A few weeks ago when I reported that the new Cedar Beach Pool was leaking, a media production guy who has done work for Pawlowski criticized me for negative speculation. When Allentown Public Works confirmed the leak five days later, needless to say the filmmaker had nothing to say. A public relations guy from NYC is now saying that Pawlowski is innocent. Pawlowski's lawyer has asked that the indictment be dismissed. Both these news releases are just last minute attempts to deflect from the gravity of the charges against him before voters go the polls. The Morning Call took the bait and put an alert breaking news banner in red across the top of their website. They used an out of context distortion as a sub headline. WFMZ also treated the political ploy as a legitimate news story, and even went farther. They taped Pawlowski's attorney making his case that Pawlowski is the victim of an over zealous prosecution. His attorney could well have a second career as a political strategist.
Meanwhile, back in Dodge City, aka Allentown, the bullets and knives have been flying. Pawlowski's paid mouth pieces can deny the criminal charges against him, but the blood and bodies speak for themselves.
Defense lawyers routinely file motions for dismissal of charges against their client. This isn't news; nor are paid spokesmen that the defendant hires to plead their case in the press for them. O J Simpson had them both in terms of Johnny Cocraine, Robert Shapiro and others as well as those individuals who were media guests during his famous murder trial.
ReplyDeleteAll of this showmanship may be new to the Morning Call (somehow I doubt it, but whatever), and expect Mayor Pawlowski's supporters and defense council to make similar statements in this pretrial period. After all, Ed is a major public figure in Allentown and given his whining on his home steps press conference last July, he won't go away quietly.
Ed's attorney, after all, wants to get his client off and is working the public to change their opinion of him. Who also compose the jury pool.
dave@7:19, the issue for me is the timing. i believe that the intention yesterday was to affect the voting pool, more so than the jury pool.
ReplyDeleteOf course. Ed is pulling out all the stops. It's a close race between him and Hyman, which is something he never had to deal with in 2013 and 2009. I'm surprised we're not seeing more of this, but there is a week to go.
ReplyDeleteMike, You hit the nail on the head. This is nothing more than a campaign ploy. That said, perhaps enough suckers will buy it.Ed has always wisely understood how gullible Allentown's voters are.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the entire motion and the select transcripts, one can only adduce some core beliefs from them. 1) The mayor is completely innocent and Mike Fleck and associate [Sam Ruchlewics] are guilty of putting this altogether and executing the plan. [ha, ha]. 2) The prosecutors, investigators and Grand Jury, all in conspiratorial enterprise, are against the mayor and over zealously rammed this through [despite the Eleven [11] guilty pleas so far]. 3) The mayor demanded that nobody "cross the line" because he didn't want to go to jail. Even in his selected transcripts, he demands all e-mails and records of communication be "purged". He built a buffer, Fleck & Company, to take the fall is the "sh--" came out. This man is not stupid, but arrogant, yes. He is a pure politician who's attorney took the opportunity to promote him during his own self-denial. This motion for dismissal, which should be rejected by the court, will only add extra expense to his mounting legal bills. When all these players are assembled in court against him, and jail is eminent, he will cave-in or suffer the massive consequences; extensive jail time.
ReplyDeleteThe article helpfully mentions high in the story that the deadline for filing this motion was after the election. That's the journalist providing important information that tells astute readers what's going on.
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions the alleged exculpatory content of the filing, and also mentions that there are other conversations that don't look so great for Pawlowski.
bob@2:53, since when are either readers or voters in allentown so astute? I believe that when such an article appears less than one week from the election, they should have asked another candidate for his opinion on the article's timing. why didn't they ask their trusty Chris Borick at Muhlenberg College?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteReaders and voters are two very different categories, let's not confuse them.
Still no sign of a debate which is really disappointing.
When both parties have rested, prior to the Court accepting/rejecting the proposed jury instructions,the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss the indictments. Since the Government by nature overcharges, it will not be surprising if some of the indictments are dismissed by the Court as too much of a reach, as the probative evidence for them did not rise to the minimum level required. This is all standard criminal law procedure; nothing to see here folks, just move on.
ReplyDeleteThe REAL task for the Court will be how he charges the jury in accordance with the McDonnel standard of the Supreme Court on public corruption that were previously discussed by Mr. Molovinsky......trying to explain to the jury that evidence presented that supports the claims that third parties made donations seeking influence over policy decisions is not criminal behavior.....rather, they must feel that the Government connected the dots between a specific donation and a direct, specific governmental action that the Mayor did in response to that specific donation.....a direct quid pro quo for the money. The employment of buffers between the parties presumably will have to be overcome by recorded tape conversations of the Mayor himself talking, as otherwise the Defense can simply assert the Mayor was unaware of specific quid pro quo demands and while appreciative of such donations and support, he simply made policy decisions on awarded contracts on the basis of what he felt were the merits.
Trent Hall: Do you believe multiple employees testifying that Pawlowski directed them to award contracts a specific way is enough to clearly connect the dots? Or does there need to be more, i.e. the employees heard him say it was in exchange for a campaign donation?
ReplyDeleteIf all the government has is employees saying what Pawlowski said, it becomes a "they said...He said" scenario. Also, the employees can be impeached because they will have been offered plea deals/reduced sentences/immunity/yadda yadda in exchange for their testimony. Have to believe the government has Pawlowski on tape, where the informants will have been coached on how to lead Pawlowski into admitting said action was in exchange for said donation. BUT,if there were lots of clear tapes on this point, the former DA would have loved to have grandstanded and indicted the Mayor long ago. Hence, I suspect the trial may be short on such explicit tapes, and instead just lots of testimony of what Pawlowski allegedly said. Instructions from the Mayor to whom to award contracts to are not enough to show criminality unless tied to specific donations for same. One of the reasons they overcharge is in case the more serious felonies of bribery are tossed or acquitted on, the lesser charges involving disregard of proper contract award policies can be sustained or found guilty of by the jury.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happens, a lengthy appellate process is guaranteed, because courts are still trying to struggle through the standards and what constitute proper jury instructions in such cases. The federal Senator Mendendez case in New Jersey will be closely watched as the court there has been making decisions on jury instructions and undoubtedly those decisions on appeal will go ultimately to the Supreme Court for review. Pawlowski could easily serve out the next four term if elected before any final decision in his case would be rendered.