<stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us>; <anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us>; <AswHandlin@njleg.org>;
<AswDiMaso@njleg.org>; <SenGreenstein@njleg.org>;
<AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org>; <AsmBenson@njleg.org>;
<SenTurner@njleg.org>; <AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org>;
<SenBateman@njleg.org>; <AsmFreiman@njleg.org>;
<AsmZwicker@njleg.org>; <SenBSmith@njleg.org>;
<AsmDanielsen@njleg.org>; <AsmEgan@njleg.org>;
<SenDiegnan@njleg.org>; <AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org>;
<AswPinkin@njleg.org>; <SenVitale@njleg.org>; <AsmCoughlin@njleg.org>;
<AswLopez@njleg.org>; <SenCryan@njleg.org>;
<AswQuijano@njleg.org>; <AsmHolley@njleg.org>;
<SenKean@njleg.org>; <AsmBramnick@njleg.org>;
<AswMunoz@njleg.org>; <SenScutari@njleg.org>;
<AswCarter@njleg.org>; <AsmKennedy@njleg.org>; <SenDoherty@njleg.org>;
<AsmDiMaio@njleg.org>; <AsmPeterson@njleg.org>;
<SenOroho@njleg.org>; <AsmSpace@njleg.org>;
<AsmWirths@njleg.org>; <SenBucco@njleg.org>;
<AsmCarroll@njleg.org>; <AsmBucco@njleg.org>;
<SenPennacchio@njleg.org>; <AsmWebber@njleg.org>; <AswDecroce@njleg.org>;
<SenCodey@njleg.org>; <AswJasey@njleg.org>;
<AsmMcKeon@njleg.org>; <SenRice@njleg.org>;
<AsmCaputo@njleg.org>; <AswTucker@njleg.org>;
<SenRuiz@njleg.org>; <AswPintorMarin@njleg.org>;
<AswSpeight@njleg.org>; <SenSinger@njleg.org>; <metroforensics@gmail.com>;
SenVanDrew@njleg.org;
AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org; AsmLand@njleg.org; SenBrown@njleg.org;
AsmMazzeo@njleg.org; AsmArmato@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org;
AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org; AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org;
AsmMoriarty@njleg.org; AswMosquera@njleg.org; SenCruzPerez@njleg.org;
AswEganJones@njleg.org; AsmSpearman@njleg.org; SenBeach@njleg.org;
AsmGreenwald@njleg.org; AswLampitt@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org;
AsmConaway@njleg.org; AswMurphy@njleg.org; SenAddiego@njleg.org;
AsmHowarth@njleg.org; AsmPeters@njleg.org; SenConnors@njleg.org;
AsmRumpf@njleg.org; AswGove@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org;
AsmWolfe@njleg.org; AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org; SenGopal@njleg.org;
AswDowney@njleg.org; AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org;
AsmClifton@njleg.org; AsmDancer@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org;
<metroforensics@gmail.com>;<stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us>; <walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
'AsmSKean@njleg.org';
'AsmThomson@njleg.org'; 'SenCunningham@njleg.org'; 'AswMcKnight@njleg.org';
'AsmChiaravallotti@njleg.org'; 'SenSacco@njleg.org'; 'AswJimenez@njleg.org';
'AsmMejia@njleg.org'; 'SenStack@njleg.org'; 'AsmMukherji@njleg.org';
'AswChaparro@njleg.org'; 'SenGill@njleg.org'; 'AsmGiblin@njleg.org';
'AswTimberlake@njleg.org'; 'SenPou@njleg.org'; 'AswSumter@njleg.org'; 'AsmWimberly@njleg.org';
'SenSarlo@njleg.org'; 'AsmSchaer@njleg.org'; 'AsmCalabrese@njleg.org';
'SenWeinberg@njleg.org'; 'AsmJohnson@njleg.org'; 'AswVainieriHuttle@njleg.org';
'SenLagana@njleg.org'; 'AswSwain@njleg.org'; 'AsmTully@njleg.org';
'SenCardinale@njleg.org'; 'AswSchepisi@njleg.org'; 'AsmAuth@njleg.org';
'SenCorrado@njleg.org'; 'AsmRooney@njleg.org'; 'AsmDePhillips@njleg.org'; <metroforensics@gmail.com>;<stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us>; <barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
<fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us>;
==============================================
REQUEST
FOR AN INVESTIGATION:
PROOFS OF THE PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION THAT SUPPORT THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS
PROOFS OF THE PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION THAT SUPPORT THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS
DEAR
LEGISLATORS:
I AM
WRITING TO REPORT AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE WHERE THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY HAVE
INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED DR. STEPHANATOS' SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS FOR MORE THAN 7 AND
HALF YEARS. THEY ALSO VIOLATED SEVERAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
THEY ARE TRYING TO COVER UP THEIR WRONG DOING. I PROVIDE PROOFS OF THE
PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION THAT SUPPORT THE DUE
PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS
I URGE
YOU TO INVESTIGATE. THIS CASE WILL SHOCK YOUR CONSCIENCE.
SINCERELY
LIZ
PORTER, ESQ
================================
PROOFS OF THE PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
THAT SUPPORT THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS
MOTION (32) – UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF CUMULATIVE ERRORS, A NEW GRAND JURY
SHOULD BE CONVENED PURSUANT TO STATE V.
ORECCHIO, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954)
Taken cumulatively, the legal errors and false
testimonies in this case are of such a magnitude that they undeniably
prejudiced the defendant’s rights and, in their aggregate, rendered the grand
jury proceedings totally unfair.
Fundamental fairness and constitutional concepts dictate a dismissal. See State
v. Orrechio, 16 N.J. 125 (1954).
The New Jersey Supreme Court first discussed the
concept of cumulative errors in the context of a criminal trial in State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954). When legal errors cumulatively render a grand
jury proceeding or trial unfair, the Constitution requires a new trial. "[W]here
any one of several errors assigned would not in itself be sufficient to warrant
a reversal, yet if all of them taken together justify the conclusion that
defendant was not accorded a fair trial, it becomes the duty of this court to
reverse." Id. at 134 (citations
omitted).
The testimonies’ cumulative effect was
“clearly capable of producing an unjust result,” R. 2:10-2, requiring a
reversal of defendant’s convictions. See State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 155 (2014)
(explaining a court should reverse a conviction “[w]hen legal errors
cumulatively render a trial unfair” (citing
State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954))).
It
is respectfully submitted that there are numerous serious legal issues raised
regarding the unfair grand jury presentation in the Stephanatos
matter.
·
In part, material false testimony presented to the
grand jury by Lucas and D’Agostino when in fact they were never assaulted by
Dr. Stephanatos (and Dr. Stephanatos has already provided irrefutable proof of
the perjury committed by Lucas who signed a document stating that it was Nick
Mango and not himself at the front door – See Defense Exhibit D-1, Supplemental Motions to Dismiss, March 2018);
·
Numerous contradictory investigatory reports were
not presented to the grand jurors or were outright hidden from the grand jurors
by the prosecutor;
·
In paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Warrant
Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to
Detective Scala “that upon knocking on
the front entrance door of the residence”.
See excerpt from the warrant affidavit, Defense Exhibit D-11. This statement to Detective Scala fully
corroborates Dr. Stephanatos’ statements that his front door was closed – very
closed – with a lock and deadbolt closed.
·
However, in his June 28, 2011 report prepared by
Cpl. Lucas, he writes the following: “As
we proceeded toward the front door I ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the
front wood door was open and a glass storm door made the interior of the house
visible to me”. “At that moment a man came from the hallway
with a long object in his left hand”.
·
So, based on these diametrically different
statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas
lied. At the point at which the
prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the grand jury, the prosecutor
was under a duty to notify the court and the grand jury, to correct the cancer
of justice that had become apparent to him.
But he did not. This is clear,
unequivocal prosecutorial misconduct for intentionally misleading the grand
jury.
·
Furthermore, in his grand jury testimony, Officer Lucas identified the
“Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber Winchester single bullet hunting rifle” as
being the weapon that the defendant pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13; Da15,
Motion to Change Venue). It is critical
to note that the hunting rifle is a BROWN
COLORED GUN. However, in section 2 of paragraph 4 of the
Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala that he saw a “BLACK COLORED RIFLE”. So, again the
prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied before the grand jury when
he selected a different color gun than the one he related to Detective Scala.
·
“fake facts” (the pointing of a gun out a window)
cooked up by the prosecutor that were highly prejudicial to the Defendant;
·
Not mentioning that this was a residential property
in a wooded area of Wayne Township where less than 5 people and less than 5
dwellings were located nearby;
·
not presenting to the Grand Jurors the record of
the phone and emails of Dr. Stephanatos PROVING
BEYOND ANY DOUBT OF HIS WHEREABOUTS (and refuting the state’s allegations
that he was pointing guns at people and that he was barricaded);
·
the impermissible mentioning of bombs and IEDs and
ammunition boxes during the grand jury proceeding when in fact the prosecutor
and his witnesses knew that these were false statements and no bombs or IED or
ammunition boxes were ever found or ever existed;
·
not mentioning that State Statutes Prohibit the
Entering into Residential Properties unless the entry and detention is
made pursuant to legal process as set out in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 et
seq.; the purpose of following such clearly
established process for residential properties is to avoid the breach of public
peace;
·
not mentioning that no
warrant for removal signed by a Law Division judge was obtained by the sheriff
employees prior to attempting to remove Dr. Stephanatos from his residence;
·
not mentioning to the Grand Jurors that Victor A.
D’Agostino’s duties were not that of a sworn law enforcement officer;
·
failing to provide proofs that the Defendant knew
that the sheriff employees were in fact sworn law enforcement officers, as this
was a civil matter and the statutes under which the Defendant was charged
pertain to police officers while they perform criminal law enforcement duties.;
·
the intentional lying by Lucas that he injured his
shoulder requiring 5 pins, when he in fact injured his shoulder and elbow after
playing competitive football for many years and lifting heavy weights and doing
body building;
·
Lt. Nick Mango wrote in his June 28, 2011 report
that “nobody was hurt”. Also, Lucas never wrote in his June 28, 2018
report that he was injured. He
specifically wrote : “As I entered the woods I stumbled”. He never wrote that he was injured. However, during this grand jury testimony, he
provided a diametrically different picture:
·
Lucas claimed that he fell on his elbow and
shoulder, but was able to regain his balance, and he ran into a wooded area to
seek cover behind a large boulder. (GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion to Change
Venue). Lucas claimed that he tore his
biceps and had surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty severe
injury” in his shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8, Motion to
Change Venue). Of course we now know
that this guy was a football player and body builder and suffered these
injuries over his many years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents
with his shoulder (he was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals at
#41). This guy then defrauded the Police
and Firemen Retirement Fund by claiming disability and started the double
dipping.
·
So, from flip-flopping regarding the color of the
gun; to whether the door was closed or open; to whether he knocked the door or
not; to whether he suffered a major injury or not, Lying Lucas has some serious
credibility issues; and all his lies were allowed to poison the grand jury
deliberations.
·
the false (and highly prejudicial) allegations that
Dr. Stephanatos had threatened Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. with violence few days
prior to the “eviction”;
·
the false (and highly prejudicial) allegation that
Dr. Stephanatos did not want to pay taxes;
·
not presenting evidence that Dr. Stephanatos only
wanted a simple stay of the proceedings (as is allowed by state law) so that he
can file and adjudicate his appeals and to save his home and home-based
business from an illegal eviction;
·
failing to mention that at no time did the sheriff
employees told Dr. Stephanatos that he was under arrest;
·
not presenting evidence of the illegal background
leading up to the charges perpetrated by the conspirators Robert Del Vecchio,
ATF, and others;
·
not mentioning the fact that this was a civil
matter based upon profit for the same;
·
not mentioning that Dr. Stephanatos fully owned his
real estate property and was used as his home and small business and that his
business (Metropolitan Environmental Services) was not part of any eviction
proceedings;
·
not mentioning that state case law allowed Dr.
Stephanatos not to lose his home;
·
not mentioning that no state or federal court has
the authority to take private homestead property and deliver it to a private
entity as it is in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution
and Article I, par. 20 of the state constitution;
·
not mentioning that Dr. Stephanatos’ property was
over-assessed by more than 40 percent since 1995 and no taxes were legally due;
·
the failure to properly charge the grand jurors on
several asserted defenses, including the defense of self and defense of
dwelling, the Castle Doctrine, the defense of business, duress, outrageous
government conduct, honestly-held belief, etc.;
·
the intentional failure to inform or notify the
grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos wanted to testify (based on the letter sent
to the prosecutor by Mr. Herman, Esq. prior to the grand jury deliberations);
thus the prosecutor interfered with the independence of the Grand Jury;
·
and no explanation was given to the grand jury of
the specific violations of the law(s) and Court Rules (Sherman Act violation,
tax sale law violations, fraud-on-the court, failure to provide notice, failure
to adjudicate the issue of possession, obtaining ex-parte writs of possession,
etc.) by the conspirators and what is required to be done if there was to be
legality and legitimate process, which brought Officers Lucas and D’Agostino to
the defendant’s home on the day in question.
·
Add to this the constitutional violations (subject
to the motion to suppress); the doctrine of “false in one, false in all” not
explained to the grand jury; the fact that the grand jury was not charged as to
the rights of protection by the homeowner where it involves his property (the
defense of home or New Jersey’s Castle Doctrine), the protection of his
business, as well as the unlawful entry by the officers on defendant’s property
as they were relying on void judgments and writs due to the fraud on the court
committed by Robert Del Vecchio, ATF and others. The law of duress and self-defense and
outrageous government conduct should have been charged to the grand jury by the
prosecutor.
Instead
of a fair presentation, there was a biased presentation in actuality depicting
the defendant as a “monster”. The perjured testimonies’ and “fake facts”
cumulative effect was “clearly capable of producing an unjust result,” R.
2:10-2, requiring a reversal of defendant’s indictment. State
v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954).
The Law on Perjury Before a Grand Jury
The grand jury both “acts as a sword so that those
who are suspected of wrongdoing may be properly brought to trial, and as a
shield to protect the people from arbitrary prosecution.” State v. Smith, 269 N.J.Super. 86, 93, 634 A.2d 576 (App.
Div. 1993). In State v. Murphy,
110 N.J. 20, 538 A.2d 1235 (1988) the New Jersey Supreme Court held that it
is the court’s obligation to exercise its supervisory authority over the grand
jury process to ensure that the selection of the grand jurors and the
presentation are fair and unbiased.
“Unless the prosecutor’s misconduct is ‘extreme and
clearly infringes upon the [grand] jury’s decision-making function’ an
otherwise valid indictment should not be dismissed.” Id. citing State v. Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22, 48-49, 583 A.2d
747 (1991). The dismissal of an indictment is appropriate “if it
is established that the violation substantially influenced the
grand jury’s decision to indict” or if there is ‘grave doubt’ that the
determination ultimately reached was arrived at fairly and impartially.
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
States, 487 U.S. 250, 256 quoting United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66,
78 (1986). “The grand jury cannot be denied access to evidence that
is credible, material and so clearly exculpatory as to induce a rational grand
juror to conclude that the State has not made out a prima facie case against
the accused.” State v. Hogan, 144
N.J. 216, 236, 676 A.2d 533 (1996).
PROOFS OF MASSIVE MATERIAL PERJURY BY RONALD A. LUCAS AND VICTOR
D’AGOSTINO. THIS PERJURY WAS KNOWN TO
THE PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.
In paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Warrant
Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to
Detective Scala “that upon knocking on
the front entrance door of the residence”.
See excerpt from the warrant affidavit, Defense Exhibit D-11. This statement to Detective Scala fully
corroborates Dr. Stephanatos’ statements that his front door was closed – very
closed – with a lock and deadbolt closed.
However, in his June 28, 2011 report prepared by
Cpl. Lucas, he writes the following: “As
we proceeded toward the front door I ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the
front wood door was open and a glass storm door made the interior of the house
visible to me”. “At that moment a man came from the hallway
with a long object in his left hand”.
The statement by Lucas to Detective Scala is
diametrically different than the statements given by Lucas and D’Agostino at
the grand jury proceedings and also wrote in their reports: that they did not
knock the door and they were assaulted as they were coming up the front porch
steps and they were able to see everything so nicely and so clearly because the
front door was magically open (that stupid Dr. Stephanatos, he should have left
his door closed! (sarcasm here)).
So, based on these diametrically different
statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas
lied. At the point at which the
prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the grand jury, the
prosecutor was under a duty to notify the court and the grand jury, to correct
the cancer of justice that had become apparent to him. But he did not. Welcome to Passaic County!
Furthermore, in his grand jury testimony, Officer Lucas
identified the “Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber Winchester single bullet hunting
rifle” as being the weapon that the defendant pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13;
Da15, Motion to Change Venue). It is
critical to note that the hunting rifle is a BROWN
COLORED GUN. However, in section 2 of paragraph 4 of the
Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala that he saw a “BLACK COLORED RIFLE”. Therefore, the
affidavit paragraph 4, section 2 included a material false statement that was
included with reckless disregard for the truth.
So, again the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied before
the grand jury when he selected a different color gun than the one he related
to Detective Scala.
I respectfully submit to this Court that the
statements made by Lucas in the early moments of the June 28, 2011 events are
closer to the truth (but not quite the truth), than his fabrications that are
start pouring in later in the day and afterwards. For example, Lt. Nick Mango wrote in his
report that “nobody was hurt”. Also, Lucas never wrote in his report that he
was injured. He specifically wrote : “As I
entered the woods I stumbled”. However, during this grand jury testimony,
he provided a diametrically different picture:
Lucas claimed that he fell on his elbow and
shoulder, but was able to regain his balance, and he ran into a wooded area to
seek cover behind a large boulder. (GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion to Change
Venue). Lucas claimed that he tore his
biceps and had surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty severe
injury” in his shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8, Motion to
Change Venue). Of course we now know
that this guy was a football player and body builder and suffered these
injuries over his many years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents
with his shoulder (he was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals). This guy then went on to defraud the New
Jersey Police and Firemen Insurance Fund by claiming disability and retiring
from the sheriff’s department. After that,
he started the double dipping.
THE LIES, FABRICATIONS AND INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS OF
WALTER DEWEY
After the two sheriff employees
served a bunch of lies to the grand jurors and the prosecutor, after learning
of the perjury failed to correct it, he decided to add some more fake facts of
his own creation; basically, adding salt to the injury (the vultures were keep
piling on the body of still-alive Dr. Stephanatos). The prosecutor, Walter Dewey, also mislead
the jurors and fabricated “facts” by eliciting false testimony from Officer
D’Agostino regarding the pointing of a gun out of a “window”. The officers had indicated that they saw me
standing behind a glass storm door and that I never opened the door. No “window” was ever mentioned by the two
individuals, as no window exists in the front porch of the dwelling. See attached image of the front door of the
dwelling, showing that no window is present.
(I denied that I was standing
behind the storm door: I have stated
many times that I was in my office doing my business, I have the computer
records to prove it, those records were submitted to the prosecutors, and I
kept the doors of the home locked with a deadbolt).
But the prosecutor asked
D’Agostino if I was pointing a gun “out the window”. Then D’Agostino said “yes”. See Grand Jury Transcripts, Motion to Change
Venue.
This Court should note that there is no opening
window in the front porch- that was another misleading and prejudicial question
by the corrupt Passaic County prosecutor.
The prosecutors obviously wanted to mislead and lie to the grand jury by
stating that the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a window, something
that the two sheriff employees never wrote in their reports, as no window was
involved. In fact, Lucas never testified
or wrote that the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a window. The corrupt prosecutor Walter Dewey elicited
this statement from D’Agostino only.
Certainly this is a highly prejudicial, fraudulent and misleading
question/statement, necessitating a dismissal of the indictment.
So, from flip-flopping regarding the color of the
gun; to whether the door was closed or open; to whether he knocked the door or
not; to whether he suffered a major injury or not, Lying Lucas has some serious
credibility issues. And Walter Dewey
added salt to the injury by cooking up highly prejudicial fake “facts” of his
own creation (the pointing of a gun out a window). This Court cannot possibly uphold an
indictment based on these material fact perjuries and based on all the false
and highly prejudicial evidence presented at the grand jury. This is not how things are done. They need to go back and try to obtain a
superseding indictment (using the truth please), after this Court dismisses
this patently flawed one.