Sheriff’s Officers Ronald A. Lucas and Victor D’Agostino
both lied before the grand jury, i.e., they committed perjury, a criminal
offense. We are asking this Court or the
Attorney General to charge these individuals with perjury after we prove their
lies and fabrications in an evidentiary hearing.
Between their investigation reports and the grand jury
testimony, Lucas and D’Agostino have presented at least seven (7)
different scenarios of what happened during the morning of June 28, 2011. That is, seven (7) different scenarios they
present on their own words (either written or spoken), without even being cross
examined by the defense. Can this Court
imagine what will happen if Dr. Stephanatos or his defense counsel is allowed
to cross-examine these lying individuals?
We can guarantee to this Court that there will be some very significant
Perry Mason moments and we are asking that we are allowed to cross-examine
them; the right to confront the accusers
is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Federal and New
Jersey Constitution. The Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides
that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to
be confronted with the witnesses against him." Generally, the right is to
have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial
evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.
The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the
states and not just the federal government.
General overview of Dr. Stephanatos’
former dwelling 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. Lucas went
behind the philodendron subincisum planter and placed his face at the side
window so that he can see inside the home. This is a criminal activity
prohibited under 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. Lucas then went behind the rhododendron
bushes where he claimed that he fell and injured his shoulder. These facts, including the location of Lucas,
prove beyond any doubt that Lucas was illegally peering and searching inside a
dwelling without having a Warrant for Removal (see N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited). He then later claimed that he was just coming
up the steps and he was assaulted at about 8:50 am, despite the fact that
electronic records obtained from Dr. Stephanatos business computer showed that
he was sending emails to his business clients as of 8:55 am and earlier. Lucas also claimed that a Pelican scientific
case used by vendors of Dr. Stephanatos’ business was a metal ammunition box, a
fraudulent assertion that has been refuted before Judge Filko by Prosecutor
Peter Robby. Lucas also claimed
that he saw a “shotgun”, but no “shotgun” was ever found.
Lucas Lie #1
Specifically, both officers lied when they testified that
the defendant had his front door open and his storm door shut and that they
were able to see the defendant pointing a gun at them through the glass storm
door. (Lucas testified to this at GJT10-24 to 11-12; Da7; D’Agostino testified
to this at GJT16-1 to 17; Da10).
It is the defendant’s contention that he had the front
door (and all other doors) closed and locked with a deadbolt. He had placed a business sign in the front
door (see image below) so that the Sheriff’s Officers would see that there was
a tenant on the premises and that they could not proceed with the illegal
removal without a Warrant for Removal obtained from a Law Division Judge in
compliance with the Unlawful Entry and Detainer Laws of this state. See N.J.S.A.
2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited.
Had defendant left the door open, they would not have been able to see
the business sign.
It makes no sense that I would keep the front door open
for the sheriff to come in, when in fact I did not want anybody to come inside
my home while the appeals were pending in the appellate courts and there was a
lawsuit in the Law Division to vacate the tax deed. These two deputies
are obviously lying to cover their criminal activities. Having a JD Degree, I knew that if a leave a
door open, I am actually inviting the sheriff to enter my home; the same result
is if I answer the door. That is why I
did not answer the door (in fact, I very rarely if ever answer the front
door). I would never do such a
thing.
Furthermore, the sheriff post-incident reports all show
that my back door was locked with deadbolt, my garage was locked with deadbolt,
and my car was also locked. Who locks
his car inside a locked garage, and who places deadbolts in garage? Well, a person like Dr. Stephanatos who knew
the law and knew that he needed to prevent everybody from coming inside his
home, especially that day, until the Appellate Courts adjudicate the case. Dr. Stephanatos also knew that what Robert
Del Vecchio and ATF were doing was illegal and that they took advantage of the
sheriff and the lack of competence or heavy caseload of Chancery Judge McVeigh.
Lucas Lie #2
During the grand jury proceedings, Lucas also lied to the
jurors when he said that he was only trying to serve process papers. This is an obvious fabrication, a terrible
lie, as he also testified that several officers were dispatched during that day
in two sheriff vehicles with the specific intend to forcefully remove Dr.
Stephanatos without obtaining a Warrant for Removal from a Law Division
Judge. The process papers he referred to
had already been delivered to Dr. Stephanatos.
How come several officers are now attempting to re-deliver the same
papers? This makes no sense, as it is a
lie, a perjury committed by Lucas.
View of the front door of Dr.
Stephanatos’ dwelling at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey. Photo taken from the front of the property,
two months after the tragic incidents of June 28, 2011. Note the significant sun glare, making it
impossible to see inside the home during the morning hours. The philodendron subincisum planter at the
front of the porch area has been removed, as the conspirators emptied Dr.
Stephanatos’ home from all his belongings.
After nobody answered the door at 8:50-8:55 AM on June 28, 2011, and
because of the sun glare, Lucas went behind the philodendron subincisum planter
and placed his face at the side window so that he can see inside the home. This is a criminal activity prohibited under 2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures;
defiant trespasser; peering into dwelling places. It is also an illegal search prohibited by
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I,
Par. 7. Lucas then went behind the yew
and rhododendron bushes where he claimed that he fell and injured his shoulder. These facts prove beyond any doubt that Lucas
was illegally peering and searching inside a dwelling without having a Warrant
for Removal (see N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited). Lying
Lucas then later claimed that he was just coming up the steps and he was
assaulted. Lying Lucas also claimed that
a Pelican scientific case used by vendors of Dr. Stephanatos’ business was a
bomb; when no bomb was found he claimed that he thought it was a “metal
ammunition box”, a fraudulent assertion that has been refuted before Judge
Filko by Prosecutor Peter Roby.
Lying Lucas also claimed that he saw a “shotgun”. This is what was reported to the other
officers and to the media. The media
published and televised reports show that Lying Lucas claimed that there was a
“shotgun”. No “shotgun” was ever found
(because it only exists in the imagination of Lying Lucas). Lucas then changed his story and after he saw
the defendant’s lawful guns, he claimed that he saw a rifle, instead.
Lucas Lie #3
In addition, I have irrefutable evidence (email and phone
logs) showing that I was either on the computer doing business work or calling
the state officials right at the time that these sheriff’s deputies claim that
they saw me through an open front door.
For example, Lucas testified that he arrived at the property at 8:50
am. There is an electronic record
provided in the Appendix to Motion to Change Venue that shows that Dr.
Stephanatos sent an e-mail to one of his clients at 8:55 am. This
irrefutable evidence proves beyond any doubt, that Dr. Stephanatos was
at his office computer at the back of the house (about 50-feet away from the
front door) doing his normal daily business.
Thus Dr. Stephanatos has an irrefutable alibi to refute the false
statements of these two corrupt individuals who claim that at around 8:50 to
8:55 am they saw him pointing a gun at them as they were walking up the front
porch steps.
Another reason that the front doors were both closed is
the following: I have window-mounted air
conditioning units. I would take the air conditioning units off the
window around mid-September and I would install them around Memorial Day (end
of May). When I install the air conditioning units, then I keep all the
doors and the windows closed, so that I do not lose energy.
Yet another reason I always keep the doors closed is that
my home office is located at the back of the dwelling and I cannot hear very
well what is happening at the front of the home. Since the home is located in a rather
isolated, wooded area of Wayne, it has been burglarized before. Thus, the lack of hearing and the fear of
burglary had made me keep the doors locked at all times- all doors, in fact:
back doors, front doors, and garage doors.
Besides, I very rarely used the front doors, as the garage entrance is
located closer to the back door entrance.
So, I almost never used the front doors.
That is another reason that Lucas and D’Agostino committed perjury when
they said that I left the front door open.
The computer electronic record was in the possession of the State before
the grand jury proceedings; however, the corrupt prosecutor Walter Dewey
refused to give it to the jury and of course refused to allow me to testify.
Lucas Lie #4
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 corrupt
prosecutors.
Of course we now know that these were fraudulent and
perjured statements by Lucas and D’Agostino.
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- however, the prosecutor during the grand
jury proceedings said to the grand jurors that the two lying and corrupt
Sheriff Officers (Lucas and D’Agostino) thought that the business instrument
was “a metal ammunition box”, giving the impression to the grand jurors that I
was prepared for a battle and I had a metal ammunition box at my 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 -
please see the sample images below to see the significant differences between
an ammunition box and a Pelican case).
In fact, in November 2011, when Dr. Stephanatos was allowed to get back
his seized business computers, he was told by the sheriff employee doing the
paperwork that the sheriff did not know what the Pelican case was. Imagine, if these two crooks lied about the
Pelican case, what else have they lied about? – Well, they pretty much lied
just about everything. We demand a full
investigation into their corrupt and perjured testimony, as these two liars
have caused the events of June 28, 2011 through their incompetence and lying
and fabrications and perjured testimonies and false reports.
Typical
metal and plastic ammunition boxes. Note
the significant difference between these boxes and the Pelican case shown
below.
This
image shows a typical Pelican case used to ship scientific instruments similar
to the one seized from Dr. Stephanatos’ front porch. The State has already admitted on the record
in open court before Judge Filko that the Pelican case had been placed at the
porch to be picked up by the vendor, Pines Environmental, Inc. on the morning
of June 28, 2011. The State lied to the
grand jurors and told them that they believed it was a bomb or a metal
ammunition box and that is one of the reasons they believed they were facing a
dangerous person in Dr. Stephanatos.
What a bunch of liers and losers.
Of course later, in November 2011 before Judge Filko, Mr.
Peter Roby, a Passaic County prosecutor, admitted that the business instrument
was not an ammunition box and he did confirm that he talked to Pine
Environmental, Inc and did confirm to him that their employee (the Pine
Environmental driver) was due to come and pick up the instrument that morning
from Dr. Stephanatos’ front porch (this is where I would typically place the
various rental instruments for pickup and delivery). Again, none of these facts made it to the
grand jury, in a clear attempt by Peter Roby and his associates (such as Water
Dewey who made the presentation to the grand jury) to mislead and lie to the
grand jury so that the jurors believe that somehow Dr. Stephanatos left an
illegal or dangerous device at his front porch.
What a bunch of liars these prosecutors and sheriff deputies are. The indictment must be dismissed with
prejudice, based on these lies and fabrications and omissions of crucial facts
by the State and Passaic County employees so that they mislead and prejudice
the grand jury against Dr. Stephanatos.
In fact Dr. Stephanatos’ lawyer, Mr. Carl Herman, had met and also sent
a confirmatory letter to the Passaic County prosecutors (see Exhibit B for a
copy of the letter send to the State) to allow me to testify during the
proceedings regarding the events of June 28, 2011. However, the Passaic County prosecutors
refused to allow me to testify and present clearly exculpatory evidence for
elements of all the charges. Thus the
State fed the grand jury with lies and fabrications and half “truths”, against
the grand jury New Jersey law.
Essentially the State impermissibly and prejudicially interfered with
the grand jury’s investigative function.
Lucas Lie #5
Lucas and D’Agostino also claimed that they did not ring
the door bell and that instead, they saw a man waiting for them with a
gun. This is also a fabrication, a lie,
as Lucas rang the doorbell at about 8:52 am (or between 8:50 am and 8:55 am). The sheriff investigation reports show that
other sheriff employees wrote that “somebody answered the door”. These statements corroborate Dr. Stephanatos’
recollection that Lucas rang the doorbell.
When Dr. Stephanatos did not answer the door (I would never answer the
door, and certainly I would not answer it that day), he bypassed the two big
planters and went towards the edge of the porch and started peering inside the
home, as the sun glare makes it impossible to see inside the home during the
morning hours (it is a north/northeast facing home). That way he performed an illegal search in
violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and N.J. Const.
(1947), Art. I, Par. 7.
Lucas Lie #6
After peering inside the
dwelling, Lucas then jumped off or fell off the edge of the porch, proving that
he was located at the side window peering inside. He does admit in his Investigation
Report that he “jumped off the porch”.
He could not simply follow the steps of the porch the same way
D’Agostino did, because the planters blocked his exit from his location at the
edge of the porch. The only way he could
go was behind the bushes. This is
crucial evidence, adding credibility to my scenario and proving yet again that
Lucas lied to the grand jurors.
View
of the rhododendron bushes located before Dr. Stephanatos’ dwelling. Photo taken four weeks prior to the tragic
incidents of June 28, 2011. Note the
philodendron subincisum planter at the front of the porch area (middle left in
the above image). At about 8:55 AM on
June 28, 2011, after nobody showed up at the front door, Lucas went behind the
philodendron subincisum planter and placed his face at the side window of the
front door so that he can see inside the home.
This is a criminal activity prohibited under 2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant
trespasser; peering into dwelling places and an illegal search in violation of
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I,
Par. 7. Lucas then went behind the
rhododendron bushes where he claimed that he fell and injured his
shoulder. These facts prove beyond any
doubt that Lucas was illegally peering and searching inside a dwelling without
having a Warrant for Removal (see N.J.S.A.
2A:39-1 Unlawful entry
prohibited). He then later claimed that
he was just coming up the front steps to deliver papers (and not to evict Dr.
Stephanatos – what a bunch of hooey) and he was assaulted. He also claimed that a plastic Pelican
scientific case used by vendors of Dr. Stephanatos’ business was a metal
ammunition box, a fraudulent assertion that has been refuted before Judge Filko
by Prosecutor Peter Roby.
Furthermore, it is not
possible that these two individuals did not say anything to me, without
announcing that they were sheriff officers or law enforcement officers and
without me saying anything to them (as they have testified); they were both armed and prejudiced against
me (based on the testimony by Lucas) and it makes no sense that they simply
walked away; the only way this could
have happened is if the doors were both locked (i.e., both the storm and the
main wooden door) and they could not have any contact or communication with me
at that time. These are the same type of
people who shoot to kill citizens in their backs and then plant evidence and
even shoot and kill kids who hold plastic guns.
And they claim they simply walked away?
Hard to believe. Because it is a
total and complete fabrication.
Please note that Lucas and D’Agostino are partners.
They drove in the same car during that day and they testified that they both
walk towards the front steps at the same time. Thus, it makes not much
sense that Lucas would go behind my front bushes (the yews and the
rhododendrons), while D’Agostino would go towards his sheriff car. This
scenario is only likely if Lucas was located in front of the side door window
and at the very edge of it (this is where I saw him standing, having his face
on the glass window and illegally peering inside the home). There was no reason for him to do so, if he
was just delivering papers, as he testified.
He could have left the papers in the mailbox or left them at the door
step.
View of the front door of Dr.
Stephanatos’ dwelling at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey. Photo taken from the front of the property,
two months after the tragic incidents of June 28, 2011. Note the significant sun glare, making it
impossible to see inside the home during the morning hours. The philodendron subincisum planter at the
front of the porch area has been removed, as the conspirators emptied Dr.
Stephanatos’ home from all his belongings.
Because of the sun glare, Lucas went behind the philodendron subincisum
planter and placed his face at the side window so that he can see inside the
home. This is a criminal activity
prohibited under 2C:18-3.
Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant trespasser; peering into dwelling
places. Lucas then went behind the
rhododendron bushes where he claimed that he fell and injured his
shoulder. These facts prove beyond any
doubt that Lucas was illegally peering and searching inside a dwelling without
having a Warrant for Removal (see N.J.S.A.
2A:39-1 Unlawful entry
prohibited). He then later claimed that
he was just coming up the steps and he was assaulted. He also claimed that a Pelican scientific
case used by vendors of Dr. Stephanatos’ business was an ammunition box, a
fraudulent assertion that has been refuted before Judge Filko by Prosecutor
Peter Robby.
Very
important: my bushes (yews/rhododendrons) were made of some very hard
wood. It is very difficult to go behind them without being
scratched. Lucas in fact stated to his partner and two other officers
that he was scratched by the woods. This
proves that Lucas was standing at the inaccessible to the public window and was
peering inside Mr. Stephanatos’ residence – this is a criminal act under New
Jersey law and an illegal act under federal law.
Furthermore,
Lucas and D’Agostino testified/wrote that they split in two different
directions. Lucas went towards the “woods” (he meant the bushes located
before Dr. Stephanatos’ residence), while D’Agostino went towards the sheriff
cars parked at the top of the driveway. This can only happen if Lucas was
standing at the edge of the porch at the side door window and from there he
went behind the bushes (the “woods”) located in the front of the home.
That was the only route he had available, because the two planters were in his
way and he could not go back towards the door easily. This proves my
allegation that Lucas was standing at the very edge of the porch and by the
side door window, peering inside the home.
D’Agostino was standing in the walkway, and from there he walked towards
the sheriff cars at the top of the driveway.
If
both of them were standing in front of the door, there is no reason for them to
take different routes. All these facts
provide irrefutable proof that these two crooked “officers of the law” have
committed perjury.
AND NOW THE BOMBSHELL OF THE
CENTURY
All the above lies and fabrications and inconsistencies
make one wonder: how is it possible
these sheriff employees made so many mistakes in recollection the evidence? Well, the answer to this question is that Ron
Lucas was not the person peering through the side window of Dr.
Stephanatos. It was another young
sheriff employee who switched places with Ron Lucas because Lucas was the only
sworn law enforcement officer. Lucas
however, cannot get his story straight and has made so many errors and there
are numerous inconsistencies in his story and between what he wrote in his
report and between what D’Agostino wrote and said.
Lucas was not the person
illegally peering through Defendant’s side window, as the Defendant has
recently obtained a photo of Lucas and he is not the person that he saw having
stuck his face onto the side window;
Defendant remembers a young person peering through his side window; that
person had full set of hair and no facial hair, while Lucas is in his 50s and
has facial hair and he is very-very bald.
The young sheriff employee was in his late 20s to early 30s and had full
set of hair and also had very sharp eyes illegally searching inside the residence
as the Defendant did not answer the door at 8:50 am. Defendant hereby requests a list of the names
of all Sheriff employees who were originally dispatched at the 687 Indian Road
property at 8:50 am. This is obviously a
bomb-shell, as it will expose the conspiracy among these Sheriff employees to
frame the Defendant.
The
lying corrupt thug, Ronad A. Lucas.
I am attaching the original charge filed by Lucas on
6/28/2011 under Section NJS 2C:17-2C. As
you can see, he wrote the reason for the charge is “PLACING SLIVER[sic] METAL
CONTAINER ON HIS FRONT STEPS CAUSING THE EVACUATION OF NEIGHBORS”. As you know by now, this was a BLACK PLASTIC
SAFETY CONTAINER FOR MY BUSINESS INSTRUMENT placed there to be picked up by the
vendor, Pines Environmental. Note that
Lucas writes: “SLIVER [sic]” (he meant silver).
However, this was a black plastic instrument case. This is another
clue telling me that Lucas was not there to eye-witness the instrument.
THIS IS VERY SERIOUS
ALLEGATION AND THIS COURT MUST PERFORM AN URGENT INVESTIGATION.
The Seven Shades of Lucas
These corrupt liars cannot get their story straight – can
this Court imagine what will happen when we cross-examine them? According to the old maxim, “False in one –
false in all”, we respectfully submit that Ronald Lucas and Victor D’Agostino
cannot be trusted, they lied and fabricated their stories to serve the people
who hired them, i.e., the conspirators Robert Del Vecchio, American Tax
Funding, et al. If they lied in one or
several parts of their story, then the entire deposition must be dismissed.
It is important to note that Lucas has changed his story
a number of times: at one time he claims
that he was walking the front stairs and he saw a man standing there and
pointing a gun; at another version he claims that he was standing at the open
door and that he then saw a person coming towards him; at a third time he
claims that there was an altercation; at a forth scenario, he claims that Dr.
Stephanatos never said anything to him (i.e., that there was no altercation);
at a fifth scenario, he wrote in his report that he “jumped of the porch”
(meaning that he was already on the porch and not just coming up the stairs);
at a sixth version he claims that he never rang the doorbell; at a seven
scenario, he stated to his colleagues that he rang the doorbell (this is
confirmed by the statement of other officers who wrote that Lucas told them
that Dr. Stephanatos answered the door); at another version, he claims that Dr.
Stephanatos was barricaded, yet he also claimed that Dr. Stephanatos had his
front door wide open; at another version he claims that he saw a “shotgun”
pointed at him (this was also published in the news media and reported in some
sheriff employee reports, but no “shotgun was ever found because it was a
fabrication by Lucas the Lier) but then he changed his story (after he had a
chance to illegally enter my home) and now he claims that he saw a single-shot
Ruger hunting rifle; in another version he claims that he saw a bomb at the
porch, only to change his story and claim that he saw a “metal ammunition box”
– the State has already admitted that none of these fabrications were true and
that it was a Pelican case used in Dr. Stephanatos’ business that was about to
be picked up by the owner of the case, Pine Environmental, Inc.. However, the State never made these findings
aware to the grand jury.
All these versions have been presented by Lucas, without
having been cross examined by the defense, without placing a time table to his
story elements and without cross-referencing the story given by D’Agostino in
his testimony and his Investigation Report and corroboration with the
investigation reports of others. Can
this Court imagine the Perry Mason moments, when we will cross-examine these
liars?
The Fabrications and Intentional Omissions of
Walter Dewey
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.
(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”. This Court should note that there is no
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 fraudulent and misleading question/statement that
will most certainly damage the State’s “case” (the State never had any case,
they just made this up as they were going along; we now know that no “shotgun” was ever found,
and no “metal ammunition box was ever found”, and no “bomb” was ever found. So these corrupt liars made up a story to
tell the grand jury and the public to justify their wrongful actions.)
As the
defendant has stated before, both the wooden door and the storm door were
closed; the defendant locked the main door with a deadbolt, as always does,
because he lived in a remote and wooded area of Wayne and he was always afraid
for his security. Since he has a legal
background (he was studying for the final exams of the final year of law school
during that week), he knew that if he left the door open (or any window), then
he would have been consenting to an entry inside the home by the Passaic County
employees. There is no way on earth that
he would leave the door open and the computer records show that he was in his
office doing his business and sending emails- none of that information was
allowed by the corrupt prosecutors to be submitted to the grand jury.
Here is
another example of the fraudulent tactics of the Passaic County prosecutor to
lie and mislead the grand jury:
Count 4 charges that the defendant “did recklessly create
a risk of widespread injury or damage by purposely or knowingly barricading
himself into 687 Indian Road . . . while armed with a deadly weapon, contrary
to the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:17-2c.” (Da4; emphasis supplied).
N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2c provides, in pertinent part:
A person who recklessly creates a risk of widespread
injury or damage commits a crime of the fourth degree, even if no such injury
or damage occurs.
N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2e provides: “For purposes of this
section, widespread injury or damage means serious bodily injury to five or
more people or damage to five or more habitations or to a building which would
normally have contained 25 or more persons at the time of the offense.”
It is important to note here that the defendant’s home is
in an isolated area of Wayne, New Jersey.
There are no homes neighboring to the north. There is only one home neighboring to the
east (about 50 feet away) where there was only one woman present and another to
the west (about 100 feet away) where the owners were at work. Thus, this charge is also fraudulent, as less
than five people and less than five habitations were within 100 feet from
defendant’s home. Another example of the
prosecutorial misconduct faced by the defendant.
This
obviously corrupt prosecutor also refused to allow Dr. Stephanatos to testify
to the grand jury to present facts about the defense. He refused to do so and presented numerous
lies and fabrications and refused to provide clearly exculpatory evidence. What a corrupt thug right there in Passaic
County. Only god knows how many people
he has wrongfully convicted.
A
JUDGMENT RENDERED WITHOUT PROPER SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IS VOID. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION CANNOT BE WAIVED
BY THE PARTIES OR OTHERWISE AVOIDED
JURISDICTION OF THE NEW JERSEY COURTS
To further prove that a
Chancery Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over land possession issues,
here is the jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts, as is provided at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/.
As you can see, the Chancery Court has no Jurisdiction over property possession
issues. On the other hand, the Law Division handles either the
Landlord-Tenant issues(to summary dispossession actions) or
actions for possession of real estate (unlawful detainer/writ of
possession). This is very critical information, as you can imagine.
Superior Court, Law
Division, Special Civil Part
The
Special Civil Part handles claims for monetary damages of $15,000 or less
(unless the overage is waived) and unlawful detainer actions. Case types
typically filed in the Special Civil Part are damage claims arising from
contract, consumer debt, auto negligence property damage, and statutory penalty
enforcement, and non-monetary matters such as writs of replevins and actions
for possession of real estate (unlawful detainer/writ of possession). Judges
without a jury typically adjudicate Special Civil Part cases. There are
approximately 406,000 cases filed in the Special Civil Part each year.
The
Special Civil Part, Small Claims Section handles cases in which the demand is
$3,000 or less and actions for the return of all or part of a security deposit
when the amount does not exceed $5000. Annually, approximately 35,000 cases are
filed with the Small Claims section.
The
Special Civil Part, Landlord - Tenant Section has limited, special
jurisdiction. It is limited to summary dispossession actions in which the dispute
arise out of a landlord - tenant relationship. The only relief available is
whether possession is returned to the landlord with the tenant’s summary
removal from the property. Annually, approximately 170,000 cases are filed with
the Landlord-Tenant section.
Superior Court,
Chancery Division, General Equity
Chancery
Division, General Equity handle claims for non-monetary relief, such as
restrictive covenant enforcement, labor injunctions, foreclosures, and
corporation or partnership governance disputes. A judge without a jury tries
General Equity cases. There are approximately 8,900 cases filed in General
Equity each year.
The above prove beyond any doubt that the Chancery Judge
had no jurisdiction over the possession issue and any orders issued by a court
devoid of subject matter jurisdiction are void and cannot be enforced. The worst part here is that this “adjudged”
possession judgment was never adjudicated, as there was never a hearing or
trial ever took place. The convicted
conspirators simply wrote that language into a “final judgment” issued in May
2011 and gave it to a Chancery judge in another county, Mercer County, to sign
it. Then they obtained an ex-parte Writ
of Possession from a Clerk of Mercer County (note that the subject property was
located in Passaic County, and the Mercer County Clerk had no jurisdiction over
the Defendant’s property located in Passaic County).
As defined by our Supreme Court in James v. Francesco, 61
N.J. 480, 485 (1972), "a judgment is void if there has been a failure to
comply with a requirement which is a condition precedent to the exercise of
jurisdiction by the court." A void judgment is one rendered by a court
lacking jurisdiction with regard to the party against whom it is rendered or
lacking jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, Restatement,
Judgments (2d) Section 1 pp 30-33 (1982), and it may be set aside without the
need of showing a meritorious defense. See Jameson v. Great Atlantic, 363 N.J.
Super. 419, 425 (App. Div. 2003). New Century Financial Services, Inc. v. Suk Cha
Carrero, Appellate Division, Superior Court, February 2007, Docket No.
A-3926-05T23926-05T2.
Thus, the “final judgment cited by the State was void,
not voidable. It had no legal effect
whatsoever. Thus, any Writ issued
pursuant to such void judgment was also void, of no legal effect.
A judgment is void for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction when the court has no authority to adjudicate the controversy. See
Bank v. Kim, 361 N.J. Super. 331, 339
(App. Div. 2003) (mortgage foreclosure judgment void in violation of
bankruptcy automatic stay). Here, the
Chancery court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the property possession
issue and thus any order issued by that court was void, a legal nullity.
HOW THE CONSPIRATORS MANAGED TO FOOL (OR CONSPIRED WITH)
THE COURTS
Despite the luck of any fact finding by Judge McVeigh
(Judge McVeigh never conducted a bench trial to determine the facts consistent
with Rule 1:7-4(a)), on May 13, 2011, the Mercer County Honorable Mary C.
Jacobson, P.J.Ch., entered a “final judgment” against defendant in favor of
American Tax Funding, LLC (“ATFH”). (Final Judgment annexed at Da44-46) upon
the presentation to that court of a form that had been prepared by the
conspirator Robert Del Vecchio. That
form includes language “AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the
plaintiff dully recover against the said defendant …possession of the premises…
and that a Writ of Possession issue thereon”.
Contrary to what the conspirators wrote in this form and presented to a
Mercer County Court for signing, there
was never an adjudication of the possession of the premises. There
is no judicial record that the State can provide that indicates that such
possession litigation ever took place.
As was stated in the previous section, the Chancery Court had no subject
matter jurisdiction over the property possession issue and it could not have
been adjudicated by that court. This
fact alone provides clear and convincing evidence of a conspiracy between
McVeigh and the convicted criminals (Robert Del Vecchio, ATF, and others) to
defraud the Defendant of his property and business.
Basically the conspirators presented to the Mercer County
court a form that has adjudicated both the ownership issue and the possession
issue. The conspirators managed to fool
the Mercer County court clerk by providing this fraudulently prepared form that
states that the possession issue has been adjudged by the Passaic County
Chancery Court. Basically, the
conspirators took advantage of the dysfunctional legal system of New Jersey
where one court does the fact finding and another court signs the orders (and
in this instant case, Judge McVeigh of Passaic County Chancery Court, never
held any fact finding and application of the facts to the law session in
violation of Rule 1:7-4(a). The
conspirator Robert Del Vecchio took full advantage of this confusion and
managed to full the court system.
This final judgment also contains the language “This
judgment shall not affect the rights of any person protected by the New Jersey
Tenant Anti-Eviction Act (N.J.S.A, 2A:18-61.1 et seq.)” (Da45). The significance of this clause is discussed
in the Motion to Change Venue brief and it is applicable here as Defendant’s
businesses (Metropolitan Environmental Services and Metropolitan Environmental
Services, PC) were tenants at that property and could not have been evicted
without legal process. The Writ of
Possession fraudulently obtained by the conspirator Robert Del Vecchio did not
include Metropolitan Environmental Services.
However, the Passaic County Sheriff did evict these business tenants
without having a Writ of Removal or a Warrant for Removal. This is an undeniable fact and proves beyond
any doubt that the sheriff employees did violate the Defendant’s possessory
rights and caused massive economic and non-economic injuries in the process.
These practices by these convicted criminals 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.
Thus,
the judges and the sheriff knew of the practices of Del Vecchio and ATF; yet,
the sheriff employees acted as agents for Del Vecchio and intentionally
violated Dr. Stephanatos’ possessory rights, including a host of other
offenses. Dr. Stephanatos had informed
the two judges and the sheriff of these practices by Del Vecchio and ATF and
had alerted the authorities (the sheriff, the governor, the local senator
O’Toole, etc.) that these individuals are breaking a host of state and federal
laws. Dr. Stephanatos also filed appeals
and suits to vacate the tax deed.
Dr. Stephanatos also had significant possessory interest,
including the filing of a Suit to Vacate the Tax Deed, the filing of two
appeals, the possession of a business in the premises, and the right to buy
back the rights to the property. See N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.100. This
state law is consistent with the legislative findings in N.J.S.A.
2A:18-61.1a. See also Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC v Morodan,
Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1211-14T3, July 20, 2015 wherein the court
stated:
On the other hand, the tax sale laws and our court rules are designed
to allow owners to redeem their properties where possible, and to receive relief from inequitable judgments. The analysis
found in I.E. clearly favors defendants, and although not binding upon us, it clearly and convincingly outlines the equitable weight
that should be accorded to a defendant’s concerns in this scenario, the
consequences of which are draconian.
The equities at stake can
vary when the redemption value is disproportionately low relative to the
owner's equity in the property. As the court stated in I.E.'s, LLC v. Simmons,
392 N.J. Super. 520, 536 (Law Div. 2006), the law results in a "harshness
of the tax sale certificate proceedings in this State, where people with
substantial equity in a property, for whatever reason, fail to pay property
taxes and thereafter default in the tax sale certificate foreclosure
proceedings."
In that case, the redemption amount was $22,837.50 and the
property's value was $275,000. Ibid. That disparity is similar in magnitude to
the disparity in this case. That opinion also stated:
Until the Legislature devises a better system, courts of equity
must do their best to balance the equities, taking into account the necessity
of allowing the transfer of clear title and the need to compel the payment of
property taxes against the necessity of ameliorating, in appropriate
circumstances, the onerous impact of the procedure in circumstances where the
party has remained in possession of the property and has substantial equity in
it.
[Id. at 537.]
This Court should also compare the law of the state of
New York, where similar process must be followed, i.e., the issue of possession
must be decided by a Law Division judge:
NEW YORK STATE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW(RPAPL)
ARTICLE 7
SUMMARY PROCEEDING TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY
Sec. 713. GROUNDS
WHERE NO LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS.
A special proceeding may
be maintained
under this article after a ten-day notice to quit has been served upon the
respondent in the manner prescribed in section 735, upon the following grounds:
1. The
property has been sold by virtue of an execution against him or a person under
whom he claims and a title under the sale has been perfected.
2. He
occupies or holds the property under an agreement with the owner to occupy and
cultivate it upon shares or for a share of the crops and the time fixed in the
agreement for his occupancy has expired.
3. He or
the person to whom he has succeeded has intruded into or squatted upon the
property without the permission of the person entitled to possession and the
occupancy has continued without permission or permission has been revoked
and notice of the revocation given to the person to be removed.
4. The
property has been sold for unpaid taxes and a tax deed has been executed
and delivered to the purchaser and he or any subsequent grantee,
distributee or devisee claiming title through such purchaser has complied
with all provisions of law precedent to the right to possession and
the time of redemption by the former owner or occupant has expired.
5. The
property has been sold in foreclosure and either the deed delivered pursuant to
such sale, or a copy of such deed, certified as provided in the civil
practice law and rules, has been exhibited to him.
Based on New Jersey and New York law, including the law
of all other states, to remove a person in possession, the owner must occupy
the premises himself (this was not the case here) or no rent was being paid or
for breach of the peace. In other words, only after they met few
exceptions (such as not paying rent, etc.) and through an Order from a Law
Division Judge could have allowed these defendants to enter Dr. Stephanatos’
property and to remove him from his dwelling. They did not follow the
Wrongful Entry and Detainer Act and the Anti-Eviction Act, or the Summary
Dispossess Act and they willfully lied to the Mercer County Clerk in May 2011
that there were no tenants in the premises (see Exhibit B in Attachment 7 for
the willful misrepresentation by Robert Del Vecchio that no tenants were
present at the residence of Dr. Stephanatos and that Dr. Stephanatos had no
possessory interests in his home).
The defendants also knew
that the Wrongful or Unlawful Entry statutes protect Plaintiff’s right to
remain in possession of his residence. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 2A:39-7
says that title shall not be an issue since Plaintiff was in continuous
possession of his residence for 16 years.
N.J.S.A. 2A:39-7
Title not inquired into; defense of 3 years possession
Title shall not be an
issue in any action commenced under this chapter. 3 years peaceable possession
by the defendant shall be a defense to the action.
Defendants Del Vecchio and ATF failed to disclose these
statutes to the sheriff that prevent the sheriff from evicting a person from a
residential property without a Warrant for Removal. This way they managed to fool the sheriff to
perform an unlawful search and unlawful entry and to forcefully remove Dr.
Stephanatos from his lawfully-occupied residence on June 28, 2011. The
New Jersey Law clearly says that these individuals can be charged with criminal
trespass, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3, including many other criminal
charges, such as Theft by Unlawful Taking, Robbery, Burglary, etc.
Dr. Stephanatos’ possessory interest in his home could
not have been violated by the defendants without the very specific legal
process of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 et seq.[1]
However, the defendants willfully violated Dr. Stephanatos’ legal rights
It is very crucial for this Court to understand that the
conspirators never instituted such land possession proceedings before any court
of competent jurisdiction. It is
mandatory that summary dispossess proceedings, civil action for the possession
of land, or otherwise be held by the conspirators, in accordance with New
Jersey law, but the conspirators intentionally did not do that. These convicted criminals simply drafted the
document entitled “Final Judgment” and they gave it to a Judge in Mercer County
(Judge Jacobson) to sign the two pages.
This was part of the conspiratory scheme of these criminals, i.e., to
file false certifications with the courts, to mislead the courts in signing
judgements of possession without holding any hearing or any New Jersey
law-mandated legal process. The State has not and cannot provide ANY
legal proceedings to this Court where the Judgment of Possession was
adjudicated. And certainly cannot
provide any evidence regarding such proceedings against Metropolitan
Environmental Services, a proper and legal tenant of the 687 Indian Road
premises.
Importantly, the New Jersey law allows for extension of
the eviction time, even in case where a valid Writ was issued. See N.J.S.A.
2A:42-10.6. Here, the Defendant
called and wrote and pled with the conspirators and Judge McVeigh to stop the
illegal onslaught and to stay the illegal eviction, but to no avail. Judge McVeigh sure should have known that no
eviction hearings (Judgment of Possession) were ever held. She should have known that what the
conspirators were doing was illegal; she
could not have been that incompetent of a judge. Perhaps she is an incompetent judge, as she
also failed to consider defendant’s full equity in his home (as is mandated by
New Jersey case law (see Royal Tax
Lien Services, LLC v Morodan, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-6030-12T1,
July 3, 2014)) and she never conducted a bench trial to determine the facts
consistent with Rule 1:7-4(a).
Judge Jacobson in Mercer County simply issued a judgment
against defendant based on the statements of the conspirators Robert Del
Vecchio and American Tax Funding (ATF).
The entire panorama of circumstances indicate that defendant was denied
due process. There are issues and
defenses of entrapment, duress and improper government conduct.
It is the Defendant’s position that New Jersey’s
Anti-Eviction Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq.) and New Jersey’s
Foreclosure Fairness Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:50-69 thru 72) were violated by the
State’s and conspirators’ actions in this case as they evicted a legal tenant
of the premises, Metropolitan Environmental Services. The fraudulently obtained Writ of Possession
cited by the State, does not include Metropolitan Environmental Services and
the Defendant had the right to defend his business from illegal eviction. Even more importantly, State Law requires a
Warrant for eviction of a residential tenant.
[1]
2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited. With
regard to any real property occupied solely as a residence by the party
in possession, such entry shall not be made in any manner without the
consent of the party in possession
unless the entry and detention is made pursuant to legal process
as set out in N.J.S.2A:18-53 et seq., as amended and supplemented; P.L.1974,
c.49 (C.2A:18-61.1 et al.), as amended and supplemented; P.L.1975, c.311
(C.2A:18-61.6 et al.), as amended and supplemented; P.L.1978, c.139
(C.2A:18-61.6 et al.), as amended and supplemented; the "Tenant Protection
Act of 1992," P.L.1991, c.509 (C.2A:18-61.40 et al.); or N.J.S.2A:35-1 et
seq. and "The Fair Eviction Notice Act," P.L.1974, c.47
(C.2A:42-10.15 et al.).