More Drama, Deception, Lies and Violations And A Side Order Of Stupidity

It appears C.B. Smith wants win the election by way of drama, not facts or the qualifications of his candidates. In his latest move he appears to have written a letter by long time operative John Hebert and submitted it to The Advertiser, the letter claims in part that Town Justice Stephanie Piel is illegally serving on the North Greenbush GOP Committee, a claim that has been refuted by North Greenbush GOP Chairman.

As we’ve pointed out in many of our past posts, the validity of the information provided by C.B. Smith is always questionable, when you add John Hebert to the mix, it’s a 99.99% guarantee that the information is false. Many will recall the letter purportedly written by the Wynantskill Fire Department and submitted to the Advertiser during the attempt to incorporate the Village of Defreestville. It was determined that the letter was a forgery, sources close to the investigation at the time stated John Hebert was the chief suspect. Hebert is also the one responsible for the creation of C.B. Smith numerous political cartoons, as well as some of the cartoons that were used by DANA, and of course there’s his famous 2004 Democratic National Convention incident where Hebert assaulted ” a pair of elderly women” over a Bush campaign sign and made national news.

With all of that in mind, we find it more than a mere coincidence that Hebert’s letter referenced an email, a copy of which also appeared in the Advertiser, with no explanation attached, was paid for by the North Greenbush Democratic Committee (NGDC), Ashley, Sabo, Smith and Ashworth. Ask yourself, what are the chances that a letter by Hebert, and a C.B. Smith paid copy of an email appearing at the same time. So was John Hebert’s letter that of a concerned citizen or that of political operative looking to misguide voters with misinformation. Consider that just days prior to Election Day 2007, Mr. Smith and Josh Sabo used a similar tactic by claiming that the 2008 North Greenbush budget prepared by Sabo’s opponent was illegal, yet there was never a formal charge.

Copy of NGDC Ad as it appeared

Rule number one for any judicial candidate is to avoid the appearance of impropriety because a judge does not represent the voter, they represents the law. It’s our opinion that the latest revelation by Mr. Hebert was done at the direction of members of the NGDC, of which Joshua Sabo is 1st Vice Chairman, a position he’s prohibited from holding as a candidate for judicial office(see 100.5(A)(1)(a) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct) . A Judicial Ethic Opinion (01-44) on the subject states ” The inquirer correctly notes that section 100.5(A)(3) of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct permits a non-judge candidate for elective judicial office to remain as a member of a political organization during the electoral campaign. However, the inquirer is also aware of section 100.5(A)(1)(a) of the Rules, which prohibits both judge and candidates for judicial office from acting as a leader or holding office in a political organization”. Has Mr. Sabo resigned from the Rensselaer County Democratic Committee and the North Greenbush Democratic Committee? We have seen no such announcement, or any announcement of a replacement if he did, but were sure C.B. can make one up.

Now if the NGDC is manipulating John Hebert into writing letters that misrepresent the truth, and Sabo is a member of that committee, what does this say about Josh Sabo and his qualifications to be Town Justice? As 1st Vice Chairman Mr. Sabo also sought out, and accepted the endorsement of the NGDC for Town Justice, which surly gives the ” appearance of impropriety ” in that he may have used his influence as 1st Vice Chair to get the endorsement over other potential candidates.

We also believe Mr. Sabo crossed the line in his campaign literature by stating “With a law office on Route 4 in DeFreestville, Sabo will be accessible to law enforcement officials for arraignments at any time during the day or night.” The statement gives the implies that the location of his office is better suited for a Town Justice than the other candidates due to its location, making it an “appeal to passion fear or prejudice”, which is also prohibited. In reality a candidate is not required to have an office, as arraignments can be held just about anywhere, including the judges office at the Town Court, or better yet in the court room at the Town Hall, and besides, is Sabo really going to be at his office 24/7?

He again crosses the “appeal to passion fear or prejudice” line with the following advertisement, paid for by the NGDC of which Sabo is 1st Vice Chair.

This advertisement is clearly designed to place the fear in residents that if they don’t vote “Row E”, Route 4 will turn into Wolf road, the statement pertains to a hotly debated political issue, which Mr. Sabo is prohibited from engaging in as a judicial candidate, yet his name appears in the advertisement. This type of advertisement is clearly prohibited by the Rules for Conducting a Judicial Campaign in New York. Additionally, development is an issue that Mr. Sabo was personally involved with while representing the Defreestville Area Neighborhoods Association, which also precludes him from becoming involved in the issue as a judicial candidate.

Now let’s talk about Mr. Sabo’s endorsement by the Working Families Party(WFP), and how he obtained it. A town resident who is enrolled in the WFP contacted us after receiving a letter from Jim Welch, Rensselaer County Chair of the WFP. That letter stated the WFP was endorsing Sabo and Fennelly for the September Primary election, the resident upset that the WFP would endorse two individuals who tried to block the unionization of town employees, called Mr. Welch. After explaining their displeasure to Mr. Welch, Welch replied that ” Sabo had helped the party in the past, so we wanted to help him out”, sorry Mr. Sabo but accepting a political endorsement in exchange for something of value is prohibited by a judicial candidate, and clearly gives the ” appearance of impropriety”, nothing does.

Holding a committee chair, endorsements and campaign literature are not Mr. Sabo’s only issues, he also has a few issues with his campaign finance. The Rules for Conducting a Judicial Campaign in New York clearly state ” Neither a judicial candidate nor a member of the candidate’s immediate family may solicit campaign funds, except from family members. Campaign funds should be solicited only through campaign committees.” A review of Mr. Sabo financial disclosure report shows that he received donations not only at his home, but at the home of his “immediate family” as well.

The reason judicial candidates and their immediate families are prohibited from handling and donations is they’re not supposed to know who the contributors are, again from the Rules for Conducting a Judicial Campaign in New York “To prevent the appearance of impropriety, the names of campaign contributors should be kept secret from the candidate to the extent legally permissible. The candidate should not seek access to a list of contributors, nor should the candidate seek in any other way to learn the names of contributors.” It’s kind of hard for it to be a secret when it’s mailed to your house.

It is also our understanding that a fund raiser may have been held at the home of Mr. Sabo’s parents, again the Rules for Conducting a Judicial Campaign in New York clearly states “campaign funds should be solicited only through campaign committees” and “neither a candidate nor a member of a candidates immediate family may solicit campaign fund”. With donation being recorded as received at both the home of Mr. Sabo, and that of his parents, Mr. Sabo has some questions to answer.

It would appear C.B. Smith needs to clean his own house before he worries how clean everyone else’s is, as it appears Mr. Sabo has many more issues to deal with that Ms. Piel.

A side note to C.B. Smith:

In the coming days we can only hope that you will realize you are only performing a disservice to your party and its enrolled members with your actions. The people of North Greenbush not only have the right to a fair and impartial election, they deserve it.

With very few days remaining before the election, you could better serve your party, and its members by providing honest and sincere information about your candidates and their platforms, allowing them to make an informed decision on Election Day.

On the other hand, if you wish to continue with your attempted smear campaign, feel free, as we believe we’ve proved that we are more than prepared counter all your misinformation, whatever it may be, and will do so right up to election day.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

MORE STUPIDITY FROM C.B. SMITH

Admiral Smith of the North Greenbush Democratic Navy spoke to his sailors this morning and was quoted as saying “Call it the “nuclear option”. For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction”, those words of wisdom were just to get the troops fired up, and he soon follow with more words of wisdom which were “A General Discharge under Honorable Circumstances is an honorable discharge. Sawyer and the military knows it”. Admiral Smith has now been promoted to Secretary of the Navy and is making policy changes as we speak.

Hey C.B. can I see your Form DD-214, I mean if you know so much about the military, you must have served right. And I’m sure your familiar with MILPERSMAN 1910-300, which clearly states the following:

Characterization. The following types of separation are authorized:

a. Honorable (HON).

b. General (Under Honorable Conditions) (GEN).

c. Under Other Than Honorable (OTH).

d. Entry Level Separation (ELS).

e. Order of release from the custody and control of the Naval Service by reason of void enlistment or induction.

Seems the military doesn’t “know” that a “honorable” and a “general” discharge are the same as they have them listed separately.

Now “general” separation or discharge (what Kevin has admitted receiving) is administrative, and there are only two way for it to happen, as spelled out in MILPERSMAN 1910-304 , by the way of a “specific finding of a review board” or in the absence a review board based on the members record. Meaning if a member is charged with some serious infraction, and Navy has determined that they no longer want him, he has two choices. First he can take his case to a review board and risk receiving a higher level of punishment, or having it stay the same, or accept the fact he screwed up and walk away with a general discharge based on what’s already in his record, including the current charges, basically a plea bargain.

Now what I really can’t understand is if you an Kevin has admitted to receiving a general discharge, and several million veterans know it takes some form of misconduct to receive a general discharge, yet you nor Kevin can accept the fact. Hey, if you and Kevin believe otherwise, release his Form DD-214. Otherwise your just admitting that what everyone already knows.

As I said in a past post, Kevin’s records are accessible to the general public, and I have requested a copy of those record, and plan on posting them once I receive them. So Kevin can either act like an adult and produce the records, or look like a total ASS when I post them, it’s his choice.

I know you love posting anything and everything about Lou Desso’s past, but no matter how you put it together, he didn’t kill anyone, Kevin did. In my book that makes Kevin the bigger sinner. That is what this is all about isn’t it C.B., past sins, isn’t that way your posting all this, you want to save us from the sinners. if you’re trying to save us from the sinners than why is there an issue with Kevin’s past?

Oh, and by the way, Adultery is a sin as well, wasn’t Fennelly involved in an adulterous relationship in the past? Did Rich go to the Vatican and get a pardon from the Pope, is that why you forgave him?

You know C.B. they say you can judge a person by the company he keeps, you and your crew are a textbook example proving that’s it true.