Eminent Domain Update: TRIAL BY JURY GIVES HOME OWNERS AT OCEAN FRONT $500,000.00 COMPARED TO CITY'S OFFER OF 179,000 - 20 CASES STILL PENDING

SHORE COUNCILMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO BRIBES

JOE TURPIN OF LONG BRANCH IS CONVINCED THAT COAL TAR CONTAMINATION CONTRIBUTED TO HIS MOTHER'S DEATH

WHAT PREVIOUS LAND OWNERS COULDN'T DO NATURE DID.  ENDANGERED SPECIES NESTS IN REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND HALTS PROJECT

ASSISTANT BA NOT QUALIFIED. JOB TITLE CHANGED AND GIVEN RAISE COSTING TAX PAYERS 50k A YEAR

LONG BRANCH POLITICS MUST CHANGE OR SUFFER CONSEQUENCES OF PAY TO PLAY

A NEW IRAQ NEW JERSEY STYLE

RUMORS OF FIRE DEPT CONSOLIDATION AND UN MANNING SOME FIRE STATIONS NO LONGER FICTION

PAPER STREET REMAINS: THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE NO TO DEFEAT THE MEASURE.

LONG BRANCH MELEE, FIRST IN MANY YEARS

Long Branch OKs $32.8M budget

Published in the Asbury Park Press 4/23/03

A city-wide property revaluation has resulted in a 14 percent increase in the tax levy, although the tax rate is down.

LONG BRANCH -- The City Council adopted a $32.8 million municipal budget last night following a quiet hearing that drew no comment from the public.

The budget calls for a tax levy of $20.1 million, up nearly 14 percent from last year's levy of $17.7 million.

Long Branch recently completed a citywide revaluation, clouding comparisons between this year's tax rate and last year's rate. Because property values in the city rose nearly 75 percent, the tax rate required to generate the same amount of tax revenue dropped steeply.

The tax rate for municipal purposes will be 86 cents per $100 property valuation, according to City Finance Director Ronald J. Mehlhorn. Last year's rate was $1.32 per $100 valuation.

The owner of a home assessed at $237,112, the new city average for residential property, will owe $2,039 in property taxes to support the budget adopted last night. That's $273 more than last year, when the owner of a home assessed at $133,796, then the residential average, owed $1,766.

Some part of that increase is attributable to the revaluation itself, as the average residential home increased in value at a greater rate than other types of property.

The budget includes increases of roughly $615,000 for salaries and wages, $635,000 in insurance payments, and $285,000 in debt service along with $570,000 in emergency costs incurred last year, including the cost of cleaning up after the August thunderstorm, Mehlhorn said.

City officials said they worked hard to pare down the budget as much as possible before introducing it on March 25, cutting $1 million in expenses from an earlier version of the spending plan.

As part of those cuts, three police vacancies and one vacancy each in the tax office and purchasing department will not be filled, Mehlhorn said.

Some programs and expenses funded by grants in years past were cut back or eliminated owing to lack of grant revenue.

The budget adopted last night was roughly $618,000, or 2 percent, greater than the budget approved last year.

The $2.4 million increase in the tax levy is required to cover that increase and to offset a sharp decline in nontax revenue, such as interest on investments and income generated by the municipal court, Mehlhorn said.

Samuel P. Nitze: (732) 643-4230 or snitze@app.com

RANCH DEVELOPER BUTTS HEADS WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GIORDANO - Recent local Paper Editorial Below

Hot Topic -The people of Long Branch are about to find out for certain if their elected officials really are willing to give the town away to developers. The City Council has introduced an ordinance that calls for the city to vacate a right of way on a 28-acre tract, known as the Ranch, in the city’s Elberon section. In return for vacating that right of way the city is demanding ... well, absolutely nothing.

To his credit, Councilman Anthony Giordano is not so ready to roll over and give the developer, Park Avenue Estates, LLC, what it wants. He is urging his fellow council members to, at the very least, extract some form of compensation for something that is clearly of value, at least to the developer.

In case the other council members are wondering, that is generally how things work in the real world. If you have something that someone wants, they have to give you something you want in return for it. In this case, the city has a right of way through the land Park Avenue Estates is proposing to build on. By Giordano’s estimate, construction of at least three homes depends on the city vacating its claim to the right of way. Based on the developer’s description of the homes it intends to build, the city’s giving up the right of way will put a significant profit — possibly more than $1 million — into the developer's coffers.

That being the case, it is completely reasonable for the city to seek compensation for what it will be giving up. It is difficult to imagine a circumstance where the developer would expect a private entity to give it something so valuable for nothing. Councilman Michael DeStefano, arguing in favor of abandoning the right of way, noted that the issue was never brought up before the Planning Board. It is difficult to see why that matters now. Business deals such as this one take place every day, and in some of them mistakes are made that prove very costly. When that happens, the people who make the mistake are the ones who have to pay to correct it. At least that is the way it is supposed to work.

Next week city residents are going to find out for sure who the council represents.

FBI raids two Long Branch homes

 5/01/03

Authorities probe link to seizure of weapons in Vermont

LONG BRANCH -- Following a series of raids that apparently led authorities to seize more than 100 guns from a house in Vermont last week, a city man is under investigation for possible ties to an anti-government group and fraud related to weapons trade, a source said yesterday.

Several dozen federal agents and members of the State Police swarmed across Charles Street at about 8:30 Friday night with weapons drawn and raided the home of Jeffrey Booth, 56, searching his apartment and questioning Booth and his wife before letting them go, witnesses said.

The agents also raided the home of Booth's younger brother, Thomas Booth, 51, who lives in the same house, at 135 Charles St., in an adjoining apartment, though he did not appear to be the subject of the investigation, neighbors interrogated by the authorities said.

FBI spokesman in Newark and Red Bank confirmed that their agency conducted the raid. They said no arrests were made but declined to elaborate except to say that the search warrant was sealed.

Lt. Al Della Fave, State Police spokesman, said his agency assisted in the raid but also declined to elaborate.

"The FBI is the lead agency, so I have to defer to them as far as what they want out there," he said.

Jeffrey Booth, who was home late yesterday afternoon, did not want to comment, his brother said.

Thomas Booth, who drives a truck for the city's department of public works, said the authorities told him they became interested in his brother after learning that he was the owner of a home in Vermont in which authorities found 120 guns sometime before Friday's raid.

A Monmouth County employee, whose identity was not immediately available last night, was arrested last week in connection with the investigation. Authorities are investigating whether he or Jeffrey Booth own any of the guns seized from the house in Vermont, a source close to the investigation said.

Thomas Booth said his brother told him that a boarder at the house owns the guns.

The authorities also found two or three guns at Jeffrey Booth's home on Charles Street, all of them properly registered, Thomas Booth said.

"He showed them the paperwork, and it was all fine," he said.

Jennie Lutze, of 144 Charles St., said the agents who interrogated her wanted to know what Jeffrey and his wife were like, whether she knew them well -- she said she does not -- whether she had seen anything moved in or out of their house that day, and whether she'd seen a Winnebago parked outside, among other questions.

"I know they weren't focused on Tom," said added. "From our conversation, I knew it had nothing to do with Tom."

Eddie Ribot, 40, who lives next door to the Booths, said he was asked whether he had smelled anything unusual near the house, whether he'd seen unfamiliar cars, whether he'd heard or seen anything indicating that guns or explosives were stored at the house, and whether Jeffrey Booth had ever encouraged him to join a cult. He said he answered no to all of the above.

"These people are always quiet," he said yesterday.

Ribot said he saw the authorities removing a pair of shoes from the house.

His girlfriend Cindy Tomaini said she saw agents take a brown paper bag from the house to a tent they'd set up in the street.

Thomas Booth said he had dozed off during the Yankees' game when he heard a loud thumping on the door. Moments later he found himself facing two armed agents, their guns drawn and trained on him, a flashlight shining in his face, he said.

"They are screaming -- and I can understand from their standpoint they don't know what's going on -- they are screaming 'Put your hands up! Put your hands up! Put your hands up!' " he said.

Outside, the street was thronged with dozens of armed agents, most with their guns drawn, some in what appeared to be riot gear and carrying shields, others with their weapons propped up on vehicles, neighbors said.

Witnesses said agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms were present.

Unmarked law enforcement vehicles, including large vans, SUVs and smaller cars, stretched back toward Long Branch Avenue, and most every house had at least two armed men in front of it, neighbors said.

Thomas Booth said he was led outside, patted down at the side of the house and led up the center of Charles Street toward Long Branch Avenue.

He had no shoes on and his feet were soon soaked from a light rainfall. One agent was at each arm. Groups of residents looked on from their yards and the sides of the street.

"You can't imagine what it was like to go down that street," he said. "I asked, 'Are you going to make me go past all those people?' and they said, 'You be nice to us and we'll be nice to you.". . . I felt like there was a block party that was thrown on my street and I wasn't invited."

Neighbors described the scene as frightening and surreal.

Ribot said he and his girlfriend immediately turned off his lights and television, unnerved by the presence of so many guns and concerned about the possibility of an accidental shooting.

"When you run around with all those guns, anything can happen," he said. "It was scary."

Lutze said she watched in near disbelief.

"I looked outside and it was like my whole road was a war zone," Lutze said. "It was like something you see on TV, and all I could think was here is Charles Street. Nothing ever happens here. People who live in Long Branch don't even know where this street is, and here we've got SWAT teams outside."

Booth said he was not shown the search warrant when he asked to see it, adding that he believes the agents had a warrant to search his brother's apartment but not his own.

Once the authorities realized Thomas Booth lived in a separate apartment, they drove him to his sister in law's house nearby, he said.

Booth said that sometime around 10:30 p.m. he walked back to Charles Street, where agents were drinking coffee and eating doughnuts near the tent while a few others continued their work inside his brother's apartment.

Residents said the agents didn't leave Charles Street until past 1:30 a.m.

INVESTIGATION WHICH LED TO BOOTH'S IN LONG BRANCH HOME STARTED BY FLUKE MAILING OF FALSE ID CARDS

Monmouth County employee tied to militia, fake IDs

Published in the Asbury Park Press 5/02/03

An ongoing investigation that prompted federal authorities to raid two homes in Long Branch last week had already snared a longtime Monmouth County employee believed to have ties to the New Jersey Militia, court documents show.

Edward S. Feltus, 56, a 29-year employee of the Monmouth County Department of Human Services, was charged April 23 with attempting to acquire false identification documents, including a Defense Intelligence Agency identification card, a United Nations Multinational Force Observer identification card, a Social Security card, and birth certificates from North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia.

The New Jersey Militia is an organization that believes the power of the people has been usurped by a renegade government, according to the militia's Web site.

A package containing the false documents was mistakenly delivered to a home in Staten Island sometime in January 2002, according to an affidavit filed last week in U.S. District Court, Trenton, and signed by FBI agent Bart B. LaRocca, of the bureau's Dallas Division.

When the Staten Island family opened the package and found identification documents bearing various names but photographs of the same person, they turned their discovery over to the Middletown police, who contacted the FBI in Newark.

It could not be learned yesterday why police in Middletown were notified.

The package, sent from Texas by a man named William J. Krar, was meant to be delivered to Feltus at 126 Cindy St., Old Bridge, according to LaRocca's affidavit.

A letter from Krar sent with the false documents began, "Hope this package gets to you O.K. We would hate to have this fall into the wrong hands," LaRocca said.

Feltus, who appeared Tuesday before Judge John J. Hughes, remains in custody in Trenton, according to a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Texas, which is handling the case.

Feltus has been suspended without pay from his job with the Division of Social Services pending the resolution of the charges against him, said Pamela Beil, director of the division. He has worked with the division for about 29 years, most recently as a supervisor in the income maintenance department, Beil said.

On Aug. 8, more than six months after the package from Texas was intercepted, the FBI interviewed Feltus about the false documents. Feltus told the FBI that he was a member of the New Jersey Militia and admitted to sending photographs of himself to Krar with an eye toward acquiring false identification documents, LaRocca said.

"Feltus advised (that) the false identification documents were for him to have as an 'ace in the hole' because he could not predict future events, and they would give him peace of mind knowing he could use the documents to travel freely in the United States," the affidavit says.

The New Jersey Militia aims to "restore lawful government to the United States and to the State of New Jersey," to "dismantle all legislation that is repugnant to our Republic," and to "be ready, as a last resort, to come to our Nation's defense against all enemies, foreign or domestic," among other goals listed on the site.

Evidence found last week in the Old Bridge residence where Feltus is believed to live led authorities to a house in Vermont, where they seized more than 100 guns on the morning of April 25, according a source close to the investigation.

Authorities learned that one owner of the house in Vermont was Long Branch resident Jeffrey Booth, 56, of 135 Charles St., prompting a second raid later that day. At about 8:30 p.m., dozens of federal agents fanned out along Charles Street with weapons drawn and raided Booth's home. They searched Booth's apartment, removed evidence and questioned Booth and his wife before releasing them, witnesses said.

The agents also raided the home of Booth's younger brother Thomas Booth, 51, who lives in an adjoining apartment in the same house, though neighbors interrogated by the authorities said he was not the subject of their questions.

Thomas Booth said agents found two or three guns in his brother's apartment, all legally owned and registered.

No charges have been filed against Jeffrey Booth, who, according to Thomas Booth, used to have close ties to the New Jersey Militia but hasn't for years.

Jeffrey Booth could not be reached for comment and, according to his brother, does not want to discuss the investigation.

Authorities are investigating which guns seized in Vermont belong to Feltus -- described by Thomas Booth as a boarder at the Vermont house -- and which belong to Jeffrey Booth or others, a source said. They also are looking into whether Booth has been involved with weapons violations, anti-government activity or the creation or acquisition of fraudulent identification documents, the source said.

Jeffrey Booth believes 95 percent of the Vermont guns are owned by Feltus, according to a story written by his brother-in-law, Walter O'Neill, a former police officer and a reporter for a weekly newspaper in Long Branch called the Link.

The story, published yesterday, quoted Booth as saying: "I told (the FBI) I had nothing to hide and would cooperate. It should be noted that it is not illegal to like guns. . . . People these days are stereotyped if they are gun collectors. I am a gun historian. I'm not a criminal."

The 29-page affidavit attached to the criminal complaint against Feltus deals primarily with investigations by several law enforcement agencies into the activities and associates of William Krar, the man alleged to have sent the package of false documents from Texas.

In 1995 Krar and a man named Sean Bottoms were the subject of a domestic terrorism investigation in which Bottoms "made some serious allegations regarding he and Krar's involvement in a plan to carry out a specific act of domestic terrorism against the United States government," LaRocca said.

LaRocca said that in his opinion, Krar had demonstrated the sorts of anti-government views often held by people who join militias or similar organizations -- people who "because of their hatred, distrust and often-time adamant belief there is a greater conspiracy against them by the United States government, take certain actions they believe will help protect them from what they believe is an overly intrusive government who is always watching them in an attempt to monitor their daily lives."

Krar was arrested in Texas on April 10 and is in custody there, according to Duncan Woodford, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the state's Eastern District.

A search of Krar's residence on April 10 turned up machine guns, a silencer, mercury switches, trip wire, a fusing system for a 1953 military land mine, and blank identification documents from various government agencies, among other findings, LaRocca said.

Following his arrest, Krar admitted to authorities that he sent false identification documents to Feltus, LaRocca said. Krar also reported that Feltus told him he has regularly traveled outside New Jersey to acquire guns, which he brought back into the state and sold.

Krar said Feltus had begun to act irrationally in the past year, LaRocca said in the affidavit, "even stating that he and some others were going to do something about the United States government."

FIREFIGHTER HORNICK WINS AGAIN CITY DELAYS WITH ANOTHER APPEAL

Board: Long Branch must award back pay

Published in the Asbury Park Press 4/30/03

The city appealed a Jan. 29 ruling requiring them to pay $280,000 to a dismissed firefighter.

LONG BRANCH -- A state personnel review board has declined to suspend an earlier decision ordering the city to give $280,000 in back pay to a firefighter dismissed in 1996 after he was alleged to have slept through a fire alarm.

The Department of Personnel's Merit System Board awarded the back pay on Jan. 29. The city appealed that ruling to the Appellate Division of Superior Court and, in a separate action, asked the Merit Board to put the order on hold until the underlying appeal was resolved.

The Merit Board denied the city's request, and the city has since appealed that denial, said City Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. That means the appellate court must resolve both the city's appeal of the original order to pay back wages and, in the shorter term, the city's request for a stay of the order.

The merit board ruling denying the stay marks the latest in a series of setbacks to the city's years-long effort to remove firefighter Joseph Hornick from his post as a paid firefighter.

Hornick, 41, of West Long Branch was fired in 1996 for neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an employee after he was accused of sleeping through one alarm and failing to respond to another, both in 1995.

An administrative law judge upheld the city's action, but Hornick got his job back in October 2001 after the Merit System Board reduced his penalty to a 60-day suspension. The board agreed that Hornick failed in his duties, but ruled that the city went too far in firing him. The board said Hornick was entitled to his job, back pay and seniority credit for years missed.

The city appealed the order to reinstate Hornick and awaits a decision from the appellate court. That appeal came before the two appeals related to back pay.

The merit board, in its dismissal of the city's recent request for a stay, said the city failed to demonstrate that its appeal is likely to succeed or that payment of the $280,000 would impose undue hardship on the city.

"While the board acknowledges the (city's) fiscal restraints, it would not have been placed in such a position had it not improperly removed appellant (Hornick) in the first instance," the ruling said. "Accordingly, the public interest is not served when a board order is not implemented in a timely fashion."

The city had spent in excess of $100,000 as of October fighting the Hornick case, according to city Finance Director Ronald J. Mehlhorn.

"It's unfortunate that they continue to press this matter at cost to the taxpayers who ultimately bear the financial burden," said David DeFillippo, the lawyer representing Hornick in the dispute.

But Woolley, the city administrator, said it makes no sense for the city to begin handing over back pay when the fundamental issue -- whether the city had the right to fire Hornick -- has yet to be resolved.

"While we are awaiting the opinion we are certainly not going to pay him the back pay," Woolley said. "The amount might be reduced or eliminated altogether. If we are upheld that he should be terminated, we won't owe the man a dime."

Samuel P. Nitze: (732) 643-4230 or snitze@app.com

Long Branch restricts beach smoking Published in the Asbury Park Press 4/23/03 City Council OKs measure setting designated areas, fines up to $300 By SAMUEL P. NITZE COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU LONG BRANCH -- The City Council last night approved an ordinance that restricts smoking on public beaches to designated smoking areas. The ordinance, which also prohibits litter of cigarette butts or other smoking material, grew out of what Mayor Adam Schneider has described as "a basic disgust with second-hand smoke." "Second-hand smoke kills people," he said last night. "It's not that complicated." The text of the measure describes the city's waterfront as an attraction that draws residents and visitors alike "to breathe the fresh salt air, stroll or jog on the boardwalk and/or beaches, play or relax on the sand or in the water, and engage in other healthy and wholesome recreational and/or fitness-related activities." And the smells and litter and health-hazards associated with smoking should not be permitted to interfere with those pursuits, Schneider said. "If someone wants to smoke, they have that right," he said. "But in a public place -- particularly one where you go to be outside, to enjoy the fresh air -- having to breathe someone's second-hand smoke is just inappropriate." Carl Jennings, the city's recreation director, has said he hopes the prohibition against littering will limit the spread of discarded cigarette butts, a source of perennial frustration for beach maintenance crews. The designated smoking areas will be about 50 feet wide, marked off with poles near the northern end of public beaches manned with lifeguards and ticket attendants, Jennings said recently, adding that public ashtrays would be provided. For the rest of this year, violators will be warned, the ordinance says. Starting next year, the penalty for smoking outside the designated area will be $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense and $300 for the third offense. Violators of the prohibition against littering cigarette butts or other smoking material will face the same penalties, although the fine will rise to $500 on the fourth offense for littering. City officials have said they hope beachgoers will respect the new restrictions of their own accord and keep an eye out for those who insist on breaking the rules. Additional enforcement will be carried out by lifeguards, beach patrols by special officers hired during the summer, and regular police officers. Samuel P. Nitze: (732) 643-4230 or snitze@app.com

LOWER BROADWAY UPDATE

SMOKELESS LONG BRANCH

CITY BUDGET PASSED WITHOUT COMMENT

COTTONWOOD CHURCH'S FIGHT FOR RIGHT TO OWN AND USE

LONG BRANCH — Many interested parties have approached the city to become a developer in the city’s sixth redevelopment zone, but only two so far are meeting the requirements of the city’s process.

Selecting designated developers for the sixth redevelopment zone, which runs from Second Avenue west to City Hall by the railroad tracks and several blocks north and south of Broadway, will be a slow and elaborate process.

According to City Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr., in order for a developer or a building owner to be designated as a developer they must pass rigid requirements under the lower Broadway guidelines to earn that designation.

Helping the city accomplish its task to revitalize lower Broadway the firm of Basile, Bauman, Prost and Associates, Annapolis, Md., have been hired to evaluate financial performance, experience, background checks, financial planning and due diligence on any potential developers.

The same firm, noted Woolley, has been credited in evaluating several redevelopment projects in the city, including its oceanfront developers, the Applied Companies, Hoboken, which is creating Pier Village and sharing in the creation of Beachfront North with Matzel and Mumford, a division of KHovnanian, Middletown, and SICA, the non-profit organization which will be developing the former can factory on Fifth Avenue into an art gallery and studios.

The process in seeking a developer designation, which could be for one building or a whole block, includes a meeting with the city’s redevelopment professional group.

According to Woolley, lower Broadway redevelopment is far different from that of the oceanfront because it will be done in small stages, taking years to complete. The redevelopment goal is a thriving retail, entertainment and dining district.

Redevelopment proposals must meet the guidelines released to the public last year, outlining everything from usage of the square footage to be developed to the façade of the building.

Those who submit a proposal will meet with the professional group, which is made up of a member of the Basile, Bauman, Prost and Associates, Pretap Talwar of Thompson Design Group Boston, Mass., Carl Turner, assistant planning director, Woolley, Kevin J. Hayes Jr., fire official and Mark Aikens, the city’s redevelopment council.

During an evaluation of a proposal, Woolley said, it is important that the properties on Lower Broadway are developed to the highest retail use.

"The key concern for lower Broadway," said Woolley, "is who the end tenant in a particular building will be."

He added, "It’s the key to developing a successful retail district. We can never stimulate retail growth with substandard retail businesses or vacant buildings."

Once the developer shows the merit of a project the proposal goes before the redevelopment agency, which is comprised of the city’s five council members.

Woolley noted that Mayor Adam Schneider does have input on the nego­tiations.

Once approved by the agency, the proposal then receives a public designa­tion awarding it to the developer seek­ing the designation. It must then go be­fore the Planning Board for final site plan approval.

Although several potential develop­ers have shown interest in developing parcels on Lower Broadway, only SICA has received a memorandum of under­standing from the agency to develop the building.

Solomon Dwek, a local businessman and principle of Site Management, Oakhurst, which manages several prop­erties on Lower Broadway, has submit­ted proposals to become a designated developer.

Woolley noted that he could not at this time elaborate on the exact nature of Site Management proposals but did say that they are in the review process but have not yet been awarded any des­ignations.

LONG BRANCH — Taxpayers appealing the recent revaluation of their homes are waiting for their chance to argue the assessment before the county tax board.

A citywide revaluation conducted last year, the first in 12 years, has left many homeowners less than satisfied.

Approximately 360 taxpayers have formally appealed the assessment of their properties and are waiting to be scheduled for a hearing before the Monmouth County Tax Board, according to Michael Dolce, the city tax assessor.

While the number of appeals may appear high, Dolce said that out of 9,062 properties only 4 percent appealed their assessments. "That is not an unusually high number," he said.

The deadline to file an appeal was April 1. Taxpayers who appeal will meet with a county tax board, which consists of three to five members appointed by the governor. The board will hear the disputes regarding the assessments.

Dolce said that once a taxpayer files a form with the city appealing their assessment, they have the option to meet with his office.

"With more than 300 appeals," said Dolce, "it is impossible to sit down with everyone. But we want to speak to the taxpayers before the hearing, if possible."

Dolce said that if a discussion on the appeal occurs before the hearing, it either provides the taxpayer with the right information for a successful appeal, or the dispute can be resolved before it goes to the county board.

Of the appeals that have been filed with the city, most originate from properties located on the oceanfront. Runner-up to oceanfront property appeals is the Elberon section of the city.

Dolce noted that the developers for Beachfront North and Pier Village, the Applied Cos., Hoboken, has appealed on the lots it now owns.

Dolce said he is confident that the Applied Cos. appeal will be resolved. The disagreement lies in what the market value for the highest and best use will be for the two oceanfront communities that have not yet been built, but which have been granted Planning Board approval.

According to state statute, taxpayers have the right to appeal a property’s assessment but not the taxes which are determined through a municipality’s budget process.

The burden of proof in disputing the property value lies on the taxpayer who must prove that the assessed value is unreasonable compared to a market value standard. To do so, one of two standards must be accurately disputed. The statue requires that a true market value be determined in which all assessments in the municipality be 100 percent of true market value as of Oct. 1 of the previous year. All tax appeal information should precede that date, particularly property sales used for comparison.

The second standard addresses external fluctuations such as inflation, recession, appreciation, depreciation and physical deterioration, all factors that can change property values. If these changes are not adjusted annually, a deviation from the 100 percent true market value occurs.

Dolce said that some taxpayers he has met with said "they have appealed on the perception of taxes using the old tax rate instead of the market value comparables."

Because of the city’s revaluation, the number of residential properties increased while the number of commercial and vacant properties decreased.

According to county records prior to the revaluation, there were 7,511 residential properties, 958 commercial properties and 512 vacant lots. The city was valued at $1,350,000,000. Today the city is valued at $2,341,970,989, with 7,608 residential properties, 950 commercial properties and 500 vacant parcels and two farms.

According to Dolce, 83 percent of the city’s total value is realized in residential properties. The average home in Long Branch prior to the reassessment was valued at $135,000, but is now valued at $240,000.

The city, which will be represented by its revaluation firm, Realty Appraisal, West New York, N.J., will not have to pay additional fees for the appeals service. According to Dolce, the sum of $600,000 paid to the firm for the revaluations also covers the cost of the county tax appeals for this year and the following year.

February 2003

LONG BRANCH -- The City Council last night amended a code of ethics meant to prevent local officials from having financial interests that could impair their independence of judgment, voting to insert a definition of "financial interest" used in state ethics statutes.

Under the ordinance, adopted unanimously after a public hearing, a city official or employee is deemed to have a financial interest in a business only if he or she owns or controls more than 10 percent of the profits, assets or stock in the organization.

A municipal official who owns 10 percent or less of a company's stock can take official action directly benefiting the company -- such as voting to award a contract -- without running afoul of the city's ethics laws, City Attorney James Aaron said last night.

Aaron said this is not a change in the city ordinance so much as a clarification that brings the ordinance in line with the state's ethics statutes, including a "Local Government Ethics Law" that governs all municipalities that have not passed their own ethics laws. The city's ordinance now uses the same definition of financial interest used in the state law.

The move comes several weeks after residents raised questions about possible conflicts of interest involving city officials with financial ties to Monmouth Community Bank, with which the city has millions of dollars on account.

Three of five City Council members, the city attorney and other officials hold shares in and in some cases work for the bank, an investigation by the Asbury Park Press found.

Two days after the Press detailed officials' ties to the bank in a story on Nov. 24, Mayor Adam Schneider said the city would withdraw public money from the bank to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

City Finance Director Ronald J. Mehlhorn said yesterday that he awaits formal action by the mayor and council before he removes the $5.6 million on deposit at Monmouth Community Bank in two certificates of deposit and in a hybrid account that Mehlhorn has termed a "liquid CD."

Mehlhorn, who has day-to-day control over the city's money, has said that he banked there because the bank offers the city top interest rates and excellent service. He has not kept written records of bids from other banks in years past but has said he will do so in the future.

The council members who own shares in Monmouth Community Bank are Anthony Giordano III, who is also the bank's chief financial officer; David G. Brown, who has worked as a bank messenger since April; and Michael A. DeStefano. None of the council members has anywhere near 10 percent of the bank's stock.

Aaron has contended all along that council members who own shares in Monmouth Community Bank broke no laws in approving transfers of money to the bank by Mehlhorn or in naming the bank one of the city's official depositories.

William McLaughlin, 448 Ocean Ave., and the Rev. Kevin Brown, 162 Broadway, spoke out during the public hearing last night, suggesting that a standard allowing public officials to vote on matters affecting companies in which they own up to 10 percent of the stock is too loose.

"How can this be ethics?" said McLaughlin. "It doesn't make sense to me."

Aaron, who sits on the bank's board of directors, was the "beneficial owner" of 53,862 shares in Monmouth Community Bancorp. as of July 1, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission -- the shares then were worth about $775,000. These shares fall well under the 10 percent of ownership the law sets as a threshold. A beneficial stockholder is someone who has voting or investment power over stock that he owns, co-owns or of which he is a trustee, according to the SEC.

The city of Long Branch is about to begin a search for a new public safety director. Louis Napoletano, who served as the director for eight years, has announced his retirement.

Prior to his appointment as director by Mayor Adam Schneider in 1994, Napoletano served in the rank and file of the police department for 18 years, rising to the rank of captain as a detective.

His commitment and dedication as a police officer earned Napoletano the awards of Policeman of the Year three times, the Wounded in Combat medal, more than 10 meritorious service medals, three lifesaving awards and several Unit Citations.

After he was appointed to the position of director, he was awarded with his fourth Policeman of the Year Award.

"It has been a good run," said Napoletano, "I can’t say anything negative. The city has been very good to me. I got the brass ring here."

Despite his success, Napoletano said it was time to move on. He said his retirement is based on a financial decision and the desire to seek other challenges.

"Financially, this is the best way to go," said Napoletano, who has just put one daughter through college and will soon be sending his second daughter to college.

Napoletano joked, "My daughters are pretty good-looking, and I expect them to get married someday — hopefully not until they are 50, but financially I need to plan for that."

Although Napoletano did not elaborate on a potential career opportunity, he did say that he will be staying in law enforcement.

"I have accomplished the goals that I have set out to accomplish," Napoletano said of his tenure in the city.

The last of his goals was to have computers installed in patrol cars so that officers can complete paperwork while on the road.

"The first computer goes into a patrol car next month; that is the last of my goals, and it’s time to move on," said Napoletano.

Although Napoletano leaves his position with good feelings, his reign was not always smooth. There had been some controversy about Napoletano’s reappointment this year.

Mayor Schneider said that "there clearly were issues, and it was time for him to move on" but did not elaborate on what the issues were.

Despite the fact that some members of the council had grievances with Napoletano, which Schneider said are personnel issues and are to be kept confidential, no vote or action was taken on by the council.

What may have had an effect on Napoletano’s tenure was a vote of no confidence taken by members of the PBA local 10 on Sept. 19, 2001 and an altercation with a Pizza Hut deliveryman which went before a municipal court judge but ended with both taking the Fifth Amendment.

"He (Napoletano) decided to leave on his own," said Councilman Anthony Giordano III. "I don’t know what his final reason is for retiring. I think he felt he needed to move on and try a new challenge, and in doing so give new leadership to the department."

Giordano referred to Napoletano’s position of public safety director as similar to that of a baseball team manager. "Even though you are doing a good job, hitting home runs and winning games there are times when you have resentment from the men that you manage."

However, Schneider said he is still pleased with Napoletano’s job performance and said Napoletano was the longest serving public safety director in the city because he was committed to doing his job. "He was good at what he did."

Schneider said he appointed Napoletano as the public safety director because he was well-liked among his peers and the department needed a boost in morale which was at a low.

"At the same time the governing body had changed with newly elected council members and Schneider said, "It was time for a change and everyone profited from the change."

The mayor credits Napoletano with increasing the manpower of the department from 70 to over 100 police officers. "It has made a big difference in running the city," he said.

Giordano noted that since Napoletano was appointed crime has gone down by more than 50 percent and the quality of life, especially on lower Broadway, has increased.

"Lou has done a great job," said Giordano, "the perception in Long Branch is that it is safer which has helped in the redevelopment efforts."

Napoletano noted that changing the perception in Long Branch was his greatest accomplishment. "Eight years ago people had the perception that Long Branch was crime ridden and a drug invested place and it was said with a venomous twist. I set out to prove them wrong. The department worked hard and the statistics prove that the perception has changed," said Napoletano.

As for his biggest challenge, Napoletano noted, it was turning the department from its lowest point ever into a preeminent police department.

Napoletano said when he became the director there was very little manpower to meet the demand the city faced, crime was up, there had been a string of murders, and crime on lower Broadway was rampant.

What changed that, said Napoletano, was making the policemen part of the community with mentoring programs and creating a group called United Neighbors. "Today a lot of the officers are coaching youths which is making a all the difference in the community."

He added, "This is the key to our success — the young officers who are part of the community giving back to the community."

Although Napoletano’s retirement will not be in effect until Dec. 31, Napoletano said he will no longer be making his rounds in the department. Instead he will use accrued time to take the next month off.

In the interim City Administrator Howard Woolley will serve as the acting director and Captain William Richards and Captain Richard Bryson will be in charge of the day-to-day operations of the department until a permanent individual is appointed.

Schneider said he has not yet interviewed anyone for the position but has had a discussion with Richards who showed interest in the post.

"We are leaning toward hiring from the inside," said Schneider, "we already have two competent men (Richards and Bryson) internally but to not shortchange the city we will talk to a couple of candidates from the outside."

Napoletano added, "that the person he recommended for the position is from within the department."

Schneider said he would consider retired Lt. Detective Patrick Joyce for the position. "I was told that he was interested and I would be more than happy to talk with him."

However, Joyce is not the only outside candidate that will be considered.

Other potential candidates whose names has come up include Jim Payne, a former FBI agent, and Bobby Venezia, a former city police officer and currently a sergeant with the Monmouth County Prosecutors Office.

"I do have his (Payne’s) résumé," said Schneider. "I never met him and I don’t know much about him except that he was with the FBI."

As for Venezia, Schneider said, "he is a good guy. He has not asked me for the position but I would talk with him if he is interested."

Schneider said he would make his decision in January after Napoletano officially leaves as the public safety director.

In closing Napoletano said he does not know what he will miss the most, " I will miss it all."

Napoletano said for his future he plans to work another five or six year and then retire and relax. When asked what his definition of relaxing is, he did not hesitate to say — fishing.

Last resident in Long Branch’s Beachfront North zone is out
$140,000 paid for
three-story Victorian house less than one block from beach

Homeowner Bruce Mac Cloud (l) stands outside his Cooper Avenue with his friend, John Rose. His home is now owned by the city of Long Branch through condemnation.

Bruce Mac Cloud's version of the American dream has become a casualty of Long Branch’s redevelopment plan.

On Nov. 6, six police officers, accompanied by a locksmith and animal control and fire bureau officials, removed Mac Cloud and his 13-year-old dog Shadow from his 110-year-old home on Cooper Avenue.

The officers were enforcing a court order of eviction which Mac Cloud was supposed to have complied with by Nov. 4.

Mac Cloud, a historical restoration contractor and an employee of the Middletown Board of Education, is the last one to leave the redevelopment area designated as Beachfront North. For him, leaving was not an easy process.

Above is one of the last two homes on Cooper Avenue in Long Branch to be demolished to make way for an Oceanfront redevelopment project, Beachfront North.

Mac Cloud said the city began proceedings in July to take his property.

According to Greg Russo, vice president of the Applied Companies, Hoboken, the designated redeveloper for Beachfront North, $140,000 was deposited into a court escrow account as the settlement for the three-story, 17-room house on a 50-by-174-foot lot less than a block from the beach approximately two months ago.

The price being paid for the house is $900 less than the home was assessed at in 1987.

"I put 23 years of blood and sweat into this home, and for the money they are offering, I could not even afford a shack in this town," Mac Cloud said.

Because of the situation he faced, Mac Cloud sought legal help in August and hired Tony DellePella and Jeff Lewis of McKurdy and Riskins, Morristown.

Although his lawyers were able to extend by a couple of months the time he was able to stay in his home, the process was too far along to be stopped, Mac Cloud said.

An agreement signed by Mac Cloud with the Applied Companies, Hoboken, called for him to vacate his home on Sept. 3 and called for the company to put the money for the property into escrow earlier than required.

According to Russo, when Mac Cloud refused to leave on Sept. 3 he was given an additional 60 days before they moved to evict him.

"We tried hard to find him permanent housing, but he was uncooperative by canceling meetings," Russo said.

According to Mac Cloud, he lost his final appeal to stave off eviction on Oct. 25 before Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson in Freehold.

According to Kevin J. Hayes, Sr., director of building and development, the judge’s order required that Mac Cloud vacate the premises, now owned by the city of Long Branch, by Nov. 4.

Hayes said the Applied Companies gave Mac Cloud access to his home for another two days in order to remove the rest of his belongings.

"We went to court several times," said Hayes. "He (Mac Cloud) is the last one left. I can respect that. That is why we are making every accommodation available for him."

On Nov. 6, as he was driving on Ocean Boulevard, Mac Cloud said, he saw cars from the Howell police and the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office parked along North Broadway near his home.

He said he thought at the time, "They are here to evict me," because he said the Sheriff’s Office usually carries out evictions.

According to Hayes, those law enforcement officers were using buildings prior to demolition for training purposes.

Not knowing this, Mac Cloud said he made his way to his home and met his friend John Rose. Because he feared that this would be his last day there he went straight to his second-floor office and called his lawyer.

He said he made that call hoping to be able to ask for more time; the packing of his personal belongings was far from completed.

While on the phone Mac Cloud said he spotted six city police cars and a locksmith van outside his home.

There were no officers in sight: they were already in the home after the locksmith picked the lock so they could gain entry.

Hayes said this was done because Mac Cloud, who has a hearing problem, did not respond to the officers’ knocking.

Rose, who also was in the house, said he went downstairs when he heard Shadow, a black shepherd, yelping. According to Rose, the animal control officers had snared Shadow who had been lying on the landing of the stairs.

When Rose shouted to Mac Cloud, "They’re taking Shadow," Mac Cloud immediately hung up on his lawyer and ran down the stairs, but, he said, he didn’t get very far because the six officers were waiting for him.

Rose was the first to get down the stairs and said he held his hands up because an officer had his gun drawn.

Mac Cloud identified the officer with his gun drawn as Sgt. Fernando Sanders, and said he noticed that other officers had their holsters unsnapped.

Sanders denies that he had his gun drawn. "As a supervisor I arrived at the scene after the initial entry was made and everyone was already outside of the house," said Sanders. "At no point did I take my weapon out."

Sanders explained, "The information they (the officers) received about the eviction was that the homeowner is possibly mentally disturbed, very upset and irate because of the eviction from his home of 23 years.

"When three officers entered they did have their guns drawn at their sides — fingers were not on the trigger — for the safety of the officers and other individuals assisting in the eviction," Sanders said.

According to Hayes, animal control personnel were brought in as a precaution for the officers. "The dog has already gone after one person from the Applied Companies," he said.

Mac Cloud said that is untrue. "Shadow has never bitten anyone nor has he gone after anyone. He is old and partially paralyzed."

Mac Cloud said he was enraged by the treatment of his dog.

"When I saw my dog they had him pushed into the ground with the stick loop," said Mac Cloud. "I told them to let my dog go."

Mac Cloud said that the animal control officers said to him, "You didn’t tell me that your dog was hit (by a car)," referring to the fact that the dog’s hind legs were paralyzed.

Mac Cloud said he responded by saying, "He was not hit, he is sick with a nerve condition."

Shadow was released to Mac Cloud, who put him into his van with the assistance of a police escort. Since the incident Mac Cloud said that Shadow’s condition has deteriorated. He said the dog can no longer get up on his own.

Applied Companies officials declined to comment on whether the dog tried to attack someone from the company.

After getting the dog into the van, police escorted Mac Cloud to his temporary shelter, the Fountains Motel on Ocean Avenue.

Rose said the conditions at the motel were less than favorable. "When we opened the door, the odor took your breath away and there were bugs in the room," he said.

Mac Cloud said he slept in his van that night.

Other offers were made, said Mac Cloud. " I was shown one home in Deal but it would only be a winter rental. As the best offer so far it is under negotiation."

He also was offered a room at the Crystal Brook Motel, Route 35, Eatontown.

"What I wanted to do is have the house moved to the west side of Ocean Boulevard," Mac Cloud said.

About a year and a half ago Mac Cloud said he had proposed turning the home into a Victorian bed-and-breakfast, but was told that there is no negotiating.

Mac Cloud said he was allowed to stay in his home another couple of days until this weekend when the city, through its relocation process, would send packers and movers to transport his belongings to a storage facility, also paid for by the city.

"I know I can’t hold onto my land," said Mac Cloud, "but I will continue to fight."

Mac Cloud said he took his case to the Institute for Justice, a non-profit public interest law firm in Washington, D.C., but the attorneys’ calendars are backlogged and assistance could not be provided soon enough. On Tuesday, attorneys from the Institute for Justice were in Salem County arguing a case seeking to overturn the state’s civil forfeiture law.

Russo, whose company also is the redeveloper for the city’s Pier Village project said so far 250 city residents have been successfully relocated.

"My home has the security of my belongings and when I walk out of here my home of 23 years will be gone forever," Mac Cloud said. "This home cannot be replaced for what they have given me.

"I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. This is not for the good of the people, not the people who live here now.

Forrester reaches out to Shore voters; Lautenberg in Newark

With Election Day less than a week away, the two major party candidates for the U.S. Senate stepped up their efforts to meet voters on the campaign trail yesterday.

Republican Douglas Forrester spent time in four Monmouth County towns while Frank R. Lautenberg, the Democratic candidate, campaigned in Newark at a rally.

Behind a motorcade led by the Rolling Thunder, a veterans group of motorcycle riders, Forrester's campaign bus made a stop at the Windmill Restaurant on Ocean Boulevard in Long Branch, where he shook hands, spoke to residents and enjoyed a hot dog along with his wife, Andrea.

Other stops for Forrester, who received an endorsement from Mike Cobb, the national chairman of Rolling Thunder, included the Golden Bell Diner in Freehold Township, the Regent Diner in Howell and the Stone Pony in Asbury Park.

Forrester, who spent at least an hour talking to local business owners and residents in Long Branch, said most polls reveal that his opponent has at least a five point lead, but he remains confident in his ability to beat Lautenberg.

"I'm a family man and I represent a lot of the ideals that most New Jerseyans have," Forrester said. "All we need to do is make sure that the people who share our ideals, which are hard working families, turn out the vote."

Meanwhile, Lautenberg, who replaced Sen. Robert G. Torricelli on the Democratic ticket more than a month ago, took his campaign into Newark, where he spoke to a raucous crowd of 500 members of the Service Employees International Union.

Lautenberg, who was joined by former President Clinton, continued his campaign attacks against Forrester, who he says has unreasonable positions on gun control, taxes and the environment.

"This guy, Forrester, is still in the forest. We're trying to get him out," Lautenberg said. "My friends, differences are obvious, and we're feeling pretty good."

Forrester's campaign insists Lautenberg is out of touch with voters, especially in defense and security issues. Republicans contend his anti-death penalty stance is inappropriate in the war on terror. Forrester has also attacked Lautenberg's vote to create a tax on Social Security benefits.

Robert Goodman, 40, of Hearn Avenue, who was one of many Long Branch residents able to met Forrester, said he supports the Republican.

"I think he knows what New Jersey stands for," Goodman said. "He's very in tune with New Jersey's political beliefs."

Chris Viana, 29, of West Long Branch, who also met Forrester, said he will support the Democrat instead.

"I'm voting for Lautenberg," he said. "To me, he seems like a more reasonable choice." Clinton, who also supported Torricelli before he withdrew from the senate race, said Lautenberg would represent New Jersey well.

"I think he's matured enough to do a good job this time around," said Clinton, who used his time to joke about Lautenberg's age.

Lautenberg, 78, served three terms in the Senate before retiring two years ago. He returned when Torricelli resigned Sept. 30 after months of reports about illegal campaign contributions and unethical gifts.

Forrester said he believes he has delivered his message to the voters.

"I'm a candidate who will fight to protect the security and the future of our country," Forrester said. "I'm a family man working for families."

The stories that were library here are now temporarily off line until we discern if they can continue to be saved for research and educational purposes.  Some of the articles archived here were done so from other periodicals and publications.  They raised the question of the legitimacy of this.  In the meantime, if there is an article you are looking for in your personal research contact us directly and we will assist you.

Konvitz, Condos indicted (part 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Hon.
v.: Crim. No.
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ: 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1343, 1346, 1951(a) and 2

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury in and for the District of New Jersey, sitting at Newark, charges:

COUNTS 1 to 4

(Scheme to Defraud Public of Councilman Condos's Honest Services By Konvitz's Exertion of Influence and Control Over Condos in City of Asbury Park Matters)

Defendants and Other Entities

1. At all times relevant to Counts 1 to 4 of this Indictment, defendant JAMES CONDOS served as a member of the Asbury Park City Council from on or about July 1, 1997 to on or about June 30, 2001, having been elected on or about May 13, 1997 at an annual salary of $3,000 through on or about December 31, 1997 and $5,000 per year thereafter. CONDOS'S powers and duties included: the creation and abolition of executive departments, boards and offices; the appointment of the municipal manager, auditor, assessor, clerk, city and redevelopment attorneys and Housing Authority commissioners and voting upon municipal resolutions and ordinances. As a City Council member, CONDOS voted on financial matters affecting the City of Asbury Park, such as budget appropriations and the award of contracts to vendors.

2. At all times relevant to Counts 1 to 4 of this Indictment, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ was the owner of Jumping Brook Enterprises and the owner of a KIA automobile dealership, both located in Neptune, New Jersey. KONVITZ owned many other properties and interests in and around Asbury Park, New Jersey. As such, KONVITZ had an interest in the activities of Asbury Park government.

Public's Right to, and Condos's Duty of, Honest Services
3. At all times relevant to Counts 1 to 4 of this Indictment, the City and citizens of Asbury Park had an intangible right to the honest services of their elected public officials. As an elected public official for the City of Asbury Park, defendant JAMES CONDOS owed the City and citizens of Asbury Park a duty to: (A) refrain from receiving bribes and other corrupt payments and benefits designed to (i) improperly affect the performance of his official duties or (ii) coax favorable official action or inaction and (B) disclose conflicts of interest pertaining to his direct and indirect personal gain and other material information in official matters over which CONDOS had authority and discretion.

Corrupt Scheme
4. From in or about October, 1999 to in or about June, 2001, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
knowingly and willfully did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the City of Asbury Park and its citizens of the right to defendant JAMES CONDOS'S honest services in the affairs of the City of Asbury Park.

5. The object of this scheme and artifice to defraud was for defendant PHILIP KONVITZ corruptly to control and influence defendant JAMES CONDOS'S official decision making and discretion by providing and arranging for personal financial support for CONDOS as specific opportunities arose and by CONDOS and KONVITZ concealing from the public material information regarding this corrupt activity.

6. It was a part of this scheme and artifice to defraud that:

(A) Defendant PHILIP KONVITZ controlled and influenced defendant JAMES CONDOS'S official decision making and discretion with respect to City of Asbury Park official matters, including: (i) issues regarding the redevelopment of Asbury Park's oceanfront, including efforts to (a) vote down an initiative relating to the State of New Jersey's participation in the redevelopment and (b) approve KONVITZ'S appointment to chair a committee relating to the redevelopment; (ii) matters regarding the hiring and termination of City of Asbury Park employees; (iii) the transfer of land owned by KONVITZ in Asbury Park to another company and (iv) matters regarding a city council vote on closing down an Asbury Park night club.
(B) Defendant JAMES CONDOS gave defendant PHILIP KONVITZ regular reports on matters of interest to KONVITZ occurring in Asbury Park City Government.
(C) Defendant JAMES CONDOS accepted money and other benefits from defendant PHILIP KONVITZ, including: (i) a liquor license for the Moonrock Bar and Grill located in Asbury Park, New Jersey (the "Bar") worth at least approximately $25,000 which was transferred to CONDOS and which CONDOS parlayed into a regular stream of revenue and (ii) from on or about October, 1999 to in or about December, 2000, at least approximately $20,000 in checks and cash for CONDOS'S benefit.

(D) Defendant JAMES CONDOS solicited defendant PHILIP KONVITZ (i) to assist CONDOS in receiving a public salary from Monmouth County government; (ii) to give CONDOS a jet boat; (iii) to give CONDOS approximately $4,200 to defray state-tax and liquor-company debts and (iv) to assist CONDOS in obtaining a lease of the property on which the Bar was located for CONDOS in the name of a nominee so that CONDOS would not be forced to abstain on conflict-of-interest grounds from voting on matters affecting the oceanfront development.

(E) Defendant JAMES CONDOS took steps to conceal this conduct from the public, including: (i) intentionally failing to disclose payments received from defendant PHILIP KONVITZ on his Local Government Ethics Law Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 1999 filed with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services, Local Finance Board, in Trenton, New Jersey; (ii) reminding KONVITZ not to talk on the telephone about these matters because the telephone might be bugged; (iii) planning to fake the return of $25,000 from CONDOS to KONVITZ that CONDOS had represented to the public that he owed to KONVITZ regarding the Bar liquor-license transfer, so that CONDOS would not be found to have a conflict of interest and, in turn, be able to vote in KONVITZ'S favor with respect to matters pertaining to the oceanfront redevelopment at a city council meetings; (iv) having KONVITZ assist CONDOS in having a nominee receive a lease of the Bar property and then transfer it to CONDOS to conceal the conflict of interest that would arise when CONDOS was called on to vote on issues relating to the actual Bar property owner and (v) coaching KONVITZ to make misleading statements to state investigators regarding the liquor license for the Bar and other money that KONVITZ had given to CONDOS, including informing KONVITZ that CONDOS had written the phrase "cash for Phil" on some of the checks from KONVITZ that CONDOS had cashed for himself to falsely make it appear that CONDOS had cashed these checks on behalf of KONVITZ. (F) Defendant PHILIP KONVITZ took steps to conceal this conduct from the public, including: (i) making misleading statements to state investigators regarding the liquor license and other money that KONVITZ had given to defendant JAMES CONDOS, including falsely stating that CONDOS had not coached him to say anything in particular to the investigators and (ii) instructing defendant JAMES CONDOS not to tell anyone about the money that KONVITZ was giving him.

7. On or about the dates listed below, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
knowingly and willfully placed and caused to be placed in a post office and authorized depository for mail, and caused to be delivered thereon, certain mail matter, to be sent and delivered by United States Postal Service, and transmitted and caused to be transmitted in interstate commerce by means of wire communications certain signs, signals and sounds as described below:

 

Count	Date	Mailing or Wire Communication
1	October 8, 1999	Mailing of an application for Transfer of a Retail Liquor License for the benefit of defendant JAMES CONDOS
2	March 8, 2000	Mailing of a Local Government Ethics Law Financial Disclosure Statement for 1999 for JAMES CONDOS addressed to the Local Finance Board, Trenton, New Jersey
3	December 7, 2000, approximately 12:44 p.m	Interstate telephone call by PHILIP KONVITZ attempting to secure a concealed lease of the bar property for CONDOS
4	December 7, 2000, approximately 2:15 p.m.	Interstate telephone call by PHILIP KONVITZ attempting to secure a concealed lease of the bar property for CONDOS

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, 1346 and 2.

COUNTS 5 to 6

(Condos's Acceptance of Money for Official Action in Konvitz's Favor) 1. Paragraphs 1 to 2 of Counts 1 to 4 of this Indictment are hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

2. On the dates listed below, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant
JAMES CONDOS
did knowingly and willfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce by extortion as follows:

 

COUNT	DATES	CONDUCT
5	From on or about July 26, 2000 to on or about July 27, 2000	accepting and agreeing to accept $5,000, from PHILIP KONVITZ with his consent, in exchange for exercising, and agreeing to exercise, official action and influence in KONVITZ'S favor as specific opportunities arose.
6	From on or about November 20, 2000 to on or about December 22, 2000	agreeing to accept approximately $4,200 from PHILIP KONVITZ with his consent to pay down CONDOS'S sales tax and liquor-company debts, in exchange for exercising, and agreeing to exercise, official action and influence in KONVITZ'S favor as specific opportunities arose

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT 7

(Honest Services Fraud in Connection with Asbury Park Housing Authority Matters)

1. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Counts 1 to 4 are hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

Public's Right to, and Officials' Duties of, Honest Services

2. At all times relevant to Count 7 of this Indictment, (A) There was a coschemer who was a former Asbury Park public official and who was a candidate for the position of Executive Director of the Asbury Park Housing Authority ("APHA") [hereinafter the "Former Official"]. The Former Official, as a candidate for an official position, owed the APHA and the citizens of Asbury Park a duty to: (i) refrain from engaging in schemes involving the payment of bribes and other corrupt payments and benefits designed to (a) improperly affect the performance of actual or anticipated official duties or (b) coax favorable actual or anticipated official action or inaction and (ii) disclose conflicts of interest pertaining to his direct and indirect personal gain and other material information in official matters, including those over which the Former Official would have authority and discretion.

(B) There was a member of the Asbury Park City Council (the "Council Member") who was cooperating with federal law-enforcement authorities. The City and citizens of Asbury Park had an intangible right to the honest services of the Council Member. As an elected public official for the City of Asbury Park, the Council Member owed the City and citizens of Asbury Park a duty to: (i) refrain from receiving bribes and other corrupt payments and benefits designed to (a) improperly affect the performance of official duties or (b) coax favorable official action or inaction and (ii) disclose conflicts of interest pertaining to the Council Member's direct and indirect personal gain and other material information in official matters over which the Council Member had authority and discretion.

Corrupt Scheme

3. From in or about August, 2000 to in or about September, 2001, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
and the Former Official knowingly and willfully did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the City of Asbury Park and its citizens of the right to CONDOS'S and the Council Member's honest services in the affairs of the City of Asbury Park and the Former Official's honest services in APHA affairs.

4. The object of this scheme and artifice to defraud was for defendant JAMES CONDOS and the Former Official, with the assistance of defendant PHILIP KONVITZ, (A) to support the selection of certain individuals as APHA commissioners, who would in turn appoint the Former Official to the position of APHA Executive Director, in secret exchange for the Former Official then securing a salary for CONDOS from the APHA; (B) to facilitate this arrangement through bribery of the Council Member and (c) to conceal this corrupt activity from the public. 5. It was a part of this scheme and artifice to defraud that:

(A) On or about August 28, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Former Official met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, where the Former Official advised KONVITZ that he had made a commitment to obtain a $40,000 salary from the APHA for defendant JAMES CONDOS.

(B) On or about September 29, 2000, defendant JAMES CONDOS and the Former Official met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices and planned part of the scheme: (i) agreeing that they wanted each other to be secure in their contemplated positions--the Former Official as APHA Executive Director and CONDOS in a part-time position at the APHA at a salary of between approximately $30,000 and $50,000 and (ii), since the position that CONDOS sought had to be advertised in the newspaper, agreeing, at CONDOS'S suggestion, that the advertisement run the week of Christmas, 2000, when nobody would be reading the papers, in an effort to suppress interest in this position and to conceal the rigged nature of this offer of employment.

(C) On or about October 13, 2000, at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, defendant JAMES CONDOS and the Former Official planned to have CONDOS vote, and influence another City of Asbury Park council member to vote, in favor of appointments to the commission of the APHA of the Former Official's choice at the Asbury Park City Council meeting the following week. These appointees would then vote the Former Official in as the APHA Executive Director.

(D) On or about October 14, 2000, defendants JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ and the Former Official, among others, met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices to determine (i) which candidates they would support to become APHA commissioners and (ii) what city council members' votes would be needed to elect these candidates.

(E) On or about October 17, 2000, defendants JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices at which time CONDOS: (i) stated that he would not support any matters that the Council Member supported, if the Council Member did not vote for the individuals that CONDOS was supporting to be APHA commissioners; (ii) explained to KONVITZ that if the Council Member did not vote appropriately, then the Former Official and CONDOS would be "screwed" with respect to their deal; (iii) requested that KONVITZ call the Council Member and (iv) informed KONVITZ that the Council Member could not learn CONDOS's true motive for seeking the Council Member's support. In response to CONDOS'S request, KONVITZ telephoned the Council Member while CONDOS was present and requested that the Council Member support the Former Official's candidates for the APHA comissionerships at the upcoming city council meeting.

(F) On or about October 18, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Former Official met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices at which time the Former Official instructed KONVITZ to tell the Council Member to support two specific candidates as APHA commissioners and solicited KONVITZ to pay off the Council Member's local tax arrearage in a concealed manner.

(G) On or about October 18, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Council Member met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices at which time KONVITZ: (i) determined that the Council Member owed approximately $6,000 in back taxes; (ii) offered the Council Member $4,000 to pay down the debt; (iii) told the Council Member that the Council Member did not have to pay the money back to KONVITZ and (iv) advised the Council Member that the money would be given to the Council Member by a check from a third party because KONVITZ wanted to conceal the payment.

(H) On or about October 18, 2000, while at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, the Former Official advised the Council Member that KONVITZ would pay the Council Member through a third party so that there would be no connection to KONVITZ.

(I) On or about October 18, 2000, at the Asbury Park City Council meeting, in Asbury Park, New Jersey, defendant JAMES CONDOS voted in favor of a resolution appointing a candidate supported by the Former Official as an APHA commissioner and the resolution was approved. Upon observing that the measure would pass without the Council Member's vote, the Council Member abstained from voting on this matter and did nothing to otherwise impede the passage of the resolution.

(J) On or about October 24, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Council Member met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices. KONVITZ gave the Council Member $2,000 in cash and promised to pay the Council Member another $2,000 later to complete the $4,000 corrupt payment.

(K) On or about October 24, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ, the Former Official and the Council Member met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices and discussed the fact that the City Council had successfully voted in one of the Former Official's two candidates for APHA commissioner during the Council's meeting on or about Wednesday, October 18, 2000. The Former Official also indicated that the Council Member would support a plan to keep a certain incumbent commissioner favorable to the Former Official in place and reaffirmed his thinking that KONVITZ would be involved in the plan to obtain an APHA salary for defendant JAMES CONDOS.

(L) On or about November 18, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Council Member met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices, at which time KONVITZ told the Council Member that he would have the remaining $2,000 payment for the Council Member in another week or so--on November 21st or 22nd--because KONVITZ wanted the payment to be in cash.

(M) On or about November 22, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Council Member met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices at which time KONVITZ gave the Council Member the remaining $2,000 corrupt payment in cash.

(N) On or about November 24, 2000, defendants JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ met with the APHA Commissioner who had been appointed by the Asbury Park City Council on or about October 18, 2000, at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, at which time the APHA commissioner expressed concern about appointing the Former Official, stating that there would be a "field day" in the newspaper if the Former Official was appointed. In response, CONDOS advised that his plan was to make the appointment around the Christmas holiday so that nobody would read about it in the newspapers, and KONVITZ stated that anybody who read about the APHA appointments regarding the Former Official and CONDOS would quickly forget about it. KONVITZ instructed the APHA commissioner that he wanted the Former Official to get the appointment.

(O) On or about December 7, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Former Official met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices, where the Former Official asked KONVITZ for $500 and advised KONVITZ that the Former Official was going to talk to an elected state official about the control that this official was exerting over one of the APHA commissioners upon whom the Former Official was relying for his contemplated appointment. KONVITZ instructed an office worker to write out a $500 check for the Former Official and caused the check to be given to the Former Official.

(P) On or about May 3, 2001, over the Council Member's home telephone in Asbury Park, New Jersey, the Former Official informed the Council Member of (i) defendant JAMES CONDOS'S continued desire to secure a salary from the APHA; (ii) the failure of the APHA commissioner appointed on or about October 18, 2000 to take steps to appoint the Former Official as APHA Executive Director, despite the commissioner's expressed commitment to defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Former Official to do so; (iii) JAMES CONDOS'S continuing commitment to the Former Official to appoint candidates as APHA commissioners who would support the appointment of the Former Official as APHA Executive Director and (iv) the Former Official's continuing willingness to obtain a salary for CONDOS even if CONDOS failed to win reelection as an Asbury Park Councilman.

(Q) On or about July 12, 2001, over the Council Member's home telephone in Asbury Park, New Jersey, the Former Official informed the Council Member that defendant JAMES CONDOS still sought a salary from the APHA after the anticipated appointment of the Former Official as APHA Executive Director and that the Former Official would not be able to provide the APHA salary to CONDOS immediately upon his appointment because it would draw unwanted scrutiny.

(R) On or about August 2, 2001, the Former Official was elected as interim APHA Executive Director by the APHA's commissioners.

(S) On or about August 2, 2001, over the Council Member's home telephone in Asbury Park, New Jersey, the Former Official told the Council Member that (i) he felt an obligation to defendant JAMES CONDOS to help obtain a salary at the APHA for him; (ii) that he would write up a proposal on CONDOS'S behalf and (iii) that CONDOS had been "instrumental" in helping the Former Official become the interim APHA Executive Director.

(T) On or about August 19, 2001, defendant JAMES CONDOS and the Former Official publicly denied involvement in a part of this corrupt activity. (U) On or about August 21, 2001, the APHA board of commissioners formally hired the Former Official as the Interim APHA Executive Director and voted to approve the proposed contract for the Former Official.

6. On or about August 23, 2001, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
and the Former Official knowingly and willfully deposited and caused to be deposited and sent and delivered by a private and commercial interstate carrier and took and received therefrom, a Federal Express package containing a contract for employment as Interim APHA Executive Director sent to the Former Official for his signature. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346 and 2.

COUNT 8

Honest Services Fraud in Connection with Obtaining Liquor Permits for the Basketball Team

Defendants, Coschemers and Other Entities

1. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Counts 1 to 4 of this Indictment are hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

2. At all times relevant to Count 8 of this Indictment,

(A) There was a coschemer who served as the office manager for PHILIP KONVITZ at Jumping Brook Enterprises and assisted KONVITZ with a variety of duties, including answering telephone calls and managing the bank accounts of Jumping Brook Enterprises [hereinafter, KONVITZ'S Associate].

(B) There was a professional basketball franchise [hereinafter, "the Team"] affiliated with the United States Basketball League that played its home games at Convention Hall in Asbury Park, New Jersey. The sale of alcohol at these games constituted a large part of the Team's revenue.

Corrupt Scheme

3. From in or about April, 2000 to in or about May, 2000, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
and coschemer KONVITZ'S Associate knowingly and willfully did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the City of Asbury Park and its citizens of the right to the City Council Member's and CONDOS'S honest services in the affairs of the City of Asbury Park.

4. The object of this scheme and artifice to defraud was for defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and KONVITZ'S Associate to assist in securing liquor permits for the Team's home games played at Convention Hall through (A) the offering of corrupt payments and benefits to (i) defendant JAMES CONDOS so that he would not impede the obtaining of the permits and (ii) the Council Member so that the Council Member would vote in favor of approving the permits and (B) to conceal this material information from the public.

5. It was a part of this scheme and artifice to defraud that:

(A) On or about April 21, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ met with defendant JAMES CONDOS, KONVITZ'S Associate, the Team Owner and another individual at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices where KONVITZ learned from the Team Owner that: (i) the Asbury Park City Council, and, in particular, the Council Member, had denied the Team permits to sell liquor at the Team's home games in Asbury Park and (ii) if the Council Member changed votes, then the measure would pass. After the Team Owner and the other individual departed, CONDOS told KONVITZ that CONDOS wanted to limit the number of dates on which the Team and their alcohol supplier would control the alcohol concessions at Convention Hall. CONDOS further indicated that if the Team did not comply with CONDOS'S wishes, then the Team would be "screwed," but that he could not state this directly to the Team's management because CONDOS was a politician. CONDOS told KONVITZ that he would settle with the Team if they agreed to control the alcohol concessions for twelve dates, thus leaving eight dates available for which CONDOS could secure the alcohol concessions for himself. KONVITZ told KONVITZ'S Associate to telephone the Team Owner to inquire if this proposal was acceptable.

(B) On or about April 21, 2000, KONVITZ'S Associate and the Team Owner talked over a telephone at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, where KONVITZ'S Associate asked the Team Owner what concessions at the Team's home games were available for defendant JAMES CONDOS. The Team Owner replied that there were concession rights available for CONDOS--in particular, rights to the candy concessions--if CONDOS could help get the liquor permits approved. After consultation with defendant PHILIP KONVITZ, KONVITZ'S Associate told the Team Owner that CONDOS would take the candy concessions. Thereafter, the Team Owner advised that he would call them later to learn the status of the Council Member's vote.

(C) On or about April 21, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and KONVITZ'S Associate met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices where KONVITZ'S Associate confirmed that the Team was willing to give certain concessions to defendant JAMES CONDOS, including foregoing three dates to sell alcohol at Convention Hall, thereby enabling CONDOS to have the opportunity to sell alcohol at Convention Hall on at least eight other dates.

(D) On or about April 21, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ, KONVITZ'S Associate and the Team Owner talked over a telephone at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices where KONVITZ'S Associate asked how many concession dates the Team Owner needed, with the Team Owner responding that he would have to give up some of the concessions to appease defendant JAMES CONDOS. Later in that conversation, KONVITZ asked the Team Owner what he wanted from the Council Member--to which the Team's Owner replied that he wanted the Council Member's vote for the liquor permits.

(E) On or about April 21, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ met with KONVITZ'S Associate and the Council Member at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices where KONVITZ'S Associate told the Council Member that they needed to have the City Council pass a resolution to grant liquor permits to the Team. Thereafter, KONVITZ (i) stated that defendant JAMES CONDOS could not vote on the liquor permits because he had a liquor license himself; (ii) explained to the Council Member that voting for the license would be good for the Council Member; (iii) advised that the Team Owner would give him money and that KONVITZ would, in turn, pay the Council Member a few days later for the Council Member's vote and (iv) promised that whenever the Council Member did favors for KONVITZ, the Council Member would get money in return.

(F) On or about April 21, 2000, KONVITZ'S Associate and the Team Owner talked over a telephone at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, with KONVITZ'S Associate informing the Team Owner that they had gotten the Council Member's vote.

Konvitz, Condos indicted (part 2)

(G) On or about April 26, 2000, the Asbury Park City Council, including the Council Member, voted to approve permits allowing the Team to sell liquor at 12 games to be held at Convention Hall in the spring and summer of 2000.

(H) On or about May 6, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ met with the Council Member at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices informing the Council Member initially that he had left $300 from the Team Owner earmarked for the Council Member at home and raising the anticipated corrupt payment amount to $500 by the end of the conversation.

(I) On or about May 8, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ met the Council Member at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices: (i) giving the Council Member $400; (ii) cautioning the Council Member that KONVITZ did not want anybody to know about this payment and (iii) confirming that he had told the Team Owner about the payment.

(J) On or about May 15, 2000, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ met with the Council Member at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices where KONVITZ stated that the Team's Owner knew about the transaction but wanted to keep the Council Member at an arm's length and cautioned the Council Member not to say anything about the payment to anybody.

6. On or about April 27, 2000, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
and coschemer KONVITZ'S Associate knowingly and willfully placed and caused to be placed in a post office and authorized depository for mail, and caused to be delivered thereon, certain mail matter, to be sent and delivered by United States Postal Service, as follows: 12 liquor permits for professional basketball games to be played at Convention Hall in Asbury Park, New Jersey from April 28, 2000 through June 16, 2000.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346 and 2.

COUNT 9

(Conspiracy to Accept Valuable Concession Rights for Official Inaction and Influence)

1. Paragraphs 1 to 2 of Counts 1 to 4 and paragraph 5 of Count 8 of this Indictment are hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about April, 2000 to in or about May, 2000, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants
JAMES CONDOS and PHILIP KONVITZ
and KONVITZ'S Associate did knowingly and willfully conspire to obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce by extortion--that is, agreeing to demand and accept, from the Team with the Team Owner's consent, valuable concession rights in exchange for agreeing to not exercise official influence to block the Team from obtaining liquor permits from the Asbury Park City Council.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

COUNT 10

(Konvitz Offers and Gives Corrupt Payments To Asbury Park City Council Member to Influence and Reward Council Member in Connection with a Series of Transactions of Interest to Konvitz)

1. Paragraph 2 of Counts 1 to 4, paragraphs 2(B) and 5(E) to (M) of Count 7 and paragraph 5 of Count 8 of this Indictment are hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

2. At all times relevant to Count 10 of this Indictment, (A) the City of Asbury Park and the APHA received federal assistance in excess of $10,000 per year and (B) the City Council member was in a position to, and did, vote on the administration of federal funds for the City of Asbury Park.

3. From in or about March, 2000 to in or about January, 2001, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant
PHILIP KONVITZ
did knowingly, willfully and corruptly give, offer, and agree to give things of value totaling more than $10,000.00 (detailed below) to the City Council Member intending to influence and reward the Council Member in connection with a business, transaction and series of transactions of the City of Asbury Park and the APHA involving a thing of value of $5,000.00 and more--specifically to vote in favor of KONVITZ'S interests, including an Asbury Shores development property; issues regarding Asbury Park redevelopment; voting in favor of granting liquor permits for the Team; agreeing to vote in favor of APHA candidates supported by KONVITZ, JAMES CONDOS and the Former Official and supporting issues regarding the hiring and termination of City of Asbury Park attorneys and the Business Manager that were favorable to KONVITZ--which corrupt activity implicated a federal interest:

 

DATE	THING OF VALUE	LOCATION OF OFFER OR PAYMENT
March 25, 2000	giving $500	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices
May 1, 2000	giving $250	Main Street, Asbury Park, New Jersey
May 8, 2000	giving $400	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices
May 25 & 26, 2000	offering a discount on the purchase of an automobile--at least approximately $3,175 below retail price	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices and defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S KIA dealership
September 19, 2000	offering $2,500	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices
October 4, 2000	giving $300	Cookman Avenue, Asbury Park, New Jersey
October 24, 2000	giving $2,000	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices
November 22, 2000	giving $2,000	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices
January 5, 2001	giving $1,500 toward the down payment on an automobile	Jumping Brook Enterprises Offices

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 666(a)(2) and 2.

COUNTS 11 to 12

(Scheme to Defraud Public of Weldon's Honest Services)

Defendants, Coschemers and Other Entities

1. Paragraph 2 of Count 1 of this Indictment is hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein. 2. At all times relevant to Counts 11 to 12 of this Indictment:

(A) Terrance D. Weldon was the Mayor of Ocean Township, New Jersey (Monmouth County) having first been elected as an Ocean Township Councilman in or about 1989 and first been appointed as Mayor in or about 1991. Weldon also was a member of the Ocean Township Planning Board, having first become a member of that board in 1991. Weldon also was the Asbury Park City Manager from November, 2000 to the present, for which he was paid $98,899.00 annually.

(B) There was a developer who was a partner in a development corporation engaged in interstate commerce based in Neptune, New Jersey [hereinafter the "Developer"]. The corporation was responsible for the development of approximately 81.5 acres of land located between West Park Avenue and Green Grove (Hope Road) in Ocean Township. The Developer sought to develop this area as a residential housing cluster development and further sought authorization from Ocean Township to build as many residences as possible on the land in order to maximize profitability. To build this cluster development, the Developer needed to secure from the Ocean Township Government the rezoning of this area. The residential cluster development, for which the Developer sought approval, would allow for the construction of closely-placed single-family residences around private cul-de-sacs serving multiple residences.

(C) Defendant PHILIP KONVITZ had a long-standing financial relationship with the Developer, and KONVITZ had loaned the Developer several million dollars which the Developer still owed KONVITZ as of in or about February, 2001. KONVITZ also had a long-standing relationship with Terrance D. Weldon. KONVITZ helped secure the position of Asbury Park City Manager for Weldon in or about November, 2000. KONVITZ believed that if the Developer succeeded in obtaining the necessary approvals for the residential cluster development in Ocean Township, the Developer would be in a better financial position to repay the money which he owed to KONVITZ.

Public's Right to, and Weldon's Duty of, Honest Services

3. At all times relevant to Counts 11 to 12 of this Indictment, the Township of Ocean and its citizens had an intangible right to the honest services of their public officials. As a public official for the Township of Ocean, Terrance D. Weldon owed the Township and its citizens a duty to: (A) refrain from accepting and agreeing to accept bribes and other corrupt payments and benefits designed to (i) improperly affect the performance of his official duties or (ii) coax favorable official action or inaction and (B) disclose conflicts of interest pertaining to his direct and indirect personal gain and other material information in official matters over which he had authority and discretion.

Corrupt Scheme

4. From in or about June, 2000 to in or about the early summer, 2001, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant
PHILIP KONVITZ
and coschemers Terrance D. Weldon and the Developer knowingly and willfully did devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the Township of Ocean and its citizens of the right to Terrance D. Weldon's honest services in the affairs of the Township of Ocean.

5. The object of this scheme and artifice to defraud was for defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and the Developer to pay Terrance D. Weldon sums of money to influence and reward him for his agreement to do official favors in connection with the rezoning of the Developer's land in Ocean Township and to conceal this material information from the public by, among other things: (A) using KONVITZ as the middleman between the Developer and Weldon; (B) speaking in guarded language over the telephone about the corrupt arrangement and (C) meeting in locations outside of the public's view, like KONVITZ'S home and the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices.

6. It was a part of this scheme and artifice to defraud that:

(A) On or about June 5, 2000, at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, Terrance D. Weldon and defendant PHILIP KONVITZ met to discuss the progress of the Developer's cluster development in Ocean Township and the number of residential units to be built on the property. KONVITZ asked Weldon if Weldon would be able to secure approval for 90 units on the property, to which Weldon replied that he believed he realistically could secure approval for 75 units, despite his efforts to secure approval for a greater number, because the Developer had only 30 acres upon which to build and the property only was zoned for the construction of 30 units.

(B) On or about June 5, 2000, at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ placed a telephone call to the Developer to inform him that Terrance D. Weldon would be able to secure approval for 75 units. Weldon then informed the Developer that he would not be able to obtain approval for the construction of 90 residential units as part of the cluster development due to concerns of other members of the governing boards--a reference to the Ocean Township Council and the Ocean Township Planning Board--but that Weldon would attempt to secure as many units as possible for the development.

(C) On or about June 5, 2000, at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, Terrance D. Weldon informed defendant PHILIP KONVITZ upon the conclusion of his conversation with the Developer that Weldon feared that the Developer might walk away from Weldon after Weldon secured the necessary approvals for the Developer's cluster development because Weldon did not have a lot of trust in the Developer. KONVITZ then inquired of Weldon whether Weldon would be taken care of, if Weldon secured approval for 80 units for the Developer, prompting Weldon to respond "yeah," and to instruct KONVITZ not to talk on the telephone--the latter instruction was calculated to conceal the conduct of KONVITZ, Weldon and the Developer.

(D) On or about December 19, 2000, at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ offered Terrance D. Weldon at least $5,000 as an incentive payment to influence and reward Weldon in connection with Weldon's ongoing efforts on behalf of the Developer in Ocean Township, New Jersey. Weldon replied that he would not accept the money at that time, preferring to accept money after he had concluded securing approval of the rezoning.

(E) On or about December 27, 2000, at the Ocean Township Council meeting, in Ocean Township, New Jersey, Terrance D. Weldon voted in favor of approving Ordinance #1878, a local ordinance (i) amending the Official Zoning Map of Ocean Township to create a Single Family Court Cluster Overlay Option for the land owned by the Developer and (ii) providing that the number of dwelling units on that land should not exceed seventy-five.

(F) On or about December 27, 2000, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone in Elberon, New Jersey, in guarded language calculated as part of the ongoing effort to conceal the conduct, Terrance D. Weldon informed KONVITZ that he took the next step in their project in Ocean Township. Weldon stated that the project would be finished on January 10, 2001 and that the vote would be unanimous.

(G) On or about December 27, 2000, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ reported to the Developer, in guarded language, that he had spoken to Terrance D. Weldon, that the matter went very well and that everybody was supporting the matter. The Developer replied, "excellent," and suggested that KONVITZ and himself meet the following day.

(H) On or about January 7, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ informed the Developer in guarded language, that his friend--meaning Terrance D. Weldon--had called. KONVITZ then asked the Developer if the Developer could help Weldon before the Developer went away. The Developer replied that he would and asked KONVITZ to remind him to do so. KONVITZ further requested the Developer to take care of Weldon after January 10, 2001. KONVITZ further advised the Developer that Weldon had told him that the project was all done.

(I) On or about February 14, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, Terrance D. Weldon informed KONVITZ in guarded language that a meeting was scheduled that night on the application in Ocean Township over by KONVITZ'S son's house--meaning the application to rezone the Developer's parcel of land to allow for the construction of the 75-unit cluster development. Weldon indicated to KONVITZ that he would get this application approved and that the initiative would be "just about done" that night.

(J) On or about February 14, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ informed the Developer that he had just called Terrance D. Weldon and was informed that there was a meeting that night--a reference to an Ocean Township Council meeting. KONVITZ informed the Developer that Terrance D. Weldon had agreed to call KONVITZ, but that Weldon had assured him that the matter was going to be okay.

(K) On or about February 14, 2001, at the Ocean Township Council meeting in Ocean Township, New Jersey, Terrance D. Weldon voted in favor of approving a revised ordinance (i) amending the Official Zoning Map to create a Single Family Court Cluster Overlay Option for the land owned by the Developer and (ii) providing that the number of dwelling units on that land should not exceed seventy-five.

(L) On or about February 14, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ asked Terrance D. Weldon "is it finished now?" Weldon informed KONVITZ that it would be official in 15 days--a reference to the expected final passage of the application for a zoning change on the Developer's property after a public hearing was held by the Ocean Township Council on February 28, 2001.

(M) On or about February 22, 2001, defendant PHILIP KONVITZ and Terrance D. Weldon and KONVITZ met at the Jumping Brook Enterprises offices, where Weldon informed KONVITZ that the ordinance favoring the Developer's project would finally be approved on Wednesday, February 28, 2001.

(N) On or about February 27, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ reminded the Developer that the Developer had given KONVITZ $50,000 to give to Terrance D. Weldon.

(O) On or about February 28, 2001, at the Ocean Township Council meeting, in Ocean Township, New Jersey, upon conclusion of the public hearing related thereto, Terrance D. Weldon voted in favor of adopting the revised ordinance and advertising the final passage of the ordinance in the local newspaper.

(P) On or about March 1, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone number, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ informed the Developer that everything was 100% okay--meaning that Terrance D. Weldon had secured final approval of the ordinance granting the rezoning of the Developer's property to allow for the 75-unit residential cluster development.

(Q) On or about March 18, 2001, over defendant PHILIP KONVITZ'S home telephone, in Elberon, New Jersey, KONVITZ informed Terrance D. Weldon that the Developer was waiting to hear from Weldon, and Weldon assured KONVITZ that the project was complete, meaning that the rezoning of the Developer's land had been finalized by the Ocean Township Council. KONVITZ responded by stating "I'll go to work then," a reference to his efforts to ensure that Weldon received the agreed-upon payment from the Developer.

(R) Between in or about the late spring and in or about early summer, 2001, Terrance D. Weldon accepted approximately $50,000 in cash from the Developer which Weldon concealed in a suit jacket pocket inside the attic space on the second floor of his residence in Oakhurst, New Jersey until on or about January 23, 2002.

7. On or about the dates listed below, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute this scheme and artifice to defraud, defendant
PHILIP KONVITZ
and coschemers Terrance D. Weldon and the Developer, knowingly and willfully placed and caused to be placed in a post office and authorized depository for mail, and caused to be sent and delivered thereon, certain mail matter, to be delivered by United States Postal Service, as described below:

 

Count	Date	Mailing
11	June 30, 2000	Attorney for the Developer mailsconceptual site plan diagram to Ocean Township Clerk in support of application for rezoning
12	March 6, 2001	Ocean Township mails certified copy of Ordinance rezoning land owned by the Developer to Monmouth County Planning Board

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1346 and 2.

COUNT 13

(Aiding in the Acceptance and Agreement to Accept Cash Payments in Exchange for Official Action by Weldon)

1. Paragraphs 1 to 2 and 6 of Counts 11 to 12 of this Indictment are hereby incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

2. From in or about June, 2000 to in or about the early summer, 2001, in Monmouth County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendant
PHILIP KONVITZ
did knowingly and willfully obstruct, delay and affect interstate commerce by extortion--that is, by aiding in the acceptance and agreement to accept by Terrance D. Weldon from the Developer with his consent approximately $50,000 in exchange for Weldon's agreement to exercise official action and influence pertaining to rezoning and ancillary matters in the Developer's favor as specific opportunities arose.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1951(a) and 2.

A TRUE BILL

CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Eminent Domain To Be Voted upon for Broadway 10-22-2002

  Mayor Adam Schneider, his council and his Administration have recently added  lower Broadway as a "Eminent Domain" feast or famine phase as Redevelopment Zone #6. A redevelopment plan for the area, a detailed set of design and zoning guidelines governing a 72.2-acre sector running along Broadway from Second Avenue west to the train tracks.

The plan, gaining notoriety over the last month as residents and business owners became aware of it, covers everything from broad conceptual goals f to imposed regulations for building design to requirements for awnings, landscaping, signs and lighting.

The City Council is expected to cast a final vote on an ordinance approving the plan after a public hearing on Tuesday night. If approved, the Redevelopment Zone 6 will govern all development in the zone, giving the City Council excessive authority to award building and use rights  and, if necessary, to seize property through eminent domain.

"This is a key step, because it gives the redevelopment agency (the City Council) the same sort of control it has on the oceanfront," said Mayor Adam Schneider. "Instead of having a developer come in and say, 'This is what I want to build, and this is where I'm going to build it,' you have turned the tables, and you can say, 'This is what you're allowed to build, and this is where you are allowed to build it, and these are the standards you have to meet," he said. "It is a plan-driven as opposed to a developer-driven process, and that makes all the difference in the world."

Reasons for some to be concerned?

There are businesses in the 72-acre area that do not fit with the plan.

The McDonald's at 229 Broad-way sits where the new municipal complex will be. The Investors Savings Bank at the corner of Broadway and Liberty is in a "regional entertainment" zone where banks are explicitly prohibited. Several auto service and gas stations lie within a "downtown commercial" district, where such uses will be prohibited.

Charlie N. Merla, 48, has been working near Broadway since he was 17 years old, when his father opened a service station on Liberty Street. Now Merla owns the property, where he runs Satisfied Service Center, as well as a used car dealership and an impound lot - prohibited uses under the proposed plan.

Merla said he counts himself a supporter of the city's redevelopment efforts, but emphasized that he stuck with Broadway during the hard times, when vacant lots and boarded up windows were common, when redevelopment was just a distant dream, and expects to stick around for the good times.

But the plan also states that: "The City reserves the right to condemn any block and lot in the Sector if private negotiations fail and the property or properties in question are judged essential to achieve objectives intended by the plan."

"I don't want to be pushed out of business," said Jimmy Nordin, owner of Nordin Cabinets & Manufacturing on Third Avenue. Nordin, 55, and his wife, Linda, 54, have been in business on Third Avenue, south of Broadway, for 20 years. They are in what the new plan lists as a "Downtown Residential/Live Work" area prohibiting street-level businesses. "You have a group of businesses who have been here for years struggling to make a living down here, struggling to bring people in," he said. "If the place is presentable, so long as it's not a dump, they should be allowed to stay."

Help promised

Schneider said he hopes most longtime business owners will stay where they are and become a part of the redevelopment process. If any property owners face eminent domain proceedings, they will be assisted with relocation. And they will be compensated for their properties.

Past Problems

What is not said by the Politicians is that the cause for the downgrading of the lower Broadway business corridor were the riots that plagued both Asbury park and Long Branch in the 70's.  Today lower Broadway in Long Branch has been the dropping off point for immigrants into the area at large.  Penalizing business people as if they and their business were the cause for the long ignored decay is fool hearted at the very least.  One business owner of a service center, prohibited if the City Council passes this Tuesday night said; "I haven't seen the end result of Redevelopment Zone #1.  Until we have the opportunity to see and taste the fruits of these plans, I can not be comfortable with Council passing Zone #6.  We should wait till Zones number 1,2,3,4 & 5 proof out this theory.