Clear Form
Print Form
Supreme Court of New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct
For Office Use Only Docket Number:
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 037, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037 Phone: (609) 292-2552 Fax: (609) 292-6848 Website:njcourts.com
Date Received:
Complaint Form Instructions: Please type or print all information. You may attach any supporting documentation to this complaint form and send it to the address shown above. Be advised that the Committee will not return any documents. Pursuant to R. 2:15-8(a), the Committee shall review any written statement, criticism, or grievance that contains allegations regarding a judge of the Superior Court, Surrogate's Court, Tax Court or Municipal Court. Your Name:
Mr. Mrs.
Miss Ms.
STEPHANATOS Last
BASILIS First
NICHOLAS Middle
Mailing Address: 603 PENN COURT State NJ
City EDGEWATER
Zip Code 07020
Telephone Number: 201-366-4588 Name of Judge(s):
MIGUEL DE LA CARRERA
County/Municipality Where Judge(s) Presides: PASSAIC COUNTY Case Number/Docket Number (if applicable):
PASSAIC COUNTY INDICTMENT 11-09-0810-I
List the name and contact information of any Attorney(s) involved:
MILES FEINSTEIN, ESQ, 1135 CLIFTON AVENUE, CLIFTON, NEW JERSEY 07103, PHONE: 973-779-1124, FAX: 973-779-9883 List the name and contact information of any witnesses who observed the judge’s conduct:
BASILIS (BILL) STEPHANATOS, MILES FEINSTEIN, NUMEROUS COURT ATTENDEES HAVE ALSO WINTESSED THE JUDGE'S TARDINESS.
Revised: 09/2008, CN: 11166-English (New Jersey Judiciary, Supreme Court, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct)
page 1 of 3
Complaint Form Please state the nature of your complaint against the judge(s) and provide specific facts to support your allegation(s) of judicial misconduct. Please include the date(s) and time(s) of the alleged misconduct. You may attach additional pages, if necessary.
JUDGE DE LA CARRERA NEVER ARRIVES ON-TIME TO THE COURT (ALWAYS SHOWING UP AT LEAST 1-2 HOURS LATE). HE HAS THE FEWEST CASES THAN ANY OTHER JUDGE, IT TAKES HIM FOR EVER TO ISSUE OPINIONS AND OTHER WISE ADJUDICATE A CASE. HE HAS EXPERIENCE IN FAMILY COURT MATTERS, YET HE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED IN PASSAIC COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AND IT TAKES HIM FOR EVER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASES. IN MY CASE, JUDGE DE LA CARRERA WAITED THREE (3) YEARS TO ISSUE HIS DECISION ON A MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE WE FILED IN 2012. YES, YOU' VE READ IT CORRECTLY: IT TOOK HIM 3 YEARS TO DECIDE A SIMPLE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. I HAD TOLD THE JUDGE THAT I WANTED A SPEEDY TRIAL BACK FOUR YEARS AGO, YET HE HAS YET TO SCHEDULE DEADLINES FOR FILING THE NUMEROUS MOTIONS TO DISMISS A FRAUDULENT INDICTMENT AGAINST ME. MY LAWYER, MILES FEINSTEIN SAID THAT MY RIGHTS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. HE SAID THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHY THE JUDGE WILL NOT DECIDE THE MOTION AND ALLOW THE CASE TO MOVE FORWARD. AS A RESULT OF THE DELAYS, I HAVE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER TO JUDGE DE LA CARRERA, LISTING THE 25+ MOTIONS TO DISMISS, INCLUDING THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATING MY RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL. AS OF TO DAY'S DATE (10/16/2015), THERE HAS BEEN NO SCHEDULING OF ANY HEARING FOR THE COURT TO ALLOW ME TO FILE THE MOTIONS. I AM VERY-VERY CONCERNED REGARDING THE TARDINESS (PERHAPS LAZINESS) OF THIS JUDGE. WHEN I BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION THAT MY RIGHT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL HAS BEEN (AND CONTINUOUS TO BE) VIOLATED, HE GETS ALL UPSET AND THREATENS TO REVOKE MY BAIL. SO, I AM VERY-CONCERNED IF I CONTINUE TO BRING UP THE ISSUE OF TARDINESS AND SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS. WHEN WE TOLD HIM ON APRIL 29, 2015 THAT WE ARE PLANNING FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE VIOLATION FO THE RIGHT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL, HE SAID: "THIS IS NEW TO ME".
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JUDGE DE LA CARRERA IS FIT TO SIT ON CRIMINAL CASES, BASED ON HIS TARDINESS IN ADJUDICATING ISSUES/CASES AND BASED ON HIS COMPETENCY. PLEASE SEE MORE DETAILS IN THE ATTACHED LETTER, INCLUDING THE LETTER TO THE COURT I SENT EARLY THIS WEEK.
Revised: 09/2008, CN: 11166-English (New Jersey Judiciary, Supreme Court, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct)
page 2 of 3
Complaint Form I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
10/16/2015 Signature
Date
Please return this completed form to: John A. Tonelli Executive Director Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct P.O. Box 037 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037
Revised: 09/2008, CN: 11166-English (New Jersey Judiciary, Supreme Court, Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct)
page 3 of 3
BASILIS (BILL) N. STEPHANATOS 603 PENN COURT EDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY 07670-0520 PHONE: (201) 366-4588 PHONE: (973) 897-8162 FAX: (973) 810-0440
[email protected] _______________________________________________________ OCTOBER 16, 2015 MR. JOHN A. TONELLI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT (ACJC) PO BOX 037 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0037 CLERK'S OFFICE TEL.: PHONE (609) 421-6100 FAX NO.: (609) 292-6848 RE: COMPLAINT REGARDING JUDGE MIGUEL DE LA CARRERA, SUPERIOR COURT, PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY PURSUANT TO "RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RULE 2:15 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT," I FILE THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE MIGUEL DE LA CARRERA, SUPERIOR COURT, PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGED TO FILE THIS COMPLAINT BY MR. MILES FEINSTEIN, ESQ. WHO CAN SERVE AS A WITNESS TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS COMPLAINT.
I ACCUSE JUDGE DE LA CARRERA OF THE FOLLOWING: WILLFUL FAILURE TO PERFORM JUDICIAL DUTIES, INCOMPETENCE, CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THAT BRINGS THE JUDICIAL OFFICE INTO DISREPUTE.
JUDGE DE LA CARRERA NEVER ARRIVES ON-TIME TO THE COURT (ALWAYS SHOWING UP AT LEAST 1-2 HOURS LATE). HE HAS THE FEWEST CASES THAN ANY OTHER JUDGE, IT TAKES HIM FOR EVER TO ISSUE OPINIONS AND OTHER WISE ADJUDICATE A CASE. HE HAS EXPERIENCE IN FAMILY COURT MATTERS, YET HE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED IN PASSAIC COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AND IT TAKES HIM FOR EVER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CASES, IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANTS’ SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS. ALL THE TIMES I WAS IN COURT FOR A HEARING, I HAD TO WAIT SEVERAL HOURS FOR THE HEARING, ALTHOUGH 2
THERE WERE VERY FEW CASES IN HIS COURT ROOM. EVERY OTHER JUDGE HAS MANY MORE PENDING CASES. MR. MILES FEINSTEIN, ESQ. TOLD ME THAT JUDGE DE LA CARRERA IS A VERY SLOW JUDGE. JUDGE DE LA CARRERA TAKES AT LEAST THREE (3) YEARS TO DECIDE A SIMPLE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN MY CASE, JUDGE DE LA CARRERA WAITED THREE (3) YEARS TO ISSUE HIS DECISION ON A MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE WE FILED IN 2012. YES, YOU' VE READ IT CORRECTLY: IT TOOK HIM 3 YEARS TO DECIDE A SIMPLE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE. HE ISSUED A DECISION ONLY AFTER MY CONSTANT INQUIRIES REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE MOTION. WHEN I CALLED IN JANUARY 2015 TO ASK ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE MOTION, HIS LAW CLERK SAID THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN ASSIGNED THE WRITING OF THE OPINION. THAT WAS TWO-AND-HALF YEARS AFTER HE RECEIVED THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN 2012. IT TOOK HIM ANOTHER 5 MONTHS TO WRITE AN OPINION THAT HAS BEEN ALLEGEDLY
3
ISSUED IN MAY/JUNE 2015 (I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED A COPY OF IT). I HAD TOLD THE COURT THAT I WANTED A SPEEDY TRIAL BACK FOUR YEARS AGO, YET HE HAS YET TO SCHEDULE DEADLINES FOR FILING THE NUMEROUS MOTIONS TO DISMISS A FRAUDULENT INDICTMENT AGAINST ME. WE HAVE AT LEAST 25 MOTIONS PREPARED FROM 3 YEARS AGO, YET WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE THEM, BECAUSE JUDGE DE LA CARRERA DELAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR 3 YEARS. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HIS TARDINESS, THE LAST HEARING WAS APRIL 29, 2015. THE NEXT SCHEDULED HEARING IS OCTOBER 19, 2015. 6 MONTHS BETWEEN HEARINGS ON A CASE THAT IS 4 YEARS PENDING, IS PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS, EVEN FOR NEW JERSEY STANDARDS.
MY LAWYER, MILES FEINSTEIN SAID THAT MY RIGHTS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. HE SAID THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHY THE JUDGE WILL NOT DECIDE THE MOTION AND ALLOW THE CASE TO MOVE FORWARD. HE SAID
4
THAT HE HAS BEEN DISCUSSING THE ISSUE WITH THE PROSECUTOR (PETER ROBY) BUT THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE IS UP TO.
AS A RESULT OF THE DELAYS, I HAVE SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP (PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LETTER TO JUDGE DE LA CARRERA, LISTING THE 25+ MOTIONS TO DISMISS, INCLUDING THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATING MY RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL.
AS OF TO DAY'S DATE (10/16/2015), THERE HAS BEEN NO SCHEDULING OF ANY HEARING FOR THE COURT TO ALLOW ME TO FILE THE MOTIONS.
I AM VERY-VERY CONCERNED REGARDING THE TARDINESS (PERHAPS LAZINESS) OF THIS JUDGE. WHEN I AM BRINGING TO HIS ATTENTION THAT MY RIGHT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL HAS BEEN (AND CONTINUOUS TO BE) VIOLATED, HE GETS ALL UPSET AND THREATENS TO REVOKE MY BAIL. MR. 5
MILES FEINSTEIN FULLY TAKES ADVANTAGE THE JUDGE’S TARDINESS AND USES IT TO PERFORM HIS BUSINESS AS IT CONVENIENCES HIM.
WHEN WE TOLD HIM ON APRIL 29, 2015 THAT WE ARE PLANNING FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE VIOLATION FO THE RIGHT FOR SPEEDY TRIAL, HE SAID: "THIS IS NEW TO ME".
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JUDGE DE LA CARRERA IS FIT TO SIT ON CRIMINAL CASES, BASED ON HIS TARDINESS IN ADJUDICATING ISSUES/CASES AND BASED ON HIS COMPETENCY. NOT KNOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS IS PRETTY SHOCKING.
PLEASE SEE MORE DETAILS IN THE ATTACHED LETTER, INCLUDING THE LETTER TO THE COURT I SENT EARLY THIS WEEK. 6
T YO OURS, VERY TRULY
BASILIS S N. STEPHANATO OS
7
Basilis N. Stephanatos, Ph.D., J.D. P.O. Box 520 Tenafly, New Jersey 07670-0520 Phone: (973) 897-8162 Fax: (973) 810-0440
[email protected] ____________________________________________________________ October 12, 2015 Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera Passaic County Courthouse 77 Hamilton Street- Criminal Division Fifth Floor Paterson, NJ 07505 Tel# 973-247-8323 Tel# 973-247-8385-MaryAnn Grier Fax# 973-247-8401 RE:
Indictment Number 11-09-00810-I Case Number 11002878/001 State of New Jersey v. Basilis Stephanatos
Dear Judge De la Carrera:
THE DECISION TO REMOVE MR. FEINSTEIN FROM THE CASE I am writing to inform the Court that I will proceed with the defense of this case without Mr. Miles Feinstein, Esq. I have been receiving no responses or service from Mr. Miles Feinstein since the last hearing held in April 2015 where you reduced the bail bond. This has been a chronic problem with Mr. Feinstein and it has been going on for the last four years. I called your chambers two weeks ago to explain that the bail bond company needs a signed order from the court, where the order language states that the second bail bond of $200,000 has been discharged. I worked with the bail bond company to draft the language of the order and we send it to Mr. Feinstein.
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 2 of 23
Although Mr. Feinstein’s office indicated to me that he will have the order signed, he never did. The bail bond representative even went and talked to Mr. Feinstein at least two times, to no avail. I have no idea why Mr. Feinstein is behaving in such fashion, as I paid him $25,000.00 upfront as he requested. After speaking last week with Ms. MaryAnn Grier (after suggestion from the Court’s Chambers) regarding the situation with Mr. Feinstein, we are finding out that he has cancelled quite a few cases with your court and with other judges. After a brief investigation, we found that Mr. Feinstein does not have health issues, but he is attending other clients in federal court (see his latest appearance in federal court in Newark, NJ on October 7, 2015 found here http://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/operator-north-jersey-tax-preparation-business-pleads-guiltytax-fraud).
The last few correspondences I received from his secretary in late September
indicate that he had to cancel his cases because he was called at a federal case. 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. Since it has been almost 4 years since Mr. Feinstein took over the case from Mr. Herman, and since there is no end to the lengthy and inexcusable case delays caused by this court and by Mr. Feinstein (in violation of my speedy trial rights), my family and I have decided to remove Mr. Feinstein from representing me before this court. As I noted above, I paid Mr. Feinstein, as he requested, $25,000 upfront to speedily move the case through the court; he has failed to do so despite my numerous requests to do so.
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 3 of 23
To that effect, this Court should have no further correspondence with Mr. Feinstein regarding this case. All correspondence should be addressed to me, as I will be representing myself during the adjudication of the 25+ motions to dismiss the indictment we have already prepared. The Court should note that the motions to dismiss have been prepared in conjunction with Mr. John Saykanic, Esq., Mr. Miles Feinstein, Esq. (not sure of the extent of his input) and I. I also had them reviewed by two other lawyers who also concur with the allegations against the state for outrageous government conduct and concur with the filing of these motions. Additional motions would be filed with this court, pending additional discovery from the state of evidence that has been concealed from us. I provide below the list of the motions that have been prepared to date and are ready to be submitted to this court for adjudication. The entire Omnibus Motions document brief is over 200 pages. NOTICE OF OMNIBUS MOTIONS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a date and time to be set by the Court, the defendant, Basilis N. Stephanatos, shall move before the Honorable Miguel A. de la Carrera, J.S.C., at the Passaic County Court House, Paterson, New Jersey, for the following: (1) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice because the State: never informed the grand jurors that the Passaic County Sheriff failed to obtain a mandatory Warrant of Removal (see N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited) and that as result the Sheriff employees were trespassing on defendant’s property; misled and lied to the grand jurors so that they are prejudiced against the defendant regarding the commercial instrument located in the front porch of defendant’s place of business although they knew that defendant was running a
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 4 of 23
business at the subject location; elicited damaging false testimony from witnesses to prejudice the grand jurors against the defendant; refused to allow the defendant to inform the grand jurors that defendant’s property was impermissibly over-assessed and no taxes were legally due; failed to provide to the grand jury exculpatory evidence (emails and phone records) obtained from defendant’s computer clearly negating necessary elements of the alleged offenses; refused to allow the defendant to provide clearly exculpatory evidence to the grand jurors refuting the allegations of the witnesses and/or negating elements of the alleged offenses; refused to allow the defendant to inform the grand jury that several of his constitutional rights and several state laws were violated; refused to allow the defendant to inform the grand jury that Judge Margaret McVeigh violated a number of state laws and NJ Court Rules and other legal procedures in accordance with Royal Tax Lien Servs., LLC V. Morodan, Docket No. A-603012T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Jul 03, 2014), I.E.'s, L.L.C. v. Simmons, 392 N.J. Super. 520, 537 (Law Div. 2006) Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103, 110-11 (2004); Cameco, Inc. v. Gedicke, 157 N.J. 504, 509-10 (1999); Kas Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Ellman, 407 N.J. Super. 538, 562-63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 200 N.J. 476 (2009); and that Judge McVeigh failed to consider the full equity that defendant had in his home in direct violation of New Jersey case law in accordance with Royal Tax Lien Servs., LLC V. Morodan (Point I in brief); (2) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice because the more than four (4) year case delay deprived the defendant of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to a speedy trial causing severe economic and non-economic hardship, loss of employment and professional licenses, and other hardships. State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013), State v. Jonathan E. Downs, Docket No. A-0, N.J. Superior Court, Appellate Division, February 14, 2014 (Point II);
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 5 of 23
(3) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice as the grand jury presentation is fatally flawed as no definitions as to “culpability”: (“purposely”, “knowingly,” “recklessly” and “negligently”) were provided to the grand jurors; and the State fraudulently refused to provide clearly exculpatory evidence to the grand jury regarding the mens rea of the defendant showing that defendant was only lawfully defending his home and his place of business from criminal and/or illegal activity (Point III); (4) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice as the state refused to allow the defendant to testify at the grand jury proceedings as was requested by Mr. Herman, Esq. and as a result, the grand jurors were never instructed that the defendant was entitled to show that he was motivated by an honestly held (but incorrect or unreasonable) belief (Point IV); (5) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice as the State never instructed the grand jurors as to the applicable defenses of ignorance or mistake or duress or entrapment (Point V); (6) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice as the State never instructed the grand jurors as to the New Jersey’s self-defense law and defense of dwelling or place of business (Point VI); (7) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice due to the use of perjured testimony, the use of false, misleading and/or fraudulent evidence, the intentional fabrication of damaging or misleading testimony, the exclusion of clearly exculpatory witnesses’ testimony, and the State’s failure or refusal to present clearly exculpatory evidence negating elements of the alleged offenses (Point VII);
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 6 of 23
(8) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice due to the outrageous government conduct in misleading and lying to the grand jury (Point VIII); (9) An Order requiring the State to produce any and all internal affairs complaints/investigations/personnel files involving any of the law enforcement officers involved in this matter; particularly the personnel files of Officers Lucas and D’Agostino; and the medical records of Officer Lucas evidencing no past sport-related or other injuries. At the very least, there should be in camera review (Point IX); (10) An Order requiring a pretrial hearing in this matter pursuant to the criteria set forth in State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 (1962) (purpose of a Driver hearing is to be sure that the recording device was capable of taking the statement, that its operator was competent, that the recording is authentic and correct, and that no additions or deletions have been made) (Point X); (11) An Order requiring the State to produce any and all records and/or information which could arguably be helpful or useful to the defense in impeaching or otherwise detracting from the probative force of the State's evidence, or which could arguably lead to such records or information, including, but not limited to any sheriff or police or S.W.A.T. vehicle video and/or audio tapes, telecommunications between the sheriff officers and other state personnel during the day of the incident and afterwards, photographs obtained by the S.W.A.T. team and the sheriff personnel or other law enforcement personnel involved. Any evidence whatsoever which would tend to exculpate the defendant. Defendant relies upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 831 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 105 (1972); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974); State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360 (1969); Rule 20, Rules of Evidence; United States v. Bonanno, 430 F.2d 1060 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 964 (1971); State v. Satkin, 127 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div. 1974); State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420 (1976).
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 7 of 23
(12) The defendant moves for an Order compelling the Prosecutor to make disclosure to the defendant, and, in the case of a tangible item, to produce for inspection and copying by the defendant, all evidence in the possession, custody and control of the prosecutor and/or any of its agents, or others, if the existence is known to the State, when the evidence is favorable to the defendant, and material to the issue of credibility, guilt, or punishment, or bears upon, or could reasonably weaken or effect the credibility of any evidence proposed to be introduced against this defendant by the State, or bears in any material degree on the charges contained in the indictment and prosecution under it, or in any manner may aid the defendant in the ascertainment of the truth. The disclosure and production of such evidence is to be made without regard to whether the evidence to be disclosed and produced be deemed to be admissible at the trial of this cause. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83. (13) The defendant moves for sequestration of witnesses during pretrial hearings and trial. (14) The defendant specifically reserves the right to challenge the array in the jury pool; (15) Defendant moves for an Order compelling the State to disclose if the State is going to call an expert at the trial of this matter; and whether any forensic examinations of the computers seized has been done. (16) An Order compelling the production of all tape, video and electronic or printed matter recordings made in this matter. (17) The return of all items taken from the defendant, his family, his home or business, which will not be offered as evidence at trial and which have not already been returned to defendant. Defendant will rely upon oral argument regarding this request.
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 8 of 23
(18) An Order suppressing all evidence seized (and dismissing the indictment) as the product of an unlawful search, contrary to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution as the State violated the defendant’s expectation of privacy and a violation of the defendant’s First Amendment right to free speech and assembly, see State v. Reid, 389 N.J. Super. 563, motion for leave to appeal granted, 190 N.J. 250 (2007); U.S.Const. Amend. I; XIV; N.J.Const. Amend. Art I, Par. 6. Peering into dwelling places, is a crime that has been committed by the sheriff and county employees as they did not have a law-mandated Warrant for Removal (see N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited), and were trespassing on defendant’s property and peering through his residential window(s).
See 2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant trespasser;
peering into dwelling places. (19) An Order suppressing the legally-owned firearms seized, the defendant did not voluntarily consent to the illegal search, Officer Lucas was illegally peering through the front door side window of the defendant’s residence (this is a criminal act, see 2C:18-3. Unlicensed entry of structures; defiant trespasser; peering into dwelling places), he had no law-mandated Warrant for Removal (see N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 Unlawful entry prohibited), the Sheriff employees were trespassing and there were no exigent circumstances to justify the trespass and the associated search. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; N.J. Const. (1947), Art. I, Par. 7. (20) An Order suppressing all evidence seized because the Affidavit submitted in support of the issuance of the search warrant contained misrepresentations and fabrications; at the very least, an evidentiary hearing must be held. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95 (1987); State v. Petillo, 61 N.J. 165 (1972); State v. Nelson, 155 N.J. 487, 498-500 (1998); R. 3:13-3(c)(6) (information in the
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 9 of 23
possession, custody and control of the prosecutor concerning the source of the information in the affidavit should have been provided in discovery). (21) An Order suppressing all evidence seized based upon irregularities in the execution of the search warrants (including the failure of law enforcement to “knock”); State v. Johnson, 168 N.J. 608 (2001). (22) An Order suppressing the statement given by the defendant; at the very least, a Jackson-Denno-Miranda hearing must be held to determine the statement’s admissibility, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); N.J.R.E. 104(C). (23) Defendant moves for an Order disclosing who has had access to the computers seized at the time of the execution of the search warrant in this matter; any utilization of or intrusions into the computer, with a delineation of the individuals who accomplished the same; with the date, purpose and results of the same. (24) An Order dismissing the indictment with prejudice because the defendant was the victim of a criminal conspiracy by individuals and entities who lied to the courts and court clerks 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-rolein-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
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 10 of 23
CERTIFICATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 3:12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB (see http://www.antitrustupdateblog.com/blog/antitrust-claims-survive-motions-to-dismiss-new-jerseytax-lien-bid-rigging-class-action/) and by the conviction of at least 15 individuals and entities in New
Jersey
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-rolein-bid-rigging-scheme-at-municipal-tax-lien-auctions). (Point XI) (25) Defendant respectfully reserves the right to make further motions in the event additional discovery is provided, or if the interests of justice so require. DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY ASSERTED HIS RIGHT FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL I want to remind this Court that more than a year ago (April 2014) I sent a letter to the Court urging this Court to promptly proceed with the case. Here is an excerpt from that letter:
I also want this Court to realize that we will be filling a significant number of motions challenging the grand jury proceedings.
We allege that the grand jury
proceedings were tainted by fraud on the court/grand jury, false testimonies, hiding exculpatory evidence from the grand jurors, refusing to instruct the grand jurors of applicable defenses, misleading the grand jurors, eliciting false testimonies, and so on. 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
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 11 of 23
into the record, including my concerns with all the delays in proceeding with the motions. In addition to that correspondence, the defendant has been asking Mr. Feinstein 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. THE GRAND JURY WOULD HAVE ISSUED A NO BILL, IF THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD AND BEHAVED OUTRAGEOUSLY AND UNETHICALLY DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS In summary, I respectfully submit to this Court that the prosecutor before the grand jury had the same duty to present the exculpatory evidence and defenses outlined earlier and that, then I was entitled to a no bill under the law. Our case law has made clear that under certain circumstances there is a prosecutorial duty to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. In State v. Gaughran, 260 N.J. Super. 283, 290 (Law Div. 1992) (quoting State v. Engel, 249 N.J. Super. 336, 359 (App. Div. 1991)) a trial court dismissed an indictment where a prosecutor failed to present exculpatory medical evidence directly contradicting a complainant’s testimony in a sexual assault case. The opinion noted there was no issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, but rather whether the failure to present exculpatory evidence “stripped the grand jury of its function to protect the innocent from unfounded prosecution.” Gaughran, 260 N.J. Super. at 287. In State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 227 (1996), our Supreme Court held that there is a prosecutorial duty to present exculpatory evidence under circumstances where it directly negates guilt. Hogan, 144 N.J. at 237. See also Smith, 269 N.J. Super. At 95 (“prosecutor’s
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 12 of 23
obligation to exercise his discretion in good faith encompasses the obligation to give the grand jury evidence in the prosecutor’s possession which clearly exculpates a defendant”). In doing so, the Supreme Court explained that the state grand jury clause precludes the prosecution from “deceiving the grand jury or presenting its evidence in a way that is tantamount to telling the grand jury a “half-truth” because any “distorted version of the facts interferes with the grand jury’s decision-making function”. Hogan, 144 N.J. at 236. Here, I allege that that the prosecutor fabricated evidence, lied to the grand jurors, refused to provide clearly exculpatory evidence and defenses and refused to allow the defendant and/or his witnesses to testify. This is outrageous and shameful government conduct of a really grand scale. UPDATES ON THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND OTHER HOMEOWNERS Claims of bid-rigging in New Jersey real estate tax auctions may proceed Individuals and businesses whose properties were subject to sale for delinquent real estate taxes could pursue antitrust claims against numerous purchasers of tax liens or tax sale certificates for allegedly engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to allocate bids at municipal auctions of tax liens, the federal district court in Trenton has ruled (In re New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, October 31, 2014, Shipp, M.). Individuals and businesses filed a series of class action suits against 55 real estate companies and investors that purchased tax liens or tax sale certificates at municipal auctions, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants engaged in a statewide scheme to rig municipal tax sales
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 13 of 23
in order to eliminate competition and obtain possession of tax liens at artificially inflated interest rates. After the plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint was dismissed, the plaintiffs filed an amended pleading. Subsequently, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Sherman Act. The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficiently established a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The amended complaint alleged collusion in connection with nearly 50 municipal auctions, setting forth the date and location of each alleged instance of collusion, the identities of the conspirators, and facts regarding each defendant’s conduct in advancing the conspiracy. Moreover, the plaintiffs alleged particularized allegations as the defendants’ participation in collusion with respect to certain auctions, such as instructing their bidders as to which liens they should bid on. Additionally, the plaintiffs stated sufficient allegations in support of the existence of a statewide conspiracy. According to the court, the amended complaint included allegations regarding when and how the conspiracy was formed, methods for accomplishing the conspiracy, methods for policing the conspiracy, and individual instances of collusion. The plaintiffs also provided extensive allegations of the criminal investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies, which resulted in indictments and guilty pleas. Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ specific allegations of the defendants’ participation in the multitude of individual collusive auctions provided the necessary facts and circumstantial evidence to establish their claim of a larger overarching conspiracy, the court noted. Article III standing. To possess Article III standing to pursue their claims, the plaintiffs must have suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. According to the court, the plaintiffs adequately alleged a statewide conspiracy involving all defendants. It was not relevant that the defendants
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 14 of 23
did not purchase any lien connected to property owned by the plaintiffs or were not present at the auctions where those liens were purchased. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claimed injury was traceable to the defendants’ conduct—their participation in a statewide conspiracy—and the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit, the court concluded. The case is No. 12-1893. Attorneys: Andrew R. Wolf (The Wolf Law Firm, LLC), and Bruce Daniel Greenberg (Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC) for Jeanne Van Duzer Lang Boyer, and Son, Inc. Robert W. Stein, pro se. Christopher Iannicelli (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP) for Crusader Servicing Corp., Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC, and Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. Steven Mark Janove (Law Offices of Steve M. Janove, LLC) for CCTS Tax Liens II LLC., DSBD LLC. Robin London-Zeitz (Gary C. Zeitz, LLC) for Stein & Zeitz LLC. David Fornal (Maselli Warren PC) for Plymouth Park Tax Services, LLC. Aytan Yehoshua Bellin (Bellin & Associates LLC) for Mtag Services, LLC. Companies: Son, Inc.; Crusader Servicing Corp.; Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC; Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc.; CCTS Tax Liens II LLC., DSBD LLC,; Stein & Zeitz LLC; CCTS, LLC; Plymouth Park Tax Services, LLC; Mtag Services, LLC
Class Suit Over Municipal Tax Auctions Moves Forward Class litigation alleging investors colluded to ratchet up interest rates in municipal auctions of tax liens will move forward after a New Jersey federal judge declined to strike down state and federal antitrust claims.
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 15 of 23
The plaintiff property owners “allege more than a sufficient amount of factual material tending to show the existence of collusion on the local level,” U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp said Oct. 31 in In re New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation. “Furthermore, plaintiffs have included allegations sufficient to establish the larger, statewide conspiracy,” Shipp added. “In sum, plaintiffs have set forth allegations supporting the existence of nearly 50...auctions in the state of New Jersey at which there was collusive conduct involving different iterations of the defendants.” In New Jersey, municipalities sell liens for property-tax arrears at auctions. The rate of interest buyers can charge the property owner starts at 18 percent and is driven down with subsequent bids. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs claim the financial institutions in the business of buying up that debt began a bid-rigging scheme around 1998 in which they obtained auction lists beforehand and consulted with one another before auction to divvy up the assets—so that there wouldn’t be multiple bids for each certificate driving the interest rate down. In this system, the investors allegedly policed one another with threats and intimidation to assure that each of them stuck to the plan. The plaintiffs, after Shipp ruled that the there were insufficient facts to allege a conspiracy, amended the consolidated complaint and documented 49 auctions in which two or more defendants conspired beforehand, as well as the numerous investigations and indictments that eventually came about, according to the opinion. The complaint includes four counts: violation of the federal Sherman Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act and the New Jersey Tax Lien Law, as well as a common-law claim of unjust enrichment.
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 16 of 23
The defendants moved for dismissal, calling the pleadings insufficient. Shipp did dismiss the latter two counts, but declined to strike the two antitrust claims, noting that the complaint “provides the date and location of each alleged instance of collusion.” The judge said the plaintiffs lodged sufficient allegations with respect to each defendant: BBX Capital Corp., Fidelity Tax, Heartwood 55, PAM Investors, Crestar Capital and Mooring Tax Asset Group, as well as individual defendants associated with them. In connection with the alleged statewide scheme, the plaintiffs provided “extensive allegations” about the U.S. Justice Department investigations that resulted in criminal charges against some of the individual defendants, Shipp said. Not all the defendants were present at each of the auctions cited by the plaintiffs, and none of the defendants was present at the auctions during which the plaintiffs’ debts were sold, the companies pointed out. “Yet, plaintiffs allege a conspiracy involving bid rotation or bid allocation,” Shipp said. “As a result, it is equally plausible, under the terms of the alleged conspiracy, that a defendant’s absence from a particular auction was a direct result of the understanding reached among the defendants that certain liens were to be allocated and not to be bid upon by co-conspirators.” Shipp did dismiss the Tax Sale Law count because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the defendants accepted repayment on the debts, which is a necessary element to that claim. He also struck the unjust enrichment count, finding there was a sufficiently direct relationship between the property owners and the debt purchasers.
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 17 of 23
Shipp also rejected the defendants’ standing arguments, noting that “it is of no consequence that the moving defendants did not purchase any lien connected to property by plaintiffs or were not present at the auction where those liens were purchased.” Finally, Shipp denied a motion by an individual defendant, Michael Mastellone, for a stay pending sentencing in his criminal matter. Mastellone pleaded guilty in September 2013 to a Sherman Act violation. At the time, a dozen other individuals already had pleaded guilty to participating in the alleged bid-rigging scheme, according to a Justice Department release. Jason Zweig of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in New York, whose firm is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, noted that Shipp has preliminarily approved settlements with several defendants. “We look forward to prosecuting the litigation against the remaining defendants, and look forward to moving forward with the settlements that the court has approved,” he said in an email. Jeffrey Eilender of Schlam Stone & Dolan in New York, who represents the defendants, didn’t return a call seeking comment.
SIGNIFICANT CASE: ROYAL TAX LIEN SERVICES, LLC, D/B/A CRUSADER LIEN SERVICES, V. JOSEPH MORODAN AND SYLVIA MORODAN, DOCKET NO. A-6030-12T1, JULY 3, 2014 In a recent (July 3, 2014) decision, the New Jersey Appellate decision vacated a judgment issued by a Chancery Judge on the basis that the Chancery Judge failed to weigh the significant equity of the homeowner and because the Chancery judge failed to follow the
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 18 of 23
appropriate New Jersey court rules. Here is a brief summary of the reasoning provided by the Appellate Division.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-6030-12T1 ROYAL TAX LIEN SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a CRUSADER LIEN SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH MORODAN and SYLVIA MORODAN, Husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants, and STATE OF NEW JERSEY and THE NEW JERSEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Defendants.
Moreover, if the final judgment stands, plaintiff will receive property that, according to defendants, is valued at $650,000 for an approximate $65,000 investment. That is a factor that should have been taken into account when balancing the equities. See I.E.'s, L.L.C. v. Simmons, 392 N.J. Super. 520, 537 (Law Div. 2006) (tax sale certificate foreclosure system can be "Dickensian" where owners hold substantial equity in property. "Until the Legislature devises a better system, courts of equity must do their best to balance the equities, taking into account the necessity of allowing the transfer of clear title and the need to compel the payment of
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 19 of 23
property taxes against the necessity of ameliorating, in appropriate circumstances, the onerous impact of the procedure"). Finally, the judge did not even mention plaintiff's alleged failure to provide adequate notice to defendants. It is always necessary for a judge to render findings of fact and rulings of law; in this type of case where the courthouse doors seem to have been slammed shut on defendants who might have thereby inequitably lost a valuable property, it was crucial. See Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103, 110-11 (2004); Cameco, Inc. v. Gedicke, 157 N.J. 504, 509-10 (1999); Kas Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Ellman, 407 N.J. Super. 538, 562-63 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 200 N.J. 476 (2009). Here, I had full equity in my home which was valued by the Wayne Township for almost $500,000. Judge McVeigh failed to perform a fact finding and rule of law to determine the significant equity I had in my home and that based on the above case law cited by the Appellate Division, weighted heavily on my favor. The alleged taxes owed (although I disputed the taxes due to overvaluation of the home) were about $20,000. Judge McVeigh, to justify her actions stated that I did not pay taxes since 1993, which was not true.
I only disputed the over-
assessment of my property and I did pay all taxes from 1993 through 2005; then, after my property was damaged by the Ramapo River flooding, I paid about 50 percent of the taxes assessed. In fact, the criminal conspirators (Robert Del Vecchio , ATF) sold my stolen property for $300,000, significantly less than the $500,000 valuation of the property.
This provides
irrefutable proof that my property was overvalued by Wayne Township and that no taxes were due, as I am alleging. In January 2013, Dorothy Kreitz, the Wayne Township Tax Assessor admitted that the properties are overvalued and that no assessment has been performed since 1995. These
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 20 of 23
statements were made by Dorothy Kreitz in a letter to Dr. Stephanatos and it is available to this Court upon request. Thus, as in Royal Tax Lien Services, v. Morodan case, Judge McVeigh failed to perform any fact finding and instead repeated all the falsehoods of the conspirators: Robert Del Vecchio and American Tax Funding. Consistent with the decision of the Appellate Division cited above, I submit that the Chancery Court would have vacated its judgment that it issued in May 2011. The conspirators however acted in speed and fraud and criminal intend and lied to the Sheriff employees that they can force me out of my home and place of business without any required Warrant for Removal. Apparently, the Chancery Judge in the Morovan case, supra, had failed to follow the New Jersey Court Rules (failed to perform fact finding and conclusion of law in violation of Court Rule 1:7-4(a) and issued a judgment against a homeowner stripping him of his very substantial equity into his property) and also violated the property rights of the homeowner and also violated public policy this state that safeguards peoples homes.
Thank god the Appellate
Division vacated that judgment. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to vacate a judgment that was wrongfully issued against me by Judge Margaret McVeigh of Passaic County. A number of conspirator-paid state employees acted in concert with a number of conspirators and stole my property under the gun point on June 28, 2011. The tragic events of the armed sheriff officers and S.W.A.T. team raiding my home and place of business and assaulting me were widely publicized. After I filed a complaint with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, an investigation revealed a massive conspiracy that involves state employees.
We now know that the
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Page 21 of 23
conspirators violently took my homestead property by violating the antitrust laws, by violating the tax sale laws, by violating to forceful entry and detainer laws, and many other offences, including the intentional overvaluation of Plaintiff’s property so that they collect more taxes while they knew that flooding had reduced my homestead property value. We also now know that the Chancery Judge Margaret McVeigh violated the Court Rules because she never conducted a bench trial to determine the facts consistent with Rule 1:7-4(a). There was never any bench trial or other fact finding performed and the Chancery Judge Margaret McVeigh of New Jersey never stated the facts or the rule of law. She simply issued a judgment against me based on the statements of the conspirators Robert Del Vecchio and American Tax Funding (ATF). The New Jersey Court Rule, that the incompetent or reckless Judge McVeigh should have followed, specifically states: 1:7-4. Findings by the Court in Non-jury Trials and on Motions (a) Required Findings. The court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury, on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right, and also as required by R. 3:29 The court shall thereupon enter or direct the entry of the appropriate judgment. The Appellate Division in the case cited below stated the following: “It need not be reiterated that the judge considering the matter must render a decision in compliance with Rule 1:7-4(a). “ ROYAL TAX LIEN SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a CRUSADER LIEN SERVICES, v. JOSEPH MORODAN and SYLVIA MORODAN, DOCKET NO. A-6030-12T1, July 3, 2014. In my case, the Chancery Judge Margaret McVeigh never conducted any finding of facts and
Hon. H Miguel A. A De la Carrrera
Page e 22 of 23
never sta ated any con nclusion of la aw in her ac ctions withou ut a jury. He er decisions must be vaccated on that ground as we ell. Therefore, T ba ased on the e Appellate Division ruliing on an id dentical casse and base ed on failure to o obey many y NJ Court Rules, R I belie eve I have rraised some e very substantial Proce edural and Sub bstantive Du ue Process s issues tha at in turn raise entra apment, durress, outrag geous government conduct issues/defe enses.
CONCLUSIO C ON I am asking the Court to allow me to o file the Mottions to Dism miss and to proceed witth the adjudicattion of the ca ase on a pro o se basis. I am also ask king the Court to enter th his letter into o the record of this case..
Respectfully R submitted, s
Date: D Octobe er 12, 2015
____ __________ __________ _________ Basilis N N. Stephanattos, PhD, JD D
Cc: C
Mr. Pe eter Roby – Passaic County Proseccutor’s Office e
Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera
Mr. Miles Feinstein, Esq.
Page 23 of 23
Basilis N. Stephanatos, Ph.D., J.D. P.O. Box 520 Tenafly, New Jersey 07670-0520 Phone: (973) 897-8162 Fax: (973) 810-0440
[email protected] ____________________________________________________________ April 21, 2014 Hon. Miguel A. De la Carrera Passaic County Courthouse 77 Hamilton Street- Criminal Division Fifth Floor Paterson, NJ 07505 Tel# 973-247-8323 Tel# 973-247-8385-MaryAnn Grier Fax# 973-247-8401 RE:
Indictment Number 11-09-00810-I Case Number 11002878/001 State of New Jersey v. Basilis Stephanatos
REQUEST TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH THIS LETTER AND THE LETTER FROM JUDGE MCGEADY, PRESIDING JUDGE, BERGEN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT Dear Judge De la Carrera: I am again in the difficult position to submit this letter to the Court regarding the status of the Motion to Change Venue. Please include this letter in the record, as I waive all and every rights regarding self-incrimination. I am providing additional state laws that the Passaic County employees either violated or assisted the convicted conspirators (Robert Del Vecchio et al) in
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 2 of 37
their violation. Please understand that this is not an attempt to self-represent myself, but to update the record with pertinent documents and facts and accusations of violations of state laws. My concern is that this Court may make a decision without having available important documents and facts. I also want this Court to realize that we will be filling a significant number of motions challenging the grand jury proceedings. We allege that the grand jury proceedings were tainted by fraud on the court, false testimonies, hiding exculpatory evidence from the grand jurors, misleading the grand jurors, eliciting false testimonies, and so on. 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.
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD ME OF MY HOME THAT WAS AIDED AND ABETTED BY PASSAIC COUNTY’S EMPLOYEES
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 3 of 37
As I have been saying all along to the Court that I was the subject of criminal acts by a number of conspirators, we have discovered a major conspiracy against thousands of homeowners, including myself by the now convicted felon Robert Del Vecchio, American Tax Funding, and others. These individuals could not have acted, however, without the assistance from the Passaic County employees who closed their eyes into the violation of numerous New Jersey statutes by the conspirators. The Passaic County employees were getting paid by the conspirators, they were and are still continuing business with the conspirators, and they had or do not have incentive in upholding the laws and procedures of this state. 1.
Dr. Stephanatos owned in fee simple and possessed real property
located at 687 Indian Road in the town of Wayne in the County of Passaic and State of New Jersey, and described as follows: Tax 21 and Block. 4503 on the Official Map of the Township of Wayne. The named and unnamed Conspirators stole Dr. Stephanatos’ property by forming a conspiracy to violate state and federal laws, by using fraudulent and criminal tactics, by actually violating a host of state and federal laws and violating Dr. Stephanatos’ possessory rights fully protected by state law. A large factual background of the conspiracy can be found in the federal antitrust class action lawsuit against the conspirators here: Case 3:12-cv-
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 4 of 37
01893-MAS-TJB Document 320 Filed 01/06/14. The Court is respectfully asked to take judicial notice of those proceedings. A.
The Conspiracy
2.
Specifically, Defendants ATF, Weisenbacher, The Marini Family, and
Robert Del Vecchios (Sr. and Jr.), participated in an illegal agreement and/or understanding with Defendants CCTS, Farber, Butler, Plymouth Park, Crusader, Stein, Jeffrey, Mooring, Sass, Jessani, Hruby, Rothman, BankAtlantic, Branse, Deluca, Simon, Wolfson, Phoenix Funding, Caiola, Fountain of Life, Esposito, Boudiwn, Collins, May, and Pisciotta, to rig bids for municipal tax liens at public tax lien auctions throughout the State of New Jersey which they attended during the 2000-2011 Period. Not every Defendant attended every tax lien auction in the State of New Jersey during the Period of 2000-2011, although the largest Defendants – Plymouth Park, Sass, Crusader, BankAtlantic, and ATF – attended most, if not all auctions during the Period and the illegal scheme existed despite who was present. The largest Defendants were able to orchestrate the conspiracy. Regardless of the role played by each Defendant, however, as evidenced by the allegations in this complaint, each Defendant made a “conscious commitment to a common scheme.” 3.
As a result of this agreement and/or understanding, the Defendants ,
including ATF (via its president Justin Weisenbacher) and De Laurentis, would,
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 5 of 37
among other things, agree prior to the beginning of the auctions at which they were present, which liens each of the Defendant auction attendees would be allocated. Such representatives of ATF who would engage in such discussions and agreements and/or understandings with other Defendants were Anthony J. De Laurentis and Defendant ATF’s President Justin Wiesenbacher. Often, the largest bidders – Plymouth Park, Sass, Crusader, BankAtlantic, and ATF – would have first picks over the liens up for auction. The Defendants also agreed not to bid against the Defendant which had been allocated a particular lien in order to reduce or eliminate competitive bids and ensure that the lien which had been allocated was sold at the highest interest rate possible to the cartelist who had been designated as the pre-determined winner of that lien. In yet another scheme, the conspirators would “bid” down liens that were small in amounts to show that was actually a bidding that took place. Then, no other bidder would bid on the “premium” phase of the bidding, allowing a single conspirator to negotiate the price of the premium paid to the municipality. This way, the “lowest bidder” would have the opportunity to charge 18 percent interest rates and penalties to any subsequent charges without performing any bidding on subsequent taxes. 4.
In summary, the Defendants either did not bid on tax liens that were
high in value, or they would perform a mock bidding on amounts that were low in value to show that there was some competition and would refrain on bidding on the
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 6 of 37
premium phase of the bidding. The Defendants’ conspiracy artificially raised interest rates associated with TSCs sold at the auction because of the illegal agreements alleged herein. 5.
Witnesses to the conspiracy have identified Defendants ATF,
Weisenbacher and De Laurentis as participating in the conspiracy alleged herein. 6.
A Tax Sale Certificate was issued with respect to Dr. Stephanatos’
residential property in September 2005, certificate #2310 from Wayne Township for a small amount $880 of disputed taxes, and such Tax Sale Certificate was purchased by one of the conspirators (American Tax Funding, LLC) pursuant to the conspiracy alleged herein. Dr. Stephanatos disputed the amount of the tax that he allegedly owed; that dispute has yet to be resolved-based on the impermissible over-valuation of his residence, all taxes levied were void ab initio. However, I continued paying the undisputed portion of the taxes continuously through 2010 and I only refused to pay the over-assessed portion of the taxes. THIS IS VERY CRUCIAL INFORMATION TO ENTER THE RECORD, BECAUSE THE PASSAIC COUNTY EMPLOYEES MISLEAD THE GRAND JURY AND FILED REPORTS WITH THE MEDIA THAT I WAS REFUSING TO PAY TAXES ALTOGETHER – AS THE COURT CAN SEE, THIS WAS A TOTAL LIE, A FABRICATION, SO THAT THESE CONSPIRATORS STEAL MY PROPERTY UNDER THE GUN POINT, WHICH THEY DID
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 7 of 37
AND ALSO TO BE ABLE TO MISLEAD THE GRAND JURY, WHICH THEY ALSO DID. 7.
There is no evidence that a bidding took place. Based on papers
submitted to the Passaic County judge Margaret McVeigh, the American Tax Funding, LLC (ATF) ATF conspirators stated that they were the “only bidder”. Also, when the interest rate was “bid” at zero (0.0) percent by ATF, there is no evidence to suggest that ATF and the other bidders, if any, continued to bid the premium to be paid at $100 increments as is required by New Jersey law which states that “premium shall be bid at $100.00 increments”. The evidence to date suggests that ATF reached an agreement with Wayne Township as to the amount of the premium, without anybody else in fact participating in the bidding. 8.
Thus, the conspiratory scheme that these antitrust Conspirators
developed was to “bid” down to zero interest rate for certificates that are small amounts.
Then, the other co-conspirators would refrain from bidding on the
premium phase of the bidding, thus allowing the “low bidder” conspirator to reach an agreement with the municipality regarding the amount of the premium. 9.
The certificate may have been purchased by Robert A. Del Vecchio
and then re-sold it to American Tax Funding, LLC. At one moment in 2010 he said to Judge Margaret McVeigh: “if I do not foreclose, I will lose my premium which is $20,000.”
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
10.
Page 8 of 37
At a brief hearing before judge McVeigh, Defendant Del Vecchio
stated: “there is nothing here to go to trial, this is a very simple case and the court should issue a judgment instantly”. Del Vecchio has been primarily responsible for violating a number of public laws of the state of New Jersey, including Section § 54:5-63.1 of the Tax Sale Law. He has been also responsible for fraudulently concealing the conspiracy and for providing fraudulent certifications to the courts that I had no possessory rights in my property and he intentionally failed to secure a Warrant for Removal and other legal process mandated by New Jersey laws. 11.
The Conspirators have been unjustly enriched by causing the
forfeiture of Dr. Stephanatos’ residential and business property and actually converting his real estate and other property. Dr. Stephanatos’ property that was valued by the Conspirators at $500,000 was stolen by the Conspirators by misapplying the Tax Sale Law of New Jersey, and by defrauding the New Jersey courts. The Conspirators also caused the loss of Dr. Stephanatos’ business that was located at 687 Indian Road, Wayne, New Jersey. The Conspirators have also caused significant other economic and non-economic damages, as has been detailed in Dr. Stephanatos’ papers that exceed $30 million dollars. 12.
Conspirators charged fees in excess of the amounts permitted by
chapter five of the Tax Sale Law; the Conspirators did not charge the interest rates shown on the face of the TSC which was zero (0.0) percent; instead, they charged
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 9 of 37
25 percent in interest and penalties per year and they illegally added the lost $20,000 premium to the redemption amount to the point that a total tax of $20-25K end up being $65,000.
On top of these excessive charges and penalties, the
Conspirators confiscated Dr. Stephanatos’ real estate and other non-real estate property and in essence punishing the Dr. Stephanatos with an additional 2,000 percent penalty. Such excessive penalties are not allowed under the provisions of the New Jersey Tax Sale Law (NJTSL) and pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:5-63.1, the Conspirators must forfeit the TSC. 13.
The NJTSL provides that:
Any holder of a tax sale certificate, excepting any municipal corporation, his agent, servant, employee or representative, who knowingly charges or exacts any fee or charge in connection with the redemption of any tax sale certificate owned by him, in excess of the amounts permitted by chapter five of Title 54 of the Revised Statutes, shall forfeit such tax sale certificate to the person who was charged such excessive or unlawful fee and the person paying such unlawful charge shall become vested with all the right, title and interest of such tax sale certificate holder in and to such tax lien.
In
addition thereto the person aggrieved shall have a right of action to recover back the full amount paid by him to such tax lien holder, by an action at law in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 10 of 37
The collection of any excessive charge or fee in connection with the redemption or assignment of a tax sale certificate shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the fact that such tax sale certificate holder did knowingly charge and exact such excessive fee or charge within the intent of this act. See N.J.S.A. § 54:5-63.1 (emphasis added). 14.
When I filed appeals to adjudicate these fraudulent charges, this is
when these convicted criminals came and took my home and place of business with the aid of the Passaic County employees who were paid by these conspirators – this is a big business for the Passaic County sheriff and were acting as agents for the conspirators – this is a crucial fact that the grand jurors should have been made aware, but they were not informed. 15.
Dr. Stephanatos alleges that Conspirators exacted “excessive
charge[s] or fee[s] in connection with the redemption or assignment of a tax sale certificate”, considering that Dr. Stephanatos’ property was over-assessed by 40 percent or so by the Wayne Township. Since the property was over-assessed by more than the 15 percent threshold allowed by New Jersey law, the assessed taxes were void ab initio as a matter of law. 16.
In order to enforce the conspiracy, cartel participants would bully
participants and non-participants into refraining from bidding on particular liens. This conduct included, but was not limited to, intimidation and verbal threats.
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
17.
Page 11 of 37
Oftentimes, new bidders who posed a threat to the conspiracy were
asked to join forces with the cartelists rather than continue to bid competitively. Several Conspirators joined the conspiracy this way. B. 18.
The Conspiracy Breaks Down
Certain other states and municipalities outside New Jersey conduct tax
lien auctions in a similar manner as in New Jersey and several of the Conspirators herein participate in tax lien auctions in multiple jurisdictions.
One such
jurisdiction is Maryland. In or around the end of 2008, or the beginning of 2009, it became publicly known that the United States Department of Justice had begun an investigation into collusion with respect to bid rigging at tax lien auctions in the State of Maryland. 19.
As a result of the publicity that the Maryland investigation garnered in
the press in late 2008-early 2009, and the similarity of the auction processes in New Jersey and Maryland as well as the overlap of conspiracy participants, Conspirators herein became concerned about their further participation in the conspiracy alleged and decided to discontinue their collusive activities with respect to tax lien auctions in New Jersey by around February 2009. C. 20.
National Tax Lien Association (NTLA) Trade Association Certain Conspirators belonged to the National Tax Lien Association,
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 12 of 37
an organization that purports to advance the interests of the tax lien industry, including the New Jersey tax lien industry. In addition, employees and executives of Conspirators have served in leadership positions at the NTLA. For example, Jim Meeks, the president and chief executive officer of defendant Mooring, currently serves as treasurer of NTLA’s Board of Directors. Further, as stated above, defendant William S. Green is also a member of the NTLA’s Board of Directors. 21.
The NTLA regularly holds symposiums and meetings. For example,
in March of each year during the Class Period, the NTLA held an annual meeting, usually in Florida, at which many of the Conspirators attended. In 2006, the March meeting took place in Las Vegas, and in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the March meeting took place in Miami, Florida. The conspirators regularly attended these sessions, which offered a further opportunity for members to meet, conspire, and share information about rigging bids at future municipal auctions. D.
Criminal Charges and Criminal Convictions Relating to Conspirators’ Participation in the Conspiracy
A Passaic County residence and prominent lawyer, Robert Del Vecchio, Sr. has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to violate state and federal antitrust laws and he was sentenced on January 14, 2014. This information has become
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 13 of 37
available to me from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. It can be found here: 1. Plea agreement between Robert Del Vecchio and United States http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f301700/301717.pdf 2. U.S. Department of Justice Announcement: Two New Jersey Investors Plead Guilty for Their Roles in Bid-rigging Schemes at Municipal
Tax
Lien
Auctions
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/September/13-at-1097.html 3. Six Investors Indicted for Their Roles in Bid Rigging Scheme at Municipal Tax Lien Auctions in New Jersey Investigation Has Yielded 20 Charges to Date U.S. Department of Justice November 19, 2013 Source:
Office of Public Affairs (202) 5142007/TDD (202) 514-1888
http://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2013/six-investors-
indicted-for-their-roles-in-bid-rigging-scheme-at-municipal-tax-lien-auctions-innew-jersey http://www.northjersey.com/hawthorne/Hawthorne_man_spared_prison_for _role_in_a_scheme_to_rig_bids.html?page=all
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 14 of 37
This extraordinary factual and legal information will change the course of this litigation because it proves as I have been saying all along that these convicted criminals conspired to deprive me of my property and violated a host of state and federal laws, including the New Jersey Constitution.
THE CITIZEN’S CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS In August 2012, PRIOR TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE FBI AND THE US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF THE GUILTY PLEAS, I filed a citizen’s criminal complaint against the people who stole my home under the gun point. I filed the complaint in Wayne Township, but the complaint was immediately transferred to the Bergen County municipal court due to the conflicts of interest. I am asking that this Court does the same thing and transfers the case to another court, outside this county – the atrocities of the Passaic County employees are too numerous and too blatant and only if the case is transferred to another county will this taint of corruption and illegal activities may fade away. The presiding judge, the Hon. Roy F. McGeady heard the probable cause hearing. He did not find that at that time there was probable cause to charge the conspirators with the alleged crimes. HOWEVER, JUDGE ROY MCGEADY WAS SHOCKED TO FIND OUT THAT THE SHERIFF AND THE
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 15 of 37
CONSPIRATORS DID NOT GET A WARRANT FOR REMOVAL. JUDGE MCGEADY ASKED ME SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THAT AND HE WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD.
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THIS
COURT TO ALLOW IT TO ENTER THE RECORD. In January 2014, after I found out about the conviction and sentencing of Robert Del Vecchio and 19 other co-conspirators, I provided this additional information to Judge McGeady. He sent me a letter in response, where he stated that I should sent the information to the prosecutors for considering filing charges against these individuals. These actions are still pending. The letter from Judge McGeady is attached. Thus, contrary to what Peter Robby has been saying to this Court regarding the decisions by Judge McGeady, the decision not to charge them in September 2012 was based on insufficient evidence. As more evidence became available in 2013 regarding their criminal activities and the criminal convictions in federal court in Newark, NJ, the facts show that these conspirators may still have committed indictable offences against me. This is very crucial information that the Court must be aware of and should be part of the record.
I HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO REMIND THE COURT THAT THE PASSAIC COUNTY HAS ALREADY VIOLATED NUMEROUS STATE
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 16 of 37
LAWS, LIED AND/OR MISLED THE GRAND JURY, COMMITTED PERJURIES, AND RELIED ON THE STATEMENTS BY CONVICTED FELONS AND CONSPIRATORS I take this opportunity to summarize to this Court a number of the more blatant violations of state laws and procedures by the Passaic County employees. This egregious, illegal, and unethical behavior by these individuals shocks the conscience and is of concern to me because I do not believe I will receive a fair hearing in this county; and that is why I insist that it is imperative that an independent judge and jury judge their actions and rule on the 25+ motions for dismissing of the fraudulent indictment. 1.
In November 2011, Peter Roby admitted before Judge Filko that no warrant for removal was obtained prior to the Passaic County sheriff entered my property and my home. A Warrant for Removal should have been obtained as is mandated by New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1et seq. and N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57). These individuals committed a forceful entry and detainer in violation of the New Jersey Forceful Entry statutes. However, they lied to the grand jury and told them that they were lawfully at my door step. As I stated earlier, Judge Roy McGeady was shocked to find out that no Warrant for Removal was obtained prior to entering my home.
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
2.
Page 17 of 37
N.J.S.A. 2A:39-7 says that title shall not be an issue since I was in continuous possession of his residence for 16 years. N.J.S.A. 2A:39-7 Title not inquired into; defense of 3 years possession. Title shall not be an issue in any action commenced under this chapter. 3 years peaceable possession by the defendant shall be a defense to the action. The Passaic County employees prevented me from going before a Law Division judge to assert this defense. That is why they acted with haste and fraud to remove me from my property. They never stated to the grand jury that my possession of my home was protected by New Jersey statutes and I had the right for a hearing before a Law Division judge. They took this right away from me. The conspirators received a fraudulent conveyance (a title transfer) and they could have sold the home with me still inside it. There was no reason at all to force me under the gun point to leave the home, unless they would occupy it. But they did not occupy the home. This is critical for the Court to understand and enter into the record. The grand jury was never notified of this law and the indictment must be dismissed for that reason alone.
3.
The prosecutors never instructed the grand jurors as to the New Jersey selfdefense law. The indictment must be dismissed on that intentional omission (or lie of the prosecutors). One exception to the duty to retreat (N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4b(2)(b)), is when the actor is in his or her own home at the time of the
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 18 of 37
attack (the so-called “castle doctrine”1). See State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456, 467 (1997).
N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4b(2)(b)(i) provides that: “The actor is not
obligated to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor.” Significantly to Stephanatos, the Bilek Court (see State v. Bilek, 308 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1998)) found that the doorway or entranceway of one’s dwelling is part of the “dwelling” for purposes of the statute addressing the 1
The [New Jersey] Legislature finds and declares that:
a. It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of their own well-being and the well-being of others. b. The "Castle Doctrine" is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution. c. Article I of the New Jersey Constitution guarantees the citizens of this State the rights "of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." d. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affords the people of this nation the right to keep and bear arms. e. All who reside in and all who visit this State have a right to expect to be unmolested and safe within their homes, residences and vehicles. f. No person should be required, as a point of law, to surrender their personal safety or well-being to the unlawful actions of a criminal, nor to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack. g. It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper, and within the public interest, to ensure that law-abiding people are justified in protecting themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers, and that they may do so without fear of prosecution or civil action. Source: Preamble to the New Jersey Self-Defense Act, an act concerning the protection of persons and property, amending N.J.S.2C:3-4 and N.J.S.2C:3-6, introduced in the assembly and the senate for the 2010 session.
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 19 of 37
right to defend one’s own dwelling. Id. at 11. See State v. Bonano, 59 N.J. 515, 520 (1971); State v. Martinez, 229 N.J. Super. 593 (App. Div. 1989). 4.
Sheriff’s Officers Lucas and D’Agostino both lied before the grand jury. Specifically, both officers lied when they testified that I had my front door open and that they were able to see me pointing a gun at them through the glass storm door. It is my contention that I had the front door (and all other doors) closed and locked with a deadbolt and I deny that I pointed a gun against these individuals. I had placed a business sign in the front door so that the Sheriff’s Officers would see that there was a tenant on the premises and that they could not proceed with the unlawful eviction until the appeals are exhausted. Had I left the door open, they would not have been able to see the business sign. The indictment must be dismissed with prejudice due to the outrageous government conduct recounted above.
5.
Dr. Stephanatos also requests this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that a box taken by the Passaic County employees from Dr. Stephanatos’ residence was a business instrument and not an “ammunition box” as the Passaic County employees have been misleading the grand jury and the courts. It was a rental instrument to be picked up by a vendor of Dr. Stephanatos’ business, Pine Environmental, Inc.
The Passaic County
prosecutor, Peter Roby, has already admitted in open court before Judge
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 20 of 37
Filko that it was a rental instrument for Dr. Stephanatos’ business- however, the prosecutor during the grand jury said to the jurors that they thought that the business instrument was “an ammunition box”, giving the impression to the grand jurors that I was prepared for a battle and I had ammunition box at my door step. Of course later, before Judge Filko, Mr. Roby admitted that the business instrument was not an ammunition box and he did confirmed that he talked to Pine Environmental, Inc that did confirm that they were due to come and pick up the instrument that morning from Dr. Stephanatos’ front porch (this is where I would typically place the various rental instruments for [pickup and delivery). Again, none of these factual allegations made it to the grand jury, in a clear attempt by Peter Roby and his associates to mislead and lie to the grand jury. The indictment must be dismissed with prejudice, based on these lies and fabrications and omissions of crucial facts by the Passaic County employees so that they mislead the grand jury. 6.
The grand jurors were also never informed by the Passaic County prosecutors that the sheriff had already received a correspondence from Dr. Stephanatos that there are tenants in the premises and that there are appeals pending. To justify what they did and the violation of the state laws listed herein, they lied to the grand jury and the courts that they were not aware that appeals were pending. Exhibit B- the correspondence between the
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 21 of 37
sheriff and Dr. Stephanatos has already been submitted to this Court and proves beyond any doubt that the Passaic County employees are lying to this Court and they lied before the grand jury. The indictment must be dismissed with prejudice due to these lies and fabrications by the witnesses against me. 7.
The Passaic County employees lied to the grand jury that I refused to pay taxes.
They basically repeated the statements that the convicted felon
Robert Del Vecchio had told them, so that they remove me from my home. I had been for 16 years in that home and I paid all taxes due. After the flooding reduced the value of my home in 2000-2011, I wanted the home valuation be adjusted, to reflect the reduced value. The facts show that the home was sold for $330,000, while the Township valued it at almost $500,000. This is irrefutable proof of the over-valuation by 40 percent or so, that exceeded the 15 percent over-valuation limit set by statute. As a matter of state law, no taxes were due.
The New Jersey Court In Village of
Ridgefield Park et al., v. Bergen County Board of Taxation et al., 62 N.J.Super. 133, 162 A.2d 132 said that any assessment levied in violation of the constitutional mandate of uniformity is absolutely void Ab initio. Based on the lies and perjured or misleading testimony by the Passaic County employees to the grand jury, they managed to mislead and fool the jury. By falsely advising the grand jurors that I did not believe I had to pay taxes, the
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 22 of 37
Passaic County employees depicted me as a criminal and as an individual who the grand jurors (who all pay taxes) would resent.
The entire
indictment must be dismissed with prejudice due to the outrageous government conduct in misleading the grand jury. 8.
The prosecutors also mislead the jurors by eliciting 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 (I denied that I was standing behind the storm door: I have stated many times that I was in my office room 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”. The prosecutors obviously wanted to mislead the grand jury by stating that the storm door was open, which was not open. Both the wooden door and the storm door were closed; the main door was locked by me with a dead bolt as always. Since I have a legal background (I was studying for the final exams of the final year of law school during that week), I knew that if I left the door open, then I would have been consenting to an entry inside the home by the Passaic County employees. There is no way on earth that I would leave the door open, considering that the computer
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 23 of 37
records show that I was in my office doing business and sending emailsnone of that information was allowed by the corrupt prosecutors to be submitted to the grand jury. 9.
The prosecutors never instructed the grand jury as to the applicable defenses of ignorance or mistake or duress or outrageous government conduct or entrapment.
10.
The grand jurors were never advised that I was entitled to show that I was motivated by an honestly held (but unreasonable) belief.
11.
The grand jurors were never provided with the definitions as to the general requirements of culpability (definitions of the words purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently);
12.
The grand jurors were not allowed to hear my accusations that the now convicted conspirators had violated numerous state laws, including the New Jersey Constitution, the Forceful Entry and Detainer law, and the New Jersey Tax Sale Law. I initially hired Mr. Carl Herman, Esq. to get me to the grand jury and present my exculpatory evidence that shows that all the accusations of the Passaic County sheriff’s employees were fabricated. But the prosecutors refused to allow us to present any evidence to the grand jury. Instead, they committed the above stated violations of state laws and procedures.
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
13.
Page 24 of 37
In June 2011, Dr. Stephanatos had filed a suit to vacate the tax deed (Passaic County, Law Division L-2973-11). Dr. Stephanatos even sent a letter to the judges, to the co-conspirators Robert Del Vecchio, Matthew Marini and the sheriff that appeals are pending and they in fact responded to the letter, acknowledging the appeals. That suit to vacate the tax deed was filed within the statutory period of three months. Due to the refusal of the these two judges to stay the proceedings for the appellate judges to review what they (McVeigh et al) have done, the fraudulent issuance of an ex-parte writ of possession and the wrongful interference by the sheriff and American Tax Funding, LLC of Dr. Stephanatos’ legal rights, the Law Division did not hear that lawsuit.
14.
Meanwhile, Dr. Stephanatos also filed two appeals: one from the L-2672-09 case and one from the F-9241-09 case.
The appeals were docketed as
follows: A-4685-10 and A-3900-10 (appeal from L-2672-09) Team 4. At the same time, Dr. Stephanatos applied for a stay from the foreclosure judgment, to ensure that a higher court and/or a federal court hear his appeals. Judge McVeigh refused to stay the proceedings mainly because of the lies that Del Vecchio and the municipality of Wayne had been telling her (such as I owe taxes; we now know that it was a false assertion by these conspirators). I was keep telling Judge McVeigh that what she is doing is
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 25 of 37
illegal, and in violation of the tax sale laws and the New Jersey Constitution. Of course in Passaic County they give no damn about laws and Constitution. The sheriff officers and the judges were aware that appeals and lawsuits were pending; they also knew that state law, allows Dr. Stephanatos to stay in his home, because he has been using the home as his residence continuously since 1995 (see N.J.S.A. 2A:39-7. Title not inquired into; defense of 3 years possession “Title shall not be an issue in any action commenced under this chapter. 3 years peaceable possession by the defendant shall be a defense to the action”) and that is why they acted with haste and fraud and criminal intent to deprive Dr. Stephanatos of his home and his business.
This behavior shocks the conscience, implicating a
substantive due process violation. This violation occurred on June 28, 2011. 15.
It is crucial to report to the Court that the Sheriff and the Passaic County provide as a defense to the federal complaint that “Dr. Stephanatos never appealed the underlying Court Orders which ordered him to vacate the subject premises, therefore, the defendants acted within their purview under the cover of law - regarding the underlying events;” This defense is obvious not valid, considering that Dr. Stephanatos had filed several appeals and had in fact notified the Sheriff of the pendency of such
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 26 of 37
appeals. Even the day of June 28, 2011 when the sheriff came to forcefully remove Dr. Stephanatos from his home and place of business, he told them that in addition to the pending appeals, he is also filing emergency appealsfirst with the Hon. Joseph F. Lisa, PJAD of the Appellate Division who was listed as the appellate judge on duty, and then with the federal courts. He did mention that to the sheriff officer who was acting as a negotiator. None of that information was provided to the grand jurors. Thus, the motivation for the actions of the Sheriff and its employees is highly suspicious and a rational juror would have believed, based on omission of crucial information from the grand jurors, that I was planning on committing violent acts instead of following the legal process (i.e., petitioning the courts). The omission of these facts from the grand jury testimonies was intended in misleading the grand jury regarding my intentions during that day. 16.
The prosecutors filed charges against me using the wrong statutes so that they collect more bail from me and hold me in prison. Then, after I had posted bail, Peter Roby argued like hell before Judge Filko and Judge Reddin to revoke my constitutionally guaranteed bail. This behavior also shocks the conscience and highlights the unethical behavior of these individuals: they are willing to violate every law and procedure possible and lie and mislead the grand jury and the courts so they can justify their actions.
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 27 of 37
All this evidence and allegations presented above clearly shows that the Passaic County employees act in reckless disregard for the laws and procedures of this state because they know their lies and fabrications and violations of state laws and procedures will be covered up by people in the judicial system of Passaic County who support them and harbor them. This is my concern for having a legal proceeding in this county.
CONSPIRATORIAL ACTS OF THE CONSPIRATORS TO FORCE DR. STEPHANATOS OUT OF HIS HOME AND PLACE OF BUSINESS 17.
I will include below a summary of the subsequent conspiratory acts of the conspirators so that the Court sees the magnitude of the criminal activities of American Tax Funding, Matthew Marini, Robert Del Vecchio, Justin Weisenbacher, Brian Lynch, and others and how these conspirators were aided and abetted by the Passaic County employees.
18.
Dr. Stephanatos was not personally liable for the property taxes and no personal judgment could have been issued against him. The New Jersey law has been clearly established for many years: "A tax against real estate is not a debt of the owner; it is not founded on a contract express or implied but is an imposition against the property and no personal liability attaches." (emphasis added) Francis Realty Co. v. Newark, 16 N.J. Misc. 328, 330
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 28 of 37
(Essex Co. Cir. Ct. 1938). Dr. Stephanatos was not personally liable for the property taxes and no personal judgment could have been issued against him. Only an in rem proceeding could have been legally instituted to take title from him and to force him out of his residence. However, according to New Jersey law only the municipality can institute an “in rem” proceeding.
The municipally held liens can be foreclosed by
municipalities under the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act codified in N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.29 et seq. However, a private entity, such as ATF and Del Vecchio, is not allowed by New Jersey law to perform in rem foreclosures. 19.
What these conspirators did then was to conspire with the Passaic County employees and legal system so that they would treat the real estate taxes as a personal debt and they used the “in personam” foreclosure proceedings that are applicable to debtor-creditor residential mortgage proceedings or in situations where a person is personally liable for a debt.
However,
according to New Jersey law "A tax against real estate is not a debt of the owner; it is not founded on a contract express or implied but is an imposition against the property and no personal liability attaches." (emphasis added) Francis Realty Co. v. Newark, 16 N.J. Misc. 328, 330 (Essex Co. Cir. Ct. 1938). This position is supported by Rothman v. River
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 29 of 37
Edge, 149 N.J.Super. 435, 374 A.2d 36 (App.Div. 1977), certif. den., 75 N.J. 19, 379 A.2d 250 (1977) in that court's statement that the unpaid taxes could not result in a judgment against the taxpayers but shall be a lien against the premises. [149 N.J. Super. at 442, 374 A.2d 36]. 20.
Thus, because the real estate taxes were not a personal debt of the Dr. Stephanatos and no personal liability attaches, these conspirators could not have used the residential mortgage foreclosure proceedings or the “in personam” foreclosure proceedings to determine ownership and possession of the land and actual possession of the land.
This could only have
happened through an “in rem” proceeding and that proceeding could have only been conducted by municipalities under the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act codified in N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.29 et seq.
Thus, the actions of the
conspirators are thoroughly unlawful and also prohibited by the Public Use Clause of the Federal and State Constitutions. These irregularities also raise issues of Taking of Private Property without Due Process of Law, i.e., a Due Process 14th Amendment violation. 21.
The “private taking” that was conducted by the conspirators is prohibited by the federal constitution as the DC was extensively briefed. 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
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 30 of 37
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] Dr. Stephanatos 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).
Here, there is no
dispute that my property was taken for a private purpose. 22.
Three Federal Judges in the District of New Jersey have recently ruled that New Jersey’s Tax Lien Foreclosure Procedure does not carry with it the protections of the mortgage foreclosure process to shield the transferee from fraudulent conveyance claims by the prior owner to claw back and regain ownership of the real estate. The most recent of these rulings was made on January 29, 2014 in the case of Oyster Creek Inn, Inc., D.N.J. Bkr. Case No. 13-22624 (GMB). In her Oyster Creek ruling, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Gloria Burns followed the rationale laid out in two earlier decisions of her court mates Bankruptcy Judge Judith Wizmur in In re Varquez, Bankr. Case No. 13-30571-JHW (Bankr. D. N.J. Dec. 13, 2013), and Judge Michael Kaplan in In re Berley Associates, 323 B.R. 433, 434 (Bankr. D. N.J. 2013). All three judges have now concluded that under the New Jersey tax lien
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 31 of 37
foreclosure procedure that does not require a judicial sale of the property at public auction, the transfer of the real estate does not carry with it the protections given to title transfers by mortgage foreclosure as articulated by the 1994 ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 545 (1994). Now the stakes have been raised by a new decision that resulted in a forfeiture of the claim and avoidance of the lien because the conspirators charged excessive penalties and fees and charges to the homeowner. The latest reported decision can be found through West Law at In re Princeton Office Park, __ B.R. __, 2014 WL 341089 (Bkrtcy. D.N.J.). The crucial point I want to make is that I had filed several appeals against the decision to transfer my home to the conspirators because I knew that what they were saying to Judge McVeigh was wrong and illegal and that they were using incorrect procedures that were based on mortgage foreclosure while this was an in rem lien foreclosure case that could have been initiated only by Wayne Township. The conspirators did not allow me to proceed with the appeals because they violated a number of state laws regarding the forceful entry and detainment of occupied residential properties. No warrant for removal was obtained prior to the Passaic County sheriff entered my property and my home. A Warrant for Removal should have been obtained as is mandated by New
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 32 of 37
Jersey law (N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1et seq. and N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57). The grand jury was never made aware of these facts and these New Jersey laws that protected me and my property, including my business from forceful entry and detainment. One of the main issues will be as to the role that Judge McVeigh played in these proceedings. She has not issued any opinion, she did not conduct any trial on any factual disputes, and she is refusing to explain as to what she did or did not do. SUMMARY In summary, I respectfully submit to this Court that the prosecutor before the grand jury had the same duty to present the exculpatory evidence and defenses outlined earlier and that, then I was entitled to a no bill under the law. Our case law has made clear that under certain circumstances there is a prosecutorial duty to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. In State v. Gaughran, 260 N.J. Super. 283, 290 (Law Div. 1992) (quoting State v. Engel, 249 N.J. Super. 336, 359 (App. Div. 1991)) a trial court dismissed an indictment where a prosecutor failed to present exculpatory medical evidence directly contradicting a complainant’s testimony in a sexual assault case. The opinion noted there was no issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, but rather whether the failure to present exculpatory evidence “stripped the Grand Jury of its function
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 33 of 37
to protect the innocent from unfounded prosecution.” Gaughran, 260 N.J. Super. at 287. In State v. Hogan, supra, our Supreme Court held that there is a prosecutorial duty to present exculpatory evidence under circumstances where it directly negates guilt. Hogan, 144 N.J. at 237. See also Smith, 269 N.J. Super. At 95 (“prosecutor’s obligation to exercise his discretion in good faith encompasses the obligation to give the grand jury evidence in the prosecutor’s possession which clearly exculpates a defendant”). In doing so, the Supreme Court explained that the state grand jury clause precludes the prosecution from “deceiving the grand jury or presenting its evidence in a way that is tantamount to telling the grand jury a “half-truth” because any “distorted version of the facts interferes with the grand jury’s decision-making function”. Hogan, 144 N.J. at 236. It is imperative to transfer the case to another county, because if the case stays in Passaic County, this Court will be overseeing these legal proceedings and will conduct interrogations of a presiding judge of the Passaic County Superior Court (Margaret McVeigh). It will be a very hard sell to the public and to me that this Court can conduct these proceedings in total impartiality as is required under the state constitution, Article I, par. 10: 10. “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to
Hon. Mig guel De la Ca arrera
Page e 34 of 37
be inforrmed of the nature and a cause of the acccusation; too be confrronted withh the witnessees against him; to have compu ulsory proccess for obbtaining w witnesses inn his favor; and a to havee the assisttance of co ounsel in hiis defense.”
RELIIEF REQU UESTED 1. I am m respectfully asking the Court to allow m me to suppplement thee record too add this letter listin ng my con ncerns reg garding thee significaant delays in ruling on a simp ple motion to Changee Venue an nd the letteer from Juudge McGeeady. In ddoing so, I waive any y rights forr self-incrim mination; 2. I am m urging the t Court to transffer the casse to Berggen Counnty, as no fair procceedings orr fair trial by b an impaartial jury ccan be had in Passaicc County;
Respecttfully Subm mitted,
Date: April A 21, 20 014
Hon. Miguel De la Carrera
Page 35 of 37
______________________________ Basilis N. Stephanatos, PhD, JD
Cc:
Miles Feinstein, Esq. Peter Roby – Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office
![GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ - La Carrera de Benavente [2010].pdf ...](https://p.pdfkul.com/img/300x300/gonzalez-rodriguez-la-carrera-de-benavente-2010pdf_5a3241a51723ddeab64da9b8.jpg)
