Mayor rejects offer to settle munchkin lawsuit
TRENTON » Paul Perez should add “esquire” to his name next time he runs for mayor.
Or at least stop pretending like he’s not calling the shots in a sensational lawsuit that allegedly seeks only to besmirch Mayor Reed Gusciora’s reputation and get him to admit to election misconduct, the mayor’s attorneys outlined in court papers obtained by The Trentonian rebutting allegations raised by Perez’s cronies.
Though Perez is not a named plaintiff in a notorious munchkin man lawsuit brought against his onetime friend, the perpetual runnerup is basically being accused by Gusciora’s city-paid legal minions of ghost-writing the lawsuit since first raising electioneering allegations in a post-runoff interview with The Trentonian.
Gusciora put on his best JFK impersonation in slamming his opponent for not making good on a debate promise to work with the runoff winner to restore Trenton.
“This is not about what they can do for the city of Trenton but what the city of Trenton can do for them,” Gusciora told The Trentonian in a phone interview Tuesday.
The so-called munchkin man lawsuit was filed last month by Perez’s official runoff challengers Chester and Jazmyn Jones and Michael Ranallo. It suggested Gusciora committed electioneering and criminal bribery to win the election.
The lawsuit also named Joanne Palmucci, the Democratic chairwoman of the Mercer County Board of Elections.
Perez hasn’t responded to multiple phone calls requesting comment about whether he endorses his supporters’ bid to hold Gusciora responsible.
But in tough-talking pleadings, the mayor’s attorney asked a judge to toss out the “frivolous” lawsuit and force Perez’s people to make the city whole for attorney fees.
Parker McCay attorney J. Brooks DiDonato called the allegations a “transparent attempt by Paul Perez to embarrass the mayor” and has given Perez’s cronies roughly a month to withdraw the lawsuit.
If Perez’s people refuse, like they have so far, the mayor’s lawyer wants the judge to impose financial sanctions if the suit is dismissed.
Since the lawsuit became public, the plantiffs’ Trenton lawyer God-Is C. Ike has communicated her clients’ willingness to drop Gusciora as a defendant if he admits to his corrupt “election misconduct” and meets with Perez’s people
to allow them to “voice” their grievances about what happened in the runoff.
“As concerned citizens of Trenton, my clients certainly do not want this matter to be oversimplified or downplayed and I am sure your client, as the newly elected Mayor of Trenton, shares in this sentiment,” Ike wrote. “There is proof, by way of witnesses and video, of your client engaging in election misconduct.”
Perez’s people’s explosive claims included that Gusciora bought the election for the price of a few lunch sandwiches and Dunkin Donuts munchkins provided to board workers.
They also slammed Gusciora and his camp over dirty electioneering tactics allegedly used at the polls to trick voters into casting ballots for Gusciora because he was the true Democrat in the race whereas Perez passed himself off as a donkey when he was actually the elephant in the voting booth.
Mascots aside, the lawsuit notably didn’t challenge the outcome of the runoff that led to Gusciora becoming Trenton’s first openly gay mayor in dramatic fashion by overcoming the more-than 700-vote lead Perez established in Round 1 of the municipal election.
And Perez himself never asked for a recount or contested the election, Di Donato said.
Letters exchanged between the sides make it clear Perez’s people aren’t trying to “unseat” Gusciora from the mayor’s throne. But they want officials held accountable to ensure a “more fair and trusted electoral process moving forward,” Ike said.
“We are hoping your client will work with us in this endeavor by acknowledging the misconduct and ensuring that, under his administration, Trenton officials will work hard to assuage the concerns of the community regarding election corruption that has led to much of the voter apathy in the city,” the Trenton attorney wrote.
Di Donato rejected the offer as treading “dangerously to a quid pro quo offer.”
Many criticized the allegations in the lawsuit as a waste of time and This screen capture of a photo was included in a lawsuit accusing Reed Gusciora of bribing poll workers and voters with munchkins. money that wouldn’t change the runoff outcome.
Taking his own hacks at the latest machinations in the lawsuit, Di Donato accused the named plaintiffs of being sore losers trying to “execute a political vendetta” following Perez’s epic collapse.
He also suggested the “et al” header in the lawsuit left open the possibility Perez was the unnamed puppetmaster running the show behind the curtain.
When asked whether he felt there was a chance his opponent wasn’t involved in or disapproved of the lawsuit, Mayor Gusciora responded, “I have a Trenton makes bridge to sell you.”
Di Donato went so far as to suggest Perez’s people want “access to the current administration,” and that’s why they are improperly using a “civil action” to attempt to hold Gusciora criminally responsible for crimes he wasn’t charged with committing.
The lawsuit, Di Donato stated, is “factually, technically and substantially deficient” because Perez’s people should have gone to the Board of Elections with allegations of “de minimis campaign violations.”
Or, they could have contacted the state AG’s office of the county prosecutor if they felt the mayor’s conduct was criminal.
After the mayor’s lawyer filed the response, Ike revised the complaint for a second time by stripping out criminal allegations that appeared in the original complaint citing state electioneering and bribery laws.
Ike now suggested there was a “civil conspiracy” between Gusciora and Palmucci.
For good measure, they also now contend Palmucci should be held responsible because board workers didn’t crack down on Gusciora, who was allowed unfettered access to “personally” handle voter registration booklets at the polls.
Perez’s people still want Gusciora fined for his alleged misconduct and Palmucci removed as board elections chairwoman.
The revision prompted another follow-up salvo from Di Donato pointing out the case didn’t meet the state high court’s definition of civil conspiracy as a “combination of two or more persons acting in concert to commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means.”
Attorneys for both sides didn’t responded to messages seeking comment.