The fringe cracks-up

They must have deluded themselves into thinking they were winning.  This is a phenomenon we see more and more and it is due to social media and to the ability to screen out all but the news and information that pleases you and supports your view of the world.  Many people have produced safe spaces for themselves where they are free to revel in a kind of solipsism that alters their perception more thoroughly than a strong narcotic.

And so we have Harvey Roseff, a local activist of some merit, posting on the New Jersey Herald about "mind control" as the reason for his candidates' crushing 75% to 25% loss.  He simply cannot understand the fact that people do not have the same priorities that he does, that they do not perceive the world as he does, and that they therefore do not act accordingly. 

The very things that make Harvey so unique, separate him from the Everyman.  So he plays his role -- something of a Cassandra -- but he plays it largely alone. 

The candidates Mr. Roseff supported are not his equals.  Career DOT bureaucrat Bill Hayden is an example of the waste and burdensome regulation that is a by-product of any government bureaucracy.  That Hayden attacked his opponent for funding him as a by-product of funding the state's transportation infrastructure was rather weird.  It reminded us of a German Expressionist novel. 

Nathan Orr needs to get away from home, out from under the shadow of past failures not his own.  Perhaps when he stops channeling the blind pride and arrogance that appears to be this candidate's inheritance, he will open his eyes to the people around him.  David Atwood lacks focus and seems obsessed with silly things -- like his ancestry.  Hopefully, this is just down to being new.  Young and new and as green as one can be.  He might get better with time.

All of these candidates spent the last months in a bubble fashioned by their earnest friends, supportive family members, and especially by loud-mouths like Mark Quick and Bill Hayden.  Many of their supporters fell into the same bubble -- and never questioned their perception and assumptions.

They still don't.  Now some are laughably making threats -- with Hayden threatening to lead them to a Democrat Party nirvana this November.  It has all the makings of a Jim Jones inspired soap opera:  The cult's bubble keeps bumping into reality so they defiantly isolate themselves further (for the sake of the "purity" of the cult), so when reality still invades they commit the ultimate pointless gesture of... Democrat Party nirvana.  Go ahead, drink the kool-aid. 

While the Democrats will have more money than the GOP this November, they will not have so much that they can stupidly waste it.  What little hope the Democrat high command had for Legislative District 24 has been dashed by the Republican incumbents' 50-point victory.  Such victories are generally reserved for inner-city districts with machine "lines" -- to secure one without a line is remarkable and it has been and will be remarked upon by Democrat strategists.

The county is a different matter.  Republican freeholder nominee Herb Yardley's victory was an impressive 20-plus points, but the county GOP is not in the habit of raising the resources necessary to confront the kind of determined campaign that we expect from Democrat Dan Perez.  He is a formidable opponent with friends in the GOP establishment who have already shepherded his career to a seat on the Sussex County Community College's Board of Trustees and as a SCMUA Commissioner.

The Tea Party could play a role in the election of Herb Yardley, and in the defense of Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen.  It is up to them how seriously they want people to take them.

Graham hired target of letter after contribution

In March of 2015, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to the county counsel with concerns about several lawyers retained by Sussex County:

(The full, 17-page correspondence is available from Watchdog upon request)

In July 2016, Freeholder George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for the very law firm identified above as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $40 million.  Here is what Freeholder boss Graham said in 2015 about the lawyers he turned around and gave a no-bid contract to in 2016:

"It's all the same people that dug the hole, and every time I ask for a clear, third-party fresh set of eyes, they throw in somebody else that appears out of the past. How many times can you recycle the same names? Are they protecting specific people, or are they protecting the county?” (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

This is what then Freeholder (now Assemblywoman) Gail Phoebus said:

"Mr. Weinstein had clear conflicts of interest. Far from recommending ‘independent' counsel to guide us through a complex negotiation, you led us to the partner of the attorney who shares responsibility with you for failing to obtain a performance bond... All of this raises serious questions.  (While) Mr. Weinstein negotiated the solar project settlement and rendered advice to the freeholder board, whose interests was he serving”? (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

So why -- under Freeholder boss Graham -- is Weinstein back?

...in September 2014, the county freeholder board appointed Weinstein as special counsel to guide it through that process.

The appointment of Weinstein -- whose law partner, John Cantalupo, had been on retainer to the county since 2011 for legal services related to county-backed bonds issued on the solar project -- was criticized last year by then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus, now a state assemblywoman, who called it a conflict of interest.

While offering praise for Wednesday's presentation, Roseann Salanitri -- also of Sandyston -- tempered her praise with criticism over the fact that a large portion of it was given by Weinstein.

"He was the same counsel that represented us on (last year's) settlement, and that settlement contained ‘hold harmless' clauses for just about everybody and their grandmother," Salanitri said. "I don't know Mr. Weinstein and have nothing against him personally, but I believe this presentation is not as credible as it could have been if it had been conducted by someone (else)." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Freeholder Director George Graham defended the appointment of Weinstein, saying:  "He's the only one who has institutional knowledge after all the other people who ran out the door." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Why has Graham -- a one-time critic of the solar scam -- become its enabler? 

When Graham was on the outside, as a minority member (with Phoebus) of the five member board, Graham did one thing, now he does the opposite.  Now, as the boss of the Freeholder Board (controlling three of its five members) Graham is comfortable with those he used to call the bad guys and has even taken campaign contributions from them.

What all this means is that Sussex County taxpayers must remain vigilant, must attend Freeholder meetings, and must continue to ask probing questions.

Should Sussex Freeholders be videotaped?

Should Sussex County Freeholder Board meetings be videotaped?  That's the debate that has turned the Freeholder Board on its head, with Freeholder boss George Graham, who once styled himself a "reformer" when he ran for office, now serving as the big impediment to county government transparency.  When Graham was on the outside he bellowed loudly about openness in government, but now that he runs the county government, he is anything but open.

In July, Freeholder George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for a law firm that he and then Freeholder Gail Phoebus identified as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $30 million.  Here is what Freeholder boss Graham said in 2015 about the lawyers he turned around and gave a no-bid contract to in 2016:

"It's all the same people that dug the hole, and every time I ask for a clear, third-party fresh set of eyes, they throw in somebody else that appears out of the past. How many times can you recycle the same names? Are they protecting specific people, or are they protecting the county?” (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

This is what then Freeholder (now Assemblyperson) Gail Phoebus said:

"Mr. Weinstein had clear conflicts of interest. Far from recommending ‘independent' counsel to guide us through a complex negotiation, you led us to the partner of the attorney who shares responsibility with you for failing to obtain a performance bond... All of this raises serious questions.  (While) Mr. Weinstein negotiated the solar project settlement and rendered advice to the freeholder board, whose interests was he serving”? (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

So why -- under Freeholder boss Graham -- is Weinstein back?

...in September 2014, the county freeholder board appointed Weinstein as special counsel to guide it through that process.

The appointment of Weinstein -- whose law partner, John Cantalupo, had been on retainer to the county since 2011 for legal services related to county-backed bonds issued on the solar project -- was criticized last year by then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus, now a state assemblywoman, who called it a conflict of interest.

While offering praise for Wednesday's presentation, Roseann Salanitri -- also of Sandyston -- tempered her praise with criticism over the fact that a large portion of it was given by Weinstein.

"He was the same counsel that represented us on (last year's) settlement, and that settlement contained ‘hold harmless' clauses for just about everybody and their grandmother," Salanitri said. "I don't know Mr. Weinstein and have nothing against him personally, but I believe this presentation is not as credible as it could have been if it had been conducted by someone (else)." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Freeholder Director George Graham defended the appointment of Weinstein, saying:  "He's the only one who has institutional knowledge after all the other people who ran out the door." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Has Graham -- a one-time critic of the solar scam -- become its enabler?  People are beginning to ask that question, especially now that the solar investigation led by another law firm hand-picked by Freeholder boss Graham has cost taxpayers double the contract price with no product in sight. 

Graham is lobbying hard to get a second term as Freeholder Director.  Normally, the Freeholders take turns serving as Board Director, but Graham is looking to become a county political boss and the first step is to secure his position on the Board in perpetuity.  After which, Assemblyperson Phoebus will be free to give Graham a job as her chief of staff -- providing him with an annual six-figures in taxpayer money, plus health benefits and a pension -- which will establish Graham as the Nick Sacco of Sussex County.   

Hudson County... here we come!

Will Andover taxpayers be sued for trying to silence blog?

What did Assemblyperson Gail Phoebus mean when she told her Assembly colleague that Andover Township was going to silence Bill Winkler?

 

Phoebus, a former Andover Township Committee member, has targeted Winkler claiming that he is the "founder" of the Sussex County Watchdog blog.  Phoebus knows better, as the blog was created at the time of her first run for countywide office in 2012.  In fact, Phoebus' campaign mail featured the Watchdog in it, so she should know that the blog was founded by the late Rob Eichmann and has been maintained by a group of his associates ever since. Phoebus herself has contributed numerous stories to Watchdog.

Sussex County Watchdog has a long history with Andover Township that of late has become contentious.  The Watchdog has complained about Andover Township's failure to follow OPRA (Open Public Records Act) rules and has written about its failure to abide by the Open Public Meetings Act.  The blog acted as a whistleblower when it uncovered the improper way in which a recent resolution was drafted and passed.  Now that the blog has criticized Phoebus and her former colleagues in the Andover Township government, Phoebus is angry with the Watchdog.

What has upset Andover Township's politicians the most is Sussex County Watchdog's coverage of the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund -- Andover Township's own Camp Nordland.  According to Assemblyperson Phoebus, township officials became incensed when the Watchdog made the following recommendations:

That Andover Township place a plaque at the site of the American National Socialist Bund's Camp Nordland, to honor the victims of the ideology practiced there; and that Andover Township donate all proceeds from events held at the former Nazi Beer Hall to organizations representing the victims of the Holocaust and their families.

Phoebus told a fellow legislator that Andover Township was going to "get" the person they held responsible.  And now, it appears that an attempt is being made. 

On Monday, October 31st, the Sussex County Watchdog blog posted a report about how an old Quaker gentleman had been accosted by Sussex County Freeholder Director George Graham and two Andover Township Committeemen.  The blog report is posted here:

http://www.sussexcountywatchdog.com/blog/2016/10/31/graham-supporters-accost-pro-lifer-at-gop-event.html

The incident took place at a GOP event held at the former headquarters of the notorious American National Socialist Bund.  For some strange reason, instead of demolishing the former Camp Nordland, the town leaders of Andover Township have maintained the building that hosted numerous Nazi, Fascist, and Ku Klux Klan rallies in the 1930's. 

The day after the Watchdog blog posted its story, the Deputy Mayor of Andover Township filed a harassment complaint against the old Quaker who was accosted by the three Sussex County politicians.  According to witnesses, one of the Andover Committeemen had threatened to "punch someone in the face," while another Andover Committeeman had threatened a bystander earlier that evening by saying "you better not be his (the old Quaker) friend."   

Of course, the people who run Andover Township would have you believe that it happened the other way round.  They want you to believe that a 60 year old Quaker assaulted a 40 year old Marine and his two comrades.  They want you to believe that writing about their political corruption is "harassment".

As David Danzis of the New Jersey Herald reported today, the Andover Township Deputy Mayor has filed a complaint against the alleged blogger:

http://www.njherald.com/20161214/county-political-consultant-faces-assault-harassment-charges

Really?  In America?  Are they really playing the old brown-shirt trick of beating up the Jew and then claiming he started it, in order to have him arrested?  Shame on the elected and appointed officials of Andover Township and shame on the residents who elected them and then stood by and let it happen.

Filing a false report is a serious offense, as is the attempt to deprive American citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights -- both the right to report the news and opinion, and the right to read it.  Of course, the former Hudson County Democrats who have switched their party registration and now occupy positions of power on the Sussex County Freeholder Board (Graham) and in Andover Township are following the playbook of where they came from.

A few years ago there was a similar case in Hudson County when the mayor of a city there decided that he wanted to "take down" an anonymous website that was publishing news and opinions that he didn't want published.  The mayor and his son conspired to "take down the website and to identify, intimidate, and harass those who operated and were associated with the website."  The United States Department of Justice takes such civil rights violations very seriously and the feds arrested both the mayor and his son.  The son took the rap and was convicted in federal court.     

Is there a similar conspiracy in Sussex County?  Watchdog knows the names of a great many political figures in Sussex County who were aware of this matter well before the accused was and that Assemblyperson Phoebus herself was making calls about it, spreading false information, and that she has expressed her animosity towards the Watchdog website and the individuals she claims are associated with it.  Yes, this stinks to high heaven! 

Will this end up in federal court?  If it does, it will impact you greatly if you are a taxpayer in Andover Township.  Remember, you elected them.  And you are responsible when they behave like fascist thugs.  As they say, stay tuned...

The Solar Scam continues under Graham

For months Harvey Roseff has been pushing the Sussex County Freeholder Board to answer a few basic questions about the troubling direction the Sussex County solar program is taking.  Freeholder George Graham, the boss of the Freeholder Board, has been less than forthcoming.  Why?

In July, Freeholder George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for a law firm that he and then Freeholder Gail Phoebus identified as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $30 million.  Here is what Freeholder boss Graham said in 2015 about the lawyers he turned around and gave a no-bid contract to in 2016:

"It's all the same people that dug the hole, and every time I ask for a clear, third-party fresh set of eyes, they throw in somebody else that appears out of the past. How many times can you recycle the same names? Are they protecting specific people, or are they protecting the county?” (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

This is what then Freeholder (now Assemblywoman) Gail Phoebus said:

"Mr. Weinstein had clear conflicts of interest. Far from recommending ‘independent' counsel to guide us through a complex negotiation, you led us to the partner of the attorney who shares responsibility with you for failing to obtain a performance bond... All of this raises serious questions.  (While) Mr. Weinstein negotiated the solar project settlement and rendered advice to the freeholder board, whose interests was he serving”? (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

So why -- under Freeholder boss Graham -- is Weinstein back?

...in September 2014, the county freeholder board appointed Weinstein as special counsel to guide it through that process.

The appointment of Weinstein -- whose law partner, John Cantalupo, had been on retainer to the county since 2011 for legal services related to county-backed bonds issued on the solar project -- was criticized last year by then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus, now a state assemblywoman, who called it a conflict of interest.

While offering praise for Wednesday's presentation, Roseann Salanitri -- also of Sandyston -- tempered her praise with criticism over the fact that a large portion of it was given by Weinstein.

"He was the same counsel that represented us on (last year's) settlement, and that settlement contained ‘hold harmless' clauses for just about everybody and their grandmother," Salanitri said. "I don't know Mr. Weinstein and have nothing against him personally, but I believe this presentation is not as credible as it could have been if it had been conducted by someone (else)." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Freeholder Director George Graham defended the appointment of Weinstein, saying:  "He's the only one who has institutional knowledge after all the other people who ran out the door." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Has Graham -- a one-time critic of the solar scam -- become its enabler? 

When Graham was on the outside, as a minority member (with Phoebus) of the five member board, Graham did one thing, now he does the opposite. Now, as the boss of the Freeholder Board (controlling three of its five members) Graham is comfortable with those he used to call the bad guys and has even taken campaign contributions from them.

Roseff poses the following questions for Freeholder boss Graham and his Board:

1. Why have solar farms, promised to be finished by the end of the year by contractor Jingoli and the Freeholders at a public meeting on July 27th, been cancelled?  Why was there no explanation about this broken promise and what affect will it have on the project's cost to taxpayers? 

2. Have there been any payouts to taxpayers on the performance bond for the build-out?

3. Why has the July 27th financial plan become so terribly distorted in just a handful of weeks?  Just how worse off are the taxpayers of Sussex County?

4.  How much of the construction funds will be returned to the taxpayer because of the cancellations?

5.  What portion of the cash flow hit from not reaching the 3300 kW level of solar generation will Sunlight corporation now be responsible for?   Remember that Sussex County taxpayers bailed Sunlight out based on this promise.

6.  Why didn't the Freeholders' new $3,100,000 bond (debt), used to pay off a Sunlight corporation loan from contractor Mastec, state what it was for?  Isn't this an ethical issue for the County?

7.  Which specific Freeholder Board resolution stated that Sussex County taxpayers were guaranteeing Mastec's loan for deadbeat Sunlight? If it doesn't exist, how can the Freeholders ethically do it and why did they?

Freeholder boss Graham's actions are questionable.  He has some explaining to do.

Freeholder boss Graham (center) and his Board (allies are to the right).