Leaked Email: The check that went from bad to good

In the spring of 2015, a campaign consultant to then Freeholder Gail Phoebus told the Assembly candidate to return the check of an attorney who was connected to the failed solar project in Sussex County:

Not only did she send back the money, Freeholder Phoebus criticized the law firm who had sent it:

"It's all the same people that dug the hole, and every time I ask for a clear, third-party fresh set of eyes, they throw in somebody else that appears out of the past. How many times can you recycle the same names? Are they protecting specific people, or are they protecting the county?” (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

"Mr. Weinstein had clear conflicts of interest. Far from recommending ‘independent' counsel to guide us through a complex negotiation, you led us to the partner of the attorney who shares responsibility with you for failing to obtain a performance bond... All of this raises serious questions.  (While) Mr. Weinstein negotiated the solar project settlement and rendered advice to the freeholder board, whose interests was he serving”? (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

Fast forward to the 2016 re-election bid of Phoebus ally Freeholder George Graham.  Graham takes a $2,000.00 check from the same law firm Phoebus criticized and then in July, after having safely won the GOP primary, Graham hands the same law firm a no-bid contract.

...in September 2014, the county freeholder board appointed Weinstein as special counsel to guide it through that process.

The appointment of Weinstein -- whose law partner, John Cantalupo, had been on retainer to the county since 2011 for legal services related to county-backed bonds issued on the solar project -- was criticized last year by then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus, now a state assemblywoman, who called it a conflict of interest.

While offering praise for Wednesday's presentation, Roseann Salanitri -- also of Sandyston -- tempered her praise with criticism over the fact that a large portion of it was given by Weinstein.

"He was the same counsel that represented us on (last year's) settlement, and that settlement contained ‘hold harmless' clauses for just about everybody and their grandmother," Salanitri said. "I don't know Mr. Weinstein and have nothing against him personally, but I believe this presentation is not as credible as it could have been if it had been conducted by someone (else)." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Freeholder Director George Graham defended the appointment of Weinstein, saying:  "He's the only one who has institutional knowledge after all the other people who ran out the door." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Why did Freeholder George Graham engineer a no-bid contract for a law firm that he and then Freeholder Gail Phoebus identified as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $30 million?  And why has Phoebus, who was so critical of the law firm in 2015, why has she been mute in 2016-2017 and hasn't raised a single note of protest?

Should Sussex Freeholders be videotaped?

Should Sussex County Freeholder Board meetings be videotaped?  That's the debate that has turned the Freeholder Board on its head, with Freeholder boss George Graham, who once styled himself a "reformer" when he ran for office, now serving as the big impediment to county government transparency.  When Graham was on the outside he bellowed loudly about openness in government, but now that he runs the county government, he is anything but open.

In July, Freeholder George Graham engineered a no-bid contract for a law firm that he and then Freeholder Gail Phoebus identified as being at the very heart of the solar scam that has cost Sussex taxpayers upwards of $30 million.  Here is what Freeholder boss Graham said in 2015 about the lawyers he turned around and gave a no-bid contract to in 2016:

"It's all the same people that dug the hole, and every time I ask for a clear, third-party fresh set of eyes, they throw in somebody else that appears out of the past. How many times can you recycle the same names? Are they protecting specific people, or are they protecting the county?” (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

This is what then Freeholder (now Assemblyperson) Gail Phoebus said:

"Mr. Weinstein had clear conflicts of interest. Far from recommending ‘independent' counsel to guide us through a complex negotiation, you led us to the partner of the attorney who shares responsibility with you for failing to obtain a performance bond... All of this raises serious questions.  (While) Mr. Weinstein negotiated the solar project settlement and rendered advice to the freeholder board, whose interests was he serving”? (NJ Herald, March 28, 2015)

So why -- under Freeholder boss Graham -- is Weinstein back?

...in September 2014, the county freeholder board appointed Weinstein as special counsel to guide it through that process.

The appointment of Weinstein -- whose law partner, John Cantalupo, had been on retainer to the county since 2011 for legal services related to county-backed bonds issued on the solar project -- was criticized last year by then-Freeholder Gail Phoebus, now a state assemblywoman, who called it a conflict of interest.

While offering praise for Wednesday's presentation, Roseann Salanitri -- also of Sandyston -- tempered her praise with criticism over the fact that a large portion of it was given by Weinstein.

"He was the same counsel that represented us on (last year's) settlement, and that settlement contained ‘hold harmless' clauses for just about everybody and their grandmother," Salanitri said. "I don't know Mr. Weinstein and have nothing against him personally, but I believe this presentation is not as credible as it could have been if it had been conducted by someone (else)." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Freeholder Director George Graham defended the appointment of Weinstein, saying:  "He's the only one who has institutional knowledge after all the other people who ran out the door." (NJ Herald, July 29, 2016)

Has Graham -- a one-time critic of the solar scam -- become its enabler?  People are beginning to ask that question, especially now that the solar investigation led by another law firm hand-picked by Freeholder boss Graham has cost taxpayers double the contract price with no product in sight. 

Graham is lobbying hard to get a second term as Freeholder Director.  Normally, the Freeholders take turns serving as Board Director, but Graham is looking to become a county political boss and the first step is to secure his position on the Board in perpetuity.  After which, Assemblyperson Phoebus will be free to give Graham a job as her chief of staff -- providing him with an annual six-figures in taxpayer money, plus health benefits and a pension -- which will establish Graham as the Nick Sacco of Sussex County.   

Hudson County... here we come!

Tea Party candidate threatens GOP Assembly Leader

Mark Quick, who in 2011 ran with Sussex County Tea Party president Roseann Salanitri against conservative legislators Alison Littell McHose and Gary Chiusano, used social media to post what appeared to be a threat against GOP Assembly Leader Jon Bramnick and others.  Quick's post was in response to a plea for civility made by Assemblyman Bramnick:

"I am deeply concerned how partisanship has evolved into hatred and intolerance.  We must be very careful that our country does not continue down a path that can only be destructive for our nation."

Quick, who opposes the tax restructuring plan supported by Assemblyman Bramnick and others, responded derisively:

"As soon as the Traitors are in jail or swinging from a rope."

"Traitors... swinging from a rope?"  Was that violent image (lynching) really necessary?

But this is just what we have come to expect from Sussex County's tea partiers -- coarse, pornographic rants laced with threats of violence.  Posting mainly through social media, those responsible sound more like 15 year-olds than the 70 pluses they tend to be.

Here is one Sussex County tea party member musing on what should be done with the United States Congress:

"All 545 sitting in DC right now are guilty of treason. And all those living who have sat over the past 2 decades, since the signing of NAFTA are, too. That is our reality, they should all be indicted, dragged out in chains, the evidence a matter of congressional record and unimpeachable. And all should be subject to all the consequences the law provides up to the firing squad."

But not every Tea Party group is like this.  On the website of a Tea Party organization in a neighboring county, we found this admonishment to members:

Remember the quote attributed to Ronald Reagan “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” 

Sussex County has New Jersey's most reliable conservative legislators -- year in, year out.  And yet, since the beginnings of the Tea Party movement in 2010, tea party members in Sussex County have consistently attacked them as "20 percent traitors" (actually, we'd be surprised if there was five percent disagreement on the issues between them).

The Tea Party has attacked Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose, Assemblyman Gary Chiusano, Assemblyman Parker Space, Senator Steve Oroho, and others.  It lay aside developing a door-to-door commitment for Congressman Scott Garrett, in order to focus its attentions on the apparently far more thrilling game of screw the conservative Republican.  Why go after Pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment liberal Democrat Josh Gottheimer when you can screw Pro-Life, Pro-gun, Pro-hunting conservative Republican Steve Oroho?  It's priorities. 

It has never been about policy for the Tea Party in Sussex County, but rather about individual envy, jealousy, covetousness, and the hatred these sins produce.  Now, unfortunately, the ooze is making its way around the state, courtesy of Bill Spadea and others.

Update!  While writing this column we've heard from another Sussex County Tea Party member (Skylands Tea Party) and candidate for the state legislature.  He made this charming comment:

Now there's the kind of guy you want in the State Legislature, providing leadership, a role model for children.  Go Tea Party!

Did Sussex Republicans go for Gay Marriage?

Besides being achieved at the expense of the District 24 legislators, U.S. Senate candidate Rich Pezzullo’s 44 percent showing in Sussex County was a shocker for another reason:  Alone among the four Republicans running for their party’s nomination for U.S. Senate, Pezzullo supported gay marriage.

That’s right.  Steve Lonegan protégé Rick Shaftan’s candidate for United States Senate supported gay marriage and opposed the death penalty in all circumstances – even for terrorists, serial killers, and criminals who murder innocent children.   He said so at the very start of his campaign and it was reported in the Star-Ledger on March 3, 2014:

On social issues, Pezzullo is not easily classified. He opposes abortion and says he is pro-gun rights. But he also favors permitting same-sex marriage and opposes the death penalty.

“My Second Amendment friends love me, but they have a problem with me because I don’t support the death penalty," he said. "My pro-life friends love me because I’m 100% pro-life, but they have problems with me because I support marriage equality. Everybody has a reason not to vote for me, and yet when they allow me to explain all the thought that went into my positions they see I don’t shoot from the hip.”

Of course, knowing this wouldn’t have presented a problem for Shaftan, a consultant for Hudson County Democrat State Senator (and Mayor and School Superintendent) Nick Sacco.  Sacco is on record as voting for gay marriage in the State Senate.  

One Sussex County elected official who supported Rich Pezzullo was Freeholder George Graham, as did some of those associated with Graham’s Sussex County League of Municipalities. Were they aware of Pezzullo’s position on gay marriage and the death penalty?

Pezzullo also enjoyed support from the Tea Party movement in Sussex County.  Team New Jersey and Tpath sent out endorsements for Pezzullo that claimed to have researched his positions on the issues.

Does this mean that Tea Partiers like Roseann Salanitri and Bader Qarmout now support gay marriage?

We can’t be sure, but here is what Team New Jersey/Tpath wrote in their endorsement:

May 31, 2014 ~TPATH~ This release is a collaboration between the founder of TeamNJ, Mr. Nicholas Purpura and TPATH.  First we would like to apologize to our readers and TeamNJ members for not getting this release out earlier.  We have spent much time evaluating and vetting each of the four candidates vying for the Republican Primary for United States Senate.

Richard J. Pezzullo is a good solid conservative.  He has fire in his belly.  He is as in tune with the pulse of the people and understands the fury in all of us.  He too has that fury.  He is unashamed of his conservative values and never fails to espouse them.  TeamNJ and TPATH are convinced the Mr. Pezzullo will be a force in the United States Senate and will align with great Senators like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz.

TEAM NEW JERSEY and TPATH - 

Strongly support Mr. Richard J. Pezzullo for the US Senate

TPATH Note:
Several of our readers have requested information on which candidate we were supporting.  At the time Murray Sabrin appeared to be the best candidate and we indicated that to a few people.  Since then however our research has been completed and we are now in complete agreement with TeamNJ that Richard Pezzullo is the best candidate.  But as we said, Murray Sabrin is a good man.

Note to the vetting committee at Team New Jersey and Tpath:  Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz do not support gay marriage.  Also, saying you don’t like Jeff Bell because he once worked for Richard Nixon is something you would not apply to Pat Buchanan or Robert Bork, so why say it?

 You have to wonder what level of research was done that these people didn’t figure out that Pezzullo was for gay marriage and against the death penalty.  The Star-Ledger story appeared on March 3, 2014, right after Pezzullo won his first convention.  It is one of the first things that come up when you Google his name. 

Sussex County Republicans probably had no idea what they were voting for on June 3^rd but instead relied on the recommendations of local people who call themselves “conservative” or members of the “Tea Party”.  On the other hand, the people who promoted Rich Pezzullo in Sussex County should have known his position on these issues and if they did, it shows an interesting evolution on the part of the Tea Party, here in Sussex County and across New Jersey.