DID THEY TRY TO SWEEP THIS  UNDER THE RUG ?

 

THEFT OF PUBLIC MONEY

OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

 

 

A FULL BLOWN COVER-UP ???

 YOU DECIDE !!!!

 

On November 18th, 2009, the Bergen Record reported:

    "The Municipal Court administrator for Dumont and Demarest was charged with theft on Tuesday, accused of pocketing $1,285 in court fines that violators thought they were paying in full to Demarest, authorities said."

      "Anna Marie Vigiletti, 74, of Dumont enrolled the violators in payment plans without their knowledge, taking the money from the full payments for her personal use, Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli said.

      Vigiletti, who was employed by Dumont for 18 years, made payments on behalf of the violators over a period of time in an effort to cover up the theft, the prosecutor said.

      But on at least a few occasions, Vigiletti failed to make payments, Molinelli said. The original violators received notices of the deficient payments, triggering complaints that led to Vigiletti's arrest, he said.

      In an e-mail, Molinelli said he believed that Vigiletti eventually ended up returning all of the money.

      She was charged with one count of theft by deception." 

        FIRST , it sure does appear that there were multiple thefts involving multiple victims as well as multiple complaints from those victims.  If so, why was there only a single charge of theft by deception?  Why was there no additional charge of official misconduct?

        SECOND, note the comment that it was believed that she eventually ended up returning all the money.

NOW, THE VERY NEXT DAY (November 19, 2009)

      Her attorney is quoted as saying that when the investigation began it was quickly determined “the town was not out one single penny because the money had been repaid more than a year before.”

REPAID MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE !!!

      WELL, THEN ...

  • WHY DID IT TAKE OVER A YEAR FOR THE VICTIMS' COMPLAINTS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ?

AND THEN ...

  • WHY ONLY A SINGLE CHARGE OF THEFT WHEN THERE WERE MULTIPLE THEFTS REPORTED AND WHY WAS THERE NO OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT CHARGE ?

AND THEN ...

  • IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DO SOMETHING OVER A YEAR LATER WHEN TOO MANY STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS ?

              .................................................. 

WELL, LOOK AT THE CAST OF CHARACTERS ...

  • 2 Democratic Mayors involved each of whom appointed Vigletti as their town's court administrator.

GUESS WHO THEY ARE ???

                 Demarest Mayor Jim Carroll is also a Bergen County Freeholder.  He is not only a Freeholder, but the Freeholder Chairman. 

                 Dumont’s Mayor Matt McHale, reportedly closely tied to his convicted felon boss Ferriero, just so happens to again be the paid, full-time Director of the Bergen County Democratic Organization.

WHO ELSE HAVE THEY BOTH APPOINTED ???

  • The Borough Attorney for both towns is the very same - Greg Paster.   Now, as the Attorney, he probably wrote the letters and resolutions.
  • The Borough Auditor for both towns is the very same - Lerch, Vinci Higgins.   They received copies of these Resolutions.
  • Certain officials in each town have themselves, family members and/or friends hired and on the payroll in the other town .

LOOK AT THIS..WHY NO QUESTIONS

   Direct from the Dumont website, Resolution #259 adopted on OCTOBER 6, 2009 ,  appoints an acting court administrator and states that "the governing body of the Borough of Dumont received a letter of resignation from the Municipal Court Administrator”.   This resolution was adopted unanimously by Dumont’s governing body at their public meeting on that date. 

WHILE THIS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY, THE MINUTES DO NOT REFLECT THAT ANYONE ASKED A  SINGLE QUESTION !

IT GETS BETTER ...

     Mariners Bank was approved to be the official depositor of the town at the reorganization meeting back on January 6, 2009.  But yet, they chose to do it again in Resolution #260 also adopted unanimously by Dumont’s Mayor and Council on OCTOBER 6, 2009 .  However, buried toward the end of the resolution, you will see, “Be it further resolved , that two original signatures, no facsimile, be required on each transaction on the Municipal Court Account".

HERE AGAIN, THIS WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY AND NO ONE, BUT NO ONE, QUESTIONS WHY THIS SUDDEN CHANGE IS PUT IN PLACE SO LATE IN THE YEAR ?? 

     

A HUGE COVER-UP ???

FEEL FREE TO DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS 

   

 

THEFT OF PUBLIC MONEY IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME

AND

TO BENEFIT ONESELF BY COMMITTING AN UNAUTHORIZED EXERCISE IN ONE'S OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS IS A MUCH MORE SERIOUS CRIME OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

  § 2C:30-2. Official misconduct

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.

Official misconduct is a crime of the second degree. If the benefit obtained or sought to be obtained, or of which another is deprived or sought to be deprived, is of a value of $ 200.00 or less, the offense of official misconduct is a crime of the third degree.    

  

 

 

CARROL AND McHALE

TWEETLE-DEE ?

TWEETLE-DUM ?

 

 

  

NOT ONLY  "WHEN"   BUT FOR "HOW LONG"   DID OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS KNOW OF THE THEFT?

 

THE FEDS NEED TO INVESTIGATE

DID SO MANY PUBLIC OFFICIALS TRY   TO KEEP ALL OF THIS

 

 VERY HUSH-HUSH?

DID THEY ONLY TURN IT OVER TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES  AFTER THEY FOUND OUT THAT SO MANY PEOPLE IN DUMONT LEARNED WHAT HAPPENED ?

TOO MANY ARE ASKING WHY THE MAYORS AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED  THEMSELVES  WITH HINDERING PROSECUTION  AND OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT !!!

 

MUM APPEARS TO BE THE WORD ... THE ONLY WORD !