In August of 1995, the owners of the Concord asked to meet with County Treasurer Daniel L. Briggs to discuss the County's deferment program for commercial properties. Mr. Briggs and I explained the program to them. They chose not to participate, but to file for bankruptcy protection (in 1997) instead. Had an agreement been negotiated, it would have been similar to those executed by several hundreds of County taxpayers since the program's inception. The fact is that no such agreement was ever made, and no extension ion was granted, contrary to your allegation. The public apology you promised will be welcome!

It is easy, but not appropriate; to attack public officials when you do so with reckless indifference for the truth, as you have. On the other hand, the County Legislature has made very tough decisions in the Concord bankruptcy litigation, which is wrought with complex issues and strategies, and has done so with wisdom, maturity, integrity and with regard for the truth, and with sensibility to the needs of the taxpayers of Sullivan County.

I thought that a public forum at the Government Center would be an appropriate place to discuss governmental issues of concern to the citizens of Sullivan County.

I understand why you have declined to meet with me, face to face. You may choose to continue to write letters. I won't. At least now the citizens of Sullivan County will read your letters knowing that your credibility and your dedication to the truth are in doubt.

Truly yours,

Ira Cohen

County Attorney

What is it with this guy? I am growing increasingly troubled by Mr. Cohen's apparent difficulty with the English language (not to mention with the truth.) Surely these are troubling difficulties for an attorney and it should be troubling to those he serves as well, namely the residents of Sullivan County.

First, he went so far as to describe how I said something that I didn't say, saying that I "stated matter of factly that (he) was responsible for an agreement granting the Concord a substantial tax break prior to its bankruptcy proceeding." Never happened! Matter of factly or otherwise. What I actually said (and he now seems tacitly to acknowledge it) was "Perhaps it was Cohen's having gotten himself arrested in a bizarre episode in the interim (perhaps the only county attorney ever so honored) that distracts from the fact that he was the prime mover in granting the very same Concord he now pursues an extension (roundly criticized at the time) on its financial obligations to the county." (What really discom-bobulated him is not, I trust, obscure.)

I then clearly said that I was prepared to apologize if he could demonstrate my having made the statement he dreamed up. Of course he could not. But he now cites an inapplicable incident that leads, unsurprisingly, to an erroneous conclusion and seems to imagine that it somehow warrants an apology. This strikes me as yet another big time blunder, particularly for a lawyer. His claim seems a little like stating that since it is a well known fact that Marco Polo didn't discover America, America doesn't exist.

Mr. Cohen noted recently, in effect, that the current proceedings concerning The Concord were tactical, predictable, routine and costly and that we must hang in. I suggest that the legislature's "sensibility to the needs of the taxpayers of Sullivan County" would have been better expressed by the employment, to deal with these predictable and routine tactics, of other than $400+ per hour attorneys who will probably derive far more from the action than we will. Further, it is not inconceivable that Cohen's own well known difficulties with the county's major opponent in this action are at least in part responsible for that opponent's extremely costly tenacity.

When another attorney recently announced a "colossal (and in my view, entirely reasonable) lawsuit" against the county, Cohen found it necessary to note publicly that it was not "colossal" but merely another lawsuit. If costs mount up on that one as a consequence of Cohen's self-indulgent and child-like provocation, it is we who will pay.

I turned down Cohen's invitation to an unsupervised debate because he seems, reflexively (and demonstrably), to twist, ignore and to make up facts to suit his needs. I would as soon accept an invitation from Dr. Swango to have my tetanus shots updated. Cohen now slinks away from my invitation to exchange written questions and answers, his smartest move in a while. ( I had some lulus for him.)

Lee Karr

Forestburgh