 |
| 2016- Matt Callichio zaps BoE candidate Irene Sobolov with his flashlight ray! |
Yeah, I'm back (sorta). I will be extending my time off the Hoboken grid(dle) for a while longer, but am back for today's seismic event in Hoboken politics: United States of America v. Matthew Calicchio.
Big deal, you say? Yes, it is.
Because the tentacles of the Department of Justice criminal investigation into Hoboken voter fraud are inching ever-closer.
Because the tentacles of the Department of Justice criminal investigation into Hoboken voter fraud are inching ever-closer.
In my post, "Why Frank got Pinched Now..." I'd noted that the 5-year statute of limitations on prosecuting Raia and Braxton was about to expire, pursuant to alleged crimes perpetrated in 2013. More precisely, the 5-year clock begins ticking after the "last overt act" is committed. That is a hard prosecutorial deadline.
So, with respect to potential future Hoboken prosecutions, the plea announcement by the U.S. District Court of New Jersey drops tantalizing clues about where they are headed next. They are:
(1) The introduction of "Candidate 1" and "Candidate 2," both 2015 Hoboken City Council candidates.
(2) "Candidate 1" and "Candidate 2" were both on the ballot. (We are not told if either won or lost their respective races.)
(3) The "2015 Election" is the time frame during which crimes occurred.
(4) William Rojas worked for "Candidate 1" during the 2015 election.
(5) "Candidate 1" directed Defendant Callichio and Rojas to promise voters that if they applied for a mail-in ballot, and voted by mail they would be paid $50 each.
(7) "Candidate 2" was also the Chairperson of Candidate 2's campaign committee ("the Campaign Committee".)
(6) After the election, "Candidate 1" directed Defendant Calicchio and Rojas to deliver $50 checks drawn on the Campaign Committee's bank account. (1) The introduction of "Candidate 1" and "Candidate 2," both 2015 Hoboken City Council candidates.
(2) "Candidate 1" and "Candidate 2" were both on the ballot. (We are not told if either won or lost their respective races.)
(3) The "2015 Election" is the time frame during which crimes occurred.
(4) William Rojas worked for "Candidate 1" during the 2015 election.
(5) "Candidate 1" directed Defendant Callichio and Rojas to promise voters that if they applied for a mail-in ballot, and voted by mail they would be paid $50 each.
(7) "Candidate 2" was also the Chairperson of Candidate 2's campaign committee ("the Campaign Committee".)
So, the Calicchio plea appears to describe a conspiracy: that Candidate 2 was the Chair of the "Campaign Committee" from whose account funds were drawn and-- at the direction of Candidate 1-- paid by Calicchio and Rojas for vbms. Hence, Candidate 1 and Candidate 2, both 2015 Hoboken Council candidates, are named as unindicted co-conspirators.
Note: GA checked the D-1 ELEC filings of four 2015 Hoboken Council candidates to and none had a "Chairman."
SIMILARITIES TO THE CAMIS-RAIA-BRAXTON CASE
Frank Raia was introduced in the Lizaida Camis criminal complaint as an unnamed, unindicted co-conspirator, "Candidate 1." Raia was only indicted later, with Braxton and all were charged with conspiracy.
The Calicchio plea includes TWO un-named, un-indicted co-conspirators, "Candidate 1" and "Candidate 2." If this follows the 'pattern', more indictments are coming.
WHO ARE "CANDIDATE 1" & "CANDIDATE 2"?
Let me caution folks from dropping names. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, and accusing an innocent person of a crime is defamation.
However, it is fair comment to discuss 2015 Hoboken anomalies like, 248 campaign workers in a 2015 uncontested 3rd Ward election.
It is fair comment to note that most of 2015's 3rd Ward 248 campaign workers were paid $50 each and lived in the 4th and 5th Wards (81 campaign workers from Fox Hills senior housing).
It is fair comment to note that most of 2015's 3rd Ward 248 campaign workers were paid $50 each and lived in the 4th and 5th Wards (81 campaign workers from Fox Hills senior housing).
3RD WARD UNCONTESTED RACE:
2015 RUSSO FOR COUNCIL CAMPAIGN WORKERS
2015 RUSSO FOR COUNCIL CAMPAIGN WORKERS
(source- Russo for Council, 20 Day Post-Election report filed on December 17, 2015)
- campaign workers who reside in the 3rd ward are highlighted GREY
- campaign workers who reside in the 4th ward are highlighted BLUE
- campaign workers who reside in the 5th ward are highlighted YELLOW
Click any image to enlarge
United States of America v Matt Calicchio by GrafixAvenger on Scribd
I know we're not supposed to name names, but since we know as fact based on the publicly reported ELEC filings that "worker" payments for the 4th and 5th wards were paid out of Councilman Russo's election fund, Councilman Russo fits the description of "candidate 1" pretty well.
ReplyDeleteAlso since the paid workers not residing in Councilman Russo's ward resided in the 4th and 5th wards, "Candidate 2" likely was a candidate in one of those wards meaning: Ruben Ramos, Tim Occhipinti or Dana Wefer in the 4th or Eduardo Gonzales or Peter Cunningham in the 5th.
Obviously, there's no way to know for sure who from that list is "candidate 2" until the next charge or plea comes down, but since the feds left a pretty obvious trail making the perp valueless as an informant after today, I suspect we won't have long to wait.
Since Cunningham and Wefer wouldn't likely have anything to do with Callicio, that leaves 3 real "suspects" in my opinion. I also doubt it was Tim since he was sort of on his own in that election, having been dumped from the "team" in favor of Ramos after his heresy of running for mayor in 2013.
If I'm right, and of course this is just speculation on my part, that narrows the list of "candidate 2" suspects to 2, the losing 5th ward candidate and the winning 4th ward candidate.
Of course I could be wildly off base on all of this since it's just my opinion. But I don't think we will have long to wait.
Numbers, as usual, your numbers are checking out. Grabbing popcorn!
DeleteI can't think of any good reason why the feds didn't name "candidates 1 and 2" despite leaving an obvious trail to them, unless there are more charges to come.
ReplyDeleteBut before we all get too excited, the actions described for "candidate 2" - the one who paid the workers, describe only an ELEC violation unless there is evidence he knew that the money was being used for votes not legit workers.
And "Candidate 1" is described as basically being OK with "whatever it takes" but not necessarily with actual knowledge of that votes we're being bought, so the feds will need more evidence there too.
I think there is likely more to come, but it's also possible Raia's discovery request for the names of informants forced the feds to wrap up before getting what they needed to move on "candidates 1 and 2.
Meaning the movie could end here, leaving "candidates 1 and 2" breathing undeserved sighs of relief.
That's my interpretation. Not naming Candidates 1 and 2 because they're building a case, collecting evidence and will be making document requests. Candidates 1 and 2 not 100% knowing they will be indicted, could allow for the preservation of evidence until document requests are issued. Hoping the Feds are ensuring their case is water tight first. That's also my hope with Pres. Trump though, so maybe wishful thinking?
DeleteAlso allows for less witness tampering prior during case building and discovery - my guesses.
DeleteThat may be true, numbers. But the Feds have until Nov. 2020 (or thereabouts) to prosecute "Candidate 1" and "Candidate 2" within the 5 year statute of limitations. So, if it seems like the movie has ended, perhaps the projectionist is saving the end of the movie to play at a time of his/her choosing. If nothing happens in the next few months, I don't think some folks should be whistling a happy tune. Watch the calendar!
DeleteNice write-up and analysis. I wish Heinis would do that once in a while. His beat is the whole county, so it's not surprising that he doesn't dig past the surface very often. But there's no place else to see some kind of work ethic and grown-up thought process on display for Hoboken stories.
ReplyDeleteHopefully these convictions help soften the blow of moving to run-offs by reducing the level of vote-buying. With inevitably lower turn-outs in run-offs, vote-buying would tend to be decisive. (2 known facts which the alleged "reformers" supporting run-offs were thoroughly dishonest about.)
Still the most embarrassing election in city history was Occhipinti's 400+ bought votes in 2010. So it wasn't like the 2009 sting and incarceration of Peter Cammarano made anyone squeamish about breaking the law A LOT.
I'll be curious to see how the Giattino, Fisher and Cunningham play this. They've made common cause with Ramos and Defusco to maintain their majority. They look the other way on ELEC violations and shady alliances. What will they do if Candidate 2 turns out to be a charter member of their little club?
As he says, "You can't legislate character"........
If candidate 2 is who he seems likely to be, and is ultimately charged, I think we can expect his allies - meaning DeFusco, Fisher, Cunningham and Giattino, to throw him quickly under the bus despite it being a surprise to pretty much no one, especially to those allies, that candidate 2 would be involved in election fraud.
ReplyDeleteSo far, no one has said anything about the election not yet charged - 2017. If I recall correctly, Mr. Callicio "worked" that election too, I believe on behalf of Freeholder Romano. It is noteworthy that nothing yet has been charged re 2017 - perhaps that investigation is continuing.
I'm really hoping for a HudCo Freeholder to fall.
DeleteAt the end of the day I feel bad for Matt (to an extent - I remember some of the things he did that make it hard to really feel bad for him).
ReplyDeleteBut, I've met him - he strikes me as learning disabled or at the very least, not terribly bright. He's been used in many ways by his political "friends". And now it appears he'll pay a price.
His best bet is to turn state's evidence and allow the State to go after the big fish and dismantle the entire network of corruption. Raia can't be the only big fish.
Delete