VI. Bribery Charges (Already filed)
1. BRIBERY charges (in Pa) have been filed (via a personal criminal complaint) against:
The Briber: LAG Towing (Leo A Glodzik III)
The Bribees: Wilkes-Barre Mayor Leighton, W-B Chief of Police Dessoye, and W-B police force
2. AUTO THEFT Charges have also been filed by Senta Boyer. See section VII for details
I asked that Magistrate Cronauer (Wilkes-Barre) recuse himself since he was on W-B City Council.
I also asked the Luzerne County DA's office recuse itself since the police chief’s brother (Mike) works there.
Annual Bribes (Two Distinct Bribes)
1) Approx $1,500 in champagne to police (Christmas/New Year's). This doesn't sound like much... but in total this could be minimally a thousand dollar bribe total. "King" Leighton makes up his own rules and allows this. He knows the police are not to accept gifts. I am positive that champagne was delivered by Glodzik because I called the station myself on New Year's Day and it was confirmed by the responding officer on the phone. He said that Leo Glodzik brought them champagne (Glodzik did this as a city contractor who depends on police tows for his business). (I guess the officer that mistakenly squealed to me will now lose his job!) Bob Kadluboski has also confirmed the champagne his through what he said was “8 or 9 cops.”
The threshold for a bribe is very low... the hurdle is simply "to bring about favorable exercise of discretion made by the bribe's recipients." To say that the cops "favorably exercise their discretion" towards Glodzik is the understatement of the Millennium! He has blanket protection from them.
2) I write in my formal complaint that the annual $50,050 that Glodzik pays the city is not kept secret. But this does not matter. Nowhere in statute 4701 does it say that a bribe must be secretive (under the table, back alley etc..). What has been kept secret, however, has been the activities of LAG Towing. Glodzik's auto theft ring has been supported by an umbrella of protection provided by the police and a Mayor and Police Chief willing to overlook obvious criminal activity and a complete breach of the city towing contract. Furthermore, a trusted source reports that Leighton has definitely been on the take from LAG Towing (Glodzik) for quite a while.
- Glodzik freely breaks the contract and charges illegal, monopoly prices
- Glodzik freely breaks the contract and provides no records (7 yrs)
- Glodzik not only operates "outside the law"... he "becomes the law itself" by intercepting police calls and re-routing police activity to his liking.
- Glodzik preys upon the poor who can't pay the illegal, predatory initial fee. At $50 per day, like a Venus Fly Trap, the cars soon become his. HE STEALS THEM.
IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, THE $50,050 FEE THAT GLODZIK PAYS THE CITY ENABLES LAG TOWING TO RUN AS AN AUTO THEFT RING; A SCHEME THAT IS COMPLICIT WITH THE MAYOR, POLICE CHIEF, AND POLICE FORCE.
- The power to run an illegal monopoly
- The ability to steal cars and sell the cars/parts (to Louis DeNaples who owns the property?)
- “8 cents on the dollar” property deals from Leighton (not listed publicly).
- Complete immunity from the law (police tells public to take anything to civil court)
- $50,050 annually to the city
- Significant campaign contributions (listed in public campaign records)
- Champagne to “Leighton’s cops (and who knows what else?)
- Envelopes of Cash (Amount unknown but a trusted source tells me it is periodic)
NOTE: A bribe exists even if we don’t know how many envelopes Leighton receives. The bottom line is Glodzik pays (w/$50,050 and contributions) for influence and he is definitely receiving it!
BRIBE (Legal definition)
BRIBERY AND CORRUPT INFLUENCE
§ 4701. Bribery in official and political matters.
(a) Offenses defined.--A person is guilty of bribery, a felony of the third degree, if he offers, confers or agrees to confer upon another, or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept from another:
(1) Any pecuniary benefit (Champagne bribe or $50,050 annual fee) as consideration for the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant (cops allowing Glodzik to tell them what to do... such as not sending a cruiser... or claiming all matters are "civil" and not criminal), party official or voter by the recipient;
(2) any benefit as consideration for the decision, vote, recommendation or other exercise of official discretion by the recipient in a judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding; or
(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a known legal duty as public servant (such as not enforcing the Towing Contract; not responding to police calls etc.) or party official.
(b) Defenses prohibited.--It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office, had left office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.