Former Mayor Joe Ganim carved out a strategy 12 years ago and he’s sticking to it. Whether someone else did it, the devil made him do it, or some other convenient imagination, Joe’s gotten so deep into dubious denial strategy he ever had his hand out in the late 1990s it’s impossible for him to pull back from admission, irrespective of mountain ranges of evidence that cost him a promising political career, his liberty, time way from his family, millions in legal fees and his law license that he hopes the Connecticut Supreme Court will restore after a panel of Superior Court judges said no.
On Tuesday his attorney Harold Rosnick urged the Supremes to overturn judges Barbara Bellis, Julia Dewey and Elliot Solomon who ruled last year “any apology, expression of remorse, or explanation” were among the reasons they denied reinstatement of his law license.
It does raise the question, however, how far should the law go in denying someone’s livelihood after punishment? It’s not like Joe’s punishment was a walk in the park. It came at a large cost. Yes, he’s shown no public remorse. Even if he did would it be genuine? Interesting about Joe, even though he’s shown no contrition there’s still nostalgia for him in some city neighborhoods that saw progress during his nearly 12 years as mayor.
Maybe Joe has something going in his favor, the Supremes have ruled against Judge Bellis at least three times in the past year including her decision Superintendent of Schools Paul Vallas lacked the proper credentials to lead city schools. On the other hand, what about the other two judges?
So what say you: should the Supremes restore Ganim’s law license?
The Hartford Courant’s Ed Mahony has more here.
No question, Ganim was and is popular as a mayor who was effective in growing the tax base by actually creating economic development opportunities and closing on them. If only we had one now who understood that. Arguably, there has been little done since the ballpark and arena. Certainly those two projects opened the doors for what has followed. Today, what has followed in the downtown (and it’s all great) is unbelievably fragile. Nearly every new business is in deep trouble–restaurants, grocery story, pharmacy–there is just no support from the mayor’s office or the business community for what actually exists downtown. Talk the talk but you need to walk the walk. I would suggest Ganim as mayor would never have let that happen–he’d be drumming up business and creating support for these pioneers.
That said, the guy raped the city of Bridgeport He sold us down the river for a few suits and cases of wine, not to mention a bunch of other trivialities. The CT Bar Association as well as other state bar organizations take action and bar lawyers who steal, embezzle or otherwise lie to their clients all the time. Lawyers who steal from their clients are disbarred and prohibited from practicing law all the time–there is accountability in the practice of law. And by the way, these lawyers are disbarred for far, far, far less than what Ganim perpetrated. Steal a painting from your client, sell it and spend the money–you are toast. Ganim cleverly avoided suspension on his way to the clink for 9 years for conviction on 16 counts of fraud–that is, to repeat, convicted on 16 counts of fraud. Now, why shouldn’t Ganim be toast? He robbed the city of Bridgeport of a decade and more of opportunity and by the way, in an era on amazing affluence. He’s not sorry, he does not repent in the least. A couple of years ago he made a bunch of donations to charity and it turned out it was from a fund he had that was a collection of all his unused campaign funds.
I’m all for forgiveness and second chances. That said, you don’t put the fox back on guard at the hen house. Ganim is a bright guy, he can manage real estate holdings for the family or something similar. Not like he is out of options. To give him a second chance at the practice of law is a slap in the face of the 144,000 people he robbed and their future he raped. It also sets a major precedence for other lawyers who think they can fleece their clients, pay a price and come right back.
Get a life, Joe. Not in the law, not in politics. Get a life.
Joe Ganim is just a memory. He served time. I forgive him even though he showed no remorse. I forgive him for separating me from my bliss of serving the city of Bridgeport for which I remain a great cheerleader. Maybe one day the court will restore Joe’s bliss of being a lawyer. I doubt it. People’s lives and careers have been ruined by lesser offenses. Sometimes payback is a bitch. His political career is over as well as his professional career. He created this reality. I do wish Joe well. To imagine there is love for Ganim in neighborhoods over Fabrizi and Finch is laughable. Honestly.
Steven Auerbach, I have a mixed view of your comments. I agree with a portion but there are a lot of Bridgeport voters who still like Joe Ganim and would still vote for him if he ran for office. A lot of voters are cynical of all politicians, even those they really like. As one who knows and believes Jesus died for our sins and gave us a second chance at life, then I must say I believe in giving a second chance.
Ron, sorry but you are delusional. Finch has totally overshadowed Ganim’s 10-year stint as Mayor. The black eye he has given the city, the horrible reputation with developers, the mediocre development during his tenure and of course me … doing whatever I had to do to make sure he never has the opportunity to serve again, makes your feelings about Ganim a moot point.
Overshadowed Ganim’s mayoral tenure? Ganim did his dirt YES, but he brought the first economic development to the city in decades during his time in office. Everywhere you drive today you still see the positive impacts he had on the city.
Steven Auerbach, you wrote, “Ron, sorry but you are delusional. Finch has totally overshadowed Ganim’s 10-year stint as Mayor. The black eye he has given the city, the horrible reputation with developers, the mediocre development during his tenure and of course me … doing whatever I had to do to make sure he never has the opportunity to serve again, makes your feelings about Ganim a moot point.” Now who is delusional, what has Mayor Finch done and by the way did you get your $600 check he “promised?”
Ron, I totally agree with second chances. Joe Ganim is a sharp individual and he will succeed in other careers. 100s of cashiers and associates get fired daily for being $10 short in a register or stealing a screwdriver. Save your Jesus belief for something more relevant than Joe Ganim. Jesus died for the sins of Hitler. He died for the priests and clergy who raped and killed men and woman during the Crusades. He died for the murderers who killed the Jews during the courts of inquisition. He died to forgive the sins of the slaveholders who killed, raped and abused their slaves. He died for the sins of Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and the Nazis. He didn’t die, I am certain, for Joe Ganim so he may have a second try at law and politics. I could be wrong since I’m a Jew, but then again so was Jesus. Ron, do you really believe there are a handful of people who would put Joe Ganim on a higher pedestal than John Fabrizi, Mary-Jane Foster or Bill Finch? Are the people of Bridgeport really that ignorant? Well in many cases they are, but that stupid, I don’t think so.
Steven Auerbach, I totally disagree with you, here are a few verses from the New King James Bible (NJK).
NKJ Romans 5:8-9 God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
2.The blood of Jesus redeems & forgives me.
NKJ Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
NKJ Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
NKJ 1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
Steven Auerbach, you asked me, “Ron, do you really believe there are a handful of people who would put Joe Ganim on a higher pedestal than John Fabrizi, Mary-Jane Foster or Bill Finch? Are the people of Bridgeport really that ignorant? Well in many cases they are, but that stupid, I don’t think so.” I have had dealings with Ganim and Fabrizi as a union officer and with Finch as President of the Firebird Society and Ganim was the best at keeping his word, Fabrizi knows how to facilitate problems but Finch is not a man of his word and he will lie at the drop of a hat. Steve, with all of those charges against him and jail time there are a lot of people who still would vote for Joe Ganim ahead of Fabrizi and Finch.
Ron. If that’s true I will take your word for it. I get a $600 check from Adam Wood every time I write a positive blurb on Finch. 🙂 Why else would I sing his praises? Btw the last check bounced! I am kidding just to be perfectly clear.
If Joe Ganim’s license to practice were restored and I needed legal representation, I wouldn’t hesitate in hiring him for the job. Joe Ganim was not practicing law when he committed the acts for which he was convicted. He is not trying to get a permit to carry a firearm. The elected officials who appoint judges can run for office again after they are convicted, serve their time and met all their obligations. Does anyone here believe any of the judges who ruled against Ganim would have not accepted a judgeship position because a member of the Judicary Committee was a convicted felon? An apology, demonstration of remorse or an explanation was not part of the sentence imposed by the Federal Judge in Ganim’s case. How many of the people convicted in the Ganim scandal were required by a judge to give an apology, show remorse or give an explanation? The ones who did out of their free-will didn’t get a sentence reduction. Lennie did and he still gets the cold shoulder from OIB trolls. If Lennie had not apologized and given us some explanation, I’d still respect him and consider him a friend and joined the blog to contribute and support his effort. If I ever need a political consultant, Lennie would be the man I’d go to and I wouldn’t worry about what an opponent has to say about it. Let Joe Ganim practice law–it’s what he educated himself to do. If potential clients have issues with his past, they can find another attorney to represent them.
I say nay. Would a doctor who was convicted of illegal organ transplant or adoption be allowed to practice medicine again? illegally breaking the “do no harm” oath disqualifies that Doctor from the profession.
Being convicted of that caliber of (or any) felony states this officer of the court manipulated, twisted and circumvented the law he is licensed to protect. This is an egregious violation of the law and makes a mockery of his standing as an officer of the court. He should never be allowed to practice law again in this or any state.
Don’t get me started on the fact this person was Mayor at the time.
Wait a minute. Are we talking about the same Joe Ganim who:
* Sold his public office (and misspent the taxpayers money) for fun, wine and profit;
* Swore under oath the charges were all a lie;
* Blamed everyone but himself for what happened;
* Used a previously unknown drug problem to get time shaved off his federal prison sentence;
* Falsely claimed a federal judge supported his reinstatement; and
* Hasn’t offered any positive reasons why his license should be restored?
That Joe Ganim?
All of that conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with being licensed to practice law and is more than ample reason for rejecting Ganim’s attempt to have his license reinstated. That’s not even a close call.
Phil, you are so right! That he is still well-liked by some Bridgeport voters or others would be willing to hire him as their legal representative is irrelevant. That he wasn’t practicing law when he committed the felonies for which he was convicted is also irrelevant. He was still an officer of the court when he committed the felonies and, as the mayor of Bridgeport, he proved to be a faithless fiduciary for the interests of its citizens. His acts were not random mistakes–they were intentional commissions.
He is entitled to a second chance–just not as a licensed attorney.
Let’s not forget, during the trial it came out at times Joe would leave City Hall and run up to the family law firm to log some hours in. So we cannot even say for sure he wasn’t practicing law when some of these illegal acts occurred.
From Connecticut Post
Ganim due second shot at license
Published 5:19 pm, Wednesday, December 4, 2013
It seems to me that those sitting in judgment of former Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim having his law license reinstated are requiring him to go far beyond what anyone else has had to do to get on with their lives.
What happened with Lenny Grimaldi, Al Lenoci and the others associated with Mr. Ganim? Were they allowed to continue earning a living to support their families?
People break the law every day, go to jail and are allowed to resume their lives all the time. People get convicted of crimes, serve time and then run for office again. Why allow that? They violate the public trust. Hell, politicians violate the public trust all the time and nothing is done and they dictate what happens in our lives.
Am I condoning what Joe Ganim did? Of course not. But for those who sit in judgment of his ability to continue to provide for his family, you need to ask yourself honestly, ‘Is this about preserving the ethics of law (because that ship has sailed in my opinion) or is this about the ego of the panel?’
The bottom line is that Joe served his sentence and should be allowed to continue the practice of law. To require him to apologize before he can be considered for reinstatement is a bias shown by the panel.
People know who he is and what he did. If they choose to hire him, then the onus is on them.
If your concern is that he may steal from client accounts, then audit his client accounts quarterly and require that he pay for the audit.
Let him prove that he can represent clients with integrity. Apparently this is not about his competence as a lawyer but that he is dishonest for taking bribes.
He deserves another chance.
Dan Conte
Shelton
*** Maybe tying up the man at McLevy Green and administering a few floggings to his bare back would be enough to satisfy those who want more than their “pound of flesh,” no? *** GIVE THE MAN HIS LAW LICENSE AND LET HIM GET ON WITH HIS LIFE ***