Since your posting this week mentioned me by name, I
hope you'll allow me to bring to your attention a
number of serious inaccuracies in the NY Times which
you based most of your writing.  For starters, check
out the "Corrections" section of today's NY Times or
its online edition for a series of corrections that
paper has begun to address the reporter's
irresponsible sloppiness in his report on US Attorney
Christie.  As a friend to Chris and as former law
partners I readily admit my bias towards him, but
accurate reporting, from you and the NY Times, is a
basic requirement.   

In addition to the paper's mis-reporting, I assume you
are not an attorney or not familiar with federal
prosecutions or USDOJ policies.  You incorrectly state
that Bristol-Myers Squibb was "forced" to endow a
chair at SHU Law School.  Not true.  Former US
Attorney Mary Jo White represented BMS in that matter
and I'm sure will attest to the fact that her client
was not forced to do any such thing.  Further, Dean
Hobbs at SHU Law School can also describe the process
which lead to that important program at the law
school.

Regarding Jim Treffinger, the manner in which any such
person is arrested is a matter for the FBI - not the
US Attorney's Office.  There are more than 130 career
attorneys at the US Attorney's office on top of the
hundreds of career staff at the FBI.  An experienced
writer would know that those decisions are made at the
operational level and not by the US Attorney.

Your calling of Mr. Christie's silence as "baffling"
is also evidence of your lack of understanding of the
role of any prosecutor in the mist of an ongoing
investigation.  In addition, the US Attorney works for
the US Department of Justice and the decisions
regarding such public pronouncements regarding USDOJ
policies or guidelines governing actions such as DPAs
are properly made by that national office and not each
of the 90-plus us attorneys.  If you had read more
than just this week's sloppy report in the NY Times,
you would know that the current United States Attorney
has already been before the US Senate Judiciary
Committee to say that a department review of the need
for guidelines for DPAs has been ongoing for nearly a
year and that the USDOJ will decide when they wish to
address the committee's questions.  US Attorney
Christie must follow that lead.  

For your own error regarding my quote, I did not say a
"public hearing" was the forum for Mr. Christie to
explain his actions.  As I said, "in the end," Chris
will be fine because the criminal actions that the
current DPAs brought to an end to protect millions of
patients receiving these important implants will
outweigh any political shots being fired by Democratic
members of Congress.  Interesting that your column
spent no time addressing the reform of this entire
industry which Chris has brought about or the millions
of dollars which will be repaid to the federal
treasury.  By the way, federal monitors have been
appointed here in NJ by other former US Attorneys
appointed by Democrats in exactly the same manner as
Mr. Christie selected General Ashcroft - context you
either did not know or did not bother to include. 
Clinton appiontee, US Attorney Mary Jo White in the
famed Southern District of NY, also appointed federal
monitors without input from other sources.  Again,
important context.  

Finally, to compare appointment of former Attorney
General Ashcroft to handle this matter with the
alleged self-serving actions of Senators James, Bryant
and now Coniglio displays displays a significant lack
of understanding or caring for the facts.  Please
identify the self-serving action of Mr. Christie?  If
there is one, please explain why not one current or
former career Assistant US Attorney has spoken out
about any of Chris' actions?  Why are Chief Justice
Stuart Rabner, state prosecutors and other alumni of
the office so supportive of Chris' record?  They are
supportive because as career prosecutors in the office
or working with Chris they have not observed one
incident of the kind you describe.

As a friend of NJCU and my good friend President
Hernandez, I would hope that you would take greater
care in the future when taking a political science
approach to technical legal areas where you have
little depth.  You do an injustice to the person you
criticize the institution to which your name is
linked.  

I'd be happy to speak with you directly and refer you
to other legal authorities willing to further explain
this area and these items.  Best regards, Bill
Palatucci