“On the issue of reducing voter fraud, last night Council Members Cunningham, Fisher, and Giattino have chosen to align themselves with Council Members DeFusco, Ramos and other beneficiaries of voter fraud.”
- Mayor Ravi Bhalla, February 8, 2018
Tiffanie Fisher, Jen Giattino and Peter Cunningham each objected to the mayor's statement: "reckless" said Fisher, "disheartening" said Giattino, "disappointing" said Cunningham to the Hoboken Reporter.
But the big guns were fired by Micheal DeFusco. He called the statement a "false, disgusting smear" and said "spread[ing] lies and deceit without any credible evidence borders on libel."
Those are strong words from DeFusco.
Listen up, Mike. Being called a "beneficiary" of voter fraud by others is not libel, it is an opinion; and one shared by many Hoboken residents. Look no further than an ELEC report with 248 paid workers ($50 each) for an uncontested election. Or a campaign paying 155 "poll workers" $50 each. Hoboken residents have a reasonable basis to form such an opinion.
And don't play lawyer. The determination of whether evidence is "credible" or not is made by a prosecutor, later by a trier of fact-- a jury. Not you, Mike DeFusco. One more thing.
Campaign expenditures are a matter of public interest and public concern. And some of your pals' public filings raise questions.
Questions are not accusations, they are questions. The DeFusco campaign's 20-day post election reports raises questions for me.
(1) Why didn't Mike DeFusco for Hoboken Mayor file check numbers for the $10,874.00 in disbursements made to "Canvassers" and "GOTV Workers" on his 20-day post election report?
Note, Team DeFusco for Hoboken filed disbursements for its paid workers separately. All were GOTV. Team DeFusco filed properly-- payments with corresponding check numbers. But its curious to me...
(2)Why were some persons were paid so much more than the average $50 payment for GOTV work?
(3) Why split payments for at least 8 of the top-earners ($900 to $600) on the two separate ELEC filings: Mike DeFusco for Hoboken and Team DeFusco for Hoboken?
Those are strong words from DeFusco.
Listen up, Mike. Being called a "beneficiary" of voter fraud by others is not libel, it is an opinion; and one shared by many Hoboken residents. Look no further than an ELEC report with 248 paid workers ($50 each) for an uncontested election. Or a campaign paying 155 "poll workers" $50 each. Hoboken residents have a reasonable basis to form such an opinion.
And don't play lawyer. The determination of whether evidence is "credible" or not is made by a prosecutor, later by a trier of fact-- a jury. Not you, Mike DeFusco. One more thing.
Campaign expenditures are a matter of public interest and public concern. And some of your pals' public filings raise questions.
Questions are not accusations, they are questions. The DeFusco campaign's 20-day post election reports raises questions for me.
(1) Why didn't Mike DeFusco for Hoboken Mayor file check numbers for the $10,874.00 in disbursements made to "Canvassers" and "GOTV Workers" on his 20-day post election report?
DEFUSCO DISBURSEMENTS MISSING CHECK NUMBERS
Note, Team DeFusco for Hoboken filed disbursements for its paid workers separately. All were GOTV. Team DeFusco filed properly-- payments with corresponding check numbers. But its curious to me...
(2)Why were some persons were paid so much more than the average $50 payment for GOTV work?
(3) Why split payments for at least 8 of the top-earners ($900 to $600) on the two separate ELEC filings: Mike DeFusco for Hoboken and Team DeFusco for Hoboken?
Pedro Gonzalez signed off as Treasurer on both ELECs.
TEAM DEFUSCO DISBURSEMENTS
20-Day Post-election report filed December 19, 2017
(4) When are you going to address your campaign's P2P violations?
Can't believe Lenz and Fisher are arguing VBM fraud isn't a decisive factor in head-to-head races. Also, when Lenz ran, wasn't that a special election? If there'd been a third candidate and no one made it to 50%, would there have been a runoff, or no? I think no. So does he seriously mean to tell us if he'd won a four- or five-way race with 33% of the vote, he would have relinquished the seat because it would have been improper to have a councilman who didn't represent a majority of the ward? HELL NO! He'd be grinning ear to ear claiming a FULL MANDATE!!! LOL
ReplyDeleteAnd if there HAD been a runoff and he'd lost by a VBM margin, he wouldn't be crying foul? HELL NO!!!
As it stands, runoff or no runoff, it WAS a two-way race, and he lost decisively on the machines - which means in that instance, the VBM fraud really didn't matter!!!!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Might have to start calling him L-O-Lenz!
ok, so how much does one really need to spend on umbrellas? Well at least with the addresses I can maybe figure out who STILL have the balcony hanging DeFusco banner on the corner of 3rd and Jackson...
ReplyDeleteWhen is Ms Handwringing 2018 going to remember Defusco's ELEC violations? God knows the dead blogs would rather talk about Pizzagate II - the Bhalla /Russo alliance. But Fisher had noticed at one point that Mike was swimming in dirty money. Stopped noticing?
ReplyDeleteNo checks no.s? No way to track or verify the payment amounts filed are true. Great for laundering street money tho.
ReplyDeleteThe next time Peter, Jen and Tiff pretend voter fraud isn't a problem, print this and pass it out to everyone you see. This is the sort of electioneering Peter, Jen and Tiff wish to enable. This is how they want elections decided.
ReplyDeleteFor every "worker" that was paid $600 or more in the aggregate, the Worst Ward Councilman is responsible for sending them a 1099 form by 1/31/18 for their income tax reporting, and provide the same info to the IRS, or else he's in violation of state and federal income tax laws. Same is true for all the others, including Giattino and her "good at math" team.
ReplyDeleteYou're right! These are aggregate payments $600 and over just on the 20-Day ELEC reports filed on 12/18 and 12/19. Let's hope that the DeFusco campaign has furnished 1099s for all workers paid over $600-- I know the Bhalla campaign has.
Delete$600 Sandra Ramos
$600 Elaine DePinto
$600 Maxwell Kotuhich
$900 Carmen Melendez.
$700 Evelyn Lopez
$600 Patricia Waiters
$600 Grant Ludmer
$600 Luz Muniz
Curious if Ruben Ramos was conflicted out of the series of runoff votes, since there is a direct fiduciary impact on his family/household-- runoff elections means more paid work for his family/household. A question for corporation council.