Two Paterson Police Officers, Jonathan Bustios, 28, and Eudy Ramos, 31, Charged With Conspiring To Violate Civil Rights
NEWARK, N.J. – Two Passaic County, New Jersey, men were arrested today for allegedly violating the civil rights of two individuals during a motor vehicle stop in Paterson, New Jersey, with one officer also being charged with extortion for personally accepting a firearm in exchange for reducing the charges on an arrestee, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.
Jonathan Bustios, 28, and Eudy Ramos, 31, both of Paterson, New Jersey, were arrested by federal agents this morning and charged by complaint with conspiring to deprive individuals of civil rights under color of law. Bustios was also charged with one count of extortion under color of official right. Both defendants are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court.
According to the complaint:
The investigation uncovered instances in which Bustios and Ramos, both officers of the Paterson Police Department, allegedly stopped motor vehicles, detained the occupants, and searched those vehicles without any justification. On certain occasions, Bustios and Ramos also took cash and other items without justification before releasing the detained occupants.
For example, on Feb. 20, 2018, while on duty, Bustios pulled over a BMW and stopped behind the vehicle, while Ramos stopped his police car in front of the vehicle. Bustios and Ramos exited their police cars and proceeded to search the front and back of the BMW and the trunk. Bustios and Ramos also detained and searched the two occupants of the BMW and put them into the backseat of Ramos’ police car.
After searching the BMW, Bustios left the scene, drove for ten minutes, then stopped his police car and took out a white plastic bag that was filled with cash. Bustios also took out a firearm. He then called Ramos, after which Ramos released the two detained occupants of the BMW and drove to meet Bustios. Bustios passed a portion of the recovered cash to Ramos through the window of Bustios’ police car.
Later that day, Bustios and Ramos turned in the firearm that they had recovered. In the offense report pertaining to the firearm, they told a false story about having recovered the firearm due to a tip by a concerned citizen. In fact, there was no tip by a concerned citizen. They did not report to the Paterson Police Department that they had stopped and searched the BMW, detained and searched its occupants, and taken cash, all without any warrants.
Bustios was also charged with extortion under color of official right for an incident that allegedly occurred on March 14, 2018. Bustios arrested and detained an individual and placed the individual in the backseat of his police car. Bustios then told the individual that Bustios would not charge the individual with resisting arrest and would allow the individual to keep the cash that the individual had on him, in exchange for the individual helping Bustios acquire a firearm. Specifically, Bustios said, “I ain’t gonna charge you with resisting, and I’m letting you keep your money bro.” Bustios then told the individual, “If you don’t wanna make the deal, you don’t have to make the deal.”
The individual ultimately agreed and directed Bustios to the location of a firearm, which Bustios allegedly recovered and kept without turning it over to the Paterson Police Department. According to Paterson Police Department records, as he had promised, Bustios did not charge the individual with resisting arrest. Bustios also submitted an arrest report in which he failed to mention any details about recovering a firearm.
The conspiracy to violate civil rights count with which Bustios and Ramos are charged carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The extortion under color of official right count with which Bustios is charged carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge Bradley W. Cohen in Newark, with the ongoing investigation leading to today’s arrest. He also thanked the Paterson Police Department, under the direction of Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale and Police Chief Troy Oswald, as well as the Paterson Police Department Office of Internal Affairs, for their assistance in the investigation.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Agarwal, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division.
========================
Paterson law enforcement officials feared they had two rogue cops on their hands when an early-warning system flagged an unusual number of complaints against Paterson police officers Jonathan Bustios and Eudy Ramos in January 2017.
The subsequent 15-month investigation by the FBI resulted in the arrests of Bustios and Ramos on Wednesday in a case in which authorities say the accused officers illegally stopped and searched vehicles, detained the occupants and improperly took cash and other items from them.
The two officers started working for the Paterson police department in 2014 and were assigned during the time of the investigation to patrol relatively quiet sections of the city – the Hillcrest neighborhood and the area near St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center, according to law enforcement officials.
But Bustios and Ramos, who graduated from the police academy together, often ended up involved in making arrests in the 4th Ward, outside their patrol sectors, police officials said.
Some of the alleged crimes were captured on video and audio recordings of the two officers taken by investigators in the latter stages of the federal probe, authorities said.
In one instance, last Feb. 20, Bustios allegedly took a white plastic bag containing cash from a BMW he and Ramos had stopped, authorities said. After they released the suspects, the two cops drove off in their separate patrol cars and met beneath a highway underpass where they split the money, passing the cash through the window of Bustios' vehicle, authorities said.
The officers’ patrol reports for that day did not say anything about stopping the BMW, according to the charges against them.
In another incident, on March 14, Bustios allegedly negotiated a deal with a suspected heroin dealer, agreeing to drop a resisting arrest charge in exchange for a handgun, authorities said.
Bustios and Ramos appeared before Judge Michael Hammer in federal court in Newark on Wednesday afternoon. Both pleaded not guilty.
If convicted, Ramos faces 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If convicted, Bustios faces 30 years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Both were released on $100,000 bonds and both are subject to electronic monitoring
Bustios’ lawyer, Patrick Caserta, declined to comment on the charges against his client. Ramos’ lawyer, Steve Iacullo, could not be reached for comment. The Paterson PBA did not respond to a phone call seeking the union’s input for this story.
Paterson Police Chief Troy Oswald said the arrests should be seen as a sign of his department’s accountability to the public.
“This was not a case of them coming in and cleaning house,” said Oswald of the FBI. “This started as our investigation. The FBI investigation would not have happened without us.”
“People talk about the blue wall of silence, that’s not what happened here,” Oswald added. “When Paterson police officers commit crimes, we are going to put them in jail.”
Oswald said that after the city’s Internal Affairs alert system highlighted problems with the officers, he asked the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office to investigate. But the prosecutor’s office did not have assets available for such a probe, so Oswald said he instead went to the FBI.
Oswald declined to reveal exactly what incidents involving Bustios and Ramos triggered the Internal Affairs division’s warning system. The chief said they were the only two officers covered in the January 2017 alert.
The two accused cops were arrested late Wednesday morning – Bustios at the West Belt Plaza mall in Wayne and Ramos on East 21st Street in Paterson, authorities said. They were both charged with extortion and conspiracy to deprive persons of their human rights, according to the announcement by the United States Attorney’s Office in Newark.
Paterson Police Director Jerry Speziale said the two officers have been suspended without pay. Ramos makes $51,360, while Bustios is paid $48,860, according to payroll records.
"It's just a sad day for the city of Paterson," said Mayor Jane Williams-Warren. "I'm very upset by it.
"The Paterson Police Department is committed to protecting the safety and civil rights of the citizens it serves and will not tolerate this alleged behavior amongst its ranks," she said. "The City will continue to work with federal authorities on the prosecution of this case."
Bustios has been a high-profile member of the Paterson police department.
In December 2016, Bustios shot and wounded a suspect who allegedly fired on officers who were responding to a call about a domestic dispute. A grand jury last year determined that the shooting was justified.
In the 14 months prior to that incident, Bustios had helped make arrests in seven separate cases in which suspects allegedly had guns, according to press releases issued by the Paterson police department.
The federal complaint against the officers says surveillance video of Bustios and Ramos seemed to indicate they were less than truthful about the details of some of their gun seizures.
For example, the complaint says the two officers said in the official reports that they got a tip from a concerned citizen last Feb. 20 that resulted in them finding two handguns in a garage on Lyon Street. But the surveillance video taken by detectives investigating the officers didn’t show them talking to a concerned citizen, nor going to the garage on Lyon Street, nor obtaining the two guns, according to the criminal complaint.
Instead, the federal complaint says that the officers likely obtained one of the guns they reported finding during the traffic stop of the BMW that same day during which they took the white plastic bag containing cash.
The complaint against the officers includes an alleged partial transcript of the recorded conversation on March 14 between Bustios and a drug suspect, the incident in which he reportedly agreed to drop a resisting arrest charge in exchange for a gun. Some of the conversation allegedly took place while they were parked in the lot outside the back door of Paterson police headquarters.
“If you don’t wanna make the deal, you don’t have to make the deal,” Bustios said, according to the transcript.
“No, I do,” said the suspect.
Later in the transcript, Bustios is quoted saying, “I just told you, I'm not gonna charge you. How many times do I have to tell you, man?”
The suspect then spoke to someone on the phone about where to leave the gun, the criminal complaint said. Bustios and the suspect then drove to that spot, under a bridge near Governor Street, but could not find the weapon.
The suspect made another call and Bustios drove to a second location, where he found the weapon in a brown plastic bag, the complaint says.
Bustios never mentioned the gun in the arrest report for the suspect, authorities said. He also did not turn the gun in, authorities said.
====================
PATERSON, New Jersey --
Federal
prosecutors say two New Jersey police officers stopped vehicles,
detained the occupants and searched the cars without justification,
sometimes also taking cash and other items.The Paterson officers - Jonathan Bustios, 28, and Eudy Ramos, 31 - are charged with conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights under color of law.
Bustios is also charged with extortion under color of official right for allegedly telling a man he had just arrested that he wouldn't charge him and would let him keep the cash he had if he helped Bustios get a gun. Prosecutors say the man ultimately agreed to the deal.
Both officers were arrested Wednesday morning and were due to make their initial court appearances later in the day. It wasn't known if either man has retained an attorney.
=================================
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.
Dr. Basilis N. Stephanatos, Ph.D., P.E., J.D., Q.E.D.
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.
For
more information on Special Civil Part click here.
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.).
===================
By Anthony G. Attrino
tattrino@njadvancemedia.com,
NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Five Hackensack police officers accused of searching an apartment without a warrant during a drug raid in December 2016 have been fired, officials said.
The warrantless search on Prospect Avenue prompted the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to drop charges against defendants in eight criminal cases.
"These five officers betrayed their oath and brought dishonor to the Hackensack Police Department and terminating them today is the only justified and reasonable action that we can take to bring this matter to a close," City Manager Ted Ehrenburg said in a statement.
The police officers have been identified as Det. Rocco Duardo, Det. Mark Gutierrez, Det. Joseph Gonzales, Sgt. Justin de la Bruyere and officer Victor Vazquez.
The five were among seven Hackensack police officers accused of illegally entering an apartment without a search warrant or probable cause.
Two of the original seven - high-ranking officers in the Hackensack Police Department - retired before a disciplinary hearing could be held.
All of the officers involved said they were conducting a narcotics investigation.
In a police report, the officers claimed they knocked on a door but there was no answer. However, surveillance video showed the officers appearing to pick locks.
An internal affairs probe showed the cops had no cause for a search.
Ehrenburg's action to fire the officers came after a recommendation last week by a hearing officer to terminate four of the officers and to suspend a fifth.
The city manager, who has final administrative authority, decided to terminate all five, finding the dismissals were in the "best interests of the city and the HPD," the statement said.
Ehrenburg said the terminations are allowable under state law.
N.J. Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal, who at the time was the county prosecutor, said the illegal search undermined the officers' credibility as law enforcement witnesses.
As a result, Grewal said he had no choice but to drop charges against 17 suspects in eight criminal cases.
At least one former officer, Rocco Duardo, has sued Ehrenburg, the police department and the prosecutor's office, claiming his legal rights have been violated.
Duardo's attorney, Charles Sciarra of Clifton, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. The other officers or their attorneys were not immediately available for comment on Monday.
=====================
5 cops fired after being accused of drug raid without warrant
Updated Feb 12; Posted Feb 12By Anthony G. Attrino
tattrino@njadvancemedia.com,
NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
Five Hackensack police officers accused of searching an apartment without a warrant during a drug raid in December 2016 have been fired, officials said.
The warrantless search on Prospect Avenue prompted the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office to drop charges against defendants in eight criminal cases.
"These five officers betrayed their oath and brought dishonor to the Hackensack Police Department and terminating them today is the only justified and reasonable action that we can take to bring this matter to a close," City Manager Ted Ehrenburg said in a statement.
The police officers have been identified as Det. Rocco Duardo, Det. Mark Gutierrez, Det. Joseph Gonzales, Sgt. Justin de la Bruyere and officer Victor Vazquez.
The five were among seven Hackensack police officers accused of illegally entering an apartment without a search warrant or probable cause.
Two of the original seven - high-ranking officers in the Hackensack Police Department - retired before a disciplinary hearing could be held.
All of the officers involved said they were conducting a narcotics investigation.
In a police report, the officers claimed they knocked on a door but there was no answer. However, surveillance video showed the officers appearing to pick locks.
An internal affairs probe showed the cops had no cause for a search.
Ehrenburg's action to fire the officers came after a recommendation last week by a hearing officer to terminate four of the officers and to suspend a fifth.
The city manager, who has final administrative authority, decided to terminate all five, finding the dismissals were in the "best interests of the city and the HPD," the statement said.
Ehrenburg said the terminations are allowable under state law.
N.J. Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal, who at the time was the county prosecutor, said the illegal search undermined the officers' credibility as law enforcement witnesses.
As a result, Grewal said he had no choice but to drop charges against 17 suspects in eight criminal cases.
At least one former officer, Rocco Duardo, has sued Ehrenburg, the police department and the prosecutor's office, claiming his legal rights have been violated.
Duardo's attorney, Charles Sciarra of Clifton, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. The other officers or their attorneys were not immediately available for comment on Monday.
=====================
Surveillance footage from a building on Prospect Ave. in Hackensack
appears to show seven police officers gaining entry to an apartment in
Dec. of 2016.
NorthJersey.com
On
a cool winter day last December — three days after Christmas — seven
Hackensack police officers approached the front door of the Sheldon
Arms, an apartment building at 64 Prospect Ave.
Six
of them were wearing plainclothes — some in hooded sweatshirts; others
in heavy winter jackets. Only one of the officers was wearing
a uniform.
The uniformed officer,
Victor Vasquez, tried to open the lobby door to no avail. A detective in
a black baseball cap then inspected the door handle, crouched by it and
20 seconds later, the door opened.
He pocketed
what appears to be a tool and the seven officers poured into the lobby.
The officers split up as they traveled to the third floor: three of them
took the elevator, the others climbed the building's staircase. Once on
the third floor, the team went to one end of the third-floor hallway,
then doubled back. One of the officers then pointed to an apartment
door.
That door was the entry to apartment C7.
Once again, one of the officers, after kicking away a welcome mat, knelt
in front of the door and set to work on the lock. Minutes
later, several officers entered the apartment.
These
scenes were captured by surveillance cameras inside the building. The
video clips, acquired by NorthJersey.com and The Record through a public
records request, are now a key piece of evidence in an internal affairs
investigation probing six of the seven officers. The six officers are
facing disciplinary charges for allegedly mishandling evidence,
illegally entering the apartment building and conducting a warrantless
search of apartment C7 at the Sheldon Arms.
As a result, Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal decided to dismiss eight separate narcotics cases involving 16 defendants including a known gang member
and others with prior convictions and violent histories because they
were connected to the officers involved with the search. An unknown
number of municipal court cases are also in danger of being dismissed.
Disciplinary action sought
Grewal
has no plans to bring the officers to
trial, but city officials are moving forward with administrative charges
against the six officers who remain employed by the city and who are
all suspended from the force. The goal for the city's administration is
to fire the six officers, said Raymond Wiss, Hackensack's labor
attorney.
“In all likelihood, there would have been
disciplinary hearings, irrespective of the Prosecutor’s decision,” said
Wiss. “The city is trying to effectuate the termination of these
officers."
The suspended officers are Capt.
Vincent Riotto, Det. Sgt. Justin De La Bruyere, detectives Mark
Gutierrez, Joseph Gonzalez, Rocco Duardo and Vazquez. Vazquez was the
only officer not assigned to the narcotics unit. Lt. Scott Sybel, who
was with the officers in December during the search, retired earlier
this year.
When
he made his decision to dismiss the eight criminal cases, all of which
involved an officer from the narcotics unit, Grewal informed the police
administration in a letter that his office would not pursue criminal
charges against the seven officers. He wrote to Capt. Frank Aquila that
seven officers' conduct during the search undermined their credibility
as law enforcement witnesses.
“My only comment is
that we don’t have a comment on that,” Grewal told NorthJersey.com and
The Record when asked about the release of the video. “We don’t have a
comment beyond what we said in the letters, which you already have.”
Footage contradicts report
The
video clips, which contain no audio, appear to contradict the sequence
of events laid out in a police report dated Dec. 28, 2016, and prepared
by Gutierrez. According to the report, the officers, who were checking
on unspecified "narcotic activity" entered the building and were told
about an unattended child in apartment C7 by a man who wished to remain
anonymous, so they tried to get into the apartment.
In
contrast to the video, Gutierrez's report says that the officers found
the door to C7 unlocked, so they went in to check for an unattended
child. They didn't find one, so they left the apartment and the
building.
The internal affairs investigation of
the officers was triggered by an anonymous letter that alleged a
cover-up by Riotto, the ranking officer of the narcotics unit. The
letter specifically referenced 64 Prospect Ave.
"Well,
when I was reading, reviewing the video with the actual report, it
just, no one ever, I never saw anybody approach anyone," Capt.
Peter Busciglio testified during a May administrative hearing. "They
went directly to C7. It was just the more I looked at it and the more I
looked at the video, you know there were people left out of the
report."
After reviewing Gutierrez’s report,
comparing it with surveillance footage and interviewing
witnesses, Busciglio, the lead investigator in the internal affairs
investigation, determined that the officers had entered the apartment
without cause or a warrant.
“I conclude that
several officers of the Hackensack Police Narcotics Bureau, along with
Officer Victor Vazquez, responded to 64 Prospect Avenue and illegally
entered the building to conduct, or conspired to conduct, an illegal
entry and search of apartment C7 without a search warrant or other legal
justification,” said Busciglio in the internal affairs investigation
report.
Busciglio's report and the transcript of
the hearing were included with other documents, with the exception of
the videos, related to the internal affairs investigation into the
search in a lawsuit filed by Det. Rocco Duardo that claims the
Prosecutor’s Office declared Duardo a “Brady officer” — a cop whose
record of lying in an official capacity requires the prosecutor to
notify defendants and their attorneys — without sufficient proof.
During
the hearing in which Busciglio testifed, attorneys for the officers
said their clients were going to the apartment building because they
believed they were going to confront someone involved with the illegal
sale of guns and drugs, according to a transcript of the hearing.
“We
were not just going around to sniff around for narcotic activity,” said
Joseph Afflitto, Riotto’s attorney, in a phone interview Wednesday.
“They didn’t go there randomly en masse to sniff around to see if
somebody in that building might have drugs.”
No disputing participation
With the
exception of Afflito, the attorneys representing
the five other officers did not return calls for comment. But during the
hearing in May none of the attorneys disputed that
their clients participated in the search. They did, however, quibble as
to the extent their clients participated in the search.
Frank Arleo,
who represents Vasquez, said the uniformed patrolman was only present
at the scene and was not involved. He called Vasquez the “low man on the
totem pole.” Arleo also says that Vasquez never approaches apartment C7
and is down the hall when entry is made.
The video appears to show Vasquez, the lone uniformed officer, entering the apartment.
Riotto is
seen entering the building and approaching
the apartment door, but he is not seen entering the
apartment. Afflitto said that Riotto was only there for supervision.
“He
was there, but he was not there,”Afflitto said. “He was not there when
the men went into the apartment, he was not there when the men exited
the apartment. He did not participate in the decision to enter the
apartment.”
None of the attorneys representing the
officers dispute that the search occurred without a
warrant. James Patuto, who represents Gutierrez, called the search a
"non-intentional Constitutional violation of the 4th Amendment,"
according to the transcript.
"They went in, they didn't do anything wrong when they're in there, they came out," Patuto said.
In
the hearing, De La Bruyere's attorney James Horn said that calling
motives of the officers into question for unsuccessful investigations
would be a “slippery slope.” The video appears to show De La Bruyere
picking the lock of the door to the building.
“When
I was trained in the Police Academy, when you were trained in the
Police academy, we were instructed you don’t have to be right,” said
Horn at the hearing. “You have to be reasonable.”
Aquila,
the officer-in-charge of the city police, and Ted Ehrenberg, the city
manager, declined to comment on the release of the video.
Riotto is apparently seen
entering the building and approaching the apartment, but is not seen
entering the apartment. Afflitto said that Riotto was only there for
supervision.
“He was there, but he was not there,”
said Afflitto. “He was not there when the men went into the apartment,
he was not there when the men exited the apartment. He did not
participate in the decision to enter the apartment.”
========================
========================