The revamp of this page began on June 13, 2008 in order to make this information easier to reference.
However, I must repeat that the easiest way to get the facts as presented in the video presentation, as well as the CD with the source documents is to contact Juan Sambade. His email address is sambademedia@gmail.com
The following examination of the police investigation relates to the missing paycheck of one of Assemblyman Chiappone's Legislative Aides.
This person was hired by Assemblyman Chiappone, but he was paid by the State of New Jersey. It was the duty of Assemblyman Chiappone to deliver that state paycheck to his employee.
In October, 2004 this employee told Diane and Anthony Chiappone that he never received his October paycheck. All through November, 2004, December, 2004 and into at least January, 2005, this employee kept asking for his missing paycheck. The Chiappones kept telling him that they had given him that paycheck. According to the Chiappones, they fired this Legislative Aide for being disruptive. According to Assemblyman Chiappone, the firing was not related to the dispute over the missing paycheck.
In April, 2005 this employee had no other choice but to go to the Bayonne Police to find out what had happened to his missing paycheck. That check turned out to have been deposited into Assemblyman Chiappone's personal checking account.
The story on this incident and the related documents will follow. The facts related to this incident require a great deal of file space. Rather than presenting the documents on this page, I will present links to those documents. You may view them, download them, pass them along to your friends, whatever you wish. You may use them to make a case that my conclusions are erroneous. The use of these documents is up to the individual. I merely make them easily accessible.
The initial official report on this misappropriated paycheck matter was produced by the Bayonne Police Detective Bureau on April 25, 2005. At that time, a former Legislative Aide to Assemblyman Chiappone contacted the Bayonne Police Department to help him to find out what became of his missing paycheck. That paycheck had been missing since October, 2004. Assemblyman and Mrs. Chiappone had repeatedly told Mr. Albanese that they had given him that paycheck. Mr. Albanese knew that they had not. However, Mr. Albanese did not know what had become of that paycheck. After he requested a copy of the negotiated check from the New Jersey State Assembly Clerk, Mr. Albanese saw a signature on the back of that paycheck that was not his. He saw an account number on that back of that check that did not belong to him. Mr. Albanese asked the Bayonne Police detectives to help him to find out where that check had been cashed. This is the initial police report.
Click on the small image to download a full-sized version of the document. Click the Back Button to return to this document.
The police researched the account number on the missing check and found out that it had been deposited into a checking account at the Pamrapo Savings Bank in Bayonne, NJ. That checking account belonged to Assemblyman Chiappone and his wife. As a result of that discovery, the police made a more complete report and also took a formal statement from Mr. Albanese. Click on the small image below if you want to download full-sized versions of those official documents. Click the "back" button to return to this page.
The next files are documents that investigators, such as the Bayonne Police and the State Division of Criminal Justice use to request information related to a possible crime. An OPRA request by a citizen is by comparisson, a relatively simple thing. The police can exercise the power to demand information, but they have to be very specific in what they are asking for, and they need the permission of a court in order to do so.
The investigator prepared one of these documents in order to find out who the client was that deposited Mr. Albanese's check into his personal checking account. They used another one to encourage that person to provide a handwriting sample. We will have more news on that handwriting sample as these updates continue. Click on the small image if you want to view or download the full-sized file. Click on the "back" button to return to this page.
Mr. Albanese's first documented visit to the Bayonne Police Department was on April 25 of 2005. A little over two months later, on June 28, 2005 the police visited Assemblyman Chiappone at his office. They had questions to ask him and documents to show him. We'll look at those documents later. First, let's take a look at the account of that visit as reported by Detective Dias. Click on the small image in order to view the larger version. Click the Back button to return to this page.
At this point I will present the documents provided by the State Investigator. It is actually one document that takes up three pages. You will see that the account of the State Investigator agrees with the account of the Bayonne Detective. Upon seeing documented evidence of the improper disposition of his employee's paycheck, Assemblyman Chiappone immediately deflected attention to his wife.
While the interview took place on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 and the report carries the same date, there is an added paragraph on the third page of that report. The Chiappones contacted the State Investigator on Thursday, June 30, 2005, two days after the interview and asked if they could repay the victim.
I'll present the three pages of that report now and then I will show you the documents that the Detective and the State Investigator showed to Mr. Chiappone that caused him to refer those investigators so suddenly to his wife.
Just click on the small image below in order to view and download the full-sized documents.Click the back button when you are finished.
The Bayonne Detective and The State Investigator presented Assemblyman Chiappone with a few documents related to the improper deposit of his employee's paycheck into his personal account. What you will see at the link below is two paychecks, front and back, and one deposit slip with both of those paychecks clearly listed on it, and the two amounts added up. These are the checks and this is the deposit slip that was presented at Pamrapo Bank in December of 2004. There were only two checks. One belonged to Assemblyman Chiappone. The other belonged to Mr. Albanese. Click the link to see these documents. Click the back button to return to this page.
Enlargments
I'm presenting some enlargements of portions of documents previously presented. The purpose is to allow, as best as possible in a browser window, a comparisson of the different writing styles. In order of presentation will be 1st, the verified signature of Mr. Albanese, 2nd, the apparent forgery on the back of Mr. Albanese's missing paycheck, and finally, Mr. Chiappone's signature on the back of his paycheck.
You can make up your own mind. As for myself, and I'm no expert, I believe that Mr. Albanese's verified signature bears no resemblance to the signature on the back of his missing paycheck. I believe that Mr. Chiappone's signature does bear some resemblance, but because two different names were written, it is quite hard to compare. However, the account number that was written on the back of Mr. Chiappone's paycheck and on Mr. Albanese's paycheck appears to be very similar to Mr. Chiapppone's handwriting and appears to be an identical match on those two paychecks.
The next document appears to have been intended by the Bayonne Police to be the final say in the matter. The date is from August of 2005. There are other documents with earlier dates that report on matters related to this investigation which I will provide at a later time.
Assemblyman Chiappone was never charged with a crime in this matter and there is no conviction on record. For that reason, Mr. Chiappone and some of his supporters want to declare that the case is "closed" and/or that Mr. Chiappone was "cleared". I have spoken with professional law enforcement personnel about such declarations. The fact of the matter is that there is no document that declared the case to be closed and there is no document to support the contention that Mr. Chiappone was ever cleared of any suspected behavior that was subject to the investigation.
If you read the declaration in the document of August, 2005, you will see that the Bayonne Police reported that the victim, Mr. Albanese, was repaid the amount of the check that was improperly deposited into Assemblyman Chiappone's personal checking account. It further declares that the victim, Mr. Albanese, reported to the Bayonne Police that he did not want to pursue this matter criminally.
There is another declaration in this report in a box that is labeled "Curr Status Crime". In this report that announced the break in the active investigation, there was also an announcement that stated that the current crime status was "founded". In other words there was a factual basis to believe that the case of the missing paycheck was indication of a crime as opposed to an accident. Rather than clearing Mr. Chiappone of the crime of stealing this paycheck, the report status declared that there was a basis to suspect him of doing just that. Click on the link below to view a larger version. Click the back button to return to this page.
I'll present some insight that I got from the investigators farther down on this page. At this time, I'll only state that the report above put the case on the back burner. Since they had only looked into the improper disposition of one paycheck, and since the victim had been repaid by the people that had improperly deposited his paycheck into their personal account, and since the victim did not want to pursue the matter criminally, the Bayonne Police Detectives decided that there were other more urgent crimes to investigate. No case was closed. No one was cleared. It was a simple matter of applying limited resources to matters that would produce sufficient benefit for the effort involved.
In May of 2007 something occurred to bring the matter back to the forefront. There was an article in the news that quoted the victim as having "remembered" that it was really him that signed the missing paycheck.
The article originally ran in the Newark Star Ledger, and it was repeated in the Jersey Journal. Below is a copy of the Jersey Journal version of the story.
In the news article, Mrs. Chiappone told the reporter that Mr. Albanese had said that Mayor Doria made him push the issue. Mr. Albanese was asked about that and replied, "I'm not saying he did and I'm not saying he didn't". One thing that Mr. Albanese stated as an absolute fact, though, is that Mr. Chiappone was going to give him a job after the election. Mr. Albanese never got that job.
Also at this time, Mr. Chiappone made a public statement on the nj.com web board where he expanded on the accusation made by his wife.
In his explanation Mr. Chiappone employs the tactic of blaming Mayor Doria, blaming Neil Carrol, blaming Mark Smith, blaming the victim, blaming the bank, blaming the detectives. Along the way, he makes several statements that are not based in fact.
The next image is a question put to Mr. Chiappone about how it is possible that a paycheck that did not belong to him could accidentally have been deposited into his account. Let's look at that question and at Mr. Chiappone's answer.
In the furtherance of his blame strategy, Mr. Chiappone tells us that Neil Carrol sent Mr. Albanese to see Mayor Doria. I recently asked Mr. Carrol about that. He told me that Mr. Chiappone's statement is not true. I believe Mr. Carrol. I do not believe Mr. Chiappone. If you look at some other statements made by Mr. Chiappone you may come to realize why I don't tend to believe reports from him.
Mr. Chiappone said in a public statement, "no account number was put on the check". That statement is not true. Mr. Chiappone said that this was told to police. That is not true. Mr. Chiappone said that there was no state investigation. That is not true. In fact, Mr. Chiappone directed his wife (he uses his wife a lot for such things) to call the state investigator down at the state investigator's 609 number in Trenton just two days after the state investigator visited Mr. Chiappone at his assembly office in Bayonne in the course of conducting the state investigation. So when Mr. Chiappone said "there was no state investigation" do you suppose that he knew that his statement was false?
It was around this time in mid-May, 2007 that I first made an OPRA request for the police records of this incident. I was refused. Many of these documents had been released to someone else in a previous OPRA request, but in May of 2007, those same documents became unavailable. At the time that Mr. Chiappone was making these false statements it was not possible to show the truth that was in the public records. I had to wait.
I was waiting for the case to once again reach a status where I could request official documents. During that time Mr. Chiappone and his political partner, Jersey City Police Sergeant Joseph Olszewski took full advantage of the fact that official documents were not available. The only thing that was presented during this time were the statements of Mr. Chiappone and Mr. Olszewski. Many of those statements proved to be absolutely false. Here are some of the public statements made by Mr. Olszewski.
In the public post dated July 15, 2007, Mr. Olszewski makes the claim that you need intent, damages, and a victim to move forward in a criminal case. While that statement is false, I cannot absolutely declare it to be a lie. I'm more likely to suspect that Mr. Olszewski is merely ignorant of the requirements in a criminal matter, even though a Jersey City Police Sergeant would be expected to be familiar with that information.
The more interesting part of that post is a statement on a topic that I believe Mr. Olszeswki knows well. He uses the example of a stabbing victim to tell us how a criminal might get away with stabbing someone if that criminal can coerce the victim into changing his story. The facts associated with this incident, and with other incidents suggest two things to me. First, Mr. Chiappone and Mr. Olszewski know how to choose their victims. Second, Mr. Chiappone, with the assistance of Mr. Olszewski knows how to interfere with an investigation.
In the October 30 statement by Mr. Olszewski, he repeats and expands upon previous false statements made by Mr. Chiappone. Mr. Olszewski said that Doria directed the investigators. That is a false statement. Mr. Olszewski said that there were 12 checks There were two. Mr. Olszewski said that everyone's handwriting was tested and no one's matched. The fact is, the handwriting was not tested. Samples were taken. There is no report that any of those samples was submitted to an expert for analysis. Detectives who investigated concurred that no samples would have been submitted for testing unless the investigators intended to proceed to court. The investigation did not move to the prosecution phase because Mr. Chiappone repaid the victim and the victim declared that he did not want to pursue the matter criminally.
I would personally like to see a report from an expert handwriting analyst working on behalf of the investigators. I would post the results whether they proved the case or vindicated Mr. Chiappone of forgery.
Sometime in October, while Mr. Olszewski was continuing to make false public statements, I was still waiting for the results of my OPRA request. The reason for the hold-up is that the investigation became active again. The victim had changed his story. The investigators were prosecuting the victim based on that change.
Below is a link to the police report from May 15, 2007, just a few days after Mr. Chiappone directed a Star Ledger columnist to talk to Mr. Albanese.
Click the "Back" button on your browser to return to this page.
One of the people that likes to check out this web page from time to time is Jersey City Police Sergeant Joseph Olszewski. This is the same Olszewski who is Mr. Chiappone's political partner and advisor. The day that I presented the police report of Mr. Albanese's so-called confession, Mr. Olszewski addressed me in another public statement. I present Mr. Olszewski's statement below. Don't blame me for his style of expression. I never claimed that Mr. Olszewski is smart. I only observed that he sure has knowledge about the subject of interfering with a police investigation.
Farther down in this page is a copy of the 2007 Jersey Journal article that reported on the hearing of the charges against Mr. Albanese. The initial charge of filing a false police report was downgraded to a loitering offense. The victim of the missing and misplaced paycheck did not contest the charge.
There is a theory put forth by some that Mr. Albanese created a scheme to punish Mr. Chiappone. That theory supposes that Mr. Albanese somehow tricked Mrs. Chiappone into unknowingly depositing his paycheck into her husband's personal checking account.
My theory on this incident differs from the one that portrays Mr. Albanese as the evil mastermind and casts Mr. and Mrs. Chiappone as the hapless victims of his scheme.
My theory, and I admit it is unproven, suggests that Mr. Albanese's check was stolen by the Chiappones, that Mr. Albanese's check had a signature forged by the Chiappones and that Mr. Albanese's check was intentionally deposited into the Chiappone's personal checking account. Beyond that, my theory suggests that the Chiappones, probably with the assistance of Jersey City Police Sergeant Olszewski, likely coerced Mr. Albanese into changing his story and even changing his statement to the police.
At this time, I will subject my theory to the test, I will check to see if my theory is consistent with the official police reports and with the public statements released by the Chiappones and by Mr. Olszewski.
I invite you to scrutinize my comparison and point out any errors.
I also invite you to look for support of Mr. Chiappone's preferred theory.
On May 11, 2007, the Jersey Journal copied a column that had run in the Star Ledger a day or two earlier. The reporter had been directed by Mr. Chiappone to talk to the victim, Mr. Albanese, and to also talk to Mrs. Chiappone. Mr. Chiappone knew how to contact Mr. Albanese because Mr. Albanese was working on Mr. Chiappone's campaign with the expectation of future employment. Mr.Albanese told the reporter, "I'm going to be his Aide again if he wins". He also said that he remembered now that he actually had signed the missing paycheck that ended up in the Chiappone's personal account. Mrs. Chiappone explained that this must have been an issue of a mistaken deposit.
The mistaken deposit theory had been offered previously by Mrs. Chiappone. In the June, 2005 police report, the detective notes that Mrs. Chiappone became very nervous when she was shown the copy of her deposit slip and the check from Mr. Albanese that she had deposited into her account. She suggested that she might had picked up the check with a bundle of other papers and deposited it by mistake. She also stated that "things get confusing around here".
Mrs. Chiappone repeated her suggested scenario in the newspaper article that brought this case to the attention of the general public. The Jersey Journal report says, "Chiappone's wife, Diane, who handles the finances, says she must have picked it up in a bundle of papers on the way to the bank, and deposited it by mistake."
The Bayonne Police invited the victim in for questioning and made another report. The questioning and the report took place several days after the newspaper article in which Mrs. Chiappone had gone public with her scenario of the accidental deposit of a check mixed in with a bundle of other papers. During the course of questioning, Mr. Albanese "confessed" to the police with a scenario that seemed to validate the claims of Mrs. Chiappone.
I want to look at that confession in detail.
This is the essense of the Albanese confession as recorded in the May, 2007 police investigation report.
“He stated that he was angry with Mr. Chiappone for not attending his wedding. He wanted to get back at him, so he devised a plan involving the check. Albanese stated that he went to Chiappone’s office and picked up his check from Diane Chiappone. He endorsed the check and waited until Diane walked away from her desk. When she did, he placed the check on her desk under a pile of other ones, so she wouldn’t notice it. His intention was to have her unknowingly deposit it and he would make a subsequent police report stating that the check was forged.”
At first glance, the confession seems to agree with the story that Mrs. Chiappone had offered so many times. The check was in a pile of papers and Mrs. Chiappone just unknowingly scooped up the papers in that confusing office and went right down to the bank and put those papers into the checking account by accident.
I'll want to compare that story and that confession to the other statements that were made by all parties during the course of the investigation.
At this time, though, I'll present the newspaper accounts of the hearing of the charges brought against the victim. I recently found these newspaper accounts from October of 2007. I didn't realize it at the time, but both accounts are erroneous. The first is from the Jersey Journal and the second is from the Bayonne Community News. Take a look.
I'm going to get off the track a little bit here in order to correct a glaring inaccuracy published by both the Jersey Journal and The Bayonne Community News. The check that was improperly deposited into Assemblyman Chiappone's personal checking account was not a campaign paycheck. A campaign paycheck would have been funded by private donors. The paycheck was not taken from a campaign headquarters. The paycheck was not intended to pay for the services of a campaign worker. Both of those newspapers printed inaccurate accounts in that regard.
The fact is, that this was a government paycheck, issued by the State of New Jersey and funded by the taxpayers of New Jersey. This check was to pay for the services of a man that Mr. Chiappone had appointed as a legislative Aide. Mr. Chiappone was not paying this worker. The State of New Jersey was paying this worker with the taxes charged to the taxpayers of New Jersey. Assemblyman Chiappone's duty was to deliver this paycheck to that worker. Instead, the paycheck ended up in Mr. Chiappone's personal checking account. The worker did not go to a campaign headquarters to receive his rightful paycheck. He went to the Assembly Office of Assemblyman Chiappone, which is also funded by payments from the taxpayers of the State of New Jersey.
The fact that two newspapers reported that the paycheck was for a campaign worker, paid by a campaign fund, and missing from a campaign headquarters, indicates to me that those newspapers did not take the story seriously. It also indicates that the reporters for those newspapers got their information from a source that is not reliable.
I would hope that both reporters will take note that they cannot rely on Assemblyman Chiappone as a source of accurate information.
Back to the comparison of the Albanese "confession" to the actual facts as reported in the investigation reports. At the time of Mr. Albanese's confession, he was certainly aware of the scenario offered by Mrs. Chiappone. As Mrs. Chiappone stated in the news article, she had discussed the matter with Mr. Albanese. Mr. Albanese was invited to the police station to review his previous report at a time when he had been repaid the amount of the missing paycheck and promised future employment by Assembly Candidate Chiappone.
He decided that the easiest thing to do would be to tell the police a story that matched Mrs. Chiappone's suggested pretext.
Unfortunately, Mr. Albanese and Mrs. Chiappone did not seem to realize that the new story was not credible. The trick that Mr. Albanese said that he played on Mrs. Chiappone would have required Mrs. Chiappone to make an honest error in depositing Mr. Albanese's paycheck. If we review the circumstances surrounding that missing paycheck, the initial report of that missing paycheck, the open dispute over that missing paycheck, and the ultimate deposit of that missing paycheck, we will see why this could not have been done by mistake.
I don't need to upload additional documents because the support for the original report by Mr. Albanese is in the documents you've already seen.
In Mr. Albanese's statement of April, 2005, the investigators asked, "Do you recall when you first asked Diane Chiappone about the check in question?".
Mr. Albanese replied, "It had to be in October sometime. It was after I came back from vacation. When I came back, I was supposed to get two checks. I only got one."
In June of 2005 the investigators questioned Mrs. Chiappone. Mrs. Chiappone had no incentive to agree with the report of Mr. Albanese or to incriminate herself. Nevertheless, the unrehearsed statements by Mrs. Chiappone agreed completely with the unrehearsed statements by Mr. Albanese.
"Mrs. Chiappone stated that Mr. Albanese went on vacation for five or six weeks last fall and returned at the end of October, 2004. She stated that she gave him one check when he went on vacation and she gave him another check when he returned. She said that he claimed at the time that he was still owed another paycheck, but she was certain that she gave him all of his paychecks."
In his public statement in May of 2007, Mr. Chiappone had no incentive to agree with the report of Mr. Albanese or to incriminate himself. Nevertheless he stated, "Mike" (Mr. Albanese) "claimed he was owed a check. My wife Diane" (he is still using his wife as a shield) "told him he was not. This went back and forth."
A reasonable person may wonder what is the significance of the simliarity in those unrehearsed reports. That person may want an explanation of the acknowledged disagreement about the delivery of the paycheck and the timing of that disagreemnt.
We should take a look at another statement that Mrs. Chiappone made to the detectives in her unrehearsed statements. After she acknowledged that Mr. Albanese began requesting a missing paycheck at the end of October, 2004, the detective's report declares, "She added that he kept asking for it up until the time that he was asked to leave the office".
Mr. Albanese reported that he quit working for Chiappone in early January, 2005. Mr. Chiappone says that Mr. Albanese was fired in February, 2005. Mr. Albanese and the Chiappone's all agree that Mr. Albanese began asking for a missing paycheck at the end of October, 2004.
Remember, the so-called confession has Mr. Albanese declaring that he signed the check and then hid that check in some papers, expecting that Mrs. Chiaponne might deposit that check by accident.
This confession agrees completely with the excuse that Mrs. Chiaponne gave to the investigators and gave once again to the newspaper reporters. However, the confession does not agree with the earlier, unrehearsed statements made by Mr. Albanese and by Mr. and Mrs. Chiappone.
I repeat, after Mrs. Chiappone independently confirmed that Mr. Albanese complained of a missing paycheck at the end of October, she made a point of telling the investigators that Mr. Albanese kept asking for that check until he was finally asked to leave his job at the Office of Assemblyman Chiappone.
If Mr. Albanese had intended to trick Mrs. Chiappone by hiding his paycheck in papers on her desk, it would make no sense for Mr. Albanese to keep complaining to Mr. and Mrs. Chiappone that he had not received that check. Yet, Mr. Albanese and Mr. Chiappone and Mrs. Chiappone all agreed that Mr. Albanese constantly complained about his missing paycheck. They all agree that he started complaining in October, 2004 and he kept complaining until he was asked to leave the office in January or February of 2005.
I'll have to ask you to take another look at the checking account deposit slip that is shown higher on this page. That slip lists only two paychecks. One of those paychecks belongs to Mr. Chiappone. The other paycheck belongs to Mr. Albanese. Mrs. Chiappone told the police that she filled out that deposit slip. The check on that slip that belongs to Mr. Albanese is made payable on October 19 and was delivered to the Chiappones while Mr. Albanese was on vacation. This is the check that Mr. Albanese said he never received. Mr. Albanese started asking for this check at the end of October, 2004. Please take another look at that deposit slip. The deposit was made on December 6, 2005. This is five weeks after Mr. Albanese started asking for that check.
These documents do not support the claim of an accidental deposit. The documents do not support the claim of a plot to fool Mrs. Chiappone as was presented in Mr. Albanese's confession.
A more logical explanation is that someone stole Mr. Albanese's check and forged the signature on the back. That person waited for several weeks after Mr. Albanese began asking for the missing paycheck. About five weeks later, that person decided that Mr. Albanese would not do anything more than complain and so it would be safe to go ahead and deposit that check. As an added layer of protection, that person then sent his wife to the bank to make the deposit.
LOOSE ENDS
I began requesting documents through the OPRA procedure in May of 2007. The Bayonne Police initially refused those requests as there was a matter pending related to those documents. In October, 2007 that matter was concluded. The victim pleaded guilty to loitering and paid a fine of five hundred dollars. At this point, I believe that the victim still believed that Mr. Chiappone was going to reward him with a job in payment for that "confession".
In January, 2008, the Bayonne Police through the Bayonne Law Department provided me with some of the documents that I had requested. There were others that were not provided, and there was one that was not very viewable. I filed an OPRA request to the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice to try to get some additional documents. That request was denied outright.
I had requested the handwriting samples that were taken by the State Investigator. I had also requested copies of the nine checks that Mr. Albanese had supplied to the Bayonne Police. As of this writing no one has been able to provide copies of those documents although the Police Report states that they were held as evidence. Finally, I requested a copy of the check that was written out to reimberse the victim for his missing check. The Bayonne Police had provided a copy of that check, but it was not very readable. Apparently, it had been faxed and copied so many times that it just did not hold up.
I have a copy of my request and the denial as provided by the DCJ. I was denied on the basis that these were criminal investigatory records. The date of the request was January 17, 2008. The date of the denial was January 29, 2008. I did not appeal the denial. I realized that the documents I already had would provide samples of the handwriting of Mr. Albanese, Mr. Chiappone, and the forger.
Below is a copy of my denied request.
Click on the small image to view a larger version. Click the back button on your browser to return to this page.
As I mentioned previously, I did speak to the Bayonne detectives who were involved in the investigation of the missing paycheck for the New Jersey Assembly Legislative Aide that was never delivered to that employee and that was found by police in Assemblyman Chiappone's personal checking account. The meeting took place in June, 2008.
Those detectives were gracious and informative and were willing to spend some time with me and advise me.
There is one specific thing that I asked about that I want to share with you at this time. The answer to my question surprised me, but it probably should not have.
I noted that a Bayonne Police Detective and the Detective from the New Jersey State Division of Criminal Justice interviewed Assemblyman Chiappone on June 28, 2005. Two days later, on June 30, 2005, Mrs. Chiappone (on behalf of her husband who could not bring himself to do this personally) called the State Investigator and stated that they would repay the victim.
I wondered why the report that halted the investigation was not issued until over a month later on August 3, 2005. As I said, the answer surprised me, but it should have been obvious.
Vacations.
That's it.
July is a prime vacation month. One of the Bayonne detectives was on vacation on June 28, 2005 when the interview was held with Assemblyman Chiappone. During the month of July, there were various other investigators out on vacation and the load of work that would normally have been handled by the full complement was left to those who were not on vacation. A small matter of one possible forgery and improper deposit of a check that was less than 200 dollars was not considered important enough to pursue when they set the priority for investigations.
On August 3rd, they turned their attention back to this investigation. The victim had been repaid. He did not want to pursue the matter criminally. The amount stolen (if it was stolen) was less than 200 dollars. At this time they wrote the report that put this investigation on hold, pending further developments. They then turned their attention to matters with a higher likelyhood of a return on the investment of scarce resources.
It is July 16, 2008 as I submit this update about government investigators and summer vacations. This is still a prime vacation period.
As I've indicated before, these things take time.
July 19, 2008-I was able to meet with the Bayonne detectives in early June of 2008. It took me some calls and contacts over the course of about a week to set up that meeting. I don’t know that there is any legal requirement for police investigators to meet with citizens to discuss such matters. I believe that these departments have their own policy and standards and are allowed a fair amount of discretion when it comes to such matters. I appreciate the fact that I was extended this courtesy.
I believe that we talked for about an hour. I had a lot of material to present and I tried to state pretty clearly those areas where I thought that further investigation would be worthwhile in the interest of justice. It is going to take a while to present merely some of the essential points of that meeting. I’ll be doing that in installments.
One comment was made at that meeting that stood out to me as an essential point. We were reviewing the investigation report from June 28, 2005. In fact, I had brought copies of these reports. Remember, June 2005 was three years prior to this meeting. This investigation was only active for about three or four months and both of these detectives have been involved in any number of cases in the intervening time period. They found it helpful to have copies of those old reports to review.
Looking at that June, 2005 report, one of the detectives commented “Did you see how quickly Chiappone threw his wife under the bus?”
It has only been a few years now since I first heard that “under the bus” expression. I take it to mean that a guilty party offers up a substitute candidate for blame or punishment. The throwee gets to take the blame, the heat, the responsibility, the punishment. The thrower uses the throwee as a shield. That is my understanding of that expression. By throwing his wife "under the bus", Mr. Chiappone was attempting to deflect responsibility from himself.
We covered a lot of items during that meeting. I’ll be sharing some of them in the coming days.
Added July 21, 2008
The Bayonne detectives and I differed on the matter of charging the victim for changing his story. It was interesting and educational for me to hear their motivation. I pointed out how the original report from the victim about the missing paycheck was much more credible than the "confession" for which he was charged. I pointed out that the independent and unrehearsed statements of the Assemblyman and his wife indicated that the stolen check theory was much more consistent with the facts.
I would like to tell you that the detectives agreed with me. I would really like to tell you that. I can't. The best that I can tell you is that they did not disagree. However, that could be a cop thing. I think that these investigators may have a tendency to be agreeable in such instances because they find that it helps them to get more information.
However, they did absolutely concede that the decision to prosecute the victim did not mean that they believed his "confession". They let me know that they had been candid with the victim. They explained to the victim that he would be charged with filing a false report if he stuck with the new story. They told the victim that if he had been coerced into changing his story, he should come forward now with the truth.
Unfortunately, the victim decided to sign off on his new confession. In my opinion, he thought that the job that Chiappone had promised him would make it worthwhile to accept a court appearance and a fine.
There were other topics that I was able to discuss with these investigators. I'll tell you about them soon. However, at this time I have another loose end.
I believe that this post from the Bayonne Forum of NJ.COM is the most recent public comment on the matter by Assemblyman Chiappone. I should qualify that by saying that it is probably the most recent comment where Assemblyman Chiappone posted under his own name. He has been caught posting under more anonymous log-in names.
July 26, 2008 As I mentioned on July 19, there were areas beyond this matter of one stolen paycheck (if in fact it was stolen) that I thought would be worthwhile to investigate. I shared that information with the Bayonne Detectives.
Regarding that one stolen paycheck, though, (if in fact it was stolen) the detectives explained to me that they do not expect to take any further action on that matter on their own. If another investigative agency from another level of government contacted them, they would cooperate, but they will not pursue this on their own.
They even explained to me that there are investigative agencies (I think the FBI was mentioned) that have a minimum standard. If I understood correctly, the FBI will not investigate corruption in political offices, even bona fide instances of such corruption, unless that corruption reaches the minimum cutoff of $50,000.00.
Apparently, a politician who is also a small time crook, can keep being a politician and a crook if he does not get too greedy. If he doesn’t steal as much as $50,000.00, and if he has a crooked cop who can help him choose his victims, a crooked politician apparently does not need to fear an investigation by the FBI.
If I added up all of the money that I suspect was stolen by Assemblyman Chiappone, I don’t think I can meet the Fifty Thousand Dollar minimum cutoff established by the FBI. Fortunately for me, I had never anticipated contacting the FBI on this matter.
The Bayonne Detectives suggested to me who I should contact, and which of the several instances of possible corruption would most likely catch the interest of that agency.
They even called someone for me.
August 2, 2008
When the Bayonne Detectives suggested which of the possible instances of official abuse might create the most interest, they also suggested who I should take my report to. I don't think that it is wise for me to go into the details at this point, but I believe that I can say this. I'm looking at matters that are beyond the theft of one check (if it was stolen), beyond the matter of a single victim, and beyond the simple crime of theft.
The Bayonne Detectives expressed the opinion that I should take the matter right to the State of New Jersey. I certainly respect their opinion.
However, I am of the opinion that the matter should be pursued in a certain order, by the levels of government, much like the chain of command, beginning with municipal, going then to county, then to state, and then to federal. I let them know that I would follow up the June meeting with a formal written request for an investigation by the Bayonne Police. I told them that I would then go to the County Prosecutor's Office after that. That was when they made the phone call. They assisted me by getting me the name and title of the person that would handle such matters from the Office of The County Prosecutor. They were very considerate and I commend them for that.
April 22, 2009
It has been a while since I last added content to this page. I feel it is important to repeat a segment from a report in the April 22, 2009 edtition of the Bayonne Community News as written by Al Sullivan.
"La Pelusa gave sworn statement
La Pelusa said the first he knew of the investigation was when his doorbell rang and found two agents there who asked him about what happened with the checks. La Pelusa said he signed his checks over to Chiappone to defray various costs associated with running the office.
He arranged to meet with the agents in his City Council office on Avenue C and told them what had transpired when he was working as Chiappone’s aide.
“I signed 13 checks,” he said. “It was my money to do with as I wanted. There was nothing wrong. We made no deals. I even paid the taxes on the body.”
Originally, La Pelusa did not want to give a sworn statement, but agreed later to do so rather than have to make the trip to Trenton.
“The investigators are looking for any impropriety and asked me if I saw any ethics violated or any deals made,” La Pelusa said. “I told them the truth. I saw nothing wrong.”
June 17, 2009
This document is not new. I suppose it was generated back in 2005. This is the list of employees for which Assemblyman Chiappone billed the State of New Jersey and the taxpayers of the State of New Jersey to staff his office.
As you can see the State of New Jersey and the taxpayers of the State of New Jersey were billed by Assemblyman Chiappone for the services of two members of the family of Bayonne resident Gary LaPelusa. Mr. LaPelusa presently holds the position of 3rd Ward Councilman in Bayonne.
I'm sorry that I cannot produce a clearer document. This scan was taken from a fax that used a small font. As I read this, Gary LaPelusa was paid by the taxpayers of the State of New Jersey an amount close to 10,000 dollars in the year 2005. His wife was paid something less that 2,000 dollars during that same time period.
According to Mr. LaPelusa, he signed over 13 of his paychecks to Assemblyman Chiappone during that same time period.
On August 26th, 2009, which Assemblyman Chiappone pointed out to the press was his wife's birthday, Anthony and his wife Diane were indicted for diverting the paychecks of Gary LaPelusa and one other person. In my opinion, the state investigators are charging Assemblyman Chiappone with fewer crimes than they know that he committed. In my opinion, they included Mrs. Chiappone in the indictment in order to eliminate one more opportunity for Anthony to throw Diane under the bus.
Here is the copy of the indictment. Just click on the image to read the whole document.
Since Chiappone's indictment was announced, Governor Corzine has called for his resignation and Assembly Speaker Roberts has stripped him of his pay and benefits. I did not think that it was right when Roberts did that to Harvey Smith. I don't think it is right now. I've posted about that at the Bayonne Forum of NJ.com
Watch for updates.
I received an answer to my question from the people at Assembly Speaker Roberts' office. The legal reasoning behind the suspension of Chiappone's salary and benefits does shed some light on the topic. From what I've read, it seems that Chiappone's colleagues in the Assembly can vote to revoke the actions of Speaker Roberts if they think he treated Chiappone unfairly. It seems that Chiappone also has the power to demand that his colleagues in the Assembly take up this question.
I don't know why Chiappone hasn't done that. If I were in that position, that is exactly what I would do. Of course, I wouldn't be in that position because I wouldn't steal paychecks or participate in kickback schemes. And I wouldn't put my wife in that position, either. But that's just me.
Chiappone is a different sort of person.
On October 8th, 2009 Wally Edge reported that Chiappone had recently begun using campaign funds to pay himself by paying his wife. Assemblyman Chiappone's wife has already been indicted along with him so it's not like she's new to this routine.
Wally used the ELEC reports that Assemblyman Chiappone submitted to the State of New Jersey as the basis for his report.
The image below shows the payment Assemblyman Chiappone submitted.
Update November 5, 2009
On November 3, 2009 Chiappone was re-elected to the State Assembly by an overwhelming amount despite his indictment and pending hearing.
I had thought that Howes and Howes would use that occasion to update their internet defense of Chiappone. They had promised frequent updates on that story back in August of 2009.
When I looked today (November 5, 2009) they were still running the initial report with no updates.
I'm wondering if Howes and Howes are still waiting for Chiappone to make his second payment. When you deal with Anthony Chiappone, you learn very quickly that you want all his statements in writing and all of his payments up front, in cash.
Sometimes even lawyers have to learn the hard way.
Update November 20, 2009
Today's Jersey Journal reported that Anthony and Diane Chiappone were to appear in the Mercer County Superior Court for their arraignment. An arraignment, like an indictment is not a conviction. In the indictment, you are merely accused by the law enforcement officials of a crime. In the arraignment, you merely plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". As of this writing, I do not know how either of the Chiappone's decided to plead.
However, a recent news article in the Bayonne Community News stated that the motivation for the investigation against Anthony and Diane Chiappone came from a complaint made by me, Mike Ransom, Bayonne New Jersey.
When I read that statement, I called the Bayonne Community News and asked them to supply me with the investigation report that named me in that regard. Long story, short, the Bayonne Community News refused to provide me with their source material.
So I made an OPRA request to the State of New Jersey. I was convinced that any investigation reports that named me as a source of information or motivation would be available to me, the claimed informent, aka the claimed motivator.
I just got the reply today in a pdf attachment through email. The state denied my request for information about reports that specifically name me. The reason referred to in the denial is that this is a criminal investigation. It is my understanding that such a denial only applies to a criminal investigation that is ongoing.
So my take on this is, (and I could be mistaken), is that the State has not finished the investigation that was "motivated" (according the the Bayonne Community News), by a complaint made by me, Mike Ransom, Bayonne, New Jersey.
So I would think that any people who might have cooperated in any crooked dealings with Anthony Chiapponne have to be wondering who and what Anthony is willing to trade in order to lighten the impact to his personal exposure, as it were.
So, if you are one of those people, and your lawyer is telling you not to worry, I would suggest that you get a second opinion. And if your legal advice is coming from Anthony's defense lawyer, I would suggest that you go get your own lawyer.
December 18, 2009
I don't know how a state government in modern times can get more corrupt than the Christie government has proven itself to be. And Christie has not even been sworn in yet.
Christie has appointed Chiappone's defense attorney to his transistion team. There are people who have tried to explain to me that all you have to do in law enforcement cases is to put in the fix. They have been mostly Chiappone supporters who have posted those opinions under phony names. I chose not to believe these people. I chose to believe that most people elected to public office have good will and good intentions. I still believe that about most people. Christie is another story.
On January 13, I sent a letter to Sheila Y. Oliver, Assemblywoman for District 34 and Speaker of the General Assembly. I also enclosed a letter that had been forwarded to me by the office Assemblyman Roberts, the previous Speaker. I was appealing to Speaker Oliver to stick to the established and legitimate procedures in the Chiappone matter. As we learned in the January 13 Jersey Journal, Assemblyman Chiappone is hoping to avoid those procedures.
The image below is a link to the document written by the New Jersey State Assembly Legislative Councel, Mr. Albert Porroni. Click on that link to view the full pdf document. It describes the ability of the House Speaker to suspend the pay of a member of the Assembly. More importantly, it describes the proper method for that Assembly member to file a legitimate appeal. To this point Assemblyman Chiappone has refrained from filing a legitimate appeal. He seems to think he may be able to make a private deal with the new Speaker. I hope that he is mistaken.
Below is a link to the letter I sent to Speaker Oliver. Click on that link to see the entire pdf document. As you can see, I requested that Speaker Oliver do her best to keep Assemblyman Chiappone in line and insist that he follow the proper procedure for appeal.
Mike and The Coach Contents Page
