While I am not active on this forum, I read some of the recent posts
since I put the word out about the petition. No surprise to see that
not much has changed here. :-)
If anyone would rather have the unfiltered facts on Butch Saunders
conviction(s), here is the Department of Justice Press Release
unedited...
02-03-04 -- Saunders, Kenneth, Sr. -- Guilty Plea -- News Release
Former Asbury Park Mayor Admits Tax Charges; Plea Follows December
Corruption Conviction
NEWARK - The former mayor of Asbury Park, Kenneth E. Saunders, Sr.,
pleaded guilty today to submitting false and fraudulent tax returns
for 1997, 1999 and 2000, U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie
announced
The tax plea follows Saunders' conviction by a jury in December on
corruption charges in connection with the city's early redevelopment
plans. Saunders' confidant and political consultant, Rayfield James,
Jr., was also convicted by the same jury.
Sentencing for Saunders on both the corruption and tax charges is
scheduled for May 11 at 11 a.m. before U.S. District Judge John C.
Lifland. Sentencing for Rayfield James, Jr. is scheduled for March
22.
Saunders and James were indicted in April 2003 for their
participation in the conspiracy to offer bribe payments to Asbury
Park Councilwoman Sheila Solomon in 2000 in connection with the
redevelopment of the Asbury Park oceanfront. The remaining five
counts of the Indictment charged Saunders with aiding in the
preparation and submission of false federal income tax returns for
the years 1997 through 2001.
Prior to trial, Judge Lifland severed the corruption count from the
tax counts and ordered a separate trial for Saunders' tax counts.
The trial began on Dec. 2, with guilty verdicts returned on Dec. 15.
Saunders admitted today that for each of the calendar years in
question, he improperly claimed head of household filing status and
that he falsely claimed deductions for the care of dependents.
Specifically, he claimed to have two dependent grandchildren for
1997 and one dependent grandchild for 1999 and 2000. Saunders
admitted to Judge Lifland that he has no grandchildren, that he was
not entitled to list the children set forth on his tax returns as
dependents, and that he did not incur child care expenses as claimed
on his tax returns.
Saunders also admitted to claiming fraudulent unreimbursed job
expenses that he had purportedly incurred as a councilman and mayor
of Asbury Park. Specifically, Saunders admitted that he falsely
claimed that, in his capacity as mayor, he had put more than 18,000
miles on his personal vehicle during for 1997, more than 17,000
miles for 1999 and approximately 12,000 miles for 2000. Saunders
admitted that these figures were "grossly inflated."
Saunders, 59, served as the mayor from July 1, 1997 through June 30,
2001. He was originally elected in late 1996 as an Asbury Park
councilman to fill out the unexpired term of another councilman.
Saunders was then reelected to the Asbury Park City Council in May
of 1997 and was chosen to serve as mayor by the other members of the
Council, which included Councilman James Condos. Condos was indicted
along with developer Philip Konvitz in October of 2002 on corruption
charges and awaits sentencing.
Saunders and James each face a maximum sentence of five years in
prison on the corruption charge, a fine of up to $250,000 or twice
the loss caused by their offense. On the tax charges, Saunders faces
a maximum sentence of three years per count, as well as a fine of
$100,000 per count plus the costs of prosecution.
Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Judge Lifland will determine the
actual sentences based on a formula that takes into account the
severity and characteristics of the offenses and the defendants'
criminal histories, if any.
Parole has been abolished in the federal system. Under Sentencing
Guidelines, defendants who are given custodial terms must serve
nearly all that time.
Christie credited Special Agents of the FBI, under the direction of
Special Agent in Charge Louie F. Allen, and the IRS Criminal
Investigation section, under the direction of Special Agent in
Charge Patricia J. Haynes, for their work in developing the case.
The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark J.
McCarren, Chief of the Office's Public Protection Unit, and
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nelson S.T. Thayer, Jr. of the Office's
Special Prosecutions Division.
-end-
Defense Counsel: Anthony Iacullo, Esq., Montclair
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > I hear where you're coming from, but whether the corruption you
> >cite had anything to do with AP's fall, it is still part of its
> >history.
>
> Butch Saunders cheating on his personal taxes is part of Asbury's
> history?
>
> > Certainly, it has played a part in its fall from grace to say
the
> > least.
>
> I respectfully disagree. The fall from grace was well before the
> Asbury United adminsitration.
>
>
> > Believe me, I am not trying to pick a squabble with you...
>
> I know that. I like discussions like this Dan. Most people shy
away
> from discussion. You don't. You're the man!
>
> > But I take exception to your use of "reletively (sic) new
fakers."
> >Way
> > back I asked you who is an APer, did someone have to be born
here
> or
> > live here a requisite number of years before being considered an
> > APer? You replied (paraphrased), "anyone who claims it for their
> > own."
>
> Two different topics here (my fault again). "New fakers" was only
> in reference to certain people claiming historical expertise. For
> example: Many associated with the Historical Society and the
> Preservation Committee. They wax nostalgic about things they
never
> saw, and routinely over-romanticize it (not having seen it isn't
the
> problem - you can study history without living it, but over-
> romanticizing it in the face of eyewitnesses who tell you
otherwise
> and in the face of real-world analysis is a problem).
>
> Example: When the 4th Avenue boardwalk pavillion was first painted
> white by Asbury Partners, I listened to a gentlemen who routinenly
> refers to himself as "historian" give an empassioned speech at a
> council meeting. He complained (paraphrasing) "...that people
want
> to remember that building the color that it was. They have
memories
> of the building. By painting it white, AP Partners and the council
> were proving that they have no respect for history and more
> importantly, no respect for peoples' memories of that building."
> The "historian" was very exercised.
>
> Here is my problem with his speech: The building he was refering
to
> was: A locker room. Not the Sistine Chapel - a locker room.
Does
> this "historian" believe some couple in Boise is
> reminiscing: "Remember our trip to AP 30 years ago? Who could
> forget that locker room. That's what I remember most fondly. I
would
> love to go back and admire the color of that locker room." (I was
a
> locker boy in that building for 2 seasons, and I don't even
remember
> what color it was. I think it was white.)
>
> My point: I'm not saying you have to have lived here then to know
> the locker room building was a marginal facility. Anyone can know
> that. I am saying you are a "faker" historian if you are going to
> claim that building has any historical value whatsoever. That's
just
> foolish. He so wanted to say something historically relevant, he
was
> willing to mislead about the value of that building, just to hear
> himself talk. Such a gross historical inaccuracy for the purpose
of
> glory seeking can kill a movie like Christina's, if that fellow
and
> others like him can convince her they are historical authorities,
> and she prints it.
>
> >So I ask you, who has more at stake here? One who was born and
> > who moved away when trouble brewed, or one who has come late in
> the
> > game despite the trouble and invests in AP's future potential?
>
> I don't know. I hope you aren't insinuating that's me in your
> question, because you certainly aren't accurately discribing me.
So,
> who has more at stake here: A renter who is here 7 days each week
> or an owner who is here 2 days per week? Why does it matter? I
> think they both have a stake in AP. They are both laying claim to
> the City, which is the only test I ever put forth.
>
> As far as the word "stake" goes in my original post, I wasn't
> unclear that I was refering to an "emotional stake" in Christina's
> movie about Asbury's history. I stand by it. It's just a personal
> observation about how I feel about her movie. I didn't mean to
> suggest that others won't have an affinity or connection to it as
> well. That's part of the beauty of art (I think) - expressing how
> it hits you personally.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
