Joel Abelove on the Times Union 6/14/18 editorial

Joel Abelove for District Attorney
June 14 at 2:33pm

Today's Times Union editorial headline reads, "Mr. Abelove Dodges Justice." Apparently, the Times Union feels that following the law, as the judge did in dismissing the Attorney General's case against me, is an injustice. In the minds of the Times Union editors, justice can only be achieved if it comports with their predetermined outcome. Furthermore, while they are entitled to their opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. In their quest to brand me a dodger of justice, the TU editors blatantly invent facts that suit their end.

First, their editorial claims that the Attorney General brought two charges of obstructing justice against me. If they bothered to read the charges, they would know that I was never charged with obstruction of justice.

Second, they claim that, "It was later found, however, that Mr. Abelove didn't let a grand jury hear from several witnesses who have said the officer was not in immediate danger." This claim is also false. Who is this mysterious person or agency who "found" that I didn't let witnesses testify? I certainly was never charged with such an act. In fact, I couldn't have prevented such witnesses from testifying, since they were unknown by me to exist - to this day, I have never spoken to such witnesses - until after the grand jury voted.

Third, the TU opines that the court dismissed the charges on a technicality. In fact, the ground upon which the court dismissed the case is no mere technicality. The court found that the Attorney General "was without jurisdiction and hence unauthorized to appear in front of the grand jury," in relation to the perjury charge. Lacking jurisdiction to appear before a grand jury is no technicality - jurisdiction is a fundamental legal tenet underpinning our judicial system. Implying that what the Attorney General did was a mere technicality suggests that it is insignificant. This is dangerously misleading and intellectually dishonest.
In case the Times Union still feels that lacking jurisdiction to bring charges is a trivial point, consider that the court found that because the Attorney General acted without proper authority, "the integrity of the grand jury was impaired in this case . . . to the extent that prejudice to the defendant is clearly possible." In other words, because the Attorney General acted improperly with respect to one charge, it is possible that the other charges resulted from prejudice created by the Attorney General. The Times Union's attempt to dismiss such a significant finding as a "technicality" is appalling. If the Times Union feels that impairing the integrity of a grand jury - resulting in prejudice to a defendant - is insignificant, then I encourage them to say so publicly.

Fourth, the Times Union implies that I may have intentionally botched the case. While the Times Union editors may have not read the Attorney General's lengthy report, issued after its own nearly two-year investigation, I have. In it, the Attorney General states that he cannot disprove that that the police officer believed that deadly force was necessary to defend himself. Put another way, the Attorney General tried to prove that the officer was not justified in shooting Edson Thevenin, but could not. Perhaps the editors at the Times Union also feel that the Attorney General intentionally botched their investigation?
Finally, lest anyone fear that politics has nothing to do with this case, the Governor's spokesman is quoted in today's New York Times as stating, "We are reviewing the decision and will be discussing the next steps with the Attorney General's office." Just don't call and ask for Eric Schneiderman. He doesn't work there anymore.

I invite you all to the next chapter of Abelove vs. Cuomo's state of corruption.