Brush tries to hide his ties with corrupt political party boss by opposing a development application he was tied to.
September 19, 2006 - - On January 1, 2006, an expose on New Jersey party boss, John Lynch was published in "The New York Times", not usually a GOP friendly newspaper. That story detailed how the disgraced and now admitted criminal boss and his close associate, Jack Morris, a well known developer, together gave "$65,000 in donations to Mayoral candidate Paul Brush in early 2003."
Brush won election in 2003 as an Independent and then changed parties some months later after a secret meeting between Brush, disgraced ex- governor, Jim McGreevey, then Ocean County Democratic Chairman Fred Potter and Brush political advisor Sal Mattia.
The timing of the decision to flip parties was also suspicious because it very closely coincided with a significant donation from the local Democrats to Brush. Those details are also part of a massive ELEC Law violation complaint filed in 2005 and still under investigation according to NJ ELEC.
"The New York Times" article further stated that "Mr. Brush embraced the plan (referring to a Morris project entitled JSM at Hickory) and appointed one of Mr. Lynch's allies to the local planning board. The project’s new found support on the local level helped JSM at Hickory win two state zoning changes even though hundreds of community residents had rallied against the development."
Then fast forward to two months ago when Mr. Brush and several other members of the planning board, appointed by Mr. Brush, voted against the very project "The Times" reported that he embraced after receiving the donations from Lynch and Morris.
"The timing is more than a little suspicious" says Ginny Haines, President of the Dover Township Republicans.
"In voting against Mr. Morris’s project, Brush was clearly trying to get himself some political cover given the pending guilty pleas by Mr. Lynch for official corruption and bribe taking", says Ginny Haines, President of the Dover Township Republican Organization.
"Given the circumstances, Mr. Brush at the very least should return the tainted $65,000 he received from Lynch and Morris" she said.
"But much more importantly, Mr. Brush must explain to the public the complete nature of the connection between Brush, Morris, Lynch, and the on again – off again approval of the Morris project", she continued.
"Finally," said Haines, "it’s clear some sort of a deal was made by these gentlemen, one of who is now an admitted criminal. The information provided by "The New York Times," and Mr. Brush’s failure to adequately address the issue when the story was published and to let it stand on its merits, give us reason to believe that not only is it true, but it is problematic for our boisterous Mayor."