NOT GUILTY!
ON
FEBRUARY 4, 2019, DR. BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS, PHD, PE, JD WAS FOUND NOT
GUILTY BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS IN BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
RE: STATE V. BASILIS STEPHANATOS
DOCKET NUMBER 17-1723
INDICTMENT NUMBER 11-09-810-2
JURY FOUND DR. STEPHANATOS NOT-GUILTY OF FOUR VERY SERIOUS CHARGES
This was a not-guilty verdict on all four (4)
very serious charges on the indictment obtained in September 2011.
Importantly, the sheriff officers
testified under oath that they failed to “knock and announce” prior to
performing a search of Stephanatos' home.
The
numerous contradicting statements
of the sheriff officers provided further proof that they fabricated
their
charges against Dr. Stephanatos. The events occurred during an eviction
where they used a void ab initio writ of possession obtained by the
antitrust conspirators Robert Del Vecchio, Jr., Esq., American Tax
Funding, LLC, Matthew Marini, Keith Bonchi, et al on June 28, 2011.
____________________________________________________________
February
4, 2019
William
T. Walsh
Clerk,
United States District Court
District
of New Jersey
M.L.
King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Court House
50
Walnut Street
Room
4015
Newark,
New Jersey 07101-0999
Tel.: 973-645-3730
THE HONORABLE JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ
United States District Judge
Lautenberg U.S. Post Office &
Courthouse
2 Federal Square, Room 417
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Tel.: 973-297-4851/973-645-2157(Deputy Clerk)
RE: Civil Action No. 02:12-cv-01793 (JMV-JBC)
JURY FOUND STEPHANATOS NOT-GUILTY
Dear Judge Vazquez:
I am writing to inform the
Court that a Bergen County jury of my peers has found me not guilty of all the
fabricated charges by Defendants Ronald A. Lucas, Victor D’Agostino that
somehow I had pointed a gun at the officers on June 28, 2011. This was a not-guilty verdict on all four (4)
very serious charges on the fraudulently obtained indictment in September 2011.
THE
OFFICERS MADE NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL CONTRADICTING AND UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS
DURING THEIR TESTIMONY EVIDENCING FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSPIRACY TO
PROSECUTE MALICIOUSLY
During their January 29,
2019 testimony (both direct and cross) Defendants Lucas and D’Agostino made a
very significant number of additional contradicting and uncorroborated statements;
this led to the non-guilty verdict.
Importantly, the sheriff
officers testified under oath that they failed to “knock and announce” prior to
performing a search of my home.
The numerous contradicting
statements of the sheriff officers provide further proofs that they fabricated
their charges against Dr. Stephanatos.
I will submit the additional
evidence to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.
THE
PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PROVIDED “SMOKING GUN” EVIDENCE AGAINST ROBERT DEL
VECCHIO
On January 23, 2019, as part
of the pre-trial discovery, the Passaic County prosecutor, Mr. Stephen
Bollenbach, provided me with several handwritten pages prepared by Defendant
Robert Del Vecchio in May 2011. The newly
discovered pages show that Defendant Del Vecchio faxed letters to the Passaic
County Sheriff stating that Stephanatos was a “dangerous Deft” and that Stephanatos had threatened him on May 24,
2011. All these written statements by
Defendant Del Vecchio were fabricated by him to prejudice the Passaic County
Sheriff against Stephanatos and to force Stephanatos out of his home using the
void ab initio ex-parte writ of possession.
I will submit the newly
discovered additional evidence to this Court only if and when you order me to
do so.
THE
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT ONLY WHEN ORDERED
TO DO SO
I am also writing to inform
the Court that I will be filing a claim of malicious prosecution with this or
another federal court. This claim is based
on the Fourth Amendment and it is timely, as the criminal proceedings ended in
my favor on February 4, 2019. The Fourth
Amendment malicious prosecution claim is a tort action brought in civil court
to recover money damages for the harm suffered from the malicious claim. I will seek to recover money from the
Defendants for the various costs associated with having to defend against the
baseless and vexatious charges. The
damages will include the cost of making a $300,000 cash bond, attorney fees,
and economic harm from being wrongfully incarcerated and not being able to find
employment or pursue my law license as a result of the pending charges for the
last 8 years. I will also seek to recover money for the emotional distress
associated with being jailed and wrongfully prosecuted for the last 8 years by
the Passaic County sheriff and the Defendant officers and for the malicious
statements made by Defendant Robert Del Vecchio to the sheriff, damaging my
good standing and reputation in the community for the last 8 years.
A
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE STAND-ALONE CLAIM ALSO EXISTS UNDER
SECTION 1983 FOR FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Halsey v.
Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014), a court should not foreclose a
Fourteenth Amendment stand-alone claim for fabrication of evidence even if a
Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim fails (for example) because of the
existence of probable cause even without the fabricated evidence. Such a claim is available even if the
criminal defendant is acquitted, “if there is a reasonable likelihood that,
absent the fabricated evidence, the defendant would not have been criminally
charged.” Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358, 370 (3d Cir.
2016). In Michele Black v. County of Montgomery, No. 15-3399 (3d Cir.
2016) where the Third Circuit ruled that “an acquitted criminal defendant
may have a stand-alone fabricated evidence claim against state actors under the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if there is a reasonable
likelihood that, absent that fabricated evidence, the defendant would not have
been criminally charged.” This
fabrication of evidence claim has already been filed with the Court in October
2018.
Based on evidence discovered
during the trial, Stephanatos has additional claims against the Passaic County
Sheriff.
1.
A §1983 CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY
TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND CONTROL OFFICERS (AGAINST THE PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT);
2.
A STATE LAW TORT CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO
PROPERLY TRAIN, SUPERVISE AND CONTROL OFFICERS (AGAINST THE SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT);
3.
A §1983 CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE
(AGAINST THE PASSAIC COUNTY DEFENDANTS)
I will submit the malicious
prosecution claim and the failure to investigate, train and supervise the
sheriff officers, including the newly-obtained discovery and trial testimonies,
to this Court only if and when you order me to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Basilis
N. Stephanatos, PhD, JD
PS.: I had the
duty to report to this Court the results of the criminal proceedings and the
availability of newly discovered evidence to correct manifest error of law or
fact. Please do not consider this letter
as a violation of a standing court order regarding the submission of documents
to the Court.
==========================================
MAJOR
BOMBSHELL UNCOVERED BY METROFORENSICS: New Jersey's Office of
Foreclosure has
either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state tenancy
laws and coerced the Superior Court Clerk into issuing illegal eviction
orders
SenVanDrew@njleg.org;
AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org; AsmLand@njleg.org; SenBrown@njleg.org;
AsmMazzeo@njleg.org; AsmArmato@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org;
AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org; AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org;
AsmMoriarty@njleg.org; AswMosquera@njleg.org; SenCruzPerez@njleg.org;
AswEganJones@njleg.org; AsmSpearman@njleg.org; SenBeach@njleg.org;
AsmGreenwald@njleg.org; AswLampitt@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org;
AsmConaway@njleg.org; AswMurphy@njleg.org; SenAddiego@njleg.org;
AsmHowarth@njleg.org; AsmPeters@njleg.org; SenConnors@njleg.org;
AsmRumpf@njleg.org; AswGove@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org;
AsmWolfe@njleg.org; AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org; SenGopal@njleg.org;
AswDowney@njleg.org; AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org;
AsmClifton@njleg.org; AsmDancer@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org;
AswHandlin@njleg.org; AswDiMaso@njleg.org; SenGreenstein@njleg.org;
AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org; AsmBenson@njleg.org; SenTurner@njleg.org;
AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org; SenBateman@njleg.org; AsmFreiman@njleg.org;
AsmZwicker@njleg.org; SenBSmith@njleg.org; AsmDanielsen@njleg.org;
AsmEgan@njleg.org; SenDiegnan@njleg.org; AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org;
AswPinkin@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; AsmCoughlin@njleg.org;
AswLopez@njleg.org; SenCryan@njleg.org; AswQuijano@njleg.org;
AsmHolley@njleg.org; SenKean@njleg.org; AsmBramnick@njleg.org; jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us;
barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us; lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us;
walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us; anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us; fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us;
stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert'
<sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>;
'Michelle Smith' <Michelle.Smith@njcourts.gov>; 'Irene Komandis'
<irene.komandis@njcourts.gov>; kathryn.shabel@njcourts.gov; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov; Thomas.Laconte@njcourts.gov;
paul.innes@njcourts.gov
AswMunoz@njleg.org;
SenScutari@njleg.org; AswCarter@njleg.org; AsmKennedy@njleg.org;
SenDoherty@njleg.org; AsmDiMaio@njleg.org; AsmPeterson@njleg.org;
SenOroho@njleg.org; AsmSpace@njleg.org; AsmWirths@njleg.org;
SenBucco@njleg.org; AsmCarroll@njleg.org; AsmBucco@njleg.org;
SenPennacchio@njleg.org; AsmWebber@njleg.org; AswDecroce@njleg.org;
SenCodey@njleg.org; AswJasey@njleg.org; AsmMcKeon@njleg.org; SenRice@njleg.org;
AsmCaputo@njleg.org; AswTucker@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; AswPintorMarin@njleg.org;
AswSpeight@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org; AsmSKean@njleg.org;
AsmThomson@njleg.org; SenCunningham@njleg.org; AswMcKnight@njleg.org;
AsmChiaravallotti@njleg.org; SenSacco@njleg.org; AswJimenez@njleg.org;
AsmMejia@njleg.org; SenStack@njleg.org; AsmMukherji@njleg.org;
AswChaparro@njleg.org; SenGill@njleg.org; AsmGiblin@njleg.org;
AswTimberlake@njleg.org; SenPou@njleg.org; AswSumter@njleg.org;
AsmWimberly@njleg.org; SenSarlo@njleg.org; AsmSchaer@njleg.org;
AsmCalabrese@njleg.org; SenWeinberg@njleg.org; AsmJohnson@njleg.org;
AswVainieriHuttle@njleg.org; SenLagana@njleg.org; AswSwain@njleg.org;
AsmTully@njleg.org; SenCardinale@njleg.org; AswSchepisi@njleg.org;
AsmAuth@njleg.org; SenCorrado@njleg.org; AsmRooney@njleg.org; AsmDePhillips@njleg.org; jaynee.lavecchia@judiciary.state.nj.us;
barry.albin@judiciary.state.nj.us; lee.solomon@judiciary.state.nj.us;
walter.timpone@judiciary.state.nj.us; anne.paterson@judiciary.state.nj.us; fj.fernandez-vina@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us;
stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven Pfahlert'
<sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert'
<sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>; 'Michelle Smith'
<Michelle.Smith@njcourts.gov>; 'Irene Komandis'
<irene.komandis@njcourts.gov>; kathryn.shabel@njcourts.gov; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov;
Thomas.Laconte@njcourts.gov; paul.innes@njcourts.gov
SenVanDrew@njleg.org;
SenSweeney@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org;
SenHolzapfel@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org;
SenTurner@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; SenKean@njleg.org;
SenScutari@njleg.org; SenOroho@njleg.org; SenPennacchio@njleg.org;
SenRice@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org; SenSacco@njleg.org;
SenStack@njleg.org; SenPou@njleg.org; SenSarlo@njleg.org;
SenWeinberg@njleg.org; SenLagana@njleg.org;
stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; stuart.rabner@njcourts.gov; 'Sven
Pfahlert' <sven.pfahlert@judiciary.state.nj.us>; 'Sven Pfahlert'
<sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov>;
December 15, 2018
RE:
MAJOR SCANDAL REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE STATE’S TENANCY LAWS BY THE CLERK
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY AND THE OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE.
DID
SVEN PFAHLERT COLLUDE WITH CREDITOR LAWYERS TO VIOLATE PEOPLE’S POSSESSORY
RIGHTS?
Dear Legislators and Justices:
It has been reported in the media (see excerpts below) that the Office of
Foreclosure has either negligently or intentionally violated a number of state
tenancy laws by:
1.
Entering ex-parte writs of possession the same day as a judgment for possession
in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57;
2. Entering ex parte writs of possession without
the requisite notice for demand to quit in violation of 2A:18-61.2 and/or NJSA
2A:18-53 (addressing the removal of tenant at sufferance)
3. Entering an ex-parte judgment for possession
without receiving a proof of notice to quit that is prerequisite to judgment
(See N.J.S.A. 2A:18-56);
4. Accepting as true the self-certifications of
bank attorneys that a residential property occupier had no possessory rights
when according to state case law these people are tenant-at-sufferance,
protected by the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 (See the definition of
tenant found in NJSA 46A:14-1, stating that a tenant-at-sufferance is included
in the definition of a tenant)
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
HAS RULED THAT EX-PARTE JUDGMENTS OF POSSESSION ISSUED WITHOUT A STATE
STATUTE-REQUIRED DEMAND TO QUIT AND NOTICE OF AN EVICTION HEARING ARE ILLEGAL
AND VOID. EVEN
IF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED LAWFULLY (IT WAS NOT), THE CLERK HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WARRANT OF REMOVAL THE SAME DAY THE JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED.
On June
15 the Housing Authority's counsel wrote to the court clerk, ex parte, and
enclosed an affidavit which stated that the tenants had failed and neglected to
comply with the terms of the settlement. He requested that a judgment for
possession be entered and a warrant of removal issued. On June 16, without
notice to the tenants, a judgment for possession was entered and that same day
a warrant of removal issued.
It is
clear that the judgment for possession entered on June 16 was invalid. The
court's order dated April 28 which memorialized the terms of the settlement did
not fix a time within which the back rent had to be paid. Obviously a
reasonable time was intended. However, the Housing Authority, although it
concluded that there had been a failure to comply with the terms of the
settlement, should not have applied ex parte for entry of a judgment for
possession on that ground, and the clerk should not have entered judgment
without giving the tenants an opportunity to be heard. R. 6:6-3(b). Even if the
judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was not), the clerk had no *316
jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the same day the judgment was
entered. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57 provides that in summary dispossess proceedings
"[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after
entry of judgment for possession."
Since the June 16 judgment was illegal and void, the tenants'
motion to vacate that judgment and quash the warrant of removal, heard on
October 6, should have been granted on jurisdictional grounds. Mrs. Hayward's
appeal from that ruling was timely and should not have been dismissed by the
Appellate Division.
*317 Accordingly, we set aside the dismissal, reinstate the appeal
and, having considered the merits, reverse the October 6 ruling of the trial
court and direct that court to vacate the judgment for possession and warrant
of removal, and dismiss the complaint.
HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406
A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979)
It is apparent that lawyers for the
banks and other creditors have been colluding with the office of foreclosure
lawyers to violate the tenancy laws of the state. THIS IS A MAJOR
SCANDAL AND/OR CORRUPTION IN THE STATE'S JUDICIARY BRANCH.
The State’s own law revision commission states the following:
Since enactment of the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq., the
Summary Dispossess Act has been understood to cover the eviction of
nonresidential tenants and residential tenants not covered by the Anti-Eviction
Act. Source: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION,
Final Report Relating to Landlord and Tenant Law, February 10, 2012.
This tenancy at sufferance is included in the definition of tenant in the New
Jersey statutes: "Tenant" includes, but is not limited to, a lessee
or tenant at will or at sufferance or for any duration, or any subtenants,
assigns, or legal representatives of the lessee or tenant. Title 46A – Landlord
and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14, eviction generally.
46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental premises; what is included.
Here is some of the case law of New Jersey:
Under New Jersey law, "[a] purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale
obtains the legal right to possession of land purchased as soon as he obtains a
deed from the selling officer." 30 New Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages §
373. The mortgagor's continued possession of the property after such time is
that of a tenant at sufferance. See Caruso v. Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174
A.2d 381 (Ch.Div. 1961) (quoting 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 105, page 659)
("The owner's continued possession after sale of the property at
execution, judicial, or like sale is that of a tenant at sufferance of the
purchaser”). In Re St. Clair, 251 B.R. 660 (D.N.J. 2000). We have found
that a tenant at sufferance is "'one who comes into possession of land by
lawful title, usually by virtue of a lease for a definite period, and after the
expiration of the period of the lease holds over without any fresh leave from
the owner.'" Xerox Corp. v. Listmark Computer Sys., 142 N.J. Super. 232,
240 (App. Div. 1976) (citing Standard Realty Co. v. Gates, 99 N.J. Eq. 271, 275
(Ch. 1926)). WA GOLF COMPANY, LLC v. ARMORED, INC, Appellate Division,
August 6, 2014.
To remove a tenant at sufferance, the
statutory procedures provided under the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53
et seq. must be followed. However, the lawyers for the creditors failed
to follow these procedures and therefore, the tenants-at-sufferance due process
rights established by the above state laws were violated.
The Office of Foreclosure and the
Clerk have been refusing to respond; that is why we are asking for your
intervention and investigation into these illegalities.
The Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. requires proof of notice to
quit prior to entering a judgment for possession.
2A:18-56. Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment
No judgment for possession in cases specified in paragraph "a." of
section 2A:18-53 of this Title shall be ordered unless:
a. The
tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the
giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be
sufficient; or
b. The
tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of
1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
c. The
tenancy, if for a term other than at will, from year to year, or from month to
month, has been terminated by the giving of one term's notice to quit, which
notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; and
d. It shall
be shown to the satisfaction of the court by due proof that the notice herein
required has been given.
In addition to the New Jersey, we also cite the law of the State of
Virginia. All other states have identical procedures.
Evictions and Unlawful Detainers in VA
House Bill 311 codifies certain roles
and procedures during unlawful detainer matters:
1.
A former owner of a single-family residential dwelling unit who remains in the
property after foreclosure is now defined as a tenant at sufferance.
2. A
successor owner has the right to file an unlawful detainer action three days
after giving the tenant written termination notice.
The Virginia law is identical to the
one New Jersey has. Almost every other state has similar procedures. The
Clerk and the Office of Foreclosure have been negligently or intentionally
colluding with the lawyers for the creditors to violate the due process rights
of tenants - and as is typical, the New Jersey Supreme Court is asleep at the
wheel.
ALERT REGARDING MR. PFAHLERT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF SVEN PFAHLERT
IN ISSUING OPINIONS ON FORECLOSURE MATTERS
What your Office of Foreclosure did was to then believe Mr. Sven Pfahlert’s (a
former private law firm employee with Honig & Greenberg, L.L.C. – these are
the people who have been attacking the homeowners and now he works for the
State of New Jersey- THIS IS A HUGE RED FLAG) incorrect and illegal advice and
enter an ex-parte judgment for possession without the prerequisite
notices. You then entered the very same day an ex-parte writ for
possession again in violation of the state statutes requiring notice to quit or
vacate. You also violated state law that says you cannot enter a writ the
same day you entered a judgment. To make matters worse, the judgment was
entered by judges in Mercer County who had neither personal nor subject matter
jurisdiction over the homeowner or the property.
These deceptive and unlawful practices by these convicted
Anti-Trust Conspirators have been criticized by the state of New Jersey and the
Public Advocate Division. See for
example the following excerpt from the “Toolkit for Tenants Living in Foreclosed
Properties”, published by the Department of the Public Advocate, Trenton,
NJ 08625, dated March 2010:
Courts and Sheriffs.
In addition to owners and those who
work for them, the courts and sheriff officers sometimes mistakenly target
protected tenants during the foreclosure process. The writs of execution and
final foreclosure judgments are drafted by the attorneys for the lenders. The
attorneys sometimes use language in court papers that cause problems because it
seems to cover tenants (for example, “and any and all persons occupying said
premises”). Other times attorneys specifically name tenants and certify (swear
to the court) that those tenants are not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act. This is especially problematic because
tenants often do not have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are in fact
legitimate tenants until after the removal has already been ordered by the
court and scheduled by the sheriff. If a court order specifically names a
tenant to be removed, the sheriff must evict that person. Sometimes, however,
sheriffs read the language in the order and believe that they must evict
everyone. Also, some notices that sheriffs create and post on property include
language, such as “occupants” instead of “owners,” that appears to include
tenants. The Attorney General
distributed a memo to sheriffs regarding the rights of tenants living in
foreclosed properties.
I LOOK FORWARD HEARING FROM YOU
REGARDING THESE STATE LAW VIOLATIONS AND THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST REGARDING
MR. PFAHLERT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by
me are true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. NJ Court
Rule R. 1:4-4(b); 28 U.S.C. §1746.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Kaplan, Esq.
========================================================
Dr. Basilis Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
BOMBSHELL EVIDENCE DISCOVERED PROVING THAT LUCAS, D'AGOSTINO AND OTHERS FRAMED DR. STEPHANATOS AND FILED FAKE CHARGES: PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST RONALD A. LUCAS, VICTOR A. D’AGOSTINO AND CONSPIRACY CHARGES AGAINST LTD. NICK MANGO AND CHIEF FRED ERNST
BASILIS N.
STEPHANATOS, PHD., JD.
PRO SE
603 PENN COURT PH3
EDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY
07020-1648
TEL.: (201) 366-4588 CELL:
(973) 897-8162 FAX: (973)
810-0440
EMAIL: bstephanatos@gmail.com
VIA USPS FIRST CLASS MAIL April
3, 2018
Hon. James J. Guida, J.S.C.
Bergen County Courthouse
10 Main Street, 4th Floor
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Passaic County Prosecutor
Administration Building
401 Grand Street
Paterson, New Jersey 07505
Attn: Stephen
Bollenbach
Re: State
v. Basilis Stephanatos
Passaic
County Ind. No. 11-09-0810-I
Dear Judge Guida:
Last Friday, I received a one-paragraph
response to our extensive Supplemental Motions to Dismiss where we included the
newly discovered bombshell exculpatory evidence
that proves beyond any doubt that Lucas and D’Agostino committed perjury during
the grand jury proceedings, lied that they were assaulted by the Defendant,
falsified their reports, deleted evidence and conspired with Lt. Nick Mango and
Captain (now Chief) Fred Ernst to frame Dr. Stephanatos and to charge him with
fake offences. We also included another
bombshell exculpatory evidence that Dr. Stephanatos had never threatened the
co-conspirator Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. with violence few days prior to the
events of June 28, 2011.
Yet the new prosecutor in this fraudulent
case refuses to address these earth-shattering and “smoking gun” evidence and
states that he will rely on the January 2016 response to our original Motions
to Dismiss filed in November 2015. He
failed to address the new bombshell evidence we presented to this Court.
Prosecutors are ethically required to drop a
case once they determine there is no “reasonable probability” a jury would
convict. They are not supposed to be
putting innocent people through trial.
Cut your losses and move on.
Even more important, when an illegal search
or tainted evidence or fake evidence or fraudulent evidence or perjured testimony
has come to light, the State has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that
its evidence is untainted. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 341,
60 S. Ct. 266, 268, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939).
The government must not knowingly or recklessly use false testimony. Napue
v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959), and United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 577-78 & n.4 (8th Cir.
1995)).
Dr. Stephanatos had the
initial burden of producing specific evidence demonstrating perjury and fake
charges and taint in a substantial portion of the State’s case against him,
which he did with his Supplemental Motions to Dismiss. United
States v. Sapere, 531 F.2d 63, 66 (2 Cir. 1976), citing Alderman v. United
States, supra, and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 342, 60 S. Ct. 266,
84 L. Ed. 307 (1939). Dr.
Stephanatos demonstrated that Lucas’ and D’Agostino’s grand jury testimony was
“willfully and purposely false” and that their testimony was entirely
contradictory to the investigative report signed by Lucas (See Defense Exhibit
D-1). See Gilgallon v. Bond, 279 N.J. Super. 265, 267 (App. Div. 1995) (quoting
Shammas v. Shammas, 9 N.J. 321, 330 (1952)).
Here, after Dr. Stephanatos presented the
post-February 2016 evidence that proves he is innocent of the alleged assault
on Lucas and D’Agostino, and that he never threatened Del Vecchio and that
Judge Jacobson wrote to him that her court had no jurisdiction over his case
(proving that any writs issued by the Mercer County Acting Law Clerk Jennifer
M. Perez was VOID AB INITIO), and that Lucas’ shoulder injury was caused by
playing competitive football and heavy body building, the State refused and/or
failed to show to this Court that its evidence is truthful or untainted or that
perjury was not committed during the grand jury proceedings, including numerous
other irregularities and prosecutorial misconduct that have been detailed in
the Defendant’s briefs.
The State has had two whole years (since the
revelations of the perjury and fake accusations in March 2016) to respond, yet
has failed miserably and illegally and unethically.
See Halsey
v. Pfeiffer, Plainfield Police Department, et al., 750 F.3d 273, 296-97 (3d
Cir. 2014) ”To the best of our knowledge, every court of appeals that has
considered the question of whether a state actor has violated the defendant’s
right to due process of law by fabricating evidence to charge or convict the
defendant has answered the question in the affirmative.” See Whitlock v.
Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567, 585 (7th Cir. 2012) (collecting court of appeals
cases). Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 260
F.3d 946, 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (“If officers use false evidence, including false
testimony, to secure a conviction, the defendant’s due process is violated.”);
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[T]here
is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected
to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately
fabricated by the government.”); Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d
123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Like a prosecutor’s knowing use of false evidence to
obtain a tainted conviction, a police officer’s fabrication and forwarding to
prosecutors of known false evidence works an unacceptable . . .[violation of
due process.]”); United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 1989)
(“The knowing use of false or perjured testimony constitutes a denial of due
process if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could
have affected the judgment of the jury.”).
I am hoping that the State will come to its
senses and drop the fraudulently-obtained indictment on April 6, 2018. Otherwise, this Court has the obligation to
dismiss the fraudulently-obtained indictment with prejudice.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
===========================
LETTER MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONS
TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE, INCLUDING PERJURY CHARGES AGAINST RONALD A. LUCAS,
VICTOR A. D’AGOSTINO AND CONSPIRACY CHARGES AGAINST NICK MANGO AND FRED ERNST
Dear Judge Guida:
Please accept this informal letter memorandum in support
of the Supplemental Motions to Dismiss, including Perjury charges against
Ronald A. Lucas, Victor A. D’Agostino, and Conspiracy charges against Lucas,
D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred Ernst.
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2015, the Defendant submitted 22 Omnibus
Motions to Dismiss, including supporting brief and attachments. At the time, Defendant was not aware that
Lucas was not even present in his front door.
Up to that time, in all his documents and other submittals, Defendant
had been stating that it was Lucas who was illegally peering through his side
door window. Defendant has been stating
that Lucas and D’Agostino lied that he assaulted them, that he had his front
door wide open so that these two individuals see him pointing a gun at them. Defendant pointed out to numerous
inconsistencies in Lucas and D’Agostino stories, both written and at their
grand jury testimony.
Following the submittal of the Motions to Dismiss,
Defendant started posting his case online and in the Twitter, in search of
evidence, witnesses and other information regarding the perjury of Lucas and
D’Agostino. Finally, in February 2016,
Defendant received private phone calls from an unknown individual. The informant stated that Lucas was not at
the front porch of the house and that he had been complaining about his bad
shoulder for years as he suffered injuries playing football.
Following the phone calls, Defendant started doing online
research on Lucas. He was stunned to
find out that Lucas is a bold man in his 50s, having a beard; Defendant vividly remembers the face of an
individual illegally peering through his side door window by placing his face
flush with the window pane, as the sun glare makes it impossible to see inside
the home. Here is what Dr. Stephanatos
wrote on March 2, 2016, as he was describing the bombshell discovery of the
Lucas and D’Agostino conspiracy to frame him with fake charges:
“I saw a young person peering
through the side door window; that person had full set of black hair and no
facial hair, while Lucas is in his 50s and has facial hair and he is very-very
bold. The young sheriff employee was in
his late 20s to early 30s and had full set of hair and also had very sharp eyes
(the intense police eyes) illegally searching inside the residence as the
Defendant did not answer the door at 8:50 am.”
Dr. Stephanatos also found out at the time, that Robert
Del Vecchio had wrongfully accused him to Ronald Lucas that he had threatened
him with physical violence few days prior.
This is the reason that Lucas gave to the grand jurors that necessitated
his presence at Dr. Stephanatos’ home on June 28, 2011. Typically, sworn law enforcement officers do
not initially appear at the site, and D’Agostino typically handles the
situation. D’Agostino is not a sworn law
enforcement officer. Dr. Stephanatos had
never threatened Del Vecchio with physical violence and it was the first time
he found out about these fake allegations against him.
Dr. Stephanatos reported these important factual
discoveries to his former lawyer, Miles Feinstein. As was the usual situation, Feinstein never
returned his calls and/or emails. Due to
the significance of the discovery, Dr. Stephanatos decided to report the
obvious perjury and conspiracy to frame him to the former case judge Miguel De
la Carrera, the prosecutor, the Passaic County Sheriff and to the media.
The former case prosecutor, Peter Roby immediately filed
a motion to revoke Dr. Stephanatos’ bail, claiming among other things that his
witnesses were or will be threatened by the Defendant, despite the fact that
Dr. Stephanatos did not threatened anyone, just reported his findings. De la Carrera then claimed that Dr.
Stephanatos was hallucinating, that he was schizophrenic and all kinds of other
wrongful statements and ordered him to go into custody for examination by the
state psychologist. De la Carrera did
not even allow the Defendant to explain to the court his findings. It is obvious that the state wanted to
prevent Dr. Stephanatos from continuing with the discovery of the perjury of
Lucas, D’Agostino and the conspiracy with Nick Mango and Fred Ernst; that is
why they put him in jail for more than 2 months to be examined by a state
psychologist.
Due to the conspiracy charges against the Passaic County
Sheriff and its employees, Dr. Stephanatos was jailed between March 21, 2016
and May 26, 2016 in the Bergen County Jail.
While in jail waiting for the state psychologist to show up (he only
showed up the latter part of May 2016), Dr. Stephanatos send letters to Judge
Ernest Caposela and the former Governor Chris Christie, complaining about the
savage treatment by the state employees.
Two days after the release of the state psychologist
findings (stating that Dr. Stephanatos is very intelligent and competent to
stand trial), Judge Caposela orders the release of Dr. Stephanatos from the
Bergen County jail on May 26, 2016.
For the next two years, Defendant has been trying to
obtain additional evidence to be able to prove even better that Lucas and
D’Agostino lied at the grand jury proceedings, falsified their reports and
formed a conspiracy with Nick Mango and Fred Ernst to frame him with fake
charges. In July 2016, Judge Caposela
issues a Consent Order (also signed by the Passaic County prosecutor),
directing the prosecutor to comply with the discovery request within 60
days. The Passaic County prosecutor has
yet to comply with that order.
After requests from the Defendant to expedite the case
and prevent further violation of his speedy trial rights, Judge Caposela gives
the case to Judge Marilyn Clark for adjudication in the fall of 2017. Upon examination of the record, Judge Clark
discovers the Motion to Change Venue that was filed in early 2013. Judge Clark then orders the transfer of the
case to Bergen County court due to the conflicts of interest (at least two
officers/witness were also working at the courthouse and the former presiding
judge of the Chancery Division Margaret McVeigh could be a prosecution
witness).
The case is assigned to a Bergen County judge, the Hon.
James J. Guida, in early 2018. During
the first hearing on February 8, 2018, Miles Feinstein states that he is ill
and he cannot continue with the case.
Dr. Stephanatos states that he does not want a new lawyer and that he
plans to represent himself. Judge Guida
states that all the case delays are attributed to the judicial system (judges)
and not to the defense or the prosecution.
Case delays caused by judicial errors, etc. are all attributed to the
state. “Once
a defendant asserts a violation of his right to a speedy trial, the government
is required to identify the reason for the delay.” State v. Cahill,
213 N.J. at 266.
A
deliberate delay is weighted heavily for the defense. Id. The Court explained however that “[a] more neutral reason, however, such as negligence or a heavy
caseload, will also be weighed against the government … because it is the
government’s ultimate responsibility to prosecute cases in a timely
fashion. A defendant does not have an
obligation to assert his right to a speedy trial because he is under no
obligation to bring himself to trial. Id. at 266. Court delays are charged
to the State, not to the Defendant. State
v. Farrell, 320 N.J. Super. at 450-451.
On March 5, 2018, after a Crisafi/Reddish/Faretta
hearing, Judge James J. Guida stated that he would issue an order allowing the
Defendant to defend himself (act as his own attorney) in the case (Defendant
received that order via email from judge’s law clerk). Judge Guida also stated that he will appoint a
stand-by council to assist the Defendant with the trial court procedures. At the hearing, Dr. Stephanatos stated in
open Court that he has significant evidence against his accusers.
During the hearing on March 5, 2018, Judge Guida made at
least two prejudicial statements regarding the availability of certain
defenses, regarding the presence of tenants and regarding the need to obey
court orders. Defendant strongly objects
to the Court’s statements as they were not based on a fully developed factual
record, have nothing to do with the case at hand, and they are against the New
Jersey Law. The Defendant will also
address these prejudicial statements made by Judge Guida in this informal
brief.
THE BOMBSHELL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT
PROVES THAT LUCAS AND D’AGOSTINO COMMITTED PERJURY DURING THE GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS
Defendant Basilis N. Stephanatos, has in his
possession a letter signed by former Cpl. Ronald Lucas (#964) where he states
that it was Lt. Nick Mango who was at the front door. He specifically stated the following “Lt mango
stated owner came to door…”. See Defense
Exhibit D-1.
This letter proves beyond ANY DOUBT that Lucas lied when
he stated that he was assaulted in the porch of Defendant’s former residence
and place of business on June 28, 2011.
The perjury charges are fully corroborated by the lies Lucas stated
regarding his old football shoulder injury; and by the numerous inconsistent statements
(both verbal and written) made by him and D’Agostino. See also the handwritten letter from the
Defendant (while in Bergen County Jail) to Judge Ernest Caposela and to the
Governor, dated April 2016 where he describes a young, tall, dark head hair, no
facial hair, with intense “police” eyes person illegally peering through his
side door window. That dark-hair individual will be proven to be Nick Mango. By contrast, Lucas is completely bold, has
lots of facial hair (a beard) and he is shorter than Mango. Dr. Stephanatos does not remember any sheriff
employee resembling Ronald A. Lucas.
However, should the above evidence is not
sufficient to immediately dismiss all charges against the Defendant, Dr.
Stephanatos is asking that Judge Guida orders an urgent hearing to
cross-examine the four (4) officers involved: Ronald A. Lucas, Victor
D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Capt. Fred Ernst. This hearing can happen on
April 6, 2018 or at an earlier date.
General overview
of Dr. Stephanatos’ former dwelling at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, NJ that was
seized by the conspirators. Photo taken
from the front of the property, two weeks prior to the tragic incidents of June
28, 2011. Note the philodendron
subincisum planter at the front of the porch area. After Dr. Stephanatos failed to respond to
the door bell, Nick Mango went behind the philodendron subincisum planter and
placed his face at the side window so that he can see inside the home. D’Agostino
stated in his grand jury testimony that they knew that there were people inside
the home because they saw cars on the driveway and inside the garage. This is a criminal activity prohibited under NJRS 2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant
trespasser; peering into dwelling places and in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, Par. 7.
THE ENTIRE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE DUE TO THE OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT IN LYING AND MISLEADING
THE GRAND JURY AND HIDING CLEARLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FROM THE GRAND JURORS
FALSE AND/OR FRAUDULENT
TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURORS DEPICTING THE DEFENDANT AS A
VIOLENT PERSON
The testimony
presented to the Grand Jurors that the Defendant had threatened Robert Del Vecchio
with violence few days prior the June 28, 2011 events, is absolutely false and
fraudulent and highly prejudicial. These
statements were made to the Grand Jurors (and were repeated to the Passaic
County Court(s) by the State Prosecutor, Peter Roby) with the aim to depict the
Defendant as a violent person. The Grand
Jury proceedings must be dismissed based on this fraudulent, misleading,
prejudicial and damaging fake testimony.
Apparently, in
May or June 2011, a person named Robert Del Vecchio, Jr of Passaic County, New
Jersey (he is a lawyer for ATF and he is the one who made the fraudulent
self-certification to the Acting Law Clerk in Mercer County that the Defendant
had no possessory rights) lied to the Passaic County Sheriff when he claimed
that threats were made to him by a person named Basilis (or Basil) Stephanatos
of Wayne, New Jersey (also residing at the time in Passaic County).
Apparently,
based on the Grand Jury presentation, Del Vecchio said to sheriff's officer
Ronald A. Lucas (this is based on Lucas’ grand jury testimony) that Basilis
Stephanatos had threatened him with violence few days prior to a scheduled
illegal “eviction” on June 28, 2011. As a result, Del Vecchio asked that
several sheriff officers (including Lucas who was allegedly a Sworn Law
Enforcement Officer) dispatch to the location of the Stephanatos' residence
located at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey 07670. It is possible that the state prosecutor
cites that fraudulent allegation by Del Vecchio to justify the presence of
Ronald A. Lucas at the scene (the State keeps referring to the Passaic County
Sheriff as “the police”, despite the fact that neither the Wayne Police or any
other police officer of any municipality was present).
Specifically,
Del Vecchio told Lucas that Basilis Stephanatos had told him that he "will
be fucked in the ass by a 5-ft. long rhinoceros dick" if you try to evict
him from his residence.
These accusations of threats of violence that
Del Vecchio made were absolutely false. According to information available to the
Passaic County Sheriff and the State from the Defendant’s seized computers,
Basilis Stephanatos never threatened Robert Del Vecchio with physical violence
because he never had any contact or communication with him during that
time.
Here is what happened:
In 2008, Robert Del Vecchio put a lien onto
Basilis Stephanatos' residential property for unpaid taxes that Stephanatos was
disputing due to alleged over assessment of his residence (in fact, after the
seizure of the Stephanatos' property, Del Vecchio and ATF sold it for $330,000
which is the fair market value of the property. However, the property was
assessed by Wayne Township at $475,000. This is about 40 percent greater
over-assessment and thus no taxes were legally owed by Basilis Stephanatos-
tragic, tragic, tragic situation). In
accordance with New Jersey law, any tax sale certificates, liens, judgements,
etc. were VOID AB INITIO, and not just merely voidable.
In any event, around December 2008, Robert
Del Vecchio, Jr. (he was a lawyer for American Tax Funding, Inc.) sent a letter
to Basilis Stephanatos, notifying him that a lien has been placed onto his
property. Then on December 24 and on
December 26, 2008, Basilis Stephanatos sent two letters to Robert Del Vecchio
demanding that the lien be removed. Basilis Stephanatos wrote that he is
filing a criminal complaint and other reporting to the media. He
basically threatened Robert Del Vecchio with legal action and not physical violent
threats.
This is what Basilis Stephanatos wrote to
Robert Del Vecchio in the December 26, 2008 letter, where he threatened Del
Vecchio with legal action:
"This is not a threat – it
is real. After you see what we have in store for your client, you will
beg to be instead fucked in the ass by a 5-ft. long rhinoceros dick for the
rest of your life.
Mary Christmas and Happy the New
Year."
The letters sent by Basilis Stephanatos to
Robert Del Vecchio are included in Defense Exhibit D-4.
Therefore, Dr. Stephanatos never threatened
Del Vecchio with violence (he only wrote about legal action) and certainly,
this was 2.5 years prior to the June 28, 2011 incident.
Lucas then testified during the Grand Jury
that Dr. Stephanatos was a violent person and that he had threatened Del
Vecchio with physical violence few days prior to the June 28, 2011 incident. The Defendant submits to the Court that these
lies from Del Vecchio to Lucas were made as an excuse to ask for the presence
of law enforcement officers. However,
all these lies were unknown to the Defendant; in other words, Dr. Stephanatos
at no time did he know that there were sworn law enforcement officers present
in his property, as this was civil action.
Therefore, the state has failed to meet its burden regarding the
“knowingly” element of the aggravated assault charges and these charges must be
dismissed. Furthermore, by depicting the
Defendant as violent person, the grand jurors were prejudiced against the
Defendant and were impermissibly influenced in their decision to indict
him. For this reason, the grand jury
proceedings were tainted and the indictment must be dismissed.
It is crucial to note that Del Vecchio made
the same false accusations to the then Superior Court Judge Margaret M.
McVeigh. These statements were made on
an ex-parte basis, which is illegal and also demonstrates the close
relationship of Robert Del Vecchio, American Tax Funding and the former Judge
McVeigh.
The State and the Sheriff have the
Stephanatos' letters in their possession, should they want to confirm their
authenticity. Apparently, they seized all his computers in 2011, so they
should have a copy of it.
By falsely advising the grand jurors that the Defendant
had threatened Robert Del Vecchio with violence few days prior to the June 28,
2011 events, they depicted the Defendant as a violent person. This was a highly prejudicial, wrongful and
fake testimony.
Furthermore, by falsely advising the grand jurors that
the Defendant did not believe he had to pay taxes, he depicted the Defendant as
a criminal and as an individual who the grand jurors (who all pay taxes) would
resent. It was part of the State’s and
the Sheriff’s campaign against Dr. Stephanatos to depict him to the grand
jurors and to the public as a violent person (that he had threatened Robert A.
Del Vecchio with violence, that he had an IED in his front porch- these have
been proven to be lies, fabrications, fake news); refused to pay taxes (more
lies, fabrications, more fake news), and then ambushed (these liars gave the
impression that he had his front door open and that somehow he was waiting
there to assault the two lying sheriff employees – total fabrication and lies
as Dr. Stephanatos’ computer records show that he was in his office computer
doing business and sending e-mails), and threaten the two “poor” heavily-armed
sheriff employees (more lies and fabrications) with a gun that can only fire one
shot at a time (the hunting rifle that the lying Lucas claimed he saw in the
hands of the Defendant).
In October 2011, the former assistant
prosecutor, Peter Roby admitted in open court before the Hon. Judge Filko that
the business instrument was not a bomb (or an IED as the crazy
Lucas/Mango/D’Agostino/Ernst thought it was) and that Dr. Stephanatos had
placed it there to be picked up by a vendor of his business, Pines
Environmental, Inc. Later, Lucas and
D’Agostino changed their story and claimed that they thought it was a “metal
ammunition box”, also a false assertion.
These “poor” Sheriff employees, who were heavily armed, claim that they run like chicken
when they saw the big, ugly, armed (with a single-shot rifle) Dr. Stephanatos
and fell down injuring themselves– what a bunch of losers and liars. These are the same losers, who have been
shooting and killing citizens left and right, even shooting and killing
children that carry plastic guns and shooting people in their back and then
plant evidence and claim self-defense.
And somehow, these heavily armed, trained killers just run away scared
shitless when they saw Dr. Stephanatos without saying anything and without Dr.
Stephanatos ever saying anything to them?
Their stories simply do not add up.
This is only possible if there is no eye-to-eye or any other contact
between the parties, as Dr. Stephanatos has indicated. Now, based on the newly discovered bombshell
evidence in Defense Exhibit D-1 that proves that Lucas was not even at the
doorsteps, we know that this corrupt sheriff employee lied during the grand
jury proceedings, fabricated his reports and created a conspiracy to frame Dr.
Stephanatos with his co-conspirators Victor A. D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred
Ernst.
Here, the bombshell evidence discovered by
Dr. Stephanatos fully contradicts the accounts given by Lucas and D’Agostino.
The indictment must be dismissed with prejudice due to
the perjured testimonies of Lucas and D’Agostino, the numerous other lies and
fabrications and intentionally misleading and highly prejudicial statements
presented by the prosecutor, the numerous omissions of clearly exculpatory
evidence, and the outrageous government conduct recounted above.
At the very least, the Defendant requests an evidentiary
hearing on these issues, asking the Court to summon the four co-conspirators
(Ronald A. Lucas, Victor A. D’Agostino, Nick Mango and Fred Ernst) and Robert
A. Del Vecchio to be cross-examined.
LUCAS
LIED DURING HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WHEN HE CLAIMED THAT HE INJURED HIS LEFT
SHOULDER DURING A FALL AT DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY
As part of an investigation we have been
performing, Defendant discovered that Ronald A. Lucas, a former Passaic County
sheriff officer with the Civil Division lied about his on-the-job shoulder
injury. Lucas claimed that he fell on the
job on June 28, 2011 at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, NJ and that he injured his left
shoulder requiring several pins. He then filed a disability claim with the New
Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits (Police and Firemen Retirement
System). He was granted disability for one year with subsequent
review. After he retired with claimed disability, he obtained a job as
part-time security guard at the Pequannock High School.
Defendant discovered that Mr. Lucas suffered
shoulder injuries while playing football and lifting heavy weights over his
lifetime.
He was a linebacker with the
Pompton Lakes Cardinals (#41), using his shoulder to hit and tackle his opponents
during practice and during football games.
Lucas has fallen on his shoulder probably thousand times during his
athletic and training career.
Everybody knows that linebackers hit and
tackle their opponents using their shoulders.
These athletes also lift heavy weights and they end-up injuries their
shoulders. He even made the All-County
Team in 1980, showing how hard he was working out. Based on our investigation, we found that
weight lifting athletes do suffer shoulder injuries of the type claimed by
Lucas.
He also trained his two sons (Dean Lucas and
Ronnie Lucas) into playing TE and DE positions also with the Cardinals football
team. In fact, linebackers suffer at least 13.5 percent of all football
injuries and at least 65 percent of the linebackers end up undergoing surgery.
We have obtained photos showing Mr. Lucas
lifting weights, after his alleged job-ending disability. See for example
the attached image that is dated December 2013.
It is obvious to a reasonable and objective
person that Lucas (in his mid-50s) took this incident on June 28, 2011 to claim
on-the job-injury to be able to repair his previously injured shoulder at
taxpayers’ expense and to retire and then blame Basilis Stephanatos for his
injuries. After he retired, he started the double dipping. The finest of New Jersey at "work".
THE
RECKLESS PASSAIC COUNTY SHERIFF EMPLOYEES MISTOOK A BOX CONTAINING A BUSINESS
INSTRUMENT AS AN IED OR BOMB AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE
Dr. Stephanatos also requests this Court to take judicial
notice of the fact that a box taken by the Passaic County employees from Dr.
Stephanatos’ residence was a business instrument (a so-called Pelican case used
for transporting sensitive business equipment) and not a “metal ammunition box”
as the Passaic County employees have been misleading the grand jury and the
courts and the public, damaging Dr. Stephanatos reputation.
It is obvious that these two crooked
individuals wanted to give the false impression to the grand jurors that Dr.
Stephanatos had pre-planned an assault and he had stockpiled ammunition in a
metal box. This was highly prejudicial
fabrication by the corrupt Passaic County prosecutors. Of course, who would place a metal ammunition
box at his front steps, leave the front door open for the sheriff to come
inside his home to illegally remove him, and then go back 50 feet away from the
door to his back office and start writing emails and doing business for his
clients? Nobody; certainly not Dr. Stephanatos who is a highly
educated individual who holds BS/MS/PhD Degrees in engineering and a J.D.
Degree as well and has served as expert engineer for many years. These are all lies and fabrications of Lucas
and D’Agostino and the Passaic County prosecutors.
Of course, we now know that these were fraudulent and
perjured statements by Lucas and D’Agostino.
These individuals were most likely embarrassed that they had to call the
SWAT team after they mistook a business instrument for an IED (see Defense
Exhibit D-1) and they fabricated their story to save face.
The State has admitted before Judge Filko, that the
alleged “metal ammunition box” was a rental instrument contained inside a
plastic protective case (called Pelican case) to be picked up by a vendor of
Dr. Stephanatos’ business, Pine Environmental, Inc. the morning of June 28,
2011. The Passaic County prosecutor, Peter Roby, has already admitted in
open court before Judge Filko that it was a rental instrument for Dr.
Stephanatos’ business (please see the record in October 2011 before
Judge Filko)- however, the prosecutor during the grand jury proceedings said to
the grand jurors that the two lying and corrupt Sheriff employees (Lucas and
D’Agostino) thought that the business instrument was “a metal ammunition box”, (in
their reports they write that they thought it was an IED bomb and they had to
call the bomb squad!!! –what a bunch of lunatics) giving the impression to the
grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos was prepared for a battle and that he had a
metal ammunition box or bomb at his front porch. (Of course these are insane assertions by
these two crooked deputies, as this was a plastic box and not a metal box and
only an insane moron or a crooked “officer of the law” would mistake it for a
metal ammunition box.
It should be noted that the Sheriff already knew that Dr.
Stephanatos run a small business out of the premises. See Defense Exhibit D-5, showing the letter
from Metropolitan Environmental Services to the sheriff and the sheriff’s
response, explaining that there a business tenant in the premises. The sheriff responded back by stating that the
sheriff does not remove tenants – however, they did just that.
Therefore, these charges must be dismissed with prejudice
because they are nothing more than fake charges and fabrications of Lucas and
D’Agostino to look good in the eyes of their fellow officers and superiors and the public.
