These must be unsettling times for John Gomes supporter, the self-proclaimed piranha of city politics, City Councilwoman Maria Pereira who barely won reelection losing on the machines in the Democratic primary, buoyed by her slick absentee ballot operation, but running well behind her new district partner Jazmarie Melendez in the Upper East Side 138th District.
That’s gotta be eating away at Maria, her freshman newcomer running well ahead of her.
So, did Jazmarie cut her at the polls or has Maria’s district constituency grown tired of her hysteria?
Remember the days on these pages when Pereira pontificated her majestic wins? Now that she’s suffered many losses, either as a candidate or campaign manager or a this or a that it’s easier to simply explain the world is against me, so I’ll sue everyone, according to her Facebook post:
Attorney Tyisha Toms writes in the OIB comments section:
Actually, when the plaintiff is a public figure, they have the burden of proving that the defendant acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Arguably the defendant can just say “I didn’t know it was untrue.” Then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff.
Let’s look at Pereira’s recent happenings:
- Caught on video searching for an absentee ballot in an elderly woman’s vacant home.
- Banned from public housing units after 20 complaints from seniors alleging bullying and harassment.
- Arrested for third degree assault on another senior citizen at JFK precinct election day.
- Allegations she illegally handled absentee ballots of elderly residents in the days leading to the September Democratic primary for mayor. See SEEC Complaint In re Pereira 11.15.23 (2)
- Ongoing investigations to all of the above.
Ah, no one smeared her based on this public official’s own actions.
And so it goes in the surreal mind of Maria Pereira.
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
Information communicated by another; report; common talk; rumor; gossip.
WOW!!
Assuming the truth of the above 2:35 youtube recording of citizen Roxanne, we must absorb that she has been eligible, and registered as well, although as she admits more than once, she does not know about the voting process besides signing and giving he ballot over to a “ballot activist”, in this case, Maria Pereira allegedly. Very sad story that indicates even with a total of 19,8% noted casting ballots in total, the profound gap between voting process knowledge, reason for casting a ballot offered, and independence of that single vote, undercuts a less than 20% assumption that our civics project at election time show up as failing.
If each candidate in the primary to come can be assumed guilty of support of past ABS practices why are we going through this process again. Shouldn’t any and all observed as part of past such illegal efforts be summarily suffer a consequence of no part in an upcoming election? That would be serious. Would not more folks pay attention to GOVERNANCE instead of minding the celebrity show as POWER that is likely political theater though it is called POLITICS ? Many folks avoid but observe politics as entertainment, not realizing that real world choices are made when we do not choose wisely, or even show up to record our informed personal choices. What are you thinking about governance and consequences for illegal political behavior? Time will tell.
Actually, when the plaintiff is a public figure, they have the burden of proving that the defendant acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Arguably the defendant can just say “I didn’t know it was untrue.” Then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff. You’re welcome.
Thank you!
Technically, Maria could be arguably correct. She stated she was collecting evidence that would prove there, alleged 🙂 slander/allegations. She doesn’t have to disprove the allegations. Although they would have to prove they didn’t know it was untrue and it wasn’t an act with actual malice or reckless in disregard for the truth.
Especially if Maria’s evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, I would think, that they knew what they said was untrue and with malicious and reckless intent. Allegedly. 🙂
However, if I were her I would be focusing on, and her attorney the criminal complaints levied against her. Like why was she in someone’s home without permission rummaging throwing their mail looking for an AB ballot and making multiple AB drops, all caught on video, “allegedly” 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7YoxrKa4f0
At any rate, please defendants and counsel, dress appropriately for the judge. 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHU1uoR8L30
Perhaps you are right AttyToms, sure you are, However the keyword that seems to playotu, particularly in the media is “alleged” Councilwoman Maria P., allegedly, yada yada yada. 🙂 Right Foxnews JW? 🙂
https://twitter.com/jessebwatters/status/1726786255990517908?s=46&t=fwRHHegMRopyzbhLnX8cKg
Outside or perhaps Martinez and McBride posting/attacking some “allegedly slanders shit, back and forth on social media that crosses a line only Maria sees. I can’t see a valid case made against G2, and any news media being liable for slander by reporting on the current situation Maria found herself in.
Personally, she’s coming off like a Trump, “Allegedly. 😂 AttyTom is (allegedly) suggesting Maria comes off like Trump who threatens to sue everybody Slandor? Councilwoman Maria if your lawyer tries to sue me for comparing you to Trump as slander, I am so poor you just be practicing, actually 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU2_Axxbchg
Suing all of the persons/entities enumerated by Maria in her FB post is, indeed, a daunting task for a solitary lawyer, whether handled collectively, or individually, case-by-case. In the former situation there would be a situation where the solitary lawyer bringing suit would need to prepare for a situation of enormous complexity and a collective legal counterweight that would give Clarence Darrow a mental hernia. In the latter case, it would represent a years-long situation full of mounting legal confounds per the historic influence of each case on the ones that follow, given that there would certainly be changes in juries and judges, over time…
Maria would do best to focus on suing (only) the single entity in this suit that could provide a potential financial windfall, even as the “win” over the entity in court could provide political redemption for Maria across all associated areas of concern, e.g., the “win” could provide a de facto order to lift the ban on Maria’s presence in BHA-run housing (PCHA just doesn’t have the right, “true” “ring” to it, so I prefer to refer to the Authority in gritty, BHA terms)…
Focus is what Maria needs in pursuit of justice regarding the political and legal skullduggery that has come to envelope her in the political snake-pit known as “Bridgeport.” (If P.T. Barnum were alive, he’d sell tickets for Election Day bus-trip tours of the Portal to Political Hell that would make stops at all Bridgeport polling places during the course of the day and end with a late dinner at Ralph ‘n’ Rich’s…) Maria’s quest for justice will be best served by identifying one, prime target that won’t be able to withstand a high-energy, laser-focused legal assault…