Jury selection is expected to begin today in the case against trash czar James Galante on state elections charges -- unless a plea deal can be reached with prosecutors.
Hugh Keefe, the lawyer representing Galante, said they are expected to begin selecting jurors in the case today in Hartford Superior Court.
But "there is always the possibility of a deal being reached," he added.
Galante was arrested in October on campaign finance fraud charges for alledgedly contributing nearly $40,000 to three politicians through the use of "straw donors."
The practice of using a straw donor involves reimbursing friends, relatives or co-workers for contributions they made to a candidate's campaign to get around maximum donation laws.
Galante was charged with three counts each of illegal contributions to a political committee and engaging in corrupt practices, according to the arrest warrant affidavit.
Politicians who received the donations in question were state Sen. David Cappiello, Mayor Mark Boughton and former state Sen. Louis DeLuca. All three politicians have denied any knowledge that the donations were made through straw donors.
Keefe issued 15 subpoenas in the case last month. He said Friday that if a plea deal is not reached and the trial proceeds, he expects to call those subpoenaed as witnesses in the case.
And just who did Keefe subpoena...
Although Keefe declined to comment on who he might call to testify, both Cheryl Reedy, the executive director of the Housatonic Resource Recovery Authority, and Boughton confirmed receiving subpoenas in the case.
Why is calling Boughton important in this trial? Well, because I personally went through every single one of Boughton's election finance statements and as I AND THE FAIRFIELD WEEKLY REPORTED, unlike the other elected officials, when it comes to Boughton, there is a pattern of alleged bundled campaign donations that goes beyond the particular one in question.
And as HatCityBLOG pointed out, this was not the first time the same group of people stuffed Boughton's piggybank. Within a five-day period in January 2003, Walkovich, Seri, Paul DiNardo and his wife (Galante's sister) all gave $1,000 to his reelection fund, as did Maria Rullo, of New Fairfield, who pled guilty to tax fraud in July in a case related to United States v. Ianniello, aka Matthew "Matty the Horse" Ianniello of the Genovese family, which has alleged ties to...James Galante.
It's simple. Mark Boughton, if called to the stand, will have to explain himself UNDER OATH and trust me folks...he's in trouble if this case goes to trial.
Here's the deal:
1. Boughton has a history of LYING. Remember, he lied about the Danbury PD not being involved in the Danbury 11 case.
2. Boughton, when confronted be Helena Abrantes during the 2007 mayoral forum, refused to comment about Danbury's role in the Danbury 11 case.
3. A quick look at Mayor Boughton's records clearly show that the the same people who allegedly bundled donations to the mayor's campaign did the same thing back in January of that same year.
4. Boughton stated several times in the press that he NEVER SOCIALIZED WITH JAMES GALANTE. For those who went to a Danbury Trashers game and talked to me...this is a LIE. Several times did people SEE JAMES GALANTE, MARK BOUGHTON in the box section at the game.
If called to testify, Mark Boughton is going to be UNDER OATH...and at that point, all bets are off.
...trust me folks, if I unearthed the Boughton-Galante connection, you can trust that the STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE has the same info AND they will go right after Boughton REALLY hard for statements he has made in the past.
Boughton is in trouble folks if this case goes to trial...and those in the know are fully aware of this.
Danbury trash company executive James Galante pleaded no contest in state Superior Court this morning to one count of violating state elections laws by making an illegal cash contribution to a political action committee.
Although Galante's plea indicated he was not admitting guilt,he was found guilty. Under the terms of a plea agreement with state and federal prosecutors, he was given a one year sentence to be served concurrently with a 7 year and three month racketeering sentence he received in federal court earlier this month.
[...]
Prosecutors said in state court Monday morning that, had Galante chosen to go to trial on the election law case, they were prepared to prove that he used straw donors in 2002 to violate contribution limits to political action committees run by State Sen. David Cappiello, former State Sen. Louis DeLuca and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton.
Prosecutors said Galante used friends, relatives and employees to funnel about $40,000 in contributions to the committees.
Under his plea agreement with prosecutors, Galante pleaded only to the charge involving Cappiello, who is now running for Congress as a Republican in Connecticut's 5th District.
If this case would have gone to trial, Boughton would have been placed on the hot seat. In the end, the state attorney's office had their cross hairs on Galante and NOT Boughton (at this time). Regardless of the outcome of the trail, there is clearly a connection between Boughton and Galante that goes back years...unfortunately, at this time, Boughton not be placed under oath to talk about that connection.
What's REALLY ugly is what Galante DID plead to, which is MUCH uglier than anything the so-called mobster did with Boughton...his connection to David Cappiello.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.