The recently deposed NC State lawmaker was convicted today of 3 Felonies stemming from his deception and lack of moral compass during the early stages of his community's effort to establish a museum to commemorate Wilmington's 1898 Governmental Coup, where the existing local officials were forcefully removed from office and run out of town during a white led rebellion that left black people dead and fleeing for their lives. For scamming, cheating, and failing to pay his bills, Wright was sentenced to at least 6 years in prison. His sentence began immediately and was taken to a medium security prison to spend the night.
Immediately after being sentenced to prison by Judge Hight, Thomas Wright removed his wallet and reached around and pulled what looked to be a pouch resembling a bank bag from the middle of his back and handed it to his attorney Doug Harris. Many have wondered why Mr. Wright had not worked to cooperate with investigators on other wrongdoings in the legislature such as the "new" video poker like bingo machines. One might suspect the pouch has something of importance in it otherwise why conceal it beneath his coat. Why not have it in his other files and records he brought into court everyday? After he set the pouch and wallet down he turned to his wife Joyce and winked then was led out of the courtroom, behind closed and locked doors to begin his transformation from the most powerful African American legislator in North Carolina to prison inmate. Wright will spend the night in a medium security prison.
It just dawned on me that there seems to be no other Legislator awaiting the same fate as Thomas Wright. Obtaining property by false pretenses that is, Felonies, prison time, humiliation, punishment and ruination. Where are all the others that, like Wright, like Ballance, like so many others that have whored themselves out to the salesman with the fat sack full of goodies? Had Wright taken the stand and said, "I told a lobbyist I needed money to keep me afloat for a month or so while I try to put together some local investors on a project I'm working on. And he gave me $5,000." Not that the lobbyist could care less what the money was for, they just want to know how to hand the money over without being caught and better yet, how they can deduct it. Hummmm how about a non-profit foundation? I am surprised it took me so long to figure this out. Of course Wright went to the local lobby weasel, who hooked him up with his pal at Budweiser or AT&T or some pharmaPIG to "donate" a handful into Wright's pocket so that when needed Mr. Wright can be expected to be a friend. Reminds me of the Godfather. And of course it is the Godfather, it's organized crime robbing taxpayers of money and power. If the lobbyist have the power then the citizens are second fiddle but they don't know because that $25,000 piece of pork that landed in the lap of Boss Hog of Mayberry they will overlook the $2.4 million in semi-secret giveaways, incentives, DOT/party favors, inclusions, exclusions and such handed to the civic center, developer, restaurateur, Hollywood producer, hotel chain, manufacturer, and or labor group. I've seen accounts of prostitution arrests when the John goes free. It's the whore that goes to jail, the pimp and the money man always walk. Thomas must have been on someone else's corner selling his skanky self. I'll bet that when all this took place, around first of 2002, is exactly the same time that Wright was about to have personal house of cards collapse. He was panicking a year earlier and went to Senator RC Soles of Columbus County for a bailout. Soles was known for his, um, generosity and helped out and saved Wright's house from being auctioned on the courthouse steps. If memory serves me right Thomas was unable to accommodate Soles' terms and Soles briefly ended up with Thomas Wright's mother's house. In 1998, when a family home in Wilmington was about to be foreclosed upon, Wright asked for help. The home was owned by his mother, who had recently died, and the children couldn't agree over settling the estate, according to Soles, a Democrat and longtime friend. Soles said he bought the house, believing it was a good business deal but also a favor for a friend. Three years later, Soles wanted to sell, but Wright wasn't ready to buy it back, Soles said. "I wanted to move it," Soles said. So Soles started to put it on the market, and Wright got a loan to buy the house. More foreclosure proceedings eventually followed before the house was sold at auction. from the N&O Soles bought the house on July 8, 1998 for $80,000. On March 5, 2001 he sold it to Thomas Wright's wife, Joyce for $128,000. When the house was sold at auction 3 years later in 2004, the it sold for $79,500. A loss of nearly $50,000. Six months later the house sold again for $81,000. A comparable in the neighborhood would show that the house's value in 2001 would not have been much more than what it sold to Soles for in 1998. When Soles sold it back he made a profit of $48,000, a return on investment of 62% over a 2 and a half year period. What was the reason for the increase in value then? And how was it that the home could have appraised so high. Certainly the bank didn't loan Wright 150% of the value. Is this where Wright learned about taking a second on the added on surcharge that was placed on the Lofton building that was to be the 1898 museum? It would have been during this period that Wright would have been carrying over $500,000 in debt - three houses. Assuming his mortgage rate might have been 8% and that the property would have been leveraged to the max, that would mean his monthly payments would have been roughly $3,700 a month not including taxes and insurance until the Dock Street house sold in foreclosure in 2004. Just about the same time Wright began screwing his friend Dan Gottovi, Wayne Lofton, the banks, credit union, etc when everything around him began to collapse. By this time he was way in over his head. Like they say, hell is paved with good intentions and contributions from Hugo Neu....
It is mentioned in the psychological study of "body language" that a person is lying if they look up to the left. Most times this is true. The person is using "visual construction" he is creating the image. "Do you have a receipt for that expense?" If the eyes go up, the subject is visually trying to create the receipt in his brain so he can rationalize that he "truthfully" sees the receipt when in fact he has just created it in his mind. Many times in District Attorney's cross examination of Thomas Wright, Wright was asked about proof, evidence not presented on behalf of the defense's claims of Wright using personal money to pay interest payments on the $150,000 loan and travel expenses, etc to procure finding for the foundation. Wright said he had proof but didn't know where it was. Repeatedly Wright did this and always it was up and to the right. A person who remembers by doing, will look down. This downward glance means that they can remember by "looking at their hands holding the check or the receipt ". Then they will look up to interpret.
The best attempt at a lie came when DA Willoughby asked Wright if the $4,800 bank check used to pay off the interest on the mortgaged Foundation building was his money and Wright said, "If it was my check then it must be my money." A simple yes or no would do thank you. Up and to the left. Tomorrow twelve jurors will deliberate on whether or not Mr. Wright answered the questions truthfully. So far they are being asked a lot. They are basically being asked to believe that there is a large conspiracy set out to destroy Wright by the Democrats, and some how others, such as the DA, the SBI, the Loftons, the charitable donors, the banks, and the Board of Elections are all lying in an attempt to "teach the boy a lesson." Either that or Mr. Wright is lying in a desperate attempt to save himself from years of confinement in State Prison. more about Thomas Wright's trial
In a heated exchange with the District Attorney, Wright became indignant. Throughout Wright's testimony he consistently held that the burden of proof of his INNOCENCE rested with the State. So throughout the redirect questioning his position was deny, deny, counter accuse. A perfect example seen below. District Attorney Colon Willoughby: When (Coastal Federal Bank commercial loan officer) Burbank said that he loaned you the money because you told him the note would be paid off by a State grant he was lying. Thomas Wright: That was the intention. DA: And when he said you showed him the letter... TW: Absolutely not. I never showed him the letter. He didn't need it. DA: You never showed it to Burbank? TW: No. DA: How did he know it was from the office of Rural Health? TW: I never showed it to him. DA: Then how did he even know the name Rural Health? TW: You should ask him. DA: I did and he said you showed it to him. TW: There are some mighty strange things happening. DA: I have no idea. On March 13, 2002 Thomas Wright, from his legislative office (under his administrative assistants email address) wrote to Torlen Wade the Director of the Dept. of Rural Health at DHHS to confirm details discussed earlier by phone. The email specified the exact details of the letter Wright received on the 15th of March. Wright was in negotiations with the Lofton family during this time and, according to Wayne Lofton, Wayne would handle the financing arrangements with his bank, Coastal Federal Bank of Wilmington. The loan closed on April 5th. Bank officer Ronnie Burbank said he was shown the letter from Torlen Wade, Wright claims he did not get the letter until after the loan was approved so there was no way that Burbank could have seen the letter and besides since the loan was approved without it what reason would Wright have to show it to anyone. Once again...The loan worksheet said Wright would be paying off the loan with a grant from the Department of Rural Health, the closing took place the following month on April 5th. Burbank said he saw the letter and that had he known the money would have ended up in wright's pocket he would not have approved it. Wright accused Wayne Lofton, a childhood friend, of being upset that the building was foreclosed on. The Loftons accepted a second mortgage of $150,000 on the sale. When the loan went into default the first mortgage holder, Coastal Federal took possession of the building, leaving the Loftons holding the note for $150,000.Both Wright and Wright's attorney Doug Harris, claim the Loftons didn't lose money. that the loss was only paper. The family received half of the sale price. When they paid off their mortgage they only netted $40,000, instead of $190,000. Between October 28,2002 and November 21,2002, while a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Thomas E. Wright did engage in a pattern of conduct unbecoming and unfitting a member of the House of Willoughby said this about that, "So the credit union goes belly up because of people like you not paying your bill?" and Wright snaps back, "How do you know I didn't" Interesting defense tactic. Yeah, that's the ticket! more about Thomas Wright's trial THIS WOMAN KNOWS WHY WRIGHT IS BEING PERCECUTED
So what does this The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and teen sex have to do with Thomas Wright? Two things according to Ms. Shubert who sat with me in the trial today. First, had Wright not opposed the NAMBLA agenda and supported a Republican in 2006, I doubt he would have received the intensive investigation which led to his removal from the legislature, since far greater malfeasance is routinely ignored. Second, while the media was focused on the House Special Session called to remove Wright, the Rules Review Commission met and approved rules for a “Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative” that put into place precisely the same language that was debated and rejected last year by the House Education Committee. North Carolina’s legislature made our state’s official policy promoting abstinence until marriage while providing accurate information on sex, including birth control methods. NAMBLA, CRR, Planned Parenthood and their allies don’t like that policy, so they’re changing it by executive branch action, unreported by their friends in the media. NAMBLA and their allies can’t win a public debate, so they’re working by stealth to accomplish their ends. They made a lot of progress last week in Raleigh More of what Fern Shubert has to say about Thomas Wright in her own words can be found by clicking here. more about Thomas Wright's trial
Thomas Wright sat rocking in his chair smacking gum, smiling as witness after witness exposed his betrayal of the community he represented. This smirk, this "you don't know what you are talking about" look has become his trademark as he sat in two prior public venues never uttering a word in defense or explanation. This time as he sits on top of Felony charges that could suspend his freedom for as much as 11 years. The man has the mental capacity of a fool, a court jester. A fool that expects to be seen as a martyr, the victim of a democrat's revenge and of a white supremacist government out to destroy his efforts to bring awareness to the 1898 coup. That coup in 1898 changed the governmental power structure in North Carolina's most populated city, by burning the local black press and running off several leaders of the community. Homes and businesses were stolen and an undocumented number of free black men were shot and killed in the streets as the wealthy white citizens with their newly formed militia, retook the city from the freed slaves and the northern born whites that took an unwelcome residence among plantation owners and the confederacy of states rights advocates. It is this story that Wright has supposedly been punished for telling. Well that and his refusal to support fellow democrat and Senator, Julia Boseman, whose own personal tabloid tales of adventure filled imaginations with lurid details unseemly behavior. A recent court custody battle left behind public documents detailing scathing tales that includeseye witness accounts of drug use and an overly juiced sexual libido. Wright instead supported the senatorial candidate on the republican side, who is also reported to have an overly juiced sexual libdo. But it appears that Thomas himself hushed the 1898 efforts by stuffing his pockets with everything of value that was generously given to the project. Whatever reason Thomas can conjure up won't cover-up the fact that the man robbed people to line his own pocket with gold. But for all the money grabbing, questionable bookkeeping, and failures to do things by the letter of the law, the worst transgression committed by Thomas Wright is not against the law but it is far worse, Thomas Wright betrayed the dream of the late Senator Luther Jordan, a man's dying wish to make this dream of happen, to pick up the torch and run with it... and Thomas ran with it all right, ran with it right into the ground, right beside poor Luther. Mighty white of ya Tom. more about Thomas Wright's trial
The overwhelming theme replaying over and over again is the fact that Thomas Wright mixed campaign money with personal money, which was not a crime prior to October 2006 when it was OK to spend money out of your campaign finances on panties from Victoria's Secret if you wanted to AS LONG AS you declared those expenses in your quarterly report to the Board of Elections. What everyone is forgetting is that this trial isn't about that, it is about Thomas Wright lying to 3 corporate donors in order to put money into his personal back account in order to buy panties, or gum, or big fat turkeys. It is also about lying to loan officers at banks. By lying, he committed fraud, and by committing fraud he will go to prison. This is not about a failure to report campaign funds to the State, this is about criminal acts of fraud. Felonies. According to the State of North Carolina Fraud is, “(1) False representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) reasonably calculated to deceive, (3) made with intent to deceive, (4) which does in fact deceive, (5) resulting in damage to the injured party.” Wright has yet to take the stand, but when he does he will have to explain several things. Three indictments were on charges of soliciting $8,900 in contributions in 2003 and 2004 from corporations for the foundation to help with the purchase of the building and with educational and minority health-care programs in New Hanover County. Wright used the money himself and falsely told the donors that the foundation was a charity and that the donations were tax-deductible, the indictments say. Anheuser-Busch donated $5,000, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals $2,400 and AT&T $1,500. Wright used the letter to help persuade Coastal Federal Bank to loan the foundation $150,000. Wright ended up with the building but owing both the bank and the family that sold the building. The bank foreclosed, and the family never got its money. And according to the indictments, Wright also fraudulently secured a $10,000 line of credit from a credit union for the foundation in 2001. He withdrew the money for his own use and without the knowledge of the foundation's board, according to the indictment. House Resolution to expel Wright from office _____________________________________ |
SPEAK OUT IN ON THE BLOG SITE
