Our Mayor, the Lobbyist, Part 2

Either Ilene Lieberman's timing is miraculous or...

Lieberman and McKinley, in the case of Crystal Lakes, either traded public favors to enrich themselves, which would implicate each in a crime, or they simultaneously scratched each other's backs by sheer coincidence and failed to catch themselves in blatant conflicts of interests.

Regardless, direct proof of a quid pro quo -- or "this for that" -- isn't necessary for prosecution under the state's unlawful compensation statute, according to a recent Florida Supreme Court ruling. Strong circumstantial evidence, which indicates a "meeting of the minds" along with a finding of "corrupt intent" is all that is required, the court decided this past April. Furthermore, it makes no difference in the eyes of the law that Lieberman was unsuccessful in her attempt to bring McKinley the $10,000 fee and the consulting contract. "Prosecution... shall not require that the exercise of influence was accomplished," according to the statute.

To date, neither state nor local authorities have reported any investigation into Lieberman's conduct.

Lieberman's dealings with the broker raise serious questions.
Lieberman's dealings with the broker raise serious questions.

Told of the crisscrossing connection between Lieberman and McKinley, Housing Authority director Cregan, who has worked hard to formulate the Crystal Lakes development deal, said he had "no clue" of it. "I don't know what's going on outside the agency," he said.

Asked what he thought of it, Cregan had two words: "No comment."

« Previous Page
My Voice Nation Help