EXPLOSIVE BOMBSHELL: MASSIVE PASSAIC COUNTY AND JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY UNCOVERED: PROOFS OF MASSIVE MATERIAL PERJURY BY RONALD A. LUCAS AND VICTOR D’AGOSTINO. THIS PERJURY WAS KNOWN TO THE PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.
MOTION (32) – UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
CUMULATIVE ERRORS, A NEW GRAND JURY SHOULD BE CONVENED PURSUANT TO STATE V. ORECCHIO, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954)
Taken
cumulatively, the legal errors and false testimonies in this case are of such a
magnitude that they undeniably prejudiced the defendant’s rights and, in their
aggregate, rendered the grand jury proceedings totally unfair. Fundamental fairness and constitutional
concepts dictate a dismissal. See State v. Orrechio, 16 N.J. 125
(1954).
The New
Jersey Supreme Court first discussed the concept of cumulative errors in the
context of a criminal trial in State v.
Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954).
When legal errors cumulatively render a grand jury proceeding or trial
unfair, the Constitution requires a new trial. "[W]here any one of several
errors assigned would not in itself be sufficient to warrant a reversal, yet if
all of them taken together justify the conclusion that defendant was not
accorded a fair trial, it becomes the duty of this court to reverse." Id. at 134 (citations omitted).
The
testimonies’ cumulative effect was “clearly capable of producing an unjust
result,” R. 2:10-2, requiring a reversal of defendant’s convictions. See State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 155 (2014) (explaining a court
should reverse a conviction “[w]hen legal errors cumulatively render a trial
unfair” (citing State v. Orecchio, 16
N.J. 125, 129 (1954))).
It is respectfully submitted that there are numerous
serious legal issues raised regarding the unfair grand jury presentation in the
Stephanatos matter.
·
In
part, material false testimony presented to the grand jury by Lucas and
D’Agostino when in fact they were never assaulted by Dr. Stephanatos (and Dr.
Stephanatos has already provided irrefutable proof of the perjury committed by
Lucas who signed a document stating that it was Nick Mango and not himself at
the front door – See Defense Exhibit D-1,
Supplemental Motions to Dismiss, March 2018);
·
Numerous
contradictory investigatory reports were not presented to the grand jurors or
were outright hidden from the grand jurors by the prosecutor;
·
In
paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala “that
upon knocking on the front entrance door of the residence”. See excerpt from the warrant affidavit,
Defense Exhibit D-11. This statement to
Detective Scala fully corroborates Dr. Stephanatos’ statements that his front
door was closed – very closed – with a lock and deadbolt closed.
·
However,
in his June 28, 2011 report prepared by Cpl. Lucas, he writes the following: “As we proceeded toward the front door I
ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the front wood door was open and a glass
storm door made the interior of the house visible to me”. “At
that moment a man came from the hallway with a long object in his left hand”.
·
So,
based on these diametrically different statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew
or should have known that Lucas lied. At
the point at which the prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the
grand jury, the prosecutor was under a duty to notify the court and the grand
jury, to correct the cancer of justice that had become apparent to him. But he did not. This is clear, unequivocal prosecutorial
misconduct for intentionally misleading the grand jury.
·
Furthermore, in his grand jury testimony, Officer Lucas
identified the “Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber Winchester single bullet hunting
rifle” as being the weapon that the defendant pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13;
Da15, Motion to Change Venue). It is
critical to note that the hunting rifle is a BROWN COLORED GUN. However, in section 2 of paragraph 4 of the
Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala that he saw a “BLACK COLORED RIFLE”. So, again the prosecutor knew or should have
known that Lucas lied before the grand jury when he selected a different color
gun than the one he related to Detective Scala.
·
“fake
facts” (the pointing of a gun out a window) cooked up by the prosecutor that
were highly prejudicial to the Defendant;
·
Not
mentioning that this was a residential property in a wooded area of Wayne
Township where less than 5 people and less than 5 dwellings were located
nearby;
·
not
presenting to the Grand Jurors the record of the phone and emails of Dr.
Stephanatos PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT OF
HIS WHEREABOUTS (and refuting the state’s allegations that he was pointing
guns at people and that he was barricaded);
·
the
impermissible mentioning of bombs and IEDs and ammunition boxes during the
grand jury proceeding when in fact the prosecutor and his witnesses knew that
these were false statements and no bombs or IED or ammunition boxes were ever
found or ever existed;
·
not
mentioning that State Statutes Prohibit the Entering into Residential
Properties unless the entry and detention is made pursuant to legal
process as set out in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 et seq.; the
purpose of following such clearly established process for residential
properties is to avoid the breach of public peace;
·
not mentioning that no warrant for removal signed
by a Law Division judge was obtained by the sheriff employees prior to
attempting to remove Dr. Stephanatos from his residence;
·
not
mentioning to the Grand Jurors that Victor A. D’Agostino’s duties were not that
of a sworn law enforcement officer;
·
failing
to provide proofs that the Defendant knew that the sheriff employees were in
fact sworn law enforcement officers, as this was a civil matter and the
statutes under which the Defendant was charged pertain to police officers while
they perform criminal law enforcement duties.;
·
the
intentional lying by Lucas that he injured his shoulder requiring 5 pins, when
he in fact injured his shoulder and elbow after playing competitive football
for many years and lifting heavy weights and doing body building;
·
Lt. Nick Mango wrote in his June 28,
2011 report that “nobody was hurt”. Also, Lucas never wrote in his June 28, 2018
report that he was injured. He
specifically wrote : “As I entered the woods I stumbled”. He never wrote that he was injured. However, during this grand jury testimony, he
provided a diametrically different picture:
·
Lucas claimed that he fell on his
elbow and shoulder, but was able to regain his balance, and he ran into a
wooded area to seek cover behind a large boulder. (GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion
to Change Venue). Lucas claimed that he
tore his biceps and had surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty
severe injury” in his shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8, Motion
to Change Venue). Of course we now know
that this guy was a football player and body builder and suffered these
injuries over his many years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents
with his shoulder (he was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals at
#41). This guy then defrauded the Police
and Firemen Retirement Fund by claiming disability and started the double
dipping.
·
So, from flip-flopping regarding the
color of the gun; to whether the door was closed or open; to whether he knocked
the door or not; to whether he suffered a major injury or not, Lying Lucas has
some serious credibility issues; and all his lies were allowed to poison the
grand jury deliberations.
·
the false (and highly prejudicial)
allegations that Dr. Stephanatos had threatened Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. with
violence few days prior to the “eviction”;
·
the false (and highly prejudicial)
allegation that Dr. Stephanatos did not want to pay taxes;
·
not presenting evidence that Dr.
Stephanatos only wanted a simple stay of the proceedings (as is allowed by
state law) so that he can file and adjudicate his appeals and to save his home
and home-based business from an illegal eviction;
·
failing to mention that at no time did
the sheriff employees told Dr. Stephanatos that he was under arrest;
·
not presenting evidence of the illegal
background leading up to the charges perpetrated by the conspirators Robert Del
Vecchio, ATF, and others;
·
not mentioning the fact that this was
a civil matter based upon profit for the same;
·
not mentioning that Dr. Stephanatos
fully owned his real estate property and was used as his home and small
business and that his business (Metropolitan Environmental Services) was not
part of any eviction proceedings;
·
not mentioning that state case law
allowed Dr. Stephanatos not to lose his home;
·
not mentioning that no state or
federal court has the authority to take private homestead property and deliver
it to a private entity as it is in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution and Article I, par. 20 of the state constitution;
·
not mentioning that Dr. Stephanatos’
property was over-assessed by more than 40 percent since 1995 and no taxes were
legally due;
·
the failure to properly charge the
grand jurors on several asserted defenses, including the defense of self and
defense of dwelling, the Castle Doctrine, the defense of business, duress,
outrageous government conduct, honestly-held belief, etc.;
·
the intentional failure to inform or
notify the grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos wanted to testify (based on the
letter sent to the prosecutor by Mr. Herman, Esq. prior to the grand jury
deliberations); thus the prosecutor interfered with the independence of the
Grand Jury;
·
and no explanation was given to the
grand jury of the specific violations of the law(s) and Court Rules (Sherman
Act violation, tax sale law violations, fraud-on-the court, failure to provide
notice, failure to adjudicate the issue of possession, obtaining ex-parte writs
of possession, etc.) by the conspirators and what is required to be done if
there was to be legality and legitimate process, which brought Officers Lucas
and D’Agostino to the defendant’s home on the day in question.
·
Add to this the constitutional
violations (subject to the motion to suppress); the doctrine of “false in one,
false in all” not explained to the grand jury; the fact that the grand jury was
not charged as to the rights of protection by the homeowner where it involves
his property (the defense of home or New Jersey’s Castle Doctrine), the
protection of his business, as well as the unlawful entry by the officers on
defendant’s property as they were relying on void judgments and writs due to
the fraud on the court committed by Robert Del Vecchio, ATF and others. The law of duress and self-defense and
outrageous government conduct should have been charged to the grand jury by the
prosecutor.
Instead of a fair presentation, there was a biased
presentation in actuality depicting the defendant as a “monster”. The perjured
testimonies’ and “fake facts” cumulative effect was “clearly capable of
producing an unjust result,” R. 2:10-2, requiring a reversal of defendant’s
indictment. State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954).
The Law on
Perjury Before a Grand Jury
The grand jury
both “acts as a sword so that those who are suspected of wrongdoing may
be properly brought to trial, and as a shield to protect the people from
arbitrary prosecution.”
State v. Smith, 269 N.J.Super. 86, 93, 634 A.2d 576 (App. Div.
1993). In State v. Murphy, 110
N.J. 20, 538 A.2d 1235 (1988) the New Jersey Supreme Court held that it is
the court’s obligation to exercise its supervisory authority over the grand
jury process to ensure that the selection of the grand jurors and the
presentation are fair and unbiased.
“Unless the
prosecutor’s misconduct is ‘extreme and clearly infringes upon the [grand]
jury’s decision-making function’ an otherwise valid indictment should not be
dismissed.” Id. citing State v.
Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22, 48-49, 583 A.2d 747 (1991). The dismissal of
an indictment is appropriate “if it is established that the violation
substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict” or if there
is ‘grave doubt’ that the determination ultimately reached was arrived at
fairly and impartially. Bank of
Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256 quoting United States v.
Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 78 (1986). “The grand jury cannot be
denied access to evidence that is credible, material and so clearly exculpatory
as to induce a rational grand juror to conclude that the State has not made out
a prima facie case against the accused.” State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 236, 676 A.2d 533 (1996).
PROOFS OF MASSIVE MATERIAL PERJURY BY
RONALD A. LUCAS AND VICTOR D’AGOSTINO.
THIS PERJURY WAS KNOWN TO THE PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO THE
GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.
In paragraph
2 of section 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala “that
upon knocking on the front entrance door of the residence”. See excerpt from the warrant affidavit,
Defense Exhibit D-11. This statement to
Detective Scala fully corroborates Dr. Stephanatos’ statements that his front
door was closed – very closed – with a lock and deadbolt closed.
However, in
his June 28, 2011 report prepared by Cpl. Lucas, he writes the following: “As we proceeded toward the front door I
ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the front wood door was open and a glass
storm door made the interior of the house visible to me”. “At
that moment a man came from the hallway with a long object in his left hand”.
The
statement by Lucas to Detective Scala is diametrically different than the
statements given by Lucas and D’Agostino at the grand jury proceedings and also
wrote in their reports: that they did not knock the door and they were
assaulted as they were coming up the front porch steps and they were able to
see everything so nicely and so clearly because the front door was magically
open (that stupid Dr. Stephanatos, he should have left his door closed!
(sarcasm here)).
So, based
on these diametrically different statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew or
should have known that Lucas lied. At
the point at which the prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the
grand jury, the prosecutor was under a duty to notify the court and the grand
jury, to correct the cancer of justice that had become apparent to him. But he did not. Welcome to Passaic County!
Furthermore, in his grand
jury testimony, Officer Lucas identified the “Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber
Winchester single bullet hunting rifle” as being the weapon that the defendant
pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13; Da15, Motion to Change Venue). It is critical to note that the hunting rifle
is a BROWN
COLORED GUN. However, in
section 2 of paragraph 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective
Scala that he saw a “BLACK
COLORED RIFLE”. Therefore, the
affidavit paragraph 4, section 2 included a material false statement that was
included with reckless disregard for the truth.
So, again the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied
before the grand jury when he selected a different color gun than the one he
related to Detective Scala.
I
respectfully submit to this Court that the statements made by Lucas in the
early moments of the June 28, 2011 events are closer to the truth (but not
quite the truth), than his fabrications that are start pouring in later in the
day and afterwards. For example, Lt.
Nick Mango wrote in his report that “nobody
was hurt”. Also, Lucas never wrote
in his report that he was injured. He
specifically wrote : “As I entered the woods I stumbled”. However,
during this grand jury testimony, he provided a diametrically different
picture:
Lucas claimed that he fell on his elbow and shoulder, but
was able to regain his balance, and he ran into a wooded area to seek cover
behind a large boulder. (GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion to Change Venue). Lucas claimed that he tore his biceps and had
surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty severe injury” in his
shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8, Motion to Change Venue). Of course we now know that this guy was a
football player and body builder and suffered these injuries over his many
years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents with his shoulder (he
was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals). This guy then went on to defraud the New
Jersey Police and Firemen Insurance Fund by claiming disability and retiring
from the sheriff’s department. After
that, he started the double dipping.
THE LIES, FABRICATIONS
AND INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS OF WALTER DEWEY
After the two sheriff employees served a bunch of lies to
the grand jurors and the prosecutor, after learning of the perjury failed to
correct it, he decided to add some more fake facts of his own creation;
basically, adding salt to the injury (the vultures were keep piling on the body
of still-alive Dr. Stephanatos). The
prosecutor, Walter Dewey, also mislead the jurors and fabricated “facts” by
eliciting false testimony from Officer D’Agostino regarding the pointing of a
gun out of a “window”. The officers had
indicated that they saw me standing behind a glass storm door and that I never
opened the door. No “window” was ever
mentioned by the two individuals, as no window exists in the front porch of the
dwelling. See attached image of the
front door of the dwelling, showing that no window is present.
(I denied that I was standing behind the storm door: I have stated many times that I was in my
office doing my business, I have the computer records to prove it, those
records were submitted to the prosecutors, and I kept the doors of the home
locked with a deadbolt).
But the prosecutor asked D’Agostino if I was pointing a gun
“out the window”. Then D’Agostino said
“yes”. See Grand Jury Transcripts,
Motion to Change Venue.
This
Court should note that there is no opening window in the front porch- that was
another misleading and prejudicial question by the corrupt Passaic County
prosecutor. The prosecutors obviously
wanted to mislead and lie to the grand jury by stating that the defendant was
pointing a weapon outside a window, something that the two sheriff employees
never wrote in their reports, as no window was involved. In fact, Lucas never testified or wrote that
the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a window. The corrupt prosecutor Walter Dewey elicited
this statement from D’Agostino only.
Certainly this is a highly prejudicial, fraudulent and misleading
question/statement, necessitating a dismissal of the indictment.
So,
from flip-flopping regarding the color of the gun; to whether the door was
closed or open; to whether he knocked the door or not; to whether he suffered a
major injury or not, Lying Lucas has some serious credibility issues. And Walter Dewey added salt to the injury by
cooking up highly prejudicial fake “facts” of his own creation (the pointing of
a gun out a window). This Court cannot
possibly uphold an indictment based on these material fact perjuries and based
on all the false and highly prejudicial evidence presented at the grand
jury. This is not how things are done. They need to go back and try to obtain a
superseding indictment (using the truth please), after this Court dismisses
this patently flawed one.
DEFENDANT
SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO NJ COURT RULE 3:5-7 (C) HEARING AND THE RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE STATE V. ATWOOD, A-42, SEPTEMBER TERM 2016
(2018).
Because
Defendant has provided many proofs in his various submissions to this Court,
directly refuting the fake facts cooked up by the prosecutor and his witnesses,
Defendant specifically requests an evidentiary hearing pursuant to NJ Court Rule
3:5-7 (c) Hearing. If material facts are disputed,
testimony thereon shall be taken in open court. The evidentiary hearing is also requested
pursuant to the recent Supreme Court case State
v. Atwood, A-42, September Term 2016 (2018).
See WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE § 14.3(a), at 321–22 (3d ed. 2007) (defendant arguably should not be bound over for trial if evidence would
not permit jury to convict).
I am
forwarding a copy of the material directly to the Passaic County prosecutor,
Stephen Bollenbach, as reflected by the enclosed certification of service.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing statements made by me are true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. NJ Court Rule R. 1:4-4(b); 28 U.S.C.
§1746.
Respectfully
Submitted,
___________________________________
Josheph Epstein, Esq.
Encl.
cc: Steven
Bollenbach, Passaic Co.