I give Paul Millus a ton of credit for commenting on my post about him yesterday. The problem is that his is a very lawyerly answer. He still does not see that his very squishy answer just keeps proving he is on both sides of the issue but uses clever phrasing to try to get out of it. He begins "Ah,the difference is my overzealous and biased friends, Mr. Mejias is a lawyer. As a lawyer he owes a duty to speak the truth and not to attack other lawyers when his facts and understanding of the law are plainly incorrect. So, (now read carefully) even if Mr. Mejias remarks might not qualify as defamatory under New York Law, a lawyer has an ethical obligation as well to not mistate facts for his own purpose and question a lawyer's integrity if there is no basis to do so."
1. Of course I am biased. Schmitt is a proven liar and it is about time he is made to pay for his lies. Sadly right now, the taxpayers of Nassau County are paying.
2. Schmitt, as an elected official charged with the public trust - and I'll paraphrase Millus here - "owes a duty to speak the truth and not to attack others when his facts and understanding of the facts are plainly incorrect." Heck, Schmitt knew damn well he was lying and he did it anyway. This is a pattern for Schmitt. Two years ago the REPUBLICAN Nassau D.A. rebuked Schmitt's scare tactics about soaring crime rates in Nassau but Schmitt continued and continues to this day to lie. Why is that Mr. Millus? Doesn't Schmitt owe the public the decency to tell the truth?
I'll paraphrase Mr. Millus again "an elected offical has an ethical obligation as well to not mistate facts for his own purpose and question a persons integrity if there is no basis to do so."
I have a basis for questioning Schmitt's integrity and the facts speak for themselves.
The point is that the taxpayers should not have to pay for Schmitts lies.
You should bill Schmitt directly, Mr. Millus. Let him pay for his own defense. Nassau County can't afford Peter Schmitt.
Now let's go further along the course of Mr. Millus' apparent reasoning. The defense of Schmitt is that his lies were said while he was wearing the hat of "Legislator" and not a private citizen. Again to quote Millus from earlier this year "Politicians have to have the flexibility to say things in the public interest." Legislator Mejias is speaking in the public interest when he questions why we the taxpayers are paying for Schmitts lies.
The long and short of it for Mr. Millus seems to be that as a lawyer, Legislator Mejias has to meet a higher standard but Legislator Schmitt sans a Juris Doctorate is in no way ethically or morally compelled not to lie.
I find that to be an interesting distinction.
I would hpe that Mr. Millus expects more from our elected officials.
Mr. Millus continues "For example, did you know that the amount billed to the county thus far has been $160,575? Mr. Mejias did."
Oh, I know that and so does Legislator Mejias.
I am going to assume that you meant to add that you will not be doing the rest of your work for Schmitt's defense pro-bono and that an additional $25,000 is being requested to pay legal fees. To quote Newsday reporter Celeste Hadrick "On Wednesday, Mejias voted against paying Millus up to $185,000, calling it "an outrageous waste of taxpayer money."
The tab most certainly will continue to rise. I ask Mr. Millus if he believes that there is an ethical obligation to not leave out inconvienient information.
I will get to the rest of the rebuttal of my post tomorrow.
To read the entire comment right now by Mr. Millus, please see yesterdays post.
Again I give great credit to Mr. Millus for responding.