 |
Was the bank defrauded by issuing the $15,000 check for one purpose and having it used by Mayor Robinson-Briggs for another? |
At issue is whether Mayor Robinson-Briggs' statements concerning obtaining the check and its ultimate disposition constituted defrauding Investors Savings Bank.
What we know from the City Council's Independent Counsel's published report (see the complete document online here) are the following --
- Caren Fisher of the
Plainfield branch of Investors Savings Bank (ISB) said the funds were
'earmarked for the July 4th sponsorship' and that there was 'no mention
of using these funds for the sponsorship of the WBLS event' (page 11);
- Former City
Administrator Bibi Taylor stated the check 'was dedicated to the July
4th sponsorship and therefore could not be used for the WBLS event'
(page 10);
- Mayor
Robinson-Briggs testified that she 'spoke to a representative of ISB and
indicated they (meaning Her Honor) would like to use the donation for
an upcoming event' (page 6);
- Counsel Rivera indicates his office's conversation with Ms. Fisher of ISB indicated the check 'was submitted to the City to be used specifically for the July 4th events which they had agreed to sponsor (page 6).
One online legal dictionary offers this definition of 'defraud' --
...to use deceit, falsehoods, or trickery to obtain money, an object, rights or anything of value belonging to another... (see here).-- but note that a court of law would have to decide whether Mayor Robinson-Briggs used 'deceit, falsehoods, or trickery' to obtain the $15,000.
One thing for sure is that Robinson-Briggs would have to produce convincing evidence in a courtroom for her assertion that an employee of ISB had agreed to the switch -- most likely the person themself, under oath -- and not just Her Honor's say-so.
But I don't think Mayor Robinson-Briggs is going to need to worry her little head over the matter.
Why?
Because, despite whatever they may believe about the truth of the matter, neither the City Council nor the public has any legal standing in the matter. If anyone was harmed, it would have to be Investors Savings Bank, and the bank would have to prosecute Mayor Robinson-Briggs, which I think highly unlikely.
For two reasons --
- First, there are
rumors that officials of the Bank would just like the whole issue 'to go
away' since it is an embarrassment of a high order; and
- Second, the bank -- now New Jersey's third largest -- is in a high-growth mode, involving purchases of other banking businesses (read about the most recent purchase of a Brooklyn-based bank here), and doesn't need any sticky items for bank regulators to ask questions about as expected future purchases are under review.
Does this mean she will not be seen as trying another fast one in the future?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that.
 | |
 |
Along with its growth, Investors has changed its name in a rebranding move. |
- Scribd: "Council: WBLS investigator's final report" -- Complete and downloadable.
- Free Online Dictionary's Legal Dictionary: "Defraud"
- NJBiz: "Brooklyn Federal shareholders approve $11M merger with Investors"
- Website: "Investors Bank" -- Investors Savings Bank recently rebranded itself as Investors Bank.
Posts
14 comments:
Citizens should transfer their accounts out of Investors and when asked why, siply state "For using my money to give to Al Sharpton!"
If the $20,000.00 that ISB donated to sponsor the 4th of July Fireworks was not used for the fireworks then how were the fireworks paid for? If the monies were taken from City funds without approval, then the Plainfield taxpayers are victims of SRB's fraud and the City Council should be filing criminal charges against her.
Bet they won't "invest" in Plainfield again!
The penalty none the less will be that NO other Bank, Corporation or Charity will want to take a chance in "Helping" Plainfield. Good Luck to the King's Daughters, Drake House etc.
@ 10:10 AM -- Investors did NOT give $20,000. It was $15,000. Neither the bank nor Mayor Robinson-Briggs has provided any paperwork on how the request for sponsor support was made.
The July 4th acitivities were funded by the City through the Rec Division, and are not the question here.
The issue is taking the bank's money and using it for a purpose other than what the bank believed it was going to....
@ 9:27 AM -- The money wasn't given to Rev. Sharpton. It was paid to Inner City Broadcasting, the parent corporation for WBLS/WLIB, for the broadcast (and a number of spot ads that were broadcast in the runup to the event).
Whatever the arrangements were between the station and Sharpton are unknown to me, and not part of this story.
As the Council has repeatedly made clear, the issue is not in broadcasting the Town Hall meeting, but in the way the Mayor funded it.
Gee Dan. . . . what was that all about . . .give it a break!
jim spear
So, the mayor has a friend in the 2nd Ward, Mr. Spear? Hmmm.
That definition of "defraud" is a good explanation of why Muhlenberg's assets are in control of, and for the primary benefit of, people with a committment to Middlesex County and Edison.
Thanks Dan, Plainfield will never get another PENNY from banks again.
What the New Dem's fail to realize that all this do is make it BAD forthe next MAYOR of PLAINFIELD.
GEE WHIZ
Well Adrian, Rebecca , Cory and their New Dem flock keep telling us that we are ALL DEMOCRATS and that we should support each other. Or did I get that wrong?
It's kind of like what Newt says about Ronny Reagan's 11th commandment, 'thou shall not bad mouth a fellow Republican'.....did I get that right?
And yes like a good Democrat I voted for the Mayor in the election. They told me that's what I was suppose to do. . . at least I thought they told me that, I think they told me that, gosh, I am sooo confused!
jim spear
@ 12:34 PM -- You can't know that.
Banks (especially if they hold $29 million in a city's deposits) like to be seen as community supporters -- which is what the money was intended for in the first place.
What you are arguing is that honesty is not only not the best policy, it isn't even a good policy.
Hopefully, the next mayor will be a very, very different person, without all the baggage the current one has brought to the city's highest office.
Jim -- Back in 1996, there was a man who was unhappy with things as he found them, just as you seem to be. Al McWilliams, tho, had a positive vision; he was intensely interested in seeing economic development in downtown Plainfield and believed that it would benefit the entire community.
He had no money, no standing politically, no vendor backing, no experience in government.
But he did have two things: A determination to get something done, and a group of friends and acquaintances who rallied to the cause.
It took years to achieve just some of his goals, and the New Dems have continued to carry his standard forward.
That is the way things get done.
The question is not whether anybody told you to do or support anything or anyone.
The question is, When are you going to try changing things for the better?
If there is nothing or no one that suits you, when are you going to rally others around you to strike off in the direction YOU think is important and worthwhile for the whole community?
Does Jim Spear realize that the issue is that the mayor did something illegal? I don't think from his comments that he understands the issue. Sounds like he is just bitter, but I don't know about what.
Post a Comment