.

The Real Truth, the Real Facts

The malicious unfounded slanderous and libelous attack on my professionalism, character and denial of my right of “due process” is addressed here-in.

 

[Editor's Note: This letter is in response to an article about Roy Abramowitz's decision to withdraw his candidancy for a seat on the New Canaan Town Council.]

The malicious unfounded slanderous and libelous attack on my professionalism, character and denial of my right of “due process” is addressed here-in.

Firstly Mr. Farrell retired from the practice of Public Accountancy well before the passage of Sarbanes Oxley and the formation of the PCAOB in January 2003. He never practiced pursuant to the rules and regulations of the PCAOB, never registered with the PCAOB and never held membership in the PCAOB. He is no expert.

Why would Mr Farrell commit libel and slander against me? Well one clear fact is that he is a staunch supporter of Mr Jeb Walker and the Town Council members that support Mr Walker’s prior behavior. I have been told by members in the community that Mr Farrell adamantly supported and spoke in favor of the  actions of Mr. Walker in “Pension-gate”, the Lakeview Avenue Bridge debacle”, the wasting of $275,000 on “Walkerville” etc, etc. My position on these matters are totally opposite to those of Mr Farrell and his friend Jeb Walker. I ran against the mandate of the 7/8ths as part of RAW in the last Republican Town Council caucus. During that prior election process Mr. Walker pulled the same shenanigan sending a slanderous and libelous letter, on Town stationary, to members of the Town Council, Town administrators and the voting public. The Town Attorney subsequently sent a letter of apology to me, proclaiming that none of Jeb Walker’s claims were true. A clear violation of Connecticut State Election Law. During the last Republican Town Committee caucus an officer of the RTC and a “Republican” female member of the Town Council fabricated and spread a malicious and false story about my child in the auditorium while the voting was taking place. These are the same elected officials who ask why “civility” has decreased in New Canaan.

Another issue is why did Mr. Farrell wait until January 10, 2013, the morning of the Town Council vote, 29 days after my “Curriculum Vitae” appeared in the New Canaan Advertiser, to send his letter to Town Council Chairman DeWeale? Chairman DeWeale told me on the night of the Town Council vote that Mr. Farrell had verbally approached him and demanded that his accusations be passed to the members of the Town Council. Chairman DeWeale told Mr Farrell to put his comments in writing. Despite his comments made last week it is evident Chairman DeWeale had no intention to pass a copy of Mr Farrell’s memorandum to me or question the truthfulness of any of Mr Farrell’s accusations. Instead he sent a copy, the morning of the election, to all Town Council members, the First Selectman and Town Administrator. However Chairman DeWeale sent no copy to me, nor did he contact me as to the validity of the accusations. He passed along the letter without verifying if there was any truth to Mr. Farrell’s damaging accusations. Only after Chairman DeWeale learned that Town Council member Roger Williams sent a copy of the letter to me did Chairman DeWeale ask that a copy be sent to me, at 3:30 PM, three hours before the Town Council vote. Before the opening statements of the candidates I asked if I could address the issues in the letter. The Chairman denied my request, denying me my right of “Due Process” and assuring the consideration of untrue facts in the election process that night. I question why  Chairman DeWeale participated in this unfounded vicious attack on my character and professionalism.? I had no choice but to “withdraw my candidacy”. My conclusion is that the Chairman hoped that I would never know of Mr. Farrell’s letter, otherwise why did he not give me the opportunity to address the issues.

Mr. Farrell’s allegations are blatantly false.

  • My application for registration with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was approved on July 28, 2009. I was required to join the PCAOB as were all CPA’s auditing any “Broker-Dealer”, whether a carrying or non-carrying Broker-Dealer. We were required to become a PCAOB member-firm before the end of 2009. My PCAOB registration number is 3609. I have sent many e-mails to the PCAOB and attended 16 hours of conferences each year with the PCAOB. The PCAOB has never questioned the nomenclature “member” which is defined as: “a person belonging to some association, society, community, party or etc. For example I am a “member” of the Republican Party but I am not a paid officer of the party. I never claimed or inferred that I was a member of the Board of Governors of the PCAOB, employed by the federal government and working and living in Washington DC. Mr Farrell’s allegation is preposterous.
  • Mr Farrell’s allegation that the Broker-Dealers” I audit are” non-public” is irrelevant.  Broker-Dealers are classified as “carrying” or “non-carrying”. That is whether they maintain their customer’s accounts or have a third party clearing firm do so. A decision that effects their “required firm capital”. The same audit procedures, generally accepted accounting principles and reporting requirements apply to both carrying and non-carrying Broker-Dealers.  I never contended that I audited an issuer.  Issuers are publically traded companies of which 98% are audited by the “Big Four” Accounting firms. Mr. Farrell’s issue with Issuer and “Non-Issuer” is unfounded and not pertinent. Other than firms like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Jefferies etc the majority of “Broker-Dealers” are non-public companies (non-issuers).
  • All my audits and audit reports were, and are currently done pursuant to SEC Rule 17A-5e(3) and CFTC Regulation 1.10(g). The report(s) contain an audited computation of net capital pursuant to SEC Rule 15c3-1 and CFTC Regulation 1.16, an Independent auditor’s report on internal accounting control required by SEC Rule 17a-5(g)(1), and Independent accountant’s report on applying agreed-upon procedures to an entity’s SIPC assessment reconciliation.  Five copies of each Broker-Dealer Audit Report must be filed with the SEC, NYSE, FINRA and every state the BD is registered in.
  • Mr Farrell contends I am a one person firm. All though I am not, what is the relevance? In fact I have an “Enrolled IRS Agent” working in my New Canaan Office and a Joint Venture with a mid-sized NYC firm. Do I need the permission and approval of Mr. Farrell and the Town Council on how to structure my firm?
  • Mr Farrell contends that I am not “Quality” or “Peer-Reviewed”. It is evident that Mr. Farrell does not understand “Quality” or “Peer-Review”. The PCAOB randomly inspects, there is no mandatory requirement to inspect any firm. The decision to “inspect” is solely that of the PCAOB and not required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or any State CPA Society. Quality and\or Peer Review is promulgated and required of all audit firms by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the State Society of registration, in my case the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants on a tri-annual basis. My Firm number is 1052603 and my review number is 339530. The last two tri-annual reviews were completed and accepted, with no exceptions, on January 11, 2010 and January 2013. The PCAOB does not perform “Quality” or “Peer Reviews” as Mr. Farrell claims.
  • I attach verification of my latest tri-annual “Peer Review”, dated December 20, 2012, in an attached PDF.
  • I have reciprocity to practice as a Certified Public Accountant in the 50 contiguous states. My state of licensure is New York State. I have had a “Firm Permit to Practice Public Accounting in Connecticut” since 2010. My 2013 registration was submitted on January 5, 2013. My Firm number is 4851. There is no cost for the Connecticut registration.
  • What is the relevancy of Mr Farrell pointing out what I did not reference as experience?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Roy A Abramowitz

Elmcrest January 25, 2013 at 02:23 PM
I think Roy makes a good point here. Mr. Farrell's last minute letter was a clear "hit and run attempt" to discredit a candidate with distortions and lies. And as we've seen again and again, many Town Council members seem too busy or too lazy to check the facts before they vote. Most disappointing, the Town Council chairman continues to play petty politics instead of doing his elected job.
S Tadik January 25, 2013 at 03:25 PM
If this were a simple election dispute, it would be reasonable to stay objective and grant each of the 3 parties involved the benefit of a doubt in the fog of politics. However, the Town Council Chair's concealment of the Lakeside Bridge cost overrun information. even while chairing a special Town Council meeting to clear up questions about the referendum, has damaged the Chair's credibility. This is not a positive attribute for a candidate for re-election to Town Council. A Walker endorsement won't help much, either.
Four Jacks January 25, 2013 at 04:06 PM
It's true that at the RTC vote, people were passing the word "don't vote for Roy." I did not know these people, but thought it was an underhanded move. This is probably how government works at every level these days.
Chow mein January 25, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Mr Abramovitz, the town needs reform-minded people such as you to clean up the corrupt RTC in this town. Please don't give up in the face of this set back.
Howard Beale January 25, 2013 at 08:45 PM
Roy, I hope you come after the people who seem to want to exclude you from their clique-y little club. Unfortunately, this is something we see in every facet of this town, from government on down to youth sports organizations. It's clear that these folks don't care about what's best for the people of this town, they just care about their own little bubbles that they live in. It smells of middle school, petty bullsh*t. Stand up to the bullies Roy, I'll stand up with you.
Howard Beale January 25, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Also would be curious to know what was said about your daughter and who said it. Again, smacks of "Mean Girls" behaviour.
Old Timer January 25, 2013 at 09:26 PM
Didn't he come in 6th out of 6th in the Town Council election? Must be a pretty large clique.
Jon S. January 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM
Are you serious? That because Roy earned hundreds of votes in the 2011 GOP caucus but didn’t prevail, it’s therefore somehow acceptable for the TC Chair to distribute a clearly fact-deprived slam letter the day of the recent TC vote, without even planning to let Roy know about it? Maybe part of the reason Roy didn’t win a spot on the GOP slate at the 2011 caucus was that Jeb Walker sent a similarly fact-deprived letter around to his RTC pals, on town stationery no less, also defaming Roy. This is clearly a pattern with Jeb Walker and Mark DeWaele and their crowd — passing secret nasty notes like the 7th grade mean girls table at Saxe. Maybe they should act like grown-up men instead. Fact is, we’ll never know how Roy would have fared in any election or caucus, since the “7/8” clique have worked furiously to undermine his efforts at every turn.
Berated Husband January 25, 2013 at 11:14 PM
I will admit, I did not vote for Abramowitz at the 2011 caucus. But I sure as hell will vote for him at the next one.
Roy A. Abramowitz January 25, 2013 at 11:46 PM
Thank you to all my supporters. Hopefully we can finally elect candidates to the Town's legislative branch that properly represent their constituents. We need more Republican TC members with the attributes of Mr Roger Williams. He cares about his constituents and doing what is correct, not about special interest. Where is the transparency and civility that those who ran against me in 2011 promised?
feo mesics January 26, 2013 at 12:52 AM
Roy - keep up the good work and keep pushing at the "Republican Mafia" in NC. When you think about it though, why would anyone want to be on the Town Council? A highly dysfunctional group that is out of touch with the voters ... voted "yes" for Jeb Walkers illegal pension and voted "yes" for Guisti in a signed letter to Advertiser ... and Republican voters didn't listen to them and voted strongly for Rob M. And, at least half the people in Town don't even know that group exists! Finally, there should be term limits for these fearless self-promoters.
Old Timer January 26, 2013 at 05:12 AM
Who are all of these supporters? They all sound like the same person?
Elmcrest January 26, 2013 at 04:38 PM
Well, Old Timer, people who support Roy on Patch could be the 796 New Canaan voters who voted for Roy in the 2011 GOP Caucus. Or it could be New Canaanites who are disappointed by the charades and scheming of the current Town Council Chair. Or it could even be New Canaan neighbors who think Mr. Farrell's last minute poison letter against Roy was a cowardly cheap shot, and not the way our town should work. Despite your efforts to make it seem that way, Roy does not stand alone.
Patrick Henry January 26, 2013 at 06:32 PM
Old Timer, I guess you also fall under this: Old Timer 3:20 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 One thing about the people who post on the Patch...they are frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »