Sarah K.

Steiner
Attorney at law
401 East 74th Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10021

917-776-5175 sks4law@aol.com

July 14, 2017

New York City Campaign Finance Board

Attention: Special Compliance
100 Church Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10007

Re: Complaint Against Thomas Lopez-Pierre

and Committee to Elect Thomas Lopez-Pierre

To the Special Compliance Unit:

I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, and the Complainant

herein. I personally submit this Complaint, pursuant to Rule 7-01 of the Rules of the New York

City Campaign Finance Board (the CFB or the Board) against respondents Thomas Lopez-

Pierre (Lopez-Pierre or the Candidate), a candidate for New York City Council District 7 in

the 2017 election, and the Committee to Elect Thomas Lopez-Pierre, his authorized committee

(the Committee) (together, the Respondents).

As fully set forth below, Respondents have committed fraudulent and other wrongful acts

in violation of the CFB Rules, the provisions of the New York City Campaign Finance Act (the

Act), and other applicable laws and rules -- and have directly admitted their commission of

such wrongful acts. These wrongful acts strongly warrant the relief which Complainant hereby

seeks: an investigation of Respondents wrongdoing pursuant to CFB Rule 7-01(f), and a finding

pursuant to CFB Rule 5-01(f) that Respondents are ineligible for public matching funds under

1
Section 3-703 of the Act, and should be denied all such funds. Complainant also seeks such

other and further relief as the CFB deems just and proper.

Pursuant to CFB Rule 7-01(c), I hereby attest that the matters set forth in this Complaint

are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based on the documentary

evidence cited herein and annexed hereto as exhibits.

BACKGROUND

Upon information and belief, based on various press reports (see, e.g.,

http://www.manhattanexpressnews.nyc/divisive-voice-reemerges-west-side-council-race/)

(annexed hereto as Exhibit 1), the Candidate has been publicly campaigning for the 2017

election in New York City Council District 7 ever since the 2013 election for that seat.

According to the online database available at the CFBs website, his Committee has been a

registered political committee since February 12, 2015. See http://www.nyccfb.info/follow-the-

money/registered-political-committees/. The records available at the CFBs website also show

that the Candidate has been filing campaign finance disclosure statements with the CFB for the

2017 election for City Council District 7 since on or before July 14, 2015. (See CFB press

release dated that date, available at http://www.nyccfb.info/media/press-releases/candidates-file-

disclosure-campaign-finance-board-1/. )

Also upon information and belief, in or about February 2017 or the beginning of March

2017, the Candidate elected to participate in the public funding provisions of the Act with respect

to the 2017 election for City Council District 7 by filing with the Board a written Certification

pursuant to CFB Rule 2-01 and Section 3-703(c) of the Act. Accordingly, he publicly announced

his expectation of receiving matching public funds through the Program, both on his own Twitter

account (https://twitter.com/VoteLopezPierre) and as reported in the press. See, e.g.,

2
https://twitter.com/VoteLopezPierre/status/829350401312972800 (February 8, 2017, announcing

his plans for use of $100,000 [CFB] money in his campaign);

https://twitter.com/VoteLopezPierre/status/834483168623341569 (February 22, 2017, same);

https://twitter.com/VoteLopezPierre/status/837640711830974468 (March 3, 2017, same);

https://twitter.com/VoteLopezPierre/status/838800067821768704 (March 6, 2017, same);

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/03/02/city-council-anti-semitic-campaign/ (article published

March 2, 2017 quoting Candidate regarding his plans to use $100,000 in public matching funds);

http://nypost.com/2017/03/03/taxpayer-funded-hate-thanks-to-the-city-campaign-finance-system/

(article published March 3, 2017 quoting Candidate to same effect) (collectively annexed hereto

together as Exhibit 2).

Among other things, the Certification form filed by the Candidate set forth, on his own

and the Committees behalf, his acceptance of and agreement to comply with the terms and

conditions of the Act for the provision of such funds. By virtue of filing said Certification, the

Candidate (together with his Committee) became a Participant in the New York City Campaign

Finance Program (the Program) within the meaning of the Act and the CFB Rules. (See the

definitions of Participant and Program set forth in CFB Rule 1-02.)1

RESPONDENTS FRAUDULENT SCHEME

Upon information and belief, at least several days before April 26, 2017, a fundraising

appeal entitled Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign appeared on the crowdfunding and

1
Even before filing the Certification, of course, the Candidate and his Committee were
already bound to comply with the provisions and requirements of the Act and the CFB Rules, except as
otherwise specified therein. See CFB Rule 2-11 and Section 3-719 of the Act.

3
fundraising website GoFundMe.com, depicting a photograph of the Candidate with a large red

X through it, as follows:

The Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign appeal solicited funds with words such

as expose this rabid anti-Semite and stop him from getting into office, referring to certain

controversial statements which the Candidate had made, as widely reported in the press.

(Although the page in question has been removed from GoFundMe.com and the link to it on the

so-called Wayback Machine [web.archive.org] is no longer functional, a partial image of the

appeals GoFundMe page was reproduced, as above, together with quotations from the appeal, in

at least two newspaper articles -- see http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/anti-semitic-politician-tricks-

critics-into-raising-money-for-him/ and http://www.vosizneias.com/268242/2017/04/27/new-

york-ny-bogus-gofundme-page-an-attempt-to-trick-opponents-into-supporting-controversial-

city-council-campaign/ -- copies of which are collectively annexed hereto as Exhibit 3.)

4
 Thus, on its face, this GoFundMe appeal represented itself as a solicitation of funds to

oppose the Candidates campaign.

According to the information presented on the appeals GoFundMe.com page (see image

above and Exhibit 3), the appeal had raised the sum of at least $5,871 by the morning of April

26, 2017, from an unknown number of individual donors -- all of whom, upon information and

belief, were induced to make their monetary contributions in reasonable reliance on the truth of

the representations in the fundraising appeal that it was intended to raise funds in opposition to

the Candidates campaign, and that any funds raised would be used for that purpose.

In fact, the representation was not true: on April 26, 2017, the Candidate expressly

admitted on two different forums that the Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign

GoFundMe appeal was fraudulent, and that he had created it himself (with the aid of one or more

agents) in order to scam money from voters who opposed him, with the intention of using the

funds raised pursuant to his fraudulent scheme to further his own campaign.

First, on his own Twitter account, at 7:31 a.m. on April 26, 2017, the Candidate expressly

admitted -- indeed, he proudly boasted -- in response to a question about who was behind the

Gofundme appeal, that My political supporter set up this GoFundMe drive. We plan to

raise money to promote Thomas Lopez-Pierre (smile) (emphasis supplied):

5
.

Second, in an article that was published later that same day in The New York Post (see

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/anti-semitic-politician-tricks-critics-into-raising-money-for-him/,

time-stamped April 26, 2017 at 10:47 pm, as updated), the Candidate repeated to that newspaper

his express (and completely voluntary) admission that the Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate

Campaign fundraising appeal on GoFundMe was, in fact, his own creation, intended to raise

funds for his own campaign by defrauding contributors who actually opposed him:

But anyone who donated hoping to actually stop Lopez-Pierre is going to be sorely
disappointed because the page was created by the candidate himself to scam money
from his foes.

I call it bait and switch, Lopez-Pierre actually bragged to The Post.

I intend to use the money to pay for my marketing expenses. The people who are
doing this [donating] oppose me. I thank them for their support. . . . .

6
 On his phony GoFundMe page, Lopez-Pierre took advantage of the backlash [against his
controversial public comments] by posting a picture of himself with a big X over it, along
with the call to donate money to stop him. He claims he had help starting the page
which is now closed from a rabbinical student. It was a joke, he said. We
didnt expect it would raise $1,000.

(Id., emphasis supplied.)

As a result of the Candidates April 26, 2017 admission of fraud on Twitter and to The

New York Post, GoFundMe.com announced later that same day (as quoted in the updated New

York Post article that it had frozen all the contributions made to the fund-raising appeal at issue

pending investigation and review, and until additional information [could] be provided by the

campaign organizer to enable a determination as to whether the fund-raising appeal was

legitimate. See id.

Upon information and belief, the extremely negative backlash from various public figures

to the Candidates admittedly fraudulent scheme -- including the statement of Manhattan

Democratic Party Chairman Keith Wright, as reported in the updated April 26, 2017 New York

Post article that he was investigating whether its possible to remove Lopez-Pierre from the

Democratic Party -- caused the Candidate to realize the potentially disastrous consequences of

his boastful admission of fraud.

Accordingly, on April 27, 2017, the very next day, he suddenly backtracked and

attempted to withdraw his admission of fraud, claiming that he had lied about lying, and was not

in fact the originator of the Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign fund-raising appeal on

GoFundMe. Thus, in a televised interview broadcast on the local news station CBS2 --

available online at http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/27/thomas-lopez-pierre-anti-semite-lie/,

together with an accompanying news article summarizing the interview (Exhibit 4 hereto) -- the

Candidate asserted that his original admissions of fraud on Twitter and to the New York Post were

7
false, stating, among other things, that Its one big lie. I lied to the New York Post,

supposedly in order to cause dissension in the ranks.

Several days later, on April 30, 2017, as quoted and reported in an article published at

http://www.manhattanexpressnews.nyc/lopez-pierre-faces-call-party-ouster-admits-scamming-

lying/ (annexed hereto as Exhibit 5), the Candidate elaborated further on his claim that he had

lied about committing fraud:

[I]n an interview with Manhattan Express, Lopez-Pierre claimed he lied to the Post about
having anything to do with the GoFundMe campaign the proceeds of which have since
been frozen and are under investigation, the fundraising websites spokesperson, Bobby
Whithorne, told the Post.

The reason why I lied to the Post was because I hate the Post, Lopez-Pierre told
Manhattan Express, adding the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper is not real
journalism.

I wanted to cause diffusion in this whole anti-Thomas Lopez-Pierre mobilization, he

said.

The Candidates alleged hatred of the New York Post does not even begin to explain why

he had already volunteered, on his own Twitter account, his supposedly false admission of a

fraudulent scheme to raise funds for his campaign under false pretenses. Upon information and

belief, the Candidates hasty attempt to withdraw that admission was the product not of a new-

found penchant for telling the truth, but of a belated realization that the admission would have

disastrous consequences for his campaign, and that it was better to be publicly labeled a mere

liar, than a liar who had also engaged in potentially criminal acts. Complainant respectfully

submits that an investigation by the Board will show that the Candidate or his agent was, in fact,

the originator of the GoFundMe fundraising appeal -- which, as set forth below, represented a

fraudulent scheme on Respondents part that should result in the denial of all public matching

funds to Respondents.

8
 LEGAL BASIS FOR DENIAL OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO RESPONDENTS

CFB Rule 5-01(a)(1) provides that [n]o payments from the [New York City Election

Campaign Finance] Fund shall be made to a participant unless the Board has determined that a

candidate has met all eligibility requirements of the Act and these rules. See also Section 3-

705(1) of the Act (No . . . public funds shall be paid to a principal committee unless the board

determines that the participating candidate has met the eligibility requirements of this chapter.)

In turn, Rule 5-01(f) provides the applicable standard for the denial of public matching

funds to a Participant, setting forth the following list of eleven separate grounds upon which the

CFB can find a Participant ineligible for such funds. The grounds specifically addressed below,

on the basis of which (without limitation) the Complaint seeks the denial of public funds to

Respondents, are boldfaced:

Rule 5-01 Payment Procedure. . . .

(f) Basis for ineligibility determination. The Board may determine that public funds
shall not be paid to a participant if:

(9) there is reason to believe that the participant or an agent of the participant has
committed a violation of the Act or these Rules;

(10) the participant or an agent of the participant has been found by the Board to
have committed fraud in the course of Program participation or to be in breach of
certification pursuant to Rule 2-02; or

(11) there is reason to believe that the participant or an agent of the participant has
engaged in conduct detrimental to the Program that is in violation of any other
applicable law.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the standard for denial of public matching funds to a Participant is far less stringent

than the standard for requiring a Participant to disgorge public funds previously paid to that

9
participant pursuant to CFB Rule 2-02. Under Rule 2-02, there must be proof of a fundamental

breach -- as defined in that Rule -- of the obligations affirmed and accepted by the Participant in

his or her Certification, in order for the Board not only to deny public funds to a Participant, but

to rule that the Participant has forfeited all public funds previously received in connection with

the relevant election. A finding of breach under Rule 2-02, necessary for such forfeiture, is

reserved for the most egregious violations of the Program and the public trust. Liu v. New York

City Campaign Finance Board, No. 1:14-cv-01687-RJS, slip op. at 16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015)

(citation omitted).2

Accordingly, each of the fundamental breaches enumerated in Rule 2-02 as grounds for

forfeiture involves severe and intentional fraud (id.; slip op. at 15) directly related to misuse of

public funds received (e.g., Rule 2-02(b) ["use of public funds to make or reimburse substantial

campaign expenditures which the participant knew or should have known were fraudulent"]), or

fraudulent misrepresentations and non-disclosures in disclosure statements filed with the CFB in

an effort to obtain such public funds (e.g., Rule 2-02(a) [submission of a disclosure statement

which the participant knew or should have known includes substantial fraudulent matchable

contribution claims]).

By contrast, the grounds for prospective denial of public funds pursuant to CFB Rule

5-04(f), the remedy sought herein are far broader than those enumerated in Rule 2-02, and do not

require a finding of fraud, or proof that if fraud was committed it was directly related to a

Participants disclosure statements or misuse of public funds. Indeed, the broader scope of Rule

5-04(f) is conclusively demonstrated by the disjunctive phrasing of Rule 5-04(f)(10), which -- as

2
A copy of the Liu decision is annexed hereto as Exhibit 6, for the Boards convenience.

10
only one of eleven separate grounds for denial, and the only one requiring a finding of fraud --

provides for denial if the participant or an agent of the participant has been found by the Board

to have committed fraud in the course of Program participation or to be in breach of certification

pursuant to Rule 2-02 (emphasis supplied). If a finding of fraud were required as a prerequisite

to denial of funding, then all the separate grounds set forth in the other subdivisions of CFB Rule

5-04(f) would be superfluous; if a finding of fraud directly related to disclosure statements or a

misuse of public funds were required as a prerequisite, then the other half of CFB Rule 5-

04(f)(10) would be superfluous. Clearly, however, no portion of Rule 5-04(f) is superfluous.

Here, the Complaint does not seek disgorgement as a remedy, because no public funds

have been paid as yet to Respondents, or could have been paid as yet.3 Therefore, the stringent

grounds of CFB Rule 2-02 are inapplicable, and the far broader grounds set forth in CFB Rule 5-

04(f) govern the determination of this matter.

The relevant grounds of Rule 5-04(f) -- each and all of which are directly applicable here,

and warrant denial of public matching funds to Respondents -- are addressed in turn below.

3
See Section 3-709(5) of the Act, providing that [n]o moneys shall be paid to
participating candidates in a primary election any earlier than two weeks after the last day to file
designating petitions for such primary election -- i.e., any earlier than July 27, 2017, two weeks after the
July 13, 2017 deadline for filing designating petitions. See
https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/law/2017PoliticalCalendar.pdf and New York Election Law 6-
158(1).

11
CFB Rule 5-04(f)(9)

Rule 5-04(f)(9) provides that the Board may deny public matching funds to a Participant

if there is reason to believe that the participant or an agent of the participant has committed a

violation of the Act or these Rules.

In this case, if -- as they admitted -- Respondents were, in fact, the originators of and

responsible for the fraudulent Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign fundraising appeal

on GoFundMe, there is substantial reason to believe that they violated CFB Rules, including

(without limitation) the disclosure requirements of CFB Rule 3-03(c) (requiring disclosure of

contributions) and 3-03(e) (requiring disclosure of expenditures).

Under those Rules, if Respondents paid someone to create the GoFundMe appeal (see

the Candidates assertion that his political supporter created the appeal), they were required to

disclose any such payment as an expenditure. (See CFB Rule 3-03(e).) On the other hand, if

Respondents political supporter donated his or her services to create the appeal, Respondents

were required to report any such donation as both an in-kind contribution (Rule 3-03(c)) and an

expenditure (Rule 3-03(e)), at its fair market value. See CFB Rule 1-04(g) (requiring the

disclosure of in-kind contributions as both contributions and expenditures)4; see also N.Y.C.

Campaign Finance Board, Campaign Finance Handbook 2017 at p. 21.

Here, however, Respondents disclosure statements filed with the CFB (covering the

period through May 11, 2017) do not show the receipt of any in-kind contributions related to the

4
See CFB Rule 1-04(g)(2), defining the fair market value of services as the hourly or
piecework charge for the services at a commercially reasonable rate prevailing at the time the services
were rendered.

12
GoFundMe appeal) (see http://tinyurl.com/yaygdyf7 )5, and do not show any expenditures

whatsoever related to the creation of that appeal (whether monetary in nature or as the fair

market value of contributed services) (see http://tinyurl.com/y9bcb992).

Respondents failure to disclose any such contributions and expenditures was a violation

of CFB Rules warranting denial of public matching funds pursuant to CFB Rule 5-04(f)(9).

CFB Rule 5-04(f)(10)

Rule 5-04(f)(10) provides that the Board may deny public matching funds to a Participant

if, inter alia, the participant or an agent of the participant has been found by the Board to have

committed fraud in the course of Program participation.

Here, if the Board should determine that, as alleged herein, Respondents were behind the

false and misleading GoFundMe appeal and that persons were thereby induced, or there was an

attempt to induce them, to contribute to that appeal under false pretenses, then, by definition, that

determination would constitute a finding that Respondents committed fraud in the course of

Program participation.

Thus, as alleged above, and as the Candidate himself admitted, such a determination

would necessarily mean that

(1) Respondents (the creators of the Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign

GoFundMe appeal, directly and/or through their agents) knowingly made material

misrepresentations of fact in said appeal -- including representing that it was intended to raise

money to oppose and defeat the Candidate -- while fraudulently concealing the material fact that

5
The only in-kind contribution made at any time which Respondents have disclosed was a
contribution of Office Expenses Web Hosting on June 5, 2015, valued at $142.50. See
http://tinyurl.com/y7x53pvo.

13
they were themselves the originators of that appeal, all with the intention of raising funds by

fraudulently inducing persons opposed to the Candidate to make contributions to his campaign in

reliance on the truth of the representations contained in that appeal; and

(2) Multiple persons reasonably relied on Respondents fraudulent misrepresentations

and non-disclosures, and were induced, or there was an attempt to induce them, thereby to

contribute sums exceeding $5,000 to the fraudulent GoFundMe appeal, to their detriment, and

suffered damages as a result (including, among other things, the potential loss of use of the funds

contributed while those funds have been frozen pending completion of the investigation by

GoFundMe).

The elements of fraud would be established by such a determination. The fact that

Respondents may not have received the intended benefit of their fraud is irrelevant.

Furthermore, Respondents fraud was clearly carried out in the course of Program

participation: the Candidate filed a Certification with the Board pursuant to CFB Rule 2-01,

thereby becoming a Participant in the Campaign Finance Program (and assuming all the

obligations of such a Participant) prior to committing this fraud; he publicly announced his

participation in the Program, both on his Twitter account and as reported in the press.

Accordingly, Respondents fraud warrants denial of public matching funds pursuant to

CFB Rule 5-04(f)(10).

CFB Rule 5-04(f)(11)

Rule 5-04(f)(11) provides that the Board may deny public matching funds to a Participant

if there is reason to believe that the participant or an agent of the participant has engaged in

conduct detrimental to the Program that is in violation of any other applicable law.

14
 Here, Respondents fraudulent scheme as alleged above -- which was intended to, and

did, fraudulently induce people who opposed the Candidate into contributing funds to his

campaign, through a GoFundMe appeal created by Respondents which they falsely labeled as

designed to raise money to defeat the Candidate -- was clearly in violation of a number of other

applicable laws and rules (other than the Act and CFB Rules). In addition, Respondents fraud

and concealment were inherently detrimental to the Program (as well as the Act itself), the very

purpose of which is to increase transparency and public confidence in the campaign process,

while decreasing corruption and promoting ethical conduct.

The laws and rules violated by Respondents wrongful conduct include, without

limitation:

1. The New York Fair Campaign Code (9 CRR 6201.1), set forth in the Rules and

Regulations of the New York State Board of Elections, provides as follows in pertinent part:

In order that all political campaigns be conducted under a climate promoting discussion
of the issues and presentation of the records and policies of the various candidates,
stimulating just debate with respect to the views and qualifications of the candidates and
without inhibiting or interfering with the right of every qualified person and political
party to full and equal participation in the electoral process, the following is hereby
adopted by the New York State Board of Elections pursuant to section 3-106 of the
Election Law as the fair campaign code for the State of New York. No person, political
party or committee during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to
public office or party position shall, directly or indirectly, whether by means of
payment of money or any other consideration, or by means of campaign literature,
media advertisements or broadcasts, public speeches, press releases, writings or
otherwise, engage in or commit any of the following: . . . .

(b) Political practices involving subversion or undermining of political parties or the

electoral process including, but not limited to, the preparation or distribution of any
fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or agents
who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or
committee.

(Emphasis supplied.)

15
 [S]ubversion or undermining of . . . the electoral process through the preparation or

distribution of any fraudulent, forged or falsely identified writing or the use of any employees or

agents who falsely represent themselves as supporters of a candidate, political party or

committee (emphasis supplied), is precisely what Respondents accomplished here, by

attempting to raise campaign funds for themselves from their opponents by creating a fraudulent

fundraising appeal which they falsely identified as intended to oppose and defeat the Candidate.

2. New York Penal Law 190.25(2) provides in pertinent part that a person is guilty

of criminal impersonation in the second degree -- a Class A misdemeanor -- when, among other

things, he:

1. Impersonates another and does an act in such assumed character with

intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud another; or

2. Pretends to be a representative of some person or organization and

does an act in such pretended capacity with intent to obtain a benefit
or to injure or defraud another; or . . . .

4. Impersonates another by communication by internet website or

electronic means with intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud
another, or by such communication pretends to be a public servant in
order to induce another to submit to such authority or act in reliance
on such pretense.

Here, Respondents violated each and all of subsections (1), (2), and (4) of this statute by

admittedly impersonating and/or pretending to represent, on a fund-raising website on the

Internet, a person or organization supposedly raising funds in opposition to Respondents own

campaign -- using the assumed name Stop Thomas Lopez Pierre Hate Campaign -- and, in that

assumed character or pretended capacity, deceiving and attempting to deceive multiple persons

into making monetary contributions to Respondents fraudulent Internet fund-raising appeal, with

the intent both to benefit Respondents themselves by appropriating the monies raised to use in

16
their campaign, and to defraud the contributors. As the Candidate himself characterized the

scheme in his admission, it amounted to a bait and switch. (See page 6 above.)

3. Pursuant to Penal Law 110.00, 110.05, 155.05, and 155.35, Respondents

conduct also constituted the Class E felony of an attempt to commit the Class D felony of grand

larceny in the third degree. Thus:

Penal Law 110.00 provides that [a] person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime

when, with intent to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the

commission of such crime.

Penal Law 110.05(6) provides that an attempt to commit a crime is a Class E felony

when the crime attempted is a Class D felony.

Penal Law 155.05(1)-(2), in defining larceny, provide in pertinent part that:

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to

deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of

another`s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of
this section, committed in any of the following ways:

(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law larceny by

trespassory taking, common law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or
obtaining property by false pretenses; . . . .

(d) By false promise.

A person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme

to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation,
express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage
in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such
conduct . . . .

(Emphasis supplied.)

17
 Finally, Penal Law 155.35 provides that [a] person is guilty of grand larceny in the

third degree when he or she steals property and: . . . 1. when the value of the property exceeds

three thousand dollars. Grand larceny in the third degree is a Class D felony.

Here, Respondents fraudulent conduct, as alleged above, meets the requirements of these

statutory provisions. Thus, with intent to commit the crime of larceny as defined above -- i.e., to

deprive the contributors to the fraudulent GoFundMe appeal of property (namely, the funds

contributed), and appropriate that property to themselves, by wrongfully taking and obtaining

that property from such contributors through trick, false pretenses, and false promises regarding

the use thereof -- Respondents engaged in conduct which tended to effect the commission of

such larceny, and would have effected it if not for the Candidates inability to restrain himself

from publicly boasting about the cleverness of his fraudulent scheme. Finally, the aggregated

value of the property which was the subject of the attempted larceny amounted to $5,871.00 --

i.e., the total of the contributions made to the fraudulent GoFundMe appeal -- and, therefore,

exceeded $3,000.00, which would have made the larceny a Class D felony, and makes the

attempt to commit it a Class E felony.

Respondents fraudulent conduct in violation of the various laws and regulations cited

above is clearly and inherently detrimental to the Program, given the fundamental anti-fraud,

anti-corruption, and pro-transparency interests underlying both the Program and the Act, and, as

such, fully justifies a denial of public matching funds to Respondents pursuant to CFB Rule 5-

04(f)(11). See Liu, supra (Exhibit 6 hereto), slip op. at 9, citing the governmental interests in

(1) enforcing compliance with the CFA and the CFB's rules; (2) preserving the public fisc

from fraud; and (3) ensuring that the CFB is not perceived by the public as tolerating or

otherwise countenancing corruption as certainly justify[ing] the CFB's power to withhold

18
public funding under Rule 5-01(f). See also id., slip op. at 10, enumerating the important

government interests underlying the Act, including rooting out dishonesty from elections [and]

preserving public confidence.

Other authorities discussing the purposes and legislative history underlying the CFA and

its predecessors -- and making clear that the granting of public funds to Respondents despite

their illegal actions would be directly contrary and detrimental to those underlying purposes --

include McDonald v. N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board, 40 Misc.3d 826, 842-843, 965 N.Y.S.2d

811 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2013) (citing, inter alia, the public interest in increasing the public

confidence . . . in local elections). See also Friedlander, Jeffrey D.; Louis, Stephen E.; &

Laufer, Laurence D., The New York City Campaign Finance Act, Hofstra L. Rev.: Vol. 16: Iss. 2,

Article 4 at 10-11 (1988) (available at http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol16/iss2/4)

(also citing the Acts underlying purposes including to increase public confidence in the

electoral process); N.Y.C. Campaign Finance Board, Dollars and Disclosure: Campaign

Finance Reform in New York City at 11 (1990) (available at

http://www.nyccfb.info/PDF/news_media/reports/1989_PER_executive_summary.pdf) (In its

statement of legislative intent, the City Council stated that the Act was designed to enhance

ethics and public confidence in City government). Complainant respectfully submits that

awarding public matching funds to Respondents would amount to a condonation of their illegal,

fraudulent conduct, and would enhance neither ethics, nor public confidence in City government.

19
 CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Complainant respectfully requests that the relief sought

herein -- the denial of all public matching funds to Respondents -- should be granted in its

entirety, together with such other and further relief as the Board may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Sarah K. Steiner

20