However, she hated them right back for being, in her view, so low-class. In her mind they were what contributed to Randy's lagging upbringing and would continue to do so as long as they remained in his life. She was constantly telling him in subtle ways what a bad mother his sister was or how bad his parents were compared to hers.
But Randy hit the jackpot with Mindy. He wanted to be molded and shaped, like a Gumby. He was open to it and extremely protective of her. Many don't realize it was Mindy's family connections that got Randy inside Major League Baseball. Her family had contacts with Brewers owner Bud Selig. It was through their efforts that Randy first landed MLB business for his law firm, Proskauer, Rose.
At some point towards the middle of Rudy's second term Randy had come to view himself not only as a savvy political guy, but as a latter day Robert Taft - Mr. Republican. Tony and I would often ponder what it was exactly that made Levine think he had political smarts. He came into frequent conflict - always behind-the-scenes, never face to face - with Ray Harding over Rudy's future. Randy believed that Rudy's future lay with the national republican party and therefore, Rudy had to position himself much further to the right in order to meet their expectations and win the base. Randy was always working to try and bring Rudy closer to Pataki, D'Amato and later, Bush. Randy worked very hard to maintain good relations with the Pataki people. I mean for himself, naturally, not for Rudy. Tony and I would marvel at the schemes Levine would hatch to forge Giuliani-Pataki alliances, only to be thwarted by Ray. What made Randy so mad, and Tony and I saw through him every time, was that these schemes, while ostensibly about Rudy, were merely ways for Randy to suck-up to the Pataki people. What infuriated him was that he was incapable of delivering. When the Pataki people wanted something serious, Kieran Mahoney would reach out to Ray and then Ray to Rudy. Nobody went through Levine, though he kept trying.
Ray believed the opposite about Rudy's prospects. He saw Rudy as a once in a generation type political leader. It was his independence from the party that Ray believed made Rudy so potentially appealing across a wide national spectrum. Ray and Randy went at it often, using surrogates or private Rudy meetings to make their case. Ray won almost all those pre-9/11 battles. Ray's arguments and Rudy's natural tendency not to be a tag-along helped win the day.
There are two ironies to this. First, is that we have now seen fully realized the Levine plan for Rudy played out nationally. It was of course an abysmal failure. It sucked everything out of Giuliani that made him unique and memorable. It destroyed years and years of hard work to make him out to be America's Mayor and the man who tamed NYC. He's now perceived as an anti-abortion, right wing zealot, who belittles the president. The only Republican presidential candidate this year who thought the Cheney model for the Vice Presidency was worth repeating. Randy Levine's political instincts were, as we knew then, always tone deaf. This model helped destroy 8 years of proven success, one heroic response to the greatest terrorist attack and all the hard work that went into getting people to like Rudy even at his most cantankerous. All shot to hell.
The greater irony was that all this jingoistic right wing rallying would be coming from a man who committed the greatest sin any Republican alive today could commit. The great revered figure in our party is not Lincoln, of course, but Ronald Reagan. No greater treason could be had than to publicly embarrass Reagan while in office. But of course that's just what Levine did. Many now forget, and he'd prefer they forget, that he made a very public display of quitting his job at the Justice Department to protest Reagan not firing Ed Meese, the then Attorney General. It was a huge slap at Reagan. Not the sort of behavior Republicans easily forget .
If you've read the Levine/Bear Stearns post then you know of Randy's casual disdain for rules. While at City Hall and because of his COB waiver, he was routinely FOILd (NYC's Freedom of Information Law) by the press for his appointment calendars (I had this done to me regularly as well when I was at City Hall and EDC). Reporters wanted to see if he was having baseball meetings and with whom. Now there are a lot of ways to defeat a FOIL request within the rules. Obviously many more outside the rules. I have done both but I became pretty adept at finding the weakness in the language that could legitimately defeat almost any FOIL request. But Randy Levine couldn't be bothered wasting the time. When his appointment books were FOILd he simply had Denny Young's office - who coordinated those requests - tell the reporter that he didn't keep an appointment book.
In all my years in government I only knew one public official who genuinely did not keep an appointment book. That was Bill Diamond, Rudy's Commissioner of the Dept. General Services (now DCAS). And he did that specifically to avoid FOILs. He had his secretary use Post-Its, I believe. Now, I know as a fact - I'd seen it - that Randy's secretary kept an appointment book. It would be unimaginable that a deputy mayor kept no written record of his appointments. You couldn't do that job without keeping track of your meetings, lunches, dinners and functions. But Randy just figured that there was nothing the reporter could do. Which was correct. They can't barge into your office and snatch your records. It merely reflects again his belief that the everyday rules don't apply to him. It was a brazen claim to make; that you had no record, past or present, of your business.
I do, in fact, believe that the FOIL process is abused. The majority of requests I received over eight years were simply to harass me. There was no good government purpose. But in the Levine case there certainly was concern by the press that he was using his public office to enrich himself personally. Not with graft, per se, but by using the power of his office to influence government decisions in ways to benefit his past and future clients. That was certainly a concern which was, as I have demonstrated, well founded.
But if you want to see the true character of the man, you only have to look at the testimony he gave before Ass. Richard Brodsky's committee. The personal attacks and hoodlum like behavior were classic Levine. He demonstrated again that he truly believes he does not have to account, ever, for his actions. He was affronted that Brodsky, or anyone apparently, should question him or the Yankees about this money and these bonds.
It's funny. Mindy used to revel when Randy put on this sort of tough guy act. It's supposedly every woman's fantasy - the bad boy. What she could never comprehend was that he didn't look tough, he looked low-class. It seems after all her work over two decades he's still the same crude, ill mannered, middle class, foul mouthed, jewish boy from L.I. she worked so hard to remake into a goyim society gentleman.
Some things clearly aren't worth the effort.
New Post - 'SORA Feelings' 1/12/09
INAUGURATION 1/20/09
I have to assume that 20 or 30 or more people must have read Pres. Obama's inaugural address before he delivered it. It cannot be that a putzy felon, like myself, was able to catch the glaring historical inaccuracy as it came out of his mouth that all his vetters missed. We have had 44 presidents. However, only 43 Americans have taken the oath (Grover Cleveland was 22 & 24). It is correct to say that the oath has been given 44 times or that we have had 44 presidents. It is not correct to say, as Obama did, that he is the 44th American to take it. It's a minor point perhaps, but you would think that the opening line of a presidential address - the first one he gives - might actually be historically accurate. It's worrisome that his staff did not catch this error before he uttered it. It doesn't bode well for White House staff work on larger issues. If any of you disagree with me, let's call Bill Safire and get a ruling.
The speech? I have said before that I do not think he is a great orator. His speeches are like cotton candy; they evaporate quickly but taste nice at the moment. Also they are not memorable. Can anyone remember a single line from his convention speech? But that's OK. Presidents don't have to be great orators. He gave a nice address. I thought he should have added a line after listing all the battlefields that "those soldiers didn't die in defense of the concept of a Unitary Executive." However, if he lives up to all this 'new way of doing business' and 'return to adherence to the Constitution' rhetoric that will be a great start. But we'll see. It's early days yet.
Let me first say I assume Bernie Madoff is guilty because he doesn't really deny it. Did he run a giant Ponzi scheme? Seems so. Should he go to prison for a long stretch after a plea or conviction? Sure, why not? The question consuming the tabloid media at the moment, however, is should he remain free pending the resolution of this case. The answer, thus far, is clearly yes. The point of bail is many fold: To make sure you appear in court for your hearings and trial - basically that you do not flee; to ensure you no longer continue the alleged criminal behavior that lead you to this moment; that you pose no danger to society; and lastly - not true in every case but certainly in this one - that your freedom does not facilitate disposition of your assets before the government can account for them. Let's check these off. Bernie going anywhere? Ankle bracelet, 24 hour guards, a ravenous pack of reporters trailing his every move. Doesn't seem likely. Can he continue his alleged Ponzi scheme? Is someone going to invest money with Bernie Madoff? You really don't need me to answer this. Does he pose a danger to society by his presence amongst us? He has no previous criminal record and I really cannot see an argument that he poses any danger to society. Lastly, is he systematically disposing of his assets? What we know factually is that his wife sent some jewelery and family heirlooms to relatives. At his direction? Perhaps. Was she prohibited by the Magistrate's order from doing so? In fact, she wasn't. It was a badly worded order that should have included her. But it didn't. So toughen the existing order so it is loophole free. It pisses off the US Attorney's office that they screwed this up. That is why they are now coming at him the way they are. Whether or not he had $170 Million in checks prior to his arrest is immaterial to me. I am sure he intended lots of things prior to the admission to his sons of his swindle. The question in these matters is whether he will, would or did dispose of assets. Did he defy the order of the court? I can see no rational reason for denying this man bail based on what we know of the jewelery episode. One million dollars in jewelery is no big deal at this level of wealth. It is just a few pieces.
Andrea Peyser maintains that this man belongs in jail. Not for the jewelery but just because lots of people were swindled and it affronts her that he is free and living in a penthouse. It is a sentiment widely shared. He may very well belong in jail for the crimes he's been arrested for. But we have a process in this country and although it works increasingly less well, it should be followed. There is no reason for anyone to be in jail if they meet the above requirements pending trial. We don't believe in mob rule and that is what is taking hold in the Madoff case. I readily admit my sympathies for his victims are limited. Very wealthy, sophisticated people who invest money in a fund that guarantees high returns in down markets, charges no fees and prints its statements on dot matrix printers, don't get tons of tears from me. They were as greedy as he was for being so blindly stupid. That is no defense for him and he will almost surely plead or be convicted and get a lengthy term of imprisonment. But why does it have to happen today? If he's not rotting at the Metropolitan Correction Center until next fall are we somehow harmed as a society? Except to the braying pack, I cannot see how.
Comments