|Richard F. Turner
On October 30, 2015, the Township of Weehawken (Hudson County) agreed to pay $747,000 to a Township Police lieutenant to settle his two lawsuits, two disciplinary actions and to provide for the lieutenant's retirement.
In his federal suit filed in 2008, Richard DeCosmis claimed that Mayor Richard F. Turner led a campaign of retaliation against him because he publicly criticized Weehawken's alleged misuse of state funds intended for a Park and Ride to develop a parking lot "to benefit a private building developer and political contributor to Mayor Turner and his allies." DeCosmis claimed that the alleged retaliation was also sparked by his refusal to allow Union City Mayor Brian Stack's campaign signs on his property, because of his support of "another political candidate running against Mayor Turner's political faction," and because DeCosmis filed a 2007 civil rights lawsuit against Turner "because [of] his unlawful interference with the day-to-day interference with the Weehawken Police Department and public corruption."
Winslow Police Chief
On November 2, 2015, the Township of Winslow (Camden County) agreed to pay $2,500 to a local man who sued police for wrongfully detaining him.
In his suit, James E. Tice claimed that on May 7, 2013, Winslow Patrolman Michael Gibson took his cell phone and frisked him without probable cause. When Tice asked Gibson why he was being detained, Gibson allegedly arrested him for disorderly conduct and released him an hour later without charging him. Tice, who represented himself in the lawsuit, claimed that Gibson violated his Fourth Amendment rights "as there was no probable cause tostop, detain, search or arrest plaintiff for being on a street in a town where he resides." Tice claimed that he filed an Internal Affairs complaint against Gibson and that his complaint was sustained and resulted in Gibson being discplined.
The case is captioned Tice v. Township of Winslow et al, Federal Case No. 1:13-cv-06894 and Tice represented himself. Case documents are on-line here.
The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.
None of Tice's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $2,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Winslow or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Winslow or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Tice $2,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.
Court to determine disclosure of investigative records related to allegations of misconduct by Cape May Sheriff
|Gary G. Schaffer
Cape May County Sheriff
On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. Mercer County Assignment Judge Mary C. Jacobson will hear oral argument in the case of John Paff v. New Jersey State Police, et al, Docket No. MER-L- 1984-15.
At issue are two State Police investigation reports pertaining to allegations that Cape May County Sheriff Gary G. Schaffer was involved in misconduct or impropriety while he worked at the Cape May Police Training Academy and the Ocean City Aquatic Center.
The State Police have admitted that it possesses two investigation reports into Schaffer's alleged misconduct but refused to release them because they are "exempt from access as criminal investigative records." My lawyer, CJ Griffin of Hackensack, argues that under the common law right of access citizens have a great need to see the records so they can assure themselves that the allegations were fairly investigated and not just swept under the rug.
When Shore News Today reporters asked Sheriff Schaffer last year for a comment on the investigation, he was quoted as having said that he would “not comment on a blog.”
A lawsuit filed today in Mercer County Superior Court seeks the identities and other information regarding officers from the State Police and Mercer Sheriff's Department who fired fifteen shots at Radazz Hearns, now 15, on August 7, 2015. Seven of the shots struck Hearns, causing him to be hospitalized for a week. Despite public outcry and controversy over whether Hearns actually possessed a gun at the time he was shot, law enforcement officials have refused to identify the police officers who fired the shots.
On October 15, 2015, both Isaac Isaac Avilucea of the Trentonian and Keith Brown of NJ Advance Media published articles claiming that their investigations found that Doug Muraglia and James Udijohn were the officers who shot Hearns. When asked to confirm the information in Brown's article, Deputy Attorney General Ryan C. Atkinson refused to do so and claimed that any lawsuit filed to obtain the officers' names would be frivolous.
The lawsuit is captioned John Paff v. Office of the Attorney General, et al., was filed by C.J. Griffin of Hackensack-based law firm Pashman Stein.
- Written by Kelly W. Patterson
- Category: Police Accountability Project
This originally appeared on Cop Block.org.
A former Camden detective, who was fired after he assaulted a 15 year old in 2005, had his termination upheld by an appellate court on Tuesday. Detective Lawrence Norman and fellow Officer George Ingram beat the teen, who was only identified as “A.F.” due to his age, after he was arrested in a drug sting.
On Oct. 19, 2005, officers were conducting an investigation into drug sales that involved dealers selling to undercover police. A.F. allegedly sold heroin to an officer and Ingram and Norman tracked him down to the inside of a house, where he was found hiding in a closet.
According to a disciplinary notice, Ingram and Norman then took A.F. to a “secluded location where they beat him in an effort to get him to disclose the location of drugs that he retained after his drug sale to the undercover officer.”
- Written by Eftychis John Gregos-Mourginakis & Joshua Jacobs
- Category: Selected Blogs
The 790 foot cargo ship, El Faro, was lost at sea during Hurricane Joaquin. The search operation was ended earlier this week.
The search for survivors from El Faro has been called off, the crew consigned to the depths. We are left to mourn the loss of 33 brave mariners, 28 of whom were American. But as we mourn, we should also be angered, because their deaths may very well have been avoidable. Hurricane Joaquin wasn’t the sole culprit; it had an accomplice, and that accomplice is a monstrous piece of legislation known as the Jones Act.
Between the lines of this disaster, something should jump out at the reader: What were those sailors, in the middle of a Category 4 hurricane, doing onboard a vessel dating back to the Ford administration? In an era where we replace our phones every two years and trade in our car leases in not much longer than that, why is it that these people were stranded in the middle of a maelstrom aboard what El Faro seaman Chris Cash called a “rust bucket”?
- Written by Eric of Eric Peters Autos
- Category: Selected Blogs
America is becoming unrecognizable. The landscape is still familiar; the flag looks the same. But it is a changed placed.
And some places are more changed than others.
In New Jersey, the state Supreme Court has just ruled that a cop can search your vehicle if you are pulled over for any reason – and without a warrant.
A defective turn signal, for instance.
Or a seatbelt “violation.”
Basically, the NJ court has ruled that once a cop turns on his emergency lights, your Fourth Amendment rights have been forfeited.
LIVINGSTON, NJ – The League of Women Voters held a debate for candidates for the State Assembly in the 27th district last Wednesday, September 30th. Libertarian candidates offered refreshing fact-based solutions to economic concerns such as job creation, state budgeting and state pensions.
The Republican candidate promised to reach across the aisle, work hard and renegotiate pensions without mentioning any specifics. The Democratic incumbents, Assemblyman John McKeon of West Orange and Assemblywoman Mila Jasey of South Orange, were absent.
“If you re-elect these people you know what to expect,” said Damien Caillault, one of the Libertarian candidates. “They will spend more, tax more, fund new projects, and in a few years, they’ll come back for more.”
Story Updated 8/12 and 8/17 - Correspondence Added
Rutgers has been billing students to support the legislative lobbying group, NJ Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG). Each semester an item is added to each student's bill with the description "NJPIRG". To not pay this fee the student (or the parent paying the bill) needs take action to have this fee removed. Not only is this action unethical, it is also illegal.
State law (18A:62-22) requires that any fee for organizations "which employ legislative agents or attempt to influence legislation" is only authorized by having "the student add the charge to the total amount due." This requires a positive check off for the fee. The law also requires specific language to be included on the bill.
Optional fees shall be accompanied by a statement as to the nature of the item, and that the item is not a charge required to be paid by the student but rather the student may add the charge to the total amount due, and that the item appears on the bill at the request of the student body, and does not necessarily reflect the endorsement of the governing body. - N.J.S.A. 18A:62-22
Rutgers is in violation of the law. They have a negative check off and do not include the required language.
NJPIRG, along with other state PIRG chapters have lobbied public institutions to automatically bill students a fee that is forwarded to the state chapter of PIRG. In my case the fee was $11.20 for the Fall 2015 semester. The fee can be removed - but only if it is noticed and the appropriate boxes are checked when paying the tuition balance.
Currently, fees for organizations which attempt to influence legislation are included on tuition bills at some institutions as "negative check-off" fees. This means the person paying the tuition bill must elect not to include the organization fee with the tuition bill. This bill would change that procedure to a positive check-off, so that the person paying the tuition bill must elect to include the fee with the tuition payment.
Rutgers University is breaking the law with their current billing practice. According to the Rutgers Tuition and Fees page, the fee is categorized as one of their "Optional Fees". The required language is nowhere to be found and those paying the bill have to take an action to have the fee removed.
During its July 27, 2015 public meeting, the Gloucester Township (Camden County) Council voted to end the public comment portion of the meeting for the stated reasons of one speaker's comments not having "something to do with government" and for not being sufficiently "respectful to others."
The video of the meeting shows that resident Tom Crone, a Republican, began addressing the Democratic-controlled Council at 28:15 on the video. At about 41:40 Crone began speaking as spokesman for the Gloucester Township and Camden County Republican parties about "an unwholesome and unsavory incident . . . that involved" officials from Council Vice President Orlando Mercado's and his running mates' reelection campaign.
- Written by Alex Nowrasteh
- Category: NJ Libertarian Blog
Alex Nowrasteh is the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
The alleged murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has reignited the debate over the link between immigration and crime. Such debates often call for change in policy regarding the deportation or apprehension of illegal immigrants. However, if policies should change, it should not be in reaction to a single tragic murder. It should be in response to careful research on whether immigrants actually boost the U.S. crime rates.
With few exceptions, immigrants are less crime prone than natives or have no effect on crime rates. As described below, the research is fairly one-sided.
There are two broad types of studies that investigate immigrant criminality. The first type uses Census and American Community Survey (ACS) data from the institutionalized population and broadly concludes that immigrants are less crime prone than the native-born population. It is important to note that immigrants convicted of crimes serve their sentences before being deported with few exceptions. However, there are some potential problems with Census-based studies that could lead to inaccurate results. That’s where the second type of study comes in. The second type is a macro level analysis to judge the impact of immigration on crime rates, generally finding that increased immigration does not increase crime and sometimes even causes crime rates to fall.
At the outset of this letter, let me make clear that as a Libertarian individualist and activist that I am not really enamored of any flag. They are all symbols of nationalism and statism, both of which are collectivist philosophies and ideologies that believe the individual should be subordinate to the so-called "greater good."
Having said this, let me also make clear that the current frenzy over the Confederate battle flag (erroneously referred to by many as the "Stars and Bars," which was the flag of the Confederate government) shows that the "politically correct" liberal crowd is just as intolerant and hateful as the people they claim to be against!
Secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bill lets foreign governments and foreign special interests control American medical care, banking, the Internet, and even civil liberties
For Immediate Release
Friday, June 19, 2015
Republicans howled when Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass [Obamacare] so that you can find out what is in it." Now GOP lawmakers, who control the U.S. House, are following suit in their passage of a new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade bill.
After rejecting an earlier version of the bill last week, the House passed a new TPP bill on June 18 which gives President Obama carte blanche to negotiate and sign a massive anti-American trade treaty with eleven other Pacific nations without public oversight or news coverage. They’ll have a short period of time, after the hundreds-of-pages-long treaty is finally published, to cast an up-or-down, take-it-or-leave-it vote.