In a Law Suit brought by pro se litigant and Civil Rights Activist El Aemer El Mujaddid (formerly known as Aemer K. C. El) in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office, the City of Vineland, the State of New Jersey and several employees working for each of those entities and acting under Color of New Jersey law has revealed that both the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office and the City of Vineland Municipal Prosecutors prosecuted El Mujaddid without Probable Cause. El Mujaddid contends that it is highly likely that others have been prosecuted without probable cause as well, especially persons of African descent or perceived to be “Black”
Inez Acosta prosecuted El Mujaddid without probable cause in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions and the Rules of Professional Conduct. See RPC 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; (c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important post-indictment pretrial rights; and (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence known to the prosecutor that supports innocence or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal. She is currently still allowed to act as a prosecutor. Acosta is 1982 Vineland High School graduate who was sworn in during the year 2012 as the first Hispanic prosecutor in the city’s history. Acosta said what means more to her is that she can serve as prosecutor in the city where she grew up and attended school. She graduated high school one year before El Mujaddid was born. Interesting how life works out and that her destiny would include prosecuting El Mujaddid without Probable Cause. Local officials said Acosta’s previous jobs included a stint as associate city solicitor and an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. She also worked with several law firms, along with South Jersey Legal Services here. Acosta holds a law degree from Rutgers University and a bachelor’s degree in business management from St. Joseph’s University.
On May 20, attorney John P. Morris filed a civil complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court on behalf of Acosta. The first legal round went to the city when a judge rejected a request to block the city from moving to replace Acosta. El Mujaddid requested for Discovery from Acosta during her malicous prosecution against him and she lied to him about the Criminal Complaints completed by Lynn A. Wehling, falsely purporting to him that they were not part of Discovery and refused to provide him with a copy, at that time she was well aware that those documents had not been signed by a Judicial Officer. See RPC 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence known to the prosecutor that supports innocence or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.
An interesting dilimena in the matter is that the Superior Court of New Jersey under Imbler v. Pachtman 424 U.S. 409 (1976) standard granted prosecutor’s immunity to the Tort or Claim of “Malicious Prosecution” which is contrary to other Rulings where it is stated that a Prosecutor who acts without Probable Cause does not act as an advocate for the State. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326 n.1 (1983); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 216 (1942). In Buckley I, 81 the Court drew a temporal line, holding that prosecutorial acts undertaken before the establishment of probable cause to arrest will not be considered advocatory. Id. at 274 (“A prosecutor neither is, nor should consider himself to be, an advocate before he has probable cause to have anyone arrested.”). Id. at 275 (observing further that there was no evidence that a common law immunity existed for fabricating evidence during a preliminary investigation. Buckley I suggests that while the probable cause line is not dispositive of the immunity issue, the Court will closely scrutinize absolute immunity claims when the challenged prosecutorial act occurs prior to a judicial finding of probable cause. A prosecutor is absolutely immune from suits for damages arising from the performance of the traditional functions of an advocate. When a prosecutor steps outside of the advocate‘s role, however, his or her conduct is protected by immunity only to the extent that any other individual would be protected in performing the same function. Immunity determinations thus rest on the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. adv John Franklin Good, Plaintiff, Vs. Board Of County Commissioners Of Shawnee County, Et Al., Defendants. Case No. 01-4067-Rdr United States District Court For The District Of Kansas 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10797 April 22, 2002, Decided. Because certain of the prosecutors’ acts were not done in their role as advocates, they are not shielded by absolute immunity. Leonard R. Milstein, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Stephen L. Cooley; Robert B. Foltz; Countyof Los Angeles, Opinion Defendants-appellees, 257 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). Kalina, 522 U.S. at 126 (quoting Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273). As the Court explained in Burns: 15 [T]he concern with litigation in our immunity cases is not merely a generalized concern with interference with an official’s duties, but rather is a concern with interference with the conduct closely related to the judicial process . . . . That concern therefore justifies absolute prosecutorial immunity only for actions that are connected with the prosecutor’s role in the judicial proceedings, not for every litigation-inducing conduct. A prosecutor neither is, nor should consider himself to be, an advocate before he has probable cause to have anyone arrested.” Buckley, 509 U.S. at 274. Accordingly, the Court noted that the alleged fabrication occurred well before the grand jury was empaneled. Id. at 275. see Williams, 504 U.S. at 48, such a proposition seemingly runs afoul of Buckley’s rule that a prosecutor cannot function as an advocate before probable cause exists. “a determination of probable cause does not guarantee a prosecutor absolute immunity from liability for all actions taken afterwards. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 275 n.5. In fact, before there is probable cause to arrest or to initiate judicial proceedings, a prosecutor’s “mission . . . [is] entirely investigative in character.” IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE BELLE WHITNEY and JOHN DOE ) 1 CA-SA 12-0171 WHITNEY; ANDREW THOMAS and ) ANN THOMAS, ) ) DEPARTMENT D Petitioners, ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION v. ) FILED 9/27/2012 of MARICOPA, ) ) LISA RANDALL, individually; ) BRENNA RANDALL, individually; ) TRACY ALLEN individually, ) ) Real Parties in Interest. He may also be without immunity when investigating a crime before there is probable cause to arrest or charge a suspect (see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, supra, 509 U.S. 259 in which the Supreme Court split five to four on the issue).
El Mujaddid brought several claims pursuant to Common Law, Civil Rights Acts, Human Trafficking Acts and treaties of the United States against the Defendants in the case. The Law Division Trial Court only addressed a handful of his claims ignoring the ones to which no immunity can reside. El Mujaddid argues the Courts findings were in error on several grounds and the case is now before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. See Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273-74 (stating that a prosecutor who “plans and executes a [police investigation] . . . has no greater claim to complete immunity than activities of police officers allegedly acting under his direction”) (internal quotation marks omitted), as opposed to actions a prosecutor might “perform as part of the preparation of the case, even if they can be characterized as ‘investigative’ or ‘administrative.’” Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 1984). See Bradley v. Medical Board (1997) While reiterating that prosecutorial immunity extends to acts preparatory to the commencement of a prosecution, even outside the courtroom [citation], the court held that by working ‘hand in hand’ with sheriff’s detectives to fabricate inculpatory evidence, the prosecutors acted not as advocates but as investigators, functionally no different than that of the sheriff or police department. [Citation.] Thus, the conduct was entitled to only qualified immunity.” (Gensburg v. Miller, supra, 31 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 519-520.)
El Mujaddid first filed his action in the United States District Court of New Jersey but the Complaint has yet to be served and is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit because Judge Joseph Ireanas denied El Mujaddid’s motion for service by U.S. Marshall and El Mujaddid has since then taken an Appeal on that specific issue. Several other issues remain relative such as the Probabel Cause Findings against Cumberland County Detective Lynn A. Wehling for violations of the United States Code and the New Jersey Criminal Codes.
After obtaining certain discovery materials constituting evidence of crime El Mujaddid filed Criminal Complaints with the City of Vineland Municipal Court. A Deputy Court Administrator of the City of Vineland Municipal Court in accords with the Rules Governing the Courts of New Jersey found probable cause against Lynn A. Wehling on May 1st, 2013 for a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3 (False Imprisonment), the Municipal Judge pictured below John A. Kasper reviewing and verifying the Court Administrators findings found probable cause himself against the criminal conduct of Lynn A. Wehling violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1581 – Peonage; obstructing enforcement, and he also found probable cause against Lynn A. Wehling for violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:13-8 ( Human Trafficking), N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6 (Crime of Official Deprivation of Civil Rights) aka the Racial Profiling Code See Eradicating Racial Profiling Companion Guide , N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2 (False Swearing) and N.J.S.A. (2C:28-4) False reports to law enforcement authorities .
Municipal Court Judge John A. Kaspar retire Photo, three weeks after finding probable cause against Lynn A. Wehling ending a career that saw five different mayors appoint him to the post over the past 25 years.
Prior to the Probable Cause findings made by Judge Kasper at least two Vineland Police Officers have blown the Whistle speaking from the inside. An investigation by the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office into a local law-enforcement officer’s allegations of corruption within the city’s Police Department ended with a finding of no wrongdoing. Several Months later would prove those claims of finding of no wrongdoing were false.
Officer Ronald Farabella, in a civil suit filed in Cumberland County Superior Court on Jan. 21, alleges his superiors on the force, including Police Chief Timothy Codispoti and current Mayor Robert Romano — who at the time of the events described in the suit was a lieutenant in charge of internal affairs — repeatedly ignored his reports, both written and verbal, of drug-related crimes committed by specific officers.
According to the 10-page suit, Farabella learned about the allegedly illegal police activity through confidential informants, with whom he had worked on cases for the department’s narcotics unit. Farabella considers the sources credible, as their information has lead to arrests and prosecutions in the past, according to the suit.“(Farabella) received on multiple occasions and through multiple sources of information, consistent and disturbing facts with regard to fellow police officers committing crimes within the city, most often focusing on illegal controlled substance use, distribution and participation with known and convicted felons,” reads the suit.
Farabella was ultimately awarded $726,266 by a jury Tuesday afternoon for a whistleblower case involving alleged drug-related activities by officers. Following a trial during the summer of 2014, the jury awarded Farabella $726,266 for economic and emotional damages in his favor, according to the court’s Civil Division Manager Frank Bosco.
Kristian Kirchner, of the Vineland Police Department, filed a complaint against Vineland on June 6 at Cumberland County Superior Court alleging he was the target of retaliation after reporting alleged misconduct by the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office. According to the lawsuit, Kirchner was working on a special assignment with the prosecutor’s office when he was instructed by a supervisor to fulfill a traffic ticket quota.”Plaintiff objected to his supervisor’s instructions and directives for making a quota for traffic stops as he perceived it to be unlawful and/or against a clear mandate of public policy,” the complaint states.
According to the complaint, Kirchner also objected to an alleged order from a supervisor to alter an official police report at the behest of the prosecutor’s office. “Plaintiff objected to the order and refused to alter his official report, believing it to be unlawful,” the complaint states. The complaint further states that Kirchner requested that his supervisors in Vineland report the conduct of the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office to the state Attorney General’s Office, but was told by the supervisor that nothing would happen because Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae is “a black female.”
Prior to all these events and most closely related to the time period of events where El Mujaddid’s property was stolen and unlawfully seized by Corrupt and Disgraced Vineland Police Officer Gamaliel “Gami” Cruz who filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement as a Police Officer. El Mujaddid filed criminal complaints against Cruz in relation to the theft of his property and his illegal conduct in conspiring with Lynn A. Wehling but probable cause was falsely alleged to have not been found by the Judges Heim, Judge Montanez and Judge Thomas North, all whom replaced Judge Kasper and presided over the administration of complaints submitted by El Mujaddid in relation to his property and the crimes committed against him.
Cruz was fired upon being exposed for violating the New Jersey Criminal Code for “False Swearing”, intersting enough false swearing was a charge Kasper found to have existed against Lynn A. Wehling. Both of the Crimes committed by Wehling and Cruz took place in the year 2010. The Prosecutors Office and the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office took steps to decline prosecuting Both Cruz and Wehling with the existence of probable cause for violations of first, second and third degree charges. Wehling is a Anglo American or White Lesbian and Cruz is Haspanic or Latino American. The City of Vineland Council wants a court order declaring void any past actions by its Mayor Bermudez that benefits Cruz the fired officer, attempting to get his job back, but none of the reporters that follow this corruption have yet to reveal the probable cause findings made against Cruz in May 2014.
When Cruz served as a detective in the police department, the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office alleged that he gave false testimony to a judge on Aug. 3, 2010 while seeking a search warrant through the telephone. Because of these charges, approximately 40 cases were thrown out at the time by the prosecutor’s office because of Cruz losing his credibility as a witness in any past, present or future cases. The police department suspended Cruz on March 14, 2011, according to the lawsuit, and hearings were held to decide whether the detective was still able to perform his duties as a law enforcement officer. Cruz was ultimately terminated on May 22, 2012 and he filed an appeal against the decision shortly afterward.
Additionally Both Cruz and Wehling were not subjected to arrest or bail. It is reported that Wehling like Cruz is also no longer formerly employed. Wehling and Cruz have Both brought suits against Cumberland County like El Mujaddid alleging Bias and Discrimination. Wehling at the time of these incidents was a resident of Klanville aka Millville, New Jersey.
In 1990 Millville has approved a permit allowing a small, dissident faction of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally Feb. 23 at the site where two dozen robed and hooded Klan members exchanged mud, spit and insults with 300 counter- demonstrators in April. In turns out that on May 1st 2013 Wehling filed a tort claim against the county, alleging that her supervisor sexually harassed her with inappropriate comments dealing with gender and sexual orientation. May 1st, 2013 is the same day El Mujaddid submitted criminal complaints and the same Vineland Court Administrator found probable cause against Wehling in relation to her actions against El Mujaddid, Wehling.
According to the legal document, since about February 2004, Wehling has worked in the county’s Organized Crime Bureau located in Rosenhayn. In 2009, George Chopek another subject of El Mujaddid’s lawsuit, became Wehling’s immediate supervisor as deputy commander of the Narcotics Unit, according to the complaint, and then allegedly began harassing her, Chopek is also her next-door neighbor, according to the claim. “Sergeant Chopek openly called [Wehling] ‘gay’ and referred to her as ‘a guy,’ ‘sir,’ and ‘dude’ in public and in front of other members of the Narcotics Unit,” the claim states. The tort also alleges that Chopek routinely made comments about her sex life. This is very interesting because El Mujaddid claims that Wehling, the County and City discriminated against him, Wehling claims that the County and Chopek discriminated against her and Cruz unsucessfully claimed the County and City discrimianted against him..
Cruz has alleged Discrimination due to his ethnic or national origin and Wehling claiming discrimination due to her gender and sexual preference. All amount to sess pool of claims being swung in Dirty Jersey. Cruz’s lawsuit was unsucessful on the federal level and on the State Level. There has been no reports yet of the disposition of Wehling’s law suit but she is suing for 2.5. Million.
El Mujaddid contends that Wehling owes him at least 2.5. Million for enslaving him, that there is a Peonage charge against her in Limbo because it has been ignored by the Federal Government and that Probable Cause was also found against Cruz for violating the State Human Trafficking and Theft Acts in relation to the incident which cause injury to El Mujaddid but specially upon submission of Criminal Complaints against about his April 21, 2010 conduct as detailed by Abul F. Bey a native of Vineland, New Jersey who appears to have the actual target of Wehling, Chopek and Cruz’s crimes that led to wounding El Mujaddid. No Investigation or Prosecution commenced upon these findings which were made a year after Judge Kasper’s findings all amounting to and demonstrating that in New Jersey Jim Crow is Alive and Welland their is no integrity when it comes to Equal Justice, Equal Benefits of All Laws and Proceedings and Equal Protection under the Law and the Prohibitions against Badges and Incidents of Slavery.
A state court said no to a pair of New Jersey public defenders seeking broad access to confidential civil court documents and police records they contend could shed light on claims of serious corruption inside the Vineland Police Department. The consolidated decision, issued in 2012, largely upholds arguments the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office made opposing the release of the information.Vineland is seeking to fire Cruz for allegedly lying to a state judge while seeking a search warrant. He has retained attorney Stuart Alterman to handle the administrative hearing. That accusation of lying, made both by his own department and the county Prosecutor’s Office, last year forced county Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae to dismiss 39 criminal cases in which he was a prime witness. The office also has had to exclude Cruz as a witness from other cases it continues to prosecute. The removal of Cruz as a potential witness was a major factor in Fineman’s reasoning in denying access to court and police records. Fineman’s decision specifically denied the following five discovery requests: Material from the Farabella lawsuit, which still is in pretrial phase. Documents on the creation of the Vineland Street Crimes Unit. Search warrants, affidavits and police reports. Cruz’s personnel file and Internal Affairs reports about him. Information about attempts by Prosecutor’s Office attorneys to disclose information as required by professional responsibility.
In El Mujaddid’s case Wehling created False Reports which she did not sign in order to avoid Perjury charges and She also prepared bogus criminal complaints to which the language availed against El Mujaddid did not trigger breach of the Statute under the standard set for determining probable cause and to top it off it took El Mujaddid from April 2010 to April 2013 to obtain copies of those Documents all to find that they had never been verified by a Judicial Officer, they had never been signed by a Judicial Officer, they had not even been filed with the Criminal Division all summing up to Malicious Prosecution.
The State level Civil Court extended prosecutorial immunity to Wehling solely on the basis that she is an employee of the prosecutors Office, but El Mujaddid argues that immunity cannot stand as he is raising violations of treaty rights, Federal and State statutory rights some being crime with civil liabilities and private rights of action and that the Defendant’s were acting without color of legal authority and without jurisdiction. El Mujaddid also contends that Wehling provided False Information to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, where the criminal case State of New Jersey v. Lynn A. Wehling was forwarded. That the Office of Attorney General was involved with the decision to have the case sent to a county directly next to Wehling’s County in violation of Crime Victims Rights. That Wehling’s background shows training with Cape May County Law Enforcement.
That the Internal Affairs Investigator David Hogan created a False Report based on False Information provided to him by Wehling for purposes of sabotaging the investigation, that he knew Wehling was lying to him when he questioned her about the Criminal Complaints she made against El Mujaddid because he had been provided with copies. Other details show that Hogan sent a letter to El Mujaddid dated on or about August 5th 2013 alleging that his agency did not find any misconduct nor violations of Department Policies. Open public records request revealed that Hogan sent this August 5th dated letter to El Mujaddid two days before he actually interviewed Wehling. El Mujaddid has brought claims in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court through a Notice of Appeal to the decision to dismiss the case by Dara Paley who falsely claimed that there was insufficent evidence to prosecute Wehling and that there was no probable cause and that it would unethical for her to prosecute Wehling. Dara Paley also knew that Wehling had lied to her during the Internal Affairs Investigation. El Mujaddid submitted complaints to the NJ OAG in regards to Paley and Hogan and the NJ OAG reported that hey did not find and misconduct on the part of Hogan and Paley.
The former chief of detectives for the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office has filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the county, alleging objections to the way investigations and internal affairs procedures were conducted. William T. Johnson, who served as chief of detectives for three years until his termination in September 2013, filed a New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act lawsuit in Gloucester County Superior Court naming Cumberland County, the prosecutor’s office and Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae all as defendants.
When it came to Cruz Webb McRae said to the Associated Press that: “Although it is understandable to desire to protect an informant that you believe may be in danger, there is never a valid reason to lie under oath,”. “The public’s trust that those involved in law enforcement will tell the uncontroverted truth at all time, no matter the consequences, is a cornerstone of the American criminal justice system that must at all costs be safeguarded.” Most of the dismissed cases involve arrests made for various weapon offenses and drug-related charges. Webb-McRae will not prosecute Cruz criminally and the matter is being handled administratively within the police department. Termination proceedings for Cruz are pending, she said.
Later as it relates to El Mujaddid’s case Webb-McRae would send paper work to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office which is dated precisely one day before the case State v. Wehling is dismissed by Dara Paley acting as Special Deputy Attorney General for the New Jersey Office of Attorney General and Cape May County.
Johnson says in the lawsuit, filed Sept. 9, that various investigations conducted by the prosecutor’s office violated the New Jersey Attorney General’s rules, regulations and guidelines and that internal affairs policies and procedures involved conflicts of interest. In addition, Johnson alleges that the prosecutor’s office violated the civil rights of a member of the community who was incarcerated allegedly without sufficient evidence. The suit provides no additional information on this allegation.
The Following are Excerpts from El Aemer El Mujaddid v. City of Vineland et. al., Opinion issued August 1st , 2014 CAM-L-004550-13 Law Division- Superior Court of New Jersey-Camden Vicinage presided over by Judge Robert G. Millenky the court determined from the Action in Lieu of Prerogative Writs filed by El Mujaddid that:
To establish malicious prosecution under section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding against the plaintiff; (2) which resulted in a seizure; (3) the criminal prosecution resulted in plaintiff’s favor; (4) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; and (5) the defendant acts maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice. See Luthe v. The City of Cape May, 49 F.Supp.2d 380, 393 (D.N.J.1999)(Orlofsky, J.); see also Myrick v. Resorts Int’l Casino & Hotel, 319 N.J.Super. 556, 563, 726 A.2d 262 (App.Div.1999)(quoting Lind v. Schmid, 67 N.J. 255, 262-63, 337 A.2d 365 (1975))(establishing elements for malicious prosecution under New Jersey law as: (1) criminal action instituted by the defendant; (2) which was actuated by malice; (3) there was an absence of probable cause for the proceeding and (4) it was terminated in plaintiff’s favor).