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:
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, 2nd
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.
