Marc Odien appeared on the Shredd & Ragan show on Thursday to discuss Corwin employing her Assembly Chief of Staff – a state employee – to harass and track Jack Davis.
Then Shredd & Ragan had me on later in the same broadcast to cover similar ground.
Chris Smith joined Brad Riter on our sister-ish station WECK 1230-AM to discuss the Mallia issue.
Later Thursday evening, Channel 7’s John Borsa tweeted the following:
[HTML1]
[HTML2]
[HTML3]
[HTML4]
[HTML5]
[HTML6]
Oh, it’s hurt Corwin. This is quite literally the first time I’ve seen Jack Davis appear human. Some punk kid wasn’t letting him get to his car. Jack shoved his camera. This is the worst setup ever by a completely inept campaign. Don’t believe me? Why hasn’t Jane Corwin’s campaign Twitter account posted anything since April 19th?
Thanks, by the way, to the Buffalo News, Daily Politics, Balloon Juice, Politico, Liz Benjamin, and Channel 7 for crediting, mentioning, and linking to the fact that WNYMedia.net was first to reveal Mallia’s identity. We love attribution, and hate outlets like Channels 2 and 4, (and even, inexplicably, nominal WNYMedia.net “partner”, YNN), which pretend like we didn’t do their work for them.
The Buffalo Record 
I missed the part where it was determined that Corwin “employed her Assembly Chief of Staff to harass and track Jack Davis” In the interest of fairness I’m not a resident of this election district, not employed by any of the candidates and really not concerned with much of the hoopla other than to get a huge laugh at the hypocrisy on display! BTW, where was Mr Borsa’s curiosity when his friend Pete Cutler ran over a motorcyclist while driving drunk?
Okay wait. This is good stuff. But for proof of ineptness you’re go to zinger is about a Twitter account not being used??
The Twitter account being inactive in 2011 during a special election when social media (which = free media) is growing in influence and importance is merely the corn syrup within the red gloop in which one finds the maraschino cherry on the top of Corwin’s fail sundae.
Her last tweet was responded to by HeiressJCorwin and she just gave up after that….
@JaneCorwin Alarmingly silent once the Heiress took over #NY26
Corwin is using NYS employees to dust up a 78 year old man? Does it get any lower than this? Why not just hire goons to beat the poor guy up? Are there any State ethics problems here?
Corwin should have just hired Count Vampire J. Machiavelli, he could have sucked out what blood Jack has left and NY-26 could elect a zombie to Congress, he’d be more effective than Corwin!
Before there was the oracle at Delphi….Jack Davis was already miserable bastard and Jane Corwin was running a business from her pre-school desk.
Vote Hochul!
*already a miserable bastard
I need more coffee!
A childish tactic — one Jane used while running the Talking Phone book as a toddler, no doubt.
A campaign aide “punk’d” a candidate by goading him into the type of nastiness this site has always attributed to him = disgraceful.
A soon-to-be Green Party candidate “punk’d” the Gov. of Wisconsin by illegally impersonating someone else = Alan may vote for him.
Guess it depends on whose punk punk’d whom, eh?
Mind citing the statue Murphy violated Ward?
I’m legitimately curious to the illegality of prank calls and quite concerned that thousands of 6th graders across the country worried about running refrigerators are in violation of the law.
Also, when you ‘punk’ someone, it’s suppose to be funny. I know old, rich douchebags like yourself are incapable of understanding humor that isn’t a racist email forward, but harassing a crazy old man until he takes a swing at you falls right behind Gallagher on the comedy scale.
Actually,Gallagher is probably right up your alley, both comically and politically however, so nevermind….
What I find “disgraceful” was Corwin pretending she knew nothing because she went to bed early etc. Epic fail by Baldy Langworthy and Fonzie Mallia.
Splett–go to the UB Law Library, find one of the work-stations, fire up Westlaw or Lexis, and go to NY Penal (not “penile”) Law and enter the following search term: criminal +1 impersonation.
That should take you to § 190.25. If it’s not too much of a strain (I was able to do it despite being an old, rich douchebag) read all the way down to subdivision 2 of that section.
Then think back real hard to your Green friend’s call to the Gov. of Wisconsin, and decide whether the intent was to injure the Governor or the person the Greenie was impersonating.
I know you can do it, ’cause you’re young and poor and not a douchebag.
How was there an injury?
and decide whether the intent was to injure the Governor or the person the Greenie was impersonating.
So the plutocrats and their hired douchebags who are trying to wipe out the middle class are the real victims here. Gotcha.
Just curious, Ward — do you consider Roy Cohn to be an admirable historical figure?
I’m no law student, but even a dummy like me can plainly see that Murphy 1) gained no material benefit from, nor did he 2) injure or 3) defraud Gov. Walker. All he did was expose the elected Governor of Wisconsin as a tool of the Koch Brothers. Republicans like Ward may find that “injurious,” but the rest of us got a laugh, then a sad, realizing that there are Scott Walkers in leadership positions in every state legislature in the land.
Alan–you folks seemed to think at the time that Ian Murray had injured the Governor’s ability to accomplish his administration’s goals. And injured Mr. Koch’s reputation. But, of course, since history will judge his stunt a failure, and since Gov. Walker’s efforts were successful, one might conclude that complete failure = no injury.
However, Alan, if you tilt your specs up and read the statute out loud real slowly, you will hear yourself say “with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another …”.
I’m thinking Mr. Green Candidate had such intent, even though he didn’t obtain the intended result.
And Eric–I know you are not a law student, but you can ask Splett if the statute says “material” benefit. Once he manages to locate it.
You “hate” Channel 2 for not attributing you with first revealing the volunteer was Corwin’s chief of staff? Yet you used Channel 2’s video in this post without attribution. You wouldn’t have been able to confirm it was Mallia without Channel 2’s video. You lose all credibility on this argument Alan, and it makes you look stupid! You didn’t do anybody’s work for them. Instead, you just stole somebody else’s picture!
Actually, I got the picture from Chris Charvella’s post. If I failed to attribute it to anyone, it was to him. My use of the image, with editorial commentary, falls deeply in fair use territory.
Yeaaa, I don’t really need to go to a terminal in a law library to look that up, although I do understand that someone of your age might not understand that these fancy computer things work just as well from home and I don’t even need to log into my Westlaw account to find the statute, this crazy new thing we have called Google saves me the trouble.
2. Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization and does an act in such pretended capacity with intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another
Which benefit is he obtaining again? Writing a news article? You really want to go down that road? I don’t need to be a member of the bar to see the constitutional issues that would raise. I mean, if we’re going to read ‘benefit’ that broadly, investigative journalism is essentially illegal. Hell, let’s just read ‘benefit’ to mean notoriety and you’ve made every convincing novelty twitter account created in the state of New York a Class A misdemeanor.
If your going to completely piss all over the intent of a statue, at least avoid getting it all over the 1st Amendment in the process. You’re a conservative. Your people’s entire schtick is pretending to love freedom and here you are trying to tell me journalism that exposes corruption in elected officials isn’t protected because a writer ‘benefits’ from it.
Even an activist judge the likes of Scalia isn’t going to buy that one…
….and that should read ‘If you’re…’ before you correct my grammar like the pedantic dick I know you are.
It’s 3:30 in the damn morning and I can’t be bothered with proofreading before I hit submit.
Also, under your intent to injure definition, I assume you fully support prosecuting the camera man who baited Jack Davis into sucker punching him right? I mean, after all, the guy pretended to represent himself as a member of the press with an intent to injure Davis’ electoral hopes…or is that different because it was your team doing it?
Article 190 exists to prohibit fraud where the perpetrator derives some almost-exclusively financial benefit. I.e., “Hi, I’m Joe from Your Creditor, Inc. You owe us $10,000 or we’ll disappear your house. Pay up”. But really, Joe is a scumbag in a basement in New Jersey named “Frank” who is a professional crook.
@Ward, let the courts decide….and it appears they already have in another prank case.
http://blog.hosting-promocode.com/news/7334