John McCann’s financial disclosure leaves unanswered questions

/

Congressional candidate John McCann finally got around to filing his required personal financial disclosure statement with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives after his failure to do so on time was brought to the public’s attention by the New Jersey media. True to the halting and uncertain style of his campaign, McCann filed his twice… on the same day.

Of interest is the odd way in which he reported his own income.  First, McCann confused his reporting requirements with those of his spouse – and filed as if she were the candidate:

mccannfd.png

Later that same day, he filed his already late disclosure statement, only this time he included his income:

mccannfd1.png

Hey Republicans!  Look how much John McCann made working for the Democrat Sheriff of Bergen County.  Doesn’t it make you a little queasy?

And what does “fees” mean?  How do you earn $498,545 in “fees” while working full-time on the Bergen County payroll?  Is this going to be one of those deals where this guy bills for more hours than there are in a day?

Under the source of income, McCann simply writes “Practice”.  What does that mean?  And is he even following the law?  The law and the instructions that accompany the financial statement are very clear on how to report income:

mccannfd1a.png

So what’s the deal?  Why has John McCann failed to fully disclose the source of nearly $700,000 in income?

And if “practice” refers to McCann’s law practice, why is it that earlier in the disclosure statement he reports its value as so little?

mccann1b.png

And why does he report that his law practice had no income?

None of it makes any sense, which is kind of the norm with John McCann.

The madness continues…

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...