Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"THE PEREZ TRIAL: WEEK ONE IN REVIEW"

8 Comments -

1 – 8 of 8
Anonymous Peter Greene said...

I had heard that PARTIAL funding for the Park St project is from the fed. So, if the state is not successful in convicting Perez for whatever reason, hopefully the fed will take up the case...

May 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Blogger KEVIN BROOKMAN said...

From the testimony, it seems like the majority of the cost was Federal funding, some city funding and a samll portion was a CT DOT grant.

I would imagine the Feds are still watching, even as far as Perez's taxes paid on his home improvements, I think that was eventually what sunk John Rowland when he didn't claim the value of his "gifts" at the cottage

May 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Anonymous Jeff said...

Great blog entry Kevin. More detailed than the media.

Let's not forget another HUGE nail in the coffin. Permits were never pulled on the work. Unlike a DIY job were a home owner might overlook a permit, a contractor deals with permits on a daily basis. It's not something they "forget".

Perez will not change. If he wins his trial he will go right back to raping the city for him and his friends, destroying anyone who tries to oppose him.

His thirst for power and money as Mayor has grown to a proportion that prevented him from taking the plea bargain. It was his choice to roll the dice, so now he can shake all day in court.

May 15, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Anonymous James Smitts said...

Let's not forget that Costa was NOT a licensed home improvement contractor. Even before the free reno job, it would appear, according to the Courant's report, that a contractor residing in WEST Hartford, not the West End of Hartford, who contributes to the mayor's campaign would expect to get something out of it down the line.

May 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Blogger KEVIN BROOKMAN said...

The issue of permits and being an "unlicensed" renovation contractor really didn't play a big role in the overall investigation, Costa was investigated by the CT Dept. of Consumer Protection and was eventually fined a few thousand dollars.

Asd far as an "out of towner" contributing to Perez's campaign, you might want to look at his 2007 Campaign filings available in the Hartford City Clerks office. Perez raised almost 3/4 of a million dollars, almost $750,000 dollars and very little of that financial support came from Hartford.

Perez's next closest challenger financially, raised about a $100,000 dollars.

The majority of Perez's support came from lawyers, architects, contractors, other various professionals and most of them appear to be involved with city construction projects.

It does make you wonder how dirty the system really is.

May 15, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Anonymous Jeff said...

The fact Costa was not licensed has little if any relevant to the criminal charges.

However, not pulling permits is about showing the jury members that there was an effort being made to hide the work. This helps give credibility to a quid pro quo relationship that there was no intent to pay for the work or taxes.

May 15, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is my concern -- while the testimony was what we expected, none of the witnesses could actually say that they knew Perez was not intervening just to prevent a lawsuit. Costa cannot actually say Perez told him free home work was the cost of doing business in Hartford -- that was his assumption -- nor can he say that Perez ever insisted the work be free. Again, he assumed he wouldn't be paid, he was never told he wouldn't be paid. For a juror looking for reasonable doubt, they can find it there.

If anything trips up Eddie on the bribery charge, it will be lying to the investigators about having paid for the work already when he hadn't. If this had been a federal investigation, he would be in jail already for that.

What do you think -- does Eddie take the stand in his own defense?

May 15, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Having tried to completion over 50 cases myself, I have to say that Costa was very damaging to Eddie.It remains to be seen if the investigators who were at Eddies house will testify soon, I suspect they will be.

May 15, 2010 at 10:49 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot