Eric Dixon Law: Reporting On Crime, Politics and Policy

Chris Christie: Using Your Political Cannibal

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sun, 19 May 2013 13:18:00 +0000

Former New Jersey Governor Brendan Byrne is quoted in this morning's Newark Star-Ledger suggesting that presumed Democratic Party gubernatorial nominee Barbara Buono drop out of the race. This may be smart for Buono, whose political career outside Union County would surely be ended by the impending landslide. But this ignores the larger issue. Why is Chris Christie still courting the most liberal of Democrats, labor unions and so on when he is up 30 points, his opponent is on fumes and a third party candidate (yet to emerge) could actually come in second? When you have political capital, you use it. Use it or lose it. But Christie is using this capital to move to the left. Why? Is he trying to become a Democrat? Is he paving the way to actually switch parties? If Christie were a genuine conservative (or even a moderate Republican) he would use that huge lead in the polls and fundraising to outline a Republican/conservative vision of the future. He would lead his party and develop its base. That is what Republican leaders do, especially when they are in dark blue states where Obama won by 17 points and Bob Menendez just got reelected by 19 points. Christie refuses to do that. Instead, he persists in building his own base with Democrats. He is building his party. But all indications, all the evidence, points to that being the Democratic Party. If you closed your eyes and ignored the party label, you would just never think he was a Republican. He will be reelected; that is not in doubt. But he is developing a huge margin of victory -- at the expense of the Republican Party. Instead of using his political capital, he is acting like a political cannibal. Perhaps Christie is simply not interested in building any Republican Party. It explains the effusive praise to Obama right before the election. It explains the self-centered convention keynote speech, which thankfully got eclipsed by an Empty Chair. It explains why Christie accepts endorsements from Democratic mayors and leaves their Republican opponents hanging. With these actions, do you want Christie's handpicked people running the Republican State Committee the next four years? Do you want his people keeping a state party dormant so Republicans -- other than Christie, naturally -- keep on losing? That's why I am running for Republican State Committee. New Jersey deserves a real Republican Party.

IRS Scandal Could Empower Government Radicals Even More

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:35:00 +0000

The IRS-Tea Party scandal is evidence that the government cannot be trusted to apply the laws evenly and fairly. But anyone viewing this as a partisan event is totally missing both the point and the danger to the nation.

This is not a crisis of minor importance; it strikes at the very legitimacy of the government's authority. For the scandal will give credence to many opinions and theories, including those from the uninformed, unintelligent or unhinged. The fringe opinions will cry that "law abiding" citizens need not obey a tyrannical regime, and so on. The danger of these sentiments is their propensity to encourage civil disobedience, general unrest and a decline in respect for legitimate authority. Hence, the IRS scandal moves the nation towards disrespect for the law and lends credence to those who would encourage lawlessness if not outright anarchy.

The shame, of course, is that such conditions may create a society most ripe for the expansion of government power and centralized government control as the people cry for order and safety in the face of disorder and growing chaos. That outcome, my friends, may be precisely the result intended by radical elements both within and outside the Administration, and on all segments of the political / ideological spectrum.

Beware of those who seek to profit from the chaos. Beware of the false prophets. The profiteers will be in all shapes, sizes and stripes. As bad as the specters of a politicized Internal Revenue Service and of political bias causing some to have health care delayed, denied or insufficiently reimbursed under ObamaCare, let us not forget that the dangers of government overreach have been with us for decades. Overregulation, overcriminalization and overzealous government employees have routinely been the handmaidens for government's improper power, authority and discretion.

The solution will not be more laws, more regulations or more internal compliance. (Expect all to be suggested to fix the problem.) The problem with government is the mindset of the people whom it employs.

Fixing the mindset may take decades. But the risk to the people and nation, being as it emanates from people within government, can most efficiently be reduced by reducing the number of people within government from whom the risk originates. A solution -- imperfect as it may ultimately prove -- involves shrinking the size of government and the scope of its authority and control. Once the responsibilities and mandates of government have been reduced, the number of people required to accomplish a smaller mission may then be reduced accordingly.

Christie to GOP: Drop Dead!

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:50:00 +0000

A pro-Chris Christie political website in New Jersey finally gets it. There's a Chris Christie trend line in New Jersey politics, and it runs away from Republicans.

Christie's praise for Democrats ends up screwing Republicans and especially conservatives who are unfortunate enough to be on the ticket with Christie at the top this November.

This explains the apparent incongruity, why Christie can tout himself as a "new Republican" who can win in a blue state, while Obama carried the state by 17 points just six months ago. It explains why Christie can lead a very liberal Barbara Buono by 30 points for Governor, yet six months ago a somewhat scandal-tarred Bob Menendez wiped the floor with Republican Joe Kyrillos.

It's all because Christie governs and campaigns as a liberal. This explains the lukewarm keynote speech, the effusive praise for Obama on the beach six days before the election, and so on.

This explains why the national media fawn over Christie.

This explains why Christie does and says many things which indicate he sympathizes with liberal Democrats, and which point to his running as a Republican for sheer political expediency.

To anyone in the nation thinking Chris Christie is the Great Post-Partisan Hope who can "win" in 2016 should he run for President (thought to be a foregone conclusion), the foregoing should raise several huge red flags.

Surviving Second-Term Scandals

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:03:00 +0000

The current "perfect storm" of scandals swirling around President Obama is unlikely to result in serious damage to his Administration or to his resignation or impeachment, if history is any guide.

Two of the last three two-term presidents were extremely popular. Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and William J. Clinton had high approval ratings and personal popularity with the public. Nevertheless, both sustained serious scandals that (some hoped) threatened to ruin or prematurely end their presidencies. But both survived and arguably strengthened their reputations and popularity in the process.

Exhibit A -- Iran-Contra, which had reporters predicting impeachment or resignation in November 1986.

Result: Reagan served out the rest of his term. Televised hearings the following summer introduced us to Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who parlayed his 15 minutes of fame into several serious candidacies for U.S. Senate and to a radio talk show career. Reagan withdrew from public life in 1994 after announcing he had Alzheimer's, but remained very beloved. In fact, he was so beloved that the evening after his passing in June 2004, Canadians gave him a moment of silence before Game 6 of that year's Stanley Cup Finals in Calgary, Alberta. Americans driving to see him laying in state at the Capitol had to park their cars on a major highway leading to the Capitol and walk several miles to complete their journey.

Exhibit B -- Monicagate, where real perjury (resulting in President Clinton's disbarment!) was obscured by the salacious, led to similar predictions of regime change.

Result: Clinton served out the rest of his term. In fact, some of his most ardent pursuers -- House Speaker Newt Gingrich and longterm congressman Bob Livingston (R-LA) -- resigned over the course of their pursuit of Clinton. After leaving office, Clinton remained (and remains) beloved, so beloved that the nation virtually stopped when it was announced he was undergoing quadruple bypass surgery at the relatively young age of 57 in 2004.

Is Eric Holder Obstructing Justice By Guiding IRS Officials To Remain Silent

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 15 May 2013 21:32:00 +0000

PERJURY IS A CRIME SO -- WINK, WINK -- IF YOU SAY NOTHING WE CAN'T PROSECUTE YOU. Attorney General Eric Holder reminds IRS officials that the laws against false statements (used to convict Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby) may be used against them in any criminal investigation of the IRS scrutiny of Tea Party and other conservative organizations.

Of course, this is both legally sound advice -- you can't get prosecuted for NOT saying anything -- and quite possibly a coded message that these officials should not say anything for precisely that reason. One wonders if the intent of this message was precisely to discourage anyone from testifying. (Again, this is legally sound advice for the officials, who would definitely risk criminal prosecution for false statements for saying anything. See my analysis on why saying anything to the feds puts you at risk of prosecution, which was recently picked up by constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley's blog.) Remove the cover of the legally colorable advice, and you are on the slippery slope towards witness intimidation. In the parlance of the federal criminal code, this could even be viewed as a form of obstruction of justice.

Why Talking To The FBI Is Not A Good Idea

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sat, 11 May 2013 15:43:00 +0000

It's unfortunate, but talking with law enforcement is usually not a good idea.

Here's a new article on the blog of CNN commentator and George Washington University Law School constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. The article quotes me and links to one of my earlier articles on the same topic.

Non-Citizen Voting Amnesty Bill Considered In New York City

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Thu, 09 May 2013 15:17:00 +0000

The nation's largest city may soon have a new and large voting bloc: non-citizens.

A bill to allow non-citizens, who are legally present in the country, to vote in municipal New York City elections is being considered by the New York City City Council's Committee on Immigration today. This bill, originally introduced in 2010, has been co-sponsored by a majority of the City Council and would increase the number of registered voters in New York City with those who are visa holders or permanent residents (those with "green cards").

The language of the bill would allow anyone who has been "lawfully present" in the City for at least six months by the date of the election to vote in a City election for citywide offices and city council representatives.

Of course, the existing status quo gives lip service to the citizenship requirement for voting, as enforcement and efforts at detection are virtually nonexistent. In short, the citizenship requirement is presently honored in the breach. This bill would therefore ratify a system of illegal voting already in place.

I believe this bill, if passed and enforced, would pose Constitutional issues and would be ripe for a court challenge. Allowing non-citizens to vote presents the risk of vote dilution of the votes of citizens.

The practical effects of this bill are alarming. If one presumes that non-citizens consist primarily of low-income, less-educated people, the bill increases the number of voters who can vote for candidates who will promise (and deliver to) them an increased amount of government services. The burden upon the tax base -- employees, homeowners and small business owners, this means you -- will grow. And the impetus for these groups to leave New York City will similarly increase.

New York City is already a heavily Democratic city, so the need for this bill to achieve a power shift is not readily apparent along political party fault lines. However, within the electorate and particularly within each political party (particularly the Democratic and Working Families Parties), a change in the composition of a party's voters can result in a competitive advantage for candidates who can mobilize noncitizens to be an effective voting bloc. Then again, I suspect this has long been happening already but no one has been checking regularly on the citizenship status of newly registered voters.

This is horrid public policy and can only lead to a deteriorating, slowly imploding New York City.

Terrorist Mom's Objection on Sentencing: Chutzpah Plus Arrogance

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Thu, 09 May 2013 06:12:00 +0000

On the afternoon of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack (April 15th), two northern New Jersey men were sentenced in Newark federal district court to prison terms of in excess of 20 years for terrorism-related charges (technically, the charge was conspiracy to damage property of a foreign government).

As the sentencing occurred at roughly the same time as the bombing, the defendants' lawyers pointed out the prospect of prejudice in the sentencing. This was -- on the facts -- stretching the bounds of properly zealous representation.

But now the mother of one of the defendants claims that her son's harsh sentence was due to the bombing.

This claim shows absolute chutzpah. However, the facts surrounding the case and the claim really show how ridiculous -- and disrespectful and insulting -- the mother is.

The sentencing of this woman's son, and his co-defendant, was scheduled months in advance -- January 11, 2013 at 10:00 am, to be exact. (Source: federal district court docket.) The report from the court shows that the sentencing hearing for these two convicts began at 1:30 PM on April 15th. The Boston Marathon bombing occurred minutes before 2:00 PM on April 15th. For the mother's claim to pass the laugh test, one would have to suspend the sense of disbelief and accept the possibility that within minutes of the bombing, that news reached a closed courtroom and influenced the federal judge to jack up the sentences. One would further have to believe that the judge's sentencing decisions were not already fairly set based on the objective facts, plus the sentencing memoranda submitted by the Justice Department and the lawyers for each defendant. It is just ridiculous.

The mother's claim is a new height (or low) of audacity, that her son's guilty plea to a terrorism charge ENTITLED him to a postponement of sentencing because of an unrelated (at least that's the presumption) terrorist attack that occurred after the hearing began. This is rubbish. It is ridiculous -- and frankly, frivolous and warranting sanctions on the lawyer bringing this up -- to make this claim.

This woman is entitled to her feelings, to her shame. But she is not entitled to her facts. And she is not entitled to have the nation, the same nation her son attacked and victimized, show contrition and honor such an offensive claim. Enough.

GOP State Committee: The First Vote in 2016.

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:44:00 +0000

YOUR FIRST VOTE IN 2016. Anyone with the bladder control to filibuster for nearly 13 hours deserves lots of respect.

But if New Jersey Republican leaders have their way, Rand Paul -- or Marco Rubio -- or Sarah Palin -- won't get a fair shot in the 2016 presidential primaries.

If history is any guide, the 2016 primary will be a rigged game where backroom leaders choose for us who our nominee will be. And that's exactly what they did in 2012, making New Jersey a winner take all state to discourage all contenders (except Mitt Romney) from competing in the state's June primary.

You can imagine the arm-twisting that will happen if New Jersey Governor Chris Christie -- whose man-hug and effusive praise of President Obama six days prior to the election, and infamous convention keynote speech were exercises in narcissism not to be forgotten.

This is wrong on so many levels.

That's why I'm running for NJ Republican State Committee from Hudson County -- and there's actually a primary so I need your help to campaign, buy radio time, even pay the board of elections to reprint ballots.

This is about winning, changing things and fighting for a fair shot.

And amazingly, you can contribute anonymously to the campaign. New Jersey campaign finance law exempts from disclosure all contributions to campaigns for state or county party committee seats. There is also no FEC reporting. Mail all checks to Dixon Victory Fund, c/o Eric Dixon, P.O. Box 7748, North Bergen NJ 07047.

Problems With SEC Whistleblower Program

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 03:33:00 +0000

The New York Times reports in its Wednesday editions about various missteps and infrequent successes of its still-young whistleblower program for people who discover or uncover suspected fraud or other corporate wrongdoing.

Of course, there are some serious and highly problematic exceptions to the program, as I detailed back in 2010. I also wrote in 2011 that the SEC's proposal -- since implemented as part of the Dodd Frank financial reform law -- would help to intimidate whistleblowers instead of successfully bringing them and their information out from the shadows.

Narcissism Explains Why We Are Vulnerable To Terrorism

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:21:00 +0000

As I write this, metro Boston is in a total lockdown as a manhunt continues for one of the (at least) two suspects in Monday's Boston Marathon terror attack.

The suspect -- as well as his brother, the second suspect shot dead earlier this morning -- is reported to be a young man from the Central Asian (and former Soviet republic) nation of Chechnya.

Chechnya is a heavily predominant Moslem country which, when it was a Soviet republic, caused huge headaches for the USSR. Both brothers are reported to have entered the United States about a year ago.

It is not impolitic to ask how these young men got here. In fact, if defending the populace is the greatest concern, the question is not merely imperative.

It is mandatory.

Some will hesitate to ask it. Others will do so, sheepishly.

It is time -- it has been time, actually, for a very long time -- to ask what values cause many of us to hesitate or refuse to ask the question, much less to ignore the answers.

Many of us are afraid of being called intolerant, intemperate, even nativist or worse, racist.

The "other side" does not hesitate for a moment to impute the vilest of motives to those with whom they disagree. This has caused their opponents -- their targets -- to hesitate to say, to ask, to do the things necessary for the maximum protection.

The fear of criticism, of being tarred with "the vilest of motives," has collectively caused us to lower our guard.

That is all because we have placed a higher value on what others think of us, or at least on avoiding a stinging rebuke if not societal disapproval, than on homeland security.

It is because we have become, we are in fact, too concerned about the "us," the "me."

Being overly concerned about others' perceptions or opinions of us is what the psychiarists call a form of outerdirectedness. However, this often leads with encouragement to selfishness and then to outright narcissism. This is a mental disorder and makes one generally a toxic person.

This extreme narcissism has led many of us to place a higher value on the approval of others than on mutual security. It places a higher value on one's feelings than on the outcome which results.

It is the opposite of leadership, of compassion, to have this view.

We will only be safe from terror when we stop thinking only about ourselves. It is a sign of charity, of maturity, to sacrifice one's feelings and risk the disapproval of others (however undeserved it may be) in order to ask the important, necessary questions in furtherance of the protection and security of oneself, of one's family, of one's neighbors and friends.

The battle against terror, you see, is all about values.

Cuomo's Election Law Reform May Be Unconstitutional

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:29:00 +0000

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed some election law reforms Tuesday, including proposals that voters be allowed to change political parties much closer to the primary election (good) and candidates be allowed to run in the primary elections of parties in which they do not belong (very bad). The latter proposal may be animated by the recent federal indictments of some elected officials and Republican Party leaders for trying to rig the mayoral endorsements by certain New York City party county leaders for this year's primary election.

Currently, a voter who already has picked a political party and wants to switch parties to vote in next year's primary must make the change by approximately the first week of October of this year. This policy is called deferred enrollment, has been in place for decades and, according to the 1970 Supreme Court decision in Rosario v. Rockefeller, was upheld as constitutional despite the burden on voters.

The court cited concerns about "party raiding," a phenomenon whereby voters not truly allied with a party could "invade" the target party and tip the election to a favored -- or disfavored candidate. Such machinations do occur and are legal -- in fact, such maneuvering occurs to some degree in virtually every election cycle as partisans try to make sure the other (major) party puts up the weakest candidate. Every other state allows voters to switch parties much closer to the primary election.

As for the latter concern, allowing candidates to "invade" political parties in which they do not belong raises concerns about the voters' right of association, that is, the right to ally with people with whom they share (presumably) some sort of ideology (to the extent ideological commonality may be inferred from a common political party enrollment). This raises a serious First Amendment issue and would be ripe for an immediate challenge on constitutional grounds. The proposal may permit stronger out-of-party candidates (such as wealthy candidates like you know who) to drown out competing voices from within a party, and by extension, to drown out the voices of average voters already enrolled in their party. In other words, this proposal could largely negate the importance or value of party enrollment and turn primaries into just another haphazard preliminary round of the electoral playoff.

This is not to say that the current system, which allows county leaders and sometimes state party leaders to cherrypick favored candidates from outside with a special endorsement called a Wilson-Pakula certificate, is without its flaws. However, at least the current system affords some sense of accountability by party leaders to their constituents from within the party.

Cuomo's proposal appears to be hasty, made as a move to pander to the "reform" elements of the public and to garner applause from certain good-government groups and the news media. That doesn't make it good policy. This recipe needs to be sent back to the kitchen.

Eric Dixon is a New York attorney who specializes in investigative and regulatory law and handles election law for various candidates. Mr. Dixon is not presently affiliated with or engaged by any New York City candidate or political party.

New York CIty's Return To The 1980s

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:46:00 +0000

If recent crime statistics are an indication (and they are), New York City may be returning to the ugly, pre-Giuliani years of rampant violent crime, when Gotham was less Sex and the City and more The Warriors.

Many Manhattan neighborhoods are seeing alarming spikes in crime, but my reporting will tell you that quality of life crimes or degradations are on an upswing, stats or no stats.

Anecdotal evidence of this retrograde transformation (or deformation) is widespread throughout "good" neighborhoods, in Central Park, City Hall Park, virtually every subway line and every transportation terminal (the exception is the new PATH station downtown). Belligerent street people -- smelly or evidently deranged (or acting that way on purpose to effect the "pay me to go away" shakedown) -- have returned with a vengeance. However, this trend has been developing for several years. For example, the midtown Port Authority bus terminal has had a permanent homeless class since at least 2009 but which has steadily worsened over the last six to nine months.

Eric Dixon is a New York lawyer who grew up in New York City during the Koch Administration (1977-89).

Bloggers, CItizen Activists Ruled Protected By Journalists' Shield Law

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 04:28:00 +0000

In a pro-whistleblower decision, a New Jersey trial court Friday ruled that citizen activists, citizen journalists or bloggers who obtain information for the purpose of disseminating it on the Internet (or other medium) are covered just like "real journalists" by the same shield laws protecting confidential sources from disclosure to law enforcement or grand juries.

(The formal opinion is not yet available and I will update this article with a link when it becomes available.)

This decision is, in my opinion, likely to be appealed by the Union County Prosecutor's Office and/or the State of New Jersey. The reasons are obvious. This secrecy may hurt official investigations and remove an avenue for the authorities to pressure these activists to reveal people whose information may be helpful in investigations. But there is a flip side and a positive one at that. Citizen activists can now report and investigate while keeping sources confidential, and those sources can now reveal information while keeping their identity secret. Such secrecy will encourage the reporting of wrongdoing. This benefit should and will, in my opinion, outweigh the inconvenience to the authorities.

From the private citizen's standpoint, being an activist, citizen reporter or whistleblower became much easier in New Jersey.

Is New York City The World's Deadbeat Capital?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:04:00 +0000

Some new figures from the New York State Department of Financial Services indicate that strategic defaults on mortgages are occurring at an alarmingly high rate in the New York City metropolitan area.

Dr. Keith Jurow has a new article detailing this phenomenon. But the most glaring numbers in his article are the preforeclosure notices.

Jurow's analysis and scary commentary goes as follows:

I have reported in several previous articles that delinquent homeowners are continuing to walk away from their underwater properties. Nowhere is this done with more worry-free abandon than in the NYC metro. Take a look at these shocking new statistics that I have obtained from the NY State Division of Banking. They show the cumulative totals for pre-foreclosure notices sent to delinquent owner-occupants in New York City and Long Island.

Go to his article directly for the stats, but I'll throw out one statistic: In the fourth quarter of 2012 alone, over 100,000 first liens went into pre-foreclosure in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties. This is far higher than the quarterly figures in 2010-11.

If there is a housing recovery -- and certainly a refinance boom with historically low interest rates -- these figures couldn't provide more contradictory evidence.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/keith-jurow-us-housing-recovery-mirage-2013-4#ixzz2Pyjt7Std

New York City's Bid Rig: Rigging The Mayoral Race

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:24:00 +0000

The 2013 New York City mayoral race just got very crazy, with a still-emerging breaking news story of multiple arrests of name elected officials and Republican Party leaders in New York City.

(Also see this report from the New York Daily News which includes a link to the federal complaint and the FBI agent's affidavit. The affidavit recounts in excruciating detail the specific meetings at which bribes were discussed. Many meetings occurred as recently as ten days ago.)

The arrests -- at least six -- involve bribery to get State Senator Malcolm Smith (who was arrested) to switch his party affiliation to the Republican Party, as well as the use of straw donors. All arrested are to appear today in federal district court in White Plains (part of the Southern District of New York).

Ballot access -- namely, the ability to get one's desired endorsements -- is central to this case. But make no mistake about it, candidates can get on the ballot, can win their primaries, can raise funds -- but it takes a great deal of effort. Those who take shortcuts -- well, this emerging story is about them.

These arrests are reminiscent of the legendary arrests in July 2009 of numerous New Jersey politicians, elected leaders and rabbis in the Bid Rig corruption scandal.

This is still breaking.

Jim McGreevey's Real Victims

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:00:00 +0000

The public fall and long road to "redemption" of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey is chronicled in an upcoming HBO documentary airing this week.

McGreevey's story, of a straight family man and politician who "comes out" and reveals himself to the press as a "gay American," may make for compelling watching for those who need affirmation of their world view -- to which the concept of gay equality (whatever that truly means) may be central.

When McGreevey made his sexual orientation public, it was at an August 2004 televised press conference, hastily arranged as McGreevey and his advisers sought to beat an inquiring press -- or possibly even the United States Attorney's Office -- to news of McGreevey's relationship with a young man named Golan Cipel whom McGreevey had inexplicably named the state's homeland security director. (The transcript of the press conference is here.) That news began to surface not long after the real damaging revelation, that of McGreevey's role as "State Official No. 1," an unnamed player who uttered the infamous code word "Machiavelli" on tape in secret law enforcement recordings, had been made earlier that summer. (McGreevey was being taped by a New Jersey mulch farmer (whom I speculated was really a professional informant; I mean, since when is scrap wood growings a cash crop? Even in New Jersey?)

I view the documentary as McGreevey's latest and lame attempt to gain sympathy and public acclaim, for what was essentially gutless and truly narcissistic behavior. His sexual preference, claimed or otherwise, is irrelevant here. It is a smokescreen -- a reputational beard, if you will -- designed in 2004 and still used today to gain immunity from public outrage and shaming for what he did to his true victims. In fact, it may have been an attempt to make him such a politically correct figure as to make any criminal investigation or prosecution of him (see above) extremely politically toxic. But enough about Jim McGreevey, the man who deserves no sympathy, no respect, for publicly humiliating his wife and basically abandoning their daughter.

Left unsaid by virtually all commentators is that McGreevey defrauded his wife, Dina Matos McGreevey. (I'll leave the speculation about her possibly knowing about his sexual orientation to the conspiracy theorists.) The relationship was based on a sham, a fraud. His fraud. A colossal deception of her.

Dina Matos doesn't get those years back. Their daughter will forever be linked to an absolute cad of a man.

Almost as equally despicable is the glossing over of Dina's pain, their daughter's pain, the absence of the father whom her mother thought she had married. It is as if Dina Matos was, and still is and will continue to suffer, for the unintentional sins of being pretty, thin, a professional woman.

A wife.

A mother.

In short, being punished for being many things which many other women -- straight or gay -- cannot be.

It makes you wonder whether the sanctification of Jim McGreevey is just as much about envious women's schaenfraude as it is about his own attempt at pretend contrition, at the avoidance of responsibility.

This is a man whose harm to Dina Matos and their daughter is incalculable, lasting, permanent and barely something one can "move on" from.

For Dina Matos, there is no status quo ante. No undoing the damage. No restoring the reputation. While she may be much better equipped to "move on," does that assessment make her less sympathetic? Does it make Jim McGreevey less of a cad? Does it lessen the evil, the absolutely toxic narcissism with which he lived his life through 2004 and most assuredly continues to live today, albeit carefully concealed in a new cloak of deception, one also of his own making?

Our society too often celebrates the bad, the evil, the fallen among us, as if to convey the message that the road to success, to fame, is to intentionally screw up and hurt people around you so that you can then rise from the ashes of your own piggishness. But we should never forget that every day Jim McGreevey chose to continue his deception, he chose to hurt his wife and daughter. If he is truly contrite, he will speak of nothing but making amends for that tremendous harm.

Such contrition, if genuine, will be done far from the cameras, far from any public accolades and with full respect for any privacy wants or needs that Jim McGreevey's real victims deserve.

National Soccer Team Wins In Snowstorm

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:50:00 +0000

In remarkable conditions more suited to a playoff football game in, say, Green Bay, the United States men's soccer team scored a crucial 1-0 victory over Costa Rica in a 2014 World Cup qualifying match played in suburban Denver in freezing fog and wind chills in the teens.

Snow fell throughout the game, but play in the second half bordered on treacherous. At one point the referee tried to stop the game but both teams implored him to continue. Undoubtedly, Costa Rica had an eye on its Tuesday night qualifying match. Had tonight's game been suspended and played tomorrow (a dicey proposition given the forecast for near-blizzard conditions through midday Saturday, and six inches of snow), Costa Rica would have had one less recovery day for that next game, at home versus Jamaica. That is a likely win (and a must-win) for Costa Rica. However, the conditions tonight negated any skill level advantage that the Americans might have had -- although Latin American countries traditionally have had more skillful ball handlers and dribblers who can excel at one-on-one battles, so most any Latin country poses a test for an American squad.

The snowy conditions required on-the-fly adjustments -- which I don't believe either team made. These adjustments would and should have been to the mentality of the players. Instead of the long volley passes, I believe shorter passes would have better enabled ball possession and the development of a methodical attack and scoring chance. Long passes were hard to execute due to the very slippery conditions, the condition of the ball (subfreezing temperatures turn leather balls into something resembling a block of ice), and the poor footing made it hard for players to be able to react and run onto a pass. In other words, a pass had to be right at a player or else the ball would go out of bounds, or simply stop as the snow and ice concoction would stop many rolling balls from sailing on the grass out of bounds.

The conditions and adversity made me think that tonight's game would have put a premium on the dribbling and short passing skills that often made certain mediocre outdoor players in the old North American Soccer League excellent -- if not star -- indoor soccer players in the Major Indoor Soccer League. Those players more often than not came from certain countries like Argentina, Bolivia and what used to be Yugoslavia -- countries where the traditional style of play emphasized ball control in tight spaces over the reliance on the "air war" of volleys and set plays (a good characterization of English soccer). The growing proliferation of players moving cross-border to top European leagues has erased much of the traditional "national" styles of play in the last two decades, however.

In the meantime, the United States next plays Mexico on Tuesday night at Estadio Azteca. The United States' qualification for the World Cup in Brazil in 2014 is no means certain.

Is Federal Government The Enemy of Investors?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:28:00 +0000

Provocative headline, prompted by breaking news that federal regulators secretly downgraded American Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Jail uberbank JP Morgan Chase last summer, but did not tell the investing public.

That's nice. Not to defend anyone committing, accused or suspected of engaging in fraud, insider trading or other market-rigging crimes, but secrets kept by the government have the same fraudulent, outcome-distorting effect. And these secrets also produce unjust winners and losers.

If a private citizen makes an analogous secret deal and doesn't disclose it, and if it's later ruled to be "material," that citizen is likely to face civil lawsuits from wronged investors, or even criminal prosecution for securities fraud. Something known as Rule 10b-5.

Is this just more evidence that the federal government is picking winners and losers in the investing arena as well?

Is this just another disclosure that undermines what remains of the investing public's confidence in either the markets or its federal government?

How the heck does one invest in this environment? These are the questions one must ask, when regulatory uncertainty seems to be the government's modus operandi and one can assume only hypocrisy, not fairness, from the government. Such uncertainty can only undermine future economic growth and prompt some economic actors -- business owners, investors, retirees -- to withdraw from the economy. This is a foreseeable and entirely prudent course of action, when any other activity carries with it a risk of regulation, prosecution or confiscation. For the rest of us who aren't yet willing or able to shut down and retire, the coming years may be daunting indeed.

Most Evil New Jersey Lawyer Bergrin Faces Life

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:48:00 +0000

Former federal prosecutor turned convicted murderer Paul Bergrin faces a lifetime jail sentence after being found guilty of multiple counts, including the murder of federal criminal trial witnesses. Today, the largest newspaper in New Jersey calls for Bergrin to get a life sentence in this editorial.

Question for readers: Did Bergrin "go bad" after leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office? Or was he a "bad nut" to begin with? If the latter, this suggests that Bergrin's criminality was hidden well while working for the federal government (and before that, with the state as a prosecutor in Essex County, of which Newark is the county seat). It calls into question the psychological vetting in these offices and, unfortunately, casts a pall over many fine lawyers -- prosecutors and former prosecutors -- who have distinguished themselves through both intellect and integrity.

Lawyers As Serfs?: Fed Judge Proposes Lawyers' Corps For Immigration

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:58:00 +0000

The devaluation and degradation of America's professions continues.

A New York federal judge proposes forming a lawyers' corps -- mostly of newbie lawyers with soon-to-retire mentors -- to handle the growing immigration case backlog that plagues many federal courts around the country. The corps would rely on private money and government subsidies; in other words, government money will be spent under this plan to provide legal help for noncitizens who "need" legal representation. As there is no mention of what the immigrants -- legal, illegal, asylum seeker or otherwise -- would pay, it is reasonable to assume they would get their lawyers for free. Well, free for them. For the taxpayer, not so free.

Such proposals will hurt most lawyers, particularly those in small firms in the private sector who must be entrepreneurial. That is because every program to "provide legal services to the needy" (and every word in that phrase deserves the quotations) conditions the population to receive and expect free lawyers, as if it is an entitlement, a right. There are several consequences of such proposals.

First, the provision of free services -- legal or otherwise -- implies the value of those services is, well, close to zero. Retailers know this when they do fire sales and dump inventory at markdowns of 80-90%. This type of program will tell a segment of the population: (1) lawyers' services aren't worth very much, (2) don't go to a private lawyer, go to a lawyer for free through our program, and (3) you have a right to a free lawyer.

The third message undermines the private bar, but also sends a frustrating message to middle-class and lower-class citizens: you don't get a free lawyer, and you get to pay for others (who may or may not deserve to even be in the country) to try to endlessly plead their case in the courts in an effort to outrun the immigration authorities until mass amnesty is declared. There is little more discouraging than to have the hard-working, urban poor, struggling to get ahead, forced to see and to pay for subsidies for others who may be less deserving (or not deserving at all) of a government (or hybrid private/public partnership) subsidy.

The effects on the legal profession will not be positive. Such proposals will be the first step towards forcing lawyers into collectives, much like doctors are being forced through economic disincentives into selling their small practices and working as salaried employees (for less pay but with less hours) of hospitals. There is likely to be another economic result (possibly intended): Good lawyers will abandon the practice of law for other pursuits which pay more. When attorneys are faced with declining revenue, increasing regulation and a growing public backlash to the profession as a whole, this becomes an attractive option.

The larger picture is not good. Economic pressures on the private, entrepreneurial segment of the legal profession, combined with the economic pressures on the middle-class, threaten to make quality legal representation for the middle class scarce as capable and honest attorneys leave the practice of law, leaving the profession to the cookie-cutter paralegal mills (technically, supervised by one or two lawyers) who will be positioned to take advantage of the poorest and most uneducated segments of the population.

This free immigration lawyer service will be the product of a do-gooder proposal, floated by a federal judge whose grasp of economic realities may not comport with the economic reality. New York federal judge Robert Katzmann has little excuse for such detachment from reality; his court, at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, is literally just across the street from a burgeoning slum still known as Chinatown. Others in the legal profession, who may have graduated from The School of Hard Knocks and/or been raised in economically disadvantaged environments, know that the actual impact will probably be negative.

But for the progressive, professional class, which measures the value of charity not by its impact on the purportedly-targeted population but by the improvement in their own self-esteem, such adverse realities will be of no consequence.

Bank Run in Cyprus: Could It Infect American Stock Markets?

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:54:00 +0000

The sheep may be approaching their slaughter. The bank accounts, the savings accounts of the responsible, the least profligate, the most penurious, are under imminent attack in the EuroZone. This is more than an attack on six or ten percent of your savings account. This is an attack on the most sacrificing, the most responsible, and the most righteously angry segment of the population. Nothing creates a moral hazard -- to steal and then to spend -- than the taxation of savings. Those who were irresponsible, or larcenous, converted their ill-gotten gains of yesterday or yesteryear into material goods which are ill-susceptible to taxation and only may be gotten through seizure (and later, through sale at discounted prices). All of this is being undertaken by the EuroZone -- subject, that is, to approval by the Cypriot government meeting on Monday during, coincidentally, a bank holiday in that island nation -- and will roil the world's investment markets. What are the implications for the United States, which remains considered -- despite its warts -- the cleanest of the dirtiest shirts in the closet?

Bank Runs In Eurozone Possible After Cyprus Emergency Meeting Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 03:40:00 +0000

A shocking development this weekend. Residents of Cyprus have run on the banks on the small Mediterranean island, after news that Cyprus is considering instituting a 9.9 percent tax on wealthy bank depositors' accounts with balances over 100,000 Euros, with ordinary accounts hit with a 6.75 percent tax, as part of Eurozone austerity measures imposed Saturday. The Cypriot government will meet to vote Sunday on whether to adopt the measure.

Eurozone ministers have declined to rule out similar measures in other countries. This may weaken many Eurozone banks as well as spark a flight to quality -- hell, a flight to pure safety -- as capital preservation becomes the immediate concern over any concern over returns on investment.

One wonders if the United States will see a flood of new capital, as well as increased commodity buying from abroad as people seek to convert seizable assets into less liquid assets. Gold and silver, anyone?

Low-Flow Toilets: Flush This Idea

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:01:00 +0000

New York City plans to install hundreds of new "low-flow" toilets in public schools, replacing the old, standard, dependable toilets that would actually flush what you put in them.

As is common with government policy, beware the unintended consequences.

As anyone who lives in a home built in the last ten years will tell you, an "old" toilet is a prized commodity because it actually effectively flushes its organic contents. That is, after all, the purpose of a toilet: the removal of potentially health-hazardous organic material. If toilets don't exist for health and sanitation reasons, we might as well poop on the bushes outside (just like people did 200 years ago and the homeless still tend to do today). The value of that removal has been recognized since 18th century scientists began to at least suspect a link between nonexistent urban sanitation and widespread, deadly diseases like cholera, and since at least the early 19th century cities began instituting urban sewerage systems.

The low-flow toilet idiocy turns this value on its head. (No pun intended.) It replaces the sanitation / health and safety values with the uber-value of "conserving" water.

The new toilets allegedly use 70 percent less water. That assumes, of course, that nothing clogs up the toilet. Stuff like organic material, human excretions and toilet paper. (Insects and the occasional baby crocodile are not considered here for purposes of this column.)

However, when the new toilets inefficiently (er, they flat out don't) remove the organic material, we are presented with fresh, exposed organic detritus that exposes the surrounding air and water to cross-contamination. Harmful, disease-causing bacteria can become airborne. Toilets which aerosolize their contents with each flush end up spreading the bacteria in every direction other than down and out, turning rest rooms (and their hapless users) into petri dishes. Efficient toilets promote human health the best by flushing the most organic material in one flush!

With a low-flow toilet, you have more harmful residue remaining in the toilet. In addition to this being simply gross, and a health hazard, you then have a clogging risk from the buildup of residue. Partial clogs lead to multiple flushes, which exacerbate the problems I explained above as well as undermine the very rationale behind a low-flow toilet. (But if you own a company that makes plungers, this is good for business.)

None of this seems to bother the environmentals one bit. Their highest value is water conservation. Human health is a secondary -- if not nonexistent -- value to them. If little kids die from cholera because of cross contamination, that is apparently an acceptable tradeoff for the value of "saving" water.

But the concept of "saving" water is idiotic by itself. There is a water cycle throughout nature. Water falls from the sky, hits the ground, seeps into the ground and ultimately (whether through rivers, aquifers or sewers) goes back into the oceans from which it evaporates into the sky, then condensing to form clouds and ultimately falling back as precipitation or returning as atmospheric water vapor. The "water" doesn't disappear. To the extent water's component molecules (two hydrogen for each oxygen molecule) are separated, these elements are also among the most basic in the universe and constant combine and recombine.

If New York City's schools really want to save water, they'll keep all those old toilets. Every last one of them. And they'll flush the low-flow toilets along with the ban on oversized soft drinks.

Homeless Invasion: New York's Return To The Dinkins Era

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Dixon, Esq.) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:33:00 +0000

The homeless -- the reeking, stinking, putrid hordes of aggressive, hostile and deliberately unnerving homeless -- basically ran New York's subways, public libraries and transportation hubs twenty years ago.

An early morning commuter might step into a subway car and be outnumbered by bums 50 to one. (Trust me: I was the one.)

If you knew better, you didn't sit down, because a homeless person with soiled pants may have been sitting there earlier.

Today, New York is returning to those dark days of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. The days B.G. - Before Giuliani. When politicians were afraid to confront and expel the homeless. When commuters, business owners and residents were expected to tolerate their presence, their assault on our senses and sensibilities and, too often, their mental illnesses and violence, as the price for being in The Big City.

Those were the days when a New Jersey judge ruled that local residents objecting to a stinking bum's presence were ignored by that judge and told that "Instead of revoking [the bum's] library card, we ought to revoke his condition.". As if his "condition" were either the fault or the duty of the public to remedy.

New York City has returned to the days of inaction, of paralysis, of grudging resignation to tolerating the homeless. The evidence is the hundreds of stinking, menacing homeless now inhabitating Grand Central, Penn Station and Port Authority, certain midtown indoor plazas and even some parks.

New York City and building owners are rightfully reluctant to expel the homeless for fear of the plaintiffs' class action lawsuit asserting unconstitutional deprivations of rights. But the average person on the street has a voice.

Businesses which refuse to address their homeless problem -- of the homeless refusing to vacate the premises -- have an unenviable choice: fear the lawsuit, or fear the lost business when customers flee. (Indeed, the homeless understand this; part of this problem is a game of urban extortion played by the intentionally obnoxious.)

New York's renewal was sparked by Mayor Giuliani's understanding that the old paradigm of nonconfrontation had to change in order to retain businesses and residents, attract tourists and attract development.

New York's renewed decline will be sparked by a return to the fearful policies of appeasement and guilt. The elites may decry their condition. The average family with options -- hell, with a car -- will go out to the suburbs. And stay there.

Something to ponder the next time to hear any of the nine announced or presumed candidates for New York City mayor speak.