Rather than go before the state Public Integrity Commission to fight his civil charges, Darren Dopp, former communications director to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, will take his case to Supreme Court in Albany.

Dopp said he is convinced that he wouldn’t receive a fair hearing before the commission, which was scheduled to hear his case tomorrow.

“I, therefore, will not participate in proceedings scheduled to begin this week. Instead, I will pursue an action against the commission on grounds that my due process rights were violated and that the entire investigation was tainted,” Dopp said.

Dopp, a Binghamton native, was slapped with civil charges by the commission last July that he violated the Public Officers Law when he released travel records in 2007 on former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno’s use of state aircraft.

The commission alleged that Spitzer aides Richard Baum, Dopp and William Howard, as well as former State Police Superintendent Preston Felton, violated sections of the Public Officers Law by working to compile records in a plot to smear Bruno.

Baum and Howard settled with the commission, while Dopp and Felton are fighting the charges. There is no date set yet for Felton’s hearing.

But instead of going before the commission, Dopp is heading directly to state court to get the case thrown out. He is being represented by Albany attorney/lobbyist James Featherstonhaugh, who in 2006 successfully fought the state’s lobbying laws in court.

Dopp claims he never allowed to give a full account why he released the records.

“From the start, there was something very wrong about the Troopergate investigation,” Dopp wrote in a statement today. “When I first testified before the Commission on Public Integrity on October 11, 2007, I tried to explain how the use of state aircraft was discussed in detail by administration officials and how I was following the directions of the Governor in releasing the public records. However, I was prevented from giving a full account of what occurred by the Commission’s executive director, who repeatedly interrupted my testimony and directed me to address other issues.”

Updated: The commission responded with its own point-by-point response to Dopp’s charges. Spokesman Walter Ayres also pointed out that Dopp sought to have the case thrown out, but was denied by the supreme court.

So you can read Dopp’s statement and the commission’s response after the jump.

Darren Dopp’s statement:

“Immediately after my testimony, the Commission halted its investigation. Rather than putting other administration officials under oath to check the veracity of my account, the Commission accused me of perjury. The alleged perjury, however, had nothing to do with the material facts of the case. Instead, it focused on my acknowledgement that I had signed a statement of apology when I really didn’t think I had done anything wrong.

The Albany County District Attorney investigated this perjury charge and rejected it as unwarranted. The DA subsequently opened an investigation of the Commission and referred evidence of possible wrongdoing by the Commission’s executive director to the State Inspector General, who is now reviewing the matter.

In the months that followed, I wrote repeatedly to individual Commission members to register specific concerns about the way my case was being handled. But Commission members refused to consider the information I brought to their attention.

During this time, there were opportunities to resolve the matter, but I could not agree to terms that included admitting wrongdoing that never occurred.

I was looking forward to a public hearing to clear my name. According to the statute authorizing the commission, a defendant is supposed to be given an opportunity to answer charges. But in the official notification of the hearing that came from the Commission staff, the stated purpose of the hearing was “to determine the fine” against me. From this correspondence, it seemed clear that a decision had already been made, and that I had been judged without ever getting a chance to respond.

The commission later “clarified” the purpose of the hearing and said that I would indeed have a fair opportunity to defend myself. But over the last few weeks it became clear this would not be the case.

I learned that instead of appearing before an independent arbiter, I would answer questions from an administrative law judge (ALJ) who works for the Commission’s executive director.

The ALJ informed me that I would be “on a tight rein” in the hearing – that I’d be limited to responding to the commission’s accusations. My ability to introduce other evidence was restricted. I was even prevented from reviewing the Commission’s evidence unless I signed a confidentiality agreement.

The ALJ also denied my request to postpone the hearing until after the Inspector General had completed his review, and at one point claimed that she was “unaware of any such investigation” by the IG.

For all these reasons, I have concluded that it is simply not possible to receive a fair hearing from this Commission. I, therefore, will not participate in proceedings scheduled to begin this week. Instead, I will pursue an action against the Commission on grounds that my due process rights were violated and that the entire investigation was tainted. I have turned to a noted Albany attorney James Featherstonhaugh for this action. It was Feathers’ landmark case (Simmons v. Grandeau) that exposed constitutional flaws and overturned the state lobbying law in 2006. I am pleased that the State Supreme Court yesterday agreed to consider this petition.

In the end, I know what I did and what I did not do. I released public records on all state officials who used the state aircraft during a specific period. I did so in response to a media request, and at the specific direction of the Governor. At no time did I act without consulting colleagues. At no time did I misuse the State Police. At no time did I ever ask anyone to do anything wrong.

The real scandal of Troopergate was not in the underlying facts. Instead, it was the improper way the case was handled by investigators.”

Commission’s response:

The Commission on Public Integrity offers this response to a statement issued by Darren Dopp earlier today.

Mr. Dopp stated:   However, I was prevented from giving a full account of what occurred by the Commission’s executive director, who repeatedly interrupted my testimony and directed me to address other issues.

CPI Response:   This is demonstrably not true as evidenced by Mr. Dopp’s testimony that is available on-line at the Commission’s website www.nyintegrity.org.  See, for example, pages 99-102, 132, 144-146, 195-206, 240, 243-244, 247,274-275, 326-328, 330, 354, 361-362, 379-380, 383-383, 392, 394, 397-401.  See also Mr. Dopp’s own testimony from pages 397-401.

– – – -

Mr. Dopp stated:  The Albany County District Attorney investigated this perjury charge and rejected it as unwarranted. The DA subsequently opened an investigation of the Commission and referred evidence of possible wrongdoing by the Commission’s executive director to the State Inspector General, who is now reviewing the matter.

CPI Response:  From the report of the District Attorney, who granted Mr. Dopp immunity from prosecution:   In our report, we conclude that Dopp did not commit perjury, but may have committed two other misdemeanor crimes:  Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 175.30) and Making an Apparently Sworn False Statement in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 210.35).

– – – -

Mr. Dopp stated:  In the months that followed, I wrote repeatedly to individual Commission members to register specific concerns about the way my case was being handled. But Commission members refused to consider the information I brought to their attention.

CPI Response:   The Commission granted Mr. Dopp’s request to present new information, but he said he had none.

– – – -

Mr. Dopp stated:  My ability to introduce other evidence was restricted. I was even prevented from reviewing the Commission’s evidence unless I signed a confidentiality agreement.

CPI Response:  All the evidence is available on-line for anyone to see.

– – – -

Mr. Dopp stated:  I have turned to a noted Albany attorney James Featherstonhaugh for this action. It was Feathers’ landmark case (Simmons v. Grandeau) that exposed constitutional flaws and overturned the state lobbying law in 2006.

CPI response:  That case actually upheld the right of the Lobbying Commission to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas and reinforced the law.  The Simmons’ group paid a $5,000 settlement to the Lobbying Commission.

– – –
Mr. Dopp stated:  In the end, I know what I did and what I did not do. I released public records on all state officials who used the state aircraft during a specific period. I did so in response to a media request . . .CPI Response:  This case is not about the release of documents.  It is about misusing the State Police “to serve the Governor’s and their own non-governmental interests in a manner that compromised the State Police.”