Is there anyone bellicose City Councilwoman Maria Pereira can get along with for an extended period? Inevitability persists, this time with a public defender assigned to represent her from numerous election fraud charges stemming from the 2023 mayoral race when she supported John Gomes who lost to Joe Ganim in that wildly extended cycle.
Both Gomes and Ganim supporters have been charged.
As reported by CT Mirror’s Dave Altimari, Pereira on Wednesday “told the judge she wanted to fire her attorney Dean E. Popkin and get a new one. Dayton granted the request after Popkin said the relationship with Pereira had deteriorated to the point he felt he could no longer properly represent her.”
What those conversations must have been about!
In February Pereira was charged with 20 counts of Misrepresenting Eligibility Requirements for Voting by Absentee Ballot, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 9-135(b), four counts of being Present When an Absentee Ballot Applicant Executes an Absentee Ballot, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 9-140b(e), five counts of Possession of Ballots and Envelopes Restricted, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 9-140b(d), Forgery in the Second Degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-139 and Disorderly Conduct, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-182.
Meanwhile, also on Wednesday, a supporter of Marilyn Moore’s 2019 mayoral race entered a guilty plea that will avoid jail time.
One of seven defendants charged in the Bridgeport mayoral election scandals pleaded guilty to voting fraud charges Wednesday but will avoid jail time under a plea agreement.
Under the agreement, Josephine Edmonds, 63, would be sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence with three years probation when she goes before Judge Tracy Lee Dayton on Sept. 25. Edmonds was facing four felony charges, including witness tampering and illegal possession of absentee ballots stemming from the 2019 election.
After the hearing, her attorney Public Defender James Pastore said his client was just a small part of an election machine.
“Miss Edmonds was a minor player here and it is unfair that the people directing this aren’t being held accountable,” Pastore said. “Her actions had no effect on the outcome of the election.”
The charges against Edmonds stem from a case involving a family she knew that she assisted in filling out absentee ballots in the 2019 mayoral election and then taking and mailing them. Edmonds was working for Democrat Marilyn Moore in that primary election.
She also was charged with witness tampering when the family informed her they had been subpoenaed to testify at a civil trial after that election and she tried to convince them not to mention her name.
The only other defendant to appear Tuesday was City Councilwoman Maria Pereira who told the judge she wanted to fire her attorney Dean E. Popkin and get a new one.
Dayton granted the request after Popkin said the relationship with Pereira had deteriorated to the point he felt he could no longer properly represent her.
Dayton set a new court date for Pereira for Aug. 11 and ordered a new public defender be appointed to represent her.
Pereira is one of two sitting city council members facing election fraud charges for either misrepresenting who is eligible to vote absentee, fraudulent voting, taking possession of voters’ absentee ballots or being present while voters filled out those ballots.
They were charged by the Chief State’s Attorney’s office last year for events that took place in the 2023 election cycle.
Council member Alfredo Castillo is facing five counts of misrepresenting eligibility requirements for voting by absentee ballot and five counts of being present when an absentee ballot applicant executes an absentee ballot and eight counts of possession of ballots and envelopes. Former council member Jazmarie Melendez is facing six felony counts.
The three other defendants are Wanda Geter-Pataky, Margaret Joyce and Nilsa Heredia. All had their cases continued until Aug. 13.
Dayton said previously that on that court date she expects plea negotiations to occur with the other five defendants to see if a resolution to the cases can be reached, otherwise a trial date will be set.
Geter-Pataky, the vice chair of the city’s Democratic Town Committee, is facing 92 separate criminal charges, including conspiracy to take possession of multiple voters’ absentee ballots.
Heredia is facing similar charges as Edmonds from the 2019 election but has not entered plea discussions with the state yet.
Her attorney Ken Krayeske had applied for accelerated rehabilitation — a form of probation — for Heredia but was denied by Dayton, who signaled the case was not going to be business as usual.
Dayton said that allegations of election fraud and voter manipulation were serious matters comparable to cases stemming from the embezzlement of public funds.
Meanwhile, Joyce, who lists no permanent address, was recently fined $1,000 by the State Elections Enforcement Commission for what they described as an “egregious” violation of state law for her actions in the 2024 Bridgeport elections.
Joyce is currently facing nine criminal charges from the state’s investigation of the 2023 elections.
This article first appeared on CT Mirror and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
THROW THEM ALL IN JAIL FOR STUPIDITY THATS WHAT YOU ALL GET FOR TRUSTING SCUMBAG POLITICIANS
Yurp. THEY ALL HAVE YOUR BACK
While the “rule of law” grinds slowly to catch up with ‘civil rights’ miscreants, the public is ignoring an opportunity to weigh in on changes to the City Charter that a Charter Review Commission worked on for over three months to place their work before the City Council for them to review changes, updates, opportunities to organize and simplify. Council Ordinance Committee has held PUBLIC SESSIONS last week and again this week. The final opportunity for the public to make a comment or ask a question is tonight at the PUBLIC HEARING to be held at the Madison Avenue North End Library.
Ordinance Committee of the Council will continue to discuss the Charter document after the Public Hearing in a Special Meeting.
The Charter as presented by the Review Commission places Ethical Reform in municipal governance as the priority. The creation and funding of five member Ethics Commission with staff and powers appropriate to the task of enforcing ethical behavior is something long necessary.
We are a City of second chances, or so we are termed, because the most outrageous perpetrator of municipal corruption in City history has been returned to the Office of Mayor by operation of a Democratic Town Committee that does not live up to its communication responsibilities to its public while maintaining a plurality of party members, though unaffililated voters number in the thousands, greater than membership in any other titled group.
Distrust fuels other prime causes for a reason that few people go to the polls. After all it seems that “law and order” operates daily, when it does, but voting is one day every two years for City Council, for instance. But fewer than 10% of registered voters getting informed about the candidates and issues as well as any questions on the ballot, is such a weak showing of democratic participation as happened in 2021 when no Mayor was on the ballot, is no reason to think that we are a ‘governance healthy’ or ‘voter active’ community. Why should your neighbor support funding for your problem, issue, or concern, if you don’t show what is on your mind through informed conversation and getting to the ballot box this year? Time will tell.
Will the No Kings/Hands Off people be organizing a rally outside the courthouse? The manipulation of the AB process is actually king making! It has been going on well before all the recent protests. Will Blumenthal et al, be out there warning people of this actual treat to our democracy? Where are all the quotes for the democracy watchdogs? When you see actual subversion of the election process shouldn’t these same people be engraged? “Hands off my Vote”, literally!
If instead of answering your questions as I do not organize public rallies as you may know.
However do you see ‘absentee ballot process’ has value to voters who adhere to the rules assigned? You have used the word ‘manipulation’ that lends itself to many potential offenses, as happens frequently when the goal is to use the law but bend it or ignore principles.
I have been writing about Bridgeport’s most recent similar municipal election in 2021 to that which will be held in November 2025, observing that according to Registrar of Voter records and amended returns of the CT Secretary of State, fewer than 10% of voters registered to vote, according to their records of active voters, actually voted. What does an absentee rate, that totals absentee ballots and machine cast ballots, of more than 90% portend for democracy? Voting avoidance or abstinence is not neighborly for those who approach their governance on a faith based foundation. It is your right of self expression towards the power structure, and governance checks and balance. Perhaps you will attend the CASUAL CIVICS CONVERSATION at 9AM at Fruta, 1000 Lafayette , Bridgeport 06604 this Saturday. One hour to share your thoughts about the City, and listen to questions being answered. Time will tell.
Return to the two-year mayoral term should have been a top charter revision measure. (ACCOUNTABILITY + better pairing of the mayoral election with the other municipal elected offices (turnout/issue timeliness…))
Are you the only champion of this measure? Or the only citizen to float this as the Charter Review did what it could for three months, from March to May, providing a document for review to the City Council for their subsequent review, reflection, and modification, if necessary.
Today seven members of the CC met for nearly two hours to thrash out the revision, authored by City Attorney office, and Civil Service director that eliminated five pages, reorganized sections to be orderly and more readable, and dealt with issues that have cost the City extra litigation expense because the necessary clarity of certain employee positions was in doubt (relating to mayoral appointments that subsequently would move into union positions with benefits) and arguable.
Have you reviewed the Preamble of the Charter? Does it seem welcoming and appropriate for a democracy anticipating voluntary effort through citizen participation? Where is a statement of purpose for the City Council which is seeking respect for its position as a branch of municipal governance? Time will tell.