A Man Has To Know His Limitations

I recently received a series of e-mail’s from Robert Brant, Trappe Borough’s Zoning Hearing Board Solicitor, wherein Mr. Brant has attempted to meet with me. In one of those e-mail’s Mr. Brant writes:

Craig- Come out from your cloak of anonymity which allows you to make irresponsible and inaccurate statements about others, including me, as you “blog” ; I learned of your statements from someone who read them, and told me you were making statements about me. When I asked to meet you, I did so only to ascertain whether you are, in fact, real, or are hiding behind disingenuous anonymous garbage. I do not have the advantage of not being in the public eye. Actually I searched records to find you, and could not. Could you give me a street address? I assure you that the “readers” of your blog will not pester you for autographs. Here is what is inaccurate in your statements- (1) Trappe did not violate ethics laws in appointing me to the ZHB- I have been the Solicitor to the ZHB since about 1988- Al Douglass is a member- I have been appointed steadily since that time, but am not a member-if any client that I represent in the Borough of Trappe, including Strategic were to make application to the ZHB. I could neither represent the ZHB or that client and would recuse myself; it has never happened. (2) you referred to me as “arrogant and pompous”, and I know that is subjective criticism, but are they your words? Finally, Craig, I challenge you to meet me, to confirm that you are real? Come on, man, have the guts to step up to your statements about those who are in the public eye, and face them. I bet you don’t.

Now what I find perplexing here is the fact that Mr. Brant does not counter my claim of his unethical behavior but instead spends time to attempt find my physical whereabouts. Sounds like a veiled threat to me. In fact I told Mr. Brant this in my reply to his e-mail:

Mr. Brant:

You seem obsessed in finding out my whereabouts rather than addressing the fact that you donated money (directly and indirectly) to the then candidates who now hold office in Trappe. You placed signs for those candidates on your office property in support of these candidates. You then benefited financially from these actions by retaining the post you state you have held since 1988. We are investigating allegations that this is your MO and that this is common practice for you.

If in fact you have done this (and we have the proof you have done this in Trappe) then you clearly have violated the ethics law. Here is an excerpt from the PA Ethics Act:

The Public Official and Employee Ethics Act provides certain restricted activities in which public officials and public employees may not engage. These restrictions provide the basis upon which Commission rulings are issued.

(a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation, or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.

(b) No person shall offer or give to a public official, public employee, or nominee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment based on the offeror's or donor's understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby.

(c) No public official, public employee or nominee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding of that public official, public employee or nominee that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby.

(d) No public official or public employee shall accept an honorarium.

Make no mistake that we are looking at you and your firm’s activities at every level including your activities at the LPVRSA. If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about. And again we offer you the opportunity to respond specifically to any and all allegations we have asserted in our Blog. Make no mistake about it though, we will not be intimidated by statements such as “Actually I searched records to find you, and could not. Could you give me a street address? I assure you that the "readers" of your blog will not pester you for autographs”. One can only read your actions to find my physical whereabouts as veiled threat. Be careful Mr. Brant as you are a member of the bar.

Speaking of that, do you not feel that being a member of the ZHB and representing Strategic Reality did not violate ethics law? Do you think contacting individual members of the then sitting Trappe Borough Council to meet with the principals of Strategic Realty when you represent Trappe Borough in zoning issues while taking money from this very client does not violate ethics laws? If you do not then you are seriously misguided. As Clint Eastwood said (as the character Harry Callaghan) in Dirty Harry “A man has to know his limitations”.