The first comment I think is actually a fair question, any one who wasn't at the hearings would probably make the same comment.
wasn't rose representing olga as the registrar? i mean, the suit was regarding things olg did/did not do as registrar of voters. so, where is he defending the slate?
The comment is accurate, John Rose as Corporation Counsel is pretty much obligated by the City Charter to represent city officials. He did that in the case of Olga Vazquez. Sometimes it was a little difficult to keep track of who he was representing by his comments before the Judge. At one point he stood and said "the Registrar blew it" and "the City won't be harmed" if Judge Peck vacated the stay . That is all part of his job, as required by the Charter.
The question of if and when he crossed the line and began representing the Giles slate is an entirely different issue. After Rose stated that the Registrar blew it and the city won't be harmed, he seemed to begin arguing for the Giles slate.
Rose continued on and stated that if the Judge lifted the stay that the Giles slate "will be dead, they will be done" and further stated that they would be "murdered at the polls". Does that sound like he is arguing for his client, Olga Vazquez OR advocating for the Giles slate?
It seems pretty clear to me. If the Giles slate felt that their chances were dead and they would be done, that is their problem then and they needed to hire their own attorney if they felt aggrieved, the same as the Kirkley-Bey slate did when they felt Olga Vazquez stepped on their rights.
Whether your question was meant to be sincere or sarcastic, I know there aren't many that understand the issue if you weren't in court to hear it. Regardless, I hope this has offered some clarification to those trying to understand this mess. Hopefully at Monday's Council meeting it might become clearer. If there is a side I'm missing that you think can justify Mr. Rose's arguing for the Giles slate, please feel to post it here.