MEC&F Expert Engineers : 03/20/18

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Iowa OSHA issued 11 citations and $306,500 in penalties to East Central Iowa Cooperative in Waterloo for exposing workers to amputation and engulfment hazards.








Iowa Fines Grain Cooperative for Safety Violations After Fatal Silo Engulfment





Iowa OSHA issued 11 citations and $306,500 in penalties to East Central Iowa Cooperative in Waterloo for exposing workers to amputation and engulfment hazards. Iowa OSHA inspected the facility following a fatal incident when a worker was engulfed in flowing grain. Inspectors found that the cooperative failed to: provide workers entering grain bins with secured body harnesses; install machine guards on grain handling equipment; and train workers on proper grain bin entry conditions.

Cal/OSHA has cited Alhambra Foundry Co. Ltd. $283,390 for workplace safety and health violations following a confined space accident that resulted in the amputation of an employee’s legs.




Cal/OSHA Fines Foundry over $280,000 for Confined Space Accident

Los Angeles—Cal/OSHA has cited Alhambra Foundry Co. Ltd. $283,390 for workplace safety and health violations following a confined space accident that resulted in the amputation of an employee’s legs. Cal/OSHA cited Alhambra Foundry for similar violations eight years ago.

On August 28, two workers at the foundry were cleaning and unjamming a 38-foot long auger screw conveyor at the bottom hopper of an industrial air filtration device without effectively de-energizing or locking out the equipment. One of the workers re-entered the 20-inch square opening after the cleaning was done to retrieve a work light from inside the confined space, when a maintenance worker 45 feet away energized the equipment to perform a test. The moving auger screw pulled the worker into the screw conveyor. Both his legs had to be amputated in order to free him.


“Sending a worker into a confined space is dangerous, especially inside machinery that can be powered on at any time,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Juliann Sum. “Employers must ensure that machinery and equipment are de-energized and locked out before workers enter the space to perform operations involving cleaning and servicing.”
Cal/OSHA’s investigation found that:


• The foundry did not have the permit-required confined space program.
• The screw conveyor was not de-energized and locked out before workers entered the hopper, and accident prevention signs were not placed on the controls.
• The worker re-entering the hopper was not monitored by a confined space attendant.
• Alhambra Foundry lacked specific procedures for de-energizing and locking out the equipment.
 


A confined space is defined as an area that is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work, has limited or restricted means of entry or exit, and is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.

Cal/OSHA issued eight citations to Alhambra Foundry Co. with proposed penalties totaling $283,390. The eight violations cited included one willful serious accident-related, one willful serious, four serious, one willful general and one general in nature.

The citation for a willful serious accident-related violation was issued because Alhambra Foundry had been cited eight years prior for failing to take appropriate measures to protect workers performing cleaning and servicing operations. Cal/OSHA has extensive information on lock out / tag out requirements online.


A willful violation is issued where evidence shows that the employer committed an intentional and knowing (as contrasted with inadvertent) violation, and the employer was conscious of the fact that what he or she was doing constituted a violation, or was aware that a hazardous condition existed and made no reasonable effort to eliminate the hazard. A serious violation is cited when there is a realistic possibility that death or serious harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation.


In 2012, Cal/OSHA launched a confined space emphasis program to raise awareness of confined space hazards and ensure employers follow proper safeguards.


The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal/OSHA, is the division within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) that helps protect California’s workers from health and safety hazards on the job in almost every workplace. Cal/OSHA’s Consultation Services Branch provides free and voluntary assistance to employers to improve their safety and health programs. Employers should call (800) 963-9424 for assistance from Cal/OSHA Consultation Services.


Employees with work-related questions or complaints may contact DIR’s Call Center in English or Spanish at 844-LABOR-DIR (844-522-6734). Complaints can also be filed confidentially with Cal/OSHA district offices

OSHA has cited Jax Utilities Management Inc., a Jacksonville utilities contractor, for exposing employees to trenching hazards. The company faces proposed penalties of $271,606



U.S. Department of Labor Cites Jacksonville Utilities Contractor
For Willful and Serious Safety Violations after Trench Cave-in

JACKSONVILLE, FL – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited Jax Utilities Management Inc., a Jacksonville utilities contractor, for exposing employees to trenching hazards. The company faces proposed penalties of $271,606.

OSHA initiated its investigation after an employee was injured and hospitalized when an unprotected trench collapsed. Willful citations were issued for exposing employees to struck-by and caught-in hazards, and allowing employees to work without cave-in protection. The company was also issued a serious citation for allowing water to accumulate in the trench, which contributed to the collapse. The investigation was part of OSHA’s National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation. Jax Utilities Management Inc. has been placed in OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program.

“Trenching and excavation hazards are preventable,” said Brian Sturtecky, OSHA Jacksonville Area Office Director. “This employer knowingly exposed employees to dangerous and potentially fatal hazards, and this injury could have been avoided if the employer had used required protective systems.”

The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education, and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

OSHA Will Enforce Beryllium Standard Starting in May






OSHA Will Enforce Beryllium Standard Starting in May

WASHINGTON, DC – The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced today that it will start enforcement of the final rule on occupational exposure to beryllium in general, construction, and shipyard industries on May 11, 2018. This timeframe will ensure that stakeholders are aware of their obligations, and that OSHA provides consistent instructions to its inspectors. The start of enforcement had previously been set for March 12, 2018.

In January 2017, OSHA issued new comprehensive health standards addressing exposure to beryllium in all industries. In response to feedback from stakeholders, the agency is considering technical updates to the January 2017 general industry standard, which will clarify and simplify compliance with requirements. OSHA will also begin enforcing on May 11, 2018, the new lower 8-hour permissible exposure limit (PEL) and short-term (15-minute) exposure limit (STEL) for construction and shipyard industries. In the interim, if an employer fails to meet the new PEL or STEL, OSHA will inform the employer of the exposure levels and offer assistance to assure understanding and compliance.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

BOMBSHELL EVIDENCE DISCOVERED PROVING THAT LUCAS, D'AGOSTINO AND OTHERS FRAMED DR. STEPHANATOS AND FILED FAKE CHARGES: PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST RONALD A. LUCAS, VICTOR A. D’AGOSTINO AND CONSPIRACY CHARGES AGAINST LTD. NICK MANGO AND CHIEF FRED ERNST








 NOT GUILTY!  

ON FEBRUARY 4, 2019, DR. BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS, PHD, PE, JD WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS IN BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY







RE:     STATE V. BASILIS STEPHANATOS

            DOCKET NUMBER 17-1723

            INDICTMENT NUMBER 11-09-810-2

            JURY FOUND DR. STEPHANATOS NOT-GUILTY OF FOUR VERY SERIOUS CHARGES

   This was a not-guilty verdict on all four (4) very serious charges on the indictment obtained in September 2011. 

Importantly, the sheriff officers testified under oath that they failed to “knock and announce” prior to performing a search of Stephanatos' home.

The numerous contradicting statements of the sheriff officers provided further proof that they fabricated their charges against Dr. Stephanatos.  The events occurred during an eviction where they used a void ab initio writ of possession obtained by the antitrust conspirators Robert Del Vecchio, Jr., Esq., American Tax Funding, LLC, Matthew Marini, Keith Bonchi, et al on June 28, 2011.










____________________________________________________________
February 4, 2019


William T. Walsh
Clerk, United States District Court
District of New Jersey
M.L. King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Court House
50 Walnut Street
Room 4015
Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999
Tel.: 973-645-3730

THE HONORABLE JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ
United States District Judge
Lautenberg U.S. Post Office & Courthouse
2 Federal Square, Room 417
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Tel.: 973-297-4851/973-645-2157(Deputy Clerk)



RE:     Civil Action No. 02:12-cv-01793 (JMV-JBC)
            JURY FOUND STEPHANATOS NOT-GUILTY

Dear Judge Vazquez:
I am writing to inform the Court that a Bergen County jury of my peers has found me not guilty of all the fabricated charges by Defendants Ronald A. Lucas, Victor D’Agostino that somehow I had pointed a gun at the officers on June 28, 2011.  This was a not-guilty verdict on all four (4) very serious charges on the fraudulently obtained indictment in September 2011. 
THE OFFICERS MADE NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL CONTRADICTING AND UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS DURING THEIR TESTIMONY EVIDENCING FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSPIRACY TO PROSECUTE MALICIOUSLY
During their January 29, 2019 testimony (both direct and cross) Defendants Lucas and D’Agostino made a very significant number of additional contradicting and uncorroborated statements; this led to the non-guilty verdict.
Importantly, the sheriff officers testified under oath that they failed to “knock and announce” prior to performing a search of my home.
The numerous contradicting statements of the sheriff officers provide further proofs that they fabricated their charges against Dr. Stephanatos.
I will submit the additional evidence to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.
THE PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PROVIDED “SMOKING GUN” EVIDENCE AGAINST ROBERT DEL VECCHIO
On January 23, 2019, as part of the pre-trial discovery, the Passaic County prosecutor, Mr. Stephen Bollenbach, provided me with several handwritten pages prepared by Defendant Robert Del Vecchio in May 2011.  The newly discovered pages show that Defendant Del Vecchio faxed letters to the Passaic County Sheriff stating that Stephanatos was a “dangerous Deft” and that Stephanatos had threatened him on May 24, 2011.  All these written statements by Defendant Del Vecchio were fabricated by him to prejudice the Passaic County Sheriff against Stephanatos and to force Stephanatos out of his home using the void ab initio ex-parte writ of possession.
I will submit the newly discovered additional evidence to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT ONLY WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO
I am also writing to inform the Court that I will be filing a claim of malicious prosecution with this or another federal court.  This claim is based on the Fourth Amendment and it is timely, as the criminal proceedings ended in my favor on February 4, 2019.  The Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim is a tort action brought in civil court to recover money damages for the harm suffered from the malicious claim.  I will seek to recover money from the Defendants for the various costs associated with having to defend against the baseless and vexatious charges.  The damages will include the cost of making a $300,000 cash bond, attorney fees, and economic harm from being wrongfully incarcerated and not being able to find employment or pursue my law license as a result of the pending charges for the last 8 years. I will also seek to recover money for the emotional distress associated with being jailed and wrongfully prosecuted for the last 8 years by the Passaic County sheriff and the Defendant officers and for the malicious statements made by Defendant Robert Del Vecchio to the sheriff, damaging my good standing and reputation in the community for the last 8 years.
A FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE STAND-ALONE CLAIM ALSO EXISTS UNDER SECTION 1983 FOR FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014), a court should not foreclose a Fourteenth Amendment stand-alone claim for fabrication of evidence even if a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim fails (for example) because of the existence of probable cause even without the fabricated evidence.  Such a claim is available even if the criminal defendant is acquitted, “if there is a reasonable likelihood that, absent the fabricated evidence, the defendant would not have been criminally charged.” Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358, 370 (3d Cir. 2016).  In Michele Black v. County of Montgomery, No. 15-3399 (3d Cir. 2016) where the Third Circuit ruled that “an acquitted criminal defendant may have a stand-alone fabricated evidence claim against state actors under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if there is a reasonable likelihood that, absent that fabricated evidence, the defendant would not have been criminally charged.”  This fabrication of evidence claim has already been filed with the Court in October 2018.
Based on evidence discovered during the trial, Stephanatos has additional claims against the Passaic County Sheriff.
1.            A §1983 CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND CONTROL OFFICERS (AGAINST THE PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT);
2.            A STATE LAW TORT CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND CONTROL OFFICERS (AGAINST THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT);
3.            A §1983 CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE (AGAINST THE PASSAIC COUNTY DEFENDANTS)

I will submit the malicious prosecution claim and the failure to investigate, train and supervise the sheriff officers, including the newly-obtained discovery and trial testimonies, to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.
Respectfully submitted,

________________________________
Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, JD

PS.:  I had the duty to report to this Court the results of the criminal proceedings and the availability of newly discovered evidence to correct manifest error of law or fact.  Please do not consider this letter as a violation of a standing court order regarding the submission of documents to the Court.


 ==========================================



MAJOR BOMBSHELL UNCOVERED BY METROFORENSICS: New Jersey's Office of Foreclosure has either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state tenancy laws and coerced the Superior Court Clerk into issuing illegal eviction orders


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; 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; 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; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>; 'Michelle Smith' <Michelle.Smith@njcourts.gov>; 'Irene Komandis' <irene.komandis@njcourts.gov>; kathryn.shabel@njcourts.gov; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov; Thomas.Laconte@njcourts.gov; paul.innes@njcourts.gov


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; 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; 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; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>; 'Michelle Smith' <Michelle.Smith@njcourts.gov>; 'Irene Komandis' <irene.komandis@njcourts.gov>; kathryn.shabel@njcourts.gov; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov; Thomas.Laconte@njcourts.gov; paul.innes@njcourts.gov


SenVanDrew@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org; SenTurner@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; SenKean@njleg.org; SenScutari@njleg.org; SenOroho@njleg.org; SenPennacchio@njleg.org; SenRice@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org; SenSacco@njleg.org; SenStack@njleg.org; SenPou@njleg.org; SenSarlo@njleg.org; SenWeinberg@njleg.org; SenLagana@njleg.org; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>;



December 15, 2018

RE: MAJOR SCANDAL REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE STATE’S TENANCY LAWS BY THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY AND THE OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE. 

DID SVEN PFAHLERT COLLUDE WITH CREDITOR LAWYERS TO VIOLATE PEOPLE’S POSSESSORY RIGHTS?


Dear Legislators and Justices:

It has been reported in the media (see excerpts below) that the Office of Foreclosure has either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state tenancy laws by:
 
1.      Entering ex-parte writs of possession the same day as a judgment for possession in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57;

2.      Entering ex parte writs of possession without the requisite notice for demand to quit in violation of 2A:18-61.2 and/or NJSA 2A:18-53 (addressing the removal of tenant at sufferance)


3.      Entering an ex-parte judgment for possession without receiving a proof of notice to quit that is prerequisite to judgment (See N.J.S.A. 2A:18-56);


4.      Accepting as true the self-certifications of bank attorneys that a residential property occupier had no possessory rights when according to state case law these people are tenant-at-sufferance, protected by the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 (See the definition of tenant found in NJSA 46A:14-1, stating that a tenant-at-sufferance is included in the definition of a tenant)

THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT EX-PARTE JUDGMENTS OF POSSESSION ISSUED WITHOUT A STATE STATUTE-REQUIRED DEMAND TO QUIT AND NOTICE OF AN EVICTION HEARING ARE ILLEGAL AND VOID. EVEN IF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED LAWFULLY (IT WAS NOT), THE CLERK HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WARRANT OF REMOVAL THE SAME DAY THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.
On June 15 the Housing Authority's counsel wrote to the court clerk, ex parte, and enclosed an affidavit which stated that the tenants had failed and neglected to comply with the terms of the settlement. He requested that a judgment for possession be entered and a warrant of removal issued. On June 16, without notice to the tenants, a judgment for possession was entered and that same day a warrant of removal issued.
It is clear that the judgment for possession entered on June 16 was invalid. The court's order dated April 28 which memorialized the terms of the settlement did not fix a time within which the back rent had to be paid. Obviously a reasonable time was intended. However, the Housing Authority, although it concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the terms of the settlement, should not have applied ex parte for entry of a judgment for possession on that ground, and the clerk should not have entered judgment without giving the tenants an opportunity to be heard. R. 6:6-3(b). Even if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was not), the clerk had no *316 jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the same day the judgment was entered. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57 provides that in summary dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession."
Since the June 16 judgment was illegal and void, the tenants' motion to vacate that judgment and quash the warrant of removal, heard on October 6, should have been granted on jurisdictional grounds. Mrs. Hayward's appeal from that ruling was timely and should not have been dismissed by the Appellate Division.
*317 Accordingly, we set aside the dismissal, reinstate the appeal and, having considered the merits, reverse the October 6 ruling of the trial court and direct that court to vacate the judgment for possession and warrant of removal, and dismiss the complaint.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979)

It is apparent that lawyers for the banks and other creditors have been colluding with the office of foreclosure lawyers to violate the tenancy laws of the state.  THIS IS A MAJOR SCANDAL AND/OR CORRUPTION IN THE STATE'S JUDICIARY BRANCH.

The State’s own law revision commission states the following:

Since enactment of the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq., the Summary Dispossess Act has been understood to cover the eviction of nonresidential tenants and residential tenants not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act.  Source: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION, Final Report Relating to Landlord and Tenant Law, February 10, 2012.

This tenancy at sufferance is included in the definition of tenant in the New Jersey statutes: "Tenant" includes, but is not limited to, a lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or for any duration, or any subtenants, assigns, or legal representatives of the lessee or tenant. Title 46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14, eviction generally.  46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental premises; what is included.

Here is some of the case law of New Jersey:

Under New Jersey law, "[a] purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale obtains the legal right to possession of land purchased as soon as he obtains a deed from the selling officer." 30 New Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 373. The mortgagor's continued possession of the property after such time is that of a tenant at sufferance. See Caruso v. Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174 A.2d 381 (Ch.Div. 1961) (quoting 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 105, page 659) ("The owner's continued possession after sale of the property at execution, judicial, or like sale is that of a tenant at sufferance of the purchaser”). In Re St. Clair, 251 B.R. 660 (D.N.J. 2000).  We have found that a tenant at sufferance is "'one who comes into possession of land by lawful title, usually by virtue of a lease for a definite period, and after the expiration of the period of the lease holds over without any fresh leave from the owner.'" Xerox Corp. v. Listmark Computer Sys., 142 N.J. Super. 232, 240 (App. Div. 1976) (citing Standard Realty Co. v. Gates, 99 N.J. Eq. 271, 275 (Ch. 1926)).  WA GOLF COMPANY, LLC v. ARMORED, INC, Appellate Division, August 6, 2014.

 
To remove a tenant at sufferance, the statutory procedures provided under the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. must be followed.  However, the lawyers for the creditors failed to follow these procedures and therefore, the tenants-at-sufferance due process rights established by the above state laws were violated.

The Office of Foreclosure and the Clerk have been refusing to respond;  that is why we are asking for your intervention and investigation into these illegalities.

The Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. requires proof of notice to quit prior to entering a judgment for possession.

2A:18-56. Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment

No judgment for possession in cases specified in paragraph "a." of section 2A:18-53 of this Title shall be ordered unless:

a.            The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or

b.            The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or

c.            The tenancy, if for a term other than at will, from year to year, or from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of one term's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; and

d.            It shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court by due proof that the notice herein required has been given.



In addition to the New Jersey, we also cite the law of the State of Virginia.  All other states have identical procedures.  


Evictions and Unlawful Detainers in VA

House Bill 311 codifies certain roles and procedures during unlawful detainer matters:


1.            A former owner of a single-family residential dwelling unit who remains in the property after foreclosure is now defined as a tenant at sufferance.


2.            A successor owner has the right to file an unlawful detainer action three days after giving the tenant written termination notice.

The Virginia law is identical to the one New Jersey has. Almost every other state has similar procedures.  The Clerk and the Office of Foreclosure have been negligently or intentionally colluding with the lawyers for the creditors to violate the due process rights of tenants - and as is typical, the New Jersey Supreme Court is asleep at the wheel.

ALERT REGARDING MR. PFAHLERT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF SVEN PFAHLERT IN ISSUING OPINIONS ON FORECLOSURE MATTERS

What your Office of Foreclosure did was to then believe Mr. Sven Pfahlert’s (a former private law firm employee with Honig & Greenberg, L.L.C. – these are the people who have been attacking the homeowners and now he works for the State of New Jersey- THIS IS A HUGE RED FLAG) incorrect and illegal advice and enter an ex-parte judgment for possession without the prerequisite notices.  You then entered the very same day an ex-parte writ for possession again in violation of the state statutes requiring notice to quit or vacate.  You also violated state law that says you cannot enter a writ the same day you entered a judgment.  To make matters worse, the judgment was entered by judges in Mercer County who had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over the homeowner or the property.
These deceptive and unlawful practices by these convicted Anti-Trust Conspirators have been criticized by the state of New Jersey and the Public Advocate Division.  See for example the following excerpt from the “Toolkit for Tenants Living in Foreclosed Properties”, published by the Department of the Public Advocate, Trenton, NJ 08625, dated March 2010:
Courts and Sheriffs.  In addition to owners and those who work for them, the courts and sheriff officers sometimes mistakenly target protected tenants during the foreclosure process. The writs of execution and final foreclosure judgments are drafted by the attorneys for the lenders. The attorneys sometimes use language in court papers that cause problems because it seems to cover tenants (for example, “and any and all persons occupying said premises”). Other times attorneys specifically name tenants and certify (swear to the court) that those tenants are not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act.  This is especially problematic because tenants often do not have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are in fact legitimate tenants until after the removal has already been ordered by the court and scheduled by the sheriff. If a court order specifically names a tenant to be removed, the sheriff must evict that person. Sometimes, however, sheriffs read the language in the order and believe that they must evict everyone. Also, some notices that sheriffs create and post on property include language, such as “occupants” instead of “owners,” that appears to include tenants. The Attorney General distributed a memo to sheriffs regarding the rights of tenants living in foreclosed properties.


I LOOK FORWARD HEARING FROM YOU REGARDING THESE STATE LAW VIOLATIONS AND THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING MR. PFAHLERT

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true and correct.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. NJ Court Rule R. 1:4-4(b); 28 U.S.C. §1746.



Respectfully Submitted,


Mark Kaplan, Esq.


========================================================
 Dr. Basilis Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD







 BOMBSHELL EVIDENCE DISCOVERED PROVING THAT LUCAS, D'AGOSTINO AND OTHERS FRAMED DR. STEPHANATOS AND FILED FAKE CHARGES:  PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST RONALD A. LUCAS, VICTOR A. D’AGOSTINO AND CONSPIRACY CHARGES AGAINST LTD. NICK MANGO AND CHIEF FRED ERNST


BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS, PHD., JD.

PRO SE

603 PENN COURT PH3

EDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY 07020-1648
TEL.: (201) 366-4588             CELL: (973) 897-8162            FAX: (973) 810-0440
EMAIL: bstephanatos@gmail.com

VIA USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL                                                                    April 3, 2018
Hon. James J. Guida, J.S.C.
Bergen County Courthouse
10 Main Street, 4th Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Passaic County Prosecutor
Administration Building
401 Grand Street
Paterson, New Jersey 07505
Attn:  Stephen Bollenbach

Re:    State v. Basilis Stephanatos
          Passaic County Ind. No. 11-09-0810-I

Dear Judge Guida:

Last Friday, I received a one-paragraph response to our extensive Supplemental Motions to Dismiss where we included the newly discovered bombshell exculpatory evidence that proves beyond any doubt that Lucas and D’Agostino committed perjury during the grand jury proceedings, lied that they were assaulted by the Defendant, falsified their reports, deleted evidence and conspired with Lt. Nick Mango and Captain (now Chief) Fred Ernst to frame Dr. Stephanatos and to charge him with fake offences.  We also included another bombshell exculpatory evidence that Dr. Stephanatos had never threatened the co-conspirator Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. with violence few days prior to the events of June 28, 2011.  

Yet the new prosecutor in this fraudulent case refuses to address these earth-shattering and “smoking gun” evidence and states that he will rely on the January 2016 response to our original Motions to Dismiss filed in November 2015.  He failed to address the new bombshell evidence we presented to this Court.

Prosecutors are ethically required to drop a case once they determine there is no “reasonable probability” a jury would convict.  They are not supposed to be putting innocent people through trial.  Cut your losses and move on.

Even more important, when an illegal search or tainted evidence or fake evidence or fraudulent evidence or perjured testimony has come to light, the State has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that its evidence is untainted.  Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341, 60 S. Ct. 266, 268, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939).  The government must not knowingly or recklessly use false testimony. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959), and United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 577-78 & n.4 (8th Cir. 1995)).   

Dr. Stephanatos had the initial burden of producing specific evidence demonstrating perjury and fake charges and taint in a substantial portion of the State’s case against him, which he did with his Supplemental Motions to Dismiss.  United States v. Sapere, 531 F.2d 63, 66 (2 Cir. 1976), citing Alderman v. United States, supra, and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 342, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939).  Dr. Stephanatos demonstrated that Lucas’ and D’Agostino’s grand jury testimony was “willfully and purposely false” and that their testimony was entirely contradictory to the investigative report signed by Lucas (See Defense Exhibit D-1).  See Gilgallon v. Bond, 279 N.J. Super. 265, 267 (App. Div. 1995) (quoting Shammas v. Shammas, 9 N.J. 321, 330 (1952)).

Here, after Dr. Stephanatos presented the post-February 2016 evidence that proves he is innocent of the alleged assault on Lucas and D’Agostino, and that he never threatened Del Vecchio and that Judge Jacobson wrote to him that her court had no jurisdiction over his case (proving that any writs issued by the Mercer County Acting Law Clerk Jennifer M. Perez was VOID AB INITIO), and that Lucas’ shoulder injury was caused by playing competitive football and heavy body building, the State refused and/or failed to show to this Court that its evidence is truthful or untainted or that perjury was not committed during the grand jury proceedings, including numerous other irregularities and prosecutorial misconduct that have been detailed in the Defendant’s briefs.

The State has had two whole years (since the revelations of the perjury and fake accusations in March 2016) to respond, yet has failed miserably and illegally and unethically.

See Halsey v. Pfeiffer, Plainfield Police Department, et al., 750 F.3d 273, 296-97 (3d Cir. 2014) ”To the best of our knowledge, every court of appeals that has considered the question of whether a state actor has violated the defendant’s right to due process of law by fabricating evidence to charge or convict the defendant has answered the question in the affirmative.” See Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567, 585 (7th Cir. 2012) (collecting court of appeals cases).  Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 260 F.3d 946, 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (“If officers use false evidence, including false testimony, to secure a conviction, the defendant’s due process is violated.”); Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[T]here is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.”); Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Like a prosecutor’s knowing use of false evidence to obtain a tainted conviction, a police officer’s fabrication and forwarding to prosecutors of known false evidence works an unacceptable . . .[violation of due process.]”); United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 1989) (“The knowing use of false or perjured testimony constitutes a denial of due process if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”).  

I am hoping that the State will come to its senses and drop the fraudulently-obtained indictment on April 6, 2018.  Otherwise, this Court has the obligation to dismiss the fraudulently-obtained indictment with prejudice.

Respectfully Submitted,



___________________________________
Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
 
 ===========================
LETTER MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, INCLUDING PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST RONALD A. LUCAS, VICTOR A. D’AGOSTINO AND CONSPIRACY CHARGES AGAINST NICK MANGO AND FRED ERNST

Dear Judge Guida:

Please accept this informal letter memorandum in support of the Supplemental Motions to Dismiss, including Perjury charges against Ronald A. Lucas, Victor A. D’Agostino, and Conspiracy charges against Lucas, D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred Ernst.

BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2015, the Defendant submitted 22 Omnibus Motions to Dismiss, including supporting brief and attachments.  At the time, Defendant was not aware that Lucas was not even present in his front door.  Up to that time, in all his documents and other submittals, Defendant had been stating that it was Lucas who was illegally peering through his side door window.  Defendant has been stating that Lucas and D’Agostino lied that he assaulted them, that he had his front door wide open so that these two individuals see him pointing a gun at them.  Defendant pointed out to numerous inconsistencies in Lucas and D’Agostino stories, both written and at their grand jury testimony.

Following the submittal of the Motions to Dismiss, Defendant started posting his case online and in the Twitter, in search of evidence, witnesses and other information regarding the perjury of Lucas and D’Agostino.  Finally, in February 2016, Defendant received private phone calls from an unknown individual.  The informant stated that Lucas was not at the front porch of the house and that he had been complaining about his bad shoulder for years as he suffered injuries playing football.

Following the phone calls, Defendant started doing online research on Lucas.  He was stunned to find out that Lucas is a bold man in his 50s, having a beard;  Defendant vividly remembers the face of an individual illegally peering through his side door window by placing his face flush with the window pane, as the sun glare makes it impossible to see inside the home.  Here is what Dr. Stephanatos wrote on March 2, 2016, as he was describing the bombshell discovery of the Lucas and D’Agostino conspiracy to frame him with fake charges:

“I saw a young person peering through the side door window; that person had full set of black hair and no facial hair, while Lucas is in his 50s and has facial hair and he is very-very bold.  The young sheriff employee was in his late 20s to early 30s and had full set of hair and also had very sharp eyes (the intense police eyes) illegally searching inside the residence as the Defendant did not answer the door at 8:50 am.”

Dr. Stephanatos also found out at the time, that Robert Del Vecchio had wrongfully accused him to Ronald Lucas that he had threatened him with physical violence few days prior.  This is the reason that Lucas gave to the grand jurors that necessitated his presence at Dr. Stephanatos’ home on June 28, 2011.  Typically, sworn law enforcement officers do not initially appear at the site, and D’Agostino typically handles the situation.  D’Agostino is not a sworn law enforcement officer.  Dr. Stephanatos had never threatened Del Vecchio with physical violence and it was the first time he found out about these fake allegations against him.

Dr. Stephanatos reported these important factual discoveries to his former lawyer, Miles Feinstein.  As was the usual situation, Feinstein never returned his calls and/or emails.  Due to the significance of the discovery, Dr. Stephanatos decided to report the obvious perjury and conspiracy to frame him to the former case judge Miguel De la Carrera, the prosecutor, the Passaic County Sheriff and to the media.

The former case prosecutor, Peter Roby immediately filed a motion to revoke Dr. Stephanatos’ bail, claiming among other things that his witnesses were or will be threatened by the Defendant, despite the fact that Dr. Stephanatos did not threatened anyone, just reported his findings.  De la Carrera then claimed that Dr. Stephanatos was hallucinating, that he was schizophrenic and all kinds of other wrongful statements and ordered him to go into custody for examination by the state psychologist.  De la Carrera did not even allow the Defendant to explain to the court his findings.  It is obvious that the state wanted to prevent Dr. Stephanatos from continuing with the discovery of the perjury of Lucas, D’Agostino and the conspiracy with Nick Mango and Fred Ernst; that is why they put him in jail for more than 2 months to be examined by a state psychologist.

Due to the conspiracy charges against the Passaic County Sheriff and its employees, Dr. Stephanatos was jailed between March 21, 2016 and May 26, 2016 in the Bergen County Jail.  While in jail waiting for the state psychologist to show up (he only showed up the latter part of May 2016), Dr. Stephanatos send letters to Judge Ernest Caposela and the former Governor Chris Christie, complaining about the savage treatment by the state employees.
Two days after the release of the state psychologist findings (stating that Dr. Stephanatos is very intelligent and competent to stand trial), Judge Caposela orders the release of Dr. Stephanatos from the Bergen County jail on May 26, 2016.

For the next two years, Defendant has been trying to obtain additional evidence to be able to prove even better that Lucas and D’Agostino lied at the grand jury proceedings, falsified their reports and formed a conspiracy with Nick Mango and Fred Ernst to frame him with fake charges.  In July 2016, Judge Caposela issues a Consent Order (also signed by the Passaic County prosecutor), directing the prosecutor to comply with the discovery request within 60 days.  The Passaic County prosecutor has yet to comply with that order.

After requests from the Defendant to expedite the case and prevent further violation of his speedy trial rights, Judge Caposela gives the case to Judge Marilyn Clark for adjudication in the fall of 2017.  Upon examination of the record, Judge Clark discovers the Motion to Change Venue that was filed in early 2013.  Judge Clark then orders the transfer of the case to Bergen County court due to the conflicts of interest (at least two officers/witness were also working at the courthouse and the former presiding judge of the Chancery Division Margaret McVeigh could be a prosecution witness).

The case is assigned to a Bergen County judge, the Hon. James J. Guida, in early 2018.  During the first hearing on February 8, 2018, Miles Feinstein states that he is ill and he cannot continue with the case.  Dr. Stephanatos states that he does not want a new lawyer and that he plans to represent himself.  Judge Guida states that all the case delays are attributed to the judicial system (judges) and not to the defense or the prosecution.  Case delays caused by judicial errors, etc. are all attributed to the state.  Once a defendant asserts a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the government is required to identify the reason for the delay.” State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. at 266.

A deliberate delay is weighted heavily for the defense. Id. The Court explained however that “[a] more neutral reason, however, such as negligence or a heavy caseload, will also be weighed against the government … because it is the government’s ultimate responsibility to prosecute cases in a timely fashion.  A defendant does not have an obligation to assert his right to a speedy trial because he is under no obligation to bring himself to trial. Id. at 266. Court delays are charged to the State, not to the Defendant. State v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super. at 450-451.

On March 5, 2018, after a Crisafi/Reddish/Faretta hearing, Judge James J. Guida stated that he would issue an order allowing the Defendant to defend himself (act as his own attorney) in the case (Defendant received that order via email from judge’s law clerk).  Judge Guida also stated that he will appoint a stand-by council to assist the Defendant with the trial court procedures.  At the hearing, Dr. Stephanatos stated in open Court that he has significant evidence against his accusers.

During the hearing on March 5, 2018, Judge Guida made at least two prejudicial statements regarding the availability of certain defenses, regarding the presence of tenants and regarding the need to obey court orders.  Defendant strongly objects to the Court’s statements as they were not based on a fully developed factual record, have nothing to do with the case at hand, and they are against the New Jersey Law.  The Defendant will also address these prejudicial statements made by Judge Guida in this informal brief.

THE BOMBSHELL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT LUCAS AND D’AGOSTINO COMMITTED PERJURY DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS

Defendant Basilis N. Stephanatos, has in his possession a letter signed by former Cpl. Ronald Lucas (#964) where he states that it was Lt. Nick Mango who was at the front door.  He specifically stated the following “Lt mango stated owner came to door…”.  See Defense Exhibit D-1.

This letter proves beyond ANY DOUBT that Lucas lied when he stated that he was assaulted in the porch of Defendant’s former residence and place of business on June 28, 2011.  The perjury charges are fully corroborated by the lies Lucas stated regarding his old football shoulder injury; and by the numerous inconsistent statements (both verbal and written) made by him and D’Agostino.  See also the handwritten letter from the Defendant (while in Bergen County Jail) to Judge Ernest Caposela and to the Governor, dated April 2016 where he describes a young, tall, dark head hair, no facial hair, with intense “police” eyes person illegally peering through his side door window.  That dark-hair individual will be proven to be Nick Mango.  By contrast, Lucas is completely bold, has lots of facial hair (a beard) and he is shorter than Mango.  Dr. Stephanatos does not remember any sheriff employee resembling Ronald A. Lucas.

However, should the above evidence is not sufficient to immediately dismiss all charges against the Defendant, Dr. Stephanatos is asking that Judge Guida orders an urgent hearing to cross-examine the four (4) officers involved:  Ronald A. Lucas, Victor D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Capt. Fred Ernst.  This hearing can happen on April 6, 2018 or at an earlier date. 

General overview of Dr. Stephanatos’ former dwelling at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, NJ that was seized by the conspirators.  Photo taken from the front of the property, two weeks prior to the tragic incidents of June 28, 2011.  Note the philodendron subincisum planter at the front of the porch area.  After Dr. Stephanatos failed to respond to the door bell, Nick Mango went behind the philodendron subincisum planter and placed his face at the side window so that he can see inside the home. D’Agostino stated in his grand jury testimony that they knew that there were people inside the home because they saw cars on the driveway and inside the garage.  This is a criminal activity prohibited under NJRS 2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant trespasser; peering into dwelling places and in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, Par. 7. 

THE ENTIRE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE DUE TO THE OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT IN LYING AND MISLEADING THE GRAND JURY AND HIDING CLEARLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FROM THE GRAND JURORS

FALSE AND/OR FRAUDULENT TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURORS DEPICTING THE DEFENDANT AS A VIOLENT PERSON

The testimony presented to the Grand Jurors that the Defendant had threatened Robert Del Vecchio with violence few days prior the June 28, 2011 events, is absolutely false and fraudulent and highly prejudicial.  These statements were made to the Grand Jurors (and were repeated to the Passaic County Court(s) by the State Prosecutor, Peter Roby) with the aim to depict the Defendant as a violent person.  The Grand Jury proceedings must be dismissed based on this fraudulent, misleading, prejudicial and damaging fake testimony.

Apparently, in May or June 2011, a person named Robert Del Vecchio, Jr of Passaic County, New Jersey (he is a lawyer for ATF and he is the one who made the fraudulent self-certification to the Acting Law Clerk in Mercer County that the Defendant had no possessory rights) lied to the Passaic County Sheriff when he claimed that threats were made to him by a person named Basilis (or Basil) Stephanatos of Wayne, New Jersey (also residing at the time in Passaic County).  

Apparently, based on the Grand Jury presentation, Del Vecchio said to sheriff's officer Ronald A. Lucas (this is based on Lucas’ grand jury testimony) that Basilis Stephanatos had threatened him with violence few days prior to a scheduled illegal “eviction” on June 28, 2011. As a result, Del Vecchio asked that several sheriff officers (including Lucas who was allegedly a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer) dispatch to the location of the Stephanatos' residence located at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07670.  It is possible that the state prosecutor cites that fraudulent allegation by Del Vecchio to justify the presence of Ronald A. Lucas at the scene (the State keeps referring to the Passaic County Sheriff as “the police”, despite the fact that neither the Wayne Police or any other police officer of any municipality was present).

Specifically, Del Vecchio told Lucas that Basilis Stephanatos had told him that he "will be fucked in the ass by a 5-ft. long rhinoceros dick" if you try to evict him from his residence.
These accusations of threats of violence that Del Vecchio made were absolutely false.  According to information available to the Passaic County Sheriff and the State from the Defendant’s seized computers, Basilis Stephanatos never threatened Robert Del Vecchio with physical violence because he never had any contact or communication with him during that time. 

Here is what happened:

In 2008, Robert Del Vecchio put a lien onto Basilis Stephanatos' residential property for unpaid taxes that Stephanatos was disputing due to alleged over assessment of his residence (in fact, after the seizure of the Stephanatos' property, Del Vecchio and ATF sold it for $330,000 which is the fair market value of the property.  However, the property was assessed by Wayne Township at $475,000.  This is about 40 percent greater over-assessment and thus no taxes were legally owed by Basilis Stephanatos- tragic, tragic, tragic situation).  In accordance with New Jersey law, any tax sale certificates, liens, judgements, etc. were VOID AB INITIO, and not just merely voidable.

In any event, around December 2008, Robert Del Vecchio, Jr. (he was a lawyer for American Tax Funding, Inc.) sent a letter to Basilis Stephanatos, notifying him that a lien has been placed onto his property.  Then on December 24 and on December 26, 2008, Basilis Stephanatos sent two letters to Robert Del Vecchio demanding that the lien be removed.  Basilis Stephanatos wrote that he is filing a criminal complaint and other reporting to the media.  He basically threatened Robert Del Vecchio with legal action and not physical violent threats.

This is what Basilis Stephanatos wrote to Robert Del Vecchio in the December 26, 2008 letter, where he threatened Del Vecchio with legal action:

"This is not a threat – it is real.  After you see what we have in store for your client, you will beg to be instead fucked in the ass by a 5-ft. long rhinoceros dick for the rest of your life.
Mary Christmas and Happy the New Year."

The letters sent by Basilis Stephanatos to Robert Del Vecchio are included in Defense Exhibit D-4.
Therefore, Dr. Stephanatos never threatened Del Vecchio with violence (he only wrote about legal action) and certainly, this was 2.5 years prior to the June 28, 2011 incident.

Lucas then testified during the Grand Jury that Dr. Stephanatos was a violent person and that he had threatened Del Vecchio with physical violence few days prior to the June 28, 2011 incident.  The Defendant submits to the Court that these lies from Del Vecchio to Lucas were made as an excuse to ask for the presence of law enforcement officers.  However, all these lies were unknown to the Defendant; in other words, Dr. Stephanatos at no time did he know that there were sworn law enforcement officers present in his property, as this was civil action.  

Therefore, the state has failed to meet its burden regarding the “knowingly” element of the aggravated assault charges and these charges must be dismissed.  Furthermore, by depicting the Defendant as violent person, the grand jurors were prejudiced against the Defendant and were impermissibly influenced in their decision to indict him.  For this reason, the grand jury proceedings were tainted and the indictment must be dismissed.

It is crucial to note that Del Vecchio made the same false accusations to the then Superior Court Judge Margaret M. McVeigh.  These statements were made on an ex-parte basis, which is illegal and also demonstrates the close relationship of Robert Del Vecchio, American Tax Funding and the former Judge McVeigh.

The State and the Sheriff have the Stephanatos' letters in their possession, should they want to confirm their authenticity.  Apparently, they seized all his computers in 2011, so they should have a copy of it. 

By falsely advising the grand jurors that the Defendant had threatened Robert Del Vecchio with violence few days prior to the June 28, 2011 events, they depicted the Defendant as a violent person.  This was a highly prejudicial, wrongful and fake testimony. 

Furthermore, by falsely advising the grand jurors that the Defendant did not believe he had to pay taxes, he depicted the Defendant as a criminal and as an individual who the grand jurors (who all pay taxes) would resent.  It was part of the State’s and the Sheriff’s campaign against Dr. Stephanatos to depict him to the grand jurors and to the public as a violent person (that he had threatened Robert A. Del Vecchio with violence, that he had an IED in his front porch- these have been proven to be lies, fabrications, fake news); refused to pay taxes (more lies, fabrications, more fake news), and then ambushed (these liars gave the impression that he had his front door open and that somehow he was waiting there to assault the two lying sheriff employees – total fabrication and lies as Dr. Stephanatos’ computer records show that he was in his office computer doing business and sending e-mails), and threaten the two “poor” heavily-armed sheriff employees (more lies and fabrications) with a gun that can only fire one shot at a time (the hunting rifle that the lying Lucas claimed he saw in the hands of the Defendant).

In October 2011, the former assistant prosecutor, Peter Roby admitted in open court before the Hon. Judge Filko that the business instrument was not a bomb (or an IED as the crazy Lucas/Mango/D’Agostino/Ernst thought it was) and that Dr. Stephanatos had placed it there to be picked up by a vendor of his business, Pines Environmental, Inc.  Later, Lucas and D’Agostino changed their story and claimed that they thought it was a “metal ammunition box”, also a false assertion.

These “poor” Sheriff employees, who were heavily armed, claim that they run like chicken when they saw the big, ugly, armed (with a single-shot rifle) Dr. Stephanatos and fell down injuring themselves– what a bunch of losers and liars.  These are the same losers, who have been shooting and killing citizens left and right, even shooting and killing children that carry plastic guns and shooting people in their back and then plant evidence and claim self-defense.  And somehow, these heavily armed, trained killers just run away scared shitless when they saw Dr. Stephanatos without saying anything and without Dr. Stephanatos ever saying anything to them?  Their stories simply do not add up.  This is only possible if there is no eye-to-eye or any other contact between the parties, as Dr. Stephanatos has indicated.  Now, based on the newly discovered bombshell evidence in Defense Exhibit D-1 that proves that Lucas was not even at the doorsteps, we know that this corrupt sheriff employee lied during the grand jury proceedings, fabricated his reports and created a conspiracy to frame Dr. Stephanatos with his co-conspirators Victor A. D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred Ernst.

The Court should also note that police and sheriff officers do lie a lot.  For example, seven Hackensack city officers — six of whom were assigned to the city’s narcotics unit — were suspended without pay last spring after an Internal Affairs investigation unearthed surveillance video contradicting the officers’ account of a Dec. 28, 2016 narcotics check.  Then, in February 2018, the city fired five police officers involved in the 2016 warrantless search of a Prospect Avenue apartment, according to Ted Ehrenburg, the city manager.  Source:  https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/hackensack/2018/02/09/hackensack-fires-five-police-officers-involved-warrantless-search/324805002/.  

 Here, the bombshell evidence discovered by Dr. Stephanatos fully contradicts the accounts given by Lucas and D’Agostino.

The indictment must be dismissed with prejudice due to the perjured testimonies of Lucas and D’Agostino, the numerous other lies and fabrications and intentionally misleading and highly prejudicial statements presented by the prosecutor, the numerous omissions of clearly exculpatory evidence, and the outrageous government conduct recounted above.

At the very least, the Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on these issues, asking the Court to summon the four co-conspirators (Ronald A. Lucas, Victor A. D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred Ernst) and Robert A. Del Vecchio to be cross-examined.

LUCAS LIED DURING HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WHEN HE CLAIMED THAT HE INJURED HIS LEFT SHOULDER DURING A FALL AT DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY

As part of an investigation we have been performing, Defendant discovered that Ronald A. Lucas, a former Passaic County sheriff officer with the Civil Division lied about his on-the-job shoulder injury.  Lucas claimed that he fell on the job on June 28, 2011 at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, NJ and that he injured his left shoulder requiring several pins.   He then filed a disability claim with the New Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits (Police and Firemen Retirement System).  He was granted disability for one year with subsequent review.  After he retired with claimed disability, he obtained a job as part-time security guard at the Pequannock High School.
Defendant discovered that Mr. Lucas suffered shoulder injuries while playing football and lifting heavy weights over his lifetime.   

He was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals (#41), using his shoulder to hit and tackle his opponents during practice and during football games.  Lucas has fallen on his shoulder probably thousand times during his athletic and training career.
 
Everybody knows that linebackers hit and tackle their opponents using their shoulders.  These athletes also lift heavy weights and they end-up injuries their shoulders.   He even made the All-County Team in 1980, showing how hard he was working out.  Based on our investigation, we found that weight lifting athletes do suffer shoulder injuries of the type claimed by Lucas.
He also trained his two sons (Dean Lucas and Ronnie Lucas) into playing TE and DE positions also with the Cardinals football team.  In fact, linebackers suffer at least 13.5 percent of all football injuries and at least 65 percent of the linebackers end up undergoing surgery.

We have obtained photos showing Mr. Lucas lifting weights, after his alleged job-ending disability.  See for example the attached image that is dated December 2013.

It is obvious to a reasonable and objective person that Lucas (in his mid-50s) took this incident on June 28, 2011 to claim on-the job-injury to be able to repair his previously injured shoulder at taxpayers’ expense and to retire and then blame Basilis Stephanatos for his injuries.  After he retired, he started the double dipping.  The finest of New Jersey at "work".

THE RECKLESS PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF EMPLOYEES MISTOOK A BOX CONTAINING A BUSINESS INSTRUMENT AS AN IED OR BOMB AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE

Dr. Stephanatos also requests this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that a box taken by the Passaic County employees from Dr. Stephanatos’ residence was a business instrument (a so-called Pelican case used for transporting sensitive business equipment) and not a “metal ammunition box” as the Passaic County employees have been misleading the grand jury and the courts and the public, damaging Dr. Stephanatos reputation.  
 
 It is obvious that these two crooked individuals wanted to give the false impression to the grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos had pre-planned an assault and he had stockpiled ammunition in a metal box.  This was highly prejudicial fabrication by the corrupt Passaic County prosecutors.  Of course, who would place a metal ammunition box at his front steps, leave the front door open for the sheriff to come inside his home to illegally remove him, and then go back 50 feet away from the door to his back office and start writing emails and doing business for his clients?  Nobody; certainly not Dr. Stephanatos who is a highly educated individual who holds BS/MS/PhD Degrees in engineering and a J.D. Degree as well and has served as expert engineer for many years.  These are all lies and fabrications of Lucas and D’Agostino and the Passaic County prosecutors.

Of course, we now know that these were fraudulent and perjured statements by Lucas and D’Agostino.  These individuals were most likely embarrassed that they had to call the SWAT team after they mistook a business instrument for an IED (see Defense Exhibit D-1) and they fabricated their story to save face.

The State has admitted before Judge Filko, that the alleged “metal ammunition box” was a rental instrument contained inside a plastic protective case (called Pelican case) to be picked up by a vendor of Dr. Stephanatos’ business, Pine Environmental, Inc. the morning of June 28, 2011.  The Passaic County prosecutor, Peter Roby, has already admitted in open court before Judge Filko that it was a rental instrument for Dr. Stephanatos’ business (please see the record in October 2011 before Judge Filko)- however, the prosecutor during the grand jury proceedings said to the grand jurors that the two lying and corrupt Sheriff employees (Lucas and D’Agostino) thought that the business instrument was “a metal ammunition box”, (in their reports they write that they thought it was an IED bomb and they had to call the bomb squad!!! –what a bunch of lunatics) giving the impression to the grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos was prepared for a battle and that he had a metal ammunition box or bomb at his front porch.  (Of course these are insane assertions by these two crooked deputies, as this was a plastic box and not a metal box and only an insane moron or a crooked “officer of the law” would mistake it for a metal ammunition box.

It should be noted that the Sheriff already knew that Dr. Stephanatos run a small business out of the premises.  See Defense Exhibit D-5, showing the letter from Metropolitan Environmental Services to the sheriff and the sheriff’s response, explaining that there a business tenant in the premises.  The sheriff responded back by stating that the sheriff does not remove tenants – however, they did just that.

Therefore, these charges must be dismissed with prejudice because they are nothing more than fake charges and fabrications of Lucas and D’Agostino to look good in the eyes of their fellow officers and superiors and the public.