In court, several of the political defendants have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial on corruption charges, and have been sentenced to prison. Each guilty plea creates new headlines that further cement public perceptions about Christie effective work as a corruption fighter. It's one of his enduring images as indicated by the nationally syndicated Broder column, although his election victory drew also on such related factors as widespread unhappiness with the Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine.
*****
Disrupting the orderly progression of defendants to prison is former state assemblyman Louis M. Manzo, who has mounted a nearly one-man campaign to expose the prosecution as political and otherwise abusive.
A defendant himself, Manzo and his brother Ronald were both charged with accepting $27,500 in cash payments from government informant Dwek during early 2009 in exchange for Manzo's official assistance on development matters if he became mayor. Manzo wrote us:
I maintain my innocence. I never took a bribe from anyone, or agreed to any corrupt action. The prosecutors in this case know that as well. The indictment is the manipulation of a corrupted prosecution, handled by some prosecutors who had personal and professional stakes in the investigation and prosecution of the Bid Rig III police action. Those stakes, as documented from the public record, were jobs for themselves or family members tied to former United States Attorney Chris Christie's election for Governor of New Jersey in November 2009.
The presiding judge dismissed the main charges against Manzo as unfounded. But the government has refused to give up, and its appeal that could keep him in jeopardy or at least limbo for two years or more.
Authorities deny wrongdoing. Marra, the acting U.S. attorney who handled the pre-election indictments, went on to join the Christie administration as senior vice president of the New Jersey State Gaming Commission, and win absolution from an ethics complaint to DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility. DOJ declines to provide the text of its ruling. That's typical of the protection that office affords to its employees and former employees against meaningful public scrutiny.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
