Thursday, April 24, 2008


I did not post on Thursday because I really wanted to decide how I intended to discuss the Dannebaum issue. I’ve decided to keep it short by asking a question as to what something means, and to find out what my readers think it means.

According to Mattingly, Dannenbaum was "instrumental" in locating the million dollars which has been made the subject of the forfeiture. He then goes on to say he does not know where the money came from, and inquiries should be made directly to Dannenbaum. How in the hell does a judge order forfeiture of money from an entity which cannot be identified? To make this even more questionable we learn from the Herald that Dannenbaum basically agreed to the forfeiture even before the lawsuit was filed. They issued a check 24 hours after the lawsuit was filed.

My friends, this is what is called a friendly lawsuit. It was decided on in advance, and the forfeiture was used as a cover to the negotiated settlement between Dannebaum and DA Villalobos. Villalobos simply could have told Dannenbaum, refund the money to the BND, but he did not - he used the friendly lawsuit to make points for himself and to outright steal 1 million dollars from the BND. There is no defense to this, and the BDN should sue both DA Villalobos and Dannenbaum for recovery of the million dollars and more. This is an outright fraud on the people.

If some company or person illegally submitted billing which formed the basis of the forfeiture, then should they not be indicted for theft? I’m sorry - a deal was cut - remember Zavaletta’s "the documents were left on the door step." No one bought it and it turned out to be false. No one, who is not playing dirty politics, is buying that Dannenbaum just found 1 million dollars to pay the forfeiture, and the DA did not need to know the source of the money. The source is the person or entity which received the unjust enrichment. Should they not be indicted?

This is cover-up Brownsville style - "we are so confident we can get away with it, we are going to announce it publicly." Any BND candidate unwilling to demand a criminal investigation into how DA Villalobos secured the forfeiture without being able to name the source of the money, is not fit for public office. In my opinion a deal was cut to protect Dannenbaum from further exposure in exchange for 1 million dollars.

It is time to sue Dannebaum for willful breach of the settlement agreement and seek punitive damages for the entire 21.4 million dollars. It is time to sue the original attorneys for malpractice. It is time the people put chastity belts on and say to the politicos - basta, basta, basta


Anonymous said...

Mr. BWC,

In the mangled words of Michael Corleone, Just when you think you are out, you suck me back in!

I was ready to never say another word about the port bridge and then you come out say this!

You are cruel but right. It smells.


Anonymous said...

How about investigating if current and former board members violated their fiduciary duty to the public. May it not be possible that they had a conflict of duty and interest? I'm no lawyer but as I read it they sure seem to have violated their fiduciary duty to the port.

DEFINITION OF FIDUCIARY DUTY: "A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence."