THE DISHONESTY OF THE NEW JERSEY JUDGES: VIOLATE A PERSON'S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS AND IGNORE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

 THE DISHONESTY OF THE NEW JERSEY JUDGES: VIOLATE A PERSON'S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS AND IGNORE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY AND INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

The Chancery Court had no constitutional authority to take a citizen's fully owned property (valued at $475,000) and deliver it to a private entity for a small amount of tax that end up violating the Uniformity Clause of the NJ Constitution (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)), as private takings are prohibited by Article I, par. 20 of the State Constitution.  This is also an unreasonable seizure.

Furthermore, this case pertaining to orders that are “transparently invalid” or void; and/or require the "irretrievable surrender" of constitutional rights, such as the Fifth Amendment right, the Second Amendment right, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.

I.              PRIVATE TAKINGS ARE PROHIBITED BY BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS; AS A RESULT, THE CHANCERY COURT EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS VOID AB INITIO

The constitutional provision that prohibits private takings without just compensation is provided below; these constitutional provisions also imply that private takings for private purpose are strictly prohibited by both the federal and state constitutions:

N.J. Const., Art. I, par 20.  Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.  Individuals or private corporations shall not be authorized to take private property for public use without just compensation first made to the owners. 

Dr. Stephanatos provides the following two precedential New Jersey cases where the courts have ruled that an act of the legislature cannot confer any right upon an individual to deprive persons of the ordinary enjoyment of their property without just compensation.  Here are the two seminal cases:

An act of the legislature cannot confer any right upon an individual to deprive persons of the ordinary enjoyment of their property without just compensation. Oechsle v. Ruhl, 140 N.J. Eq. 355, 54 A.2d 462 (Ch.1947). Constitutional Law.

An act of the legislature cannot confer upon individuals or private corporations, acting primarily for their own profit, although for public benefit as well, any right to deprive persons of the ordinary enjoyment of their property, except upon condition that just compensation be first made to the owners. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Angel, 41 N.J. Eq. 316, 7 A. 432, 56 Am.Rep. 1 (1886).

See also the following federal law, prohibiting private takings:

The Public Use Clause provides that “one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation is paid.” Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 241 (1984) (quoting Thompson v. Consol. Gas Corp., 300 U.S. 55, 80 (1937). Because a private taking cannot be constitutional even if compensated, “[a] plaintiff that proves that a government entity has taken its property for a private, not a public, use is entitled to an injunction against the unconstitutional taking, not simply compensation.” Carole Media LLC v. N.J. Transit Corp., 550 F.3d 302, 308 (3d Cir. 2008).

Thus, the foreclosure judgment, the ex-parte judgment of possession and the ex-parte writ of the Superior Court in Mercer County that had neither subject matter (this was a contested case and not an uncontested case) nor personal jurisdiction over Dr. Stephanatos were void ab initio because it had no constitutional authority to issue such judgments.  Dr. Stephanatos considered such judgments or orders frivolous, unconstitutional and filed appeals to overturn them.

INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY ARTCLE I, PAR. 10 OF NEW JERSEY'S CONSTITUTION

This is the oldest case in the state of New Jersey and has been going on for seven (7) years, mostly due to negligence or recklessness by the state court(s) and delays caused by the replacement of several judges and prosecutors over the course of seven years and by the failure of the courts to timely rule on the Motion to Change Venue.

A defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial.  U.S. Const., amend.VI; N.J. Const. Art. I, ¶ 10.   New Jersey has adopted the four-prong test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. See State v. Szima, 70 N.J. 196, 200-01 (1976).

The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L. Ed. 101, 117 (1972), and the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013), examined the constitutional right to a speedy trial in the context of a criminal charge and a DWI charge, respectively. The New Jersey Supreme Court instructed, “[p]rompt disposition of criminal or quasi-criminal charges addresses the interest of the accused to be treated fairly …and prevents prejudice to the accused.” Id. at 276.

Courts should assess “four non-exclusive factors” to determine if a defendant’s constitutional speedy trial guarantees have been violated: “length of the delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right by a defendant, and prejudice to the defendant” Id. at 264.; see also State v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super. 425 (App. Div. 1999); State v. Tsetsekas, 411 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2009).  United States v. Velazquez, 749 F.3d 161, 174 (3d Cir. 2014).  The four factors in Barker are identical to the ones in Farell, supra: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his or her right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. See Cahill, supra, 213 N.J. at 270. Due to the lack of a specified time period, courts must engage in a balancing process, subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each case.  A determination by a trial judge on whether defendant was deprived of right to speedy trial should not be overturned unless "clearly erroneous." State v. Merlino, 153 N.J. Super. 12, 17 (App. Div. 1977).

The Length of the Delay

The threshold question under Barker is whether the length of delay was sufficient to trigger analysis of the remaining factors. This involves “a double enquiry.” Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652 (1992). “In other words, a court first decides whether the delay is long enough that it should trigger analysis of the other Barker factors. . . . If it is, the length of the delay is also separately weighed in the court’s analysis of the remaining factors.” Velazquez, 749 F.3d at 174 (citations omitted). The length of delay is measured “from the date of arrest or indictment, whichever is earlier, until the start of trial.” United States v. Battis, 589 F.3d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750, 764 (3d Cir. 1993) at 760). “We have previously held that a delay of even fourteen months is sufficient to trigger review of the remaining Barker factors. Id. (citing Hakeem, 990 F.2d at 760).

Stephanatos has endured what is undeniably an “extraordinary delay” in awaiting trial.  Seven years have elapsed since he was detained by the government on June 28, 2011, and he still has not had his trial day in court.  Courts assessing Sixth Amendment speedy trial claims have consistently branded as “extraordinary,” “excessive,” “substantial” and “disturbing” multi-year delays between indictment and trial, weighing such delays heavily in the defendant’s favor in the Barker balancing analysis.  See, e.g., Doggett, 505 U.S. at 652, 655, 112 S. Ct. at 2691, 2693 (dismissing with prejudice, after finding an eight-and-one-half year delay between indictment and trial “extraordinary” and “excessive”); Barker, 407 U.S. at 533, 534, 92 S. Ct. at 2193-94 (dismissing with prejudice after finding “clear[ly] . . . extraordinary” an over five-year pre-trial delay); United States v. Carini, 562 F.2d at 148 (dismissing with prejudice after deeming a 34-month pre-trial delay “disturbing”); United States v. New Buffalo Amusement Corp., 600 F.2d 368, 377 (2d Cir. 1979) (dismissing with prejudice after ruling that a pre-trial delay of “four and one-half years is unquestionably substantial”); United States v. Bergfeld, 280 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissing with prejudice after quoting trial court finding that “[f]ive years well exceeds a length of time that might be held to be presumptively excessive”). Indeed, under the Barker analysis, delays of just one year are “presumptively prejudicial.” Doggett at 505 U.S. at 652 n.1, 112 S. Ct. at 2690 n.1.

“There is no set length of time that fixes the point at which delay is excessive.” State v. Tsetsekas, 411 N.. Super. at 12.  In Cahill, the Court instructed that a gauge to a “presumptively prejudicial” delay is “the amount of time customarily required to dispose of similar charges.”  State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. at 265.  Here, this is an assault case that involves only one defendant.  It is not a complicated case and the state is not performing further investigation into the facts of case.  In fact, the state had finished its investigation in 2011.  It should have taken no more than 2 years for the adjudication this case. In State v. Tsetsekas, the Court found that 344 days, “more than five times the stated [Supreme Court] objective” … weighted heavily for the defense. State v. Tsetsekas, 411 N.J. Super. at 11. See also United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413, 1417 (9th Cir.1986) (six-month delay is a “borderline case”).  See also United States v. Velazquez, 749 F.3d 161, 174 (3d Cir. 2014): “In weighing all the factors, we concluded that the [6.5 year] delay violated Velazquez’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that dismissal of the indictment was required”. Id. at 186.

Here, there is a more than 2,450-day (81-month) delay since the indictment in September 2011 and most of the delays have been caused by the failure of the judge(s) to timely rule on motions to change venue (it took 3 years to rule on that motion and only after continued inquiries by the Defendant) and by at least 2 or 3 changes in the Passaic County prosecutors on the case (this caused an additional 2 years in delays attributed solely to the state).  Thus, the case must be dismissed with prejudice.  These enormous delays are presumptively prejudicial, considering that the defendant is a licensed expert witness whose reputation has been tarnished by the charges and cannot earn a living.  Even worse, the physical setting of the property where the alleged offense occurred has been drastically changed by the new owner of the property and the jurors will not be able to assess the truthfulness of what the sheriff employees claim.  Judge Guida in his oral opinion referred to this torturous delay as “almost unconscionable”.  This factor weights very heavily in favor of the Defendant.

Assertion of Right

The Defendant first asserted his right to speedy trial before Judge Filko and Judge Reddin in 2012.  He also continued to assert his speedy trial rights throughout the proceedings.  In addition, a defendant does not have an obligation to assert his right to a speedy trial because he is under no obligation to bring himself to trial. Cahill, at 266. Court delays are charged to the State, not to the Defendant. State v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super. at 450-451.  This factor weights in favor of the Defendant.

Reason for the Delay

The government bears the burden of justifying the delay in bringing a defendant to trial. Battis, 589 F.3d at 680 (citing Hakeem, 990 F.2d at 770). “In evaluating this factor, we subtract the amount of delay caused by the defendant from the delay caused by the Government.” Id. (citing United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 1998)). In Battis, we set forth the three categories of delay and the resulting weight each carries against the government: (1) “A deliberate effort by the Government to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense weighs heavily against the government;” (2) “A more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts also weighs against the Government, though less heavily;” and (3) “a valid reason, such as a missing witness, should serve to justify appropriate delay.” Id. at 679 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “By contrast, delay caused by the defense weighs against the defendant.” Id. at 680 (internal quotation marks omitted).

This case has a very detailed record that explains that most of the delays have been caused by the government, and particularly the courts in delaying the adjudication of the Motion to Change Venue.  It took 6.5 years for the courts to correctly decide on that motion to change venue filed in early 2013.

There have been several judges assigned to this case since 2011:

·         Judge Reddin (from October 2011 to November 2011)

·         Judge Filko (from November 2011 to March 2012)

·         Judge Yablonsky (from March 2012 to May 2012)

·         Judge de la Carrera (from mid-2012 to May 2016);

·         Judge Caposela (from May 2016 to September 2018, after removing Judge de la Carrera from the case for failing to timely rule on motions);

·         Judge Clark (from September 2017 to December 2017)

·         Judge Guida (from February 2018 to present)

Judge De la Carrera never addressed the 2013 Motion to Change Venue until late 2015. It took the judge three years to decide a motion that only should take few minutes to few days to decide.  Due to the case delays caused by the judge, the assignment Judge Ernest Caposela removed Judge De la Carrera from the case in May 2016.  Therefore, these 3 years of delays are attributed to the state and not the Defendant. 

After that, Judge Marilyn C. Clark took over the case, but determined that the case was improperly kept in the Passaic Vicinage and should have been transferred to another county due to the conflicts of interest and to avoid the appearance of improprieties. The case was transferred to Judge James Guida in Bergen County for adjudication in January 2018.  So, we have an additional 2 years of delays from the firing of Judge De la Carrera to the transfer of the case to Judge Guida.  The Defendant has nothing to do with these delays.  These additional 2 years of delays are squarely the fault of the court(s).

In February 2018, Judge Guida stated in his Chambers to Mr. Feinstein that all the delays are attributed to the court(s) and not to the defense.  Judge Guida also repeated this statement in open court that same day.  In a stunning reversal of that statement, Judge Guida stated on May 24, 2018 that the case delays are attributed to the Defendant, when in fact Defendant has been asking for a speedy trial since the hearing before Judge Filko in 2011 and was sent to jail for 64 days between March and May 2016, because he asked too many times for the judge(s) to expedite the case.  On June 4, 2018, the trial court corrected the record to state that Mr. Feinstein that only asked for 31 adjournments and not the 80 adjournments assigned to him on May 24, 2018.  Therefore, the majority (44+) adjournments were caused by the courts and not the defendant. 

The government's negligence or recklessness, which is the reason for the delay, weighs in Stephanatos’ favor.   See Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. 2182 (the government's negligence should weigh less heavily in defendant's favor than does a deliberate delay, but “nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant”).

A mere presence of court backlog or overcrowded case load is insufficient to justify delay by prosecution. United States v. Goeltz, 513 F. 2d 193, 197, (10th cir. 1975).   Here, Judge De la Carrera took almost 3 years to decide a Motion to Change Venue, instead of deciding it within 30 days or less- that is clear negligence or recklessness in performing his judicial duties. He was in fact removed from the case by the Assignment Judge Ernest Caposela due to such recklessness.   And even worse, he decided the motion to change the venue incorrectly, due to the significant conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety by having sheriff employees and a judge or two still working at the Courthouse in Passaic County and being also witness for the state- this is also evidence of negligence.  These delays and squarely wrong decisions on the Motion to Change Venue, cannot possibly be attributed to the Defendant; yet Judge Guida indicated that all the delays are attributed to the defendant!  This is a 180-degree reversal of what Judge Guida said in the February 8, 2018 hearing when he stated that “the delays are not attributed to the defense or the prosecution, but they are attributed to us [the judiciary]”. 

To the extent that the Defendant's counsel waived time or requested continuances, this would not be attributed to Defendant, due to counsel's actions contradicting the best interest of Defendant.  Regardless of Defendant being bound by counsel's actions, defense continuances don't excuse lengthy delays in the disposition of a case. United States v. Lam, 251 F. 3d 852 (9th Cir. 2001).  

Defense attorneys cannot unilaterally continue cases. Continuances can only be accomplished with the agreement of the prosecution or the court.

Even more important, the defense continuances that Judge Guida cited were in fact approved by the prosecutor(s) and the court.  If the prosecutors or the court had any problem with the continuances, they should have objected; but they did not – they went along with them.  Judge Guida made a huge, enormous, gigantically enormous crucial error in assigning the delay caused by continuances to the Defendant.  It was all on the Judge(s) and the prosecutor who agreed to those continuances.  There is no record that shows that Defendant signed off on any continuance.

It is important to note that on May 24, 2018, Judge Guida claimed that Miles Feinstein applied for 80 continuances out of a total of more than 100.  However, upon reconsideration, the trial court admitted that Mr. Feinstein only applied for 31 continuances, out of a total of 75.  Yet, Judge Guida failed to reverse his order denying the dismissal of the indictment; this a clear abuse of discretion.  The judge claimed that he had a special order from the Chief Justice to bring the case to trial.  Defendant is speechless, as the Chief Justice cannot possibly ordered Judge Guida to violate the speedy trial rights of the Defendant.

Defense attorneys and Defendant have no power.  Defense counsel can only react to the system that the courts and the prosecution have consciously devised or that has evolved over the decades.  It was squarely the responsibility of the judge and the prosecutor to prevent the 7-year delay in the case and not that of Miles Feinstein or the Defendant.

The record shows that the Defendant continued to send letters to Judge De la Carrera and, when he was removed from the case, to Judge Ernest Caposela, asking for his speedy trial rights.  After De la Carrera was removed from the case in May 2016 by Judge Caposela (I was told that this was a truly remarkable and unprecedented event in the history of the Passaic County court), it has taken another two (2) years to reach the point we are now.  And only because Defendant continued to inquire with Judge Caposela regarding the adjudication of the case on a speedy basis.

In addition to that correspondence, the defendant has been asking his former lawyer Mr. Miles Feinstein, Esq. on a weekly basis to move forward with the case on a speedy basis and to inform the Court that the defendant wanted to exercise his speedy trial rights.  Therefore, this balancing factor weighs in defendant’s favor, because Defendant was not the reason for the delays.

The trial court also conveniently ignored the crucial fact that the former prosecutor on the case, Peter Roby was removed from the case in June 2016 and a new prosecutor was assigned (Mr. Nubar Kasaryan).  After one to two years, a new prosecutor was assigned to the case (Mr. Stephen Bollenbach).  Thus, the trial court’s statement that the state prosecutors did not cause any delays and was always ready to proceed with the trial, is clearly erroneous.  Equally important, the state has not complied with the discovery requests of the Defendant.

On November 6, 2017, after having been assigned the case from Judge Caposela, Judge Marilyn C. Clark indicated that the case will be transferred to Bergen County Courthouse for adjudication due to the conflicts of interest that were described in Defendant’s 2012 Motion to Change Venue.  Judge Clark and Judge Caposela were dumbfounded as to why the case was not transferred at the time (2012) to another county due to the significant conflicts of interest, involving at least 5 or so sheriff employees still working at the Passaic County Courthouse who would be witnesses for the state; and the former Chancery Court Judge McVeigh would also be a witness for the state.  Then, in late December 2017, after another request by the Defendant to expedite the case, the presiding Judge Marilyn Clark transferred the case to Bergen County (the case transfer order was signed by Judge Caposela).

Based on these facts, the Defendant has done everything humanely possible to expedite the adjudication of the case.  All these case transfer delays were caused by the state judiciary in wrongly deciding the Motion to Change Venue and are squarely attributed to the State.  Court delays are charged to the State, not to the Defendant. State v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super. at 450-451.  Yet, Judge Guida attributed the delays to the Defendant!  This is an extraordinary error committed by the trial court, requiring reversal.

I report below a state case where the charges were dismissed because the state failed to provide discovery to the defendant for 531 days (about 1.45 years).  Here, we did not have complete discovery despite the passing of seven years since the events of June 28, 2011. The Appeals court reasoned that the defendant's speedy trial rights were violated even though the defense attorney wasn't "energetic in his demands" for discovery. State V. Downs, Docket No. A-0, N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Div., February 14, 2014.

See also the April 2014 letter to Judge De la Carrera where he stated:

Thus, my concern is that if it takes more than a year to rule on a motion to change venue, how long will it take to adjudicate the 25+ motions we have put together for dismissal of the tainted and/or fraudulently procured indictment?  I have suffered significant economic and non-economic damages and I continue to suffer significant economic and non-economic damages every day this case is delayed.   I am urging this Court to read these documents into the record, including my concerns with all the delays in proceeding with the motions. 

Source: Letter from the Defendant to Judge De la Carrera, dated April 21, 2014.

This Court also stated that the Defendant should have fired his lawyer.  But Defendant did just that many times, as is evidenced in the October 12, 2015 letter to Judge de la Carrera, entitled, “The Decision to Remove Mr. Feinstein from the Case”..  Here is an excerpt from that letter:

For the last 4 years Mr. Feinstein has been giving me one excuse after the other, delaying the adjudication of the case.  Upon my numerous inquiries and complaints about these unacceptable delays, he did blame this court for the case delays; he suggested that we file a complaint or ask for the disqualification of this court for failing to rule on a simple motion to change venue over a period of 3 years. 

Source: Defendant’s letter to Judge De la Carrera, dated October 12, 2015.

Therefore, the Appellate Court must realize the superhuman efforts of the Defendant to assert his speedy trial rights.  Despite this significant effort, Judge Guida claimed that the overwhelming delays in this case were caused by the Defendant!  This is very significant and highly prejudicial reversible error committed by Judge Guida, requiring reversal of that decision.  The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss the indictment.

In State v. Merlino, 153 N.J. Super. 12, 17 (App. Div. 1977) the Appellate Division ruled that A determination by a trial judge on whether defendant was deprived of right to speedy trial should not be overturned unless "clearly erroneous."   Here, the factual determinations by the trial court are clearly erroneous, necessitating an overturning of that determination.

Prejudice

In Cahill, the Court explained that the “minimization of anxiety attributable to unresolved charges” is one of the interests the speedy trial right is designed to protect. Id. at 266. “A speedy trial violation can be established without evidence of prejudice.” Id. at 274 (citing State v. Farrell, supra., 320 N.J. Super. at 446. The Cahill Court explained, “every unresolved case carries with it some measure of anxiety.” Id.  “This is particularly true when one of the sanctions [for DWI is] a license suspension.” Id.

The court instructed in State v. Farrell, “prejudice to a defendant resulting from delay is no longer confined to inability to defend on the merits.  Prejudice can also be found from employment interruptions, public obloquy, anxieties concerning the continued and unresolved prosecution and the like.” State v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super. at 452.  Likewise, the Court in Tsetsekas recognized that “significant prejudice may also arise when the delay causes the loss of employment or other opportunities, humiliation, the anxiety in awaiting disposition of the pending charges, the drain in finances incurred for payment of counsel or expert witness fees and the other costs and inconveniences far in excess of what would have been reasonable under more acceptable circumstances. State v. Tsetsekas, 411 N.J. Super. at 13.

The fourth factor, prejudice, is presumed since the seven-year delay from arrest to trial is wholly chargeable to the government. See, e.g., United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332, 1340 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding in a case of a two-year post-indictment delay that the defendant “need not demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the delay” because “[t]he first three Barker factors all weigh heavily against the Government.”).

Here, Defendant has suffered very significant losses of employment, as employers performed background checks and refused to hire defendant, even after they made employment offers.  In addition, defendant lost several professional licenses due to the outstanding charges, leading to further economic losses.  Defendant also has not been able to obtain state licenses (including the New Jersey Licensed Site Remediation Professional license) to do professional work because of the pending, unresolved charges.   Even worse, Defendant was scheduled to sit for the California Bar exam in July 2011.  Defendant lost also this ability to sit for the bar exam due to the events of June 28, 2011.  Several New Jersey licensing boards even denied defendant the application to sit for exams, causing defendant to lose very significant business and/or employment opportunities.  The net result of these prolonged delays is potentially multi-million dollars in economic damages, anxiety and enormous stress in both the financial and personal life of the Defendant.

As a professional expert engineer, defendant has also suffered irreparable reputation loss that essentially destroyed his career that he worked many decades to build.   These unresolved (not to mention fraudulent) charges have destroyed the Defendant economically and reputationaly.  Due to these losses and the continued and unresolved prosecution Defendant suffers from anxiety, humiliation and withdrawal from social events.  Both his personal and professional life is essentially destroyed by the failed resolution of the pending wrongful charges.

As was also explained under the section “The Reason for the Delay”, the long delay has already prejudiced the defendant because the landscaping at the subject dwelling where Lucas was peering through the side window has been changed through the removal of the yews and rhododendrons and the big planters and the pet tower.  Furthermore, defendant is prejudiced because he has been concerned that along with the bushes, the sheriff may have destroyed videotaped and audiotaped evidence that is exculpatory to the defendant. 

These are some very serious prejudices that hamper the defendant’s defense and they are the sole creation of the state. Therefore, this factor also weighs heavily in favor of the Defendant.

Conclusion

In a 180-degree reversal of his February 8, 2018 statement in Chambers to Mr. Miles Feinstein and in open court, Judge Guida erroneously attributed most of the 2,500-day (81-month) delay in the case to the Defendant by falsifying the continuance records; this is unfathomed and goes against the factual record cited herein.  When Judge Guida was confronted with the correct evidence showing that Mr. Feinstein only adjourned the case 31 out of 75 times, then Judge Guida changed his tune and said that he has a special order to bring the case to trial.  This is clearly erroneous.  Later, on June 13, 2018 during a hearing after a Motion to Recuse based on Disqualification, Judge Guida admitted that he had no special order from the Chief Justice to bring the case to trial.

The factual determinations made by Judge Guida were in clear error and highly prejudicial, especially after he failed to state that there has been already a change of several prosecutors on the case, causing delays.  The failure to dismiss the indictment is an abuse of discretion. The finding of no speedy trial right violation was a clear error.  All these errors and abuse of discretion require reversal.

In Carini, the Second Circuit charged to the government various delays for reasons less egregious than here.  The Court found that the great bulk of a 34-month delay was attributable to a judge’s illnesses, “the court’s summer recesses, unexplained inaction of the District Court, caused, no doubt, by an overloaded docket,” and the disqualification and death of other judges. Carini, 562 F.2d at 149.  All of this delay was charged to the government, although none of it was attributed to some improper government intent. Id.; see also New Buffalo Amusement Corp., 600 F.2d at 377-80 (finding a four-and-one-half year delay -- attributable to government inaction, over-crowded dockets, and “the trial court’s failure to rule expeditiously on appellants’ motions[]” -- warranted dismissal with prejudice).

 See also United States v. Pennick, 2^nd Circuit, 16-3069-cr, Nov. 2017, where the District Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the indictment with prejudice because 6.5 and almost 8 years had passed since they issued their decisions.  The Second Circuit said that “Although some delay can be attributed to Pennick, such as delays arising from retaining four different attorneys, some delay can also be attributed to the government, such as for twice superseding the indictment, and much of the delay can be attributed to the court, as it candidly acknowledged, such as the delay in deciding motions. ʺWhile the government may have had little control over the ʹinstitutional delaysʹ more appropriately attributable to the court, ʹthe ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than the defendant.ʹʺ  cf. United States v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 85 (2d Cir. 2016) (commending the district courtʹs ʺhonest and unequivocal acceptance of responsibilityʺ for a Speedy Trial Act violation, but noting that ʺthe mere fact that a speedy trial violation is attributable to the court and not the government does not expunge that violation, nor does it automatically render the violation any less serious.ʺ).

Therefore, based on the above factual and legal record, the Court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis and against the vast number of similar cases from all federal circuit courts and courts of this state.  It is obvious that the trial court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence.  Therefore, reversal of the trial court’s May 24, 2018 order is required to correct these extraordinary factual and legal errors committed by Judge Guida, necessitating the dismissal of the indictment.

 

PROOFS THAT LUCAS, D’AGOSTINO AND OTHER PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF EMPLOYEES LIED UNDER OATH, FABRICATED THEIR STORIES TO FRAME DR. STEPHANATOS; PROOFS THAT PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTORS STATEMENTS TO THE GRAND JURORS WERE INTENTIONALLY FALSE OR WITH A COMPLETE RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, AND THE STATEMENTS WERE MATERIAL AND SUCH STATEMENTS DIRECTLY SUPPORTED ELEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSES

RONALD A. LUCAS USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY AND FALSE, FABRICATED OR FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE TO MISLEAD THE GRAND JURORS AND HELP INDICT AN INNOCENT HOMEOWNER

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 eight (8) different scenarios of what happened during the morning of June 28, 2011.  That is, eight (8) different scenarios they present in 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, Robert Del Vecchio, ATF, LLC and others after hiring the Passaic County Sheriff using a default writ of possesion that is only valid for uncontested cases and vacant homes.  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.  Nick Mango 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.  Although we do not know the location of Lucas from the investigatory reports, Lucas claims that 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 8:55 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 8:50 am and earlier.  Lucas 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 Robby.  Lucas also claimed that he saw a “shotgun”, but no “shotgun” was ever found.  In yet another version, Lucas and D’Agostino state and write that they thought that the plastic Pelican case was an IED or a bomb!

I also bring to the Court’s attention of NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1 (2013) - Certain actions relevant to evictions, disorderly persons offense that deal specifically with residential real properties.   That statute also states that a Warrant is required for residential properties.  The sheriff committed a criminal offense in violation of that statute by entering Defendant’s property without a warrant for removal and removing him from his residential premises.

A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, after being warned by a law enforcement or other public official of the illegality of that action, the person (1) takes possession of residential real property or effectuates a forcible entry or detainer of residential real property without lawful execution of a warrant for possession in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of P.L.1974, c.47 (C.2A:42-10.16) or without the consent of the occupant solely in possession of the residential real property.  NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1

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, Motion to Change Venue).

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.

In fact, in the Search Warrant prepared by Detective Scala, he writes that “CPL. Lucas relates that upon knocking on the front entrance door of the residence”.  So, there you have it:  Lucas included statements in a sworn affidavit that he actually knocked the front entrance door.

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 because I have a mild form of Asperger’s.).  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.  These actions of the antitrust conspirators was part of the scheme to defraud homeowners (including Dr. Stephanatos) of the property.

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 (they state that there were four of them) 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.

In fact, the purpose of these four officers was to “secure the house”. See Lt. Nicholas Mango’s report, dated June 29, 2011.  Mango wrote that “we told the ATF, LLC property manager to stand by at the entrance to Manitou Estates”, “until we secured the house”.  The officers also came carrying MI-16 assault rifles, proving the aggressive behavior of these people.

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, Nick Mango 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.  Mango 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 Mango 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).  Lying Lucas then changed his story and after he had a chance to see the defendant’s lawful guns, he claimed that he saw a rifle, instead.

I also bring to the Court’s attention of NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1 (2013) - Certain actions relevant to evictions, disorderly persons offense that deal specifically with residential real properties.   That statute also states that a Warrant is required for residential properties.  The sheriff committed a criminal offense in violation of that statute by entering Defendant’s property without a warrant for removal and removing him from his residential premises.

A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, after being warned by a law enforcement or other public official of the illegality of that action, the person (1) takes possession of residential real property or effectuates a forcible entry or detainer of residential real property without lawful execution of a warrant for possession in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of P.L.1974, c.47 (C.2A:42-10.16) or without the consent of the occupant solely in possession of the residential real property.  NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1

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 8:50 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 cooling energy.  My home was located in a heavily wooded area of Wayne, NJ and it is very humid during the summer;  it is imperative that the doors and windows stay closed!

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 (I believe circa 1996).  The burglary was the reason that I decided to legally purchase guns for self-protection and protection of my business, as packages had been stolen from the front steps.  Thus, the lack of hearing and the fear of burglary and stolen packages or instruments, 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 to explain my whereabouts.

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 and that he left this metal ammunition box in his front steps!  This was highly prejudicial fabrication by the corrupt Passaic County prosecutors and Lucas/D’Agostino.  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 IED 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 liars 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 in the 2015 Motions to Dismiss, 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 inform the grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos wanted 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 law of New Jersey.  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).  In fact, in the Search Warrant prepared by Detective Scala, he writes that “CPL. Lucas relates that upon knocking on the front entrance door of the residence”.  So, there you have it:  Lucas included statements in a sworn affidavit that he actually knocked the front entrance door.

The sheriff investigation reports show that other sheriff employees wrote that “somebody answered the door”.  These statements corroborate Dr. Stephanatos’ recollection that Mango (D’Agostino) 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.

I must add that even the statement that “Lucas knocked the front door” is false, for the main reason that you cannot knock the front door because there is a glass storm door in front of the front wooden door.

Lucas Lie #6

After peering inside the dwelling, Lucas (Mango) 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

I also bring to the Court’s attention of NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1 (2013) - Certain actions relevant to evictions, disorderly persons offense that deal specifically with residential real properties.   That statute also states that a Warrant is required for residential properties.  The sheriff committed a criminal offense in violation of that statute by entering Defendant’s property without a warrant for removal and removing him from his residential premises.

A person commits a disorderly persons offense if, after being warned by a law enforcement or other public official of the illegality of that action, the person (1) takes possession of residential real property or effectuates a forcible entry or detainer of residential real property without lawful execution of a warrant for possession in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of P.L.1974, c.47 (C.2A:42-10.16) or without the consent of the occupant solely in possession of the residential real property.  NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-11.1

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 with MI-16 assault rifles and prejudiced against me (based on the testimony by Lucas and the reports by Mango and Ernst) 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 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/Mago 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.

Furthermore, Lucas and D’Agostino testified/wrote that they split in two different directions.  Lucas/Mango 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 Mango 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 Mango 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.

MORE PROOFS OF PERJURY BY LUCAS AND D’AGOSTINO

In paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala “that upon knocking on the front entrance door of the residence”.  See excerpt from the warrant affidavit, Defense Exhibit D-11.  This statement to Detective Scala fully corroborates Dr. Stephanatos’ statements that his front door was closed – very closed – with a lock and deadbolt closed.

However, in his June 28, 2011 report prepared by Cpl. Lucas, he writes the following: “As we proceeded toward the front door I ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the front wood door was open and a glass storm door made the interior of the house visible to me”.  “At that moment a man came from the hallway with a long object in his left hand”.

The statement by Lucas to Detective Scala is diametrically different than the statements given by Lucas and D’Agostino at the grand jury proceedings and also wrote in their reports: that they did not knock the door and they were assaulted as they were coming up the front porch steps and they were able to see everything so nicely and so clearly because the front door was magically open (that stupid Dr. Stephanatos, he should have left his door closed! (sarcasm here)). 

This is the front door of Dr. Stephanatos’ home.  All the planters to the right and drapes have been removed, including the pet playing tower placed inside door and facing the side storm window.  Note the significant sun glare, as this is a North/Northeast facing door.  Nobody can see inside the house due to the glare.  This is an extremely important fact.

So, based on these diametrically different statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied.  At the point at which the prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the grand jury, the prosecutor was under a duty to notify the court and the grand jury, to correct the cancer of justice that had become apparent to him.  But he did not.  Welcome to Passaic County!

Furthermore, in his grand jury testimony, Officer Lucas identified the “Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber Winchester single bullet hunting rifle” as being the weapon that the defendant pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13; Da15, Motion to Change Venue).  It is critical to note that the hunting rifle is a BROWN COLOR GUN.  However, in section 2 of paragraph 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala that he saw a “BLACK COLORED RIFLE”.  Therefore, the affidavit paragraph 4, section 2 included a material false statement that was included with reckless disregard for the truth.  So, again the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied before the grand jury when he selected a different color gun than the one he related to Detective Scala.

I respectfully submit to this Court that the statements made by Lucas in the early moments of the June 28, 2011 events are closer to the truth (but not quite the truth), than his fabrications that are start pouring in later in the day and afterwards.  For example, Lt. Nick Mango wrote in his report that “nobody was hurt”.  Also, Lucas never wrote in his report that he was injured.  He specifically wrote:  “As I entered the woods I stumbled”. However, during this grand jury testimony, he provided a diametrically different picture:

Lucas claimed that he fell on his elbow and shoulder, but was able to regain his balance, and he ran into a wooded area to seek cover behind a large boulder. (GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion to Change Venue).  Lucas claimed that he tore his biceps and had surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty severe injury” in his shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8, Motion to Change Venue).  Of course we now know that this guy was a football player and body builder and suffered these injuries over his many years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents with his shoulder (he was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals).  He then went on the defraud the New Jersey Police and Firemen Retirement Fund by claiming on the job disability.  What a crook!

AND NOW THE BOMBSHELL OF THE CENTURY

Lucas Lie #8

All the above lies and fabrications and inconsistencies make one wonder:  how is it possible these sheriff employees made so many mistakes in recollection of 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, Nick Mango.  Proof of that it was Nick Mango illegally peering through the side window is found in the signed statement by Ronald Lucas that it was Nick Mango who was at the front door.  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 said during the grand jury and between what D’Agostino wrote and said.

Defendant Basilis N. Stephanatos, Pro Se, has in his possession a letter signed by former Cpl. Ronald Lucas (#964) where he states that it was Lt. Nick Mango who was at the front door.  He specifically stated the following “Lt mango stated owner came to door…”.  See Defense Exhibit D-1, filed with this Court in March 2018.

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

However, should the above evidence is not sufficient to immediately dismiss all charges against the Defendant, Dr. Stephanatos is asking that Judge Guida orders an urgent hearing to cross-examine the four (4) officers involved:  Ronald A. Lucas, Victor D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Capt. Fred Ernst.  This hearing can happen on May 21, 2018. 

The lying corrupt thug, Ronad A. Lucas.

Lucas Filed False Charges

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.  In fact, Metropolitan Environmental Services had correspondence with the Passaic County Sheriff’s office indicating that they are a tenant;  the Sheriff’s office responded and stated that they not removal tenants.  So, the sheriffs knew that there was business on the premises;  these are fraudulent charges that make the Passaic County prosecutors look very stupid and/or malicious.

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.  So, this is another proof that Lucas falsified his police reports and wrote falsehoods in his official papers.

THIS IS VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATION AND THIS COURT MUST PERFORM AN URGENT FACTUAL INVESTIGATION (AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS WAS REQUESTED UNDER MOTION #30).

LUCAS LIED DURING HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WHEN HE CLAIMED THAT HE INJURED HIS LEFT SHOULDER DURING A FALL AT MY PROPERTY ON JUNE 28, 2011

Lying Lucas is #41

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

Bombshell evidence contradicting Lying Lucas’ injury claims: We have obtained a report by Lt. Nick Mango who stated that nobody was injured at the scene.  The report by Lucas also states that he stumbled and not fell.

We discovered that Mr. Lucas suffered shoulder injuries while playing football and lifting heavy weights over his lifetime.  He was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals (he played at position #41), using his shoulder to hit and tackle his opponents during practice and during football games.  He also lifted very heavy weights to do body building.  Lucas has fallen on his shoulder probably thousand times during his athletic and training career.

Everybody knows that linebackers hit and tackle their opponents using their shoulders.  These athletes also lift heavy weights and they end-up injuries their shoulders.   He (Lucas) even made the All County Team in 1980, showing how hard he was working out.  Based on our investigation, we found that weight lifting athletes do suffer shoulder injuries of the type claimed by Lucas.

He also trained his two sons (Dean Lucas and Ronnie Lucas) into playing TE and DE positions also with the Cardinals football team.  In fact, linebackers suffer at least 13.5 percent of all football injuries and at least 65 percent of the linebackers end up undergoing surgery.

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

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

The Eight 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.  Besides, I do not believe that the prosecutor will bring these two liars to testify and risk being convicted of perjury.  Right now, they are safe, as the statute of limitations for perjury has run, since they made these sworn fabrications before the grand jury in September 2011.

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 “black colored” gun and then he changed his story yet again and now claims that he saw a brown colored single-shot Ruger hunting rifle; in another version he claims that he saw a bomb or an IED 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 (Metropolitan Environmental Services) 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. 

THE LIES, 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.  See attached image of the front door of the dwelling, showing that no window is present.

(I denied that I was standing behind the storm door:  I have stated many times that I was in my office doing my business, I have the computer records to prove it, those records were submitted to the prosecutors, and I kept the doors of the home locked with a deadbolt). 

But the prosecutor asked D’Agostino if I was pointing a gun “out the window”.  Then D’Agostino said “yes”.  See Grand Jury Transcripts, Motion to Change Venue. 

This is the front door of Dr. Stephanatos’ home.  All the planters to the right and drapes have been removed, including the pet playing tower placed inside door and facing the side storm window.  The Court should also note the sun glare, making impossible to see inside the home.  The door faces the north-northeast.

This Court should note that there is no opening window in the front porch- that was another misleading and prejudicial question by the corrupt Passaic County prosecutor.  The prosecutors obviously wanted to mislead and lie to the grand jury by stating that the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a window, something that the two sheriff employees never wrote in their reports, as no window was involved.  In fact, Lucas never testified or wrote that the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a window.  The corrupt prosecutor Walter Dewey elicited this statement from D’Agostino only.  Certainly this is a 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 have left 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 (see aerial map of the property, dated October 2015, showing a heavily wooded area with less than two nearby homes within a 100 feet distance.  This home is post-seizure and the new occupant did a significant amount of wood clearing, all around the property). 

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 property.  He refused to do so and presented numerous lies and fabrications and perjured testimony, refused to provide the defense of the dwelling (the Castle Doctrine) statutory defense, the defense of his business (Metropolitan Environmental Services) that was a legal tenant of the premises, and other clearly exculpatory evidence.

MORE EVIDENCE OF LIES AND FABRICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURTS

Here is more evidence of perjured testimony and false certifications provided by the prosecutor to the appellate division:

In his certification, the prosecutor wrote that the officers lunged to the ground and one of them injured his shoulder and bicep.

However, Lucas wrote in his report that “as I entered the woods, I stumbled”. 

Furthermore, D’Agostino never wrote that he lunged to the ground.  He also never testified that he lunged to the ground.

These criminals know that the only way to win this case is through lies and lies and more lies.  However, as the old saying goes, “you lie, you lose”.

FALSE AND/OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS MADE BY ROBERT DEL VECCHIO AND OTHERS, DEPICTING DR. STEPHANATOS AS A VIOLENT PERSON WHO HAD THREATENED HIM WITH VIOLENCE

In addition to the fraudulent activities of which they have been convicted, ATF, LLC, Robert Del Vecchio and other antitrust conspirators have been filing fraudulent certifications with the courts and other agencies of this State.  The conspiracy was not just limited to the bid rigging of which Judge Michael Shipp found them liable in his October 2014 decision.

Part of the antitrust conspirators activities were to illegally force Dr. Stephanatos from his residence.  To that effect, in addition to the fraudulent statements made to Judge McVeigh that he actually owned taxes since 1993 and that there are no issues requiring trial or fact finding, they also provided damaging fraudulent statements to Judge McVeigh, to Passaic County Sheriff, and others, as follows:

Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. (the lawyer for ATF, LLC) stated to Passaic County sheriff that Dr. Stephanatos had threatened Robert Del Vecchio with violence few days prior the June 28, 2011 events.  This was absolutely false and fraudulent and highly prejudicial statement.  Apparently, in May or June 2011, a person named Robert Del Vecchio, Jr of Passaic County, New Jersey (he is a lawyer for ATF, LLC and he is the one who made the fraudulent self-certification to the Acting Law Clerk in Mercer County that the Defendant had no possessory rights) lied to the Passaic County Sheriff when he claimed that threats were made to him by a person named Basilis (or Basil) Stephanatos of Wayne, New Jersey (also residing at the time in Passaic County). 

Apparently, based on the Grand Jury presentation, Del Vecchio said to sheriff's officer Ronald A. Lucas (this is based on Lucas’ grand jury testimony) that Basilis Stephanatos had threatened him with violence few days prior to a scheduled illegal “eviction” on June 28, 2011 (no ejectment action had been filed in the Law Division, so these people had no authority to remove Dr. Stephanatos from his residence and place of business – his business was also not part of the proceedings and could not have been removed from the premises- but they did it anyway). 

As a result, Del Vecchio asked that several sheriff officers (including Lucas who was allegedly a Sworn Law Enforcement Officer) dispatch to the location of the Stephanatos' residence located at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07670.  The Passaic County Officers then went to Dr. Stephanatos’ residence armed with MI-16 assault rifles (this is based on the reports and testimony of Lucas, D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred Ernst).

Specifically, Del Vecchio told Cpl. Lucas that Basilis Stephanatos had told him that he "will be fucked in the ass by a 5-ft. long rhinoceros dick" if you try to evict him from his residence.

These accusations of threats of violence that Del Vecchio made were absolutely false.  According to information available to the Passaic County Sheriff and the State from the Defendant’s seized computers, Basilis Stephanatos never threatened Robert Del Vecchio with physical violence because he never had any contact or communication with him during that time. 

Here is what happened:

In 2008, Robert Del Vecchio put a lien onto Basilis Stephanatos' residential property for unpaid taxes that Stephanatos was disputing due to alleged over assessment of his residence (in fact, after the seizure of the Stephanatos' property, Del Vecchio and ATF sold it for $330,000 which is the fair market value of the property.  However, the property was assessed by Wayne Township at $475,000.  This is about 40 percent greater over-assessment and thus no taxes were legally owed by Basilis Stephanatos- tragic, tragic, tragic situation).  In accordance with New Jersey law, any tax sale certificates, liens, judgements, etc. were VOID AB INITIO, and not just merely voidable.  The Chancery Court never issued an application of the law to the facts in violation of Rule 1:7-4(a).  Furthermore, R. 4:64-6 states that in foreclosure of tax sale certificates, if the defendant's answer sets up the defense of the invalidity of the tax or other lien, or the invalidity of the proceedings to sell, or the invalidity of the sale, those questions shall be tried in the action.  However, here there is neither fact finding nor a trial on any of the issues raised by Dr. Stephanatos.  The result was that the Court failed to balance the equities of the parties.

Claims for equitable relief typically require the trial court to balance the equities of the parties.  Such balancing of equities involves a weighing of the evidence, which is inappropriate on summary judgment.  The Chancery court should have weighed the equities to determine whether the resulting unconstitutional forfeiture withstand equitable scrutiny.

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

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

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

Mary Christmas and Happy the New Year."

The letters sent by Basilis Stephanatos to Robert Del Vecchio are included in Defense Exhibit D-1.

Therefore, Dr. Stephanatos never threatened Del Vecchio with violence (he only wrote about legal action) and certainly, this was 2.5 years prior to the June 28, 2011 incident.

The Defendant submits to the Court that these lies from Del Vecchio to Lucas were made as an excuse to ask for the presence of law enforcement officers and for them to perform the illegal removal of Dr. Stephanatos from his residence and place of business.  However, all these lies were unknown to the Defendant; in other words, Dr. Stephanatos at no time did he know that Robert Del Vecchio had made such fraudulent statements to the Passaic County sheriff. 

It is crucial to note that Del Vecchio made the same false accusations to the then Superior Court Judge Margaret M. McVeigh.  These statements were made on an ex-parte basis, which is illegal and also demonstrates the close relationship of Robert Del Vecchio, American Tax Funding and the former Judge McVeigh.  It was obvious to Dr. Stephanatos that Judge McVeigh was poisoned by the lies and fraudulent statements of Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. and this is the reason she did what she did (or failed to do).

Furthermore, an individual named Donald Fanelli, identified as property manager for ATFH Real Property, LLC also told the Passaic County sheriff that Dr. Stephanatos had made threats to him and that Dr. Stephanatos made the following statements to him:

“I’ m not going anywhere.  I don’t have to pay taxes to Wayne because I don’t have any children in the school system.  If I see you I will fuck you in the ass with a rhinoceros horn.  I ain’t leaving my house for nobody”.  Source: Written and oral statement of Cpl. Ronald Lucas.

Dr. Stephanatos denies that he ever made such threats or statements to anyone. See exhibit D-1 where he wrote a statement to Robert Del Vecchio in 2008 where he threatened him with legal action.  Nothing more than that.

Furthermore, Dr. Stephanatos does not know who Donald Fanelli is.  Doing a google search, we found a Don Fanelli with Coldwell Banker who listed as REO Foreclosure Specialist.  He must have been hired by ATF, LLC to perform the physical removal of Dr. Stephanatos’ belongings and business equipment/supplies from his 687 Indian Road, Wayne, NJ 07670.