9596: Seabrook Filleted.

From The New York Post…

Baloney on a bagel

City Councilman Larry Seabrook — you know, the guy who eats $177 bagels — must take New Yorkers for rank fools.

What else could explain his outrageously cynical appearance on NY1 Tuesday, portraying himself as a victim of run-amok prosecutors leveling spurious allegations?

Seabrook thinks folks will believe that he and those many friends and relatives of his who got jobs at taxpayer-funded nonprofits are no different than, say, John and Robert Kennedy or ex-Gov. Hugh Carey and his kin — even Mario Cuomo and son Andrew, the current governor.

“I think there was a president named John Kennedy, and he hired his brother, named Robert Kennedy,” Seabrook noted, contemptuously. “I think there was a governor named Mario Cuomo, and there was a son that ran his campaign and also ran a nonprofit,” he hissed. “I think he’s the governor now.”

Never mind that the decades-old appointments Seabrook cites bear absolutely no resemblance to the kind of corruption he’s accused of.

Never mind that Seabrook is facing a new trial, after a jury deadlocked on a mile-long list of charges against him — some with sentences as long as 20 years.

This is the guy, recall, with the $177 deli receipt — for a bagel and a Snapple! — that he used for an expense reimbursement.

(Guess he was trying to schmear New Yorkers then — just as he was Tuesday.)

And that’s just the tip of the whitefish spread: Seabrook’s charged with funneling more than $1.2 million in taxpayer cash to nonprofits where his mistress and relatives got more than $600,000. He’s also accused of squeezing a contractor for $40,000.

And the fact that his trial ended in a hung jury by no means vindicates him.

“We fully intend to retry the case and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the councilman criminally exploited his official position in order to enrich his friends, his family and himself,” insists Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara.

Best of luck to him.

And when he’s finished with Seabrook, there will be plenty of work remaining.

Fact is, city and state statutes practically beg pols to see what they can get away with.

Legislators get millions each year to butter their own bagels; they use the dough to buy political backing or enrich themselves and others — a sorry state of affairs indeed.

As long as the pols refuse to outlaw the underlying temptations and make it truly difficult for each other to steal from taxpayers, New Yorkers, alas, will continue to see more Larry Seabrooks.

And $177 bagels.

9585: Seabrook Sails Off.

From The New York Times…

With Jury Deadlocked, Mistrial Is Declared in Councilman’s Corruption Case

By Benjamin Weiser and Colin Moynihan

A federal judge declared a mistrial on Friday in the corruption case of City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook, who had been charged in an elaborate scheme to direct more than $1 million in New York City taxpayer money to a network of nonprofit organizations that he controlled, purportedly for community programs.

Prosecutors had claimed that Mr. Seabrook, a Democrat from the Bronx, then used the groups to funnel more than $600,000 to family members and friends, some of whom, the government said, shared their money with him.

But the jury, which deliberated in Federal District Court in Manhattan for more than a week, told Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. in a note late Thursday that it remained deadlocked on all 12 counts in the indictment — an impasse it first reported on Monday. At Judge Patterson’s request, the jury renewed its efforts to reach a verdict in recent days, requesting large numbers of exhibits, witness testimony and other evidence.

On Friday morning, the jurors wrote that they remained deadlocked on each count. The judge encouraged them to keep deliberating. But shortly before 3 p.m., the jurors wrote, “We remain deadlocked on all counts, and it appears we will remain deadlocked.”

The mistrial, granted at the request of the defense, came on the heels of an acquittal of State Assemblyman William F. Boyland Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat, last month in the same courthouse, and could be seen as a setback for the government’s efforts to combat political corruption in New York.

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said his office would retry Mr. Seabrook and “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the councilman criminally exploited his official position in order to enrich his friends, his family and himself.”

Mr. Seabrook, 60, standing outside the court with his lawyers, family and other supporters, said he continued to have “faith in God and faith in the jury system.”

“I will continue to keep the faith,” he said.

The councilman made clear that he would continue to focus on representing his district, despite his legal problems. “I’ll be at the business of doing what has to be done for my constituents,” he said.

Most of the jurors declined to comment as they left the courthouse, although several remained to speak privately with prosecutors and defense lawyers. The foreman, Frank DiBrino, told reporters that “there was movement back and forth” on each of the 12 counts and that the split among the jurors was “different on different charges.”

“It wasn’t the same all the way down” the 12 charges, Mr. DiBrino said, attributing the split among jurors to “different views on the evidence.”

According to one person who was briefed on the deliberations, the jury was split 6 to 6 on the first count, which charged Mr. Seabrook with accepting thousands of dollars in illegal gratuities from a Bronx businessman whom he helped to obtain a boiler contract for the new Yankee Stadium.

On other counts, the jury was split in different ways, but typically there were groups of jurors on each side, not just single holdouts, the person who was briefed said.

For nearly three decades, Mr. Seabrook has been a fixture in Bronx politics, serving the last decade on the Council, representing communities like Co-op City, Williamsbridge and Baychester. He also served in the State Assembly and the State Senate.

During the three-week trial, his lawyers depicted Mr. Seabrook as a self-made man who had worked hard to create the kinds of jobs and diversity programs that prosecutors said he had cheated. They said Mr. Seabrook had been unaware of wrongdoing in the nonprofit organizations, and they invoked the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders who had been imprisoned, and said that they, too, had been subjected to the kinds of accusations that had been leveled at Mr. Seabrook.

The prosecutors, Brent Wible and Steve C. Lee, offered a much more tawdry picture, of an ensconced politician who used nonprofit groups as a kind of “employment program” for friends and family.

In one case, they said, he installed his girlfriend as the director of nonprofit organizations. She received more than $300,000 in payments, prosecutors said, and then kicked back “a piece of her profits” to Mr. Seabrook.

The counts against Mr. Seabrook included fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and other charges, a number of which carry prison terms of up to 20 years.

His lawyers, Anthony L. Ricco and Edward D. Wilford, did not seem surprised at the announcement that the government intended to retry the case.

“It’s certainly something that we anticipated and we look forward to the retrial of the case,” Mr. Ricco said.

9583: Seabrook Saga Continues.

From The New York Times…

Judge Chides Defense in Official’s Trial

By Benjamin Weiser

The jury in the federal corruption trial of City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook was sent home on Tuesday evening after deliberating for a third full day without reaching a verdict.

The jury told the judge on Monday that it was at an impasse on all 12 counts in the case, in which Mr. Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat, has been accused of participating in a series of fraud schemes to direct more than $1 million in taxpayer money to nonprofit groups he controlled, so that he could then funnel money to family members and friends.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors accused Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers of making comments outside court that could influence the jury’s deliberations.

Writing to Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. of Federal District Court in Manhattan, prosecutors cited comments by one lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, to reporters after deliberations ended on Monday that the jury “hasn’t accepted the government’s theory of the case.”

Mr. Ricco was also quoted as saying that he hoped jurors would “continue to deliberate but not really abandon their heartfelt views.” And, he added, “People shouldn’t be asked to compromise their views for efficiency or expediency.”

In court, the judge cited the prosecutors’ letter and said it was unfortunate that news accounts of Mr. Ricco’s statements “could interfere” with the deliberations. He cautioned Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers to “be careful” about what they said to the news media.

In their letter, prosecutors said Mr. Ricco’s comments were “misleading” because deliberations were continuing and the jury “plainly has not yet accepted or rejected any theory.”

Although the judge had warned jurors not to read news accounts of the case, prosecutors said, there remained a risk that they could inadvertently be exposed to such reports.

Mr. Ricco’s comment that jurors “shouldn’t be asked to compromise their views,” prosecutors added, “could have the effect of hardening the lack of consensus and negating any further instructions by the court that the jurors should keep an open mind to each other’s views so that they may in good faith reach a consensus if one is available.”

“The government’s concern is a valid one,” Mr. Ricco said later on Tuesday. “We have the same concern.” At day’s end, Mr. Seabrook, joined by lawyers outside the courthouse, told reporters, “Well, I will continue to have faith, faith in the Creator and certainly faith in the jury system.”

Mr. Ricco said, “We’re hoping that the jury will continue its deliberations and reach a just verdict.”

The jury’s notes on Tuesday offered no further clues about the impasse. One request listed more than two dozen exhibits; another said simply, “We would like a calculator.”

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

9581: The Jury Is Still Out On Seabrook.

From The New York Times..

Jury in Councilman’s Trial Says Its Split Has Widened

By Benjamin Weiser and Colin Moynihan

Halfway through its second full day of deliberations, the jury in the federal corruption trial of City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook indicated on Monday that it was at an impasse on all 12 counts in the case.

A note from the jury offered no clue as to how it was split, except to suggest that it was divided into two groups, rather than there being a holdout juror or two. “Neither side” had been able “to persuade each other to a verdict,” the note said.

The judge, Robert P. Patterson Jr. of Federal District Court in Manhattan, told the jury to renew its efforts to reach a unanimous verdict.

Mr. Seabrook, a Democrat from the Bronx, has been accused of participating in a series of fraudulent schemes to direct more than $1 million in taxpayer money to nonprofit organizations he controlled, so that he, in turn, could funnel over $600,000 to family members and friends.

On Friday, the jury reported that it was at an impasse on the first count, which charged Mr. Seabrook, 60, with accepting thousands of dollars in illegal gratuities from a Bronx businessman whom he had helped obtain a boiler contract for the new Yankee Stadium.

The note delivered at 1 p.m. Monday said the impasse had broadened. “After much discussion,” the note said, “we are unable to reach a consensus on any individual count verdict.” The jury continued to deliberate through the afternoon before being sent home at day’s end, and it was expected to resume deliberations on Tuesday.

Mr. Seabrook spoke briefly with reporters outside the courthouse after the jury was sent home.

“I think we are just going to wait and see what the jury has to say,” he said. “The jury will speak and we will follow what the jury says. I’ve always had the faith.”

One of Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers, Anthony L. Ricco, said, “The important thing to realize is that the jury hasn’t accepted the government’s theory of the case.”

As the jurors worked to resolve the case, he added, he hoped they would “continue to deliberate, but not really abandon their heartfelt views.”

“People shouldn’t be asked to compromise their views for efficiency or expediency,” Mr. Ricco said.

Prosecutors had no comment.

Judge Patterson said outside the jury’s presence that he was somewhat troubled to think the deliberations might have taken the form of the jurors’ “taking sides.” When he addressed the panel, he encouraged the jurors to take another look at the evidence to see if a verdict could be reached.

9570: Speculating On Seabrook.

The New York Times reported on City Councilman Larry Seabrook, who was a key figure in battling Madison Avenue on diversity.

City Councilman’s Lawyer Calls Charges ‘Speculation’

By Colin Moynihan

During closing arguments in the federal corruption trial against City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook on Thursday, a defense lawyer urged the jury to weigh 30 years of public service against “so-called evidence.”

In their summation a day before, prosecutors had told jurors in Federal District Court in Manhattan that Mr. Seabrook carried out several schemes to funnel money to himself and others through nonprofit groups and a political club that he controlled.

But on Thursday, Edward Wilford, one of Mr. Seabrook’s two lawyers, compared that argument to “a shell game” or a street-corner game of three-card monte.

“There’s no evidence to connect the dots,” he told the jurors. “There’s only speculation to support the government’s theory.”

During a closing argument that lasted about an hour, Mr. Wilford assailed the prosecution’s case from several directions. He reminded jurors that Arlington Leon Eastmond, a Bronx businessman who prosecutors said gave unlawful gratuities to Mr. Seabrook, testified that he had a long history of giving money to the councilman’s political club and wanted to help the community with those donations.

Mr. Wilford went on to portray Mr. Seabrook as an unwitting victim who had entrusted nonprofit groups like the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation and the African-American Legal and Civic Hall of Fame to seemingly qualified appointees, only to be surprised and disappointed by their actions.

He also questioned the credibility of several government witnesses who had worked for those groups and who had implicated Mr. Seabrook in wrongdoing, but had also acknowledged that they too had committed crimes, including forgery and falsifying financial records.

Under cross-examination, those witnesses, including Tyrone Mitch Duren, an executive director at two nonprofit groups, and Felicia Jude, a secretary at the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation, told jurors that they had hidden their misdeeds from Mr. Seabrook.

“Where’s the proof that Councilman Seabrook joined a conspiracy?” Mr. Wilford asked. “There is none.”

In a rebuttal, a federal prosecutor, Steve C. Lee, told jurors that Mr. Wilford had engaged in misdirection and distractions during his summation, and he urged them to focus on evidence supporting the charges against the councilman, who did not testify.

“The government has met its burden of proof and surpassed it,” he said. “Larry Seabrook lied and cheated time and time again to get money into his pockets.”

After the summation, Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. gave instructions to the jury, which then began deliberations.