Eichmann’s “Fictitious” Partner

Anyone who has been following the Eichmann-Winkler controversy can see that Committeeman Rob Eichmann is a classless twit who can barely put together a sentence when left to his own devices – for example when he takes a shot at live blogging. Eichmann needs a ghost writer more than President Obama needs a teleprompter.

While we know what Committeeman Eichmann is made of, what are we to think of his partners at Conservative New Jersey?

To his credit, Frank Fiamingo has not fanned the fire – although he certainly did nothing to extinguish it. Richard Zuendt not only fans the fire, he may have kindled it way back in the winter time with his March 8 post (yes this controversy has been going on for the better part of a year) attacking the Bayshore Tea Party.

That March 8 Zuendt post is instructive, because it shows the original reason for attacking Bayshore wasn’t inviting non-GOP Freeholder candidates to a meeting and wasn’t Bayshore’s accepting contributions from Republican office holders such as Mike Doherty.

Rather, the key issue for Mr. Zuendt was that Bayshore seemed to be supporting parts of Governor Christie’s agenda (as opposed, presumably, to Steve Lonegan’s agenda) and for the time being preferred to pressure a “RINO” congressman through tactics that work (letters and phone calls) rather than Steve Lonegan’s flashy, time-consuming  and dollar wasting bus tours. At least Mr. Zuendt (in contrast to another CNJ “partner”) was straightforward in not trying to cloak his attacks in phony defenses of first amendment freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

CNJ partner Ed Mazlish was the very first to pile on with an unctuous response to Mr. Zuendt’s March 8 post.

Rich,

After all the hue and cry over your previous posts on the subject of Governor Christie using certain self-proclaimed Tea Party leaders to co-opt Tea Party support for Wisconsin Governer Walker for Christie’s own budget, the silence to this post is deafening. And the e-mail from Ms. Gonzalez that you posted corroborates the opinions you expressed previously. Well done…and shame on any Tea Party leader or supporter who takes Ms. Gonzalez’s advice to forsake principles in order to support a RINO who has gone out of his way to attack and disassociate himself from the Tea Party Movement.

In that attack (and yes, claiming one is advising other to forsake principles is an attack) on Barbara Gonzalez, Unctuous Ed actually used the words “co-opt Tea Party support” without mentioning Steve Lonegan. Then later in that string of comments the following appeared:

Ed and I have decided to remove Russ Cote’s comments. They offer nothing to the discussion and only attack Ed and myself. It is our blog and we see no reason to allow anyone to do that to us.

So, way back on March 10 Unctuous Ed was already stifling free debate on the CNJ website – as is his right to do so. But it comes with a cost: eventually, anyone who is not in full agreement with Unctuous Ed, Feckless Frank, Dithering Dick  and Classless Rob will stop commenting on CNJ and eventually will stop reading CNJ altogether. As the Bulldog has pointed out repeatedly, the proof is in the Alexa rankings.

More than six-months later, Unctuous Ed is still at it. In a response to Frank Fiamingo’s appeal to “drop the in-fighting for two weeks”, Unctuous Ed tried to squeeze through the following claims:

But when it comes down to the core issues, we have not attacked anyone. We have expressed opinions, and we have set forth the facts on which those opinions are based. Those facts have never been contradicted. In response, we have been falsely accused as a group of defamation, libel and slander. Such charges would be laughable if not for the “deadly serious” threats that have accompanied them.

We have not attacked anyone,” he states. Really? No CNJ partner ever called Barb Gonzalez a “cult leader”? No CNJ partner ever attacked Barbara Gonzalez’ decision to “let her Socialist friend promote his Marxist views”? No CNJ partner ever wrote about “the ‘Let’s Be Kind To Socialists’ Bayshore Tea Party Cult”? How about the following:

No one at CNJ has defended a lifelong, perennially losing Democrat candidate for office, and their association with him, in addition to associating with a Socialist.

No one at CNJ has ever tried to extort money from a Statewide conservative organization or leader.

That is not an attack on Tea Party leader Mark Falzon? Doesn’t a veiled accusation of extortion qualify as an “attack”?

Then Unctuous Ed claims he and his partners “have set forth the facts,” one of which is the assertion that “The Bayshore Tea Party Group” is a “fictitious name.” This “fact” is a lie by omission.

You see, “fictitious name” is a legal term of art. It is a DBA name – “doing business as” name. There is nothing shady or wrong with using a DBA. Many businesses file “fictitious names” to legally do business under a different name without having to create an entirely new business entity.

On August 8th CNJ posted an article titled “A Fictitious for Profit Tea Party.” That is a phony “fact set forth”. The Bayshore Tea Pary is not “fictitious” – it is very real. The name “Bayshore Tea Party” is a DBA.

Unctuous Ed is a lawyer who likely understands legal terms of art, but he doesn’t seem to be the kind of lawyer who cares a fig about whether his CNJ partners use viciously misleading propaganda to imply that a Tea Party is using a name in an unethical way. I think it is fair to say that Unctuous Ed is one of the proverbial 98% of lawyers who give the other 2% a bad name.

Share
This entry was posted in Media & Internet and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Eichmann’s “Fictitious” Partner

  1. HeleneH says:

    You really hit the nail on the head, thanks Gene. Oh and for those that think everything we say is violent rhetoric, here is the definition of “hit the nail on the head” to describe exactly what is causing a situation or problem I think Mick hit the nail on the head when he said that what’s lacking in this company is a feeling of confidence.
    See also: head, hit, nail
    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hit+the+nail+on+the+head

  2. 1Prop says:

    CNJ, Eichmann, Winkler, et. al., continue to demonstrate their ignorance as to what the TEA Party is all about. For some reason, they believe that you can’t be conservative without being Republican. What’s more ridiculous is that apparently you can’t be conservative without their approval. The NJGOP had better jettison them before they destroy the party with their dishonest, juvenile and possibly illegal antics.

  3. Frank Jack Fiamingo says:

    GH -”To his credit, Frank Fiamingo has not fanned the fire – although he certainly did nothing to extinguish it.”

    GH – “In a response to Frank Fiamingo’s appeal to “drop the in-fighting for two weeks”,

    I’m sorry – which is it Gene? And that doesn’t count the NUMEROUS times I tried that to quell things that you don’t know about. When you speak from ignorance, you sound ignorant. If you had asked me, I would have been happy to tell you.

    The people at CNJ know how many times I tried to convince them to devote the time spent on all this nonsense to promoting conservative candidates instead. If there was anyone fanning flames and instigating trouble, I am pretty sure intelligent people will see your smoke covered hands as being MAJOR contributors (albeit NOT the only ones by a LONG shot).

  4. Dana Pearson says:

    FJF, I wrote the piece not Gene. I will admit that you did do something to extinguish it — six months after it started. This controversy started no later than March 8 and was entirely one way (all kerosene and no water) for nearly four months — until this Bulldog Pundit site started on July 4 (I think).

    You did not fan the flames the way your other “partners” did. From my perspective, you let it burn. Putting the fire out — requires proactivity, like doing what GH, has done, responding to the fire and putting water on it via this blog. In other words responding to misleading propaganda, such as “BTPG is ficititious”, implications that BTPG was “extorting” money, etc.

  5. Frank Jack Fiamingo says:

    Dana,
    Thank you for the correction. Now I will correct you. Gene did nothing to “pour water” on the fire. He was as much an instigator as the people at CNJ, and unless you have access to my phone and computer, you have no idea how early on I tried to stop the progression of this ongoing saga. You are wrong again. Conjecture without evidence is almost always wrong. Not that it bothers me, it is just one more example of how these things go spiraling out of control. You make assumptions about me you have no basis to make, I make assumptions about you. Neither of us actually know a DAMN thing about what the other person is REALLY like. It is all just conjecture. Having been in the computer business for over 30 years, and having been involved with email and social media before there was any such THING as social media, the one thing I can tell you is that people are *NOT* the same behind their keyboard as they are in person. There is a lot lost in this medium. Tone, humor, body language, facial expressions and a lot more. It is extremely prone to misunderstanding and to misuse. But, be that as it may, I said what I came to say. You can think whatever you like. Perhaps one day if we meet face to face we will wonder why there was any tension in the first place.

    So, I wish you success with identifying and promoting the candidates who can restore and preserve our fundamental human rights. They have been constantly eroding during the decades of administrations of BOTH major parties. Perhaps you can help put a stop to it. I hope so. I wish you luck.