A major Sussex County story not covered by the Herald

There are many residents of Sussex County who acknowledge that their local newspaper -- the New Jersey Herald -- is too chummy with county insiders on the Freeholder Board, SCMUA, and in county government.  Others disagree, but the Herald has shown a less than even-handed interest in certain stories.

For instance, for the better part of six months, the Herald focused an enormous amount of attention on a minor incident that occurred at a GOP event at the close of the 2016 election.  That matter was closed without "probable cause" ever having been determined, without a charge ever being filed. 

The Herald went so far as to allow an active candidate for elected county office -- Democrat Freeholder candidate Dan Perez -- to use its pages to make the claim that an individual was guilty of a crime.  Inexplicably, the Herald failed to report that this was a clear violation of the attorney "Rules of Professional Conduct."  The Herald also allowed Mr. Perez to use its pages to publish a tall tale of conspiracy against Senator Steve Oroho and others.  It was all unfounded, made-up, and false.  But it was printed and distributed by the Herald in furtherance of the cause of Daniel M. Perez.

And that is why we marvel at the restraint and the refusal to publish even a single word about the following story.  It concerns a major accusation of wrongdoing in Sussex County.  It appeared last week in The Record of Bergen County, its Passaic County affiliate, the Paterson Press, and on NorthJersey.com -- but not in the Herald.  The Herald must be aware of this, but have been silent on the subject.

Accusations surface in sexual assault case: Was it political pressure or police mishandling?

Abbott Koloff, Staff Writer, @AbbottKoloff Published 5:00 a.m. ET Sept. 29, 2017 | Updated 10:42 a.m. ET Sept. 29, 2017

The woman was getting divorced. The man told her he was in the midst of a breakup.

After a chance meeting over the winter, the two — who had known one another in high school — decided to meet for a drink. It was an opportunity to catch up and commiserate over failed relationships.

But that January night in a Sussex County bar has led to an immensely complicated case peppered with accusations of retaliation, political pressure and mishandling of the case by police.

An investigation, including a review of police and court records as well as interviews by The Record and NorthJersey.com, shows:

• Sexual assault allegations were brought by the woman to the state police.
• A trooper filed the charges in a municipal court; they were dismissed the next day in Superior Court, at the behest of the Sussex County prosecutor.
• The woman, through the police union, claimed she was pressured by the Prosecutor's Office into dropping the charges.
• The union strongly hinted that prosecutors were motivated by the defendant’s father being a “politically-appointed executive in Morris County.”
• The Prosecutor's Office denied those accusations, saying that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue the case and suggesting that state police overstepped their authority in bringing the charges.

As a result of the tangled mess,17 state troopers have been reassigned; a labor grievance has been brought against state police officials; and the Sussex County Prosecutor this week released a detailed, two-page statement defending the office's handling of the case.

New Jersey State Police (Photo: File / NorthJersey.com)

Mike Bukosky, a police union attorney, said in an email that the troopers "used their training and experience to act 100 percent in good faith to assist and protect the parties involved."

Sussex County Prosecutor Francis A. Koch has denied that any members of his staff acted improperly or for "any alternative motive,"  and that they all sought “solely to uphold the law,” and always take into account "victims’ rights." He specified that none of his employees knew the defendant "or anyone in his family."

Sex assault alleged

The saga began when a woman, who The Record and Northjersey.com is not identifying, walked into the Sussex Station of the state police in Frankford on Jan. 31. Her claim: she was sexually assaulted nine days earlier in the parking lot of Boomer's Place, a bar in Hampton. 

A week later, after giving his own statement to police, the man she accused was arrested and charged with second-degree sexual assault and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact.

Ian M. Schweizer, 35, spent one night in the Keogh-Dwyer Correctional Facility in Newton before records show the charges were dismissed and he was released.

Records also show he was living at the same Newton address as his father — Glenn Schweizer, who recently retired as the executive director of the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority.

The case hinged on what appear to be two very different statements about what happened in the early morning hours of Jan. 22 — each version laid out in affidavits signed by a state trooper, Justin DeLorenzo.

Ian M. Schweizer spent one night in the jail in Sussex County before charges against him were dismissed (Photo: Sussex County Sheriff's Office)

Schweizer told police that he and the woman were kissing in the parking lot of Boomer's and that she touched him sexually before he put his hands down her pants, according to an affidavit. DeLorenzo wrote that Schweizer said "he went too far by doing so and it upset the victim at which time the victim entered her vehicle” and “abruptly departed."

The woman, in an interview with The Record, said she knew Schweizer from when they were students at Kittatinny Regional High School years ago.

They planned to get together after a brief conversation during a recent chance meeting, she said, when she told him she had been going through a divorce and he told her he had a young daughter and also was going through the breakup of a relationship.

She said she “never touched him in a sexual way."

She told police she backed away when Schweizer tried to kiss her, according to court papers, and that he grabbed her as she told him to stop.

The affidavit said Schweizer "pushed her against the exterior of her vehicle and forced his hands down her pants" before she "screamed and pushed him away from her. She immediately entered her vehicle and fled.”

DeLorenzo wrote that Schweizer sent a text message to the woman a short time later, at 2:47 a.m. “Sorry if I got carried away,” it said.

“I told him he really scared me,” the woman told The Record.

DeLorenzo filed the related complaints and affidavits on Feb. 7 in the regional municipal court in Wantage.

Boomer's Place in Hampton Township (Photo: Abbott Koloff)

A prior arrest

The woman told The Record that she waited nine days before going to police because she was "in shock" and had been replaying the incident over and over in her mind.

The affidavit says she contacted a friend who worked at the bar shortly after the incident to tell her about it. She said in The Record interview that she decided to go to police because she became afraid after learning Schweizer recently had been arrested for violating a restraining order in Morris County.

Schweizer was charged on Dec. 31, 2016 with simple assault in a domestic violence case out of Mount Olive, where he had been living, according to court records.

He struck a woman in the leg "with an unknown instrument used as a weapon," police wrote in a criminal complaint. The woman suffered an unspecified injury and declined treatment, according to an incident report. Court records do not specify whether a child who lived at the home witnessed the incident but indicate that a child was "present."

In January, Schweizer was arrested twice, on the 18th and the 30th, for allegedly violating a restraining order, according to Morris County Jail records. The status of charges related to those arrests were unavailable this week.

Schweizer pleaded guilty to the simple assault charge on March 27 in Mount Olive municipal court, records show.

Troopers and prosecutors clash over sexual assault charges

In the Sussex case, DeLorenzo consulted with other troopers before filing the criminal complaints, according to the police union. Court records show a municipal judge, Glenn Gavan, found probable cause for the charges.

Bukosky, the union attorney, said that ruling indicated the judge found police actions "to be entirely appropriate.”

It is not clear, however, whether the judge knew that prosecutors had not approved the charges. Gavan did not respond to an email requesting comment.

Koch said his office declined to approve the sexual assault charges — and then moved to have them dismissed — because "the office did not believe there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause."

That move set off a dispute between the two agencies.

The State Troopers Fraternal Order filed an amended unfair practice charge with the state Public Employment Relations Commission, known as PERC,  a little more than two weeks ago.

The complaint alleged that some troopers were improperly moved out of the Sussex barracks because they pursued the woman's sexual assault complaint against the wishes of prosecutors.

According to a union letter to the state, at least seven of the troopers had been based in that county. They included DeLorenzo, who filed the sexual assault charges in apparent defiance of prosecutors, and Darran Crane, a union representative.

Bukosky said this week that some of the 17 reassigned troopers were sent to Sussex County to replace disciplined officers.

The union said in the grievance that Schweizer's father had “political ties” but did not accuse him of taking any actions to intercede in this case on behalf of his son. It also characterized Schweizer's statement to police as a "confession."

Schweizer's attorney, Robert Schwartz, denied that characterization, saying it “was not a confession” and “did not fulfill the elements of the crime being charged.”

Schwartz also noted that a Superior Court judge later did not approve a request by the woman who made the accusations for a final order of protection, checking a box indicating the allegations had “not been substantiated.”

This week, Koch, the Sussex County prosecutor, took the unusual step of addressing the allegations in some detail, saying in a statement that he felt "compelled to respond" even though the labor complaint was directed at state police officials who disciplined the officers and not at his office.

He said he made the decision to drop the charges after reviewing affidavits and taped interviews. He also pointed to new legal requirements — part of the bail reform law that went into effect on Jan. 1 — requiring police to get an assistant prosecutor’s approval before filing charges for indictable offenses.

The prosecutor said during a Feb. 8 Superior Court hearing that his office wanted to “more fully investigate this matter,” according to a court transcript. This week, he said he doesn't anticipate filing charges in the case.

Superior Court in Newton, Sussex County (Photo: Abbott Koloff)

Explosive charges by the union

In its grievance, the union alleged that members of the Prosecutor’s Office tried to get the woman to agree with their decision to dismiss the charges, telling her the defendant was remorseful and “didn’t ‘fully’ rape her.” They added that a jury would not believe she would have been able to fight him off, as she told police, because he is 7-feet tall. Schweizer is 6-foot-7, according to court records.

“They were trying to get me to say it didn’t happen,” the woman said in her interview with The Record, adding that she filed a complaint against the Prosecutor's Office with the state Attorney General's Office. "I know the truth, and that’s what matters.”

Assistant Prosecutor Seana Pappas and Lt. Jennifer Williams participated in the interview with the woman, which lasted 2 1/2 hours, according to the union.

In a phone conversation with DeLorenzo, Pappas allegedly threatened to "start a war" if the trooper went ahead with the charges. The union said troopers also received calls from First Assistant Prosecutor Greg Mueller, who allegedly said there would be repercussions for their actions, and from Koch himself saying that he intended to dismiss the charges.

The union alleged that unidentified “members of the Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office” contacted high-ranking state police officers about the matter leading to "every member of the Sussex County State Troopers Unit involved in the case” being transferred on or about March 1 “in retaliation” for actions taken related to the sexual assault charges.

The state police have not yet filed a response to the grievance and declined to comment on the case, citing a “pending internal investigation.”

The state Attorney General’s Office also declined to comment.

The dispute will now work its way through the administrative law system, with a conference set for October.

Joe Malinconico of Paterson Press contributed to this article.

Steve Lonegan schools the tea party

Was it just last month that Democrat congressman Josh Gottheimer, a political ally of Democrat candidate Dan Perez, called Steve Lonegan a "Tea Party Republican?"  Yes, Gottheimer issued that jibe in an August 24th email blast.  It was just about the worst thing the Democrat could think of saying about the Republican.

"Tea Party Republican."

Less than a month later, and now Democrat Dan Perez wants you to believe he's a "Tea Party Democrat."  What does that even mean?

Perez made his post-Labor Day opening pitch to the Skylands Tea Party group last evening with the words, "I think if you were to put aside the lawyer thing and the ‘D' (Democrat) after my name and get to know me, you'd find that we really have a whole lot in common."

In common?  Like who Perez chose to train under to learn his skills as an attorney:  Marxist William Kunstler.  Yes, Perez trained under Kunstler, an avowed Marxist, and Perez later managed Kunstler's old firm in partnership with Kunstler's old law partner, Ron Kuby. 

Pay attention to the Ken Burns documentary on Vietnam airing on PBS later this month and you will see William Kunstler in action, defending terrorists, communist agitators, American flag-burners, and the supporters of a North Vietnamese victory over the armed forces of the United States of America.  Sure, that's as "tea party" as hell!

The Kunstler law firm defended members of the Catonsville Nine, Black Panther Party, Weather Underground Organization, the Attica Prison rioters, and the American Indian Movement.  But  Kunstler refused to defend groups like the Tea Party, on the grounds that: "I only defend those whose goals I share. I'm not a lawyer for hire. I only defend those I love."

Kunstler defended Joanne Chesimard (AKA Assata Shakur) who was convicted of murdering a New Jersey State Trooper and who escaped from prison with the help of fellow terrorists.  She is now on the FBI's MOST WANTED list. 

In collaboration with Dan Perez' law partner Ron Kuby, Kunstler defended Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, head of the terrorist group Gama'a al-Islamiyah, responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Colin Ferguson, the man responsible for the 1993 Long Island Rail Road shooting; Glenn Harris, a New York City public school teacher who absconded with a fifteen-year-old girl; Nico Minardos, indicted by Rudy Giuliani for conspiracy to ship arms to Iran; and associates of the Gambino organized crime family.

That's quite a line-up of scumbags.

At yesterday's meeting, candidate Perez claimed that he wanted to "lower taxes by opposing wasteful spending" but the record shows this to be little more than election year b.s.  It was Perez who pushed Freeholder boss Graham to spend $500,000 to hire a New York City lawyer to tell the county what went wrong on its solar project.  Unfortunately for county taxpayers, the guy Perez pushed (and Graham hired) was the same guy whose office had given the project the okay back in 2011.  So taxpayers paid $500,000 for a cover-up.

And it was Dan Perez who made his first proposal as a candidate a spending proposal -- to spend another $100,000 plus benefits on a patronage job because it "sounded like it might work."   Blindly throwing money at problems isn't conservative, Dan.

Reporting on the Skylands Tea Party meeting, the New Jersey Herald quoted the group's president -- fellow New York City lawyer Doug Amedeo -- who is quoted saying that "he wasn't aware of 'Conservative, Liberal' issues at the county level."  Wow!  We guess he never heard of Planned Parenthood and a little controversy called "abortion funding."

Democrat Dan Perez strongly supports funding Planned Parenthood and personally reprimanded Assemblywoman Gail Phoebus for voting against it.  As a Freeholder, you can bet that Dan Perez would spend our tax money on Planned Parenthood.  That's just for starters.

As that well-regarded local conservative, Mayor Steve Lonegan, explained in a book he wrote on the subject, conservatives believe in pulling power away from centralized governments at the state and federal levels and turning over more control to municipal and county governments.  Who runs local government is important because they set the agenda.  Liberals will fix their eyes firmly on the state and on Washington  for money and direction.  Conservatives will seek to break those bonds, while making sure to protect and defend traditional values at the local level through actions and the good use of the bully pulpit. 

Dan Perez is a died-in-the-wool leftist.  He tries to paint himself as an "efficient" leftist.  That is very different from being a conservative.

The Skylands Tea Party, its leaders, and members should avoid looking like fools in front of every other conservative activist in New Jersey and nationwide.  Dan Perez is not a conservative.  The word is out.  Steve Lonegan is on the case.

Josh Gottheimer's Tea Party connections

Last night, Josh Gottheimer's political campaign sent out an email blast that attacked Scott Garrett and Steve Lonegan.  Gottheimer called Scott Garrett a "Tea Party incumbent" and Steve Lonegan a "Tea Partier" and a "Tea Party darling." 

Gottheimer should know.  He's been wooing the Tea Party since he got elected and a lot of people believe they've consummated their illicit relationship. 

Gottheimer is a public relations professional who worked for Bill "I did not have sex..." Clinton, Ford Motor Corporation (Gottheimer sold the sizzle after Ford screwed 44,000 working men and women out of their jobs) , and was a global spin doctor for some of the biggest scumbags on the planet.  Gottheimer is a "progressive" in the way that Bernie Madoff was a "philanthropist"  -- they put on a good show, but hold on to your wallet!

Josh Gottheimer has been at work schmoozing the GOP in full on straw-up-the-backside mode.  He has sucked up to Republican mayors and Republican activists, insisting that he ain't a "real Democrat" and that he shares their values.  Now that's a joke for a start because Josh ain't got much in the way of "values" to begin with (aside from making dough and getting power and celebrity and attention and being the guy with the cool shoes).  Hey, we get it, there are a lot of sociopaths in politics.

He even sent a nice Democrat lady -- lawyer Jennifer Hamilton -- to help schmooze the Tea Party for him.  And it looks like it worked.  Recently, Tea Partier Nathan Orr (who ran as a kind of alt-right primary candidate in June) posted on Facebook that he wants to vote for Josh Gottheimer. Now how is that for having it both ways?

In Washington, Josh Gottheimer hangs out with Nancy Pelosi and trash-talks the Tea Party and the GOP.  Calls them all Nazis and racists.  But when Gottheimer visits Sussex County (he's not from here, you know) he brings with him some extra heavy duty straws for the schmooze-fest. 

Hey "progressives" -- the joke is on you. 

Herald leaves out "smoking gun" from its solar timeline

The New Jersey Herald's coverage of the Boxer report on the solar project has some people wondering why the newspaper is going to such lengths to cover-up the role played by former State Comptroller Matthew Boxer himself -- the fact that his office reviewed and approved the controversial solar project in August 2011.  On Sunday, the Herald ran a story that provided the following timeline for July and August of 2011:

July 27, 2011 -- The freeholder board introduced an ordinance guaranteeing the bonds to be issued to fund the project. According to freeholder meeting minutes, Eskilson "mentioned there are lots of safeguards built into this project" and referenced "minimum risk going forward." Zeoli, at the same meeting, stated he was "convinced that the risk to the County is minimal."

Aug. 17, 2011 -- The freeholder board unanimously approved the bond ordinance.

(NJ Herald, August 13, 2017)

In fact, the official timeline provided by government investigators is different:

July - Project RFP is submitted for review of Office of Comptroller.

July - Sussex County first reading of Guaranty Ordinance, Consent to MCIA Bonds & MCIA RFP for Project Developers.

August - MCIA Bond Issue and County Guaranty positive findings received from Local Finance Board.

August - Sussex County second reading of Guaranty Ordinance not to exceed $50,000,000.

August - State Comptroller provides signoff on RFP for Project documents.

(Investigation Update, July 27, 2016)

Why has the State Comptroller's role been scrubbed from the Herald's account?

In February 2011, the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Sussex County authorized a shared services agreement with the Morris County Improvement Authority (MCIA) to implement the solar project.  In July 2011, the project was sent to the Office of the State Comptroller for review.  At the time, Matthew Boxer was the State Comptroller and responsible for that office.  After reviewing all the project documents, the following month (August 2011), the project was given the okay by the Office of the State Comptroller.  Based on this review, the Sussex County Freeholders went forward with the project. 

Later, in January 2016, Matthew Boxer would be given a no-bid contract to review the solar project that his office had signed-off on in August 2011.  How that contract came to be awarded to Mr. Boxer remains a mystery, although two officials were clearly involved -- Freeholder Boss George Graham and SCMUA Commissioner Dan Perez (a New York City lawyer, appointed by Graham, who is now himself a candidate for Freeholder).

. . .And yet, in Matthew Boxer's 62-page report  -- costing Sussex County taxpayers $500,000 ($8,064 per page) -- he never once mentions the role of the Office of the State Comptroller.  The word "comptroller" doesn't appear in his report, even once, despite the central role it played in the scam and in spite of the fact that Matthew Boxer ran the office when it was responsible for reviewing the solar contract.

In his own report, Mr. Boxer lays bare his office's misfeasance:

"The ability of the County to intercede or assist in the dispute between Sunlight and PPM was further hindered by the County’s lack of legal standing in the operative contract documents.  For example, the County had no contract with

Sunlight, only the MCIA did.  The County was even further removed contractually from PPM; neither the County nor the MCIA had a contract with PPM, only Sunlight did... In short, the County was underwriting the Solar Project, but was not in a position to affect it or protect it.

Typically, when a contractor on a public construction project is unable or unwilling, for financial reasons or otherwise, to complete the project, the public entity may resort to the performance bond that has been posted by the contractor.  A performance bond is a commitment made by an insurance company or bank, known as a 'surety,' to compensate the contracting entity financially or otherwise carry out the completion of the project in cases where the contractor defaults on its obligations...   In the case of the Solar Project, a surety bond was posted that contained a commitment from a well-known, national insurance company.  While the bond technically complied with legal requirements, the terms of the specific bond that was posted made the County’s invocation of the bond difficult, if not impossible.  First, despite the massive financial commitment the County had made on this project, the County was not listed as a beneficiary (known as the 'obligee') on the bond.  Instead, the MCIA and a Sunlight-related entity were listed as the obligees.  Thus, the County had no explicit standing to invoke the bond or to seek compensation under the bond.  It was reliant in this regard on the MCIA." 

In August 2011, Matthew Boxer's office (the Office of the State Comptroller) approved the terms of the 196-page contract. Below is a the table of contents of the contract forwarded to and approved by the Office of the State Comptroller:

THE MORRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY

MORRIS COUNTY RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM

(COUNTY OF SUSSEX PROGRAM), SERIES 2011

__________________

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

For a Developer of Photovoltaic Systems with respect to certain Local Government Facilities in the County of Sussex, New Jersey

Dated [Post Date]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1          Notice of RFP  ...................................................................................... E1-1

Exhibit 2          Respondent Checklist .......................................................................... E2-1

Exhibit 3          Proposed Schedule for Series 2011 Program ..................................... E3-1

ARTICLE I

INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, FINANCING OPTIONS

AND DEFINITIONS

Section 1.1      Introduction and Overview ...................................................................... 1

Section 1.2      Financing Options ..................................................................................... 9

Section 1.3      Authority Financing Option ...................................................................... 9

Section 1.4      Company Services Under the Authority Financing Option .................... 21

Section 1.5      Company Financing Option .................................................................... 21

Section 1.6      Company Services Under the Company Financing Option..................... 23

Section 1.7      Material Changes to RFP......................................................................... 24

Section 1.8      Definitions .............................................................................................. 24

 ARTICLE II

INITIAL ACTION BY RESPONDENTS

Section 2.1      RFP .......................................................................................................... 28

Section 2.2      Authority Contact Persons ..................................................................... 28

Section 2.3      Respondent Registration ........................................................................ 29

 ARTICLE III

PROPOSED SCHEDULE

Section 3.1      RFP and Notice of RFP ............................................................................ 30

Section 3.2      Pre-Proposal Submission Meeting.......................................................... 30

Section 3.3      Site Tours of Local Unit Facilities ........................................................... 30

Section 3.4      Proposed Schedule for Series 2011 Program ........................................ 32

ARTICLE IV

CERTAIN INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN PROPOSALS

Section 4.1      Pricing and Other Terms of Forms A-1-a and A-1-b ............................... 34

Section 4.2      Renewable Energy Projects .................................................................... 45

Section 4.3      Reserved ................................................................................................. 45

ARTICLE V

PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Section 5.1      Substantive Requirements for Proposals ............................................... 46

Section 5.2      Permitted Inclusions in Proposals .......................................................... 48

Section 5.3      Proposals Governed by Applicable Law ................................................. 49

Section 5.4      Procedural Requirements and Other Matters for Proposals ................. 50

Section 5.5      Clarification of Proposals ....................................................................... 54

Section 5.6      No Tax Advice Offered ........................................................................... 55

ARTICLE VI

AWARD TO SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT

Section 6.1      Submitted Proposals .............................................................................. 56

Section 6.2      Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................. 56

Section 6.3      Basis of Award ........................................................................................ 58

Section 6.4      Rejection of Proposals............................................................................ 59

Section 6.5      Conditional Award.................................................................................. 59

ARTICLE VII

CERTAIN GENERAL MATTERS

Section 7.1      Exhibit 2  Checklist ................................................................................. 60

Section 7.2      Proposal and Construction Bonding ...................................................... 61

Section 7.3      Insurance ................................................................................................ 65

Section 7.4      Indemnification ...................................................................................... 66

Section 7.5      Labor....................................................................................................... 66

Section 7.6      Licenses and Laws................................................................................... 71

Section 7.7      Background Check…………………………………………………………….....72

APPENDICES

Appendix A     Attach Forms of Program Documents and RFP Authorizing Resolution. A-1

       Company Documents:

Appendix A-1              PPA............................................................................. A-1-1

Appendix A-2              Company Lease Agreement....................................... A-2-1

Appendix A-3              Company Continuing Disclosure Agreement............. A-3-1

Appendix A-4              Company Pledge Agreement..................................... A-4-1

Appendix A-5              Form of Master Local Unit License Agreement.......... A-5-1

      Other Program Documents:

Appendix A-6              Authority Bond Resolution......................................... A-6-1

Appendix A-7              County Guaranty Agreement..................................... A-7-1

      Authority RFP Authorizing Resolution:

Appendix A-8              Authority Resolution adopted July 20, 2011

            ........... Authorizing Issuance of RFP....................................... A-8-1

Appendix B     Description of Projects.......................................................................... B-1

Appendix B-1             Renewable Energy Projects........................................ B-1-1

                                 Conceptual Site Plans

                                 Site Roof Warranty Information

Appendix B-2              Reserved (No Capital Improvement Projects)............ B-2-1

Appendix B-3              Estimated Load Data by Local Unit Facility................ B-3-1

Appendix C     Scope of Work and Technical Specifications ........................................ C-1

Appendix D     Forms to be Included in Exhibit A of Proposals..................................... D-1

Appendix D-A-1-a[i]      Proposal Form A-1-a; Authority Financing

                                    PPA Price Quotation Sheet.................................. D-A-1-A-1

Appendix D-A-1-b[ii]     Proposal Form A-1-b; Company Financing

                                    PPA Price Quotation Sheet …………………………….D-A-2-B-1

Appendix D-A-2            Proposal Form A-2; Respondent Information /

                                   Cover Letter Form…………………………………………D-A-2-1

Appendix D-A-3            Proposal Form A-3; Consent of Surety and Surety Form D-A-3-1

Appendix D-A-4[iii]        Proposal Form A-4; Agreement for Proposal Security

                                    In Lieu of Proposal Bond......................................... D-A-4-1

Appendix D-A-5[iv]        Proposal Form A-5; Proposal Bond........................ D-A-5-1

Appendix D-A-6          Proposal Form A-6; Ownership Disclosure Statement D-A-6-2

Appendix D-A-7          Proposal Form A-7; Non-Collusion Affidavit........... D-A-7-1

Appendix D-A-8          Proposal Form A-8; Consent to Investigation......... D-A-8-1

Appendix D-A-9          Proposal Form A-9; Statement of Respondent’s

                                 Qualifications.......................................................... D-A-9-1

Appendix D-A-10        Proposal Form A-10; Acknowledgement of

                                 Receipt of Addenda (if any).................................. D-A-10-1

Appendix D-A-11        Proposal Form A-11; Sealed Proposal Checklist

                                 (See Exhibit 2)....................................................... D-A-11-1

Appendix D-A-12[v]       Proposal Form A-12; Authorization for Background

                                      Check.................................................................... D-A-12-1

Appendix E     Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule (including sources and uses) E-1

                              Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule allocable to Series 2011A Bonds

                              Estimated Basic Lease Payment Schedule allocable to Series 2011B Note

                              Aggregate Basic Lease Payment Schedule, allocable to Series 2011 Bonds

                              Estimated Sources and Uses, Series 2011A Bonds

                              Estimated Sources and Uses, Series 2011B Note

                              Aggregate Sources and Uses, Series 2011 Bonds

Appendix F     County Deficiency Option...................................................................... F-1

                             Option F-1

                             Option F-2

In light of his office's blatant failures, Matthew Boxer should be asked the following question:  Do you believe that the Office of the State Comptroller let down the taxpayers of Sussex County?

In April 2015, the Office of the State Comptroller turned down Sussex County's request to review the solar project.  No official reason was ever provided.  However, there is an "unofficial" explanation provided in a May 26, 2015, memo from the MCIA.  It goes as follows:

"The County is still awaiting a written letter from the Office of the State Comptroller, as a follow up to the phone conference... on April 27, 2015.  In the absence of the written response, and as a reminder, the State representatives (OSC) advised the County that it undertook an internal review of the Solar II Program and conducted its own analysis and evaluation of the Solar II Program.  Following this review process, the Comptroller's Office concluded that, based upon the information... forwarded to them, it was not going to pursue a further review of the Solar II Program."

It seems the Office of the State Comptroller had conducted a review of the solar project it had signed-off on, but was unwilling to share said review.  The memo continued:

"The Comptroller's Office noted several factors in its post-review decision not to review the matter further:

a. Noting that the Solar Programs and original agreements were a local policy decision, approved by the County Freeholders, and;

b. That in the view of the Comptroller's Office, both the change in the SREC Market, as well as the legal dispute between the developer and the contractor (SunLight/MasTec) contributed to the Solar II Program not proceeding as originally expected."

A "post-review decision not to review the matter..."  WTF??? 

The Office of the State Comptroller's refusal to share the review that they had already conducted or to take that review further was a loss to the taxpayers of Sussex County, but a boon to former State Comptroller Matthew Boxer, who was now being touted as the only man to do a review that was to be paid for by fresh taxpayer's money.

And so, it came to pass that in January 2016 a new Freeholder Board in Sussex County -- now controlled by the very same individuals who had been for months advocating for the selection of Matthew Boxer as the only man to review the solar project -- handed Matthew Boxer a contract for $500,000 to conduct said review.

The manner in which this contract was provided to Mr. Boxer was unusual, and remains unexplained to this day.  In a letter, dated January 19, 2016, a Sussex County Freeholder wrote to Mr. Boxer's firm inquiring how Boxer obtained the contract.  Here is what he wrote:

"Dear Mr. Boxer,

On New Years’ Eve, Dec 31, 2015, I received a phone call, about 5:00 PM, informing me that a resolution had been submitted to the Sussex County Clerk of the Board regarding an agreement with Lowenstein Sandler, LLC to provide professional services to conduct a review of the facts and circumstances involved in the Sussex County Renewable Energy Program.

This was the first time I had any knowledge of this negotiation and agreement.

I spoke to our Freeholder Director, the other sitting Freeholders, our County Administrator, our County Council, our Clerk of the Board, our County Treasurer, our Director of the Department of Central and Shared Services, our Purchasing Agent, and our assistant purchasing agent.

None of these individuals, except Freeholder George Graham, admitted to having any knowledge of these negotiations, conversations, meetings or agreements with your law firm before 5:00 PM on New Years’ Eve 2015.

...I believe that the governing body has had no part in negotiating an agreement with your firm.

I would like to know, and now ask, who represented Sussex County in these negotiations, especially the negotiation of the 'blended' hourly rate and the understanding that the Board of Chosen Freeholders has provided that fees are not to exceed $500,000.00? "

To this day, this Freeholder -- a respected member of the community in Sussex County and a veteran of the Korean War -- has never received the courtesy of a reply.  Why not?  And note that, at the time, this Freeholder -- as a member of the Board -- was Mr. Boxer's client.

The Freeholder wrote to the State Ethics Commission about the matter and noted the following:

"At the January 27^th, 2016 regular Freeholder meeting, now, Freeholder Director George Graham admitted that he, solely, negotiated this agreement.

He stated that this agreement was negotiated with two phone calls with a Matthew Boxer, Esq.

In 2011 Matthew Boxer was the New Jersey State Comptroller.

Matthew Boxer led a staff responsible for overseeing audits and performance reviews at all levels of New Jersey government. The office audited government finances, examined the efficiency of government programs and scrutinized government contracts.

On August 23, 2011 the State Comptroller's office, after a review, signed off on the procurement of a Photovoltaic Systems Developer with respect to certain local government facilities in the County of Sussex and the RFP as approved for advertisement.

I have been asked by many Sussex County residents if Matthew Boxer has a conflict of interest representing Sussex County as Special Counsel in order to review its participation in the Sussex County Renewable Energy Program."

To which the State Ethics Commission replied:

"Mr. Boxer contacted this office to seek advice regarding whether the post-employment restrictions prohibit him from being involved in a review of the (solar) Program.  Mr. Boxer advised that he did not have any personal involvement in the Office of the State Comptroller's review or approval of Sussex County's procurement related to the Program.  Mr. Boxer also advised that he contacted the Office of the State Comptroller, which performed a search of its records and emails and found no emails, correspondence or other documents indicating that he had any involvement in that office's review of the procurement for the Program.  Based on these facts, the State Ethics Commission concluded that Mr. Boxer was not substantially or directly involved in the Program during his State employment and that the post-employment restrictions therefore do not prohibit him (or derivatively Lowenstein Sandler) from being involved in the present review of the Program on behalf of Sussex County."

Note that the word "facts" is used when "representations" is more appropriate.  As the State Ethics Commission did not conduct its own review of the Office of the State Comptroller's "records and emails... correspondence... other documents", it is clear that they are simply accepting Mr. Boxer at his word.

It is unusual to claim that the person in charge of an office was so lax as to have no knowledge of what was a three-county project involving -- to start -- $100 million.  And that his office reviewed nearly a dozen similar contracts involving many more millions in public money.  Is Mr. Boxer claiming that he was such a poor and disconnected "delegator" that he lacked direct, day-to-day knowledge of the office he was responsible for?  And how did he come to be recommended as the sole recipient of a $500,000 contract to review what his office failed in reviewing at the start? 

We are left with a situation in which the taxpayers of Sussex County must be content to take the word of Mr. Boxer.  Especially as he appears to be the only person to have benefitted from this fiasco -- to the tune of a half-million dollars!

It is time for the Freeholders to establish a citizen's commission to investigate this corrupt mess and call those who have benefited to account.  Make someone like Harvey Roseff the chairman and you won't need to spend a half million dollars of taxpayers' money (property tax money!) to get the job done.

---

[i] Required if Proposal utilizes Authority Financing Option.

[ii] Required if Proposal utilizes Company Financing Option.

[iii] Provide EITHER (i) Form A-4 (Proposal Funds) or (ii) Form A-5 (Proposal Bond); found in Appendices D-A-4 or D-A-5, as applicable.   See Section 7.2(a) of RFP.

[iv] See prior footnote.

[v] Provided by Successful Bidder only.  To be supplied upon award of Successful Bidder.

Did candidates improperly obtain OPRA request record?

Last week, the campaign of Nathan Orr & David Atwood posted the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request of a citizen and resident of Sussex County.  The actual open records  request is a public record, but it must be obtained through the OPRA process.  It cannot be accessed due to a "tip-off" from a records custodian or another public official.  That is against the law.

Sussex County is notorious for its abuse of the open records process.  In the past, news of an OPRA request has made the rounds in the county even before the requester was notified that the request had been received.  This is against the law.

The reason it is against the law is to prevent those who have cause to want their records covered up from using the details from the records request to pressure or intimidate the requester into altering or withdrawing the request.  In the past, campaign staff and or consultants to campaigns have been threatened with tortious interference as an inducement to have either their client or them withdraw their legal right to open public records through the OPRA process.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm.  Wikipedia provides this example:  "Someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods."

At the root of this controversy is the fact that David Atwood, the running mate of Nathan Orr, voted using the wrong name at last November's presidential election.

On October 16, 2012, David Wygonski -- a native of Illinois -- registered to vote in Sussex County, New Jersey.  He did not register as a Republican.  He voted in the November presidential election that year, but missed every opportunity to vote again until the presidential election of November 2016.

By then, he was no longer David Wygonski, having changed his name to David Atwood by court order on May 2, 2014.

But that didn't stop David Atwood from voting under his former name in a federal election on November 8, 2016. 

That's right, this week it was confirmed by a voter registration officer, an officer of the court, and a citizen witness, that David Atwood wrote the signature of "David Wygonski" in order to gain access to vote in the federal election held on November 8, 2016.  Atwood did this while presumably aware that the signature he made and the voter name he attested to had not been his legal name in over two years. The Court did not give grant him permission to use TWO names.  The Court granted him permission to legally change his name.

David Atwood did not register to vote under his LEGAL name until December 21, 2016.  He has never voted as David Atwood.

David Atwood did not register to vote as a Republican until January 11, 2017.  He has never voted as a Republican.

In February, David Atwood became an Assembly candidate.  At the time he told a group of Republican voters that he was a "new voice for the Republican Party."  Yes, very new.

In fact, even after changing his name to David Atwood, he continued to be registered at his former address in Sussex County as David Wygonski.  In effect, he was counted twice on the voter rolls under two different names, at two different addresses.

No kidding.  As of February 10, 2017, he was an "active" voter at two different addresses under two different names (see below):

 

 

Recently, candidate David Atwood has been wailing like a baby with a wet nappy.  The cause of all this pissing and moaning was an action taken by the elected Warren County Republican Chairman, Doug Steinhardt.  Chairman Steinhardt noticed that Atwood was actively registered to vote TWICE -- and had the good sense to challenge Atwood's candidate petition in order to get to the bottom of it.  Ever since, David Atwood has been crying like a badly chafed toddler in need of a powder and some kind words from mother. 

We know some on the Left (fewer now, than before) claim there are no problems with the voter rolls, but then you come across a story like this, from just last month:

LANSDALE, Penn. -- The feds say a Pennsylvania man has been using a dead boy’s identity for more than 21 years, CBS Philly reports. 

Authorities got involved after a relative of the deceased used Ancestry.com to put her family tree together.

A woman was getting information on Ancestry last year and her nephew Nathan Laskoski popped up. She saw that he got married and he moved around the country -- from Texas to Mississippi to Tennessee and eventually to Pennsylvania. 

But the problem is Laskoski died in 1972 when he was two months old.

Authorities say 44-year-old Jon Vincent escaped back in 1996 from a halfway house in Texas, and went to a cemetery to find someone born around the same time that he was.

Prosecutors say he picked Laskoski and found his birth certificate, which he used to get a social security number.

Authorities say that started 20-plus years of jobs, bank accounts, loans, marriage and divorce as Nathan Laskoski.

(CBS News, April 12, 2017)

David Atwood and his running mates, Nathan Orr and Bill Hayden, claim that the Warren County Republican Chairman was making a fuss over nothing.  But when you look at all the recent examples of voter fraud -- under-reported by the media but real court cases nonetheless -- you begin to appreciate Chairman Steinhardt's vigilance:

- San Pedro, California: 83 absentee ballots were sent to different registered voters who all supposedly lived in the same small, two-bedroom apartment. If it wasn’t for an observant neighbor, this case would never have been discovered.

- Pennsylvania: Democrat organization FieldWorks LLC was raided by Pennsylvania State Police for fraudulently filling out registration forms for thousands of voters.

- Indiana: State police “believe there could be hundreds of fraudulent voter registration records with different combinations of made up names and addresses with people’s real information.“

- Chicago, Illinois: An investigation by CBS Channel 2 in Chicago found people who had been registered to vote after their death, and a total of 119 dead people who had voted 229 times.

- Examination of just eight out of Virginia’s 133 counties and independent cities: After being unwilling to sign a form that they were US citizens, 1,046 illegal aliens were discovered to already be registered voters.

- In an undercover video, even Democrats were recently caught complaining about the amount of voter fraud created by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to give out ID cards without checking recipients’ identities.

- In North Carolina’s closely contested gubernatorial election, massive fraud may have altered the outcome of that race. The North Carolina Democrat Party-funded political action committee apparently paid individuals to fill out and witness hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots. At least 35,750 people with the same names and birthdates voted in North Carolina and another state in the last presidential election. Other clear cases involved deceased individuals voting after their death. (Research courtesy of John Lott)

Atwood, Orr, and Hayden owe Chairman Doug Steinhardt an apology.