Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
I suppose Healy will be submitting this tape as evidence that he had no idea what was going on. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/5/7 22:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
 |
Yes, OneSkirt, and that I don't understand. Why wasn't that money confiscated by the FBI?
Posted on: 2013/5/7 4:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
Also, he still has not returned at least $10k of the Dwek money he took. Still, to this very day!
 
Posted on: 2013/5/6 1:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Well then JCCheerleader we are essentially on the same page.
Definitely not, especially if the thief offers to pay after getting caught. I'm just saying that if Dwak made the offer to Healy and Healy didn't turn him in, then he's definitely guilty of wrongdoing. He didn't seem surprised or worried when his people were getting arrested. That's because he already had a plan. Did you notice he seemed to defend his Deputy Mayor even after she was arrested, saying something along the lines of, 'She's been a family friend and we don't believe she could do something like this'. I think he is a master manipulator because he had people believing that all of this (the sting) probably wasn't true when all the while he had first hand knowledge of it having happened.[/quote]
Posted on: 2013/5/6 1:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
|
Quote:
Definitely not, especially if the thief offers to pay after getting caught. I'm just saying that if Dwak made the offer to Healy and Healy didn't turn him in, then he's definitely guilty of wrongdoing. He didn't seem surprised or worried when his people were getting arrested. That's because he already had a plan. Did you notice he seemed to defend his Deputy Mayor even after she was arrested, saying something along the lines of, 'She's been a family friend and we don't believe she could do something like this'. I think he is a master manipulator because he had people believing that all of this (the sting) probably wasn't true when all the while he had first hand knowledge of it having happened.
Posted on: 2013/5/6 0:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
If Healy was the informant then Healy and not Dwek would have been wearing the wire and making the film. The FBI wouldn't normally ask the targets of their investigation to wear the wire. Assuming for the moment that he later had a change of heart and renounced his part in the conspiracy after he was caught and co-operated with the FBI as another poster queries, does this make him any more suitable to be our Mayor? By way of analogy is a thief who steals merchandise from a store any less of a thief because he offers to pay for the merchandise after he is caught?
Quote:
Posted on: 2013/5/6 0:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
|
Quote:
Nothing is usual about Jersey City. I don't think the Feds went to Healy's house the night before the bust to tell him what was going down as a courtesy. I think they were telling him because he was in on it. Healy is no Boss. Healy is a narc.
Posted on: 2013/5/6 0:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
Quote:
Who knows. Healy is pretty connected...you never knew who had what dirt on who's people. Maybe Healy had contacts who are connected to people with the Fed or HCDO. It all runs really deep, methinks.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 21:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Why would the Feds have made a deal with the top dog? Usually, deals are offered to underlings to nail the top dog.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 21:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
|
Quote:
I think so too
Posted on: 2013/5/5 20:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
I think he informed after he was caught - basically, cut a deal.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 19:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
|
Quote:
I think the tape doesn't show enough. Since we're speculating here, if Healy was the informant, would he have been at the diner? Or could he have witnessed what he witnessed at the diner and then reported it, which would have gotten him off the hook? And if Healy wasn't the informant, then who was? I've always wondered how he didn't get arrested along with the rest of them considering what he was witness to. His being the informant is kind of the only explanation. Maybe I'm wrong because he never took claim to being the informant. I imagine that he will if he was, as a way to save himself from losing this race.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 19:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49 Last Login : 2018/6/12 15:20 From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
844
|
Quote:
Or he cut a deal and gave evidence and names. Didn't he have a meeting with the FBI right before the roundups?
Posted on: 2013/5/5 19:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think it may be as simple as the fact that Healy never touched the money. On camera.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 19:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
You can draw your own conclusions as you see fit. I suspect (and this is just speculation you must admit the tape is pretty damning) that maybe they were missing some element of the crime that would have made the case provable beyond a reasonable doubt. However; when making judgements outside of a court of law we are not restrained by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. When deciding who will lead the city for the next four years a common sense standard will do.
Quote:
Posted on: 2013/5/5 19:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
|
So Yahoo, doesn't this mean, as any of us who knows right from wrong would know, that when Healy continued the conversation in the diner after Dwak offered a bribe, didn't report it, and didn't direct his administration how to handle it, in effect let it happen, then he himself committed a crime on several counts? Kind of makes you wonder about how he got away with it. As much as I hate to say it out loud as I'm not a fan of our drunken, exhibitionistic Mayor, it looks to me like he was the one who turned them in.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 18:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Revised 9/11/06
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2) The State alleges that defendant has committed official misconduct by the following indictment: [READ INDICTMENT] A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit: a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. So, for (defendant) to be guilty of official misconduct, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That the defendant was a public servant at the relevant time(s); (2) That he/she committed an act relating to his/her office knowing that it was unauthorized [OR committed the act in an unauthorized manner knowing that the manner was unauthorized] [OR knowingly refrained from performing a duty which is imposed upon him/her by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his/her office]; and (3) That his/her purpose in so acting [OR refraining] was to benefit himself/herself or another or to injure or deprive another of a benefit. First, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) was a public servant when the offense allegedly occurred. A public servant is any officer or employee of Page 1 of 4 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2) government, including any branch, subdivision, or agency of this State or any locality within it.1 Second, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) committed an act relating to his/her office [OR committed the act in an unauthorized manner] [OR refrained from performing an act required to be performed as part of his/her office]. The "act" in question must relate to the public servant's office. The commission of the act [OR the refraining from performing the act] must constitute an unauthorized exercise of his/her official functions.2 The public servant must know that the act [OR refraining from performing the act] was unauthorized or that the act [OR refraining] was done in an unauthorized manner. For an act to be related to a public servant?s office it must be connected to his/her official duties. An act is not connected to a public servant?s official duties merely because a public servant performs the act. An act is ?unauthorized? if it is committed in breach of some prescribed duty of the public servant?s office. This duty must be official and non-discretionary, imposed upon the public servant by law (such as statute, municipal charter or ordinance) or clearly inherent in the nature of his/her office. The duty to act must be so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that he/she must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than a failure to exhibit good judgment. In addition, the State must prove that (defendant) knew of the existence of his/her non-discretionary duty to act prior to the incident in question.3 Not every unauthorized act committed by a public servant rises to the level of official misconduct; an unauthorized act amounts to official misconduct only if the public servant knew at the time that his/her conduct was unauthorized and unlawful. As to (defendant?s) alleged conduct, the State must prove that there was a clear duty 1 See N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1. Definitions. In Chapters 27 through 30, unless a different meaning plainly is required: b."Government" includes any branch, subdivision or agency of the government of the State or any locality within it; g. "Public servant" means any officer or employee of government, including legislators and judges, and any person participating as juror, advisor, consultant or otherwise, in performing a governmental function, but the term does not include witnesses. 2 An "act" may be unauthorized because it is declared to be such by statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or otherwise. 3 The New Jersey Penal Code - Volume II: Commentary (2C:30-2). Subsection b, the "omission to act" element refers to a public servant who consciously refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty, which duty is imposed upon him by law or which is clearly inherent in the nature of his office. In addition, the public servant must know of the existence of such non-discretionary duty to act. Thus, such duty must be either one that is imposed by law, or one that is unmistakably inherent in the nature of the public servant's office, i.e., the duty to act is so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that he must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than mere breach of good judgment. Absent a duty to act, there can be no conviction. Page 2 of 4 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2) imposed on (defendant) to act [OR to refrain] as alleged. That is to say, there must have been a body of knowledge, such as applicable law, by which (defendant) could regulate and determine the legality of his/her conduct. One cannot be convicted of official misconduct if the official duties imposed are themselves unclear. So, if you conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) was required to act [OR to refrain] by statute, rule, or regulation, and he/she failed to do so, this element will be satisfied. [SELECT APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE] The act(s) [OR refraining] in question need not be criminal in nature. Proof of a criminal act is not required to find (defendant) guilty of this offense.4 OR As you know, (defendant) is charged with other criminal offenses. The State alleges that these other offenses constitute the basis for the charge of official misconduct. You must consider each charge separately, based on the evidence produced in support of that charge. The defendant may be found guilty of official misconduct, even where he/she is acquitted of the underlying criminal charge, if the State has proven his/her guilt of official misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. A person acts knowingly as to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that his conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. One acts knowingly as to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result. One acts knowingly if one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if one comprehends his/her acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain state of mind when he/she engaged in a particular act. It is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all the surrounding circumstances. Third, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act [OR refraining] in question was done purposely to benefit either (defendant) or another, or to harm, injure or 4 State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 (1991), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 939 (1992). Page 3 of 4 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2) Page 4 of 4 deprive another of a benefit. Benefit means a gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the beneficiary as a gain or advantage, including a pecuniary benefit or a benefit to any other person or entity in whose welfare he/she is interested. Harm means loss, disadvantage, or injury, or anything so regarded by the person affected, including loss, disadvantage, or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare he/she is interested. Here, the State alleges that the benefit is . A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is the person?s conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or the individual believes or hopes that they exist. One acts purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if he/she really means to do what he/she does. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain state of mind when he/she engaged in a particular act. It is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all the surrounding circumstances. In conclusion, if the State has proven each element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find (defendant) guilty of official misconduct. On the other hand, if the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty. [IF THE STATE ALLEGES THAT THE BENEFIT IS PECUNIARY, ADD] If the State has proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you must determine the fair market value of the benefit involved. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the benefit involved [IF APPROPRIATE, ADD: for each specific instance concerning which you have reached a verdict of guilty] exceeds $200.
Posted on: 2013/5/5 15:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To each his own stupidseven but I really believe Fulop's ideas to bring quality businesses and better development to JC is one of his stronger suits. While both Malik and Walker have some strong leadership skills I think they both lack a full skill set that we need to move Jersey City into the future. I also appreciate and firmly believe Fulop will keep a steady eye on over-development, quality development, green space, the all important waterfront and be a champion for a safer biking community.
4 more years of back-door deals, low-show jobs, a building dept that, while about the busiest in the state, is not even close to run efficiently and finally a city that is mired in an old school, machine-run philosophy is not the answer. Check out Fulop's platform and email him with any questions. Speaking from experience, he truly gets back to his constituents. stevenfulop/platform Vote Fulop! Quote:
Posted on: 2013/5/3 16:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Identifying with uneducated people because of poor grammar? LOL. They also identify with that 30k they could use in their own accounts. The city literally has to 'shut down' on election day, just to motivate the machine. pathetic really. Go Fulop!
Posted on: 2013/5/3 15:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/11/28 3:26 Last Login : 2014/10/27 13:13 From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1013
|
Quote:
A lot of people relate to Healy for just this reason. They identify with him more than the polished yuppie.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 14:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
I'm voting. But not for Fulop.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 14:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For those of you who don't want to continue seeing Jerry's mug all over town and in brochures with his trademark smirk and half tied tie for the next 4 years PLEASE get out and VOTE, get your friends out and VOTE and tell those who are not as politically minded to please get out and VOTE.
Make no mistake voters, Healy has a major strangle hold on a lot of this city simply because of his patronage and favoritism over the last 8 years. It's a big hurdle for Fulop to overcome. Just look around this town and tell me the architecture and development this city has agreed to over the last 5-8 years is up to snuff with NYC. With a few exceptions the majority of them are nothing special and in a lot of cases are showing wear already. This is no joke voters, if we want a better city that is financially responsible, transparent, green space and business minded then this is our chance to make our voices heard. Vote Fulop!
Posted on: 2013/5/3 14:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Just imagine the booze fueled spiral into the gutter Healy is going to have when he loses.
I get it if you have a city/patronage job or you are freeloading in a relative's house who has the above. How any taxpaying citizen with half a brain could even consider voting for Healy is beyond comprehension...
Posted on: 2013/5/3 13:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
|
Healy's lack of professionalism was astonishing. ASTONISHING. This is the mayor of our city? Saying "piss", and delivering derogatory comments to spectators? Countless errors in grammar? Wtf?
It is so amazing that this is a close race, when one candidate is so superior in every single detectable way.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 13:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/4/22 23:08 Last Login : 2015/3/10 21:37 From The Heights.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
265
|
Quote:
Should've mentioned I would be there. Ah well. There is always 2017 :) I wouldn't doubt you on that. Healy seemed very uneasy, I was expecting him to just blatantly curse everyone out, like it was inevitable. He knew, however, that he couldn't afford to do that for this debate.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 13:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/11/28 3:26 Last Login : 2014/10/27 13:13 From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1013
|
It seems like Healy should sue himself for defamation since the video is, well, him.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 12:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
New Jersey is so entrenched in this kind of corrupt crap it seems normal to these generations of families who have been greasing their palms to pay for their hot tubs and deck extensions on the Jersey Shore thanks to fat white envelopes. Everyone is on the take. I worry how Fulop will get anything done when the union underlings who have to take direction from him have to do it for their salary. There will be a lot of bitter people in office that will slow things up just because what, "doing my job without the payouts?". Just look at the Permit offices after each FBI raid, they are bitter and resentful as they have to "play by the book" and can't because how can they support their lifestyles without the cash so it eventually has the corruption seep out again.
I wonder how Fulop will deal with these people if he gets in? You expect them all to suddenly buck up and work for a bi-weekly pay check? Gulp.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 12:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/6/17 17:22 Last Login : 2014/11/19 0:07 From Pizza City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
342
|
So Healy was there while his Deputy Mayor and other employees continued the conversation about bribes? And he allowed them to continue in his employment for how long after that??
Posted on: 2013/5/3 12:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2011/12/12 0:13 Last Login : 2018/7/28 23:29 From Right here!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
847
|
Quote:
LOL, I have to agree with you about the NAACP debate being the worse. By comparison, this was a neighborhood argument. At the NAACP I loved watching Healy's handlers escort the drunken Mrs. Healy away from a Fulop volunteer. My compadres & I were waiting for that magical moment when Healy's button was pushed & he lost it. It appeared that Malick was trying to buffer things but he lost it & things got to be fun.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 11:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy cries "foul!" - sues for defamation
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, it is. I thought it was strange when Healy said Fulop's reach exceeded his grasp (or was it vice versa?) He apparently thinks this means something like "biting off more than you can chew." Ironically, the original quote (?Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for??) encourages ambition. He seems to think the job is too big for Fulop. Fulop is a combat marine veteran and former businessman with a Masters in Public Affairs from Columbia and an MBA from NYU. He's served on the City Council for eight years. He's had a far better preparation than Healy had. He's more than ready to take over.
Posted on: 2013/5/3 5:05
|
|||
|
||||