On Monday, December 14th I received a response to the letter I wrote to Congressman Ackerman on November 16th. I’m shocked by the negativity of his reply and more importantly, still not satisfied because he still hasn’t addressed my concerns. I was hoping he’d clear up his reluctance to explain why he allowed the religious persecution of a political candidate. The persecution was conducted by a newspaper he founded and has a stake in. In his previous response, he disavowed his role in the Queens Tribune but did agree it was inappropriate for a candidate to be criticized based upon his faith. As of this writing, he has not come forward publicly with that position.
The date of his response is revealing. The letter was dated December 11th. Was it a coincidence it was the same day you posted the article I authored about the 19th District City Council election and the role Ackerman played in it? Did he plan to ignore my letter of November 16th until this information appeared on the Queens Crap website? However, this latest communication not only does not address the questions being asked, he attacks me and invites me not to communicate with him directly because I can’t be “civil.”
I’m confused by his statement “I’ve been courteous and responded to your requests for 19 years.” This leaves me dumbfounded as I can’t think of one positive thing that came out of past communications. As a matter of fact, Congressman Crowley represented my community until 2000 when the Congressional Districts were redrawn. But at least he was courteous enough to wish me “Seasons Greetings.” After several attempts at preparing a response, I’ve decided to respond through the Queens Crap blogsite as it appears it has a lot more impact than the letters I’ve sent to him so far.
Although I supplied the material to you, I would like it known I had no input as to the way it was published. The Queens Crap presentation seems to be the reason he accused me of name calling. He apparently used your faux Queens Tribune headline calling him an “asswipe” and the addition you put on to the title of my piece…”and whore ads” as a reason to dismiss my letter and article. I failed to find “name calling” or a “childish rant” amongst the material written and provided by me.
Congressman Ackerman claims I “fabricated” the information about his role regarding the Queens Tribune. I admit I mislabeled his financial disclosure statements as tax statements. However, he continues to insist he has a “minority investment in the corporation that owns the Queens Tribune.” I am providing the following links in order to illustrate the truth and dispel any notion my imagination created data as Ackerman suggests.
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00001143_2005.pdf (signed by Ackerman)
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00001143_2006.pdf (signed by Ackerman)
The financial disclosure statements show he is a board member of Tribco and has assets ranging from $250,000-$500,000 in the corporation. Furthermore, when Michael Schenkler and Gary Ackerman reacquired the Queens Tribune in 2002, the NY Daily News published the following article:
Schenkler also wrote the following in his weekly column (please don’t forget to read the press release at the bottom of the page):
Congressman Ackerman must’ve been sent a link to the Queens Crap website and was probably surprised by the faux headline calling him names. I can’t help but think he now knows how it feels to be attacked just as Dan Halloran must have felt when he saw the original headline in the Tribune on September 17th. You would think the offensive headline would’ve taught him a lesson but instead, he replied to my legitimate concerns with a rant of his own, and a childish one at that! His $1,000 challenge was one of the most absurd aspects to his reply. I admit I misspoke when I labeled his signed financial disclosure forms as tax returns but it does not change the fact I was making about his relationship to the Queens Tribune which he continues to deny in his replies to me.
Ironically, I find Congressman Ackerman’s response creates many interesting parallels to the piece submitted to you. Ackerman claimed he was not aware of the attack on Dan Halloran in the September 17th edition of the Queens Tribune. I wasn’t consulted about the presentation of the material you published. Here’s where the similarity ends. I’m requesting that in the future, you refrain from derogatory comments and present my material in a more neutral tone. After all, the submissions speak for themselves and your December 11th presentation damaged my credibility, even though it was unintentional.
Finally, I just want to point out Ackerman’s December 11th response was typical of the Ackerman/Schenkler strategy of diverting attention from the real issues by focusing on things that either have nothing to do what I put down in writing or pointing out a slight error in the way I described his signed financial statement and not its content. I leave it up to your readers to see if I “fabricated” any of the material used in my article. I’m positive everything will check out. By the way, he still hasn’t answered my question about why he did not try to stop the attacks on Halloran while being in a position to do so.
I am forwarding Gary Ackerman’s most recent response so your readers can see how a sitting Congressman addresses the legitimate concerns of a constituent. It’s my contention that if Ackerman is deceitful in his responses, then his input into the Queens Tribune editorial content could be questioned as well. Crapster, you are doing the people of Queens a great service. Thank you.