Certain aspects of commentary and public reports, swirling around the public discourse of ethics issues concerning the New York Attorney General’s nine-year prosecution of Maurice R. Greenberg and Howard I. Smith, strike me as very troubling. (See, “Government Still Pursuing Greenberg Case 9 Years Later,” NYLJ, Feb. 18, 2014; ‘Ethics’ Tactic Only Seeks to Intimidate Public Officials, NYLJ, Letter to Editor, Dec. 23, 2013; “Bellacosa Attacks A.G. for Comments in Greenberg Fraud Case,” NYLJ. Dec. 13, 2013.)
Repeatedly over the last few months, some reputable private individuals and certain state employees have propounded, by implicit suggestions and explicit assertions, that pervasive ethical allegations and concerns registered in formal complaints to a public body charged with responsibility for same are: (a) “distractions”; (b) “premature”; (c) “wrongly venued”; (d) “beside the point”; (e) strategically media driven; or (f) all of the above, encapsulated by a variety of rhetorical mischaracterizations, like “harassment” and “usurpation.”
