Friday, June 20th, 2014
Judge Millenky: Alright now El Mujaddid v. City of Vineland, Mujaddid, I’m sorry, this is docket L 4550-13 and appearances please,
Mr. Baker: thank you good afternoon your honor county counsel for Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Prosecutors Office Theodore E. Baker, El Mujaddid: pro se litigant El Mujaddid present
Judge Millenky: Thank you please be seated both of you
Judge Millenky: and Mr. El Mujaddid this is your motion for reconsideration and this court on April 30th, 2014 denied to you permission to file a late tort claim, you have supported excuse me you have submitted a notice that is dated March 14, 2013 and this notice is a document entitled initial notice of claim for damages of the State of New Jersey, it says forward to the tort and contract unit it’s a form document has your name on it sir , has your address, and umm it describes in section in umm section 3 the circumstances that are the subject of your claim, that is events on 11-29-12, taking place in Vineland new jersey, my understanding at the Vineland municipal court, and Mr. Mujaddid when did you serve this,
Judge Millenky: umm in other words when did you submit it?
El Mujaddid: they received it March 18th, 2013 I have provided an additional copy that they provided me with the, uh division of risk management stamp
El Mujaddid: March 18th, Judge: and so then the, analysis here would focus on whether or not you met the initial 90 day requirement and if not whether or not there’s an exceptional circumstance, and here it would seem to the court that, the events that were the subject matter of your claim occurred on November 29th, 2012, so 90 days from that date would take us to February, the end of February, correct or perhaps the beginning of March, March first, El Mujaddid well the letter umm. the letter may have listed November, but if you look at the actual tort notice, umm it goes in to 2010 as well, uh it doesn’t just start with November 2012,
Judge Millenky: I, I guess I’m focusing on that because that is the latest date that you would have a claim so for example if you have a false arrest claim that would take place at the time that either the arrest is consummated without incarceration or alternatively when the incarceration period is concluded after the arrest, if it’s a false imprisonment it would be after the imprisonment ends at the latest as the triggering date, umm,
El Mujaddid: well for fals…
Judge Millenky: but those are all earlier than the 11-29-12
El Mujaddid: right, well, the 11-19-12 date would refer to the second false arrest claim that i have which is specified to the Vineland defendants but to my understanding the tort claims act doesn’t immunize law enforcement for charges of false arrest and false imprisonment, so i don’t understand why the notice time period would be relevant to that specific type of tort…
Judge Millenky: well certainly there’s not a tort claim to the extent that you have constitutional claims, right? that’s not governed by the tort claims act
El Mujaddid: right and under…..Torres v. Jersey City Medical Center it specifies that the tort claims act doesn’t not immunize Law Enforcement for charges of false arrest and false imprisonment charges, so I’m kind of confused as to why the false imprisonment umm, claim particularly would be relevant to the tort claim notice time period requirements…,
Judge Millenky: okay, i understand the point, Mr. Baker…
Mr. Baker: uhh well Your honor, I think the point that the courts making and I was going to address as well, simply is that if we accept that this tort claim notice was filed as of the date the plaintiff indicated it was March 18th, 2012 then by the terms of the notice itself its behind the 90 day period, and
Judge Millenky: But what Mr. Mujaddid is saying is that, that doesn’t matter, because he has a cause of action that’s not controlled by the tort claims act in so far as it sounds in,
Mr. Baker: constitutional tort Judge: a constitutional tort, false imprisonment false arrest Baker: agreed,
Judge Millenky: Okay
Mr. Baker: accept that in as much as they are not covered by the tort claims act, that is then addressed in the second part of our discussion today which is the motions to dismiss, because that deterrent is predicated on when they accrues of course uhh and so that’s a little different inquiry
Judge Millenky: so your position then for purposes of the tort claims act, is that if the claims of false imprisonment, false arrest, don’t rise to the level of constitutional wrongs, their barred by the tort claims act..
Mr. Baker: right only the, only the state related claims are being encompassed within the motion, Judge: okay, but to the extent that these are underpinnings for example, to the constitutional claim i was falsely arrested and that constituted the deprivation of various constitutional rights that is not subject to dismissal..
Mr. Baker: not on that basis,
Judge Millenky: based upon the tort claims
Mr. Baker: that’s, co.., yes Judge: act and your position is this the tort claims act, and your position is this, that as of the tort claims act, if i took the last possible date of notice, 11-29-12, or excuse, the last possible date of an event here, umm Mr. Mujaddid, you said that you were arrested at the Vineland municipal court on that date as well as on the earlier date in 2010, correct?
El Mujaddid: right which stemmed from the actions that the counsels defendants put in place,
Judge Millenky: okay but, yeah I’m sorry, go head,
El Mujaddid: additional, well when we dealt with the motion for permission to file a tort claim it was my understanding that the court had determined that because a tort claim wasn’t filed in June 2013 when the matter was actually dismissed that, that is the basis of why the motion was dismissed, where we at now is that i have shown that i actually filed a tort claim three months prior to that time period that was marked during that particular hearing during June 2013, so
Judge Millenky: but let me just clarify one thing, i was focused i think on June because that was the date we were discussing, and then you then brought to my attention that there might of even been an earlier date, so then the question is the earlier date within the 90 day period, if it is then you’ve met the requirements of the act, if it’s not then we jump to the analysis, that says are there exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time, so here, your saying as to the last act, that occurred, that occurred on November 29th, 2012, so nov, December, January, is February 29th, is it a leap year, i don’t recall but it might be march 1st, as well, right,
Mr. Baker: right,
Judge Millenky: I think I’m within a day or two of counting the days properly of 90 days but we can be more specific, but its right at the beginning of march, perhaps march 2nd at the latest, but i think it’s actually a little earlier,
Mr. Leinhasuer: February 27th your Honor:
Judge Millenky: is it February 27th ?, Okay
Mr. Leinhasuer: Yes,
Judge Millenky: So……….the question would be did you file a notice on or before February 27th, and if I’m to look at the notice of claim that you’ve now, submitted, in support of this motion for reconsideration, this would be a notice that’s dated March 14th, and is received March 18th, so it would of still appear, not to put you in compliance with the 90 day requirements, so how I mean and..How, would you address that issue?
El Mujaddid: Well specifically umm, it may not have been in the 90 day requirement from November, umm but it does proceed the time period the court noted in the consideration hearing which was June 2013, which was the basis of denying the motion for permission, additional…
Judge Millenky: wasn’t that the date that you actually filed it,
El Mujaddid: filed what? Specifically
Judge Millenky: the claim form, was that, had you filed a claim form in June?
El Mujaddid: no i filed in March but the court in that hearing utilized June 2013 as the basis to say that because a notice hadn’t been filed in June that motion was denied, where i have shown that a notice was filed in March,
Judge Millenky: okay and I’m accepting the filing in march, I’m accepting that you’ve shown to the court that indeed umm you filed a claim for damages in march, but my question to you is, with that filing have you met the 90 day requirement i mean it’s a very strict requirement
El Mujaddid: if, if we’re starting with November i would say nah, that i didn’t make the 90 day requirement, however based on the circumstances revolving the discovery and other issues of due process, the tolling period should be tolled under the discovery rule as well as the equitable tolling abilities the court has,
Judge Millenky: well I’m not certain, if there is such an equitable tolling provision embodied in the tort claims act, I mean wouldn’t be really the exceptional circumstances standard so the way that one would deal with it, would be to say is there an exceptional circumstance that ought to be considered by the court that extending the period for umm 19 days that’s really what I’m asking you, is there something exceptional so when you were incarcerated for the 29th, how long were you incarcerated for?
El Mujaddid: Just that day
Judge Millenky: just that day and then you were released, okay, so umm, if you were to tell me that there’s an exceptional circumstance that warrants the extension of the period within one year, but beyond the 90 days is there anything exceptional that you would point too?
El Mujaddid: absolutely the fraudulent concealment of the discovery, had i known, or had i had received, like the i should have received, the discovery materials that were requested for in November, or prior too, that false arrest date, i would have known factually, that what happened in November was 100% a false arrest, but because the defendants did not turn over the discovery materials that were sought, i could not know that for sure, to file,
Judge Millenky: but here, but, jump forward a little bit in time, I’m not taking you back that far, I’m saying begin with the date of what happened in the Vineland municipal court,
El Mujaddid: In November?
Judge Millenky: Correct…
El Mujaddid: in November? Judge: run 90 days from that and your 18 or 19 days short of meeting the 90 day deadline when you finally filed the notice of tort claim…..
El Mujaddid: okay, well my point is that i was still seeking discovery at that time, additionally, i don’t, i still don’t know the identity of the individuals that executed that specific false arrest, i know where they work, i know what they look like, but i don’t know who they are, identity wise, so if you look at the tort claim notice, i wasn’t able to give their names, umm this is also because the court did not turn that information over to me as well, but i still put a notice in,
Judge Millenky: and what about the events in municipal court on the.., on November 29th, 2012, what prevented you from filing within 90 days of that day?,
El Mujaddid: i didn’t know who the individuals were, the specific individuals that actually physically had me taken into the detaining room, so to speak,
Judge Millenky: but when you filed the claim….
El Mujaddid: I couldn’t identify them Judge: so you did it generically….you provide the names of some individual’s right….
El Mujaddid: yes but not the individuals that executed the incident on November, or in November,
Judge Millenky: okay, Mr. Baker….
Mr. Baker: uh, well, first of all, your honor, the, what took place in November, is in the Vineland municipal court, has nothing to do with the Cumberland county or its prosecutors office, but having said that umm, it’s clear from the very filing of the notice of claim that relates to events which uhh plaintiff, indicates occurred on November 29th, 2012, that, he’s filed beyond the 90 days, the..the next question becomes if he files a motion to extend that time for one year from that date, then he must file that application within the year of, of the follows, November 29th of 2012, umm and that’s what he doesn’t do, and that becomes jurisdictional under the tort claim notice provision, so unfortunately it’s a technical matter, with regards to the claims he raises, their out of time under the tort claims act and unfortunately the court has no jurisdiction to umm, consider that, if he had filed his motion for umm, leave to file a late notice of claim, within one year from November 29th, 2012, he would have an argument to make, but he doesn’t need to know all the particulars of a claim or the identities of everyone to know that it exist, and that he wants to preserve his rights to advance that claim, that’s the procedural problem, that he faces with respect to the notice that was filed, and I, likewise would concede your honor that he does file a notice of claim in March, the one i have is March 14,and parenthetically, he has provided another one to the court, that appears to be a Federal tort claim notice that was with some of his motions papers, but basically recites the same information and he does know the identities of individuals in there and in this one he alleges that it’s November 28th, 2012 and April 5 of 2010, just as he does in the other one, so the question is when does he or should he know, and he did know because he did file and he recites a date that’s more than 90 days before he files the notice and that’s the unfortunate reality of it procedurally with respect to whether he can make that claim now that doesn’t impact on his constitutional tort claims, which I would also conceive legally could overlap or intertwine, depending upon other facts, but procedurally for the tort claim umm, claims specifically i think there time barred unfortunately,
Judge Millenky: and you would say that, that’s the case as to the claim arising as to the municipal court?
Mr. Baker: well I’m not arguing that but i, i think that the same reasoning applies, yes,
Judge Millenky: and you would say that also applies to the earlier claims having to do with what occurred in 2010
Mr. Baker: uh, under the tort claims act with respect to this particular motion, now as the court is aware there’s a separate issue with regard that,
Judge Millenky: anything further Mr. Mujaddid…
El Mujaddid: yeah, well the second tort notice that was file around the same period as the one that was filed with the state, it doesn’t specify, the individuals, cause, again i still don’t who know their names s, its gives a general umm, statement going back to 2010 just like the state one does and its clear under O’Keefe v. Snyder that a plaintiff cannot be said to have discovered his causes of action until he learns enough facts to form a basis, the, one of the main reasons were even here is because I’m seeking the court to compel discovery, i mean we have an issue where discovery, has been denied continuously, umm, over the, the period throughout the duration of the case, additionally i have two letters from the defendants from uhh, September 18th, 2012 , umm where its addressed to the Vineland city municipal court, umm, discussing sending the case over to Vineland so we have them sending the case to Vineland in September19th, 2012 and then we have additional false arrest occurring in November of 2012, so there intimately related I also have the document that they sent which is clearly not signed by a judicial officer, but i did not have this information until 2013, April to May, so if i would of had information earlier, i would of filed a tort claim notice much earlier, however i was specifically told by the defendants that, all discovery materials had been sent to Vineland, the Vineland, umm defendants now claim they never received all the discovery materials, so one of them says one thing, one of them says the other thing, the sum of it all is I’m left without materials i need to be clear on certain specifics,
Judge Millenky: okay i understand the position that you assert, sir under the facts as i understand them, there are really a series of two events that are critical here, one is or the first is that you were arrested in 2010, and in connection with that arrest, you assert that the arrest was false, you assert that there was a malicious prosecution and you assert….as well, that there was in connection with the retention of your person after the your arrest, that you were incarcerated that there was false imprison, all of those cause of actions sound in two areas, they may imply constitutional causes of action, and you have I think described constitutional actions in connection with those events, they may also describe torts against the State of New Jersey, you’ve also have described a fourth cause of action, that is a cause of action that arises in November 2012, November 29th to be specific and you allege that at that time, you were falsely arrested in the municipal court in Vineland, with respect not the constitutional claims but only to the tort claims our statue requires that an individual file a notice of claim within 90 days, that notice of claim is not a claim that has to be based upon your detailing every fact and every identity of every person who may be involved rather the purpose of the claim notice, is to put a public entity on notice of the fact of a claim, to the extent that there’s more information, that a person would want to know about while that’s certainly understandable the requirement for filing a claim does not require such specificity, that is that you identify every individual, the real inquiry is, when is it that you knew or should of known, that you had a cause of action, Mr. Mujaddid with respect to the events in 2010, and I’m just not looking at the specific date, what was the date of your arrest?, April…
El Mujaddid: April 21st 2010…
Judge Millenky: with respect to the events of April 21st, 2010 when you were arrested and then incarcerated, Sir, the fact of your arrest, and the fact of your incarceration was obvious to you, and you were incarcerated and then released, umm, i think, the release was in May was it not,
El Mujaddid: yeah, from Cumberland..yeah,
Judge Millenky: also Mr. Baker was it in May…
Mr. Baker: your honor, I have May 7th there’s a Bail hearing, and i understood that he was released at that time, but i heard plaintiff indicate that he was in jail beyond that, but i have heard nothing to suggest that it was in connection with the arrest of April 21…. Judge: okay i have in my notes that you were released in early May of 2010,
El Mujaddid: from Cumberland, yeah,
Judge Millenky: sir, to the extent that you were released, i would take that release date, as the date you would, at the very latest, have known that you were falsely imprisoned, and falsely arrested, with respect to the prosecution to the extent that the charges were pressed against you, certainly by the release date, you knew of the prosecution of you, that is to say that you had been incarcerated because charges had been set forth against you, the question is whether or not you acted to file a tort claim notice within 90 days of those events, sir i find no evidence that you did, nor do i find evidence that within one year of those events that you filed pursuant to NJSA 58:8-9,…a, application to file a late notice of claim which would be based upon the court evaluating whether or not there were exceptional circumstances i don’t find that, that has occurred, with respect to the events of May, excuse me of November 28th or 29th of 2012 on that date sir, you were again incarcerated albeit for a briefer period of time you were released on the same day, and as to those events to the extent that you would assert a wrongful umm or malicious, incar, uhh, prosecution that you would assert a false arrest, that you would assert false imprisonment, all of those events were events that were known to you, by the end of that day, and therefore you would of had to have acted within a 90 day period to file a notice of claim, sir the claim that ya… filed is late, albeit a little bit late, but nonetheless, late, you would of have to file by February 27th, perhaps 26th, if in fact it had happened a day earlier but you did not, then you would of had to have done was have filed if there were exceptional circumstance a motion to be able to file a late notice of claim and sir there is not evidence that you acted within the one year period of time that flowed from 2012 in other words you didn’t act by November 29th, of 2013 to file a claim for leave excuse me a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, you would of had to have done that, now for that reason the court is without power to give you relief in terms of a notice of tort claim, in point of fact, our statutes were amended to create an exceptional circumstances test, the period is a strict period of one year and the courts without discretion, to extend the period and so for that reason on the motion for reconsideration the motion is denied, the court does not dismiss your complaint however, in its entirety, the court finds that the very causes of action which might support a common law tort claim, that you have set forth and that would be covered by the tort claims act may also be the underpinning for constitutional claims, and the court does not dismiss those constitutional claims finding that they are not covered by the tort claims act, next with respect to…..the next motion that’s pending, next is Mujaddid, excuse me Mujaddid v. the City of Vineland, its docket L4550-13 the same case that we’ve just been dealing with and this is a motion to dismiss for the failure to comply with the statute of limitations, again can i have appearances Mr. Mujaddid.
El Mujaddid: pro se litigant Mujaddid present
Mr. Baker: thank you your honor, Theodore E. Baker, county counsel for Cumberland county and the prosecutor’s office, i should say et. al., with regard to the prosecutor’s office as well,
Leinhauser: Brian Leinhauser your honor on behalf of the city of Vineland defendants
Judge Millenky: Alright this is a motion that’s based upon April 21st, 2010 events and then a series of events that flow after that, but it seems to me that’s what’s critical in terms of time period, is this that on October 27th, 2010 the criminal complaint against the plaintiff, according to the prosecutor’s office as well as Vineland is remanded from the superior court, to the Vineland municipal court, but Mr. Mujaddid says I didn’t know that, I thought the matter was pending, and in fact I received correspondence from Cumberland county prosecutor, a Cumberland county prosecutor on September 18th, 2012, that this matter was remanded and he says that it’s from that date that he learns of what he would allege to be some violations of his constitutional rights and that therefore it’s only at that point that his cause of action concerning a false arrest accrues, because it’s at that point that or soon thereafter that the matter is resolved in the municipal court and it’s at that point that his cause of action for false arrest, false umm malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, would accrue, so the next point that Mr. Mujaddid makes is, I filed within a 2 year period, and therefore my constitutional claims remain viable the position of each of the defendants is that, that’s the incorrect analysis, that the statutes of limitations has already run, who wants to go first? Mr. Baker?
Mr. Baker: uhh,
Leinhasuer: I’ll just, just brief your honor, the only facts recited, that I’m not certain of on my end is, the City of Vineland, is the remand date, were still trying to run that down, but i don’t have any evidence to challenge Mr. Baker’s representation to the court on that point,…..
El Mujaddid: well I’ve served on both of them, all three counsels…
Judge Millenky: but, wait, wait, wait, wait.. I’m goanna ask you in a moment, but i, i already recited that you got something fro.,umm, in 2012, that you say is the first time you find out about, right?
El Mujaddid: yeah i got these right here,..Judge: in September,
El Mujaddid: I provided them copies, Judge: right, I understand that, go head
Mr. Baker: your honor, I think the tort claim notice that was filed in March of 2013, both the state one and what appears to be a federal one, i think help us in terms of what the plaintiff knew and when he knew it , umm and what i, what i look at when i see all the facts here, is a distinction between constitutional claims that accrued in April of 2010 as opposed to a constitutional claim that might accrue later, as to which there might be a dispute of fact, and I break them down as follows, false arrest, false imprisonment, umm, use of excessive force, he claims, uhh a violation of his due process rights, uhh with regard to the return of his Moorish Islamic Identity cards and that type of thing, he’s Cleary aware of those things, and he even he recites in his notices that the date on which the incidents occurred is in fact, uhh, he says April 5, 2010 I believe that’s an error but admitted its April 21, but nonetheless i think that’s an error, events in 2010 when he was at 219 park ave and there uhh was a raid, as it were and he was apprehended at that time, so he knew at that time he was taken, he was treated harshly as he says, placed in the Cumberland county correctional facility pending his bail hearing, that he felt wronged by that, so those claims substantively are constitutional claims which as we tried to brief accrue under the law at the time of the occurrence, the more authority question i think is with regard to his malicious prosecution claim, because
Judge Millenky: what about the false arrest and false imprisonment, because if in fact, the prosecution was successful then Mr. Mujaddid might think differently about the original arrest, but the prosecution was not successful and he might argue that its only when the prosecutor dismisses the charges against him, that he has if you will finalized the causes of action that sound for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and by his reckoning, Mr. Mujaddid reckoning, that would be when the matters known by him to have been remanded to the Vineland court, and i believe its almost immediately after that, that its dismissed but I don’t recall the date,
Mr. Baker: uhh well the remand that the plaintiff relies upon is in I think September of 2012, that’s the correspondence…
Judge Millenky: when is it dismissed?,
Mr. Baker: well.. wha.. it’s not dismissed
Mr. Leinhauser: June 2013
Mr. Baker: it’s in June of 2013, but what happens is the plaintiff goes to municipal court after the remand, and those proceedings, are under the auspices of the Vineland municipal court and the prosecutor there, the Cumberland county prosecutor maintains no control more control over that prosecution, at that point, what i conceive is that we may have a factual dispute, as to whether the prosecutor, Cumberland county prosecutor’s office, prosecutorial actives ended in September, or October 27th 2010 versus September 2012 but the fact of an alleged wrongful arrest, uh uh umm, false imprisonment, excessive force during the arrest, that he claims all of those claims all of those things he was aware of at the time they occurred, so…
Judge Millenky: well if someone has a claim for false arrest,
Mr. Baker: emm hmmm
Judge Millenky:. Claim would not be for false arrest if the charges that supported the arrest are dismissed, that would be true?
Mr. Baker: i agree with that, suffice but that does not suffice, not to, initiate a claim even though the criminal matters is pending, that’s we briefed that part, so the question then becomes not false arrest and false imprisonment, but whether there’s malicious prosecution which is a separate constitutional tort as i see it anyway, which would accrue at the time that the charges are dismissed, now the charges that were dismissed, umm were charges that, in its somewhat complicated, because here’s the procedural history as i understand and plaintiff can correct me if I’m wrong, taking his timeline from September of 2012, the matter proceeds into the Vineland municipal court, until the end of November at which time uhh, he does plea to a downgraded ordinance violation as i understand, all of which, is undertaken, through
Judge Millenky: well an ordinance, a violation of an ordinance, isn’t a criminal act, right?
Mr. Baker: I’m not suggesting it is, but it’s that date, on which he’s claiming that his rights were further violated by uhh coercing him if i understand his, uhh his umm argument into pleading to that, now what he did thereafter now and this is the point that i think is important, that demonstrates, he knew full well that in his own mind he had a strong belief that this was a wrongful prosecution, because before he goes back to municipal court seeking to vacate the plea to the ordinance violation, he filed these tort claim notices and in these tort claim notices, these events occurred in April, and these events occurred in April 2010 and in November of 2012
Judge Millenky: so if someone has in their mind the following, I might have a cause of action for false arrest, I might have a cause of action for malicious prosecution and i want to play it safe by filing a tort claim notice even if i may get it wrong, is that different from the date of the actual accrual of the cause of action, so in other words, does the cause of action as a technical matter however, not accrue, until there’s a disposition of the underlying charges,
Mr. Baker: in my view, it’s only as to the malicious prosecution because the arrest, and imprisonment took place, were done, two years past, but the prosecution and the continuing prosecution if he’s alleging that was wrongful the reason i think that’s a different constitutional claim your honor because it’s the facts that develop to the knowledge of the prosecuting entity, whether its Vineland, whether its the Cumberland county prosecutor office, as the matters progresses that may make it malicious or without probable cause, but certainly not the arrest when there’s probable cause through a superior court judge and a search warrant was executed, that’s an arrest at that time, he knows at that time, that he thinks that’s wrongful, its false arrest, so on and so forth, so we’re talking about a distinction substantively between the causes of action he can bring, that’s..
Judge Millenky: okay I understand, anything further that you would add then i goanna come to you Mr. Mujaddid, you get the last word..Leinhasuer: just briefly your honor I believe the analysis that Mr. Baker presented is correct… the false arrest and false imprisonment and alleged excessive force claims would be barred by the two year statutes of limitations, i think what were left here is a malicious prosecution cause of action Judge: okay, Mr. Mujaddid…
El Mujaddid: yeah, I would object the defense counsel, in a previous motion provided a copy of the civil complaint that was filed with the district court in 2012, so it doesn’t make sense to discuss that uhh these claims were not raised, when the lawsuit was filed in 2012, they haven’t been served yet, but he provided a copy of it,
Judge Millenky: well actually he would suggest that supports the analysis that he’s advancing in other words Mr. Baker’s saying that you knew you had a cause of action and if you filed the complaint, then that just reflects the fact that you knew you had, it, you knew you had it earlier, and you’ve in effect put it in writing the fact that you knew you had it earlier, El Mujaddid: well he just said…Judge: so that doesn’t help ya, it hurts ya..
El Mujaddid: he just said in regards to filing claims ah claims while the criminal action was pending that was done in November in 2012 so that doesn’t make sense, umm additionally, again were talking about a situation where due process was being violated, it doesn’t make sense to say that the defendants can deprive me of due process and then benefit from the fruits of that by particularly misrepresenting to me that the search warrant had something to do with me, when i find out in 2013 when I actually do get a copy that it had nothing to do with me, so if i would have known that it didn’t have anything to do with me, contrary to what the defendants provided to me, that it did, as he just said, the search warrant gave probable cause, well if anybody reviews the search warrant it had nothing to do with me, so it did not give probable cause in regards to me but i did not learn that until 2013,….the court is saying that I knew this, I knew that, I did not know, because i did not have the information, upon the arrest in 2010, i was not provided with copies of any of the documents regarding to the case, I didn’t even know what charges I was being held in there on, until well after the release, so again to keep saying that I knew this happen and that happen in April 2010, I might have had a belief but i did not know because I had no kind of documentation to be sure about anything until much later…,
Judge Millenky: and I understand the point that you make and I guess the question, that arises is the following if you believed at the time of your arrest, that the arrest as to you was an arrest without probable cause, notwithstanding the fact that you didn’t see documentation that the arresting officer relied upon did your cause of action accrue at the time that you had a reason to believe that the arrest was false, and your reason according to the defendants to believe that the arrest was false is your own knowledge of the absence of any wrongdoing on your part,
El Mujaddid: again were back to knowledge, I never got to review the search warrant, but the defendants,
Judge Millenky: but there point is the knowledge that you had in your own mind, you didn’t half to have the corroborating evidence for your own knowledge….
El Mujaddid: but they were misrepresenting, they were misrepresenting themselves, they misrepresenting the evidence, they were misrepresenting everything regarding the case, the court has to consider those factors,
Judge Millenky: okay and I understand that point, anything else you’d raise….
El Mujaddid: additionally, again the tort claims act, does not immunize the defendants from false arrest, assault and battery that’s under Velez v. city of New Jersey..,
Judge Millenky: okay, and were not, were pass that point, to the extent that you assert these cause of actions, as the basis of for constitutional wrongs, I agree with you sir, the tort claims act, does not apply,
El Mujaddid: okay, well the case was ended, the criminal action against me was dismissed in 2013, therefore the malicious prosecution starts from June 2013 uhh, ir-regardless of the arguments the defendant might have about that and that was a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
Judge Millenky: Okay and Mr. Mujaddid and Counsel ummm, what were going to do is, I think we started got some decisions out the door on this last round of things were going to give you a written decision on this,
Mr. Baker: thank you your honor,
Mr. Leinhasuer: thank you