Letter: A Response to J. Michael Farrell's Jan. 31 Op-Ed

I and many constituents remain very thankful that the editor(s) have the courage to speak out and utilize the proper phraseology.


[Editor's Note: The following is a response to a letter that J. Michael Farrell submitted to the New Canaan Advertiser, which was published on Jan. 31.]

Last week's op-ed by J Michael Farrell responding to the Editor’s letter of January 24, 2013 is nothing more than a continuation of Mr. Farrell’s absurdities.

It is evident that Mr. Farrell still contends that his letter of blatant undocumented lies that he sent to the Town Council chairman, hours before their vote on potential candidates, served the purpose of civil discourse. Mr. Farrell, I publically challenged you to submit any evidentiary matter you had in proof of your slanderous and libelous lies. You have not submitted any documented proof. However, the editors and myself have submitted sufficient evidentiary matter and sources that dispel any and all of your false claims.

Yes, your actions were “cowardly,” deceitful, malicious, false and served no purpose, especially no promotion of civil discourse. It is sad that you continue your malicious vendetta and claim that it was appropriate to present your lies to the Town Council chairman eight hours before a vote, and that you further support the Chairman’s denial of my “due process."

No, Mr Farrell, your cohorts who participated in your actions do not “hold themselves to the highest standards," but do lack civility and do their constituents an injustice.

As I stated, you are no expert in the areas of SEC, NYSE and FINRA auditing in which I practice. You retired well before the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the formation of the PCAOB in 2003. For example, your lack of knowledge is evident in your statement: “that I perform no audits pursuant to the SEC." However, Mr. Farrell, if you had any knowledge of, or did the proper research on, the subject matter you would be aware that  the broker-dealer PCAOB sanctioned audits I perform are done pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations. Additionally, five copies of each audit must be submitted to both the SEC and CFTC for their review.

I still question your motivation. I and many constituents remain very thankful that the editor(s) have the courage to speak out and utilize the proper phraseology.

Roy A Abramowitz

Betty J. Lovastik February 04, 2013 at 02:28 PM
I agree that the New Canaan Advertiser was very professional in its January 24, 2013 op-ed of this whole situation. I was out of the country when the Town Council interview and vote took place. I watched the Town Council meeting of January 10 on Channel 79 before I read the Advertiser's op-ed. In my opinion, the op-ed presented the sequence of events in a non-judgmental way for the benefit of all New Canaanites who may not have known the details (like me) that led to Mr. Abramowitz's speech and candidacy withdrawal on January 10. I was stunned when I watched the video of the meeting! More to the point is that the editor states, "How would you feel if the Town Council was circulating a letter about you, without your knowledge, hours before you were to appear before them and tell them why you should be on that council?" Excellent point, Mr. Fisher! I wondered the same thing! How would Mr. Farrell feel if someone did this to him???? At the very least, Mr. Farrell could have: (1) obtained and copied Mr. Abramowitz on his e-mail by calling his office in New Canaan; (2) faxed a copy of the Town Council letter to Mr. Abramowitz for his comments; or (3) spoke to Mr. Abramowitz by phone before sending this harmful e-mail. There were other options available to Mr. Farrell before he pressed the "send" button. In my opinion he should apologize to Mr. Abramowitz. I hope Mr. Abramowitz is not discouraged by what transpired and will run for office again!
Roy A. Abramowitz February 04, 2013 at 07:15 PM
Mr Farrell since you claim that I perform no SEC audits: Did you know? "Pursuant to the 1934 Act, the SEC developed a comprehensive system to regulate broker-dealers, and the securities industry in general. As a result, broker dealers, INCLUDING NON-ISSUER BROKER-DEALERS, ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE SEC". Source: AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide "Brokers and Dealers in Securities" September 1, 2012 edition. Preface, page xiv. You may also wish to review Chapter 5 : Chapter 5, Note 1: "The Dodd - Frank Act amends Sarbanes-Oxley to give the PCAOB full oversight authority over auditors of all broker- dealers, including standard setting, inspection, and enforcement. PCAOB oversight includes a provision that AUDITS OF NON-ISSUER BROKER-DEALERS ARE TO BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PCAOB AUDITING STANDARDS. Also you may want to review Paragraph 5.08. In August 2011. the SEC apptoved a rule, effective immediately, adopting an interim inspection program related to audits of broker-dealers. Under the interim inspection program, the PCAOB WILL INSPECT AUDIT ENGAGEMENTS OF "ALL" TYPES OF BROKER-DEALERS. So much for your expertise Mr Farrell. I await your public apology.
Jon S. February 05, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Given time, nearly all of Mr. Farrell’s nasty assertions about Mr. Abramowitz have been disproved. And that, I think, must be the only reason Mr. Farrell sent his poison email at the last minute — to create a cloud of suspicion that could never have been cleared up in time for the Town Council vote. Mr. Farrell’s new letter to the Advertiser is laughable; no one in New Canaan needs a lecture in civility from him.
G. Eastman February 05, 2013 at 01:56 AM
Roy, when can you run again?


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 »