Will Karen Jackson’s Eviction And Taxpayer-Paid Stipend Issues Derail Reelection Or Generate Voter Sympathy? Pereira Pounces

Mailbox at 318 Goddard Avenue. If Karen Jackson lived there, Maria Pereira asserts, why did mail pile up?

Incumbent City Councilwoman Karen Jackson is fending off assertions from opponent Maria Pereira that as a result of a residential eviction she vacated her residence in the 138th District forfeiting her right to legally serve her Upper East Side constituency, also calling into question her recent party endorsement for another two-year term.

Pereira, in addition, questions Jackson’s veracity regarding $685 spent on her taxpayer-paid stipend account at Foot Locker in Milford, money that’s supposed to be used for official council business.

Karen Jackson. Photo: Erik Trautmann / Hearst Connecticut Media

Jackson replies, in a story by CT Post reporter Brian Lockhart, that File photo of Maria Pereira during her run for State House in 2016.[/caption]

Pereira supported Jackson for the council seat two years ago, but is now challenging her.

Does Jackson’s subsequent handling of her eviction generate sympathy with voters or illustrate an elected official’s desire to circumvent law to keep her seat?

A lot of this depends on what you share with voters in a district that relies heavily on door-to-door campaigning relating to personal challenges. For Jackson “It’s been a daunting journey.”

More on this issue from Lockhart:

So maybe it should not be surprising that a local elected official, Councilwoman Karen Jackson, recently was evicted–and that experience has now become part of the bitter campaign for her 138th District seat representing the upper East Side.

At the end of April, a Superior Court ordered Jackson and her three sons to vacate their government-subsidized apartment at 189B Virginia Ave. for failure to pay the $1,250 monthly rent. The family just last week moved into their new place, 209 Virginia Ave.

“It took me a hell of a time to find it and raise the money,” Jackson told Hearst Connecticut Media. “It’s been a daunting journey.”

Meanwhile Jackson, who said she makes money as an informal court advocate–she gets clients through “word of mouth”–has filed her own legal claim against former landlord K Bpt Condo. Jackson said the bathroom in her old apartment was covered in black mold, with a broken shower and sink.

But Jackson’s opponent for the Council seat–former supporter Maria Pereira–has alleged that, as a result of her eviction, Jackson for a period of time this summer left the district. And, Pereira said, by doing so, under city law Jackson forfeited her right to serve and to have been nominated July 23 by the Democratic Town Committee for re-election.

“They (voters) can feel sympathy for her on a personal level,” Pereira said. “But ultimately, Karen has a responsibility to represent the constituents of the 138th. If your personal life is in such tremendous upheaval, are you really in a position to make critical decisions for residents in your district?”

At issue is Jackson’s claim that, with her children temporarily relocated out of town, she had moved into the first floor of a friend’s three-family house at 318 Goddard Ave. Pereira argues that is a lie.

Full story here.

Share

79 comments

  1. On one hand, I feel extremely uncomfortable with beating up a person who is encountering financial difficulties. There is no place for that in election politics. Too many people in Bridgeport are living paycheck to paycheck. It is inexcusable to attack one person for financial difficulties. On the other hand,if a City Council person is abusing the CC stipends , that is a legitimate issue. However,I repeat, do not take advantage of another persons financial difficulties. That is UGLY.

    1. Please do not make an issue of eviction and other economic living circumstances. That is going over the line. The issue of using City Council stipends for personal use is an issue that needs 100% public discussion. I hope it remains that way.

  2. I don’t get to vote, but we pay taxes in Bridgeport so I have an opinion on how those taxes are spent.L

    How dare the DTC nominate for reelections an IRRESPONSIBLE council member who tell the CT Post that she
    OFTEN loses her (city) debit card and some one else must have been shopping at Foot Locker in Milford.

    If Jackson can’t be trusted to responsibly handle a debit card with $9,000 attached, how can anyone trust her to vote on a city budget involving hundreds of millions of dollars.

    The ‘some other dude did it’ is a classic criminal defendant defense, I learned about in in my first semester of law school. Today most stores have cameras at the cash registers. It is possible that these transactions were caught on video.
    Did Jackson make the prior and post Foot Locker purchases with the same debit card? If so then she is a liar. She didn’t lose the card, if she had it and used it afterwards. Misplace maybe, lose-no.

    I read the full article in the Post. Jackson claims to make her living as an independent advocate at the local courthouse. Sounds awfully like practicing law without a license.

    I am proud to support Maria Pereira in the coming primary, A better fiscal watchdog would be hard to find (with apologies to JML who is not running for office. The people and taxpayers of Bridgeport deserve much better than Jackson.

    1. Marshall, No need to reference my watchdog efforts. They are extended to benefit everyone in Bridgeport ultimately. Observations:
      1) All candidates and sponsors should understand that having adequate personal income to meet current and emergency needs is important because of the time investment involved when you become a “public servant” as a Council person.
      2) The “stipend system” as operated by Ken Flatto and the City is broken, inasmuch as the debit card funded quarterly in advance (without realistic evidence presented of Council purpose for expenditures) is not supported by the existing (and not approved attempt at revision) for reimbursement of COuncil expenses in City legal process.
      3) Why should Council business expenses paid for by taxpayers be secret needing FOI process that is a waste of City time and money, anyway?
      TIME WILL TELL.

  3. I’m not so worried about Ms. Jackson’s personal business. My concern is the several times she has “misplaced” her taxpayer funded card. One has to wonder has the police been called and a report been filed regarding our tax dollars being stolen and spent at footlocker? If not why not. I’m sure footlocker has video cameras and the police can track down the thief that has stolen our precious tax dollars. The person who has stolen this money has stolen from us all.

    We as taxpayers need to demand better accountability of the city council. If they cannot keep track of a lousy $9000 stipend how can we expect them to understand a half a billion dollar budget and its priorities?

    Instead of trying to deflect blame for their poor budgeting priorities by trying to cast blame on the BOE for money “mismanagement” perhaps they need to look in their own back yard.

  4. Politics in general and Bridgeport politics specifically is a dirty business and if you don’t lie down in the mud you can rest assured that someone will hit you with a handful or two. With respect to the charges with the stipend, she didn’t figure out that by herself she had guidance. While I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is.

  5. The City Attorney should simply ask Ms Jackson to report the credit card stolen and to release any and all video related to its use or demand reimbursement in full.
    Of the City Attorney wouldn’t do that because he knows BS when he hears it.

    1. Bob, that’s why cleaning that den of lawyers in the City Attorney’s Office with be Hamilton Burger leading the way MUST be one of the top two decisions the new mayor MUST do starting the first day in office.

  6. At this point where Miss Jackson is calling her residence isn’t a concern to me.Like alot of Bpt people she is in survival mode,I wish her the best getting a permanent roof over her head…My problem is she is obviously using the stipend for her personal needs,and unfortunately is lying about it when confronted.This leads me to my next concern,isn’t there anyone in Flato’s office checking receipts when these stipends are used??Evidently they could spend that stipend on anything they want,with no questions asked??For a city in dire financial need,it’s time this stipend is discontinued or at the very least lowered to $500 or so.

  7. I’m sure that Karen Jackson or any other parent would take the lost of their credit card by their child lightly, it would be one of teachable moment in that child’s life, well, this is one of teachable moment for Karen Jackson that being irresponsibe with her City credit card.

  8. If only there were a technology that made it easy to report and oversee expenses in a way that maintains integrity and transparency. Oh, wait… there is. Actually there are many. Its an app. You can add items, receipts, make notes and it’s all easily accessible for administrators to keep an eye on expenses. It’s too easy.

    https://www.concur.com/expense-report-lp?pid=ppc&cid=us_goo_web_br_concur_expense_reporting&ef_id=CjwKCAjwnMTqBRAzEiwAEF3ndqWQuJOT7Ivp1Il2zcLlzcUAUN1kgVYomrFmgqaUrx3B_GHMtkfqTxoCCqQQAvD_BwE:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!5224!3!240875275867!b!!g!!concur%20expense%20reporting&gclid=CjwKCAjwnMTqBRAzEiwAEF3ndqWQuJOT7Ivp1Il2zcLlzcUAUN1kgVYomrFmgqaUrx3B_GHMtkfqTxoCCqQQAvD_BwE

  9. The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version (1611), “The Gospel According to John”, chapter 8, verses 3–7
      ³And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
      ⁴They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
      ⁵Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
      ⁶This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
      ⁷So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

  10. The issue of eviction is of public interest as it relates to the City Charter and elections law.

    The minute Karen Jackson was evicted and was not a bonafide resident of the 138th District, and did not have a bonfide address she intended to return to she forfeited her 138th District City Council position. In addition, she NEVER resided at 318 Goddard Avenue which was her address on July 23, 2019 the night she was endorsed by the DTC.

    She states she was residing at 318 Goddard Avenue without any electricity yet at the same time her sons personal belongings were being stored at 999 Broad Street. Why didn’t she simply store them at 318 Goddard Street? Hmmm…

    Between May thru July 29, 2019, Karen Jackson has claimed four “bonafide” residences. 189 Virginia Ave, 318 Goddard Avenue, 52 Virginia Avenue, and 209 Virginia Ave. How many OIB readers have had four “bonfide” residences within 75 days?

    The issue is not her personal eviction. The issue is her failure to have a bonafide residence in the 138th District without a valid address she intended to return to.

    I took the CT Post article door-to- door and although I stated the eviction was a personal matter, however I did receive pushback from voters that her eviction was relevant to them.

    The stipend expenditures upset every single voter I spoke with.

    I spoke with a 96 year old World War II veteran yesterday. He was holding the CT Post shaking it in the air. He said you are a “watchdog” and we need more people like you. He complimented me on all my work on Chris Taylor as well.

    He pointed at me and stated ” I haven’t made all my decisions yet but I am voting for you. You’ve absolutely got my vote.”

    I saw an attorney this morning who told me he read the story on Karen Jackson. He stated that it was clear Karen was being untruthful.

  11. The stipend report I received only covers from September 10, 2018 – June 11, 2019, approximately 9 months.

    I did not want to publicize my recap until AFTER the CT Post and OIB published their story.

    Karen Jackson utilized her taxpayer funded stipend as follows:

    96 Lyft Rides totaling $ 1368.33

    April 9, 2019 – 4 Lyft Rides $ 69.60
    March 11, 2019 4 Lyft Rides $ 66.68
    October 1, 2018 10 Lyft Rides $163.94
    September 27, 2018 4 Lyft Rides $ 41.14
    September 26, 2018 3 Lyft Rides $63.10
    September 25, 2018 5 Lyft Rides $58.18
    September 24, 2018 14 Lyft Rides $166.02
    September 21, 2018 6 Lyft Rides $58.29
    September 20, 2018 3 Lyft Rides $69.54
    September 19, 2018 5 Lyft Rides $61.03
    September 18, 2018 4Lyft Rides $38.94
    September 17, 2018 5 Lyft Rides $ 107.50
    September 14, 2018 4 Lyft Rides $37.89
    September 13, 2018 4 Lyft Rides $ 41.76

    Rent-A-Wreck Car Rental

    November 14, 2018 (East Haven) $ 67.90
    November 13, 2018 ( East Haven) $ 136.79
    November 13, 2018 (East Haven) $ 67.90
    November 7, 2018 (East Haven) $ 522.08

    Karen couldn’t get to Milford to spend $685 on Kids Footlocker /Footlocker because it was to far, yet she repeatedly could repeatedly take Lyft rides to/from New Haven and get to East Haven to rent a vehicle. Hmmm…

    Lyft Highlights

  12. Karen Jackson loves visiting restaurants with her taxpayer funded stipend.

    Restaurant expenditures as follows:

    Yard Jerk 9 visits totaling $262.56
    Burger King 2 visits totaling $ 53.81
    Famous Fifties Diner 2 visits totaling $ 51.74
    Mommies Patties 3 visits totaling $ 58.61
    Fruit Juice Bar 5 visits totaling $ 74.73
    Lakeisha’s Bakery 4 visits totaling $ 53.69
    Awesome Sauce 2 visits totaling $ 64.34
    Doughnut Inn 1 visit totaling $ 6.50
    McDonald’s 3 visits $ 24.34
    LaGran Placita 1 visit $ 13.50
    Taco Bell (Wallingford) 1 visit $ 12.28
    Dunkin Donuts (New Haven) 2 visits $ 17.60
    Churra Caria 2 visits $ 51.05
    Ralph & Richs 1 visit $ 13.29
    Tomlinsons 1 visit $ 6.04
    Fuchal Café 1 visit $ 22.81
    Sergio’s Pizza 2 visits $ 52.18
    Latino Deli 3 visits $ 94.24
    Chaves Bakery 1 visit $ 19.90
    Big Deli Grocery 2 visits $ 12.50
    Bagel King 1 visit $ 4.22

    TOTAL 49 visits $ 969.93

  13. Miscellaneous stipend expenditures

    December 20, 2018 Milford Kids Foot Locker $ 335.00
    December 20, 2018 Milford Foot Locker $ 350.83
    March 26, 2019 Main Tires $ 40.00
    January 23, 2019 Hair Plus $ 34.05
    April 1, 2019 Nob Hill Cleaners $ 34.34
    December 19, 2019 Wallingford Walmart $ 100.08
    January 22, 2019 Metro PCS Mobile $ 66.00
    April 1, 2019 Park City Wireless $ 26.59
    September 27, 2018 CVS $ 25.72
    November 13, 2018 One All Natural (Juice Bar) $ 10.64
    September 10, 2018 Taxi Dispatch (West Haven) $ 10.80

    Miscellaneous Multiple Expenditures

    Apple I Tunes 6 Downloads $ 22.16
    Dollar Tree 3 Purchases $ 112.14
    Food Bazaar 2 Purchases $ 87.31
    Cumberland Farms 3 purchases $ 41.01
    Citgo Gas 6 purchases $ 101.57 ( often same day as Lyft rides)
    Park City Gas 3 purchases $ 91.13 ( Often same day as Lyft rides)

    TOTAL $ 1489.37

    1. Considering Jackson (and all Council Members) get a city provided cell phone, the use of the debit card at Metro PCS and Park City Wireless is brazen thievery.

      And after spending 2K on Lyft and Rent a Wreck because Jackson doesn’t have a car, why the need to spend any money at Main Tire??????????

      Jackson needs to go…right to jail. Do not. pass Go, Do Not collect $200. She has already fleeced Bridgeport taxpayers for enough money.

    2. Looks like she liked the rides from lyft so much she decided to do them herself which is why we see the gas expenditures in the same days as the “rides”. Other than that all the other bills look legitimate, ha, ha, and the only people taken for a ride are the taxpayers.
      What has she done for her district????

  14. Just got a call from a 138th resident with 4 votes in their home. The person said “I love you, Maria.”

    The voter had read my OIB posts regarding Karen Jackson and her stipend use.

    I wonder if those 4 votes are no longer in Karen and Nessah’ s grasp.

    Hmmm…

  15. And the saga continues….

    If you recall I posted last week that Karen and Nessah failed to file the Initial Contribution or Disbursement SEEC Form 20 within 48 hours of receiving their first donation or making their first expenditure.

    Their Treasurer filed it this morning that she donated $25,00 on July 30, 2019 with not a single expenditure or donation, other than hers identified.
    The invitation for Nessah’s & Karen’s fundraiser was already in circulation. This is not listed on the filing.

    She filed the report over a week late but failed to identify a single donation from the August 1, 2019 Fundraiser or any costs associated with the fundraiser in violation of the law.

    This brilliant Treasurer didn’t identify the election date on the filing.

    Tsk,,tsk. 🙂

  16. If the Jackson stipend expenditures at restaurants, etc. are important, then the stipend expenditures for restaurants, etc. of Council members Alfredo Castillo, Denese Taylor-Moye and Jack Banta are also important. I recently obtained their stipend reports for them which reflect many such payments.

    In addition, there is the related issue of Councilman Castillo, who claims to be disabled but who is known to operate a construction business, spending nearly $1,100 in stipends in December 2018 for fuel and construction related expenses. Although I have asked him several times for explanation, he has given me nothing more than a cold shoulder.

    Also, I’m curious as to how Maria Pereira got the stipend info on Jackson. On July 16th, I did an FOI request to Mayor Ganim seeking stipend info on Jackson and Councilwoman Eneida Martinez. As of this date, despite the statutory requirement for an agency to give documents within five days, I’ve received of the City nothing more than an acknowledgment of receiving the request. So today, I filed a formal complaint against the Mayor and the City with the Freedom of Information Commission. There should be disclosure of how Pereira got the info!

      1. Ron, that doesn’t answer my question. Did Maria go through the FOIA process? Did someone within the Finance Department do her a sly favor? Do some people in the City have to go through the usual procedures and others don’t?

        1. Ethan, does it really matter, so if she did get some over way so what. Hey, file charges against her. Ethan, you have got to stop majoring in minor stuff. You and your Republican Party are going nowhere in Bridgeport, NO WHERE but you keep on posting on OIB so that you can feel important along with your party.

          1. Ron, what I raise here is not minor. Your real problem with what I post is not the content but rather that it comes from a Republican. For anyone else, that would be called bigotry. Maria put herself in the public arena with this. She is raising political and legal issues. She has a political and moral responsibility to answer to my question! And if Mayor Ganim and the City have duplicitous standards for responding to requests for information from Democrats and Republicans (as I have heard is done for regulations for small businesses, then there is a lack of respect for the loyal opposition, a situation which has legal, constitutional and political implications; a situation which is a threat to our Republic !!

          2. Ethan, “Maria put herself in the public arena with this. She is raising political and legal issues. She has a political and moral responsibility to answer to my question!” Excuse me, Maria has a political and moral responsibility to answer to my question, really, get a life Ethan.

        2. Ethan and Maria,
          Thank you for taking the lid off the “pot boiler special” represented by Stipend use. The Ordinance talks about expenditures for the purpose of Council person’s serving their constituents and then providing evidence for the purpose of reimbursement. That is not what a quarterly debit card represents. If the buck stops with Ken Flatto, how much oversight does he do monthly and what records does he easily consult to perform that duty? If he shares that with us, voters and taxpayers in each district across the City, we will be in a better position to see whether Stipends require a citizen haircut by petition, maybe? Time will tell.

    1. Come on Ethan. It’s all in the way you spin it. During JG1 he said he paid for nothing. Next….
      All you can FOI is the report. If you have actual dollars then you’ve got it. You can not ask someone to explain what makes up the expense if it isn’t provided to the city.

      1. Bob,
        You should be able to expect that the City Ordinance language is followed to a ‘t’….but the old Ordinance speaks to the old process……and if debit cards do not, then you should expect a revision from Ordinance Committee…..but that is not happening. And if the debit card process does not lend itself to honest and telling expense descriptions in a timely manner, perhaps the old way of reimbursement had some human wisdom as foundation? And why aren’t these specific records available to taxpayer 24/7 on line? Time will tell.

  17. Ethan,this is Bpt,if they are stalling giving you the info you requested through an FOI request,it usually means Joe doesn’t want you to see it,everything is a secret under this administration.

  18. I’m no Perry Mason,but these 2 expenditures are obviuosly Xmas presents for Miss Jackson’s kids.Meanwhile,Joe stays quiet about this.

    December 20, 2018 Milford Kids Foot Locker $ 335.00
    December 20, 2018 Milford Foot Locker $ 350.83

    1. Bob,
      Jackson is neither an attorney or a CPA. She holds neither license.

      What she appears to be is just another dishonest Bridgeport politician fleecing the taxpayers.

  19. After all this, my question is how can the People?Taxpayers of Bridgeport find out about ALL of the stipend spending of ALL City Council People. This may actually show the rot on the City Council.

  20. That’s funny Bob because that’s what you did on the council nothing and next to nothing only time you ever showed up at my door was election time other than that it was never.

  21. If this matter is so important to the Post and to the public, then why hasn’t there been outrage about the clear facts of Rep. Chris Rosario attending last year the ribbon-cutting for the New Harding High School while he was on the time clock for his part-time position with the City of Shelton or of Councilman Castillo using nearly $1,100 last December for fuel and construction related expenses?

  22. First of all Ethan, this is Bridgeport. Nothing personal but I’ve got enough to do looking out for Bridgeport. Don’t have no time for Shelton. Call Mark Lauretti.
    As far as Councilman Castillo goes, right now it your word against his. Come up with some proof. Then we’ll see what can be done.

    1. Bob, stay tuned. I’ll provide precisely the kind of information that’s been presented here. However, the information which I got was obtained lawfully!

      1. I don’t think obtaining public information in any manner is unlawful. If someone asks me for information I have access to and I give it to them and another person asks for the same information through FOIa, and is forced to wait that is not illegal. I don’t believe anybody could be charged with decimation of public information.

  23. Karen Jackson isn’t alone in this stipend misuse or abuse. She’s doing what the other council members have been doing since the stipend fund was implemented. Does it matter if she did it 30 times and someone else did it three times? Is it fair that her spending habits are being publically displayed and not those of every council member because she’s running against Maria?

    The problem is that the rules of use are so ambiguous that one can make the case, however ludicrous, that Lyft rides can be argued that getting to meetings are necessary to do her job or that new sneakers to wear to said meetings are necessary to do her job. Close the loopholes and make the use associated with the stipends definitive so as to remove any ambiguities about its use. The DTC rewards its people to be a good Democrats and you to can have this added benefit without much, if any oversight. It’s the price that the people of Bridgeport pay for loyalty to party and Mayor.

    1. Don,she charged $700 worth of sneakers on Dec 20th 2018,and half of that $700 was spent at a Kids footlocker,so I guess we are to believe she charged all the sneakers for her whole family so they all could walk with her to the CC meetings??

    2. Hear here.

      Ms. Jackson is not alone in abusing the CC stipend. How much of the stipends of individual CC members has been spent at Testo’s over the years? Gots to pay tithe to the dark lord that manipulated the ABs in one’s favor.

  24. Harvey, I saw that, but again, is there a such thing as stealing just a little. $700 for new sneakers, a meal at a restaurant or a cable bill paid, no difference. Is, I only stole a little a satisfactory explanation or is it alright to misuse it two times and not 30 times? Fix the rules of use to make any unacceptable charges punishable.

  25. I asked Lennie Grimaldi to FOI the stipend expenditures for ALL 20 City Council members. Lennie and Brian went to City Hall to review the documents, however for whatever reason neither Lennie or Brian wrote a story solely on the stipend expenditures.

    After several weeks of hoping a story would be written I asked Lennie if he would send them to me. He graciously did.

    There are many City Council members with questionable expenditures, however no expenditures were more outrageous than Karen Jackson’s.

    Once Brisn agreed to write a story regarding Karen Jackson’s residency I urged him to write about her stipend expenditures because they were germaine to her role as our City Councilwoman.

  26. I was out knocking on doors until about 8:30 PM Sunday night. I got home and checked my phone to find this text message from school board member Jessica Martinez.

    “You’re an evil witch! God does NOT like ugly! Won’t you add value to your district instead of minding other people’s tragic buisness. ”

    I responded with this today:

    “Do you recall me sending this to you on February 4th?”

    February 4, 2019 text message was as follows:

    “If you text me again I am going to file ANOTHER police report against you.”

    “I hope I have made myself crystal clear.”

    “I am directing you to not contact me again via text. You may contact me via email only if it specifically relates to BOE business.”

    “You may not contact me for any other reason.”

    And here is her moronic response:

    “🤢🤮🤢🤮 I could care less what you sent me. Resign from public office and your wish will be my command.”

    “Continue you on with your hate and evil devisive ways, there is a special place for people like you!”

    Yup. There is a special.place for people like me. It is called a library you moron.

    Who does Jessica think she is? A jeanie??? 🙂

  27. What has become glaring in this thread is Maria Pereira’s silence regarding how she got the information. Her silence is deafening and creates a negative inference; that she got the information improperly.

    Given the known facts, I suggest that what happened is that after I made my request on July 16th for documentation on stipend uses by Councilwomen Martinez and Jackson, a staffer of the Dept. of Finance collected and reviewed the information. He or she is a supporter or friend of Maria. Without obtaining proper permission from his or her supervisor, that person contacted Maria and did her that favor. Both knew that what was being done was improper, likely a reason that we have yet heard nothing from Maria about the means.

    Black’s Law Dictionary begins its definition of conspiracy as follows:

    “A combination or confederation between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful by itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.”

    Thus, for the known facts, it could be alleged that there was a conspiracy for the purpose of influencing an election.

    This also represents an analogy to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine wherein evidence unlawfully obtained is tainted merely for having been unlawfully obtained.

    1. Ethan,
      Are you mentally unstable?

      I was out door knocking until 8:45 PM and did not see your posts until about 9:00 PM.

      You sound unhinged and are behaving like a lunatic.

      As if the Ganim administration and I are involved in a conspiracy. Who in the hell believes that?

  28. Ethan the definitions of conspiracy theory is as follows

    “a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event”

    Why do you feel something was improper? Why does Maria have to explain to you how she got the information? Considering you yourself said you requested it. Is Maria not able to request it herself? Just because Maria got the information before you doesn’t mean something was improper. There isn’t a person on OIB that doesn’t know Maria plays hardball, and she does her research. Requesting information on an opponent is standard practice for her. For Christ’s sakes, she peed in a cup and paid for a drug test for herself and another city councilperson, sent an undercover delivery person with a video recorder to another board member place. Stating you are the catalyst who started Maria doing research on her opponent is a theory within itself. Get over yourself. 🙂

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og36vWGn5CU

  29. The issues that I raised about the means that Maria got the information were particularly relevant given her absence of responding to the questions. While she had responded to other points of this thread earlier, I accept her explanation given now that she was out campaigning. Nonetheless, the proper legal definition of conspiracy is what I gave. In addition, there is an issue of how the City can have two different very divergent processes for getting public information. The City should publish the various ways of getting information or delay less when the requests go to the Mayor and then are referred to the legal department.

    1. Ethan, keep on majoring in minor things because it will keep your name out there for Republicans. Ethan, as you see, you get NO support on OIB. You are now the Republican Stevie A.

  30. P.S. There is much more conspiracy in government, even in the courts, than is ever openly described and discussed as such. There should be more open discussion on the subject. And Maria, just because a person rationally raises the subject is not cause to respond by calling the person unhinged. This comment particularly applies to someone who is running for public office.

  31. Ethan,

    I could not care less if you accept my explanation or not.

    I don’t owe you ANY explanation as to how I obtained “PUBLIC” information.

    You sir, should stop ringing voters doorbells at 8:00 am on Saturday & Sunday mornings. It is inconsiderate, rude, and annoying to the very people whose support you are trying to garner.

    What reasonable person thinks it is acceptable to repeatedly ring the doorbells of voters at 8:00 am on the weekend?

    1. Maria, I never said that I didn’t accept your explanation. If you didn’t think that you owed an explanation, then why did you give one? And at least politically speaking, you can owe to me and the general public an explanation, particularly when there is the appearance that the information was obtained improperly. And Yes, it does matter if the information was obtained improperly. In addition, your comment of why your explanation was late doesn’t make complete sense. You earlier on the day made postings here of rather sensitive information in an article which was getting much attention. Then you say you went off to campaign for more than six hours. Sometimes I’m out campaigning when there are sensitive active posts here in OIB or in FB. While out campaigning, I will occasionally check the posts to see if there is something time-sensitive. Further, wherever you got any comment of me being out at 8:00 a.m. on a Saturday or Sunday, it is false. That never happened. If you got such a comment, did you verify the source? Did you ask if the concern had been presented to me? Did you get names? You seem to be on the defensive. Regarding conspiracy, there is a real issue of how the Office of the City Attorney often delays for extended periods without apparent reason other than willful delay. If that is true, then it is likely a conspiracy with the delays being directed by higher attorneys over the lower level attorneys. Unfortunately, such conduct is widespread among government agencies and the Freedom of Information Commission often condones it by not addressing the lateness issue when raised. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

  32. You wrote that you accepted my explanation as if your acceptance was needed or regarded.

    I was sent the doorbell camera footage of you ringing my friends doorbell prior to 8:00 am on both the Saturday and Sunday I referenced.

    They did not sign your petition purposefully but did sign Dishon Francis’.

    My time is valuable and I will no.longer be wasting anymore of it on you.

  33. On a closing note, for those associated with the Marilyn Moore campaign that are asserting that I am assisting the Row B slate, specifically Marilyn Moore, in the 138th District please stop spreading lies.

    Samia Suliman,,Helen Losak nor I have asked a single voter in the 138th District to vote for Marilyn Moore or anyone on her slate. Period.

  34. Maria, thank you for sharing your findings of abuse of stipend funds.
    In the ‘olden days’ the CT Post regularly reported on the abuse of city council stipend funds.
    When the city council and G1 established guidelines for stipends in the late 1990s, there were controls established such as detailing expenses that were allowed, whether a reimbursement was taxable and reported via a 1099, etc.

    In 2012, under the direction of then-council president McCarthy, a debit card system was adopted with no change to the city ordinance and noted by JML.
    As I have shared many time on OIB, Bridgeport is one of only two municipalities that has a stipend for members of its legislative body. New Haven offers up to $2,400 in reimbursement for expenses and Bridgeport loads $9,000 on a debit card for each council member.

    Maria, you have exposed behavior of a primary opponent which is irresponsible. Your opponent is the Democratic Town Committee-endorsed incumbent. These examples of stipend abuse may suggest that the Mayor, the City Council President and the City Finance Director have ignored this misuse of taxpayer funds.

    This may also reflect how mayors have controlled city councils, funding the city council stipends at $9,000 per council member every year even though no amount is specified in Carter or ordinance. Now, with the issuance of debit cards, it is no longer a reimbursement system as specified in ordinance.

    We should not hold our collective breath waiting for the Connecticut Post to do a legitimate investigative report on city council stipends. Hopefully, Maria will be successful in the Democrat primary election and initiate an internal review of stipend abuse as a member of the city council.

Leave a Reply