Is the darling of LGBT Democrats helping McCann?

/

After losing the coveted "Column One" position in Bergen County and filing a campaign receipts and expenditures report with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in April that showed his campaign was deep in debt and not raising enough money to sustain itself, candidate John McCann apparently sent out an SOS to his friends and colleagues.  They responded in a big way.

A former Democrat candidate for Mayor of Bogota (Bergen County) stepped forward to accuse McCann's opponent of saying some pithy things about him a decade or so ago.  McCann's campaign neglected to fully vet this Democrat (who they, oddly enough, describe as a "Christian conservative"), who recently attacked the policies of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. 

Now liberal Democrat Assemblyman Tim Eustace (D-38) -- described by some as one half of the New Jersey Legislature's LGBT caucus -- shuffles up and gets into the act of defending McCann by attacking his opponent in the June 5th Republican primary.  It is important to remember that it was Assemblyman Eustace -- affectionately known by some as "Brother Eustace" (or, as "Major Eustace" by others -- on account of his dashing, British-officer mustache) -- who led the early skirmishes in 2016 against then incumbent Congressman Scott Garrett, who went on to be defeated by Josh Gottheimer in the 5th District.

During one of his recent re-election efforts, it emerged that Brother Eustace had an unresolved issue.  A check of the incumbent Assemblyman's name on the New Jersey Court's public ACMS website, indicated that there were are two "active" (at the time) judgments against a Timothy J. Eustace:

Courts.png

A search of the details reveals that two civil cases filed in Bergen County are connected with these judgments.  They are dockets DC-624821-89 and DC-625025-89.  These cases refer to civil actions taken by the Leonard Shaw Bail Bond Agency against Timothy J. Eustace of 453 Golf Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607. 

Courts1.png

453 Golf Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607, is the same address used by Assemblyman and candidate Timothy J. Eustace.  Could the Timothy J. Eustace with the two outstanding judgments be Assemblyman Timothy J. Eustace?

Who is the other party in the case?  Who or what is the Leonard Shaw Bail Bond Agency?  Well, they are now known as Kirk Shaw Bail Bonds.  The company website advertises that they are "directly across from the Bergen County Jail" and have "24-hour service."  Here is a look at their website:

http://www.kirkshawbailbonds.com/

Who uses a bail bond company?  To explain that, here is a video by a well-known New Jersey attorney:

So what we have here are two outstanding judgments against a Timothy J. Eustace, by a bail bond company.  These relate back to two civil cases in which, apparently, Timothy J. Eustace owed something to the bail bond company.  This could relate back to a criminal case, for which the bail was needed.

Now it is important to understand that these court records are maintained by the same entity that has taken it upon itself to dictate the education funding formula in New Jersey.  These people are idiots, so there is every possibility that the Court's records -- just like the Court's judgments -- are full of crap. 

Of course, Assemblyman Timothy J. Eustace of 453 Golf Ave., Maywood, NJ 07607, can probably set the record straight.  So, Brother Eustace, if you would like to, we'd be happy to.

Cesaro (after 7 mos. ineligible): Glad somebody caught it?

/

Are you kidding us?

The people who run a whole bunch of towns hire an attorney who is on the ineligible list, that attorney handles a bunch of cases while officially "ineligible," and the best that attorney can come up with is a variation of that classic Bill Clinton line:  "Mistakes were made."

Wikipedia has a whole entry on this example of political doubletalk:

"Mistakes were made" is an expression that is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by not specifying the person who made the mistakes. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense, with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. A less evasive construction might be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made

Kudos to old "Maxie" Max Pizarro over at InsiderNJ who got Assembly candidate and Morris County Freeholder John Cesaro to speak on the record:

“It was a clerical error and it was 100% fixed,” Cesaro told InsiderNJ. “I spoke to the people down at the organization as soon as I found out about this, and as of this afternoon, the problem was resolved. I want to thank my opponent for bringing it to my attention.”

Somebody has some big balls!

The problems are just beginning.  The failure by those local governments to ensure that John Cesaro was eligible to practice law could pose serious problems for those towns.  The outcome of any case in which Cesaro served as a prosecutor or public defender could now be called into question by those involved.  They could all be subject to motions to vacate, or requests for a new trial.  Any party dissatisfied with an outcome could bring such a motion.  This could end up costing these towns big -- and leave property taxpayers with a enormous bill.

In case, you missed what this is about, here's the skinny:  An October 19, 2016 order by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, reflected in a search of the New Jersey Attorney Index, notes that attorney John Cesaro has been administratively ineligible to practice law in New Jersey since October 21, 2016 for failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Rule 1:28A-2(d). 

Cesaro-courts.jpg

Who ever knew that John Cesaro was such a wild man?  And Cesaro certainly works for a lot of municipalities:

Cesaro-ethics.jpg

The local property taxpayers of these towns should invest in some soothing ointment.  By the time this is all over, they are going to need it.

Stay tuned...

John Cesaro is politically correct but legally "ineligible"

/

If you want to know what is wrong with New Jersey, just wrap your mind around this:  Municipalities will jump through hoops to make sure that the attorneys they hire are compliant with politically correct affirmative action mandates, but they will not make sure that the attorneys they hire are eligible to practice law in New Jersey.  No kidding.

Take the case of John Cesaro, a Freeholder in Morris County and candidate for the State Legislature.  Cesaro holds a whole lot of jobs that require an active law license, as his personal financial disclosure statements make clear:

The municipalities that hire Freeholder Cesaro make him sign disclosures that bind him to upholding... "county employment goals determined by the Affirmative Action office..." and to give written notice of this to "employment agencies, placement bureaus, colleges, universities, labor unions..."

A great many paragraphs are devoted to these concerns:

But apparently, maintaining an up-to-date license to practice law is not a concern in New Jersey, because nobody seems to make you sign a disclosure about that.

http://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2016/n161021a.pdf

https://portal.njcourts.gov/webe5/AttyPAWeb/pages/AttorneyStatusDefinitions.pdf

An October 19, 2016 order by the New Jersey State Supreme Court, reflected in a search of the New Jersey Attorney Index, notes that attorney John Cesaro has been administratively ineligible to practice law in New Jersey since October 21, 2016 for failure to maintain compliance with the requirements of Rule 1:28A-2(d).  The failure by these local governments to ensure that Cesaro was eligible to practice law could pose serious problems for those towns.

The outcome of any case in which Cesaro served as a prosecutor or public defender could now be called into question by those involved.  They could all be subject to motions to vacate, or requests for a new trial.  Any party dissatisfied with an outcome could bring such a motion.  This could end up costing these towns big -- and leave property taxpayers with a enormous bill.

Stay tuned...