Buddy: Lieberman Should Be Happy That Tamarac Case Was Dismissed…And Other Tidbits


The happiest person today is Broward County Commissioner Ilene Lieberman.

The corruption case against former Tamarac Mayor Beth Talabisco was dismissed Wednesday. That means Lieberman won’t have to publicly defend her Clintonesque deposition in the case on the witness stand.

Lieberman was the chief witness against Talabisco.

The commissioner wants to run for judge (No kidding!).

Lieberman: Here Come Da Judge

So I can’t believe she wanted to give highly-publicized testimony which would be challenged. I can’t believe she wanted to be connected to a corruption case any more than she is.

I read her deposition in the case.  In my opinion her sworn statement was so evasive and unbelievable that it would have made her look like a fool on the witness stand. A jury would have thrown up their hands and asked why Lieberman was not on trial.

That’s what I’ve always asked.

Lieberman was clearly behind all the shenanigans in the Tamarac election that resulted in charges.

The case was this:

According to Stae Attorney Mike Satz’s prosecutors, corrupt developers funneled money around $30,000 to a committee to back Talabsicao in the March mayor’s election.  Shortly after the election, she voted for the developers’ project to convert two golf courses into housing.

The problem with the case is there is no evidence connecting Talabisco to the committee.

But there was plenty of evidence tying Lieberman and her cohort, Talabisco campaign manager Bev Bard Stracher, to the corrupt developers and the shady committee. (Stracher was hired as a taxpayer-paid county aide for Lieberman after this case broke.  That’s something else I believe Satz should have looked into.)

I always believe and wrote: Satz arrested the wrong person.  Why did he let Lieberman and Stracher walk while arresting Talabisco?

Circuit Judge Cyndi Imperato, who dismissed these bogus charges, did the right thing.

Early in the process several pols told me that Talabisco was headed to jail because Imperato was known to favor the prosecutors.  I told them that I had known Imperato for years.

She is tough, having been a former cop and statewide prosecutor. But she is fair.

If presented with evidence that the charges were trumpeted up, she would dismiss them, I told everybody who asked.

That’s exactly what she did.

I also applaud defense attorney Larry Davis, who fought uphill against everything Satz and the ravening dogs of the media could thrown at his client, Talabisco.

Satz is appealing.  He should give it up.

The case is sadly deficient.  It is not worthy of a dedicated prosecutor like Satz.

 Broward GOP Fails Again

The Broward Republican Party has proved again it is a toothless tiger:

The party’s latest effort in Davie was a complete failure. Former Commissioner Mike Crowley, a GOP darling, was buried in his race against Democratic incumbent Mayor Judy Paul.

I expected the results.

Crowley’s campaign was almost totally negative with foolish, unbelievable ads. He gave no reason to vote against Paul. The GOP organization did almost nothing to help.

Paul has been on the right side of almost everything good in Davie. Nothing Crowley could say could change that.

Rogers Deserved Win

In Fort Lauderdale’s hottest commission race, incumbent Commissioner Romney Rogers crushed community activist Jackie Scott.

Rogers just wasn’t disliked as much as Scott believed.

I thought Scott would do better.  I was wrong.

Most people believe Rogers is just a nice guy trying to do what’s right.  What’s wrong with that?


28 Responses to “Buddy: Lieberman Should Be Happy That Tamarac Case Was Dismissed…And Other Tidbits”

  1. Real Deal says:

    This ended exactly as I predicted. The case never had any merit and should not have been brought. It had no substance from the beginning yet the case was brought anyway. Despite not having enough evidence to convict. And that’s where the corruption in this case exists. No prosecutor should ever bring a case like this one unless the evidence is overwhelming and conviction virtually certain. They knew it and they brought the case anyway. This is greater corruption than what was charged. It is abuse of office to bring a case against anyone with so little substance. To do it in a high profile case gives people even less of a reason to be confident about prosecutors. Worse, as if to underscore the point, an appeal is promised as if there were even any grounds on a case so flimsy.

  2. Appearances vs. Reality says:

    This is the Satz way – bring a weak case in order to APPEAR to be fighting corruption, knowing full well that it will be tossed out!

    Bob Norman said it best way back in 2005: Satz “never met a corrupt official he couldn’t clear”.

  3. observer says:

    This should be so simple for the State Attorney. Sit down with a piece of paper and make two columns. Column 1, anyone who voted on the issue. Column 2, anyone who got something from Chait. If their name (or spouse) appears in both columns, charge them. If their name only appears in one column, move on. That simple.

  4. Lauderdale Democrat says:

    I am a lifelong Democrat and I voted for Republican Bruce Roberts. Did he win?

  5. Brec member says:

    So Buddy, I guess Bruce Roberts only getting 85% in Fort Lauderdale is a complete failure in your book? How about reporting all the news instead of what you prefer to write. Also, the Broward GOP had people calling and walking every day of early voting and people at every poll on election day for Crowley.


    Keeping an incumbent in office against a weak opponent is no big deal.

    The GOP went after one big prize the party didn’t already possess — Davie mayor. It poured a lot of effort into it…or at least promises. The party failed as it did in Lighthouse Point’s race earlier this year, when Earl Maucker won. As it did in the Pembroke Pines races. As it did in the Plantation races. I could go on. But readers get the message.

  6. sidelines says:

    well said Observer.

  7. NoseBleedSeats says:

    For all you fans of the States Attorney ponder this: WHY AREN’T THE CHAITS IN JAIL? The Chaits are the guilty ones, yet SATZ and DONNELLY let them go free. Let’s not let the States Attorneys’ ffice off the hook here, someone isn’t doing their job and we are all paying for it. Poitier – misdemeanors; Powers/Bochard – directed verdict; Talabisco – charges dismissed; sounds like inept prosecution may well be the real issue…and how much money has this cost the taxpayers? 5 elected officials approved the project in Tamarac and 6 elected officials at the County Commission as well as the Department of Community affairs. The Chaits are corrupt, everyone else is collateral damgage. Buddy is absolutely correct, Talabisco never should have been charged. Mae Schreiber thinks it stinks, yet she went to Isreal on the Chaits nickel, someone explain that.

  8. Privacy 101 says:

    Buddy, quick question.

    If the facts in this case are as you suggest, and I have no reason to doubt anything you say, why did Satz pursue a weak case against a small fish and let the bigger fishes walk (swim) away?


    My question exactly.

  9. Stone Cold's Bottom Line says:

    Hey, Buddy

    Is Commissioner Lieberman being investigated for anything at the moment? …. by the state attorney? ‘da Feds? ‘da FBI?…. what are ‘ya hearing?


    I surely couldn’t comment on that.

  10. Tired in Davie says:

    Well, It’s a moot point now, but Crowley is an absolute jerk. I received 11 robocalls on my CELL phone from this idiot. I saved them so that I could defend what I’m claiming since it sounds so ridiculous. ALL were negative adds. After the third one you’d have to finally get it: this guy is a clown, cannot find anything to run FOR; it was an easy choice. I voted for Judy Paul just because she stayed out of the mud. I think people are sick and tired of all this negative campaigning. I for one certainly am. Why not run on issues. Or if you don’t have any, stay the hell out of the race.

  11. Tamarac Talk says:

    I’m sure many of Bob Norman’s ignorant pack believes you’re guilty just because you’re associated with the whole “Chait” issue. They don’t bother understanding this case on it’s own merits.

    Their mob mentality convicted her as soon as she was arrested and they won’t be satisfied until Satz appeals. Of course, they’ll blame it on Imperato being crooked as well, because to them, Talabisco should be burned at the stake along with anyone else that had anything to do with the Chaits, who by the way, got immunity.

  12. Real Deal says:

    Observer must be a surviving family member of Senator Joe McCarthy. He too was a fan of guilt by association. Also known as prejudice. Also known as total abandonment of every decent legal concept free society embraces. Also known as guilty until proven innocent.

  13. observer says:

    @Real Deal, you miss the point. Only if you are on both (hypothetical) lists that i mentioned should you be charged. If you voted, but didnt receive anything improper, you are fine. If you received something but never voted on it, again you are fine. If you voted on the issue AND if you received something for it, you should be charged. it seems very simple and easy.

  14. sidelines says:

    When 10% turn out for a municipal election in Broward County’s largest city, its deemed a successful re-election.

  15. City Activist Robert Walsh says:

    I was behind you from the beginning Mrs.talabisco or more importantly Mayor Talabisco-Head right back to your mayor’s Off. break the door down if you have to. This is the mayor. I feel so bad for Mr.talabisco to hav ehad to put up w/ this “BS” for so many months. And you Bev Stracher for orchestrating th e whole deal;. Spit in her face Mayor Talabisco-And comm.Lieberman how dare you stab your own kind in th e back like you did.I knew you would prevail Mayor Talabisco.. “Pay back is a bitch “-tell them all….

  16. Woody72 says:

    What time Talabisco’s husband had left was cut in half by her GREED.
    ( What go’s around come’s around.)

  17. Real Deal says:

    Observer I understood your post exactly as you say I should have. I stand by my answer. Just because an official votes for something and receives a campaign donation means nothing in a court of law. Guilt by appearance is first kin to guilt by association and nothing about that fits in any elevated system of justice or democracy. Only when you sell your vote in return for a benefit do you violate the law.

  18. Robert Norman says:

    @Woody72 says: Tim, what you said about the Mayors husband is really not cool. If you want to make ridiculous comments like that crawl back under your Mainlands rock and make those comments on Bob Norman’s blog where anything goes. Buddy’s readers prefer a brain over whatever’s rattling around in your head. Seriously Tim, spare us all. Don’t hate the players, hate the game. And one more thing, why anyone would want to build a nice new house behind your dump of a trailer defies logic.

  19. observer says:

    @real deal, I meant if you received something improper, you should be on the “second list”. A campaig contribution is proper. So are PACS and ECO’s. So for example, if you voted, on say the School Board and you or your husband received money, you would be on both lists. If you voted and someone gave you money for a car or a golf cart, you would be on both lists.

    @Woody you sir have zero class

  20. Real Deal says:

    Observer — your comment was if on both lists then “charge them.”

    My comment is even if on both lists, a “charge” has to have a basis “other” than just being on both lists. Evidence of criminality must exist.

    To charge someone merely for being on both lists is exactly the mischief that took place in the Talabisco case. It assumes facts that are not crimes. It is an improper charge on that basis and amounts to guilt by association. It is improper legal procedure.

    But it does create an appearance issue which can only be undone by reforming the campaign finance rules. Public financing of campaigns would eliminate the entire problem and should be implemented. By law you cannot stop a private company or person from contributing to campaigns. But you can forbid candidates from accepting those contributions and funding their campaigns solely from public dollars.

    Some say that this would raise taxes and it might. But it would also lower the cost of goods and services that government buys, because those costs are inevitably passed along to the taxpayer anyway, and it resolves a serious ethical perception in the public. That tradeoff is more than worth the expense and effort but residents have not yet woken up to that reality.

  21. Woody72 says:

    I’m playing the game Robert. It’s called the truth, and it’s going to get ugly.

  22. Louis Brandeis says:

    Retire Satz. Putting innocent people thru hell just to get re-elected and the guilty go free. (the Chaits). Using liars to try and prove cases while the liars laugh about how they got away with it.
    Satz is misusing his office. Time for him to go.

  23. observer says:

    @Real Deal. If you are on both lists. (meaning you were a voter on the issue AND you got something from them, that was improper, a bag of $, cars, carts, boat trips etc.) That is enough, what more evidence do you need? You voted and you took something improper, that should be it. That alone should be enough to charge and convict. Under your thought, if you voted and you took something from them, you still need to have some sort of basis (intent). The supreme ct said no to that. I put to you, if you voted and took something improper, what is the defense?

  24. GO Mancini says:

    No more Satz, Broward needs a new State Attorney free of power brokers, electeds, and lobbyists looking to cover themseleves.

    Vote Mancini

    Msg approved by Judy Stern and the Free Joe Eggs defense fund

  25. Real Deal says:

    Observer: The law states that unlawful compensation or a bribe requires a quid pro quo with a campaign donation. Being on your two lists one involving the acceptance of a donation and the other involving a vote favorable to the donor does not meet the elements of the charge. Also needed is an illegal connection between the two. I’ve tried explaining this to you several times. Being on both lists alone and charging someone on that basis is inappropriate because it fails to show evidence of a crime.

  26. observer says:

    @ real deal Simply accepting a campaign contribution in my example would not put you on both lists. A campaign contribution is allowed in any scenario. The fact that you took a campaign contribution, or were helped by a committee or pac, is all totally legal and allowable, no problem there, whether you vote of not. What i talk about is taking something improper (cash, cars, boat rides, carts, parties etc.) If you took something like that AND you voted on the issue, you should be charged. At that point intent is irrelevant.

  27. Real Deal says:

    Observer: What you say is very different from the Talabisco situation. Even then it would depend on things such as did you reported the gift or not.

  28. observer says:

    I agree with you about Talabisco. She should never have been charged.