CORZINE - KATZ: BRAND HIJACK ! SEARCH FOR TRUTH ? ROSEBUD.

“Welcome my friends to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside ...”

KarnEvil 9, Emerson, Lake and Palmer

"Brand hijacking is about Consumers shaping the brand meaning and endorsing it to others ... Special brands offer up a vision that people can identify with, one they want to involve themselves in more deeply. At its best, market involvement creates a cultural benefit, offering meaning in an otherwise chaotic modern world.” Brand Hijack, Chapter1.

The Corzine Brand is generally identified as shrewd businessman (Goldman Sachs), straightforward person (ethics reformer), and socially concerned citizen (Good Samaritan). The ill-fated relationship between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz, however, may re-brand the product. As such, it’s a propagandist’s best daydream and a reputation managers worst nightmare.

The beauty of the ongoing Corzine - Katz saga is the story is so easy to hijack. First, its sticky because it is primal. The relationship will be long remembered because it combines soap opera with reality tv. A Master of the Universe dating Cinderella entices us with a promise of glamour, romance, power, money and sex. Second, the end of the relationship is increasingly mysterious and curiosity increases the susceptibility to a hijack. Coupled to the fact the alleged wrongdoing is so vague and the facts are so tenuous, the interpretation of what happened is settled by personal attribution: "Romeo and Juliet", "War of the Roses", "Play Misty for Me" (Fatal Attraction), or "All the Kings Men." "Citizen Kane" or Mae West. As we feel we have experienced it we will name it. Thus, rumor psychology fuels the increasing word of mouth. Each side however, seeks to ultimately control the Corzine Brand identity and each side can only allow the public to go so far in determining brand identity. Ergo, each group seeks to manage the direction. Republicans spin for political gain. Democrats counter-spin for damage control.

Doctor Strangelove or Doctor Feel-Good

Republicans contend that the recent NYT article is new evidence that Governor Corzine cannot appear or cannot actually administer State business when these activities involve interaction with Ms. Katz. Moreover, with the “liberal” Times as the basis for their authority it is argued Governor Corzine is not the forthcoming person he portrays himself to be as the funds given to Ms. Katz were not a half million dollars (plus or minus), but $6 million. The payments were not the act of a good samaritan exercising kindness by forgiving a loan, but were a self-interested financial settlement arising from unknown acts or omissions committed by Governor Corzine during his relationship with Ms. Katz. And, finally Governor Corzine is not the shrewd business mogul he appears to be as the payments were either restitution for some wrongdoing or hush money. In short, it is not Ms. Katz who is in obligated to Governor Corzine. It is Governor Corzine who is in beholden to Ms. Katz.

The Democrats appear to have chosen to ignore “the establishment” NY Times article. Rather, they seek to counter Republican concerns by relying on a cursory recognition of Ethics Advisory Panel authority and a general public awareness of its’ “opinion” the Governor had no pecuniary interest to be a total vindication. Nothing is said about the numerous unseen, and inappropriate emails between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz. Nothing is said about why such communications were not immediately stopped after the first email, but rather were allowed to continue well into the negotiations. Ironically, this is the one action the Advisory Panel “advised” Governor Corzine was improper. And, nothing is said about why the unfounded “advice” of the Governor’s Executive (as opposed to judicial) Branch Panel should be accorded any sort of finality or respect.

The bottom line is no one knows whether the personal relationship is inextricably intertwined with the personal relationship.

“Interviews with some three dozen people who know the pair - from union administration officials to lobbyists and friends - leave no clear explanation as to why he paid the settlement or why their interactions have become strained. Some see her as a spurned lover still nursing hopes of reconciliation: others say she is a savvy advocate eager to leverage any avenue for political results. He is alternatively viewed as afraid of what she might say about him, or simply as a rich and generous man who considered the relationship significant enough to warrant helping her maintain the lifestyle they had shared.” NY Times, May 23, 2007 (subscription).

Rosebud.

BROKEN TRUST: GOV. CORZINE SUPREME COURT MOMENT NO TIME AT ALL

Governor Corzine resumed his offical duties on May 7, 2007. On May 18, 2007 Governor Corzine declared the goal of his next Supreme Court appointment would be made to make a lasting impact on the Supreme Court and would be made no later than June 4, 2007. Current Chief Justice Zazalli retires on June 17, 2007.

The Memorial Day Weekend is now upon us. Yet, the longer Governor Corzine waits to make the announcement, the less time, and consequently, the harder it will be, to publicly access the appointee, and the less likely it will be to evaluate the consequences of the candidate's confirmation. It also minimizes potential objections to or threats of rejection. Although for all intents and purposes the Supreme Court will soon vacation for the summer, there is little possibility the season will be an excuse for a vacant Chief Justice seat.

The bottom line is Governor Corzine sees the confirmation process as a superficial inspection and a perfunctory courtesy. Thus, a successful appointee is one that relies on public name recognition and / or logical public coherence.

However, calling someone "eminently qualified" or noting a "long period of public (even judicial) experience" does not identify the tangible standards that one must meet in order to be a Chief Justice. Nor are they proofs from a credible public process that specifically identifies how the candidate does or does not fulfill each benchmark.

The devil is always in the details. But, as Governor Corzine seizes the moment who will "seize the time?"

BROKEN TRUST: DON IMUS, GOV. CORZINE & ZAZALLI SUPREME COURT

Governor Corzine and the Zazalli Supreme Court seem to be "one toke over the line" in their approach to judicial credibility. Or, maybe it's just that they are "ten percent to the left of center in good times and ten percent to the right of center when it affects themselves." But, whatever the reason(s), their reliance on former Chief Justice Deborah Poritz as a watchdog over the State's judicial integrity only reinforces the long standing notion of "Jersey Justice" being nothing more than a continuum of broken trust. Prior to the Rutgers' incident, Governor Corzine has appeared on the Imus program a number of times. Nevertheless, Governor Corzine was quick to call Imus out and condemn the race and gender charged remarks that Don Imus made about the Rutgers' women's basketball team. And, Governor Corzine was schedule to act as a go-between at the team-Imus meeting, when traveling at an unecessary 91 mph and without weraring a seat belt, he had a accident(Ironically, the Governor gets a ticket, the trooper takes the fall, and the repentant sinner orders the public get his dose of medicine). The irony of the Imus affair is that Governor Corzine appointed former C.J. Poritz to the Judicial Advisory Panel. The panel suggests and reviews candidates for judicial appointments. C.J. Portitz was placed on the Panel even though she usurped the U.S. Constitution with the creation of the offense known as driving-while-black, i.e. racial profiling, during her stint as the State's Attorney General. Although her apologists note that was a while ago, racial profiling appears to be a growing problem. What makes this even better (or worse), is that Deborah Poritz's racism was rewarded by first being appointed to Supreme Court Chief Justice, and later by being given life tenure. (Again, the State Troopers took the fall). Conversely, Governor Corzine's Attorney General, Zulima Farber, was forced from office for defending her intimate companion in a, you guessed it, click-it or ticket-incident. Somehow reformer Corzine's higher standards of conduct apply to Ms. Farber but not C.J. Poritz, and certainly not to Governor Corzine himself. The investigation of Ms. Farber was relatively independent and open. The investigation of C.J. poritz consisted of a closed door, one person interview with a page of notes (Not even president Bush, AG Gonzales or the Democratic Congress have that one in their play book!). And, former Justice O'Hern's investigation of Gov. Corzine & Ms. Katz was not independent of the Governor, took place in secret and without a record (Maybe AG Gonzales should be held to Governor Corzine's "Due process" standards.). Would that it would end here - damage control, ya know - but it doesn't. The Zazalli Supreme Court must also find racism palitable as it appointed C.J. Poritz to head the "Ad Hoc Committee to Advise {the} Supreme Court on {the Judicial} Code of Conduct." "In particular, the committee has been asked to make recommendations in respect to Court Rule 1:12 and Canons 3 and 5 of the Code, which set the standards for cases in which a judge shoild not participate to preserve the appearance of the court's neutrality. MY, MY, MY! What have we here??? Canon 3(a)(4): "A judge should be impartial and should not discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, language, martial status, socioeconomic status, or disability." Canon 3(a)(6): "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a proceeding or impending proceeding... ." How would Don Imus describle this mess? What's the word he would use? Duplicity? Fits the facts, but, No. Hypocrites. Maybe. Weasels? Yep, Weasels. The word is Weasels. Labels:

draft

GOV. CORZINE ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL’S “JERSEY JUSTICE” BAD OMEN ON NEXT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE

“And thus I clothe my naked villany with odd old ends stol’n forth of Holy Writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” Richard III.

The Ethics Advisory Panel’s “legal opinion” in the Corzine-Katz matter is so untrustworthy that it appears to be little more than a public relations tool to silence critics, spin the Press, and create an unfounded public impression of blamelessness. The fact Governor Corzine readily embraces the Panel as is and accepts its “vindication” without further action raises serious question of whether Governor Corzine’s appointments to the NJ Court, Supreme Court, or its Chief Justice are based on political expediency or judicial temperament.

BACKGOUND SUMMARY

It seems beyond dispute the March – April outcry surrounding the Corzine-Katz relationship and its possible impact on the New Jersey-Communication Workers of America contract, rather than going away, grew loader with each official denial. It also seems beyond dispute that both Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz, aside from making denials, had no intention of offering proof of their statements. When Bogota’s Mayor Lonegan asked the Ethic’s Advisory Panel to intervene, the Governor also asked for a review and the Panel assumed jurisdiction.

During the period that followed the Governor Corzine was critically injured in a car accident. On his way to meet with the Rutgers’ Basketball team and Don Imus, the SUV hit a guard rail. The SUV was traveling at 91 miles per hour although the Governor has stated there was no rush because the meeting had been pushed ahead. Moreover, although the Governor was sitting in the “death-seat”, he was not wearing a seat belt.

Governor Corzine returned to work on Monday, May 7, 2007 and the Panel issued its “legal opinion” the next day.

PUBLIC RELATIONS IN PRACTICE

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” U.S. President James Madison, 1822.

The quasi-judicial opinion appears to be mostly public relations as it is untrustworthy. There are four reasons. First, it was conducted by persons who lack judicial independence as they are solely appointed by the Governor for three year terms. Second, the “hearings” were secret. Thus, there is no record except for the opinion which is based on secret communications between advisors acting as quasi-judges and the witnesses, who are giving testimony about other secret communications about union points that actually took place between the Governor and Ms. Katz during the State-Union negotiations. Without copies of transcripts and copies of the emails, and without a fair but reliable process of distinguishing between relevant and person communications, there can be no transparency or public oversight. Without a record of the proceedings there is no way to test, let alone clarify or challenge, the facts revealed by Justice O’Hern’s telephone “depositions.” Three, the O’Hern Panel failed to distinguish between the appearance of impartiality and actual impartially. The O’Hern panel held there were secret communications between the Governor and Ms. Katz. Thus the appearance of impropriety. They also held the communications did not influence the negotiations as a matter of fact. Hence, the lack of actual bias. They only problem is that in both instances no one has seen or heard the evidence. Moreover, the O’Hern panel failed to discuss if and why an ex-husband and wife would or would not be allowed to appear together in Court as Judge and lawyer. Finally, although the ex parte communications between Governor Corzine and CWA President Katz create the appearance of impropriety the Panel can only advise against such communications. It has no power to provide a remedy because of the rule of necessity, only the Governor, and not Senator Codey Acting as Governor, can negotiate the contract. Thus, there is no offense.

NEW “JERSEY JUSTICE”

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Hamilton or Madison, Federalist Papers #51.

One cannot say that Governor Corzine’s request the Ethics Advisory Panel advise him as to any conflict between his personal and political relationship with Ms. Katz is a deal with the devil. One can say, however, Governor Corzine was certainly willing to accompany him on the journey.

Governor Corzine could, as Governor, have insisted on a meaningful and credible review. And, it is only necessary and proper it be independent, fair and reliable. Instead, Governor Corzine went alone for the ride, apparently because he has stated on numerous occasions he didn’t want a public record and thus did not want public scrutiny. Yet it was he who requested the review.

As important, Justice O’Hern could have refused to participate in a shame proceeding. Can you image anything more abhorrent to traditional democracy and more partisan than Justice O’Hern agreeing to act unchecked as judge, prosecutor, defense counsel and jury? Can you imagine sitting in a court where the judge leaves the bench and calls the witnesses from a phone in his or her office? Or, can you imagine not being able to challenge the completeness, authenticity or veracity of the verbal and written evidence.

THE PUBLIC RELATIONS RESULT

The actions of the Ethics Advisory Panel are presumed to be a search for the truth and the light it purports to shed to fairly resolve the matter. They do not. Still, the Corzine-Katz favorable Report corroborates and enhances political support for Governor Corzine while it simultaneously contradicts and discredits the opposition. Over 82 stories (using corzine & ethics) headlined the Ethic’s Advisory Panel had found no ethics violations from Governor Corzine’s involvement with Ms. Katz. Such generous, but short lived, press coverage of the Report thus strengthened the decree because the reporting press is presumed to be a guardian of the people against government wrongdoing. In short, massive, repetitive, and rapid distribution of the vindicating headline is social proof. The cumulative result of the spin process is to mislead the public by substituting hidden details for proof and appearances for reality.

GOVERNOR CORZINE’S EMBRACE OF THE “QUASI-JUDICIAL “LEGAL OPINION” IS AN OMINOUS SIGN ON JUDICAL APPOINTMENTS.

Soon Governor Corzine will announce the appointment of a new Supreme Court Chief Justice. How will that person respond to things not in the Governor’s or his partisan interest? Like when the “devil is in the details?” In light of the above, the cautionary words of Publius are appropriate.

“. . . no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day.” Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78.

O’HERN’S SECRET CORZINE - KATZ HEARINGS: HOUSE OF CARDS BUILT ON SAND?

The May 8, 2007 Ethics Advisory Panel Report (“Report”) vindicates the Governor. The Report seems so poor however, it cannot add or detract from the earlier belief Governor Corzine acted impartially (… Under what circumstances did Justice O’Hern leave the Court …). But, it certainly doesn’t help.

The reason seems obvious (but read the review and see for yourself).

THE SAND

The QUESTION before the Panel was “whether there was a conflict of interest on the part of the Governor [Corzine] in conducting recent CWA contracts negotiations.” Report, p.1.

The ANSWER the panel gives Governor Corzine is “The Governor has a non-delegable duty to govern....” Report, p. 6, Pt. 4. “Even when there is a direct financial benefit . . . there is not a conflict of interest when ‘[1] the action reasonably cannot be avoided under the doctrine of necessity, and where [2] the action is preceded by public disclosure of the relationship or the proposed action and the personal interest of the Governor or his immediate family.’” Report, p.6, par. 4, citing Code of Conduct for the Governor, (F) Conflicts and Appearances of Conflicts, (c).

This is probably the only conclusion in the Report that matters, one ruling that overrides all other findings, all other facts, all other law, all other errors. The title of that conclusion is the “Rule of Necessity.” The Rule of Necessity seems to be a common law provision generally applied to judges. Its substance is that where all available judges are somehow biased and thus disqualified from acting in some matter, no judges are disqualified from acting in that matter. The logic is that the issue (contract) must be resolved (negotiated) so people can move on. Justice is done by a disqualified person(s) even if the result is injustice. Assuming the invocation of the necessity rule is appropriate; the Governor’s Code of Conduct is not mandatory and may be violated with impunity by Governor Corzine or any Governor or Acting Governor.