The $64,000 Questions

Oct. 8, 2020 - In case you missed it, Asbury Park Press published an article yesterday on the lawsuit challenging last year’s Township Committee election results by Chiung-Yin Cheng Liu. See the link below: https://www.app.com/story/news/local/elections/2020/10/07/holmdel-election-lawsuit-disputes-ballots-cast-local-officials-relatives-children-and-one-departed-s/5880742002/ The article is interesting for what was said but also for what was not said. Liu’s lawsuit seeks to count the ballot of Donna Carranante, sister to Township Committeeman Tom Critelli. Carranante’s ballot was not counted by the board of Elections because of an indeterminable postmark. In response to an inquiry from the reporter, Critelli’s replied in an email: “My sisters [sic] ballot was rejected because the county could not read the postmark date, it was mailed with her husband’s days before the election. Donna is a resident for nearly 20 years, and her relationship to me should not be of anyone’s concern.” There are several issues with this statement. For the moment, let’s set aside of the legal issue that for a mail-in ballot to count, it must have a postmark on or before Election Day since the judge will rule on that in her decision. However, there is the issue that Critelli received a $10,000 payment for storm damages shortly after he became Committeeman in 2014 despite the fact that he had received a payment to settle his claim and signed a release for all future liabilities. Committeeman Prakash Santhana is leading an investigation on whether this payment is not only unethical but also possible fraudulent. The Liu lawsuit sought to remove Santhana from his position on the Township Committee and could impact that investigation. Carranante, with a possible motive to protect her brother, has, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest, if not a pecuniary interest since $10,000 payment is at stake for Critelli. Therefore, Carranante’s relationship to Critelli is or should be a concern since it goes to the question of witness credibility. Here’s What We Know In the lawsuit filed, Liu and her attorney claimed three ballots (Dolores Luccarelli, Alexandra Murray and Mike Lupo) should be counted even though the Board of Elections made a determination that their signatures didn’t match with what is on the record. In early July, Liu’s attorney submitted a filing that included a certification, essentially under “oath” by Frank Luccarelli that stated “… I witnessed her fill out and sign the ballot in my presence.” See picture.

Township Committeeman Santhana’s attorney submitted a report by a handwriting expert that supports the Board of Election’s determination that the signatures don’t match. In order to rebut and refute this report, Liu’s attorney also got a handwriting expert to produce a report for their side. Surprisingly, the handwriting expert for Liu’s attorney issued a report that AGREED that those signatures from all three individuals didn’t match. Not only that, Liu’s handwriting expert’s report went on to say the signature of Dolores matched Frank Luccarelli’s signature! In light of these two handwriting experts’ reports, Liu’s attorney dropped the claims to count the ballots of Murray and Lupo were dropped and those two individuals never did testify. However, despite the damning evidence of two handwriting experts’ reports were in their possession more than a month before the trial, Liu and her attorney decided to continue with the claim to count Dolores Luccarelli’s ballot and called Frank Luccarelli to testify before the judge. This literally putting Frank Luccarelli on the hot seat and in direct line of fire! Unfortunately, it was during his testimony that Frank Luccarelli admitted that he signed his mother’s name on the mail-in ballot despite the prior statement made under “oath” that he witnessed his mother signed her name. The $64,000 Questions Here’s where the plot thickens. Liu and her attorney dropped claims for Murray and Lupo (meaning both of them didn’t have to testify) but, inexplicably, persisted with Dolores Luccarelli claim. They could have easily dropped this claim as well and would have meant that Frank Luccarelli would not have to testify. Remember, it was Liu attorney’s own expert witness that produced a report that stated it was Frank Luccarelli that signed his mother’s signature more than a month before the trial. Here are some unanswered questions: 1. Why didn’t Liu and her attorney drop the claim for Dolores Luccarelli, like they did for the other claims? This should have been a “no brainer”. It is not clear what the legal strategy or thinking behind this decision. 2. Did Frank Luccarelli even know that Liu and her attorney had a handwriting expert report that contradicted his own statement filed with the court? 3. Did Liu and her attorney ever discuss the option with Frank Luccarelli NOT to testify in light of the damning evidence? 4. Did DJ Luccarelli, candidate for Holmdel Township Committee in this November election, know about Frank’s false certification filed by Liu’s attorney? 5. Back in the summer, DJ Luccarelli had reached out to both Santhana and his attorney to ask if they could just drop the claim to count Dolores Luccarelli ballot. Did DJ understand that this was a claim brought on by Liu and her attorney and that it was up to them to drop the claim and not Santhana? 6. The Luccarelli family, founded Dearborn Market, is a long time Holmdel family. Given this history, did Liu or her attorney ever speak or consult with the DJ before calling Frank to the stand as a witness at the trial instead of dropping the claim? Did anyone in DJ’s “inner” political circle advise DJ for Frank not to testify? 7. Were the Luccarellis just collateral damage from Liu and her attorney’s callous legal strategy or were others complicit as well? Stay Tuned! Judge’s decision is expected on or shortly after Oct. 14th.