An audit of this case revealed that Dennis McInerney, Presiding Judge of Burlington County’s Municipal Courts, Township of Burlington and Mansfield issued a Bench Warrant on False Grounds. He listed as the reason: “Failure to Comply with Sentencing or Time Order payment“. This False Bench warrant followed the accused for at least three years and caused arrest. “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause * * *” as construed by the United States Supreme Court, requires that a neutral and detached judicial officer make the determination. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1947).
McInerney’s Grounds for issuance of the Bench Wench are plainly “False” and not “Probable” by any interpretation of the word because the accused had not pled guilty nor been sentenced when McInernery caused issuance of this “Bench Warrant” in violation of the accused “Federal and State Constitutional rights” constituting a Badge of Slavery and deprivation of Due Process and Equal Protection under the law.
This type of conduct is the standard practice in New Jersey Courts. A finding of neutrality, however, goes only part of the way to justify the challenged procedure. Before a deputy clerk is constitutionally permitted to determine whether the facts as alleged by the complainant constitute probable cause that an offense has been committed and that the defendant is the culprit, we must ask: Is the deputy clerk qualified to exercise the necessary judgment? See State v. Ruotolo Annotate this Case 52 N.J. 508 (1968) 247 A.2d 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANGELO B. RUOTOLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Decided October 21, 1968. Under this False Bench Warrant an estimated $180.00 was taken from the accused in effort to satisfy the “False Bail” created by McInerney and authorized by Rosa P. Henry in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 , 18 U.S. Code § 1506 , 18 U.S. Code § 241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242
Theft by deception and Civil Rights charges were filed against the officer who took the money under the guise of the “False Bench Warrant”, and those complaints mentioned Mcinerney by name. What does Mcinerney do? Obstructs Justice by tampering with the Complaints and falsely purporting that there was “No Probable Cause” for issuance i.e. Violated the Civil Rights of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. McInerney as a judicial officers for years being aware and knowing that the “Due Process” requires a judge to be a “Neutral” and “Detached” Party.
Mcinerney disregarded that constitutional obligation and made “No” Probable Cause findings in complaints in which he was mentioned and obviously an accomplice to the crime. “In dealing with probable cause, * * * as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” State v. Ruotolo Annotate this Case 52 N.J. 508 (1968) 247 A.2d 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANGELO B. RUOTOLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Decided October 21, 1968.
By its very nature probable cause is a standard which can be applied by laymen, so long as they exercise reasonable caution. It is a practical, non-technical concept, not requiring the complex weighing of factual and legal considerations which is the judge’s daily task. State v. Ruotolo Annotate this Case 52 N.J. 508 (1968) 247 A.2d 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANGELO B. RUOTOLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Decided October 21, 1968.
A Judicial Conduct Complaint has been filed against his conduct, along with Administrative and Criminal Complaints.