Update: D’Souza’s campaign fraud case involved mistress and former assistant at King’s

This article was originally published in the City Section of the Empire State Tribune on 2/4/14. 

-------

Update: D’Souza’s campaign fraud case involved mistress and former assistant at King’s

By Cori O'Connor and Carly Hoilman

New York, NEW YORK – In a previous report, the EST noted that former president of The King’s College Dinesh D’Souza allegedly contributed $20,000 in illegal funds to former Dartmouth classmate, Wendy Long’s (R) campaign for New York Senate in 2012. Campaign finance records recently revealed that D’Souza involved his former fiance, Denise Odie Joseph II, as well as his assistant at the time of the race, Tyler Vawser.

While still serving as President at King’s, D’Souza allegedly gave $10,000 to Joseph and Vawser and instructed them to donate it to Long’s campaign. The prosecution claims D’Souza reimbursed them the amount the day of or after the donations were made. Records show that D’Souza and his wife, Dixie, had already contributed the legal maximum to Long’s campaign.

According to filings with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), Long’s treasurer flagged two $10,000 contributions–one from Vawser and one from Joseph–on Aug. 30, 2012. Since the legal limit for contributions is $5,000 per individual, both donations were detected by Long’s treasurer who then flagged the Joseph donation for “redesignation” according to an article on Gawker.com and FEC records.

The FEC records indicate Vawser never received a refund for his $10,000. Meanwhile, half of Denise Joseph’s contribution was “reattributed” to her husband, Louis, leaving the couple with two $5,000 donations.

According to a statement released by D’Souza’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman on Jan. 23, “Mr. D’Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever. He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and, at worst, this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza.”

The EST reached out to Brafman, who neglected to provide further comments at this time.

In D’Souza’s indictment U.S. attorney Preet Bharara cited the Federal Campaign Election Act of 1971, which “prohibits any person from making any contribution in the name of another, including reimbursing a third person, before or after that third person’s contribution, as inducement to make that contributor.”

The prosecution and defense scheduled a pretrial conference date of March 4 where they’ll determine the trial date for D’Souza. D’Souza could face further charges for allegedly using the Josephs and Vawser as conduits for campaign fraud. Vawser, who formerly worked side by side with D’Souza, currently serves as Director of Marketing and Communications at King’s.

D’Souza arraigned in federal court, Mills hopes truth surfaces soon

This article was originally published in the City Section of the Empire State Tribune on 1/24/14.

-------

D’Souza arraigned in federal court, Mills hopes truth surfaces soon

By Cori O'Connor

Lower Manhattan, New York—Dinesh D’Souza appeared in Manhattan federal court before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman for his arraignment at 12 p.m. Friday. D’Souza entered a “not guilty” plea. Prior to the arraignment he surrendered his passport and was released on a $500,000 personal recognizance bond.

D’Souza’s attorney said that he plans to travel at the beginning of next week. D’Souza is currently under pretrial supervision so he is required to alert pretrial services regarding his travel itinerary and each time he leaves Calif. or N.Y.

Carrie H. Cohen, Assistant Attorney for the United States, claimed that D’Souza allegedly gave two individuals, one of whom worked with him, $10,000 and directed them and their spouses to donate $5,000 each to the campaign of a United States senator, Wendy Long, in Aug. 2012. Cohen claimed that bank records show that D’Souza reimbursed them with cash the day of or day after the event.

Cohen reported that Long informed the government that D’Souza had lied to her about the donations. The prosecution will reveal their discovery next week and will produce witnesses and the straw donors.

D’Souza’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman, said that they had known for a few months that this investigation was underway. “It came as no surprise to Mr. D’Souza that he would be required to appear in court,” Brafman said.

Andy Mills, Chair of the Board of Trustees at King’s where D’Souza was formerly president, said that the relationship between the college and D’Souza ended back in Oct. 2012 so they have no additional information regarding the pending case. When asked as one who had a relationship with D’Souza how he felt upon hearing of this event Mills said, “Sadness. You want the truth to come out.”

The prosecution and defense scheduled a pretrial conference date of March 4 where they’ll determine the trial date. Brafman expects it to be a quick trial. “It’s beyond me that it would take more than three days,” Brafman said.

New York bidding on casinos for better financial luck

This article was originally published in the City section of the Empire State Tribune on 11/14/13.

-------

New York bidding on casinos for better financial luck

By Cori O'Connor

Albany, NEW YORK—New York State passed a casino referendum Nov. 5 to amend the New York constitution, allowing for seven Vegas-type casinos to be built in the state. The referendum passed with 57 percent of the vote according to USA Today.

Four of the seven casinos will be built in the Catskills, Southern Tier and Albany areas of Upstate New York, reported USA Today. For the first seven years these casinos will have the right to exclusivity. However, The Wall Street Journal confirmed that after the seven years, there are plans to build a casino in New York City.

Governor Andrew Cuomo hopes that the casinos will aid Upstate New York in its financial struggles. According toSyracuse.com, the first four casinos are expected to make $1 billion in revenue, of which $430 million will go to school districts and local governments. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Cuomo hopes to use the casino plans as part of his 2014 campaign to show he has addressed a major 2010 campaign promise to turnaround the upstate economy.”

Photo by stargazette.com

Cuomo pushed for the referendum claiming that it will bring jobs and tourists to the region. “I think it will keep the money in this state, and I think it’s a major economic development vehicle for the Hudson Valley especially and for upstate New York,” Cuomo said, according to USA Today.

A group known as “New York Jobs Now” promoted the casino amendment and raised over $4 million for the campaign, The New York Times reported. “New York Jobs Now” is primarily backed by gambling interests such as operators of the racetrack slot machines and labor groups that will gain from the supposed job surge. This massive campaign proved very effective against the low-budget campaign of the opposition.

Money wasn’t the only object on the side of those pushing for casinos. The amendment was worded in favor of casinos on the ballot, attributing the referendum with the role of “promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes,” reported The New York Times.

The phrasing of the ballot was brought into question last month in a law suit brought on by, Eric J. Snyder, a Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer, according to The New York Times. Snyder claimed that according to the state election laws, state amendments should be concise and simply state the purpose and effect using common words. However Snyder’s law suit was thrown out of court because the judge claimed it was “lacking legal merit.”

Since the referendum was passed, there have already been three proposals for public casinos in the Catskills according to USA Today. Tioga Downs and Saratoga Raceway are among those proposals and, currently as raceway casinos, they “expect to bid to be full-scale casinos.”

USA Today reported that “Casino operators already indicated they will seek licenses from the State Gaming Commission.” Cuomo’s Gaming Commission will also review bids.

King’s students remain skeptical about whether or not casinos will be the answer to the Upstate New York financial problems.

Gary Barnes, ’15, said, “They make it seem like it’s for educational purposes. You go to a casino, spend your money, and you’re helping the school kids. It seems something like what Toms does where they allow you to feel good about your actions by sending some of the money to a good cause. But there’s something that seems kind of fake about that.”

Charlie Durham, ’14, is also concerned and wonders if New York should turn to casinos to promote growth.

“I am skeptical how much these will help depressed areas of New York,” Durham said. “Is it actually helping growth or is it just ignoring a deeper problem? Morally, allowing casinos is a dubious proposition. Gambling may not be intrinsically wrong but it is an activity that is easily abused.”

The official law will go into effect Jan. 1.

Latest Honor Council results reveal first reports of hard drug use in housing

This article was originally published Campus section of the Empire State Tribune on 9/9/13.
--------
Latest Honor Council results reveal first reports of hard drug use in housing 
By Cori O'Connor

Financial District, NEW YORK—Within the 2012-13 academic year, King’s had its first encounter with major drug use (cocaine and ecstasy) in housing and marijuana usage greatly increased, according to David Leedy, dean of students.

A common theme of Honor Council hearings was that students who violated the Honor Code came to King’s “for the wrong reasons,” Leedy said.

There were six hearings spring semester, many of which involved multiple violators. Leedy said last year was difficult regarding honor not because of more Council hearings but because the issues were more serious than in past years.

Throughout the year, 22 students appeared before the Council for issues including plagiarism, assault and underage drinking. The Honor Council suspended six students and placed 16 students on disciplinary probation.

Students placed on disciplinary probation usually complete requirements, such as alcohol education programs, random drug testing, removal from campus housing, leaving a campus leadership role, counseling or psychological assessment, mandatory meetings with a House adviser and drug rehab programs.

Photo by Cori O'Connor

Leedy said that while minor infractions can be resolved with a less formal sort of confrontation, situations brought before the Council count as “egregious violations” of King’s standards.

In response, King’s is taking steps to raise awareness about King’s standards among incoming students.

Luke Smith, associate director of the Admissions Department, said the school is focusing on finding “serious applicants.” Admissions has reintroduced essays to the application (one essay on virtue and one on the House system) and requires all applicants to respond to the King’s mission and how it connects with their values and goals.

Leedy believes this process will help both the school find appropriate students and students self-select their college.“They’ll understand what King’s is and whether they want to be a part of this or not,” he said.

To educate students about honor before coming to King’s, the college also distributed a flyer called “Before You Sign The Honor Code.” Leedy will also write blog posts and host “town halls” to emphasize honor.

The Honor Council consists of one to two appointees from each house, three faculty members and three staff members in student development. At any given hearing there are six Council members: four students, one faculty and one staff.

This year the Honor Council members are Erika Hillardm, Jessica Lee, Sizakele Irvin, Damia Speagle, Sophia Bachmann, Allison O’Donnell, Elisa Lambert, Carol Anne Ausband, Emily Deemer, Maxine Webster, Carey Bustard, Leah Rabe, Ben Gotchel, Nigel DeCoopman, Daniel Poeana, Jonathan Burch, Luke Trouwborst, Caleb Kingma, Jeremi Gill and Mark Greben.

When asked what hearings involve, Jessica Lee ’14, third-year member of the Honor Council said, “It’s questions you would ask from a pastor to someone: ‘Let’s get to the root of why you’re doing this.’”

While punishment follows confirmation of charges, Lee continued, “It’s like, ‘Hey we care about you and we want to know why you are making these choices.’ It’s all about getting to know someone and helping them on their journey to becoming a better person.”

Leedy said the ultimate goal of the Council is “to uphold the standards of our community by assigning discipline to egregious violations of those standards.”

Not every student who attends a hearing will submit to the Council’s goal.

“Most people are apologetic,” Lee said. “The hard part is seeing if  they’re genuinely apologetic or they’re just upset that they got caught.”