Submitted by SCHOLWATCH FOUNDER, Sep 30, 2007 04:25

In response to Ms. Bohl's hysterical rant, which she posted on the NY Sun, I thought it necessary to respond. Ms. Bohl suggests that some "unprovoked, unsubstantiated, baseless and suggestive slurs" were made against her good name and reputation. If Ms. Bohl turned off her emotions for a moment and read the Skoolwatch posts, she would see that Skoolwatch only suggested a line of inquiry to any investigative authority looking into this matter. Ms. Bohl appears to be engaging in a propoganda campaign suggesting that she has no knowledge about the shenanigans at the State Review Office, but as she let on in her previous attack on Skoolwatch, she acknowledges that an investigation into this matter is warranted. She seems to lack the integrity to cause that investigation to be undertaken or to participate in it. (Remember, Ms. Bohl is an attorney now with the Attorney General's Office, which is the office that has been requested to investigate the SRO situation by a group of parents attorneys.) Ms. Bohl threatens to seek an injunction to shut down the Skoolwatch website. Perhaps that is exactly the kind of attention this issue needs. We welcome her initiating such an action so that there will be a forum where all of these issues can be explored. It would be wonderful to have an opportunity to depose Ms. Bohl in a legal forum where her involvement in the SRO situation could be explored fully. Skoolwatch would then have to expand our site, so that all the testimony could be exposed to the public. We will welcome the opportunity of a legal forum so that Ms. Bohl's knowledge of the SRO scandal can be fully exposed to the public. Ms. Bohl seems to forget that the Wall Street Journal broke this story, not our piddly little website. And Ms. Bohl also seems to forget that these claims she states are unsubstantiated were in fact substantiated by the WSJ, the NY Sun, and The New York Times. The fact that unnamed sources cited by these highly credible newspapers substantiate much of what has been written. Skoolwatch cannot be responsible for the desire of sources to remain anonymous. Of course Ms. Bohl just makes a blanket statement that Skoolwatch has made reports with no basis in fact, but this scandal at SRO is based in fact, and these facts continue to be exposed. Ms. Bohl alleges that some other attorney(s) has contacted Skoolwatch to threaten us with a law suit. This is simply not true. No other attorney has made such a threat. Perhaps it is Ms. Bohl that should be checking her facts. If there is such an attorney, we would welcome that attorney opening a forum to investigate these allegations through deposition, just as we would welcome any action by Ms. Bohl. Wow! Is Ms. Bohl indicating that she is not willing to cooperate in an investigation into this criminal conduct? Has she really made this public statement that she would obstruct justice if asked to cooperate in an investigation? Is she aware of other attorneys that have expressed these sentiments? Well, sometimes the cover-ups are more serious matters than the original conduct complained of. It is humorous that Ms. Bohl suggests that Skoolwatch calling for investigation into a scandal injures children. Ms. Bohl worked in SRO, and has not indicated that she has taken any action to right that situation. Gutless? Ethical? Legal? We think not. Ms. Bohl wants to direct the publics attention at Skoolwatch, with the apparent desire to direct attention aware from the scandal and any involvement she may have had. She appears desirous of deflection, rather than correction. Ms. Bohl should get her priorities straight. Ms. Bohl cites no reason that Skoolwatch reports and inquiries into this matter has somehow caused an investigation not to occur. Talk about baseless claims! It seems that Ms. Bohl is aware of some decision made by the Attorney General, who was asked to investigate this matter, that he has declined to investigate it for some reason. I hope we have an opportunity to explore that decision-making process when we depose Ms. Bohl, should she actually make good on her threat. Ms. Bohl's personal attacks demean her profession, and she continues to withhold from us all her knowledge of the scandal at the Office of State Review. Bring it on, Ms. Bohl! We need a forum to get all of this aired before the public, and your current office, the Attorney General's Office, seems to have made a conscious decision to let those involved in the Office of State Review scandal to escape accountability. George DeaBold 631-470-1932 give me a call ps. BOHL,I SIGNED IT, ITS YOUR MOVE ! seek an injunction,We have lawyers that will fight to get to get a shot at you.It also seems that there is a turn around in sro decisions. hmmm... I wonder why ?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.