A veteran investigator for the Nassau district attorney’s office allowed his lawyer do the talking Wednesday when Newsday reported he had been fired for allegedly interfering in an Oyster Bay public corruption probe.
But Michael Falzarano let loose Thursday in emails and on his Facebook page.
He said he would not comment on “specific aspects of this matter,” but said: “For those of you that have known me for our entire lives, I know that I need not assure you that NONE of it is true. For anybody else that might have the slightest of doubt, be patient. When the complete set of facts comes out, and they will, there will be plenty of embarrassment, plausible deniability, damage control, evasive responses, spin doctoring and good old-fashioned ‘running for cover’ for those involved on the other side.”
Nassau District Attorney Madeline Singas fired Falzarano on the same day last month that former Republican Oyster Bay Town Supervisor John Venditto and six other people pleaded not guilty to corruption charges brought by Singas, a Democrat.
Falzarano, who led the district attorney’s investigators union, allegedly tipped off a target of the investigation. The former New York City police lieutenant had worked for the district attorney’s office for more than 15 years and also runs a private investigation business. Records show he earned $195,133 from the county last year.
His attorney, Kenneth Weinstein, told Newsday Wednesday that Falzarano would fight his firing and demand his job back.
Falzarano said in his postings and emails, “Defending details of rumors in any forum, public media or private conversations, is tantamount to doing exactly what ‘they’ have chosen to do, throwing confetti/rumors into a tornado. It’s impossible to gather them all back and erasing their impact on the thusly ill informed. Turning around the momentum it causes is quite a formidable obstacle on the journey to revealing the truth. But, if I lower myself to play ‘their usual game,’ I know they will beat me with their experience at that unseemly tactic alone. Try not to participate in the inevitable rumor mongering and speculation that will undoubtedly contribute to their choice supportive bias. That unscrupulous decision was undoubtedly part of their underlying strategy to create a case that can get a lot of attention and press in the dim light of a spontaneous and self-serving decision. This done while knowing full well subsequent retractions will be published in a small, obscure article next to an advertisement for plastic fencing on page 32, if at all.”
A Singas spokesman declined to comment.