2009 Campaign Payments Fraud - Update

The New York Times reported :
''Suit Suggests Political Party Knew of Fraud''

UPDATED !
In contradictory new developments in the trial against GOP operative John Haggerty, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office allege that ''Mr. Haggerty lied to the Bloomberg campaign to get it to pay $1.2 million to the Independence Party,'' according to court documents released on February 17 and reported about by The Times.

How did Mr. Haggerty lie to the Bloomberg campaign to get it to pay $1.2 million to the Independence Party, if the campaign to reëlect the mayor (CREEM) knowingly used Mayor Bloomberg's private banking accounts to ''wash in'' money in order to deliberately funnel the Independence Party donations to Mr. Haggerty ?

What is more, the reporter Aram Roston from PolitickerNY has raised questions about Mayor Bloomberg's pattern in using private donations for campaign-related activities. Indeed, in court filings made on December 15, 2010, in the criminal trial against Mr. Haggerty, defense attorneys made assertions that CREEM "intentionally chose the least transparent way possible to conduct ballot security....It was Mr. Bloomberg who chose to hide payments, not Mr. Haggerty," reported The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's article added :

Mr. Haggerty's attorneys suggested the district attorney's office should "commence an investigation immediately" into the possibility that the mayor violated laws by transferring personal funds to the Independence Party for the direct purpose of helping his campaign with a ballot-security operation. If Mr. Bloomberg "made the contribution directing how it should be spent, he would be in violation of both the New York State Election Law and the New York City Campaign finance Law," Mr. Haggerty's attorneys allege.

According to New York State law, contributions in excess of $94,200 to a state political party are prohibited from being used to promote a candidate, The Journal reported. Furthermore, New York City law requires politicians' electoral campaigns to report and disclose campaign-related expenditures, and The Journal added that Mayor Bloomberg's ballot-security operations expenditures were not reported or disclosed by CREEM.

Adding to the lack of transparency about Mayor Bloomberg's intent in structuring the expeditures by transferring personal funds to the Independence Party is the fact that the Mayor's Office refuses to release all related e-mails about campaign-related activities. After The New York Post filed a Freedom of Information request, demanding more information about Mr. Haggerty's involvement with the Mayor's Office, the Mayor's Office release only "nine e-mail exchanges" between Mr. Haggerty and "mayoral aides" during 2008 and 2009. "There were other e-mails that the mayor's refuses to release on the grounds of 'personal privacy,' " The Post reported.

Meanwhile, back to The Times's own report about the February 17 court documents : this is the first time that prosecutors have said the Independence Party may have known about the alleged fraud. But The Times seems to be continuing with the storyline that the ''fraud'' committed was that the act that Mr. Haggerty used the CREEM payments for personal use, not that CREEM failed to disclose Mr. Haggerty's work as campaign-related activities.

''An extensive review of records and campaign documents by The Observer, as well as interviews with witnesses, indicate that Mr. Bloomberg funneled money to Mr. Haggerty, who claimed to be a 'volunteer,' sidestepping the political committee the mayor had promised to use to finance his election campaign. By deploying Mr. Haggerty and an unrelated political party, the mayor's team avoided drawing attention to a controversial election day tactic. But even more serious, experts say Bloomberg may have broken campaign finance laws,'' reported Mr. Roston.

The way that CREEM structured the payments to Mr. Haggerty allowed CREEM to avoid having to legally disclose the payments (and controversial activities), and the structure troubles some legal experts. "This is clearly an attempt to evade the purpose of the law," John Moscow, a former white-collar prosecutor in Manhattan, told Mr. Roston.

Meanwhile, the artist and blogger Suzannah B. Troy offers a slightly different political analysis. Mr. Haggerty is a "fall guy," she wrote. ''I have been saying all along Haggerty is innocent ! John Haggerty is as innocent as Mike Bloomberg,'' wrote Ms. Troy. ''Technically there is no doubt Haggerty broke the law but so did Mike Bloomberg by wiring money from his personal account, 1.1 million dollars the day before the election !''

The controversial campaign reëlection-related services that Mr. Haggerty was hired to provide have been described as a ''ballot security operation.'' In Mr. Roston's article, the impression of the ballot security operation was to presumably discourage or fend off the voters of Mr. Bloomberg's opponent, Controller Bill Thompson (D), an African-American. Although alluded to, left unsaid was whether the ballot security operation was intended to deliberately turn away Mr. Thompson's African-American voters from the polls.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg Made More Secret Campaign Donations

Mayor Bloomberg has a track record of spending money for his political campaigns out of his private accounts, in addition to his official campaign committee accounts.

Thanks to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican Party is expected to once again take control over the New York State Senate.

The New York Daily News reported that Republicans regained control by a very slim margin of votes (one race was won by less than 500 votes). In this kind of competition, money undoubtedly could have played a big factor. And when it comes to parlaying money into power, no one person can use his money to buy influence the way that can Mayor Bloomberg.

''Bloomberg secretly gave $900,000 to a barely regulated 'housekeeping' account for the Senate Republican campaign, two sources confirm,'' reported Adam Lisberg.

Mr. Lisberg added that the Republican Party account, which received Mayor Bloomberg's donations, ''doesn't have to report its finances for another month,'' but unnamed sources confirmed to The Daily News that Mayor Bloomberg funneled his donations in two sizeable payments -- ''an initial donation of $650,000, then $250,000 more to help push the GOP over the edge.''

These donations, made in the 2010 election cycle, follow a pattern of secret payments made by Mayor Bloomberg in past election cycles. Much like President Richard Nixon, whose political campaigns had carried out a long set of activities to attack and disrupt the Democrats way before the Watergate Hotel break-in, Mayor Bloomberg's political campaigns of 2005 and 2009 engaging in funneling secret payments out of the mayor's personal accounts to political parties for use in campaign activitis.

Haggerty, Sheekey planned to hide campaign payments

''Indicted campaign aide John Haggerty points finger at Mayor Bloomberg's former deputy mayor,'' reports The New York Daily News.

In motion papers filed yesterday, lawyers for indicted campaign worker John F. Haggerty, Jr., asserted that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2009 reëlection campaign had structured ''donation'' payments from the mayor's private bank accounts to the Independence Party, with the participation of Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey.

"Bloomberg's money went into the party's 'housekeeping account,' which is supposed to support only general party activities," reported Adam Lisberg from The Daily News.

"...Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey convinced Bloomberg to hire the state Independence Party to do the monitoring - instead of using his own campaign team," The Daily News reported.

But how could it come to be that Deputy Mayor Sheeky was planning the mayor's reëlection campaign strategy in respect of monitoring activities ? Whatismore, was it Sheekey who proposed the use of private monies to pay for the campaign activities, or was it Mayor Bloomberg, who told Sheekey to use the mayor's personal accounts -- instead of the mayor's campaign committee accounts -- to funnel money through the Independence Party, in order to pay for Haggerty's election day operations ?

Besides the millions that Mayor Bloomberg spent from his campaign committee account, he also has spent unknown millions from his personal (private) bank accounts, as well as having made millions of dollars in ''donations'' to charitable organisations in exchange for their political support in overturning the term limits law.

The journalist Aram Roston has reported that in Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaigns in each of 2005 and 2009, the mayor paid money out of his private accounts that were ultimately funneled to the political operative John Haggerty.

Much like President Richard Nixon, whose political campaigns had carried out a long set of activities to attack and disrupt the Democrats way before the Watergate Hotel break-in, here we have Mayor Bloomberg's political campaigns of 2005 and 2009 engaging in funneling secret payments out of the mayor's personal accounts to political parties for use in campaign activitis.

The mayor has a track record of spending money for his political campaigns out of his private accounts, in addition to his official campaign committee accounts. Therefore, the amounts that the mayor has reported and certified as being his campaign finances cannot be neither true, accurate, nor complete.

Add to that the fact that it has been alleged that Mayor Bloomberg has paid millions to charitable organisations in exchange for their political support, and you begin to realise that we really don't know how much money he has spent on campaigning or electioneering to be mayor.

Here we begin to see clear evidence of a three-tiered campaign funding operation, where only one tier was ever meant to be disclosed or reported.

Compromise the Investigator

Cy Vance, Mark Guma, Maura Keaney, and John Haggerty : Campaign finance irregularities that may compromise the Manhattan District Attorney's Office

Suzannah B. Troy has published a shocking independent journalist report, one that is brave, because we are relying on the integrity of anonymous information, to show that certain irregular financial transactions took place within Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance's election campaign.

'' In a series of shady campaign finance maneuvers reported on campaign filings throughout the 2009 election cycle, Cy Vance has apparently attempted to conceal the fact that Mark Guma has forgiven large sums of debt owed to Mark Guma Communications, Inc. previously invoiced to Cy Vance’s campaign. ''

If this is true, and you can read the entirety of Ms. Troy's information at the end of this post, then Ms. Troy is right when she draws the conclusion that District Attorney Cy Vance's campaign finance irregularities and/or ties to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's own campaign finance scandal, compromise the District Attorney's integrity. Mr. Vance's campaign must now fully explain its association with John Haggerty, since his own office is now investigating Mr. Haggerty's alleged criminal campaign activities.

Cy Vance Mike Bloomberg = Teflon Mike Bloomberg info sent to me by a source.

This was emailed to me and I am posting. I am a blogger and I don't have the resources that a David Seifman has or the contacts including a press pass. I have not gotten to interview this person but I wanted to share this with my followers and you decide what to make of this. If this is true than it proves that Cy Vance has every reason in his power as I am sure many others do for different reasons to make sure this powerful connected man, Mike Bloomberg who doesn't respect limits of any kind remains Teflon Mike -- that he remains above the law.

If this is all true than I am glad I have gone to "outside sources" beyond the NYPD forwarding the cyber stalker identity thief continued and on going harassment on YouTube of me and others. The Queens DA has the evidence from when the freak stole Tony Avella's identity the day after the election to harass me and others so I am glad the Queens DA doesn't have the issues that Cy Vance has. Here is the info I was sent:

Points of Public Interest pertaining to Cy Vance’s Campaign Finance Irregularities in collusion with Michael Bloomberg’s campaign and Mark Guma Communications.

· Cy Vance has a longstanding debt to Mark Guma Communications for $273,349 to whom he paid more than 1.1 million dollars to for consulting and electioneering activities from September 2009-January 2010.

· On January 15, 2010, Cy Vance mysteriously reported to the State Board of Elections that he had loan/liabilities to Mark Guma Communications in the amount of $273K that dated back to 9/14/2009. (2009 10 Day Post Primary)

· In a series of shady campaign finance maneuvers reported on campaign filings throughout the 2009 election cycle, Cy Vance has apparently attempted to conceal the fact that Mark Guma has forgiven large sums of debt owed to Mark Guma Communications, Inc. previously invoiced to Cy Vance’s campaign.

· In a series of campaign finance reports, Cy Vance’s campaign reduced their liability to Mark Guma Communications, Inc. by reporting campaign expenditures on section F of their filings (with corresponding check numbers) purportedly written to Mark Guma Communications, while simultaneously reporting on Section O of his finance reports that Mark Guma was making a donation to the campaign for the same amount.

· Vance’s campaign simultaneously reduced the liabilities in section N of its filings by the exact same amounts of each “donation” reported on section O.

*See State BOE Filer ID C36419 (2009 11 Day Pre-General, 2009 27 Day Post General, 2010 January Periodic)

· Thus far, $96,172.85 in debt owed to Mark Guma Communications, Inc has been “written off” by the Cy Vance campaign in a subversive manner, and thereby evading campaign finance limits placed on corporate donations.

· (Section 14 of Election Law)The New York State Board of Elections has ruled that a company or corporation that engages in public relations does not typically lend money to its clients. Therefore, “any loan by the company which is not repaid by the date of the election would be deemed a contribution in accordance with the provisions of the law. If the amount not repaid to the corporation on the date of the election exceeds $5000, the corporation would be in violation of section 14 of Election Law which limits corporate contributions to $5000.” (NYS BOE 1977 Opinion #8)

· In addition, if the company extends credit to a campaign for services performed, with the INTENT to eventually write off the debt, this is considered an act to violate and evade the contribution limits set forth in section 14 of Election Law. (NYS BOE 1977 Opinion #8)

· Section 14-126 of State Election Law clearly states that (3) Any person who knowingly and willfully contributes, accepts or aids or participates in the acceptance of a contribution in an amount exceeding an applicable maximum specified in this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

· Section 14-126 of State Election Law clearly states that (4) Any person who shall, acting on behalf of a candidate or political committee, knowingly and willfully …makes expenditures in connection with a nomination for election of any candidate, or solicits any person to make any such expenditures, for the purpose of evading the contribution limitations of this article, shall be guilty of a class E felony.

· Of further consideration, and perhaps more intriguing, is the fact that Mark Guma is married to Maura Keaney, Mike Bloomberg’s Field Operations Director for the 2009 mayoral race. Keaney worked with John Haggerty and was allegedly involved in the Election Day poll operations and planning that has come to light in recent weeks that involved alleged criminal activities.

· Keaney was moved out of her job with the campaign committee in February, around the same time the NY Post began reporting Haggerty’s enormous Election Day pay-off.

· It seems that Cy Vance was receiving his big pay-day from Mark Guma Communications, Inc.

Fast Cash Shuffle Stunt

John Haggerty, a Queens Republican Party operative, is in hiding after news broke that he cannot fully explain how he spent an approximate campaign finance payment of $750,000, which was channeled by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ill-fated th3rd t3rm re-election campaign through a $1.2 million payment to the Independence Party of New York state.