ANOTHER BLACK EYE FOR CORRUPT AND RECKLESS PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY: Six children are dead and 12 others sick following a severe viral outbreak of adenovirus at the Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation in Haskell

I wouldn't put my dog there! Thought it was ok at first until my grandmother was rushed to the hospital with a cough and fever! Found out from the ER doctor she has COPD, which I never knew. She also was supposed to be on oxygen 24/7 and never was! It was in her chart from the nursing home the ER Doctor said! When I went to get her stuff from her room, I noticed a giant oxygen tank and two smaller ones. Guess they were trying to cover their asses to make it look like she was getting it! They barely had her out walking, out of her chair, out of her bed, or out of her room and she's quite capable of walking as long as someone is with her! Well she has pneumonia and that could be a big reason why! I think they just look to make money! Don't see anyone really caring about the patients!!! There are nursing homes in the area much better than this!!!

===================================

Friday, October 26, 2018


HASKELL, New Jersey (WABC) -- 

New Jersey health officials say an eighth child has died in a viral outbreak at a pediatric rehabilitation center.

The state Department of Health on Friday confirmed the latest death and an additional case of adenovirus at the Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation in Haskell, Passaic County, bringing the total number of cases to 23.

Officials say the latest death is a suspected case of adenovirus, but it has not yet been confirmed by lab tests.

A health department spokesperson said all of these individuals had already been sick, so the diagnoses do not necessarily mean the virus is still spreading. But state officials say the outbreak won't be declared over until the facility can go four weeks without any new cases of people being infected.

"The strain of adenovirus seen in this outbreak is associated with communal living arrangements and known to cause severe illness," a statement read. "The department continues to work very closely with the facility to ensure that all infection control measures are being followed. An outbreak investigation, with assistance from the CDC, is ongoing."

The state became aware of the outbreak back on October 9 and has been working with the CDC, but parents of patients reached out to Eyewitness News to complain about a lack of transparency. One parent of a sick child said she only learned of the outbreak by watching the news and that they were never told about the severity of the situation. She said a nurse downplayed the situation, saying her daughter had a fever and was given medication due to "a little virus going around" similar to the common cold.

Meanwhile, the parents of a 16-year-old girl who died are trying to come to grips with their loss. Kristine Poulos said the girl was diagnosed with adenovirus on October 5 after she was transferred to St Joseph's Hospital for treatment.

"I'm angry," Poulos said. "I think what it is, I need to know more information. I like facts."

After critical care at St Joseph's, the girl was transferred back to Wanaque, where she died Tuesday morning.

"I just want to know what happened," Poulos said. "She's not coming back."


The Wanaque Center is also offering professional grief counseling to anyone impacted.

Adenoviruses usually cause mild illnesses, but the health department says this outbreak is particularly severe because it is affecting children with severely compromised immune systems.

"This strain has been particularly associated with disease in communal living facilities," the department said in a statement. "The combination of a worse strain of adenovirus together with a fragile population has led to a more severe outbreak."

The conditions of the other victims are unknown. The facility has been instructed to not admit any new patients until the outbreak ends.

"Adenovirus is very contagious virus," said Dr. Sejal Bhavsar, of Hackensack University Medical Center. "However, in these situations, they are very contagious in long-term facilities because they are often transported by sneezing and coughing, but also the particles that are passed from sneezing and coughing land on other objects. And other people go and touch it and then touch their mouths without washing their hands. That's how they can obtain the virus."

A health department team remains at the facility, and an inspection team was initially there Sunday. The team on Sunday found minor hand-washing deficiencies, and the department is continuing to work closely with the facility on infection control issues.

"I am heartbroken by the news that several children have lost their lives in an adenovirus outbreak at the Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, and pray for the full recovery of the other children impacted," Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement. "I have been briefed by (Health Commissioner) Dr. (Shereef) Elnahal, who has assured me that the Department of Health has recommended vital measures to enhance protections against the further spread of infection and will continue its active on-site surveillance. I am confident that the steps being taken by state and local officials will minimize the impact to all those who remain at the facility, including patients and employees."

Wanaque Center administrator Rowena Bautista issued the following statement:

"The Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation has recently experienced some cases of the Adenovirus in its pediatric unit. The facility promptly notified all appropriate government agencies when the virus was initially identified, including the New Jersey Department of Health, The Passaic County Department of Health, The Communicable Disease Service and the Centers for Disease Control. The Wanaque Center continues to fully cooperate with these agencies and has sought out their medical guidance with respect to the virus. As a result, facility staff have diligently implemented all available infection control and prevention measures in order to protect the health and safety of the Wanaque Center's residents."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an email that it is providing technical assistance to the state.

In the past 10 years, cases of severe illness and death from the type of infection found at the facility have been reported in the United States, said CDC spokeswoman Kate Fowlie in an email, though it's unclear how many deaths there have been.

A scientific paper cited by the CDC reported that a 1998 outbreak of type 7 adenovirus at a pediatric chronic-care facility in Chicago claimed the lives of eight patients. The 2001 paper said civilian outbreaks of the type 7 infection had not been frequently reported because of a lack of lab resources, and that the full impact on chronic-care facilities and hospitals is likely underestimated.

CLICK HERE for more information on adenoviruses

=================================

HASKELL, New Jersey -- 

Six children are dead and 12 others sick following a severe viral outbreak at a rehabilitation center in New Jersey.

The state Department of Health on Tuesday confirmed 18 cases of adenovirus at the Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation in Haskell, Passaic County.

Adenoviruses usually cause mild illnesses, but the health department says this outbreak is particularly severe because it is affecting medically fragile children with severely compromised immune systems.

"This strain has been particularly associated with disease in communal living facilities," the department said in a statement. "The combination of a worse strain of adenovirus together with a fragile population has led to a more severe outbreak."

The facility has been instructed to not admit any new patients until the outbreak ends.

A health department team is at the facility, and an inspection team was also there Sunday. The team on Sunday found minor hand-washing deficiencies, and the department is continuing to work closely with the facility on infection control issues.

This is an ongoing outbreak investigation.

Wanaque Center administrator Rowena Bautista issued the following statement:

"The Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation has recently experienced some cases of the Adenovirus in its pediatric unit. The facility promptly notified all appropriate government agencies when the virus was initially identified, including the New Jersey Department of Health, The Passaic County Department of Health, The Communicable Disease Service and the Centers for Disease Control. The Wanaque Center continues to fully cooperate with these agencies and has sought out their medical guidance with respect to the virus. As a result, facility staff have diligently implemented all available infection control and prevention measures in order to protect the health and safety of the Wanaque Center's residents."

 ====================================

Our Approach

 


The Wanaque Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation offers short and long term care in a secure and caring environment. When a resident is admitted to our home, our skilled team of trained professionals meets with the resident and family member, providing a unique and highly personalized plan of care.

Through our Family Approach to Caring we are able to provide a lively and caring community with a staff that diligently addresses each residents’ needs promptly. Our residents are continually assessed for changes to optimize their function and quality of life. Our plan of care always reflects the residents’ individual and personal choices.

Helping our residents achieve maximum functionality and independence is our goal. This is the commitment we make to the exceptional people we serve.

================================

The Wanaque Center for Pediatrics

The Wanaque Center has a highly skilled team of experts who work with medically fragile children in our pediatrics center. Our dedicated staff embraces children from newborn to twenty two years of age and individualizes each child’s program to maximize their capabilities.



New Jersey Certified teachers are hired through the Board of Education and provide a classroom setting for children from preschool through high school. The school curriculum and classroom mirror that of a state run public school but within the confines of the Wanaque Center. The classrooms are handicapped accessible and set up for ventilator use. Each classroom offers highly individualized attention as each child progresses from preschool through elementary, middle and high school. Our post high school residents are offered a life skills program that integrates their public school education with everyday living.

Everyday life at Wanaque focuses on education and experiencing life and all the joy it offers. The playground is adapted to accommodate our ventilator children and our vegetable garden allows our children to ‘go green’. Our dedicated staff accompanies our ambulatory children on trips to the mall, restaurants, baseball games and local community events, such as carnivals and town picnics.

We understand transportation can be difficult to our center for visiting family. We have a complimentary hospitality van that departs from Manhattan and will drive you directly to the facility and then back to Manhattan at the end of the visit. Allowing easy access to our facility helps the children thrive in a loving environment that includes family and day to day caregivers.

To schedule a visit, please contact us:

Jean Bruzzone
Director of Admissions
Office Number: 973-839-2119 x123
Cell Number: 973-809-0988
JBruzzone@wanaquerehab.com

The state of Michigan has issued a "Do Not Eat" advisory for deer meat taken within a five-mile radius of a wetland area contaminated by some of the highest levels of toxic PFAS chemicals found in Michigan's environment. AFFF firefighting foam at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda to blame

October 20, 2018
MLive.com, Walker, Mich. | By Garret Ellison

OSCODA, Mich. -- 

The state of Michigan has issued a "Do Not Eat" advisory for deer meat taken within a five-mile radius of a wetland area contaminated by some of the highest levels of toxic PFAS chemicals found in Michigan's environment.

The advisory -- a first of its kind related to PFAS in Michigan land animals -- was issued in conjunction with a violation letter to the U.S. Air Force, which state regulators say is polluting Michigan surface waters with PFAS levels above enforceable limits.


The violation notice is the second one sent to the Air Force this year related to PFAS contamination caused by past use of AFFF firefighting foam at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda. It occurs amid an ongoing dispute between the Air Force and the state about the pace and adequacy of cleanup efforts in the area.

"The slow response by the Air Force to the Wurtsmith contamination is having an increasingly negative impact on the people, wildlife, and environment in Oscoda," said Carol Isaacs, director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART).

According to the state, a deer shot near Clark's Marsh had 547 parts-per-billion (ppb) of the individual compound PFOS in its blood. The state health department and natural resources department say "action" is recommended at a 300-ppb level.

The state says PFAS was either not found or at low levels in muscle samples from 19 other local deer tested. The state released little specific data about the deer testing, nor did it say whether different parts of the animals tested at higher concentration levels. PFAS are known to accumulate in certain organs such as kidneys.

The state plans to test more deer in the area.

The DNR says deer sampled from PFAS investigation sites in Alpena, Rockford and Grayling showed low to no levels of contamination.

High blood levels in Oscoda deer indicate that underground PFAS plumes are impacting surface waters, which are regulated by enforceable state rules. The state's enforceable standard for PFOS in rivers, lakes or streams is 12 parts-per-trillion (ppt).

The Michigan DEQ says that monitoring well and surface water samples from Clark's Marsh show high PFOS levels. Groundwater beneath the marsh test as high as 42,000-ppt for PFOS, and surface water contamination as a high as 1,410-ppt.

The state says it's requiring the Air Force to increase its pumping and treatment of contaminated groundwater at the former base grounds from 250 gallons-per-minute (gpm) to 1,040-gpm, and increase the plume capture zones.

In January, the DEQ issued the Air Force a violation notice for failing to meet a 2017 deadline to start up a second groundwater filtration system at the base. The new system only became operational this summer.

Isaacs said that Michigan has "sought to work cooperatively with the Air Force," but that "slow response to PFAS contamination is not acceptable and the state is prepared to use every regulatory and legal means necessary to force the Air Force to address this contamination."

Clark's Marsh and the Au Sable River south of the base is already under a "Do Not Eat" advisory for fish species due to the contamination.

Karla Wellman, co-owner of Wellman's Sport Center in Oscoda, was upset to learn about the additional wildlife consumption advisory for the area. The PFAS contamination has already cast a shadow over a beautiful area.

"People hunt there all the time," she said.

Wellman's processes deer meat in addition to operating as a local bait shop near the Au Sable River mouth at Lake Huron. She said the shop hasn't been cleaning as much fish as it once did, and thinks it's due to the advisories and large amounts of unsightly PFAS foam showing up on the surface and beaches of Van Etten Lake, adjacent to the base.

Photos of the foam "look like snow on the river," Wellman said.

"I'm not happy about it," she said. "It's a good thing we wear all these hats in northern Michigan. Otherwise, we'd never survive. We'd be a damn ghost town."

Despite the advisories, there's still some who eat fish from contaminated waters and will continue to do so, she said.

"I've got a 76-year-old guy who catches all kinds of fish and eats them on a regular basis," she said. "He doesn't care. He's going to live his life the way he wants."

Whether that attitude will translate to deer hunters, she couldn't say.

"I don't know," Wellman said. "We haven't crossed that bridge yet."

Gulf County, Florida Fire Coordinator Brad Price, 49, of Wewahitchka, died after a tree fell on his tractor while he was helping family members to clear debris left by Hurricane Michael

• FF/Paramedic at Bay County Fire Dept.
• Studied at Gulf Coast Community College
• Studied Firefighter/Paramedic with an AS Degree in Fire Science at Gulf Coast State College
• Went to Wewa
• Went to Wewahitchka Junior - Senior High
• Lives in Wewahitchka, Florida
• From Wewahitchka, Florida
• In a relationship

   

GULF COUNTY, Fla. -

A Florida firefighter died Thursday after a tree fell on his tractor while he was helping family members to clear debris left by Hurricane Michael, officials with the Gulf County Sheriff’s Office said.


Deputies said Gulf County Fire Coordinator Brad Price, 49, of Wewahitchka, died at the scene. Price worked as a firefighter and paramedic in Bay County and previously worked for Lynn Haven Fire and Emergency Services.


He was draped in an American flag Thursday and taken to the Bay County Medical Examiner’s Office by a procession of emergency vehicles.

Price was known for his service to his community and for coaching softball for several years, deputies said.

“Gulf County lost one of our own today,” officials with Gulf County Fire and Emergency Services said Thursday in a statement. “To Brad’s entire family and friends, on behalf of all the firefighters and emergency staff in Gulf County, we love you, grieve with you and are praying for all of you.”

===========================





By Anna Beahm | abeahm@al.com

abeahm@al.com

A firefighter and paramedic from Florida’s panhandle died Thursday after a tree fell on him as he was clearing debris left by Hurricane Michael, Florida officials say.

Brad Price, a firefighter and paramedic for the Gulf County Fire and Emergency Services was helping family members clear debris Thursday when a tree fell on the tractor he was using, the Gulf County Sheriff’s Office said in a Facebook post. Price was pronounced dead at the scene. He was 49 and lived in Wewahitchka, according to the sheriff’s office.

“He was known for his service to his community in Gulf County as well as coaching softball for many years,” sheriff’s officials said in the post.

Gulf County Fire and Emergency Services also posted a statement regarding Price’s death.

A procession of emergency vehicles followed as his body was taken to the Bay County Medical Examiners Office Thursday night.

On Wednesday, officials said 26 died from the storm that devastated Florida’s panhandle.

The storm is blamed for 16 deaths in Florida, with 12 of the fatalities in Bay County. Nationally, Michael is blamed for 26 deaths - three in North Carolina, one in Georgia and six in Virginia - though that number is expected to rise as recovery efforts continue. 

In many cases, they were saved by additional strategically placed nails, some small metal connectors and window shutters that created a sealed package — low-cost reinforcements that determined whose home survived and whose was destroyed by the power of Hurricane Michael

Houses intact after Hurricane Michael were often saved by low-cost reinforcements




Five Habitat For Humanity houses, center, stood firm during Hurricane Michael even as an adjacent trailer park saw heavy damage. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)




By Patricia Sullivan ,

Frances Stead Sellers and

Emily Wax-Thibodeaux 

October 17, 2018

BLOUNTSTOWN, Fla. — 

The houses still standing in the storm-ravaged neighborhoods of Florida’s Panhandle are conspicuous for their presence. Sticking up from the rubble like one remaining tooth in a jawful of decay, each one is a haunting reminder of what used to exist around it.

In many cases, they were saved by additional strategically placed nails, some small metal connectors and window shutters that created a sealed package — low-cost reinforcements that determined whose home survived and whose was destroyed by the power of Hurricane Michael.

There are the five Habitat for Humanity houses in Panama City, a waterfront vacation home in Mexico Beach, a house built by a homeowner and a few of his church friends — modest structures that lost shingles and suffered water damage but stand largely untouched overlooking the wreckage of buildings that were shredded and ripped from their foundations.

“We have evidence that we can construct affordable housing that is resilient,” said Leslie Chapman-Henderson, president of the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting property from disasters.

After Hurricane Andrew, which hit Florida in 1992, the state instituted a stricter building code in the early 2000s that required new buildings to use tougher nails and have more puncture-resistant walls, among other changes. But industry experts say that homeowners can go further in strengthening their homes without spending tens of thousands of dollars.

“Often the difference between a roof that stays on and one that flies off is the connection method,” Chapman-Henderson said. “A handful of additional nails can mean the difference.”



‘Ground zero’ of Michael’s devastation, ride with rescue teams at Mexico Beach

Rescue teams head to Mexico Beach, Fla. to assist and evacuate residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael’s devastation. (Jon Gerberg/The Washington Post)

As the storm barreled down on the Panhandle coast last week, Christina Harding decided to hunker down with her partner and three children in the home they have lived in for two years.

They nervously watched as Michael’s ferocious winds ripped apart the trailer park across the street, hurling huge sections of it at their house, including several trash cans and pieces of the trailers’ roofs.

“Please don’t let it hit us,” Harding prayed.

Theirs was one of the five houses recently erected in the neighborhood by Habitat for Humanity, a global nonprofit organization that builds affordable homes. Harding, an office manager for a loan company, had worked alongside the builders, investing her own sweat equity to construct the house 1.5 miles from the bay. It was topped by a metal roof, but she had no idea how the house would fare in a storm.

When the winds died down, one of Harding’s daughters, who was away, was panic-stricken when she failed repeatedly to reach her mother by phone. Then she saw aerial photos of Panama City.


'It's like the end of the world': Hurricane Michael leaves a town in ruins


'The whole town is gone:' Hurricane Michael wipes out Florida coastal community (Alice Li, Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

“When I saw those five metal roofs I knew the houses were good and you guys were good,” Harding said her daughter told her.

In all, the five Habitat houses lost some siding, an AC unit and one window.

“It’s just amazing,” Harding said.

Habitat for Humanity developed a reputation for creating storm-resistant structures after Hurricane Andrew. Its houses were built beyond code with hurricane ties, thicker lumber, windstorm plywood and metal roofs.

Harding’s home was built to what is known as “Fortified Gold” by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), a nonprofit, independent research organization that runs a program called Fortified a set of voluntary building standards “that go beyond code to help harden homes against Mother Nature.”

They work closely with roofers, builders and nonprofits groups to erect homes with wind protections that strengthen the roof, with roof-to-wall attachments and stronger windows and doors.

Roy Wright, president and CEO of IBHS, said a critical issue is “to make sure the edge of roof will be able to withstand the wind so the roof won’t pop off.”

This can be done through special nails and metal attachments between the roof and the walls, he said.

“Homeowners have to demand that their homes are rebuilt in a strong way. There are a lot of shady actors who chase these storms and take advantage of people,” Wright said. “This is not something that costs tens of thousands of dollars, this is within reach of anyone to fortify their roof, windows and doors. Homeowners just have to be armed with the right questions.”

While not cheap, the cost of fortifying a house against hurricane-force winds is not as unaffordable as many homeowners think, he said. He said retrofitting a roof is about $1,000 for a 2,000-square-foot roof, the average size in the United States. When building a house from scratch, it could cost as little as 3 percent to 5 percent more “to harden the house, fortify the roof, windows and doors and tie the house together tightly from top to bottom” in some areas of the country, he said.

Hurricane-proofing also helps protect structures from projectiles, which can breach windows and doors and create upward pressure on the roof. Hurricane proofing should have shutters for all openings to prevent that, and the strongest protections include what is essentially bulletproof glass.

Garrett W. Walton, CEO of Rebuild Northwest Florida, a nonprofit organization launched in the wake of Hurricane Ivan in 2004, has helped 14,000 homeowners in the Pensacola region to fortify homes built before Florida’s statewide building codes came into effect.

The group, which uses funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, puts the cost of bringing a house up to statewide standards at $9,200.

The benefits, the group says, include having a safer home as well as potential discounts on insurance and less likelihood of being displaced. He said the homes were tested in tornadoes and fared very well.

While homes built before World War II tend to do well in storms, those built during the postwar baby boom period were constructed quickly and cheaply, leaving many homes vulnerable, Walton said.

In addition, those strong building codes put into place in 2001 did have exceptions, according to Chapman-Henderson, including the provision for the Panhandle, which was in place during the building boom of the early 2000s. In the Panhandle, the full code applied only to a one-mile strip along the coast, leaving houses built during that period further inland vulnerable to high winds.

Three years ago, Paul Jackson built a vacation home one block from the waterfront in Mexico Beach. He knew to expect that extra hurricane protection would amount to some 7 percent to 10 percent of construction costs. He said he invested closer to 15 percent of his $400,000 cost on added investments in insulated-concrete-form walls, instead of traditional wood construction.

But he also calculated that, even with those higher upfront costs, he would break even in six years, because of lower insurance rates and utility bills — fortified homes often have stronger windows that don’t leak air-conditioning, for instance.

And there was, of course, the incalculable savings in worry. He built to the IBHS Fortified Gold program.

Jackson said the door of his home was battered in by a piling that had ripped free from another home or dock. The house took in about three feet of water. But while his neighbors will have to start from scratch, he just has to replace cabinets, furniture and drywall.
About 50 miles inland, Jim Wise built his Blountstown house himself, with help from 10 or 12 members of his church, who set the framework and trusses, and a few drywall and plumbing contractors. He said the house was strapped down to the concrete floor — “That’s code. We wouldn’t skimp on that.” — and he followed professional advice to use extra nails and hurricane clips to attach the roof.

“It pays not to cut that stuff short,” said Wise, a former owner of several furniture stores.

The house survived five hours of nonstop wind and rain, Wise said. Four trees fell on his workshop, and the greenhouse lost a lot of plastic and fiberglass, but other than some damaged trim, the house weathered the storm just fine.

Following the state building codes alone can help, but it wasn’t a foolproof solution for Debbi and Jim Prantl.

When they saw their dream beachfront house on aerial footage on the news it had been torn from its pilings at least 12-feet tall and pushed entirely across U.S. Route 98. It was nearly intact except for one key detail.

“It used to be a four-story house,” Debbi Prantl said. “What you see here at ground level is the third floor and up there is the fourth floor. The second floor is that [rubble] underneath. We have no idea where the first floor went.”

But the hurricane-rated glass in what remains of the house was intact, Jim Prantl noted. The contents of the house were jumbled but remained.

“We had minimal flood insurance because we never imagined anything but wind damage,” Debbi Prantl said. “I don’t know what we do now. I don’t think it’s sunk in yet.”

In tiny Greensboro, Fla., many houses suffered, and the power is still out six days after Michael made landfall 80 miles away. But at least one house had no damage whatsoever — the Dezell House, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Built between 1912 and 1919 of cypress and yellow heart pine by the owner of a sawmill, the house is almost entirely original. The West Gadsden Historical Society re-shingled the roof five years ago, but the roof structure is unchanged, said Jane Clark, vice president of the society.

Not a drop of water infiltrated the Arts and Crafts, prairie-style home, which is unusual in the area because it was not elevated. James Dezell, who lived in Chicago and southwest Missouri after the Civil War, later became Greensboro’s first mayor.

“Nothing in the house, nothing, has been structurally modified in any way,” Clark said. “It is a true testimony to how things were built.”

REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION: THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE INNOCENT MAN’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS FOR 7.5 YEARS AND COUNTING!!

<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>; <AswHandlin@njleg.org>; <AswDiMaso@njleg.org>; <SenGreenstein@njleg.org>; <AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org>; <AsmBenson@njleg.org>; <SenTurner@njleg.org>; <AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org>; <SenBateman@njleg.org>; <AsmFreiman@njleg.org>; <AsmZwicker@njleg.org>; <SenBSmith@njleg.org>; <AsmDanielsen@njleg.org>; <AsmEgan@njleg.org>; <SenDiegnan@njleg.org>; <AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org>; <AswPinkin@njleg.org>; <SenVitale@njleg.org>; <AsmCoughlin@njleg.org>; <AswLopez@njleg.org>; <SenCryan@njleg.org>; <AswQuijano@njleg.org>; <AsmHolley@njleg.org>; <SenKean@njleg.org>; <AsmBramnick@njleg.org>; <AswMunoz@njleg.org>; <SenScutari@njleg.org>; <AswCarter@njleg.org>; <AsmKennedy@njleg.org>; <SenDoherty@njleg.org>; <AsmDiMaio@njleg.org>; <AsmPeterson@njleg.org>; <SenOroho@njleg.org>; <AsmSpace@njleg.org>; <AsmWirths@njleg.org>; <SenBucco@njleg.org>; <AsmCarroll@njleg.org>; <AsmBucco@njleg.org>; <SenPennacchio@njleg.org>; <AsmWebber@njleg.org>; <AswDecroce@njleg.org>; <SenCodey@njleg.org>; <AswJasey@njleg.org>; <AsmMcKeon@njleg.org>; <SenRice@njleg.org>; <AsmCaputo@njleg.org>; <AswTucker@njleg.org>; <SenRuiz@njleg.org>; <AswPintorMarin@njleg.org>; <AswSpeight@njleg.org>; <SenSinger@njleg.org>; <metroforensics@gmail.com>;

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; <metroforensics@gmail.com>;<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>;

'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'; <metroforensics@gmail.com>;<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>;

==============================================

REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION: THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE INNOCENT MAN’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS FOR 7.5 YEARS AND COUNTING!!

DEAR LEGISLATORS:

I AM WRITING TO REPORT AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE WHERE THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY HAVE INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED DR. STEPHANATOS' SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS FOR MORE THAN 7 AND HALF YEARS.  THEY ALSO VIOLATED SEVERAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO COVER UP THEIR WRONG DOING.

I URGE YOU TO INVESTIGATE.  THIS CASE WILL SHOCK YOUR CONSCIENCE.

SINCERELY

MARK KAPLAN, ESQ

=======================================

ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL AND OUTRAGEOUS: THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE INNOCENT MAN’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS FOR 7.5 YEARS AND COUNTING!!

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is the oldest case in the state of New Jersey and originated with a tax sale certificate for about $800 purchased by American Tax Funding, LLC in 2005. 

Stephanatos was the victim of a criminal conspiracy by individuals (such as Robert A. Del Vecchio, Jr., and many others including his lawyer father who was convicted of Sherman Act violations and was stripped off his law license, see http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_rec/enforcement/co_14_012.pdf)

and entities (such as American Tax Funding, LLC) who lied to the Mercer County and Passaic County and court law clerks (e.g., lied to Acting Law Clerk Jennifer M. Perez) and hired the sheriff’s officers to illegally seize Defendant’s home/business in violation of state and federal laws; the conspiracy was uncovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with assistance from the Defendant (See

https://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2014/former-new-york-tax-liens-investment-company-executive-pleads-guilty-to-role-in-bid-rigging-scheme-at-municipal-tax-lien-auctions);

  its existence against the Defendant and thousands of New Jersey homeowners was determined and confirmed by the federal judge Michael A. Shipp in the federal antitrust case IN RE NEW JERSEY TAX SALES CERTIFICATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 3:12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB  (see

http://www.njtaxliensettlements.com/

and by the conviction of at least 15 individuals and entities in New Jersey, including Passaic County, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office (See https://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2014/former-new-york-tax-liens-investment-company-executive-pleads-guilty-to-role-in-bid-rigging-scheme-at-municipal-tax-lien-auctions

Contrary to what the trial court said, the Antitrust violations were not part of any civil court proceeding and the Third Circuit Judge Hochberg never addressed such claims. The trial court confused the “conspiracy under section 1983” claim that was part of the 2012 lawsuit considered by Judge Hochberg, with the current claim of Antitrust Conspiracy under the Sherman Act.  These are two separate claims and have nothing to do with each other.  Judge Shipp never decided the Antitrust claims against ATF, LLC and others until October 2014, so these antitrust conspiracy claims were not part of the Defendant’s 2012 lawsuit.  Even more crucial, the federal judge did not address the Uniformity Clause violation claims, because they were not part of that lawsuit and even if they were, judge Hochberg could not have addressed state claims because the judge found no federal civil right violations.

Defendant’s property was located at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey and was purchased by the Defendant in 1994 for $240,000.  The assessed value (AV) was $237,000, using a 0.5 ratio; this means that the fair market value (FMV) assigned by Wayne Tax Assessor was $475,000, more than 40 percent greater than the 1994 purchase value.  Thus, Wayne Township Tax Assessor knew as early as 1995 of the true fair market value of Dr. Stephanatos and that the taxes levied onto his property were illegal because they exceeded the 15 percent range allowed under the Uniformity Clause provision of the state constitution (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)).

N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 states the requirement that property be assessed and taxed annually at its "taxable value." N.J.S.A. 54:4-2.25 states that the "true value" standard is to be used in the assessment of taxable property. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 specifically directs the assessor annually to determine the "full and fair value" of real property by making an informed estimate of the price at which a particular parcel would sell for at a "fair and bona fide sale." That phrase, "full and bona fide sale," is commonly understood as "market value."  Wayne Township failed to follow the above statutes and therefore the assessment was invalid.

The property was damaged by flooding starting in about 2000 and later years due to the flooding at Ramapo River that reduced significantly the property value.  Defendant proceeded on a prose basis to attempt to reduce the taxes charged by the Wayne Township by using a variety of arguments, including Equal Protection, the Taking Clause, etc.  The Uniformity Clause provision of the New Jersey Constitution was not used as argument because at the time, Defendant was not aware that Wayne Township was using a 0.5 ratio between assessed value and true fair market value.  Almost all municipalities use a 1.0 ratio between assessed value and true fair market value. 

Defendant filed legal actions challenging the constitutionality of the taxes using equal protection arguments.  He never challenged at the time the illegal overassessment because he was not aware of the use of the 0.5 ratio between AV and FMV.  Defendant paid all taxes assessed from 1994 through 2004.  In 2004, the tax collector did not properly credit the $800 state refund to the 2004 taxes, but instead credited them to the 2005 taxes due.

Faced with continued dispute with Wayne, Plaintiff paid about 50 percent or so of the taxes starting with 2005 tax year.  The issue of overassessment of his property was never addressed by any court, as Defendant was not aware of the 0.5 ratio.  It is crucial to Defendant’s case to be allowed to explain to the jury the background leading to the illegal eviction.

A complaint to foreclose tax sale certificate number 2310 was filed on February 18, 2009. The tax sale certificate was sold by Wayne township to American Tax Funding, LLC on September 27, 2005 for delinquent property taxes on property located at 687 Indian Road.  Defendant filed a contesting answer on April 1, 2009. On June 12, 2009 a motion for summary judgment was denied by Judge McVeigh and the foreclosure matter stayed for four months to allow Defendant to file a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs in the law division by June 19, 2009. This complaint was filed on June 16, 2009 and ultimately dismissed on February 19, 2010 by Judge Riva.  Judge Riva dismissed the case after an unnoticed motion by Wayne Township.  No hearing ever took place and no fact finding was ever conducted by Judge Riva.  He never issued an application of the law to the facts in violation of Rule 1:7-4(a).  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.

Defendant was not aware that Judge Riva dismissed the action while still in discovery.  It was during the discovery period when the Defendant found out about the 0.5 ratio between AV and FMV used by the Wayne Assessor. The issue of overassessment of the property was never submitted to Judge Riva because he retired shortly after.

On April 27, 2010 and order was entered by Judge McVeigh striking the answer and returning the matter to the Office of Foreclosure because she considered the matter uncontested.  She never issued an application of the law to the facts in violation of Rule 1:7-4(a).  However, Defendant continued to contest the validity of the tax and the tax sale certificate and also indicated that ATF and Robert Del Vecchio were lying to the court(s). A case is considered contested when the Defendant contests the validity of the underlying lien or debt, which he did.  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.

Despite having no jurisdiction for contested cases, the Office of Foreclosure entered an order setting amount, time and place of redemption on January 14, 2011, fixing a redemption date of March 2, 2011. This is the time that Defendant became aware of what was going on.  He immediately filed a motion to vacate the redemption order and asked for re-instatement of the claims against Wayne Township.

On March 21, 2011 an order was entered by Judge McVeigh denying Defendant’s motion to vacate the redemption order and further denying Defendant’s request to stay the matter permitting reinstatement of claims against Wayne Township.  She never issued an application of the law to the facts in violation of Rule 1:7-4(a). In fact, all other New Jersey court cases cited by the state were decided by motion, without any hearing and without  an application of the law to the facts in violation of Rules 1:7-4(a) and R. 4:64-6. Dr. Stephanatos has evidence that he was in fact a target of state and local government employees because of his lawsuits against Wayne Township asking for Equal Protection.

Former Judge McVeighs orders were frivolous because equity cannot "create a remedy that is in violation of [the] law." IMO Estate of Shinn, 394 N.J. Super. 55, 67 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 595 (2007). Rather, a decision is incorrect when the court overlooks "the maxim that 'equity follows the law.'" Id. at 67.  See also M&D Assocs. v. Mandara, 366 N.J. Super. 341 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 180 N.J. 151 (2004) for its rationale that chancery courts "in such foreclosure cases should be alerted . . . that a significant windfall might result if adequate scrutiny . . . is not undertaken[,]"

“We are of the view that particularly in situations like the one involved in this case, where there is substituted service, as well as a tremendous disparity between the amount due on the tax certificates and the value of the property subject to foreclosure (here approximately $4,500 versus potentially $100,000 to $200,000 for the property), careful scrutiny of the affidavit of inquiry requires the Chancery Judge to demand more than cursory inquiries or recitals not only as a matter of due process, but also of fundamental fairness. See Bron v. Weintraub, supra (42 N.J. at 93-96). The Chancery Judge in such foreclosure cases should be alerted when the face of the documentation indicates that a significant windfall might result if adequate scrutiny of the affidavit of inquiry is not undertaken. In view of our decision, the operation of the tax sale law requires that the entire judgment must be vacated as void based upon equitable considerations.”

The order granted Defendant an additional thirty days to redeem the tax sale certificate. The outstanding taxes were not redeemed because Defendant knew that the property was impermissibly over assessed in violation of the Uniformity Clause provision.  An ex-parte Final Judgment was entered on May 13, 2011. An ex-parte Writ of Possession was entered on May 13, 2011, although such writs must be entered 3 days after the entering of final judgments. Eviction took place on June 28, 2011. An order was entered by Judge McVeigh on June 30, 2011 denying Defendant’s motion to stay the writ and further denying a stay pending appeal. Defendant filed an appeal that was never adjudicated because the Passaic County sheriff took possession of Defendant’s dwelling on June 28, 2011. 

Here, ATF, LLC/Wayne Township knowingly charged excessive taxes  and 24 percent interest and penalties and fees on top of these excessive and illegal taxes.  Thus, a tax dispute of less than $20K (the overassessment amount) became $60K.  Dr. Stephanatos offered to pay the $20K overassessment amount, but refused to pay the $60K amount.  Then the antitrust conspirators confiscated his residential real estate property, along with his business, Metropolitan Environmental Services, PC.  ATF, LLC received a property valued at $475,000 for a small tax debt, while at the same time permanently damaging Dr. Stephanatos business located in the premises.

That Passaic County Chancery Court failed to address the legal issues presented to it, and through the fraud and lies perpetrated by Robert A. Del Vecchio and ATF and others, certified that all issues in this contested matter were addressed, when in fact none had been addressed, especially the 40% overassessment of Defendant’s property.  Defendant asserts that Judge McVeigh was poisoned by Robert Del Vecchio, Jr who told her that Defendant had not paid taxes since 1993 (a false allegation) and that Defendant had threatened him with physical violence (also a patently false allegation).  Defendant’s fate was sealed due to these people who committed fraud on the court.  It is Defendant’s position that Due to the Fraud on the Court, no judge had jurisdiction over the F-9241-09 case and all orders, judgments, writs were VOID AB INITIO.  It is also clear and well-settled New Jersey law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding.  See, e.g., Shammas v. Shammas, 9 N.J. 321, 330 (1952).  Gilgallon v. Bond, 279 N.J. Super. 265, 267 (App. Div. 1995).

The antitrust conspirators (Robert Del Vecchio, Esq.) falsely told the Passaic County sheriff that Dr. Stephanatos had threatened him with violence, which was a lie.  That way, at least four sheriff officers came to Dr. Stephanatos’ residence armed with MI-16 assault rifles.  Two sheriff employees, Lucas and D’Agostino, claimed that they were assaulted by the Defendant on June 28, 2011.  Dr. Stephanatos vehemently denied the accusations and provided numerous proofs that the charges were fabricated in order to remove him out of his home. Defendant was indicted in September 2011.  The prosecutor refused to inform the grand jury that Dr. Stephanatos wanted to testify as a witness and dispute the allegations of the two sheriff employees.

Defendant hired Carl Herman for the grand jury and after that Miles Feinstein who has been on the case until his departure due to illness in February 2018.  In 2012, Mr. Feinstein and John Saycanick, Esq. filed a Motion to Change Venue due to conflicts of interest with the state witnesses.  The assigned Judge De la Carrera never addressed the Motion to Change Venue until late 2015. Due to the case delays, the assignment Judge Ernest Caposela removed Judge De la Carrera from the case in May 2016.  After that, Judge Marilyn C. Clerk 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 the appearance of improprieties.  The case was transferred to Judge James Guida in Bergen County for adjudication in January 2018.

Between November 2015 and May 9, 2018, Dr. Stephanatos submitted 33 Omnibus Motions to Dismiss, including supporting brief and attachments.  He alleged perjury on the part of the sheriff employees and prosecutorial misconduct during the grand jury, among other motions.  Defendant provided clear proofs of perjury and misconduct and requested a hearing pursuant to State v. Atwood, 161 A.3d 763, 229 N.J. 255 (2017).  Defendant also requested that the indictment be dismissed because the seven (7) year, 2,450-day case delay deprived the defendant of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to a speedy trial.

In May 24, 2018, erroneously relying on a civil court case that was decided by motion, without any hearings, Judge Guida denied all the Omnibus Motions.  He denied all defenses, including the claim of illegal overassessment of Defendant’s property, unconstitutional taking of private property, duress, outrageous government conduct, Castle Doctrine Defense (N.J.S. 2C:3-4 and N.J.S. 2C:3-6), due process clause violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Court also did not dismiss the indictment under the doctrine of cumulative errors; State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954).  Very significant, the judge said that the Defendant will not be allowed to bring the claim of illegal overassessment of his residential property during the trial that has been scheduled for August 6, 2018.  This is extraordinarily damaging to the Defendant, as he will not be able to present the “totality of the circumstances” to the jury that lead to the events of June 28, 2011, including the fraud-on-the-court claim.  Defendant submits that the exception to the collateral bar applies, because the Final Judgment was transparently invalid, void, or frivolous order and/or required the "irretrievable surrender" of constitutional rights or no “adequate and effective” opportunity for appellate review exists, because the judgment issued by the Mercer Court was ex-parte, without any hearing or notice.

On June 4, 2018, on a Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Guida admitted that Mr. Feinstein only asked for 31 adjournments out of 75+ total. He had initially stated on May 24, 2018, that Feinstein had asked for 80 out of 100+ adjournments.

The Defendant asks this Court to reverse the trial court’s decision denying his defenses and claims, including the violation of his fundamental speedy trial right. The Court should also allow the Defendant to present the property overassessment claims, outrageous government conduct, duress, due process violations, Article I, par. 20, N.J. Const. violations and other defenses to the jury.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

I. THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT AND ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND THAT THE SEVEN (7) YEAR, 2,450-DAY CASE DELAY DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

A defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial.  U.S. Const., amend.VI; N.J. Const. Art. I, par. 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, the Defendant has suffered a very significant prejudice because his lawyer on the case, Mr. Miles Feinstein, Esq. became severely ill and dropped out of the case on February 8, 2018.  The Defendant has suffered a massive blow to his ability to defend the case, because Mr. Feinstein is a great trial lawyer and was intimately involved with the case since 2012.  This prejudice to the Defendant has been caused solely by the extraordinary 81-month delay in the case.

Furthermore, 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. 

Finally, but not least, my lawyer of 6 years on this case, Mr. Miles Feinstein, became very ill and had to drop out of the case in February 2018.  This will most likely affect the ability of the Defendant to defend these charges, as Mr. Feinstein was a great trial lawyer. These are some very serious prejudices that hamper the defendant’s defense and they are the sole creation of the state. Therefore, this factor also weighs heavily in favor of the Defendant.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

====================================================================

MASSIVE CONSPIRACY AGAINST HOMEOWNER EXPOSED. 

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,

Mary Clinton

===================================

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.

 =======================================================================

Dear Legislators:

I am a concerned citizen who has been reading about illegal and unethical practices of New Jersey judges.

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.  Could you please comment on this story?

Sincerely,

Mary Clinton

 ========================================

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF LAWS IN NEW JERSEY

I have been reading your stories regarding local courts that must stop shaking N.J. residents down for cash.

I must inform you that these practices are not limited to the municipal courts.  They are widespread in the superior courts, the Chancery (or general equity) divisions that handle tax sale foreclosures.  They threaten people with forfeiting their homes and with eviction if they fail to pay taxes that may not even owe.

In my case, they stole my homestead property and place of business that was valued at $475,000 for a property tax of $20,000.  The property was over-assessed by more than 40 percent in violation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 and the Uniformity Clause of the NJ Constitution (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)), and they knew it, but they confiscated my home, anyway.  Tragic, tragic, situation.  

The corrupt former Chancery judge Margaret McVeigh never issued an application of the law to the facts in violation of court Rule 1:7-4(a).  Furthermore, court rule 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 corrupt former Chancery judge Margaret McVeigh failed to consider the equities that were in favor of Dr. Stephanatos or that a windfall will result. See M&D Assocs. v. Mandara, 366 N.J. Super. 341 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 180 N.J. 151 (2004) for its rationale that chancery courts "in such foreclosure cases should be alerted . . . that a significant windfall might result if adequate scrutiny . . . is not undertaken[,] In view of our decision, the operation of the tax sale law requires that the entire judgment must be vacated as void based upon equitable considerations.”

 

Dr. Stephanatos was also targeted by the government due to the filing of several lawsuits, both federal and state; he was penalized by the judges for that.  What the government did was unlawful, unfair and unreasonable.

The Passaic County sheriff then filed criminal charges against me for refusing to leave my home and they claimed they were assaulted.  The criminal case is pending for 7 years and 1 month now.  It has not gone to trial because of the massive corruption in the judicial system and because the sheriff employees (Ronald A. Lucas and Vincent D'Agostino) committed perjury, i.e. they lied that they were assaulted.  Although an assault case must be brought to trial within 1 to 2 years, it has been more than 7 years now.  A defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial.  U.S. Const., amend.VI; N.J. Const. Art. I, ¶ 10.  But the state judiciary violated that right.

They also violated my constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and Article I, par. 20 of the state constitution that prohibit private takings;  no state court had jurisdiction or authority to take a $475,000 homestead property belonging in full to Dr. Stephanatos and deliver it to a third party (American Tax Funding, LLC).  But these corrupt judges did it anyway.

What has really shocked our conscience is that ATF, LLC/Wayne Township knowingly charged unlawful and/excessive taxes in violation of the Uniformity Clause (Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 1(a)).  They also charged him 18 percent interest and 6 percent penalties on top of these excessive and illegal taxes.  Thus, a tax dispute of less than $20K (the overassessment amount) became $60K.  We found that Dr. Stephanatos offered to pay the $20K overassessment amount, but refused to pay the $60K amount.  Then the antitrust conspirators (See the U.S. District Court in Newark Antitrust Litigation that found that ATF, LLC conspired to defraud homeowners of their properties and money) confiscated his residential real estate property, along with his business, Metropolitan Environmental Services.

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

 

We provide 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).

 

UNREASONABLE SEIZURES ARE PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE I, PAR. 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION

They also violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see also Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution).  They seized and confiscated a residential property valued at $475,000 (plus his business as well) for a small amount of disputed taxes.  These are truly criminal acts.

If you can listen and publish my story, you will be shocked of what these judges have been doing to shake people up for money.  They essentially blackmailing them: you either pay, or you lose your home;  you either pay or we put you to jail; you either pay or we take your license away,  and so on.

Here is a link, if you want to learn more about this case.   You will be really-really-really shocked regarding what they have done to me.

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-dishonesty-of-new-jersey-judges.html

See also the corruption tip regarding Ronald Lucas who defrauded the police and firemen fund by claiming on the job disability.

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/2018/06/corruption-tip-passaic-county-sheriffs.html

We have evidence that Dr. Stephanatos was targeted by the government employees because he had filed lawsuits asking for equal protection regarding his excessive property taxes.  That is why they violated the constitution and confiscated his property for taxes that he did not even owe.  These are absolutely unethical and even criminal acts.  Please investigate.

======================================================

REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION:
PROOFS OF THE PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION THAT SUPPORT THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS

DEAR LEGISLATORS:

I AM WRITING TO REPORT AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE WHERE THE NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY HAVE INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED DR. STEPHANATOS' SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS FOR MORE THAN 7 AND HALF YEARS.  THEY ALSO VIOLATED SEVERAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO COVER UP THEIR WRONG DOING.  I PROVIDE PROOFS OF THE PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION THAT SUPPORT THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS

I URGE YOU TO INVESTIGATE.  THIS CASE WILL SHOCK YOUR CONSCIENCE.

SINCERELY

CAM JONES, ESQ

================================

PROOFS OF THE PERJURY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION THAT SUPPORT THE DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS

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.