Another slow news day. Shall we check in on Hoboken's most-publicized court dramas? GA's last update on the Raia, et. al., matter was on January 6, 2020. New on the docket...
On January 23rd, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito filed a Consent Order, notifying the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey of it's intention to collect half of Frank Raia's $100,000 bond for the court-ordered fine, and to return the balance to Raia.
CONSENT ORDER
The next day, Carpenito's office forwarded the Consent Order to the U.S. District Clerk's Office, requesting the cancellation of Raia's $100,000 bond and disbursement of monies in accordance with the Order. Note, Carpenito is currently appealing Frank's sentence- jail time and fine- on the basis that the court was too lenient.
On January 22nd, the court docket for Defendant William Rojas entered a new date for sentencing: March 24, 2020.
It is interesting to note that the other three Hoboken Defendants who entered Guilty pleas, Dio Braxton, Lizaida Camis, and Matt Calicchio, continue to have their sentencing dates "adjourned without date."
So why was Rojas singled out? A second look at William Rojas' Information shows that the charges implicate Matt Calicchio, Candidate 1 and Candidate 2 in a conspiracy to:
"knowingly and intentionally use the mail with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment and carrying on of an unlawful activity, that is bribery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2(a) and 19:34-25(a) and thereafter perform and attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, establishment, and carrying on of the unlawful activity, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3)."
The charges to which Rojas pled guilty occurred during Hoboken's 2015 election cycle.
ROJAS INFORMATION
Interesting that the Feds only put Rojas up for sentencing...
CITY'S FIRST-EVER PAY-TO-PLAY COMPLAINT AGAINST A HOBOKEN CANDIDATE DISAPPEARS!
Poof! ABRA-CA-DABRA! Gone with the Wind! WTF?
Poof! ABRA-CA-DABRA! Gone with the Wind! WTF?
Queries by others to Chief Judge Peter Bariso's Clerk about the status of the City of Hoboken's Pay-to-Play complaint against a Hoboken candidate get this response:
"We don't have it."
Then WHO HAS IT? What happened to Judge Bariso's reported review for probable cause? How does a Hudson County City's summons for alleged violations of its own ordinance NOT get a judicial review?
Maybe it got thrown back to municipal court? GA used the summons ticket number to search the Hudson County municipal court database. No results. The City's summons is not entered in the online database. So if it's not in a municipal court and it's not in Superior Court where is it? Was the Hoboken City Clerk's complaint ever reviewed by any court for probable cause? How can it just vanish?
The public official who is the subject of the complaint has never been served, because the summons was reportedly under judicial review for probable cause. So, does it exist or not? Or...
Maybe Hudson County justice is for the Little People. This certainly isn't fair to the Accused, an elected official, who deserves a determination of publicized allegations made against him. Yes, it isn't fair to anyone: the City, the Accused, the Hoboken electorate.
Well, perhaps there is a reasonable explanation that this matter just quietly went away...
City of Hoboken OPRA # 19-2... by GrafixAvenger on Scribd
$50,000.00 works out to 1,000 paid for votes.
ReplyDeleteI dont see why a probable cause review would have anything to do with not serving the defendant(s). Are you sure that DeFusco was never served? If he wasn't that would be concerning and Corporation Counsel ought to explain why.
ReplyDeleteAlso, given the publicity given to the complaint and the enormous level of public interest in it, the City ought to provide a public update on the status. Properly filed complaints don't just disappear.
Yep. I was skeptical myself, so found this was supported in the NJ municipal court rules when the story broke. I can dig up again.
DeleteYes, agree with you that there is nothing normal about this matter of public interest and public concern--the first ever complaint filed against a candidate for allegedly violating Hoboken P2p law- disappearing without judicial review. The City should not lay down for their legitimately filed complaint going POOF.
If you look at the sources of the money that got DeFusco elected, and the type of people and organizations who are hoping for a big payday if they can get him elected as mayor, then it's perfectly normal that they would call in some favors and someone would "lose" the paperwork.
ReplyDeleteCan the pay to play complaint be re-submitted? Just because someone on the inside seems to be willing to break the law and dump something in the shredder doesn't mean DeFusco's crimes didn't occur.
We haven't seen this kind of skulduggery since the Mason's seemed to illegally obtain sealed court records to smear Mason's opponent, Greaney.
Guess it helps to have low friends in high places.
This merits investigation. What happened? Who made Hoboken's complaint disappear and why?
ReplyDelete