| I really, really loathe the political machine system we have throughout New Jersey. Whether it's a Democratic or Republican machine, whether it's run by a boss named Ferriero, Adubato, Lesniak, or Norcross, the whole idea of unelected but very powerful puppet masters pulling strings and playing kingmaker sickens me.
That said, I also believe strongly in the right of those in the United States to a fair, public trial by jury, and the requirement that those accused of a crime must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be convicted.
Right now, one slimy character in particular has caught people's attention, and rightly so. Joe Ferriero is best known as the erstwhile boss of the Bergen County Democratic machine...I mean, Organization. There's no doubt that a lot of the things party bosses like Ferriero do are unethical and conflict with the principles of a free, democratic nation. A boss wields a lot of money and power. Thanks to gerrymandering, it's easy for these party heads to essentially handpick people for an elected post before going through the motions of them being "nominated" and "elected" by the people. And most candidates aren't willing to take on the machine, instead running on the party line and then doing the party's bidding once in office. State Senator Loretta Weinberg is a prime example of that rare public official who's willing to actually do something about political machine, as evidenced by her challenge and defeat of Ferriero's legislative slate in 2005 and 2007. Unfortunately, Weinberg is also a prime example of that race public official who takes on the machine and wins. We've all heard of politicians who've fought the machines and ruined their careers in doing so. There's State Senate Co-President John O. Bennett, who refused to appropriate state funds for an arena in Pennsauken that had been demanded by George Norcross. Norcross, of course, stormed out of the room, shouting, "I will fucking destroy you!" and proceeded to trample the top Republican in the Senate in his re-election bid the following year. Or more recently, machine rival and current Senate President Dick Codey, who will probably lose his post next year thanks to a back-room deal between Norcross and Stephen Adubato, who want their candidates – Steve Sweeney and Sheila Oliver, respectively – in charge the New Jersey legislature. Just a couple examples of an all-too-common phenomenon here in Jersey.
Anyway, to get back on track: Political machines may be unethical, and the bosses who run those machines may be unethical. But have their slimy activities ever violated federal or state law? Federal prosecutors, including (at least up until recently) Chris Christie, say that in Ferriero's case, the answer is yes. Ferriero's defendant pleaded guilty last month, but Ferriero pleaded not guilty. And now that he's receiving his fair, public trial by jury, the question is: Is Joe Ferriero guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
More below the jump. |
| First of all, what exactly is Ferriero charged with? The easy answer is "corruption," but that's really an umbrella term.
Here's the full answer: Ferriero is accused of conspiring with Dennis J. Oury to execute a scheme and artifice, using the United States mail, to defraud the borough of Bergenfield, New Jersey, of money, property, and the honest services of Oury, then a public official in that borough; and of assisting and facilitating the execution of that scheme and artifice, using the United States mail.
Oury was indicted on the same seven counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud; however, because of his plea bargain, he only pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and to a reduced charge of tax evasion; he also agreed to testify against Ferriero, and began doing so today.
You can read the full indictment here, but because it's quite lengthy, here's a nice summary courtesy of Wikipedia:
According to the indictment, Ferriero and Oury first conspired in December 2001 to create a grant-writing company, Government Grants Consulting, that would capitalize on their access to state and local officials to secure grants for towns like Bergenfield, which would allow them to collect considerable income as the principal shareholders of GGC. Ferriero allegedly faxed proposed contracts and draft resolutions appointing GGC as municipal grantsman to officials in several municipalities. On January 1, 2002, the Bergenfield Borough Council voted both to hire Oury as borough attorney and to contract with GGC. GGC was misleadingly represented to be an established corporation with "a special expertise, training, and reputation in acquiring government grants" even though it did not even exist as a legal entity at that or any other time and had never served any other clients. Oury, who was present at that meeting, failed to disclose his significant financial interest in GGC. Allegedly, Ferriero subsequently drafted a shareholders' agreement for GGC, with most of the shares held by him, Oury, and then-North Arlington Mayor Leonard Kaiser, who was not charged. Ferriero and Oury, according to the indictment, then proceeded to use real grant-writers' services and their own ties to obtain grants for Bergenfield and bringing more money to GGC and themselves. They had opened a bank account in GGC's name in Englewood Cliffs, for which they were two of three authorized signers. The money paid to GGC by Bergenfield was split among Ferriero, Oury, and the other shareholders, using the United States mail, and Oury intentionally failed to disclose his financial interest in and income from GGC on statements he was required to file as a public official in the boroughs of Bergenfield, Fort Lee, New Milford, and Edgewater, also using the United States mail.
I would add that Ferriero's key role in this conspiracy was the alleged use of his political clout to steer $1.4 million in grants towards Bergenfield (and, consequently, profits to himself and Oury). This influence-peddling is reprehensible and seems to be part of a criminal scheme to defraud Bergenfield of money and, given the fact that Ferriero must have known that Oury was concealing his involvement in GGC, Oury's honest services.
Oury pleaded guilty to conspiring with Ferriero to defraud Bergenfield, and said as much in his testimony today. He testified that he had "most likely" prepared the proposed resolutions which Ferriero had faxed to local officials, that the resolution's description of GGC was intentionally inaccurate, and that his failure to disclose his financial interest in GGC was intentional. He also testified that GGC was formed at Ferriero's suggestion.
A chilling picture of Ferriero's machine politics briefly came to light in the testimony of former Bergenfield Mayor Robert Rivas, who testified that Ferriero had been furious when he did not nominate Oury for borough attorney in 2001 as Ferriero had asked. Rivas did nominate Oury one year later, along with GGC. Rivas also testified that he did not know who was behind GGC, and certainly not that Ferriero or Oury was behind it. He also did not know it was in the concept stage.
But the defense has a compelling argument. Joe Ferriero, it is argued, is and was a private citizen at the time. He had every right to start a grant-writing company, they say. Unlike Oury, he had no obligation to disclose his financial stake in GGC because he was not a public official, they say. Unlike Oury, he paid taxes on the money he made from GGC.
Following this line of reasoning further, Ferriero's letter to the DEP, saying that it was of great personal importance to him that Bergenfield receive a certain Green Acres grant, was ethically dubious influence-peddling, but not necessarily illegal. He sent the letter using his law firm's letterhead, thus concealing his involvement with GGC, and again, that's ethically dubious, but is it fraud? Moreover, is it fraud beyond a reasonable doubt?
My impression, based on what I've read in the indictment, at the wonderful Ferriero Trial Blog, and elsewhere, is that Ferriero is probably guilty of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He may also be guilty of two counts of mail fraud – Counts 2 and 5 in the indictment, which respectively allege that he caused to be mailed a letter from the DEP Commissioner to the Mayor of Bergenfield awarding the Green Acres grant in furtherance of the scheme and artifice defrauding Bergenfield; and that he caused to be mailed a check for about $128,000 payable to GGC from Bergenfield in furtherance of the scheme and artifice defrauding Bergenfield.
I believe conviction is far less certain with regards to the other five mail fraud charges against Ferriero. These counts all concern the financial disclosure forms that Oury mailed to boroughs that employed him, on which he intentionally failed to disclose his financial interest in and his income from GGC. Oury has testified that Ferriero did not review these forms or warn him against disclosing his interest in GGC before he filed them. In other words, Ferriero's connection to these counts is flimsy at best, connected by the idea that "the acts of any member of a conspiracy are taken as the acts of all members of a conspiracy," according to prosecutors' opening statement. My opinion (and, I imagine, the opinion of many jurors) is that someone should not be charged with a crime committed by another when that someone was not aware of or not very involved in the commission of that crime. And remember that these mail fraud charges against Oury were dropped when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion. It would be rather unjust to convict Ferriero for Oury's actions when Oury isn't being held responsible for those actions, even if he's being punished for other actions.
So, do you think Joe Ferriero is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Vote and comment! |
