Newton Seeks Dismissal Of Campaign Finance Charges

Ernie Newton’s lawyer has filed a motion to dismiss state campaign finance charges against the former state senator asserting “the charges against Mr. Newton could not be supported if the ultimate responsibility rest on the treasurer.” Newton’s lawyer Darnell Crosland filed the motion to dismiss in Hartford Superior Court last week. He claims the scope of felony charges against Newton under state law can only be applied to a campaign treasurer, and not a candidate.

State law enforcement officials assert Newton fabricated $500 in campaign donations to qualify for roughly $80,000 under the state’s voluntary Citizens Election Program of publicly financed races in his quest in 2012 to regain the senate seat he was forced to abandon following his conviction on federal corruption charges eight years ago. Newton finished a close second in a Democratic primary to Andres Ayala who went on to win a seat in the State Senate in November of 2012. In its case against Newton the state claims Newton prevailed upon campaign workers to fabricate donations so his campaign would meet the threshold of $15,000 in small donations to qualify for public funding. Newton was not charged with using any of the public funds for personal use.

Newton denies the charges. This case is the first of its kind since the state legislature approved public funding of legislative races races several years ago, bringing felony charges against a candidate who the state claims fabricated donations to leverage public campaign funds.

Crosland’s legal motion follows:

Pursuant to § 41-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the charges pending against him for the following reasons:

1. The statutory presumption under Connecticut General Statue Section 155, §9-622 (7) is based on presumed facts that do not flow from the proof of facts on which it is dependant upon; State v. DeBiaso (1970) 271A.2nd 857,6Conn.Cir. CT 297.

2. The prima facia evidence supporting the charge of Illegal Practices a violation of Connecticut General Statute Section 155, §9-622 which requires that a person make a payment or promise of a payment to a campaign treasurer, and any campaign treasurer who knowingly receives a payment or promise of payment, or enters or causes the same to be entered in the person’s account in any other name than that of the person by whom such payment or promise of payment is made is guilty of illegal practices.

a. The entire basis upon which Mr. Newton has been arrested and charged with a crime in the instant matter is flawed. Para 8 of the affidavit alleges that an individual by the name of A.S. was “urged” by Mr. Newton to sign a document saying that he would make a contribution, but that he never did. There is no support for the contention that Mr. Newtown did anything to violate the statute cited above. The mere fact that an individual referred to A.S. claims that he was urged, vaguely describes if at all what Mr. Newton’s action were. It would reason that every person running for office ‘urges’ ‘encourages’ or otherwise relies on people to make contributions to their campaign.

b. For a person to be guilty of Illegal Practices, the law requires that individual make a payment of promise of payment to a campaign treasure. The campaign treasurer for the Newton for Senator Campaign was Loretta B.A. Williams. Mr. Newton never made, nor is there any proof that Mr. Newton ever made a promise of payment to Ms. Williams of any sort, in any amount, directly, or indirectly through any other person or persons. In addition, the law states that any campaign treasurer who knowingly payment or promise of payment, or enters or causes the same to be entered in the person’s account in any other name than that of the person by whom such payment is made is guilty of “Illegal Practices”. Here, there are no allegations that Ms. Williams violated that law. Therefore, it would reason that the charges against Mr. Newton could not be supported if the ultimate responsibility rest on the treasurer.

c. We do know that the treasurer was assigned both a liaison and an investigator by the SEEC. These two persons worked closely with the treasurer, and verified almost any and all contributions made to the Newton Campaign. There is even proof that when Ms. Williams thought anything was questionable, that she reported it on her own to the SEEC (see State’s files). In addition, the SEEC would call every single donor to the Newton Campaign and verify that the person making the contribution was in fact the person who submitted the contribution, and was in fact the person who made the contribution, and who signed the contribution card that was in fact submitted to the SEEC.

d. These practice of the SEEC was complied with so zealously, and over zealously, that the Campaign complained that the SEEC was asking donors were they aware that they were supporting a known felon. A behavior that was in fact harassing to the campaign contributors and a violation of Mr. Newton’s civil and constitutional rights. Nonetheless, the SEEC investigators verified that all of the contributions made to the Newton Campaign, including but not limited to the five individuals in question here, was actually made by all the individuals who submitted a contribution card. It should be noted, almost all of the individuals who now make the claims to the SEEC were workers in some fashion to the Newton Campaign, and they all start their complaints off with a grievance against Mr. Newton for allegedly not paying them for the work that they performed for the campaign. This must be considered as a possible motive for either telling the truth to the SEEC investigators about their contributions when the contribution were made and now lying, or lying when they made the contributions and now telling the truth in order to be paid.

3. The factual allegation and proof or lack thereof do not support a the claim that Mr. Newton violated Connecticut General Statute Section 155, §9-622. There is insufficient evidence to justify the continuing of such charges or the placing of the Defendant on trial, State v. Bell, 55 CA 475.

4. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.