MASSIVE
CONSPIRACY AGAINST HOMEOWNER EXPOSED.
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 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
stuart.rabner@judiciary.state.nj.us; 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
Dear
Legislators:
I
have been reading about abuse of laws and violation of citizens' constitutional
rights by municipal and superior court judges as a way of shaking them
up. In one case reported to the media, former Chancery judge
Margaret McVeigh in Passaic County stole homestead property valued at $475,000
for $20,000 in undue taxes in Wayne Township, New Jersey. Then, Passaic
County and state employees conspired to frame this homeowner whose property was
stolen under the gun point (the Passaic County Sheriff brought MI-16 rifles
with them to take his property by force), for assault. They then have
been delaying the adjudication of the fraudulent and fake charges for more than
seven and a half years.
It
is time that you intervene and put an end to this mockery of “justice”.
Sincerely,
William
Stephan
Principal
Investigator
In
Search of Justice
PROOFS
OF MASSIVE MATERIAL PERJURY BY RONALD A. LUCAS AND VICTOR D’AGOSTINO.
THIS PERJURY WAS KNOWN TO THE PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO THE GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS.
MOTION (32) – UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
CUMULATIVE ERRORS, A NEW GRAND JURY SHOULD BE CONVENED PURSUANT TO STATE V.
ORECCHIO, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954)
Taken cumulatively, the legal errors and false
testimonies in this case are of such a magnitude that they undeniably
prejudiced the defendant’s rights and, in their aggregate, rendered the grand
jury proceedings totally unfair. Fundamental fairness and constitutional
concepts dictate a dismissal. See State v. Orrechio, 16
N.J. 125 (1954).
The New Jersey Supreme Court first discussed the concept
of cumulative errors in the context of a criminal trial in State v.
Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954). When legal errors cumulatively
render a grand jury proceeding or trial unfair, the Constitution requires a new
trial. "[W]here any one of several errors assigned would not in itself be
sufficient to warrant a reversal, yet if all of them taken together justify the
conclusion that defendant was not accorded a fair trial, it becomes the duty of
this court to reverse." Id. at 134 (citations omitted).
The testimonies’ cumulative effect was
“clearly capable of producing an unjust result,” R. 2:10-2, requiring a
reversal of defendant’s convictions. See State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 155 (2014)
(explaining a court should reverse a conviction “[w]hen legal errors
cumulatively render a trial unfair” (citing State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125,
129 (1954))).
It
is respectfully submitted that there are numerous serious legal issues raised
regarding the unfair grand jury presentation in the Stephanatos
matter.
·
In
part, material false testimony presented to the grand jury by Lucas and
D’Agostino when in fact they were never assaulted by Dr. Stephanatos (and Dr.
Stephanatos has already provided irrefutable proof of the perjury committed by
Lucas who signed a document stating that it was Nick Mango and not himself at
the front door – See Defense Exhibit D-1, Supplemental Motions to Dismiss,
March 2018);
·
Numerous
contradictory investigatory reports were not presented to the grand jurors or
were outright hidden from the grand jurors by the prosecutor;
·
In
paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to
Detective Scala “that upon knocking on the front entrance door of the
residence”. See excerpt from the warrant affidavit, Defense Exhibit
D-11. This statement to Detective Scala fully corroborates Dr.
Stephanatos’ statements that his front door was closed – very closed – with a
lock and deadbolt closed.
·
However,
in his June 28, 2011 report prepared by Cpl. Lucas, he writes the following: “As
we proceeded toward the front door I ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the
front wood door was open and a glass storm door made the interior of the house
visible to me”. “At that moment a man came from the hallway with a
long object in his left hand”.
·
So,
based on these diametrically different statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew
or should have known that Lucas lied. At the point at which the
prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the grand jury, the
prosecutor was under a duty to notify the court and the grand jury, to correct
the cancer of justice that had become apparent to him. But he did
not. This is clear, unequivocal prosecutorial misconduct for
intentionally misleading the grand jury.
·
Furthermore, in his grand jury testimony, Officer Lucas
identified the “Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber Winchester single bullet hunting
rifle” as being the weapon that the defendant pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13;
Da15, Motion to Change Venue). It is critical to note that the hunting
rifle is a BROWN
COLORED GUN. However, in section 2 of paragraph 4 of the Warrant
Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to Detective Scala that he saw a “BLACK COLORED RIFLE”.
So, again the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied before the
grand jury when he selected a different color gun than the one he related to
Detective Scala.
·
“fake
facts” (the pointing of a gun out a window) cooked up by the prosecutor that
were highly prejudicial to the Defendant;
·
Not
mentioning that this was a residential property in a wooded area of Wayne
Township where less than 5 people and less than 5 dwellings were located
nearby;
·
not
presenting to the Grand Jurors the record of the phone and emails of Dr.
Stephanatos PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT OF HIS WHEREABOUTS (and refuting
the state’s allegations that he was pointing guns at people and that he was
barricaded);
·
the
impermissible mentioning of bombs and IEDs and ammunition boxes during the
grand jury proceeding when in fact the prosecutor and his witnesses knew that
these were false statements and no bombs or IED or ammunition boxes were ever
found or ever existed;
·
not
mentioning that State Statutes Prohibit the Entering into Residential
Properties unless the entry and detention is made pursuant to legal
process as set out in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 et seq.; the
purpose of following such clearly established process for residential
properties is to avoid the breach of public peace;
·
not
mentioning that no warrant for removal signed by a Law Division judge was
obtained by the sheriff employees prior to attempting to remove Dr. Stephanatos
from his residence;
·
not
mentioning to the Grand Jurors that Victor A. D’Agostino’s duties were not that
of a sworn law enforcement officer;
·
failing
to provide proofs that the Defendant knew that the sheriff employees were in
fact sworn law enforcement officers, as this was a civil matter and the
statutes under which the Defendant was charged pertain to police officers while
they perform criminal law enforcement duties.;
·
the
intentional lying by Lucas that he injured his shoulder requiring 5 pins, when
he in fact injured his shoulder and elbow after playing competitive football
for many years and lifting heavy weights and doing body building;
·
Lt.
Nick Mango wrote in his June 28, 2011 report that “nobody was hurt”.
Also, Lucas never wrote in his June 28, 2018 report that he was injured.
He specifically wrote : “As I entered the woods I stumbled”.
He never wrote that he was injured. However, during this grand jury
testimony, he provided a diametrically different picture:
·
Lucas
claimed that he fell on his elbow and shoulder, but was able to regain his
balance, and he ran into a wooded area to seek cover behind a large boulder.
(GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion to Change Venue). Lucas claimed that he tore
his biceps and had surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty
severe injury” in his shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8,
Motion to Change Venue). Of course we now know that this guy was a
football player and body builder and suffered these injuries over his many
years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents with his shoulder (he
was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals at #41). This guy then
defrauded the Police and Firemen Retirement Fund by claiming disability and
started the double dipping.
·
So,
from flip-flopping regarding the color of the gun; to whether the door was
closed or open; to whether he knocked the door or not; to whether he suffered a
major injury or not, Lying Lucas has some serious credibility issues; and all
his lies were allowed to poison the grand jury deliberations.
·
the
false (and highly prejudicial) allegations that Dr. Stephanatos had threatened
Robert Del Vecchio, Esq. with violence few days prior to the “eviction”;
·
the
false (and highly prejudicial) allegation that Dr. Stephanatos did not want to
pay taxes;
·
not
presenting evidence that Dr. Stephanatos only wanted a simple stay of the
proceedings (as is allowed by state law) so that he can file and adjudicate his
appeals and to save his home and home-based business from an illegal eviction;
·
failing
to mention that at no time did the sheriff employees told Dr. Stephanatos that
he was under arrest;
·
not
presenting evidence of the illegal background leading up to the charges perpetrated
by the conspirators Robert Del Vecchio, ATF, and others;
·
not
mentioning the fact that this was a civil matter based upon profit for the
same;
·
not
mentioning that Dr. Stephanatos fully owned his real estate property and was
used as his home and small business and that his business (Metropolitan
Environmental Services) was not part of any eviction proceedings;
·
not
mentioning that state case law allowed Dr. Stephanatos not to lose his home;
·
not
mentioning that no state or federal court has the authority to take private
homestead property and deliver it to a private entity as it is in violation of
the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article I, par. 20 of the
state constitution;
·
not
mentioning that Dr. Stephanatos’ property was over-assessed by more than 40
percent since 1995 and no taxes were legally due;
·
the
failure to properly charge the grand jurors on several asserted defenses,
including the defense of self and defense of dwelling, the Castle Doctrine, the
defense of business, duress, outrageous government conduct, honestly-held
belief, etc.;
·
the
intentional failure to inform or notify the grand jurors that Dr. Stephanatos
wanted to testify (based on the letter sent to the prosecutor by Mr. Herman,
Esq. prior to the grand jury deliberations); thus the prosecutor interfered
with the independence of the Grand Jury;
·
and
no explanation was given to the grand jury of the specific violations of the
law(s) and Court Rules (Sherman Act violation, tax sale law violations,
fraud-on-the court, failure to provide notice, failure to adjudicate the issue
of possession, obtaining ex-parte writs of possession, etc.) by the
conspirators and what is required to be done if there was to be legality and
legitimate process, which brought Officers Lucas and D’Agostino to the
defendant’s home on the day in question.
·
Add
to this the constitutional violations (subject to the motion to suppress); the
doctrine of “false in one, false in all” not explained to the grand jury; the
fact that the grand jury was not charged as to the rights of protection by the
homeowner where it involves his property (the defense of home or New Jersey’s
Castle Doctrine), the protection of his business, as well as the unlawful entry
by the officers on defendant’s property as they were relying on void judgments
and writs due to the fraud on the court committed by Robert Del Vecchio, ATF
and others. The law of duress and self-defense and outrageous government
conduct should have been charged to the grand jury by the prosecutor.
Instead
of a fair presentation, there was a biased presentation in actuality depicting
the defendant as a “monster”. The perjured testimonies’ and “fake facts”
cumulative effect was “clearly capable of producing an unjust result,” R.
2:10-2, requiring a reversal of defendant’s indictment. State v.
Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954).
The
Law on Perjury Before a Grand Jury
The
grand jury both “acts as a sword so that those who are suspected of wrongdoing
may be properly brought to trial, and as a shield to protect the people
from arbitrary prosecution.” State v. Smith, 269 N.J.Super. 86,
93, 634 A.2d 576 (App. Div. 1993). In State v. Murphy, 110 N.J.
20, 538 A.2d 1235 (1988) the New Jersey Supreme Court held that it is the
court’s obligation to exercise its supervisory authority over the grand jury
process to ensure that the selection of the grand jurors and the presentation
are fair and unbiased.
“Unless
the prosecutor’s misconduct is ‘extreme and clearly infringes upon the [grand]
jury’s decision-making function’ an otherwise valid indictment should not be
dismissed.” Id. citing State v. Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22, 48-49, 583
A.2d 747 (1991). The dismissal of an indictment is appropriate
“if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the
grand jury’s decision to indict” or if there is ‘grave doubt’ that the
determination ultimately reached was arrived at fairly and impartially.
Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 256 quoting United
States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66, 78 (1986). “The grand jury
cannot be denied access to evidence that is credible, material and so clearly
exculpatory as to induce a rational grand juror to conclude that the State has
not made out a prima facie case against the accused.” State v. Hogan,
144 N.J. 216, 236, 676 A.2d 533 (1996).
PROOFS
OF MASSIVE MATERIAL PERJURY BY RONALD A. LUCAS AND VICTOR D’AGOSTINO.
THIS PERJURY WAS KNOWN TO THE PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR PRIOR TO THE GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS.
In
paragraph 2 of section 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates” to
Detective Scala “that upon knocking on the front entrance door of the
residence”. See excerpt from the warrant affidavit, Defense Exhibit
D-11. This statement to Detective Scala fully corroborates Dr.
Stephanatos’ statements that his front door was closed – very closed – with a
lock and deadbolt closed.
However, in his June 28, 2011 report prepared by Cpl.
Lucas, he writes the following: “As we proceeded toward the front door I
ascented[sic] the steps and noticed the front wood door was open and a glass
storm door made the interior of the house visible to me”. “At that
moment a man came from the hallway with a long object in his left hand”.
The
statement by Lucas to Detective Scala is diametrically different than the
statements given by Lucas and D’Agostino at the grand jury proceedings and also
wrote in their reports: that they did not knock the door and they were
assaulted as they were coming up the front porch steps and they were able to
see everything so nicely and so clearly because the front door was magically
open (that stupid Dr. Stephanatos, he should have left his door closed!
(sarcasm here)).
So,
based on these diametrically different statements by Lucas, the prosecutor knew
or should have known that Lucas lied. At the point at which the
prosecutor learned of the perjury before and during the grand jury, the
prosecutor was under a duty to notify the court and the grand jury, to correct
the cancer of justice that had become apparent to him. But he did
not. Welcome to Passaic County!
Furthermore, in his grand
jury testimony, Officer Lucas identified the “Ruger M77 Mark II, 270 caliber
Winchester single bullet hunting rifle” as being the weapon that the defendant
pointed at him. (GJT27-8 to 13; Da15, Motion to Change Venue). It is critical
to note that the hunting rifle is a BROWN COLORED GUN.
However, in section 2 of paragraph 4 of the Warrant Affidavit, Lucas “relates”
to Detective Scala that he saw a “BLACK COLORED RIFLE”.
Therefore, the affidavit paragraph 4, section 2 included a material false
statement that was included with reckless disregard for the truth. So,
again the prosecutor knew or should have known that Lucas lied before the grand
jury when he selected a different color gun than the one he related to
Detective Scala.
I
respectfully submit to this Court that the statements made by Lucas in the
early moments of the June 28, 2011 events are closer to the truth (but not
quite the truth), than his fabrications that are start pouring in later in the
day and afterwards. For example, Lt. Nick Mango wrote in his report that
“nobody was hurt”. Also, Lucas never wrote in his report that he
was injured. He specifically wrote : “As I entered the woods I
stumbled”. However, during this grand jury testimony, he provided a diametrically
different picture:
Lucas
claimed that he fell on his elbow and shoulder, but was able to regain his
balance, and he ran into a wooded area to seek cover behind a large boulder.
(GJT11-18 to 21; Da7, Motion to Change Venue). Lucas claimed that he tore
his biceps and had surgery on his shoulder, and “ended up having a pretty
severe injury” in his shoulder, requiring “five pins.” (GJT12-7 to 9; Da8,
Motion to Change Venue). Of course we now know that this guy was a
football player and body builder and suffered these injuries over his many
years of lifting heavy weights and hitting his opponents with his shoulder (he
was a linebacker with the Pompton Lakes Cardinals). This guy then went on
to defraud the New Jersey Police and Firemen Insurance Fund by claiming
disability and retiring from the sheriff’s department. After that, he
started the double dipping.
THE
LIES, FABRICATIONS AND INTENTIONAL OMISSIONS OF WALTER DEWEY
After the two sheriff
employees served a bunch of lies to the grand jurors and the prosecutor, after
learning of the perjury failed to correct it, he decided to add some more fake
facts of his own creation; basically, adding salt to the injury (the vultures
were keep piling on the body of still-alive Dr. Stephanatos). The prosecutor,
Walter Dewey, also mislead the jurors and fabricated “facts” by eliciting false
testimony from Officer D’Agostino regarding the pointing of a gun out of a
“window”. The officers had indicated that they saw me standing behind a
glass storm door and that I never opened the door. No “window” was ever
mentioned by the two individuals, as no window exists in the front porch of the
dwelling. See attached image of the front door of the dwelling, showing
that no window is present.
(I denied that I was
standing behind the storm door: I have stated many times that I was in my
office doing my business, I have the computer records to prove it, those
records were submitted to the prosecutors, and I kept the doors of the home
locked with a deadbolt).
But the prosecutor asked
D’Agostino if I was pointing a gun “out the window”. Then D’Agostino said
“yes”. See Grand Jury Transcripts, Motion to Change Venue.
This
Court should note that there is no opening window in the front porch- that was
another misleading and prejudicial question by the corrupt Passaic County
prosecutor. The prosecutors obviously wanted to mislead and lie to the
grand jury by stating that the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a
window, something that the two sheriff employees never wrote in their reports,
as no window was involved. In fact, Lucas never testified or wrote that
the defendant was pointing a weapon outside a window. The corrupt
prosecutor Walter Dewey elicited this statement from D’Agostino only.
Certainly this is a highly prejudicial, fraudulent and misleading question/statement,
necessitating a dismissal of the indictment.
So,
from flip-flopping regarding the color of the gun; to whether the door was
closed or open; to whether he knocked the door or not; to whether he suffered a
major injury or not, Lying Lucas has some serious credibility issues. And
Walter Dewey added salt to the injury by cooking up highly prejudicial fake
“facts” of his own creation (the pointing of a gun out a window). This
Court cannot possibly uphold an indictment based on these material fact perjuries
and based on all the false and highly prejudicial evidence presented at the
grand jury. This is not how things are done. They need to go back
and try to obtain a superseding indictment (using the truth please), after this
Court dismisses this patently flawed one.
DEFENDANT
SPECIFICALLY REQUESTS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO NJ COURT RULE 3:5-7 (C)
HEARING AND THE RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE STATE V. ATWOOD,
A-42, SEPTEMBER TERM 2016 (2018).
Because
Defendant has provided many proofs in his various submissions to this Court,
directly refuting the fake facts cooked up by the prosecutor and his witnesses,
Defendant specifically requests an evidentiary hearing pursuant to NJ Court Rule
3:5-7 (c) Hearing. If material facts are disputed,
testimony thereon shall be taken in open court. The evidentiary
hearing is also requested pursuant to the recent Supreme Court case State v.
Atwood, A-42, September Term 2016 (2018).
See WAYNE R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE § 14.3(a), at 321–22 (3d ed. 2007) (defendant arguably should not
be bound over for trial if evidence would not permit jury to convict).
I
am forwarding a copy of the material directly to the Passaic County prosecutor,
Stephen Bollenbach, as reflected by the enclosed certification of service.
I
hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by
me are true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. NJ
Court Rule R. 1:4-4(b); 28 U.S.C. §1746.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Joshua Epstein,
Esq.
Encl.
cc:
Steven Bollenbach, Passaic Co.
