Bloomberg more than protected by the media in sharp contrast to Koch’s 3rd term.
Huffington picked up the Public being barred by NYU and the villager that happened to endorse Christine Quinn, Mike Bloomberg’s puppet and real estate whore. (Some radical Christine Quinn turned out to be...not Harvey Milk or Jane Jacobs!)Reminder John Sexton, who earns close to 2 million a year not including perks to over see the most corrupt real estate land grabs and air space deals ran down to testify Mike Bloomberg must have a third term. He backs Quinn as well because they will aid him in continued corrupt destructive land grabs and compensated by the tax payers who don’t want it. Tax payers are even paying for the infrastructure expansion for NYU and Cooper Union and Columbia U although New Yorkers don’t want them crushing their communities. The fix is in!!!
Some opponent Derr turned out to be helping Quinn to beat Kurland. NYU and the villager turned away NY1, City Hall News and
seniors not Quinn supporters but all Quinn supporters got in. Go to YouTube type NYU the villager.
Whether it is SAIC or other big contractors where the fix was in as in no competitive bids are considered just like the over all media and ditto for politics like pushing through a 3rd term again with corrupt Christine Quinn making sure the public was denied a referendum with the help of city council corrupt cronies....
sure seems like the fix was in!
They are all kinds of behind the scenes deals that the newspaper/media wanted protected including by their owners.
Same question applies to Bloomberg and where are arrests City Hall and SAIC. For me - 2 words cover up,
Heard on the street: more law chimes in on SAIC, ....how many times must SAIC get scolded and skirt/twist around laws before being told to cease operations.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/dc-circuit-rejects-collective-knowledge-shines-spotlight-processes n United States v. Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC entered into a contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) to provide technical assistance and expert analysis. The contract included strict provisions on conflicts of interest, including a requirement that SAIC seek NRC’s prior written approval if it had reason to believe that a proposed arrangement may raise a conflict of interest. SAIC subsequently entered into two contracts that potentially conflicted with its NRC work. SAIC had a computerized compliance system, but it did not capture all of SAIC’s business relationships and did not adequately associate keywords with descriptions of work. The descriptions were also incomplete. SAIC did not disclose the new contracts to the NRC. The NRC eventually learned about SAIC’s other work from a member of the public and terminated SAIC’s contract. The government then sued SAIC under the False Claims Act. blah...blah...blah then... Contractors would be wise to use every internal investigation, in particular the raft of internal investigations prompted by the mandatory disclosure requirements imposed by FAR 52.203-13, as an opportunity not only to reverse the monetary consequences of improper conduct and to punish those responsible, but to implement internal process improvements designed to prevent a recurrence of the problem. Improvements will not only demonstrate a lack of recklessness, but they will also catch issues before they become FCA concerns.
Report Offensive Post
