FBI informant Hal Turner: It will all be over when the fat man sings.

August 14th, 2010

While working as an FBI informant, Hal Turner advocated the killing of Blacks and Hispanics. Is this the whole story?

I strongly suspect that Hal’s junior G-Man job paid for the potatoes, but not the meat or the gravy. That came from his side-line of posing as a Republican. This was done to sow dissension in the NJ GOP and just to make the Party look bad.

By propagating racist and anti-immigrant ideas, a great evil was perpetrated. Who induced Hal Turner to do this? It’s hard to imagine that the general population of any federal lockup will provide congenial companions for Hal Turner. “Hal from North Bergen” will need lots of favors.

It will all be over when the fat man sings.

JERSEY BOY The Life and Mob Slaying of Frankie DePaula

June 15th, 2010

HardCover: ISBN 978-1450-20639-6 ($30.95)

SoftCover: ISBN 978-1450-20637-2 ($20.95)

Genre: True Crime / Boxing

Publisher: iUniverse Pages: 268  

THE STORY
Hailing from the tough Westside section of Jersey City, Frankie DePaula appeared to be a phenomenon in the making when he stopped all of his opponents’ enroute to claiming a Golden Gloves title in 1962. That Frankie failed to establish a boxing legacy befitting of one imbued with his natural physical endowments and punching talent is one of the largely unsung tragedies of the fight game.   Here for the first time, Adeyinka Makinde, author of the definitive biography of boxing immortal Dick Tiger, tells the remarkable story of a man seemingly possessed of a force of nature; a charismatic pied piper of Jersey City who sold out arenas and inspired such devotion from fans that some were willing to bet their houses on him being victorious. Frank Sinatra sat ringside at several of his bouts, while Frankie Valli and Joe Namath were close friends. But Frankie was also a man whose character flaws would lead him to an early grave.   The book explores the controversial aspects of his life and career including:   . The rumours that his 1969 fight with Bob Foster for the world’s light heavyweight championship was fixed   . His involvement in a notorious $80,000 heist of electrolytic copper   . The precipitous death of his first manager, Pat Amato, whose role was inherited by Mob front man Gary Garafola   . His dalliance with the married step-daughter of a High-ranking member of the Genovese crime family   . Rumours that he was compromised as an informant for law enforcement agencies   . His shooting in an alley, his subsequent disintegration and eventual demise in a charity ward of the Jersey City Medical Center   Although Frankie appeared to some to be a true life exemplar of a character from ‘ Dead End’; a wild and unreconstructed deviant headed for disaster, his life is set against the backdrop of the often times dysfunctional environs of Jersey City, for long the seat of power of an administration dominated for decades by Mayoral potentate Frank Hague and maligned by the corruption of local politicians and the increasing influence of organised crime.   Recounted are Frankie’s exciting tussles with the likes of Charlie ‘The Devil’ Green, Jimmy McDermott and Dick Tiger. Here too are reminiscences of Frankie’s explosive power as a street fighter and the fear he inspired as a Mob collector.   Although prone to being brutish, Frankie could also be big of heart. And while his many sins rendered him as heartless, he was capable of feats of kindness. Tough, but ultimately weak-minded; Frankie’s tale is a cautionary one: a sobering rendition of one man’s capacity for self-destruction

 

THE AUTHOR
Adeyinka Makinde is Nigerian by birth and based in England. He trained as a barrister and is a lecturer in law. He wrote the well-reviewed biography, Dick Tiger: The Life and Times of a Boxing Immortal, which was published in 2005.

 

PRAISE FOR DICK TIGER: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF A BOXING IMMORTAL
“Makinde’s research is impressive” -Boxing News –Britain  “…a compelling and inspiring read” -The Fist -Australia

 

CONTACT
For further information, interviews or review copies contact:e-mail: thelawacademy@aol.comCell: 44(0)7986-111-776

Computing Power in Real Time

June 12th, 2010

By CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER

Hudson County Congressman Cornelius Gallagher talks about computer ethics, invasion of privacy, and the rise of the technocracy.

 Originally appeared in Information Technology in a Democracy, edited by Alan F. Westin, Harvard University Press, 1971

From Cornelius E. Gallagher, “Computing in Real Time,” a speech given before the Association for Computing Machinery Technical symposium, June 19, 1969.

Mr. Gallagher is a Member of Congress from the Thirteenth District of New Jersey, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy of the House Government Operations Committee.

One of Norman Mailer’s more fanciful conceits is that tuberculosis was the disease which best characterizes the nineteenth century and that cancer, in the same sense, is the disease of the twentieth century. Those who quietly and elegantly languished, gradually diminishing into death, seem to Mailer to sum up an age in which time moves slowly and medita­tively. But the twentieth-century society is symbolized by a literal ex­plosion of the life process; cells, reflecting hyperactive modern life, multi­ply so rapidly that they overwhelm their host.

 Mailer’s pungent metaphor is a useful and provocative comparison. In terms of this audience, we should change the image to read the quill pen expressing the nineteenth century and the computer characterizing the twentieth. But we should not discard cancer, for Erich Fromm, in The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology, says, “Com­puters should become a functional part in a life oriented social system and not a cancer which begins to play havoc and eventually kills the sys­tem.”

 This is, admittedly, a rather oblique entrance into a speech called “Computing in Real Time,” but it does highlight a view of the computer which is becoming increasingly prevalent. It is a view which must be recognized by computer professionals, for humanist doubts underlay the distrust of mechanistic decision-making.

 From the vantage point of a century or so, it is possible to dismiss the Luddites in England as sadly disillusioned and rather pathetic figures. However, it is a fact that they were able to destroy machines and cripple factories. In the same sense, it is possible to dismiss computer critics today as merely naive and uninformed anti-intellectuals who simply do not understand the rationale of computing. But computer profes­sionals and managers must build in relevance to their computer applica­tions. Many of your installations may suffer from a confrontation with those who act in a manner similar to the Luddites. One of the cries of the New Left is “open it up, or shut it down.” In another hundred years it is to be devoutly hoped that these people will seem just as ir­relevant as the Luddites do now. We can make sure that that happy pro­jection becomes a reality if it is possible, now, to open up computerized information systems to the legitimate demands of the people whose dossiers create the input and the output of many systems.

 It has not been the purpose of my investigations into computer pri­vacy to encourage those who oppose all computer applications. The rewards and benefits of the computer are too essential to the health and survival of modern society. But it is extremely important that computer professionals realize that there is a body of opinion which questions the very foundations of your work.

 You do not massage your data in a cloister; you are computing in real time.

But let us “disanthropomorphize” the discussion by considering some views of computer applications which restrict themselves to non-fiction. Many men, representing various viewpoints, have commented, rather unkindly, upon the current uses of the computer. I would like to give you four examples.

 First is the New Left critic of American society Paul Goodman. Good­man is extremely distressed about the fact that giant corporations employ systems analysis to make computer generated decisions in areas where they have only developed the systems, not the expertise.

 Goodman comments on the results of such insulated decisions re­garding teaching methods: “Somewhere down the line, however, this cabal of decision-makers is going to coerce the life of real children and control the activity of classroom teachers. Those who are directly en­gaged in the human function of learning and teaching have no say in what goes on . . . but the brute fact is that the children are quite inci­dental to the massive intervention of the giant combinations.”

 One does not have to agree with everything Goodman says to appre­ciate the perception of his insights. In addition, of course, he does repre­sent the views of many disenchanted but deeply concerned people in our land.

 Second, Robert Theobald is one of our most respected economists and social commentators. Theobald finds that a misapplication of com­puter technology may further aggravate situations they presume to cure. Although the computer is frequently beneficial in solving serious problems, Theobald says “. . . is also true that our attempts to reverse these trends will be frustrated if we continue to regard the ability of the computer to act with maximum efficiency in carrying out an immediate task as more important than all of our fundamental values put together. As long as we regard these values as of minor importance, to be upheld only when it is convenient to do so, we will be unable to recruit the computer to help us to attain our fundamental goals.”

 Almost all of Erich Fromm’s book, The Revolution of Hope, is mean­ingful to the message of this speech. But I would like to repeat one thing he says about the computer’s ability to store so much data that it assumes a virtually divine status. Core storage as God-head and print-outs as divine revelation can create decisions which are totally counter to a crea­tive use of the intellect. Fromm describes men who rely totally on com­puter generated decision-making data in these terms: “However dreadful the consequences of their decisions may be, they need not have qualms about the rightness and legitimacy of the method by which they arrived at their decision . . . Like Dostoevski’s Grand Inquisitor, some may even be tragic figures who can not act differently, because they see no other way of being certain that they do the best they can. The alleged rational character of our planners is basically not different from the religiously based decisions in a prescientific age.”

 All the questions which have been raised about the ultimate impact of the computer on society are stylishly summarized by one of the most knowledgeable men in America today: Dr. Mesthene asked: “What happens to traditional relationships between citizen and government, to such prerogatives of the individual as personal privacy, electoral consent, and access to the independent social criticism of the press, and to the ethics of and public control over a new elite of information keepers, when economic, military and social policies become increasingly technical, long-range, machine processed, information based, and expert dominated?”

These points assume major importance, for the computer is the world’s fastest growing industry. In 1956, there were about 600 computers with a value of about 340 million dollars. Today there are more than 70,000 computers valued at more than 18 billion dollars.

 Computer capacity has kept pace. IBM has stated that, in 15 years, computers increased in speed by 150 times, and the cost of each computa­tion was reduced to 1/40 or less of the original level.

 And it is predicted that by 1980 computers and computer applications will account for 20% of the Gross National Product.

 If for no other than these financial facts, computing will increasingly be done in real time. And certain other problems have begun to surface.

 When Judge Miles Lord of Minneapolis awarded 480 thousand dollars to a computerized accounting and inventory system user, he said, “His whole business was wrapped around a spool of magnetic tape which was not in his possession and was not even his property.” The firm which sold the system attempted to claim that it was the user’s own workers who were to blame, but the judge felt that under the circumstances, the user could not be faulted for failing to recognize that the system itself was unworkable.

 In spite of the scientific, almost religious, mystique with which out­siders view computing, Judge Lord’s decision once again signals the end of computing as pure science. Legal responsibility will probably ulti­mately rest on the creators of computerized data systems and you will continue to represent, in the main, a part of technology, not science.

 In a May 1969 speech, Admiral Rickover described the distinction be­tween science and technology better than I have ever seen it put before: “Science, being pure thought, harms no one; therefore, it need not be humanistic. But technology is action and often potentially dangerous action. Unless it is made to adapt itself to human interests, needs, values, and principles, more harm will be done than good.”

 And computing technology is certainly where the action is! And action takes place in real time. To carry the metaphor a little further, you must share time with human values. Unless society is to become a terminal patient, every computerized system must have a terminal to which man­kind has access.

 The Congress has taken tentative steps to address itself to the real time in which you are computing. When my Special Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy initiated Congressional consideration of credit bureaus in March 1968, we had the benefit of the views of Alan Westin. I proposed the following question to Dr. Westin: “Is there a possibility of the formation of a data elite’s manipulating American society by their manipulation of data on individual Americans?” I would like to indicate the range of his remarks by the following excerpts. “There is a dangerous arrogance that can be built up when a small group of people believe that they have the language, the system, and the most scientific way of making decisions. Failure to keep popular participation in public deci­sion-making, and the developing mixture of private and public decision-making in our society creates a dangerous impersonality.”

 He describes a futuristic society in which “. . . there is a gap between those who have a high elite education and everybody else in the society. The people without high intellect feel they are the ones full of emotion, sentiment and love, and view the decision-making elite as cold and calculating. Such a separation is dangerous in a democratic political sys­tem because often what is required is not the wisdom of technical solu­tions or of scientific cost effectiveness, but a wisdom that has to do with leading and inspiring people and convincing them that they have a stake in the system.”

 ”I think it will be a while before the line can be drawn between what can be achieved through new management science techniques and infor­mation systems and what still remains the art of the political process. I am afraid the line is going to get very blurred in the next half decade or decades because it is essentially the poor and the black who want access into and participation in the system. They have never had a voice of the kind the middle classes had in the political system.”

 Dr. Westin envisions society responding to people who want participa­tion now in these terms: “We don’t do things that way any longer; we have new technical ways of making decisions. Why don’t you just ratify those? We can’t let you participate because the planning is so complex that you don’t even know the language and we will often have to make commitments that run 3 or 5 years ahead.”

 I am afraid that these opinions of Dr. Westin’s are, in essence, correct. I find it very disturbing that computerized information systems for deci­sion-making may be heightening rather than lessening our current agonies.

 For it is a fact of the very real time in which we live that people are just not going to wait. Articulate and aggressive segments of our society are insisting upon the right to influence and alter decisions which vitally affect them. Blacks, hippies, students, ghetto parents, and members of the dissenting academy may seem like a wildly disparate group, but they are united on one thing. They all demand a greater piece of the decision-making action, or at the very least, a heightened sense of personal involve­ment in and control over their own destinies. It does not take an especially astute observor to discover that all around us there is real anger and a spreading disenchantment with the goals of government.

These uses of computerized information systems suggest two questions which I feel have yet to be explored in any formal or deeply meaningful way. The first question is: Can machine-based data systems assist in de­centralizing decision-making? Is it possible for individuals who are not technologically sophisticated to interface with the data flow?

I have given you a segment of Dr. Westin’s judgment on that issue and it is an opinion which, at this point in time, I share. However, I am also aware that there are those who claim that the computer’s ability to digest so much data will permit a greater variety of views to enter the decision-making mix. Frankly, I do not think a definitive answer has yet emerged and I believe the Association for Computing Machinery could bring knowledgeable insights to the debate. I would urge you, both as indi­vidual members and as an Association, to address yourself to the question.

Second is a problem which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been studied in any coherent or disciplined manner. What are citizen attitudes and opinions regarding the disclosure of personal information to those who operate computerized data systems?

My staff and I have been forced to respond to the many people who have raised that question that probably the largest collection of citizen reaction to machine systems is contained in our own files. They bulge with thousands of letters from concerned people throughout our nation and with hundreds of editorials and articles which support our work in high­lighting the issue of computer privacy.

This is, of course, a wholly unsatisfactory answer to you and I must admit, perhaps reluctantly, that it is also unsatisfactory to me.

Virtually every page of Datamation and Computerworld contains re­ports of new data systems being constructed and of new areas of personal information being reduced to machine-readable form. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no dispassionate and scientific survey of the attitudes and opinions of the people whose dossiers are forming these systems exists. No answer has been forthcoming to the crucial question of whether these systems are the life-blood of society or are, in reality, a cancer.

When I began my studies of computer privacy, I had hoped to create a climate of concern. I believe that goal has been realized and that someeffective and promising first steps have been taken by professionals in the computer field to translate that concern into practice.

I would hope that anyone who has reliable information about the citizen’s attitude’s toward the computer will communicate with me. Per­haps more important, I would hope that we might commence an in-depth study to discover just what we are doing to our society, and even more important, whether society will permit it.

For there is a disturbing body of evidence which suggests that the ordinary American — that most extraordinary of humans — is becoming supersaturated with the toxic in the tonic of technology. The myriad forms of pollution — air, water, noise — the bomb, highways which destroy neighborhoods, unresponsive federal and local agencies — the list of such outrages to which man is subject is depressingly long.

In March of this year, I had the privilege of addressing the Chicago Chapter of the Institute of Management Sciences. I touched upon these subjects and I described all the investigations I have made into privacy: the lie-detector, psychological testing, the National Data Bank, and business intelligence firms such as credit bureaus. I concluded that speech by developing a concept called “The Intellectual Imperative” which attempted to coalesce my investigations into a coherent theory. I would like to expand on that theme this morning.

Every individual must have certain areas over which his sovereignty is absolute, as long as he is pursuing legitimate aims. Lower animals havea body buffer zone and, as Robert Ardray has so compellingly pointed out, a territorial imperative. Perhaps this can best be represented by the bull ring where the bull himself outlines an area of his own called the querencia. This is a randomly chosen spot where the bull will always re­treat when the pressure of his death struggle with the matador becomestoo intense.

But where can modern man go to gather his strength when he is gored by society? Techniques to assert the individual’s right to a space of psychological control have simply not kept pace with technology’s ability to disclose almost everything to almost everybody.

In Chicago, I described the Intellectual Imperative and its necessity to the needs of modern man in these terms:

Man may choose those in whom he wishes to confide. He may discuss any issue in any terms he may desire and be. assured that an indis­cretion of phrase or even an indecency of thought will remain pri­vate. A space of psychological control permits ideas to be discussed freely within his territory and with the guarantee that strict public accountability will not follow. It is just this blurring of the public and the private which makes invasion of privacy so obnoxious to personal integrity and civilized society.

The control of the flow of information about yourself, about your actions, about your beliefs, is seen as a crucial aspect of a dynamic society. Urban mass culture has destroyed for most of us the oppor­tunity to exercise freely the Territorial Imperative; the advance of computer and other technologies threatens the Intellectual Impera­tive. Physically, we are constantly in a crowd; intellectually, tech­nology has provided devices to make our forgotten actions and our unacknowledged thoughts known to the crowd.

In short, I believe that the Intellectual Imperative is just as important to humans as the Territorial Imperative is for lower animals. It is ex­tremely dangerous for a matador to violate the bull’s querencia, and it may be equally fatal for society to presume that it can violate the space where the individual’s basic nature resides.

 It seems to be a basic contention of computer-oriented planning that the nature of man is infinitely malleable and that the individual can be made to adapt to any mold deemed suitable for him. If this were true, no one would ever quit a well-paying job and no society would ever undergo a revolution.

And if technology’s might, acting on quantifiable data, could solve all problems, Vietnam would be just a pleasant memory.

 So we must recognize that tools alone will not do the work of man. If we are to survive as a viable and free society, we must make sure that the light of humanity illuminates the direction in which we are moving and that we do not permit any of our technologies to extinguish the fires which warm a fully human life, and which create a spiritually satisfied mankind.

Dave Friedland as John DiGilio’s lawyer

May 15th, 2010

When Loan Sharks Bite

From Voice Printing, How the law can read the voice of crime by Eugene Block

The meeting was a routine monthly gathering of a journalism society in New Jersey.

The invited guest was a young, little-known assistant attorney general, and those who came expected an informal, innocuous address on relations between the press and law-en­forcement agencies. Instead a bombshell exploded and another case of extortion came to light.

To the surprise of everyone, the speaker opened a Pandora’s box. Out of it came a scandal that shook the state for months. It reached into the state house, the legislature, and the courts. When it was over, political heads had fallen after a three-pronged official inquiry conducted separately by a legisla­tive committee, a special grand jury, and the ethical conduct committee of the supreme court.

Highlighting the climax was the introduction of Voiceprints that provided an ending differing from public opinion and a jury verdict that few had foreseen.

The provocative speaker was William J. Brennan III, a son of a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

At the start of the meeting Brennan launched at once into startling charges of extortion and corruption in the state legislature. Asserting boldly that certain of its members were “too comfortable” with leaders of organized crime, he pointed an accusing finger at a prominent legislator, declaring that he and

two influential lawyers had taken part in an unsavory out-of-court settlement of an extortion case. Even participation of Mafia characters in state affairs did not escape his mention.

Scarcely had the meeting ended when word reached the newspapers, and reporters began delving into what had been dubbed “the loan shark case,” an issue between a businessman heavily in debt and a money lender that had been dropped abruptly when the merchant refused to testify before the grand jury regarding a menacing death threat for which he previously had blamed the other. The threat, he had charged, followed his sudden refusal to continue making allegedly usurious payments on two loans. Although Brennan did not say so at the time, he implied that the debtor had been “bought off.”

The explosive address, given before the New Jersey Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, took place on an evening in mid-December, 1968, and though much time has passed, it continues to be a subject of reflective discussion and marks a significant victory for Kersta’s Voiceprints.

The startling repercussions from the lawyer’s speech far transcended the importance of the specific case, no doubt because public opinion had turned sharply against loan sharks in the wake of exposes in which some of their victims, although brutally beaten, had refused to press charges for fear of reprisals.

The principals in the case referred to by Brennan were virtually unknown outside of their own little circles. Yet, when finis was finally written to the scandal, three prominent lawyers, one of them a member of the state legislature, and another a legal official of his community, faced suspension from profes­sional practice. Others scurried for cover and two disappeared.

The little-known principals in the early legal controversy were John DiGilio, a thirty-nine-year-old former professional boxer, of Jersey City, who had also been a boatman aboard a tug; and Julius Pereria Jr., chairman of the Middlesex County Young Democrats, who operated the DuRite Car Wash in Woodbridge, a sprawling town in the metropolitan area that has grown to more than 100,000 since World War II.

Because of the many ramifications developing in rapid-fire succession following Brennan’s speech, the story can best be told

chronologically, disclosing how one development led to another.

Only a short time after the fraternity meeting and its exciting disclosures, Edward J. Dolan, prosecutor for Middlesex County in New Jersey, sat behind closed doors with a hastily summoned investigating committee of the legislature, relating what he had learned about the manner in which a grand jury inquiry into Pereria’s accusations against DiGilio had ended some time before.

He explained that Pereria had borrowed $ i,000 on two occasions—the first in 1966, the second a year later—from DiGilio, a heavily built man five feet eight inches tall, agreeing to pay $5o a week interest until he would be able to repay the principal. Despite business reverses the borrower had continued the weekly payments until he had paid a total of $7,400. Then, deciding that he already had paid far too much, he informed DiGilio that there would be no more checks. The other flew into a rage and walked away.

Not long afterward, according to Dolan’s recital, Pereria had received a telephone call at his place of business from a man who said, “I’ll come down there and chop your . . . head off.”

Badly frightened, Pereria went to the police insisting that the voice was that of DiGilio, which he said he recognized by a peculiar raspy note that contrasted with a rather high tone. It was then August, 1968.

Charges were preferred against DiGilio, but when the case was called before Judge Samuel Sladkus in Woodbridge Munici­pal Court the plaintiff flatly refused to testify. The matter was turned over to the grand jury and again Pereria remained silent. The grand jury, finding its hands tied, returned a “no bill,” which meant that the matter was ended.

Dolan, in reporting these facts, asserted that he knew there had been an out-of-court settlement; in other words the accuser had been “paid off.” He promised to provide further details at a later time or at the conclusion of a grand jury hearing that already had been started.

With two separate inquiries under way, Dolan pressed hard for grand jury action. Pereria was summoned and this time he was ready to talk. He told of the threats which he swore had

come from DiGilio, adding that three mobsters sent to his car wash business by DiGilio had broken in and damaged it.

The result was an indictment accusing both DiGilio and an associate, fifty-eight-year-old Gerald Grimaldi, of conspiracy in threats and extortion against Pereria. Grimaldi, it was alleged, had introduced the other two; he also had been identified as one of the trio at the car wash.

What Pereria had to tell about the settlement that previously had silenced him became one of many sensations at the trial of DiGilio, which opened on February 4, 1970, in New Brunswick, the county seat of Middlesex.

Its setting was a study in sharp contrasts. While the nature of the case was grim and forbidding, it was to be aired in a colorful, modernly furnished courtroom on the third floor of the relatively new county courthouse, a five-story structure overlook­ing a century-old county jail.

Judge John B. Melineux, who was to preside, had earlier ordered separate trials for the two defendants, since Grimaldi had suffered a severe heart attack. It was the first of many delays.

Even before questioning of prospective jurors began, Voiceprints became the subject of bitter argument. Defense Attorney Michael Querques had moved for permission to have Lawrence Kersta compare a tape of DiGilio’s voice with a recording made by Pereria at his business place when he received the threatening phone call. His request met with heated opposition from J. Norris Harding, the assistant prosecutor, who accused his opponent of “trying to shift the burden of the defense to the state.”

The court reserved judgment, at the same time ordering a day’s postponement to allow counsel to go to Grand Bahama Island, where the defense claimed it would establish that DiGilio was with others at the time of the phone threat and that no call had gone from the island to New Jersey on that day.

The defendant’s contention was fully verified. DiGilio had scored his first important point.

With resumption of the trial, Voiceprints again became a controversial issue. The court, first having refused to order the state to give the defense recordings of the threatening message,

later relented but reserved the right to bar such evidence. This was based on the fact that the state’s high court had not yet ruled on this new type of evidence.

No sooner had this been disposed of than other delays became necessary. During an afternoon recess DiGilio had fallen overboard from a tug, sustaining painful injuries. There was a squabble over the long postponement demanded by the defense, and the court finally agreed on a two-day recess which later was extended after the defendant was hurt again in an automobile crash.

After still further postponements DiGilio finally returned to court on February 24, and in a short time a jury of seven men and an equal number of women was impaneled.

Harding, the prosecutor, in his opening statement, re­viewed the details of the loan transaction, explaining that Pereria had met the defendant through the latter’s friend, Grimaldi, then owner of a Woodbridge paint store. He went still further, and for the first time details of the cash settlement that sealed the accuser’s lips went officially into the record.

Harding told the jury that Attorney David Friedland, a member of the State Assembly and its minority leader, had represented DiGilio in negotiating the settlement with Pereria’s lawyer, Norman Robbins, law director of Woodbridge Town­ship. Through their agreement, the prosecutor stated, DiGilio had paid S6,500 to his creditor and the matter was considered closed.

DIGllio’s attorney, Querques, was on his feet interrupting. He implied that the money had been paid by the lender in good faith “for his own peace of mind” and because he did not wish to worry his pregnant wife.

After the prosecutor had concluded, Pereria was called to the stand as the state’s key witness. Obviously nervous, he related the details of the loan and his difficulty in meeting the weekly payments. “I knew it was shy money,” he testified. “I knew the general procedures. If you don’t pay, you end up with threats or wind up with your head busted.” He even related a conversation with Grimaldi when they discussed the possibility of having the car wash set afire for the insurance.

A titter ran through the courtroom when the witness testified that the New Jersey police “wired me for sound,” referring to a microphone that detectives had secreted in his clothing to obtain recordings of his conversations with Grimaldi, who often reminded him of the dire consequences that might follow his refusal to continue payments.

These tapes, liberally laced with four-letter words, were later read in open court. Spectators had a field day.

Soon afterward the much-talked-of pay-back by DiGilio to Pereria at last became a part of the official court record. The details were disclosed by Assemblyman Friedland, a young man .with thick brown hair and long sideburns, who appeared in an Edwardian gray suit, eager to tell what he knew. With him, as a corroborating witness, was Robbins.

After picturing DiGilio as a troubled man, whose pregnant wife had undergone spinal surgery, Friedland stated that the defendant had paid $6,500 to Pereria, following arrangements that he said had been concluded on the floor of the legislature after a series of conferences in which Pereria’s demand for a larger sum was finally reduced to the accepted figure. The witness admitted that he had told DiGilio of the possible danger of a civil suit over charges of usury, although others had assured him that he was certain of acquittal on the pending accusations.

In closing, the defense lawyer insisted that his client was innocent of any wrongdoing and had agreed to the payment rather than endure the strain of a trial because of his wife’s illness.

Robbins followed him to the stand with his own version of the money transaction. He said that he had received $1,000 for his services.

During cross-examination of the two lawyer-witnesses strange names flitted in and out of the testimony. There was mention of “The Moose,” of “John the Greek,” and others, but their real identities were not disclosed, though their sobriquets added interest to the courtroom drama.

The defense scored heavily when it opened its case on the morning of March 5. As had been expected, its first witness, Nicholas Vaccaro, testified that he had been with DiGilio and the latter’s wife on a four-day gambling junket to Grand Bahama Island off the Florida coast and that they were all together there on the day that the defendant was accused of making the threatening call to New Jersey. To prove his story, he showed the jury photographs of the party at the island casino.

Then, on the following day, came the dramatic climax of the trial—Voiceprint evidence. While it had been rumored that the defense had “something scientific up its sleeve,” the appearance of Dr. Tosi came as a complete surprise. Word that something unusual was to happen resulted in a packed court­room.

“Who’s he?” one spectator asked another as the bearded professor, responding to his name, walked briskly to the witness chair.

“The Voiceprint man,” someone whispered; and another, catching the words, followed with: “Voiceprints, what’s that?” They were soon to know.

After Tosi had been sworn and asked about his qualifica­tions, he related that he had received the tape recordings from the defense and had compared the spectograms produced from them.

“Now, Dr. Tosi, what are your conclusions?” asked Attorney Querques in DiGilio’s behalf.

Tosi’s reply caused an excited stir among the spectators. Testifying under oath, he declared that the voices were not the same—in other words, Voiceprints had established that DiGilio was not the man who made the death threats against Pereria.

To further emphasize the impact of the expert’s judgment, defense counsel asked the court’s permission to provide a demonstration. DiGilio read aloud from a transcript of one conversation, playing the role of the extortioner; Detective Captain Silvio Donatelli took Pereria’s part. When they had finished Dr. Tosi looked at the judge repeating what he had said before: “The two voices belong to two different persons.”

To support the Michigan scientist, the defense called a second expert, Dr. Louis J. Gerstman, a psychology professor and speech researcher from New York University, who also had studied the tapes.

“The same voice,” he declared, “could not possibly have made the two recordings. I am certain that these are the voices of two different people.” DiGilio, he went on to explain, “is a tenor while the man who called Pereria had a considerably lower voice.

The defense now had dealt telling blows to the state’s case, but it still had not finished. “And now,” Attorney Querques will

announced, “we             hear from the expert who invented Voiceprints. Mr. Kersta, will you please come forward?”

Necks were craned as the tall, lanky engineer with a gray Van Dyke, walked rapidly down the aisle. He was first asked by the judge, as had been inquired of the others, whether his testimony would support the defense, for New Jersey was not yet ready to admit such evidence by the prosecution. After assuring the judge that he was appearing in the defendant’s behalf, he proceeded with the usual self-qualifying statements. Then, laying a foundation for the all-important question he was expecting, Kersta told how he had made spectograms of the recordings and had compared them.

“And just what did you find?” the lawyer pressed.

“The unknown voice was not the voice of Mr. DiGilio,” he replied.

Under cross-examination he did not conceal his anger when Harding, the prosecutor, tried to confuse him with a question. Having personally been to the New Jersey laboratory with a detective, Harding had come away with seven spectograms and now he asked the witness how many voices they represented.

Kersta bristled. “I will not jeopardize a scientific tech­nique,” he retorted, “by attempting to read these graphs while I’m on the witness stand. I don’t perform before an audience.”

The question went unanswered.

The jury was informed that each of the experts had reached his conclusion by slightly different methods of comparisons.

The climax of the trial was over, but the defense still had more to say. It called Grimaldi, awaiting trial on similar charges, and he added more confusion to the already complicated case. His version was that actually the loans had been made by him

rather than by DiGilio; that therefore the defendant would have had no reason to threaten Pereria.

DiGilio’s appearance on the stand as his own witness marked the approaching end of the trial. He denied making the threatening call or ever having loaned money to his accuser. Asked why, then, he had agreed to a $6,500 payment to Pereria, he answered, “I was buying peace of mind.” It was his way of explaining that he feared his wife would suffer a breakdown if he were compelled to face a jury trial. “She was crying all the time,” he told the jury. “She was driving me crazy.” And, recalling his arrest, he added: “I’m sitting in the jail won­dering what I done. After a while a detective told me of the charges and I told him ‘Impossible—you picked the wrong guy.

Harding in cross-examination drew a few laughs as he pressed the witness for some explanation as to why Pereria had singled him out for an allegedly false accusation. DiGilio thought for a moment before replying: “This guy took a million-to-one shot and picked me.”

“Picked you out of a hat?” the prosecutor inquired, smiling. “I don’t know,” he answered, “but I’m here.”

Mrs. Ellen DiGilio, following her husband to the stand, did her best to corroborate his explanation of why he agreed to a cash settlement to stay prosecution. She referred to her highly nervous condition over his troubles, adding that they both were afraid that their child might be born dead, as her doctor had feared. She also disclosed that her husband’s income from two jobs had totaled $27,728 the previous year, a point that neither side chose to pursue.

Near the close of its case the defense scored again through the testimony of other witnesses who said that they had been gambling with DiGilio and his wife on Grand Bahama Island on the day of the threatening call to Pereria.

Harding’s rebuttal for the state was brief, but some courtroom attendants believed it indicated his fear of the Voiceprint testimony in the defense’s behalf. Again referring to his visit to Kersta’s laboratory, he related that he had been given a few spectograms to illustrate the method; then in derisive tones he told the court that “one looks like a mountain and the other like a tree.” It was obvious that he was trying to discredit the testimony of Kersta and his colleagues.

Closing arguments provided an interesting study in forensic styles. Querques, at times highly emotional, painted a touching word picture of DiGilio and his wife, suffering mental anguish as they awaited the birth of their child. He emphasized the findings of the Voiceprint experts who had testified for the defense, stressing his claim that a man proved innocent by science had been brought to trial. Sometimes there were tears in his eyes; occasionally he shouted to impress the jury. Now and then he lowered his voice to a whisper.

Harding, on the other hand, spoke calmly and with no emotion. In his direct fashion he reviewed the state’s case, attempting to .-place DiGilio in the center of a web of incriminating evidence and he branded Querques’ plea for sympathy as “one grand hoax.”

Judge Melineux gave his instructions and the jurors retired. It was March 12, 1970, a few days less than two years after Brennan’s sensational speech. Taking of testimony had con­sumed ten and a half days.

Speculation was rife over the outcome, though many left the courtroom expecting long deliberations. Some believed that the Voiceprint evidence had clinched the case for the defense; others questioned whether “the new-fangled machine,” as they called it, would influence the jury. And there were those who believed that it would be impossible to reach a verdict in view of the complicated and conflicting evidence involved. At best the result appeared to be anybody’s guess, yet no one had imagined the speed with which DiGilio’s fate would be deter­mined.

The clock showed the passage of only seventy minutes since the jurors had retired when there came a knock on the jury-room door. Judge Melineux was hastily summoned, court was convened, and the bailiff rapped for order.

DiGilio, in a chair beside his lawyer, sat rigidly as the usual formalities received necessary attention. Not far away his accuser, Pereria, flanked the prosecutor at the state’s table.

The jurors were escorted back to the box, their faces immobile, with no indication of their decision. The foreman rose and at the court’s request read the writing on the slip of paper in his hand.

As he spoke the words “not guilty,” applause broke out among those remaining in the courtroom. DiGilio’s face beamed as he moved toward his wife, whose tears stained her makeup. They walked outside arm in arm and to newsmen DiGilio declared: “I feel twenty years younger. I was never this nervous before a fight.” Then he asked his wife to phone his mother. “I’m even too nervous to do that,” said the former boxer.

Later in the day Kersta and his associates received the news. They were gratified that the jury had accepted their interpretation of Voiceprint evidence.

However, the old scandal that Brennan had exposed long before had not yet reached a final conclusion. During the progress of the trial a special legislative committee had con­ducted an intensive inquiry to determine whether the three prominent lawyers involved in DiGilio’s repayment of borrowed money and interest to Pereria were guilty of unethical conduct. At its conclusion the New Jersey Supreme Court directed that the trio be summoned to a hearing in their own defense.

When this was over the high court ordered the three men suspended from practice—Friedland and Robbins for six months each; Querques for three months.

There now remained only the case of Gerald Grimaldi, once DiGilio’s co-defendant, his trial having been separated from the other because of illness. Though it had been intended to begin his trial with as little delay as possible, more technicalities were raised; then Grimaldi became sick again.

The matter dragged on for more than a year until July, 1972, when Grimaldi suddenly waived trial and pleaded guilty to taking part in a conspiracy to threaten Pereria. He was sentenced to serve from one to two years in New Jersey state prison and fined $1,000 by Superior Court Judge Charles M. Morris, Jr. It was an ironic turn in the long-lingering case that would have been dropped and forgotten but for Attorney Brennan’s speech to a fraternity more than three years before.

The identity of the man who actually threatened Pereria over the telephone still remains a mystery that Voiceprints cannot solve.

Cornelius Gallagher accused of being the tool of Bayonne Cosa Nostra Capo Joe Zicarelli

May 13th, 2010

From New York Magazine, February 17, 1969

By Peter Maas

. . .

Less inspiring was the swearing-in of the latest Congress.  Among those seated without a murmur of dissent was Representative Cornelius Gallagher from Bayonne, New Jersey, just across the river, who was the subject of several articles in Life magazine last summer and fall.  Life’s time of investigative reporters may be the best ever in the history of American Journalism, and it didn’t kid around with Gallagher.  He was directly accused of being the “tool and collaborator of a Cosa Nostra gang lord“ in Bayonne named Joe Zicarelli and was specifically tied into the promotion of an illicit cancer drug, in the disposal of the body of a local loan shark, in underworld activities in the Dominican Republic and in the great salad oil swindle which made headlines a few years back.

Gallagher, running for re-election, made all kinds of noises about suing Life, but then disappeared when his opponent, a nice Republican lady who reminded you of Spring Bylington, was obviously making little headway against him.  In this Gallagher was helped no end by the editorial page of the New York Times.  You have to wonder if the editorial page reads the rest of the paper.  It nearly went out of its skull over the fitness of Spiro Agnew because of conflict-of-interest charges, even though a Times reporter could not come up with anything substantial.  At the same time another Times correspondent flatly reported that in 1964, was Gallagher was being mentioned as a possible running mate for Lyndon Johnson, the FBI warned the White House that he had close connections with the underworld.  What did the editorial Page do?  It warmly endorsed Gallagher for another term in Congress.

Life says it would love to have libel action from Gallagher, but he has shown little inclination for this.  He would, of course, have to testify under oath; perhaps that is something he doesn’t want to do.

# # #

From New York Magazine, March 10, 1969

Gallagher Defended

Even “less inspiring” than Life magazine’s unjustifiable and unsubstantiated assault on Congressman Cornelius E. Gallagher is Peter Maas’s rehash of same in “Balky Justice” [Feb 17].

Maas implies rather strongly that the reason Congressman Gallagher has not yet commenced a libel suit against Life is because  the Congressman does not wish to testify under oath.  The fact is, however, that in July, 1968, (before publication of the Life article), Gallagher wrote to the Prosecutor of Hudson County, New Jersey demanding a Grand Jury investigation into certain Life allegations, and offering not only to testify under oath, but to waive any Congressional immunity he might have in so doing.  This action by Gallagher was widely reported.

The real factor that precludes public officials from having any decent chance to recover on a libel suit is found in the law of the land as announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan (1964).  Many law journal articles have discussed this point, and Mr. Maas would do well to consult them before making gratuitous judgments.  These commentaries on the libel law vis-à-vis public officials indicate that the most accurate statement in Maas’ piece is that “Life says it would love to have a libel action from Gallagher.”  Similarly, I trust the New York Jets would love to play a Super-Bowl game against Columbia University.

There are many misstatements in Maas’ article, but lack of space prohibits their documentation herein (one years, however, for the chance to answer Maas in toto).  Let me suggest in closing that Mr. Maas’ dissatisfaction with events such as the Times’ editorial endorsement of Gallagher in November springs more from his deep immersion in the current spurt of Mafiaism than from his deep concern for the facts.  One wonders if it is merely coincidental that the senior member of the Life investigative team that Maas termed as perhaps “the best ever in the history of American journalism” (Mr. R. Sackett) tosses similar accolades at Mr. Maas in a recent review of The Valachi Papers published by Life in recent weeks.

It is not a prudent venture to follow Alice through the looking glass unless one realizes the fantasy to be found inside.  To proceed without this realization is “balky” journalistic justice at best.

Mark A. Belnick
Special Ass’t to Cong.
Cornelius E. Gallagher

The Author Replies

It is true that Gallagher asked for a Hudson County Grand Jury investigation into certain “Life” allegations.  It is also true, as luck would have it, that the statute of limitations has run out on these allegations, which left the Grand Jury powerless to do anything about them.  This is the only probe into “Life’s” charges that Gallagher has demanded.  Thus Gallagher has yet to appear under oath anywhere regarding these allegations.

When the “Life” articles were first published, Gallagher repeatedly emphasized their malicious nature.  Malice is recoverable in the Supreme Court decision cited above.  As Gallagher’s hometown paper, the Bayonne “Times,” noted last August, the “best method for proving the falseness of the article would be a libel suit,” adding that it was past time for Gallagher to start “disproving” the magazines charges.

As for my “deep immersion in the current spurt of Mafiaism,” I don’t quite know what is meant by “current.”  I have been writing about Mafia or Cosa Nostra activities since 1963.

It is true that “Life” gave my book, “The Valachi Papers,” an excellent review.  So did among other publications, “The New York Times Book Review,” “Newsweek” and the “Wall Street Journal.”  What does Gallagher’s office make of this” – P.M.

The only organization he could have been referring to is the Hudson County Democratic Organization.

May 9th, 2010

“The organization wants 5% of the total construction cost.”

From the NJ SCI 1971 report

INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

POINT BREEZE AREA OF JERSEY CITY

The Commission in the spring of 1971 received a complaint alleging irregularities in the development of the Point Breeze area of Jersey City. The area is valuable Hudson River waterfront property, and a private developer, the Port Jersey Corporation, was trying to bring to completion its bold and praiseworthy plan for turning the area into a modern containership port with an adjacent industrial park.

An initial investigation by the Commission’s staff not only indicated substance to the irregularities allegation, but also convinced the commissioners that a further probe could bring to public light a clear and informative example of improper, questionable and wasteful procedures in a vital development project dependent for success on the actions ‘Of a municipal government.

Accordingly, the Commission authorized a full field investigation with subsequent private hearings. Public hearings were held October 27 and

Reclamation and development of municipally governed lands throughout the state are of vital concern to the taxpaying public of New Jersey. Without proper safeguards, it is all too possible for improper procedures to be employed with resulting misuse of public and private funds and gross misuse of public trust.

Employment of improper procedures also can inhibit the attraction of private capital and expertise to realize the full potential of valuable lands in the best interest of the state as a whole and of the municipalities in which the lands lie.

We believe the results of this investigation and these hearings point the way toward areas of study and action that could increase the safeguards and close loopholes, all in the interest of spurring proper

and productive reclamation of valuable lands through development and redevelopment projects.

The Commission’s recommendations for possible areas Of study and action at the state level are given in detail in this report. The recommendations are the result Of extensive analysis and thought by the Commission and its staff, and the Commission believes they are worthy ‘Of in-depth consideration.

The Port Jersey Corporation plan for a private development Of Point Breeze as a modern containers-ship port and an associated industrial park is strongly favored by the Commission. All these involved in the investigation were unanimous in finding that plan to be a necessary and excellent development project for the Jersey City area and the state as a whole.

28 in the State Senate Chamber. Chairman McCarthy at that time summarized the intent and results of the Point Breeze probe with these remarks: It’s the Commission’s hope that the clearing of the air by public hearings has aided .in the achievement of completion of that project.

THE DEVELOPER’S DREAM

The availability of the property along the Jersey City waterfront known as Point Breeze was initially brought to’ the attention of Arthur L. Abrams, a Newark attorney who’ represented Construction Aggregates Corporation in New Jersey, by Clinton B. Snyder, a real estate broker from Jersey City.

Mr. Abrams

in turn contacted Ezra Sensibar, president of Construction Aggregate-s Corporation, who’ visited the site and conceived the idea ‘Of a containership port which would surpass any services then being Offered to Ocean going vessels by the city of New York. These three men formed a corporation known as

E.S.C.A. Corporation, later to be named Port Jersey Corporation, for the sole purpose of bidding on the property. On August 1, 1967 at a

public auction, the city accepted a $2,040,000 bid by E.S.C.A. for approximately 223 acres of its waterfront area.

THE COMMISSION OF

$102,000 IS PAID

Statute N.J.S.A. 40 :60–26 states that any municipality may pay a commission of not more than 5 per cent to any real estate broker or other person

However, in this instance a commission of $102,000 was paid by the city to the C. B. Snyder Realty Company, which was controlled by C.

The sum of $51,000 was paid to Mr. Abrams, himself a 25 per cent shareholder in the purchasing corporation. Mr. Abrams, in turn, deposited this amount in the trusteeship account which he kept in the name of the purchasing corporation and from which he paid its bills. In effect then, one half of the commission found its way into the hands of the actual buyer.

The remaining half was distributed by C. B. Snyder to himself and various people in his employ. One such person was Gerard Kelly, who joined Snyder’s company two months after the purchase. Prior to that, he had been the executive director to the Area Development Council and as such, had the prime responsibility for soliciting developers for the Point Breeze area.

Since the public hearings exposing the improperly paid commission, the City of Jersey City has demanded the return of the $102,000 commission from the Snyder firm. The city has said it will go to court, if necessary, to get the money returned to the City’s treasury.

other than the purchaser actually consummating the sale. B. Snyder personally. At this time, Mr. Snyder held a 25 per cent interest in the purchasing entity (E.S.C.A. Corporation). Mr. Snyder distributed this commission in the following manner: ASSURANCES ARE SOUGHT

Immediately after the auction, Ezra Sensibar sought a meeting with John V. Kenny, the Hudson County Democratic leader, to settle from the beginning whether the Port Jersey group would be able to proceed without further demands by city or county officials and with the active cooperation of the municipality. On August 16, 1967, this meeting was held at Bernard Kenny’s office, the architectural firm of Comparetto and Kenny, and included Ezra Sensibar, John V. Kenny and Clinton B. Snyder.

Ezra .Sensibar, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

A. After we were the successful bidder on the property I began to think about the implications of what Mr. Snyder had told me, that the Kislak Organization seemed to .him to be the preferred buyer as far as the city was concerned, and I thought that we ought to find out whether we would be treated fairly, whether we would get reasonable cooperation or whether we would be treated with hostility.

Q.

And what steps did you take to find those things out?

A. I asked Mr. Snyder to arrange a meeting for

me with Mr. J. V. Kenny. Q.

And did he do this?

A. Yes, he did that, and we met on August 16th.

Q.

When you say “we,” who are you referring to?

A. Mr.

J. V. Kenny and I.

Q.

Where was this meeting?

A.

It was in the office of Mr. Bernard Kenny.

Q.

And that would be the architectural firm of Kenny, of

Comparetto? A. That’s right. I should mention that Mr. Snyder was at this meeting.

Q.

And this meeting actually took place in the private office of Mr. Bernard Kenny. Is that right?

A.

It did, yes.

Q.

Can you tell us, to the best of your recollection, what the conversation was at this particular meeting.~

A. At the start of the meeting Mr. Bernard Kenny introduced us and then left the room. I said-I explained to Mr.

,ground of our company, of Construction Aggregates Corporation. I explained to him of interest in this project; that it was not to any great degree in the industrial park portion.

I must say that the property at that time consisted of a garbage dump of about sixty acres surrounded by ten or fifteen acres of marshland. The rest of the two hundred thirty-five acres that we had bid on was land under water covered by’ anywhere from eight to twenty feet of water.

I pointed out to Mr. Kenny that we had very little interest in the shoreward end of it, that we intended to remove the garbage dump and convert the area into an industrial park which would cover something like a hundred acres but that our real interest was in the outward end, in the land that was under water, which we could fill by methods that are historical with our company, which formed the basis of our business, and that we had the dream of converting that into a major container port. I explained to him what that meant, what that should mean to Jersey City and the area in terms of investment and employment.

J. V. Kenny in some detail the back

Q.

And did you say anything else to Mr. Kenny?

A. I told him that we would need many forms of cooperation from the city in order to make this possible. I told him that I had been told by our people that this project had been set up for the Kislak people and that we might be-1 feared we might be regarded as intruders. I said that what we wanted was the ordinary treatment that a businessman and developer is entitled to and I wanted to be sure that we would get it, and I asked him to level with me.

]1 said at that time we had only $50,000 invested in this project and if he felt that we were not going to be treated correctly and given the full cooperation we were entitled to, we would rather leave our $50,000 and go away rather than continue.

Q.

And by “cooperation”, did you also mean that you wanted to be free from all demands that anyone might make upon you as a price for this cooperation?

A. That’s right. I said to him that I wanted to be sure that we would get the cooperation that we were entitled to and that nobody would have his hand out; that we wouldn’t be harassed.

Q.

And what was Mr. Kenny’s reply?

A. Mr. Kenny said that as far as Kislak was concerned they owed him nothing, that they had done enough for him already. He said that the explanation that I made about our intentions in the project was the best thing he had heard, the first spark of development on the waterfront and that he thought that we were doing a great deal more for Jersey City than they could do for us. He said that he would guarantee every form of cooperation

by the city, and they wanted us there. And he said that if any son-of-a-bitch asked for money, to come to him and we would take care of him.

THE PROJECT NEEDED TAX ABATEMENT

The marine nature of the development placed it directly in Competition with the Port of New York Authority, an agency enjoying a substantial tax advantage. This together with the soaring .Jersey City tax rate made Some tax reduction a necessity.

Mr. Sensibar testified:

Q.

Was it also apparent at. this. time that you needed the city’s help ·in the tax structure of the project itself?

A. Yes, because this project, the. marine end of this project in order to be successful had

to compete with the Port Authority. It was extremely essential

to’ the project to have favorable tax treatment. Q.

Now, what do you mean, competition with the Port Authority? Could you explain to the Commission?

A. Yes. The Port of New York Authority operation particularly in Newark and in Elizabeth is, of course, the main marine terminal in the port. They have two advantages over any private developer. The first is that they pay no taxes and in lieu of taxes pay a nominal amount. The second is that they can· finance themselves with tax-exempt securities, which means that even today they can borrow money at five and a half or six per cent, whereas we ‘,re paying ten and a half per cent for our money.

Now, these two advantages make it extremely difficult for any private operator

to develop port facilities, and the only chance that a private operator has is to have the advantages offered· by the Fox-Lance treatment in respect to future taxes. Now this is not on the land, but on the buildings, ‘on the improvements that are put on the land.

Q.

Were you aware of the high tax rate which Jersey City had prior to your purchasing the property?

A. Was I aware of it

Q.

Yes.

A. No, sir.

Q.

This was a stumbling block, then, that you bec.ame aware of after,’ you had purchased the property?

A. That is correct. A stable tax rate was also necessary to attract shipping clients who had

vo project their own charges over a number of years. Mr. Sensibar further testified: Q.

Was one of your problems also trying to attract clients into your project?

A. Yes, indeed. And, of course, the problem of the taxes always came up. Our rental offers or net offers, in other words, the client who rents the property has to pay rental to us and he has to pay the taxes. And, so’, of Course a basic consideration in making these deals and attracting any client is his assurance of what the tax rate will be in the future.

PRESSURE FOR A PAYOFF

In the spring of 1968 the Port Jersey Corporation began to experience great difficulties in securing the cooperation of the municipality regarding the providing of access roads, sewage and water connections and ‘other sundry items. In addition, these private developers were confronted with a snarl of red tape on the municipal, state and federal levels when they attempted to solve the many title problems which these coastal lands raised. On November 21, 1968 the closing of title was finally consummated, and cleaning, filling and construction was commenced in January of 1969.

Between January and February of 1969, Mr. Sensibar received constant complaints from Port Jersey’s men on the site that the city was doing nothing towards those items of cooperation already agreed upon. In February of 1969, at a meeting in the Downtown Club of Newark, Clinton Snyder and Arthur Abrams heard their architect, Bernard Kenny, deliver a message that, “the organization wants

Mr. Abrams, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

Ezra Sensibar, when told about the demand, requested Bernard Kenny to arrange a meeting with Thomas Flaherty, President of the Jersey City Council, at Sensibar’s hotel room in New York City. Mr. Sensibar testified:

5% of the total construction cost.” Q.

And at this time, Mr. Abrams, what was the anticipated cost of construction of the project, approximately?

A. Fifty, a hundred million dollars.

Q.

Over a hundred million dollars, wasn’t it, sir?

A. Well, at that time I’m not so sure.

I mean, now it looks big.

Q.

Well, did Mr. Kenny indicate to you who composed the organization; on whose behalf was he speaking?

A. No, he did not.

Q.

Well, did you ask him?

A.

I did not.

Q.

Did you ask him how it would be paid over?

A. He said it should be paid in cash. That’s what he said.

Q.

Did he suggest manners through which you could raise this type of cash or did he go into detail? No.

Q.

Did he say what was going to be done with the money? No.

Q.

Did he say that it could be turned over to him. personally for distribution to the, quote, organization, unquote?

A. No,

I don’t recall that. I don’t recall that.

Q.

You mean he simply said to you that” we want· five per cent”?

A. He said a lot of things. He didn’t say “we;” . he didn’t say “we.” He didn’t include himself. He

said, “the organization.”

Q.

He left himself out? Yes.

Q.

Do you know which organization he was referring to?

A. The only organization he could have been referring to is the Hudson County Democratic Organization. I don’t think I had to ask him any details about what he meant, and he didn’t think it was necessary to tell me.

Q.

Well, as a result of this meeting-~well,

incidentally, Mr. Abrams, did he indicate to you what, if anything would happen if this percentage. was not met? A. No, he didn’t threaten. He just indicated that difficulties-we would experience difficulties. He said that we might–if we didn’t want to pay it, that they would try to, and he would help complete the project independently, but it would be difficult.

Q.

after you received the complaints from your people on the job site did you also have a conversation in which Mr. Snyder told you that Bernie Kenny had indicated that you had better see someone? A. Yes. Mr. Snyder told me that he and Mr. Abrams had met with Mr. Kenny, Bernard Kenny, and they discussed this problem of non-cooperation at city hall and that Mr. Kenny said that it was essential that I should meet with Tom Flaherty.

Q.

Now, do you recall Mr. Snyder or MI”. Abrams telling You, where they had met with Mr. Bernard Kenny and discussed this?

A.

No, I do not.

Q.

All right. Did you make arrangements to meet with Mr. Flaherty?

A. Yes. I asked Mr. Bernard Kenny to

arrange a meeting with Mr. Flaherty.

Q.

Why did you ask Bernard Kenny to perform this?

A. Well, he was the local man in Jersey City and knew everybody.

Q.

Was

that one of the reasons that you hired him, that he had political contacts in Jersey City? A. Yes, one of our considerations in hiring his :firm was that they were well regarded, well connected locally.

Q.

Did Mr. Bernard Kenny manage to set up a meeting between you and Mr. Flaherty?

A. Yes. He set up a meeting which was held in my hotel room in New York and attended by Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Snyder.

Q.

Was Mr. Bernard Kenny there, also?

A. Sir1

Q.

Was Mr. Bernard Kenny there, also?

A. He was not.

Q.

Can we fix a time for this meeting with Mr. Flaherty?

A. Early February, I would say, middle February.

Q.

Of .969?

A. Yes, sir. Excuse me. Now, I think it might have been the end of January.

It was right up close to the 1st of February.

Q.

Will you tell the Commission as nearly as you can recollect how the conversation went at this particular meeting?

A. I told Mr. Flaherty that I was getting these complaints from our people about lack of cooperation. I told him of my original discussion with Mr. J. V. Kenny and the promise of cooperation.

Mr. Flaherty said, yes, he knew about that, but that the organization needed money and he thought that we should contribute three per cent of the value of our construction work.

Sensibar then asked Bernard Kenny to arrange for a second meeting with John V. Kenny to discuss Flaherty’s demand. Mr. Sensibar testified:

A. I continued, of course, to receive complaints from our people, and when I went back to Chicago and thought about this thing, the more I thought about it the more angry I became.

Q ..

Were you aware that previous to this Mr. Bernard Kenny had met with Mr. Abrams and Mr. Snyder in N e1va”k in the Downtown Club and there had told Mr. Abrams and Mr. Snyder that the organization was requesting five per cent of your total construction cost?

A. I was not aware of it.

Q.

As far as you can recollect, then, when Mr. Flaherty met with you”, in New York he was “eq1testing three per cent of Yo1tr total project?

A. That’s correct.

Q.

And what did you do when you were faced with this particular demand?

A. I told him that it was completely and utterly out of the question; that Mr.

He said it was-that he knew about that, but it was nevertheless necessary; and that he was the man appointed to collect funds for the organization; they had

I had told him that nevertheless we couldn’t pay it, and the meeting broke up on that note.

Kenny had promised us cooperation, promised us that we would be free of harassment; and that I intended to proceed on that basis. 1m expensive political campaign underway; they needed money; they had to look to the larger people like ourselves to make the contributions and that he couldn’t take no for an answer.

Q.

And what did you”, do?

A. I thought then that the thing to do was to go back to

J. V. Kenny, and I asked Mr. Bernie Kenny to set up an .appointment for me with Mr. Kenny. Q.

And did he set 11p an appointment for you with Mr. John V. Kenny?

A. Yes, he did, and I met with him a couple of weeks or so later.

Q.

Where did this meeting take place?

A. In Mr. Bernard Kenny’s office.

Q.

This would be, then, someti1ne in-

A. Early February, middle of February.

Q.

Of 1969?

A. Yes, sir.

Q.

Would you tell the Commission, as nearly as you can recollect, the conversation that took place at this particular meeting with Mr. John V. Kenny?

A. I told him of Mr, Flaherty’s demand. I reminded him of our initial discussion.

Mr.

J. V. Kenny said that he remembered it; he remembered our initial discussion, that he would stand by it. He said nevertheless that they did have an expensive campaign; that Mr. Flaherty was the man who was delegated to raise funds for the campaign, and that it would be appreciated if we would make a campaign contribution.

Q.

With the project still stalled by municipal delay and daily costs mounting, Sensibar asked Bernard Kenny to arrange another meeting with Thomas Flaherty on April 16, 1969, Mr, Sensibar testified:

A. By sometime in early April Mr. Snyder and Mr. Abrams and Mr. Kenny, Bernie Kenny, said that they were so stymied at city hall that they thought it was

necessary that I should have another meeting-with

Mr. Flaherty.

What did you say in reply to this, if anything?

A. I don’t recall that I made any answer at all. I think that the meeting ended on

that note.

Q.

N010, was there any change in your position as regards to your financial commitment into the project at this time?

A. By this time we had over $3,000,000 invested in this project and we were spending money every day on a grand scale.

Q.

Now, with your knowledge that your men on the scene were running into these drawbacks did yon, in fact, arrange for another meeting with Mr. Flaherty?

A. Yes,

I had another meeting-with him on April 16th.

Q.

And who arranged for that meeting?

A. Mr. Bernie Kenny.

Q.

Where did the meeting take place?

A. To the best of my recollection it was in his office.

Q.

And who was at that meeting besides Yourself and Mr. Flaherty?

A. No one else.

Q.

This time Mr. Snyder did not accompany yon?

A, No one accompanied me to that meeting’.

Q.

Would you tell the Commission, to the best of your recollection, what the conversation was at that meeting?

A. I complained to Mr. Flaherty that the matters were not moving-in city hall and he brought up again the matter of the campaign contribution. The campaign was then drawing to an end. This was April. I think the election was in May, or to be in May. He said that he particularly needed $140,000 to finance the balance of the campaign; that he had to

” I turned the conversation away from the question of any basis and tried to put in on a platform

go to a few large contributors to get the money. He said that Mr. Kenny had talked with him, Mr. J. V. Kenny had talked with him; that he was-he realized that the proposal that he had made to me before was unrealistic; that he was willing-to’ come down to a basis of one per cent of our building construction as a contribution. Of what he was was the minimum he needed right now. ‘We did a little talking about it. I suggested a campaign Contribution of $10,000. He said it was not enough and after considerable discussion raised it to $20,000. Q.

This as far as the meeting went, then, was probably merely

A. I don’t know his state of mind. I know my state of mind; that we had the shotgun to our heads at that time. We couldn’t go forward with this project. By this time we had 4 or $5,000,000 into it and I knew it would all go down the drain if we didn’t somehow make peace and get quick cooperation from city hall. I was disposed to make a campaig11 contribution of $20,000 to get that peace.

Q.

Now, did you dismiss with Mr. Flaherty how the money was to be paid?

A. Yes. I asked him what the mechanism was, to whom we should make out the check, and he said that in Hudson County you don’t make out checks. This would have to be paid in cash.

Q.

How did you arrange to generate this $20,000 in

cash

A. I had Mr. Abrams on behalf of Port Jersey send me a check for $20,000, which I had cashed in Chicago.

Q.

in Chicago?

Now, I show you what has been previously marked as Exhibit C-l-C-4, I’rn sorry, and I ask you if that is the check which Mr. Abrams did send to you

A.

It is; it is.

Q.

And did you have someone cash this check at a bank in Chicago and receive the currency?

A. I did.

Q.

Now, at every point in your discussions either with Mr. Kenny or with Mr. Flaherty were you advising your two partners, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Snyder, of what was taking place?

A. Yes. Shortly after my meeting with Mr. Flaherty on the 19th I consulted with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Abrams. They both said that it was unrealistic to expect that we could do as much construction. work, as much business as we were doing in Hudson County without acceding to a shakedown of some kind. They thought that $20,000 in the circumstances might be nominal and they urged that I should arrange for us to pay it.

Q.

Did these men warn you prior to your coming into this project in New Jersey that it would be unr

ealistic for you to complete construction withour having to pay something to someone? A. They did not. We didn’t discuss that subject.

Mr. Clinton

Q.

Now, after you received the $20,000 from Mr. Abrams in the form of this check and Y01′ cashed it on, I believe it was, April 23rcl-let me get that check -on April 23rd, 1969

how soon thereafter did you arrange to get the money in Mr. Flaherty’s hands? A. Within a few days after that at a meeting which we had in New York at one of the shipping lines in an effort to attract them to Port Jersey I met Mr. Snyder and handed him the $20,000 to deliver to Mr. Flaherty.

Q.

Did you give the $20,000 to MI’. Snyder in any sad of container or package, or was it just in cash?

A.

It was in an envelope in cash.

Q.

Did you instruct Mr. Snyder what to do with it or did he already know?

A. Well, he already knew, and I handed him the money and said, “This is the money for Flaherty,”

Q.

Do you know–1AJell, as for as you know, then, Mr. Snyder delivered that money to Mr. Flaherty?

A. I certainly believe he did.

B. Snyder was called to testify. However, upon being warned of his rights he gave the following response:

Q.

Mr. Snyder, did you participate in any payoff to any city official in Jersey City or Hudson County?

(Whereupon, the witness confers with counsel.)

A. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me.

WAS MONEY

PAID FOR TAX ABATEMENT? The testimony raised the question of whether money was paid for the granting of tax relief in addition to the $20,000 which Mr. Sensibar and Mr. Abrams said they paid for municipal “cooperation” in other areas. Mr. Edward Light, Sr., a former employee of

Mr. Edward Patterson, a witness of this conversation, also testified as to what he remembered was said:

M. Gerard Kelly denied making the statement at all:

C. B. Snyder Realty Company, testified that he participated in a conversation with Mr. Edward Patterson and M. Gerard Kelly regarding Port Jersey development:

Q.

Mr. Light, I

direct your attention to the month of August, 1969, and I ask you, sir, where were you employed at that time? A. At C. B. Snyder Realty in Jersey City.

Q.

And in what capacity were you employed?

A. As an industrial representative.

Q.

At that time, sir, was there also one M. Gerard Kelly employed on the premises of C.

B. Snyder? A. Yes.

Q.

And what were his responsibilities?

A. Gerry was responsible for the development of the Port Jersey facility as an industrial complex.

Q.

Were Y01t, sir, at this time also endeavoring to attract clients to the Port Jersey project?

A. Of course.

Q.

Were you having difficulties doing this?

A. Yes, for the reason that the development was not going forward as it properly should.

Q.

Well, at any time, sir, during the month of August, 1969,

did you go to Mr. Kelly and discuss this with him? A. Well, I didn’t personally. Together with Mr. Patterson, we interviewed Gerry Kelly after a Monday morning meeting with regard to what we could expect as far as the advancement of the development could be expected, and at that time he told us that it looked like a downhill pull from there on for the reason that the corporation had been able to secure a tax abatement of some $400,000.

It had cost $50,000 for the securing of the abatement, but he said it was well worth the Investment because now the building could go forward and all of the rest of the development could move.

Q.

Did he explain to Y01, what he meant by the payment of $50,000?

A. No, not exactly, just that $50,000 it had cost to get the abatement of the tax.

Q.

Mr. Paterson, were you during the month of August, 1969,

employed by the C. B. Snydel’ Organization Yes. Q.

And in what capacity, sir?

A. In the industrial department. I was a supervisor.

Q.

And you have this morning, sir, heard the testimony of M. Gerard Kelly, is that correct, sir’?

A. I have.

Q.

And have you also heard the testimony of Mr.. Edward Light?

A. I have.

Q.

Is Mr. Edward Light’s version of what transpired at this meeting an accurate representation of the conversation?

A. Yes, it is.

Q.

Is there anything you wish to add to it?

A. No, I think that was it in totality.

Q.

Mr. Kelly, did you ever’ make a statement referring to Port Jersey that it “cost us $50,000, for tax abatement, but it was well worth it”?

A. I don’t believe I ever said that statement.

THE BLIGHTED MIRACLE

When the Port Jersey group became the successful bidder on August 1, 1967, the mayor of Jersey City hailed their development idea as a “miracle” for the Jersey City waterfront. Soon thereafter this same group began to press the city for a tax abatement as a prerequisite to successful development. The law required that before property could be granted Fox-Lance treatment, it must be declared blighted and a development plan be formulated for its use.

Not all property can be blighted-only that land which satisfies one of five statutory conditions can be so designated. To this end the City planning board commissioned Alvin E. Gershen Associates to make a blight survey of the entire waterfront area. They recommended to the Planning Board that this entire area be declared blighted. After a public hearing, the Planning Board made the same recommendation to the City Council. The Council, however, designated only the property owned by the Port Jersey Corporation and an area belonging to the federal government known as Caven Point.

Mr. Alvin Gershen and his employee, Elwood Jarmer, were both duly sworn and testified as follows:

Q.

And one of the accounts that you had on a consultant basis was the Jersey City account. Is that correct?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes, sir.

Q.

You! were a consultant to them?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Our firm was, yes, sir.

Q.

And did you also aid Jersey City by sitting on what is

known as the Mayor’s Development Council? A. (By Mr. Gershen) I did, sir.

Q.

Was that part of your consulting duties?

A. (By Mr. Gershen)

It was.

Q.

In addition to that, were you commissioned by the city council to make a blight survey of the area known as the Jersey City waterfront?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) We were.

Q.

Did you make stl.ch a survey, or did your firm make such a survey in conjunction with the Jersey City Planning Board

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Our firm did.

Q.

And who actually did the field work?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Mr. Jarmer did the field work and wrote the report.

Q.

I show you what has been marked previously as C-6 for identification, which is

the Waterfront St1tdy Blight Report. A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes, sir.

Q.

Is that the blight report which you submitted in July of 1970 to the Jersey City Planning Board?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes, sir, to the division of planning.

*

* Q.

Did you know why you were asked to make such a survey?

A. (By Mr. Jarmer) To my knowledge the reason for the survey was to do a comprehensive study of the entire waterfront to determine if it were blighted and then to come up with a plan for the entire waterfront.

Q.

Well, do you know why Jersey City was interested at this point in determining whether this waterfront area was blighted?

A. (By Mr. Jarmer) The reason, to my knowledge, was to have a comprehensive development of the waterfront.

Q.

All right. If I may get back to Mr. Gershen. Mr. Gershen, did you learn later on that the Jersey City V01bncil had declared a portion of the waterfront area a blighted or renewal area?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes, I did.

Q.

And I believe this particular resolution or decision was made on September 15th, 1970. Is that correct?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) I would take that to be correct. I don’t have that information with me, but it would be about then.

Q.

Now, in your opinion as a planner is it in the best interests of the City of Jersey City in developing the property as a whole, in developing the waterfront as a whole, that they should single out only a small portion of that particular property and designate it as a blighted area? It is not. That’s in my judgment as a planner.

Q.

Now, is it possible in your judgment to designate only the area in blue which was owned by the Port Jersey Corporation under construction at that time as a blighted area?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Sir, I’m unclear as to precisely what your question is:

If you are saying would we recommend that the blue area at the bottom of that map, if that were the only area to be presented for a blight determination, would we recommend that it be blighted? .

Q.

Yes.

A. (By Mr. Gershen) At the time on the calendar it was blighted, the answer is no.

Q.

Now, Mr. Gershen, in your experience as a Planner have you

had occasion to counsel other m1tnicipalities in a law known as the Fox-Lance Law or the tax abatement statute? A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes, sir.

Q.

This particular statute, can you tell the Commission briefly what sort of benefit it gives to a developer who comes in and starts to redevelop an area?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) In general terms, under the Urban Renewal Corporations and Association Law, commonly referred to as Fox-Lance after two state senators, namely two state senators, permits a municipality to forgive a specific urban renewal corporation from the payment of taxes for a period of time, generally fifteen years, and to pay in lieu of taxes a percentage of either income or value to the municipality. This percentage obviously is somewhat less than what would be paid had full taxes been required.

Q.

Now, prior to such treatment it’s necessary that the municipality blight the area it’s dealing with. Is that correct?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) In our judgment that’s one of the conditions that must prevail, that the area be blighted.

Q.

Well, that

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes. I say, one of the statutories. ‘There are others, we feel.

Q.

Are there any others that must be met before you can designate an area as an area that should receive Fox-Lance treatment.?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) In our professional judgment, what’s required

in addition to the ‘blighting’ of an area is the adoption of an urban renewal plan in accordance, as the statute says, in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 17 (b) of Chapter 306 of the Laws of ’49. That citation is the :Redevelopment Agencies Law of 1949.

Q.

Well, in other words, what you are telling us is that an additional statutory requirement’ be/ore an area may receive tax abatement is that there be a plan for the development 0/ that area that qualified?

A. (By Mr. Gershen)

An additional qualification for the use of the Urban Renewal Corporations Act, because there are other acts under the statute, under our New Jersey statutes, which provide for tax abatement. Bo under this statute there is a requirement that there is blight, and in our judgment there is a requirement in addition to that that the conditions as recited in 40:550-17(b), which is the Redevelopment Agencies Law, must be present since 40 :55C-46 of the Fox-Lance Law requires it. I don’t mean to get that technical.

Q.

Let me ask. in your opinion do you feel that the statute requires that there be a redevelopment plan for an area before Fox-Lance may be applied to the

area?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) Yes, sir.

Q.

Do you know whether there was a redevelopment plan for the area known as port Jersey before FoxLance was applied to it?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) I do not know the answer to that. I know that we prepared, our firm prepared, a redevelopment or a land-use plan for the total area you see on that map.

Q.

When was that submitted to the City of Jersey City?

A. (By Mr. Gershen) It’s submitted in a report dated July, 1971, and that was submitted to the division of planning.

MR.

SAPIENZA: :Mr. Chairman, for the record, the city entered into a financial agreement with the Harbor Renewal Corporation on December 7, 1970, granting-that corporation Fox-Lance treatment.

Q.

Now, 1I1r. Gershen, let me ask you’ this: In your opinion havinp worked with Fox-Lance in other municipalities, is it possible to prant Fox-Lance treatment to an area 1uhich is under construction where construction has been commenced and a phase of it completed?

LABOR COOPERATION FOR A PRICE

Testimony revealed that the president of the International Longshoremen’s Association local for the Jersey City area was paid $3860 to “reimburse him for expenses” incurred on behalf of the Port Jersey Corporation.

Mr. Arthur Abrams testified:

Q. C-5 for identification is a check drawn on the trust account of Arthur Lawrence Abrams under date

of July 11, 1968,

in the amount of $3860, payable to Frank Murray. I show you that check, sir, and ask you whether you issued that. A. Yes.

Q.

Who, Mr. Abrams, is Frank Murray? He was then, and I don’t know whether he still is, he was then president of the Jersey City local of the ILA.

Q.

The Longshoremen’s local? That’s right.

Q.

For what purpose did you issue this check to Mr. Murray?

A. To reimburse him for expenses that he claimed he had on our behalf.

Q.

At whose direction did you issue that check to him? Mr. Sensibar.

Q.

Did you ever see a voucher submitted by Mr. Murray to explain what expenses he had incurred? No, there was no voucher submitted.

Q.

No voucher was submitted. Did You ever ask Mr. Murray what he did? No.

Q.

Did you ever ask Mr. Sensibar what he did for you, for the money?

A. Oh, Mr. Murray. The way you phrased the question, did

I ask ,him. Mr. Murray had been extremely helpful to us in terms of introducing us to potential shipping people. He had done a great deal of leg work on our behalf trying to interest people, not for unselfish reasons but for the fact that he wanted shipping companies to come to Jersey City.

Q.

Well, have You obtained any clients at all as a result at introductions you received through Frank Murray? No. Not through any brokers, either, so we had a lot

Q.

So he really didn’t do that much for you!?

A. Well, $3,800

worth, I don’t know. But he did. He did work for us. He did. He helped. Q.

Well, did he mail you a bill?

A. No.

Q.

Well, how did you arrive at the thirty-eight hundred-sixty-dollar figure?

A. That was his. That was what he asked for.

Q.

He said, “Give me $3,860″?

A. Exactly.

Q.

Well, did he offer to do anything for Port Jersey with regard to potential labor problems in exchange for that?

A. Yes. He indicated that it was related to a number of gangs that would potentially be required at Port Jersey and that he needed that sum to pay some expenses in connection with allocating these gangs to Port Jersey.

Q.

In other words, he had to pay expenses to allocating some of these gangs to Port Jersey?

A. That was what he said.

Q.

You are still active in the Port Jersey operation, aren’t you, sir?

A. Oh, yes.

Q.

And this check is dated July 11, 1968.

Today do you have an ILA local working Or! Y01,r project? A. I don’t know. I just don’t know. Maybe one of the warehouses has ILA labor. I don’t know. We don’t have any.

Q.

They are, in fact, Teamsters working in the 1varehouses, aren’t they?

A. I know they’re Teamsters. They may be ILA people, too.

Q.

You don’t know?

A. No, I don’t know. I don’t have anything to do with that. That’s tenants. We have no shipping facility in operation yet.

SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Possible formation, after appropriate study, of a new or revised unit of state government to plan and coordinate the development of valuable lands throughout the state and

2. The statutes should be changed

3. The Fax-Lance tax abatement statute and its effects in the past 10 years should be thoroughly studied and analyzed with the aim of making that statute a more effective tool for stopping urban decline.

4. The statute on brokerage fees paid far sales of public lands should be amended to bar more effectively any payment of those fees to purchasers of the land.

5. The state should have up-to-date and more effective criminal statutes on bribery and corruption.

to assist private developers in improving and realizing the full potential of those lands.

to’ require formulation of a municipal redevelopment plan in time for that plan to be adopted simultaneously with a declaration of blight. THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS IN DETAIL

1. Possible formation, after appropriate study, of a new or

revised unit of state government to plan and coordinate the development of val1wble lands throughout the state and to assist private developers in realizing the full potential of those lands.

to’ creation of any new or revised unit of state government, an exhaustive study should first be made of the various federal, state, county and local functions now pertaining to the development and redevelopment of lands, particularly urban lands. That study should pinpoint exactly what an enlarged state role can accomplish most effectively and efficiently, while still reserving to the municipalities the power to’ shape their own destinies. B.

Municipalities still would be empowered to make their own blight declarations. But, the investigation and findings by any proposed state office would, in effect, do much of the homework for the municipalities in determining the propriety and usefulness of blighted areas.

“What is envisioned by the Commission is a degree of statewide coordination of urban blight land redevelopment, with municipalities working in harmony rather than competition with the state which should have, at least, the power to review local decisions on development plans and on blighting.

C. Any proposed new state unit should be under statutory direction to be of all possible assistance to developers.

• Maintain an adequate and expert staff that will discuss freely and fully with a developer all problems and procedures involved in developing a certain area.

• ‘Find and execute, in cooperation with the developer, all possible ways of cutting red tape and delays in acquiring and getting clear title to lands. The proposed new office could be helpful in straightening out riparian land problems.

• In keeping a constant inventory of lands, the office should compile full data on municipal tax rates and any other fiscal factors affecting those lands as a way of aiding the developer in estimating the true costs that will be encountered in a project.

• Any proposed new office should make and maintain channels of communication with all federal, state, county and municipal agencies that could be involved in development and redevelopment projects so that a developer can be directed to specific agencies and people within those agencies.

• The office should keep a thorough and up-to-date file on all developers who might be interested in various types and aspects of development and redevelopment projects so that combinations or marriages of various developer interests and capabilities can be accomplished.

The Commission found that the Port Jersey Corporation was primarily interested in filling in a waterfront area and constructing a containership terminal. The corporation would have liked to enter the project jointly with another developer expert in industrial park projects. Port Jersey, however, didn’t find a partner and had to undertake on its own both the containership terminal and the adjacent industrial park project.

To determine which lands or areas should be declared blighted under the Blighted Areas Act to pave the way for redevelopment projects. . It is suggested the office could take the following steps as a minimum:

2. The statues should be changed to require formulation of a municipal redevelopment plan in time for that plan to be adopted simultaneously with a declaration of blight.

The existing statutory requirement is that a municipal redevelopment plan must be formed prior to granting Fox-Lance tax abatement to a project but not before the declaration of blight which paves the way for municipal redevelopment.

Logic and proper planning procedures would dictate that a municipal redevelopment plan should be carefully thought out and formulated before decisions are made on blighting areas. In the Port Jersey project, Jersey City never did formulate and adopt a redevelopment plan for its waterfront property until after the sale of its property, the declaration that a portion of it was blighted, and some tax relief was granted. Although the city planning board recommended blighting the entire waterfront area, the city council voted to blight only the Port Jersey area and the adjacent Caven Point area. That procedure was, to say the least, chaotic and, to say the most, possibly improper.

We urge the statutes he amended so that the Blighted Areas Act requires adoption of a municipal redevelopment plan contemporaneously with a declaration of blight and as a precedent to use of municipal power in dealing with a blighted area.

The redevelopment plan should, by statutory direction, be formed by the municipal planning· board. In cases where a municipality does not have that type of board, the plan could be formed by any new proposed State government unit.

3. The Fox-Lance tax abatement statute and its effects in the past

10 years should be thoroughly studied and analyzed with the aim of making that statute a more effective tool for stopping urban decline.

The Fox-Lance law is a method for attracting private capital to develop an area by assuring the private developer a stable tax base for 20 years from the signing of a development agreement or 15 years from completion of

During that time, the developer pays taxes on land but not on improvements on the land. In lieu of no tax on improvements, the developer pays

The Commission suggests any study of the Fox-Lance statute should delve into the questions ·of whether to continue to leave room to negotiate the abatement rate up to certain levels or whether a shift to more fixed, non-negotiable rate might be in order.

One principal problem raised by granting Fox-Lance abatement on too grand a scale is that the municipality involved in an effort to attract new industry indirectly places a higher tax burden ‘On other properties, and the higher taxes, in turn, tend to drive Existing industrial ratables and homeowners from the city.

The decision to grant tax abatement and realize less than full revenue on a project is rightfully placed with the mayor and governing body of a municipality because they are responsible for imposing taxes and balancing the municipal budget.

However, the Omission suggests as worthy ‘Of close study a suggestion that the Fox-Lance statute should be altered to permit any proposed new state government unit to grant property tax abatement to private developers but with a companion requirement that the state reimburse a municipality for the full difference between what a municipality would have gotten by fully taxing a project and what it actually got under state grant of tax abatement.

The Commission notes the possibility that the Fox-Lance law is unnecessarily confining and inflexible in not permitting tax abatement to be app1ied retroactively to existing improved properties. A city might want to keep valuable industry within its borders by giving some sort of tax break. However, under the present statute, tax abatement can be applied only to new construction projects.

the~ contract, whichever comes first.

up to two per cent of the total project cost or up to 15 per cent of the rents paid by users of the improvements. 4. The statute on brokerage fees paid for sales of public. lands should be amended to bal’ more effectively any payment of those fees to purchasers on the land.

The Commission’s hearings on the Port Jersey project showed that half of a $102,000 brokerage fee paid by Jersey City wound up in the coffers of the Port Jersey Corporation. The other half went to a real estate firm, the head of which was a principal in the Port Jersey Corporation.

Obviously, if purchasers wind up getting all or part of the brokerage fees paid by a municipality, they are in effect getting a refund that lowers the amount they had to pay to acquire public lands.

The last paragraph of the statute

In all sales made pursuant to paragraphs (a) (c) or

(d) of this section the governing body of any municipality

(N.J.S.A. 40:60-26) now reads in part: may pay a commission to any real estate broker or other person other than the purchaser actually consummating such sale, but such commission shall not be more than 5% of the sale price. The statute does not define the term “purchaser” nor does it require that the decision to pay a commission be included in the conditions publicly advertised nor in the contract for sale. The commission recommends the following changes in the statute:

• The term purchaser should be defined as including any person, corporation or other business entity which owns or controls directly

• Before any commission may be paid, the proposed payment must be included in the conditions of sale publicly advertised, and the recipient must file an affidavit ‘with the governing body stating that he is not a purchaser within the terms of the statutes.

01′ indirectly more than 10 per cent of the purchasing entity.

5. The State should have up-to-date and more effective criminal statutes on bribery and corruption,

The Law Revision Commission, in revising the state’s entire criminal code, has come up with excellent, modern proposals for new bribery and corruption statutes. We heartily endorse that work of that Commission and urge that our patchwork mixture of outmoded statutes intermingled with common law be replaced with a truly effective and integrated language as recommended by the Commission.

With new and modern statutes, the Commission believes the pace and success of law enforcement in the bribery and corruption field will increase markedly.

Certainly, no stone, statutory or otherwise, Should be left unturned

in trying to prevent re-occurrences Of the shocking nature revealed at the Commission’s hearings on the Port Jersey development. The Port Jersey Corploration was pressured into making an imprlOper$20,OOO cash payment to a Jersey City Official as the price of having the city cooperation so vital to the success of the project .

 

The Commission concluded from its investigation and hearings on the Port Jersey project that strong consideration should be given to the state’s playing a larger and more influential role in the development of lands so valuable to the economic well-being of New Jersey as a whole.

However, the Commission believes that prior

The Commission notes that after its public hearings last October and before issuance of this annual report, Governor Cahill in his 1972 Annual Message to the Legislature called for a far-reaching program of state, county and municipal} cooperation to revitalize the Lower Hudson Waterfront.

The governor’s recommendations included creation of a special interdepartmental committee to prepare a plan for development of the waterfront and to recommend needed revisions of municipal land use regulations, plus legislation to create a multi-purpose agency to encourage private investment in the area.

The Commission believes the record of its hearings on the Port Jersey project, as detailed in sworn testimony in previous pages of this report, offers a concrete and specific instance of the need for the greater coordination and planning that the Commission now joins the Governor in advocating. Obviously the Port Jersey plan represents a development project with a function and impact that go far beyond the municipal boundaries in which the project lies.

The hearings on the Port Jersey project also demonstrated how private developers can be faced with a bewildering, frustrating and all too costly process of having to deal with an array of federal, state and local agencies from the time of looking for available land to completion of a project. The Port Jersey corporation had to negotiate with no less than 37 federal, state and local agencies. The matter of getting a riparian grant from the state took three years. Those facts certainly indicate the usefulness of some type of single governmental unit of statewide stature and expertise to provide information and otherwise help to smooth the path for developers of similarly important land through the complex web of making a development dream become a reality.

The Commission urges that once appropriate study has determined the best exact nature of any new or revised unit of state government, that unit be given responsibilities and powers in the following areas:

A. To survey and keep an up-to-date statewide inventory of all lands available and suitable for various kinds ·of development and redevelopment projects.

A.

A.

A.

A.

A.

A.

A. (By Mr. Gershen) In my judgment, no.

is one of the statutory provisions? A. (By Mr. Gershen)

A.

a down payment on what Mr. Flaherty expected to take from you; would that be correct? ” … A.

A.

A.

 

Sir John’s Pub in Jersey City was a Genovese/Gigante Family front.

May 8th, 2010

SIR JOHN’S PUB

Sir John’s Pub in Jersey City represents another example of an organized crime associate having a hidden interest in a licensed establishment. John Ciani, the licensee for Sir John’s, until recently was a front for Genovese/Gigante crime family associate Anthony “Tony the Guinea” Rotolo of Bayonne. Rotolo is disqualified from holding the license himself because of a criminal record and ties to organized crime, which were summarized in State Police Superintendent Dintino’s prepared statement to the Commission at the public hearing:Anthony Rotolo of Bayonne, New Jersey, is a Genovese/Gigante associate. Rotolo has been convicted on charges of extortion, fraudulent activities, assault and public disorder offenses. 

Rotolo was a close associate of the late John DiGilio, after whose death Rotolo aligned himself with Genovese consigliere Louis “Bobby” Manna of Jersey City, who is presently incarcerated on federal racketeering charges. 

During the Commission’s investigation, Rotolo and his wife Jane were observed by its agents on numerous occasions in 1988 and 1989 acting in a supervisory capacity at Sir John’s Pub. Rotolo’s wife was the tavern’s manager of record that time. 

Despite observations by its agents, witnesses who appeared before the Commission repeatedly denied that Rotolo ran the business. A number of them admitted during interviews that Rotolo was in fact running the bar but gave different stories during testimony in private hearings before the Commission. 

Waitress Donna Isabella admitted in an interview with Special Agent Grant Cuzzupe that she had been paid under the table by “Jane or Tony,” and that Tony was the boss. But when subpoenaed to testify, Isabella denied that Rotolo was her boss or that he paid her. 

Joseph Fucci, a local building contractor, similarly contradicted himself. In an interview with Agent Cuzzupe, Fucci stated that Rotolo arranged for Fucci and his son to perform renovations at Sir John’s Pub. Fucci said Rotolo gave him a $1,500 deposit and orally agreed that Rotolo would be responsible for another $13,500 within a year. Fucci told Agent Cuzzupe that no payment schedule was set up because he and Rotolo are friends. Fucci said that Rotolo still owes $8,000 and pays “a few hundred dollars” whenever he sees Fucci. Again, however, Fucci’s story changed significantly and became confused when asked specific questions in his private testimony before then-Commissioner W. Hunt Dumont: 

Q. When you told Special Agent Cuzzupe that Tony Rotolo gave you a sum of money to start this work, that wasn’t true? 

A. I did a mistake. It wasn’t true because I didn’t know was — you know — what really I received the money that time. 

Q. When you told Special Agent Cuzzupe that Tony Rotolo gave you some money — 

A. No — Tony. 

Q. — after that first time that wasn’t true either? 

A. No, No. 

COMMISSIONER DUMONT: Are you saying now that Mr. [John] Ciani gave you the money? THE WITNESS: No, now. All the time Ciani gave me the money. 

COMMISSIONER DUMONT: I’m just interested in what you’re saying now. Ciani gave you the money? THE WITNESS: Ciani gave me the money. 

Mauro “Moe” Abbato, the owner of Complete Vending, which supplied cigarettes to Sir John’s, told Agent Cuzzupe during an interview that he has known and been a supplier for Rotolo since he started his business in 1981. He initially loaned Rotolo $5,000 that would be repaid through machine proceeds, and he supplied Agent Cuzzupe with collection slips as evidence of this loan. During his private testimony, however, Abbato contradicted what hehad said in the interview: 

Q. When you were interviewed by Agent Cuzzupe, you told him that it was Tony Rotolo who asked for the $5,000 loan and not Ciani? 

A. When I — when — when Mr. Grant [Cuzzupe] called me up and told me that he wanted to meet with me, I asked him if there was anything that he might want to know from me, should I take any information with me and he said no, so I went cold. 

To the best of my recollection, what he asked me I answered, you know. I — 

Q. And when you told him it was Tony who wanted the $5,000 loan, was that the truth? 

A. I might have thought it was, but I even thought that I gave Tony the money, but I didn’t give it to Tony…. 

Another associate of Rotolo, William Guarini, a local plumbing and heating contractor, performed renovations at Sir John’s. Work orders for Guarini’s services at Sir John’s have “Tony” written on one such document and Rotolo’s phone number on another. But in his testimony Guarini denied that Rotolo hired him and insisted instead that it was Ciani. Guarini could not explain why Rotolo’s name and phone number appeared on the invoices. Guarini also attempted to minimize his knowledge of Rotolo’s involvement at Sir John’s Pub in general and, specifically, in regard to the plumbing work at the establishment. 

Q. The first time when you did the work, at the time of the renovations of Sir John’s Pub, who hired you to do the work? A. Well, I was called down to look at it and I gave the price— well, Tony was down there when I went down there.

. . .  
Read the complete article.
 

Lou Manzo and the notorious Daniel McMann

May 7th, 2010

MR. MAYOR OR MR. MCMANN?

Urban Times News
September 10, 2004 – September 16, 2004

by UTN Staff

While campaign propaganda is expected during a heated mayoral race, a flyer highlighting the detrimental association of Assemblyman Lou Manzo and the increasingly notorious Daniel McMann bears further scrutiny. Grounded in arguable facts, the leaflet voices some concerns that are becoming more relevant as the election draws near.

Stories of poor work habits have followed Daniel McMann since his first introduction to city government courtesy of Lou Manzo in 2001. Early in their relationship, Ron Buonocore and Lou Manzo were friends. They ran on the same ticket against then U.S. Marshall Glenn Cunningham in the primary race for Jersey City mayor. When voters resoundingly supported Glenn D. Cunningham for office, Buonocore, Manzo jumped on the Cunningham bandwagon. Political pundits predicted that the team could not win, but Cunningham carried the ticket, sweeping all those riding upon his coattails into office. Manzo set McMann up for a job at the Jersey City Department of Public Works that Ron Buonocore ran as Director. There Mr. McMann established himself as a complacent worker who would not regularly come to work. Not one to stand for such behavior, Buonocore fired his Manzo plant for poor attendance. Mr. Manzo was infuriated, and the two destroyed their once amicable relationship. Manzo spared little time in intervening and secured his friend another position, starting a trend that still endures to this day.

Taking McMann from the fires of Public Works, Manzo unknowingly placed his friend in the frying pan at the Department of Health and Human Services. Director Sergio Lamboy would quickly find himself assuaging the complaints of productive workers upset by the lack of productivity from their newest employee. Discussing the difficulties with Assemblyman Lou Manzo, Lamboy explained McMann’s lack of job performance, and basically described a repeat episode of what had happened while Daniel was at Public Works. This did not sit well with Manzo who became so angered he threatened physical violence against the Director. While that incident was squashed, the relationship between the Assemblyman and the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services was soured. However, Assemblyman Manzo’s persistence continued to maintain Daniel McMann with a city position.

As reported in the Jersey Journal in February, the city was notified it was being fined $5000 for failing to file reports on city-owned buildings. Angry state officials kept record of five letters, eleven phone calls, and several meeting; between November 2002 anc March 2003, notifying the depart ment of the need for a response An additional fine of $2000 a day would also be levied for each day that the reports were not submit. ted. The total bill for these indiscretions towers at $105,000, not including the additional workers retained to clean up the mess caused by McMann’s inaction.

Unlike most fiscal foul-ups, this one is directly attributable to one person with a history of ambivalence as a Jersey City worker. Once more, the job performance of Daniel McMann leads to questions regarding his competence. Keeping the necessary reports filed and updated was the responsibility of Daniel McMann. He did not do his job and the city must pay the consequences. Again, Assemblyman Lou Manzo holds the executioner at bay while Mr. McMann is rightfully threatened with the chopping block.

As he claims in his interview with the Journal, Manzo is involved because he recommended him (McMann) in 2001. The Assemblyman minimizes the incident and his associates’ culpability saying, “I’ve talked to people over at the State Department of Health and they told me the fines will probably be dropped.” Even if Mr. Manzo should successfully sweep his compadre’s latest mess under the rug, his McMann obsession highlights an uncomfortable vulnerability for a mayoral aspirant. If history has shown us anything we know that Daniel McMann will have job troubles, soon. History has also revealed that Mr. Manzo is likely to protect the interests of his good friend once again. Recent history has also shown us that detriment comes to one’s political aspirations when the focus of an elected representative wavers between official responsibilities and personal loyalties. Our lame duck governor compromised his credibility attending to his personal loyalties first. Will Jersey City be satisfied playing second fiddle when the hopeful mayor must face the music on behalf of his close friend, again?

This latest incident shows that Assemblyman Manzo has a soft spot when it comes to Mr. McMann. For Daniel McMann, he will minimize the squandering of Jersey City funds and compromise his relationships with government officials. For Daniel McMann he will find a new city position time and again, while others pound the pavement fruitlessly. For Daniel McMann, Lou Manzo will find excuses for his apathy while Jersey City workers struggle to make ends meet. This is not the leadership reaction that Jersey City can afford. Jersey City needs a leader who will put the city first.

We all understand the Manzo platform will claim Jersey City First (in fact the name of a Cunningham supportive political action committee), but we have not seen enough of that platform in practice. In the minds of Jersey City voters, a public official must at all times appear impartial, fair, and truthful in his actions, paying more attention to the welfare of his constituents than his compatriots, reflecting that attitude in all his official responses.
Since the demise of Glenn D. Cunningham, Jersey City has not felt confident that its leaders practice what they preach. Mr. Manzo supports a close but ambivalent friend and voters can see the handwriting on the wall. Daniel McMann does not act in his own best interest. He does not care how he hurts Jersey City, and shows little concern for the stain on the Assemblyman’s reputation. This behavior is not going to instill voter confidence in Lou Manzo, the friend who blindly supports him. New Jersey has seen this specter before. If impartiality and fairness are not qualities Mr. Manzo can project, he should let the Jersey City voter know, now. If being truthful confuses the issues, Mr. Manzo should make it clear, now.

Jersey City deserves to know that it will be first in the heart and mind of its next mayor. If Mr. Manzo is unsure of his political response, he can find some example in the actions of the soon to be former governor.

The Official Lou Manzo Follies Web Site

The Katyn Forest Massacre Monument, Exchange Place, Jersey City

May 6th, 2010

The Katyn Forest Massacre Monument, Exchange Place, Jersey City

The KATYN FOREST MASSACRE MONUMENT at Exchange Place is a violently beautiful work (sculpted by Andrzej Pitynski), commemorating the Russian massacre of Polish prisoners. The bronze soldier, bayoneted rifle sprung from his back, stands atop a granite base which holds Katyn soil. The statue’s effect is as its creator wished it to be: “Like an explosion.”

Richard La Rovere print: Christ Hospital, Jersey City, NJ

May 5th, 2010


Christ Hospital, Palisade Ave., Jersey City, NJ
Prints of this and other images are available from the artist, Richard La Rovere.

Copyright Richard La Rovere – may not be used without permission