Guest column from Richard Saunders, candidate for mayor in Newton.
An article about me was recently posted on this site by a Mr. Richard Heidel who identified himself as a local investigative reporter. I had never heard of him before, and a quick Google search did not bring to light any evidence that he has a significant body of work in his stated profession, at least not under that name. Upon reading his column, it was obvious to me, as a publisher and editor, that he was not a professional journalist.
After doing some investigating myself, I identified and located the gentleman behind the pseudonym and found that he was just a Newton resident pretending to be a reporter, amusing himself and having some fun with us. I reported my findings to Mr. Reibman and I trust that we won’t be getting scammed by “Richard Heidel” again.
I would like to take this opportunity to attempt to clear up some of the misconceptions that “Heidel’s” article may have created. He uses the fact that I am not well known (yet) in Newton as a pejorative, a negative instead of just a neutral fact that is easily dealt with by taking the time to “get to know me”, as the voters and citizens of Newton will have ample opportunity to do over the next six months when I will be highly visible and reachable.
Going back to last year’s presidential race, there were sixteen candidates for the G.O.P. nomination and I had not heard of many of them before the run-up to the primary season. Again, being an unknown at the start of a campaign isn’t some automatically negative fact, it just means (to me) that if I am an interested, undecided voter, I should take my time and get to know these candidates to see if any were worthy of my support as an independent (unenrolled) voter. I needed to do that because the front-runners in both parties, whom I WAS familiar with, were people I could not vote for. Being unknown represents a hurdle for any candidate to overcome, but it is not a suspicious, negative factor.
Heidel noted that the address for my political committee is a postal mail box and hints that this is something to be viewed with suspicion. Consider the following “PO Box 5785 Boston, MA 02114”. That is the address of Governor Baker’s political committee. Using a mail box address for a political committee is a pretty Standard Practice. It is not suspicious or out of the ordinary.
Mr. Heidel states that no one in town knows my treasurer, Ed Sabbagh; as if, again, that is some huge negative or reason for suspicion. I believe that most voters want to find out about the candidate and don’t spend much time digging into or caring about who a committee treasurer is unless there are charges of financial impropriety. But If you still want to know; Mr. Sabbagh, like myself is a low key professional who normally stays out of the public spotlight. He is a well-respected and talented structural engineer who owns his own firm and has worked with famed local architect Tref LeFleche and others on dozens of properties in Newton over the past several decades. Ed and I have been friends since we were teenagers and I have complete trust in him as my treasurer. In the past, Ed has been a delegate to the Massachusetts State Democratic Convention and I have worked behind the scenes on several political campaigns. We take our work and our advocacy on behalf of others seriously. In day to day living and as a writer, I do try and be amusing and entertaining at times, (is that a bad thing?) but at the core of my being, I’m a pretty serious guy who cares about societal problems and in doing my part, trying to improve our collective lot in life.
My work as a method-writer and with the Phoenix Foundation is often based around serious attempts to address and or solve tough problems. My encounter with Governor Weld started out as an effort to create an interesting story and then grew into something more serious when it became apparent that he had lost interest in governing Massachusetts shortly after winning a second term. My 2007 battle against Donald Trump in Boston Federal Court centered on my (and The Phoenix Foundation’s) advocacy of a legally protected class. Pretty serious stuff!
I can’t stress this next point strongly enough – I am NOT running for mayor of Newton as a gimmick to sell a book. What my book does for the campaign is demonstrate, through the thinly fictionalized Weld, Trump, Dukakis and other stories, that I am a person of character who is not afraid to stand up to the big shots in order to fight for political and social justice and to zealously advocate for others who are not in position to successfully advocate for themselves. The book helps to establish that I have a history of successes that prove I belong in the ring and am someone worthy of consideration for the office I am seeking.
The only real journalist who has read my book and commented on it (so far) is Steve Whipple, the publisher of the monthly magazine Methuen Life. Mr. Whipple has called me “A real-life Forrest Gump”, i.e. an ordinary guy who leads an extra-ordinary life that has intersected with numerous key events and people.
Mr Heidel penned a guest column here, (albeit under a false pretense), that is better categorized as an amateurish, inquisitive opinion piece, not a work of investigative journalism; although it could be the starting point for a more in-depth exploration by a more credible scribe. I welcome the scrutiny because as I’ve said many times; my story seems a bit hard to believe at first glance, but the closer it gets examined, along with the supporting evidence, the better it looks.
I appreciate the ink here and the interest, and although I do not condone his method, I thank Mr “Heidel” for starting the conversation. I also thank everyone who read his article and responded positively to allowing my voice and my campaign for mayor to be given a fair chance. That is all I ask.
May I respectfully request that you, kind reader, perform your own due diligence before making a rush to judgment regarding the viability of my mayoral campaign or questions surrounding my method-writing history, etc. Check out my websites, meet me in person at one of the events I will be attending or hosting this summer and make up your own mind. I look forward to meeting you!
If you like what you see at www.saundersformayor.com, consider helping us out as a volunteer!
I know Ed Sabbagh. He lived across the street from me when we were kids. No joke.
@Rich. Welcome to the campaign and whatever you do, try and have some fun with it along the way. Candidates almost always do better and enjoy their campaigning more when they recognize the good intentions of their opponents and keep things from getting personal. And you never know what’s going to happen in the weeks and months ahead. Stay good humored, positive and upbeat even as you take issue with some of the way things are done in Newton.
Two years ago at this time, a few of us surfaced openly to back Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign. Just about everyone dismissed his effort as quixotic and his supporters as a bit daft. But something magical happened along the road between Bernie’s announcement and the evening of the New Hampshire primary when he scored a 2-1 triumph over the rest of the Democratic field. Best damn candidate and campaign I’ve ever been involved in and I never knew it would be so at the fragile start of things two years ago this month when we started with absolutely no organization, structure or direction. So, you never know.
Can the folks running V14 clarify?
Is Richard Heidel real? Who let him post on the blog? If he isn’t real, how did this happen? How does this not happen again?
I’m the guilty party. When I saw on Mr. Saunders web site that he is “The Great Imposter” I thought I’d take a crack at out-impostering an imposter.
In retrospect, probably it was not one of my better ideas. A few of the other folks behind the scenes at Village14, when they saw it, let me know they didn’t think it was a good idea either.
My apologies to Mr Saunders and V14 readers for getting a bit carried away. No more.
@Jerry. We all get carried away at one time or another. It’s when they come to carry us away that it’s either serious or permanent. Until then, roll with the punches.
@JerryReilly – Apology accepted; I understand that sometimes we act without thinking through and later regret it. We’ve all had moments of “seemed like a good idea at the time . . .” We live and we learn – well some of us do, not sure that applies to Donald Trump.
I have just one more possible misconception to clear up related to all of this.
The kind of “impostoring” I engage in is not at all like the popular perception. I would never, for instance claim to be a reporter from a specific real-life publication, acquire false credentials to back up the lie and then approach an innocent target from that vantage point. That clearly crosses an ethical and probably legal line and is not how I work.
For me, it would be especially egregious if there was no socially redeeming value in play that at times might possibly mitigate straying somewhat from ethical boundaries, as in the case of our work for The Columbine Memorial Committee and other Phoenix Foundation ops. If we engage in battle against truly bad-operators, we may at times open up the playbook if we believe it is justified and that our options are limited. Even then, we maintain reasonable restraint.
Back to my version of impostoring: What I have is a long list of occupations I compiled while still in grade school. I look for opportunities to engage in one of these professions, while at the same time performing a public service or otherwise attempting to achieve a noble end.
So when I saw an opportunity to “impersonate” an attorney and check that profession off my list – this is how I went about it, back in 2007.
1. It came to my attention that Donald Trump appeared to be in clear violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (of 1967) and that many hundreds of job applicants were adversely affected.
2. One of my Phoenix Foundation agents and I put together a case suitable for class-action status and I presented our thesis to the Boston office of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), a Federal Agency. They conducted an investigation using their subpoena power to request records from the Trump & Burnett organizations. The lead investigator in Boston then issued an opinion that he agreed my claim was valid, not frivolous and should proceed to court. I was issued a “Right to Sue” order from the EEOC. That is the only way anyone, other than the EEOC themselves can take an ADEA complaint into Federal court.
The “Right to Sue” order was a powerful piece of paper which allowed me the option to attempt to negotiate a quiet settlement with Trump and the other defendants (my preference) or proceed directly to court. It also put the defendants on notice that this was a serious matter that demanded high-level attention.
3. I prosecuted the case myself and did everything a real attorney would do in that situation. I educated myself on the applicable law and federal court procedures and saw it through to the end, without ever needing to get a real attorney involved on my side.
What I did was perfectly legal; if you are the plaintiff or the defendant in a case, you have the option of representing yourself before the court. I accomplished my goal of advocating for a protected class and came out on the winning side. At no time did I attempt to, nor did I personally profit from this case. It was all about public advocacy, as is most of my and The Phoenix Foundations covert activities. I attempted to conduct this particular action covertly, but due to reasons beyond my control, it spilled into the public consciousness and ended up in Boston Federal Court.
I say that I “impersonated” an attorney in this situation because that is what effectively happened. As a method-writer, this also becomes a story that gets the “slightly fictionalized” treatment and can be found in my published works.
So I hope this helps illustrate the difference between what I do and that my adventures as an Impostor are not just cavalier or irresponsible activities, devoid of merit.
The comment I get most about the Trump case is that I should have been harder on him, given what has happened since then. Although I find so much of what he has done since then to be cringe-worthy and at times repugnant, I do not believe I should have acted any differently back in 2007, given the circumstances in place at that time.