Bloggers Split on Annabi’s Fate at Trial With Jereis Deal Done
Zehy Jereis-was deal with Feds done months ago? Sandy Annabi-will she go to trial?
While some bloggers expect a difficult chance of success for federal prosecutors of Sandy Annabi, if she decides to go to trial on Federal bribery, corruption and tax fraud charges against her, our law enforcement sources tell us that the U.S. government is ready to go to trial, confident in their evidence to convict, and ready to push for a long sentence of up to 15 years if Annabi, who continues to proclaim her innocence, demands a trial by her peers. An offer made to Annabi has recently been withdrawn by prosecutors.
We have also been told that Zehy Jereis has already cooperated with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office, and has had a deal in place for several months. Why this deal has not been announced, or why Jereis has not been forced to allocute his crimes to the court, we do not know.
But Jereis’s information, combined with Anthony Mangone’s information, gives the Feds both sides of the financial payments to Annabi. Among the prosecutions 10,000 pages of evidence, transcripts of phone conservations between Annabi-Mangone and Jereis are said to clearly explain what Annabi was involved in.
We also keep hearing that Mangone’s information will take the U.S. Attorney’s case down to the Bronx, where a scandal will break involving the award of the Voting Machines in New York State to ES&S.
18 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
xxx on Cerrato Holds Slim Lead Over I… annon on Go Preet Go! Annabi –Jereis Co… annon on Go Preet Go! Annabi –Jereis Co… Anonymous on Go Preet Go! Annabi –Jereis Co… Douglas G. Tompkins on County Legislator Gordon Burro…
-
Archives
- April 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (4)
- May 2011 (4)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (8)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (5)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
reposting this from previous post–it explains the problems feds may have with second part of Annabi case
there are two separate cases…they have
annabi on the longfellow case based on
mangone’s allocution..eg he says under
oath that he gave annabi the money…
so she’s done on that case..the ridge hill
case is separate..now they might offer annabi
the opportunity since she is cooked on one
bribe receiving case already to implicate others on the ridge hill vote change case..
however proving the theory of that case without corroboration from jeries or mangone
or someone else is tough because they don’t
allege that she recieved a specific sum for
the vote change they allege a course of
conduct over time where she recieved money
in an expectation that in the future she would sell her vote
“Since at least 2004, Annabi has received from Jereis, Mangone, and others more than approximately $160,000 worth of secret payments designed to influence and reward her for favorable official action or inaction on matters pending before the City Council as specific opportunities arose.”
” Annabi, Jereis, and Mangone also took various steps to conceal their scheme, by making false statements and/or omitting required information in various reporting documents.” the above comes from the language of the indictment..so they need
to prove that her vote change on ridge
hill was a quid pro quo for all that she
recieved from various sources prior to the
vote..unless someone comes forward and
testifies that they gave her x in exchange
for her vote it is tough to show intent because the money and other things were given
well in advance of the project and the vote
so how do you show criminal culpability on
that one vote change beyond a reasonable doubt..now of course since they have her on
longfellow they may be going for something
else here..eg someone else
After reading your comments and your recitals about the government’s evidence and plea offers to Sandy Annabi and cooperation by Zhey Jereis, one must ask “what the hell have you been smoking”?
Stop writing fiction and passing it off as facts.
Dan-Ask Mangone’s firm, including Sleazy Santangelo, about the the DiPietro case…He knows that Pirro and the feds made up the story and Sanginiti went along with it. They never called the alleged victim to testify, because they knew he could not remember what they wanted him to say and he would mess their case up. The guy has changed his story about 100 times already and it is all documented.
is that Bill Aronwald, who commented on this blog? If yes, then i ask you billy what are you smoking? You represented Pirro for years after blasting her for years before. You also represented DiPietro in his appeal. I think there is much that you know but won’t share.
Question to murphy-how could jereis have cooperated if his attorney said yesterday that his client was innocent??
Question for waronwald–do you really think that the feds didn’t tap sandy’s phones? And are you proclaming her innocence, and what do you know about Sandy and Al Pirro?
Aronwald is an excellent lawyer and has fought many tough battles in courtrooms across this state. He was a strong critic of Pirro in the past and strongly opposed her bullshit. However, all of a sudden he is a crusader for her and the Spano Pack (Annabi, Jeries)-which raises serious questions about how that all transpired and exactly when–this leaves many questions, for which he only knows the answer…..I doubt he will ever tell and will deny any allegation..
I would prefer to believe that Sandy, despite her closeness to the Nick Spano clan for so many years, had sense enough not to accept any dirty cash. If she goes away she will break the hearts of her many legions of senior admirers. SANDY, SAY IT ISN’T SO.
As for Anthony Mangone, nothing that comes from his mouth can be believed. His arrogance and cockiness have been his signature from the moment he walked out of law school. Remember, this ‘wunderkindt” was the one who admitted to signing 166 fraudulent Green Party ballots ten years ago for Big Nicky, and was in the center of Nick’s last three fraudulent elections.
Mangone is a mobster/lawyer, a true product of Yonkers corruption and slime, protected and promoted by Jeanine Pirro, who, by the way, the US Attorney’s Office refuses to give a clean bill of health to for good reasons.
Then there is Zehy Jereis. Pick up a rock and find him curled up. Mangone and Jereis should be given adjacent cells in a serious federal lock-up.
What Happened to the Old Aronwald?
Aronwald comments vigourously on the Annabi story, but has not much to say about all the misconduct in the Dipietro case, including all the withheld evidence that has recently been documented by investigator Bill Clutter. What is intresting, is that in 2006, prior to representing Jeaninie and company, Aronwald was quoted on numerous occasions saying the “Kidnapping Case” was replete with errors, at a time, which was even before Clutter’s investigation into all the Brady violations that occured. Here a few quotes in 2006:
“Trying a case before Judge Kram is like trying a case in the Twilight Zone,” he added.”I’m very optimistic that none of the defendants in this case got a fair trial,” said Aronwald.
“I have a great deal of confidence that the conviction will not stand appellate
review,” said William Aronwald. “If not advertently, then certainly inadvertently, Judge Kram’s rulings made it impossible for Mr. Capalbo and his co-defendants to get the fair trial they are guaranteed.”
Bill Clutter was the principal founder of the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project at the University of Illiniois at Springfield (UIS), where he currently serves as Director of Investigations.
http://www.clutterinvestigations.com/innocence_project.html
As the result of Anthony Mangone’s cooperation with the U.S. Attorney, here is list of people that I predict will be indicted in the near future.
Vincent Liebell – State senator
Mayor Amicone of Yonkers
Joseph J. Savino – Bronx GOP Leader
J.C. Polanco – Bronx GOP Republican Commissioner for NYC Board of Elections
Judith Stupp – Queens GOP Republican Commissioner for NYC Board of Elections
Well the Mangone/ Annabi chickens have sure come home to roost over here in Putnam County. Newly elected County Executive Unca Vinnie Leibell just announced he will not be taking office on January 1st as he seems to be having some legal problems with the same FBI and Federales who have dealt such a blow to Mangone and his cronies. Can anyone down in Yonkers please tell me what the connection is between Sandy Annabi and the Putnam County Annabis and their cousin Bill Sayegh? For more on the Leibell story, go to lohud.com the Journal News on line. We all appreciate you bloggers from Yonkers- thanks for the good info.
And Phil Sanchez will testify if Savino is indicted.
To A. Truman—I don think that it really matters if they give her an oral “clean bill of health.” At this point, I do not believe the US Attorney’s Ofice in the Southern District will ever do anything to Ms. Pirro, especially since she has alot of dirt on that office. We have seen Garcia’s nonsense-so whats been done since? Where are the Pirro tapes and why can’t the public have them?
If they ever indicted Pirro, do you think she will not reveal what that Office was were doing–including the bullshit under Garcia? What about the hype of misconduct in the Dipietro case or the Disimone case (Which has the SDNY all over it)—you really think that she wont play her cards on the Southern District if they ever went after her? You don’t think she was told to move on in another state and get out of the light here in NY? You don’t think that those Pirro tapes were purposely given to the SDNY, because the damage it would have to their own cases?
Texas’ messy death penalty saga continues Monday in a Houston courtroom, where a district judge will for the first time in state history consider whether the risk of executing an innocent person makes capital punishment unconstitutional.
Harris County District Judge Kevin Fine is set to hold a hearing in the case of John Edward Green, who is charged with fatally shooting a Houston woman during a robbery in June 2008. Harris County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the case. But Green’s attorneys and capital punishment opponents want Fine to rule that prosecutors can’t seek the death penalty because the way it is administered in Texas is unconstitutional. They say they have proof that at least two wrongfully convicted men have been executed. With so many chances for error in the courts, they argue, Texas shouldn’t risk putting an innocent person to death. “The current system is profoundly and fundamentally flawed from top to bottom,” says Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service.
Prosecutors, however, argue that higher courts, not a trial judge, should rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty. Besides, they write in a brief, Green hasn’t been convicted, so the whole question of the death penalty in his case ought to be a moot point.
The case before Fine is less about Green than a string of high-profile prosecutions that have raised serious questions about whether Texas has wrongfully sent innocent men to death row. Innocence Project co-director Barry Scheck, who is working on the Green case, says he’ll focus on Cameron Todd Willingham and Claude Jones. Evidence obtained before and after their executions, he says, proves that both men were wrongfully convicted.
Jones was executed in 2000 based on false evidence, Scheck contends. Recent DNA testing commissioned by the Innocence Project and the Texas Observer shows that a strand of hair that prosecutors said proved Jones killed an East Texas liquor store owner did not belong to him. The hair came from the victim. Jones had asked then-Gov. George W. Bush to stop his execution to allow time to test the DNA, but his request was denied. The new evidence doesn’t prove Jones was innocent, but Scheck says it would have raised enough doubt to trigger a new trial if the evidence had been collected before the execution. “His conviction would have been vacated, I’m sure,” Scheck says. “That’s a pretty serious error.”
Willingham was executed in 2004, after he was convicted of intentionally starting a 1991 fire that killed his three young daughters. Several arson experts who examined the evidence both before and after the execution have said the blaze started accidentally. Despite the expert conclusions, State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado has said he stands by the original ruling of arson. Scheck says he hopes to question Maldonado during the hearing in Houston about why he discounts evidence that others say proves state investigators were wrong. “The position he took was indefensible,” Scheck says.
Another man whose case has drawn attention, Ernest Ray Willis, was convicted based on arson evidence similar to that in the Willingham case. But Willis is alive now; he was exonerated because a law firm took up his case pro bono. Scheck and the other attorneys say this proves that the death penalty process is arbitrary — that luck is the biggest factor in whether a condemned inmate gets adequate lawyers to investigate and pursue claims of innocence.
Additionally, they argue that although lawmakers and the governor have created four separate commissions to reform the criminal justice system, improve the use of science in the courtroom and reduce the risk of errors, no major changes have resulted. “We have a just wholly inadequate process,” Keilen says.
If Fine rules that Texas’ death penalty process is unconstitutional, Keilen says, it could mean a halt to capital punishment in Texas until or unless lawmakers implement deep reforms that better protect against wrongful convictions. In fact, Fine already did rule the process unconstitutional earlier this year, when Green’s lawyers initially filed the motion. The ruling elicited strong denouncements from Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott, who called the ruling “unabashed judicial activism.” Fine subsequently rescinded his original ruling and ordered lawyers to submit briefs so he could examine the evidence. Abbott spokeswoman Lauren Bean says the Attorney General hopes Fine will allow Green’s case to move forward “so that justice is no longer delayed for the victim’s family — including her two children, who witnessed their mother’s brutal murder.”
Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos’ office declined to comment for this story. But in briefs filed with the court, the prosecution argues that a trial judge shouldn’t rule the death penalty unconstitutional. Higher courts, both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly dealt with and answered affirmatively the question of constitutionality and capital punishment.
Prosecutors also contend that they should not have to argue about the innocence or guilt of defendants in other death penalty cases. Anyway, they argue, those issues are irrelevant to the Green case. “It is incumbent upon the defendant to show that … the statute is unconstitutional as to him and his situation,” prosecutors write. “It is not sufficient to show that the statute might be unconstitutional as to others.”
What’s more, they argue, Green is presumed innocent right now. He hasn’t been convicted of murder, nor has he been sentenced to death. An order to stop the state from seeking the death penalty against Green because others might have been wrongfully executed is inappropriate, they maintain.
James Liebman, the Simon H. Rifkind professor at Columbia Law School in New York, says that because the challenge comes in the most active death penalty state at a time when exonerations are on the rise, criminal justice advocates nationwide are paying attention to the Green case. “There’s just been a long string of outcomes and information pouring out of capital cases across country really, but particularly in Texas, which have called into question the capacity of the system to reach accurate results,” Liebman says.
Nationally, 139 people have been exonerated from death row since 1976, including 12 in Texas. The latest man to be freed from Texas death row was Anthony Graves, who was released in October after serving 18 years behind bars — 12 on death row — for his alleged role in the horrific murder of a family of six in 1992. Years after a court ordered a retrial in Graves’ case, a new prosecutor in the county where Graves was convicted concluded there was not enough evidence to connect him to the crime. His initial conviction was based on the testimony of Robert Carter, who confessed to committing the murders and implicated Graves as his helper. Carter, as he lay in the execution chamber in 2000, admitted Graves had nothing to do with the crime.
Liebman says it’s time for an exhaustive review of Texas death penalty procedures. “At a certain point,” he says, “evidence of the system’s inability to function appropriately leads to the conclusion there ought to be a real inquiry.”
I don’t understand why you say they have
annabi on the longfellow case based on
mangone’s allocution..eg he says under
oath that he gave annabi the money…
so she’s done on that case…
Where in the law can you be convicted based on someone saying you did something?
I could say under oath that Dan Murphy takes cash and meals at restaurants and free dry cleaning to print stories favorable to certain candidates.
Does that mean you’re “done”?
I’m not being sarcastic — I really would like your answer. If you’re going to write about the law you should be more clear.
How do they “have” Annabi here based on Mangone’s allocution?
Adina–federal cases are primarily based upon sole witness testimony. This means that if Mangone testifies that he gave Annabi the money than that is all the feds need at trial. Whether the jury convict is a seperate issue. I know it sounds crazy, but it happens alot in federal cases. In fact, the Dipietro case is a prime example. Mo Sanginiti’s testimony was the only evidence used to convict Dipietro of the alleged June 29 kidnapping at Cross County. Only now, seven years later, has all the evidence, witnesses, phone records, finally come out by an Innocence progect investigator proving that this testimony was in fact false and that the kidnapping never happened. So in sum, the feds win cases based on cooperating witnesses that lie and in most cases it only takes one of them!!!
Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Jennifer Nikawa. I am contacting your firm in regards to a divorce settlement with my ex husband Amsberry Nikawa who resides in United State of America.
I am currently on assignment in S.Korea. We had an out of court agreement (Collaborative Law Agreement) for him to pay $648,450.00 plus legal fees. He has only paid me $148,000 since.
I am hereby seeking your firm`s assistance in collecting the balance from him or litigate this matter if he fails to pay as promised because He has delayed for too long.If you are in the position to represent me at the moment kindly advice. Are you in the US.?
E-mail; nikawajennifer39@yahoo.com. You can reach me via this emails above. Hope to hear from you soon.
Yours truly,
Jennifer Nikawa.