| Lebel v. Mahwah, New Jersey |
| Case type: |
Civil Action |
| Parties: |
RICHARD LEBEL (PLAINTIFF) V. DEFENDANTS: The Township of Mahwah, The Mayor and COuncil of the Township of Mahwah, The Planning Board of the Township of Mahwah, The Environmental Commission of the Township of Mahwah, Azzolina & Feury Engineering Company, Frank Kraus, Pete Costello, Thomas Palmer, Ted Kownacki, Stanley Rappel, William Raquet, Kenneth Deferrari, Louis Rizzo. |
Venue:
|
New Jersey (Federal State Court) |
SYNOPSIS OF THIS CASE |
| (Civil Rights, Unconstitutional taking, Fraud, Tortious Interference) |
A very mentally disturbed local government of Mahwah, New Jersey, set out to extort $3 million worth of land from a legitimate businessman and to obstruct his project and destroy his livelihood. (1985-1991). The illegal acts perpetrated on this Landowner were legion and went on for 6 years unabated.
The ensuing Federal and State Court Complaints and Plaintiff's Certification clearly makes a prima facie case as to the attempted extortion and obstruction committed by Mahwah's public officials. The evidence cited and adduced are overwhelming and beyond any doubt; even for the fetus of a primate to understand.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, and the fact that this case is probably unprecedented in terms of the quality and quantity of evidence, four federal judges (Bissell, Stapleton, Cowen and Rendell) and one state court judge (J. Harris) illegally denied me a jury trial with malice and forethought.
This case is about civil rights, unconstitutional taking of property, extortion and obstruction by local politicians, and the calculated deprivation of a jury trial and court remedy (by the five judges cited above).
It doesn't get any more egregious in the civil justice system. What could be more important than property rights, your livelihood and being entitled to a jury trial. (What, calling someone a foul name?)
I often wonder and ponder the reasons/motives behind the court decisions that I was subjected to in the foregoing tortured matter.
I invite every competent legal expert with integrity to review and comment on any aspect of this case – especially the Judges' decisions/conduct. |
|
|
CHRONOLOGY/TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXHIBITS |
- PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL COMPLAINT (NJ DISTRICT) (November 1992)[(name parties])
- PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (as to liability) (August 1996)
- PLAINTIFF'S FILED CERTIFICATION (as to facts and evidence)
- JUDGE JOHN BISSELL'S DECISION (August 1997), a reprehensible, cowardly, and egregious ruling as to the statute of limitations (which deprived me of a jury trial). See pages 14-21 of the decision on continuing violation. A first-year law student could tell you this decision was wrong (based on the facts and the law) without equivocation.
- PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL BRIEF TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT (1998).
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT (1998).
- DECISION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (1998) (Judges: Stapleton, Cowen and Rendell) see page 2 on continuing violation. An unfathomable, cowardly decision. Again a first-year law student could see the calculated decision to deprive plaintiff of his day in court. And for additional proof of this purposefully wrongful decision, see the gratuitous and outrageous dicta on inverse condemnation (which was not before the court and was calculated to taint my legitimate claim). Clearly the most egregious of takings had occurred (see U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Monterey, et al.), however, the cowardly judges on this panel knew they would never be held accountable or corrected (as you can't get to the U.S. Supreme Court).
- PLAINTIFF'S NEW JERSEY STATE COURT COMPLAINT (September 1997) (name parties).
- PLAINTIFF'S FILED CERTIFICATION (as to facts and evidence)
- PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION to defendants summary judgment motion.
- JUDGE JONATHAN HARRIS'S DECISION November 1998 see pages 101-103 to read one of the most outrageous and cowardly decisions ever in the annals of civil jurisprudence. (See our appeal brief which unequivocally illustrates the egregiousness of this decision.)
- PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL BRIEF (New Jersey Appellate Division) (March 1999).
- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF, (August 1999).
|
|
|
HERE ARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS/OPINIONS |
(as to the reasons/motives for the outrageous,
despicable and cowardly Judicial conduct.) |
| Possible Reasons and/or Motives |
|
| Number One: |
are these judges just simply cowards? (Very plausible.) |
| Number Two: |
were these judges paid off by the defense firms — probably not, these judges don't need money, (i.e., huge pension plans and their secure future employment with certain defense firms). |
| Number Three: |
Owe favors to the defense firms (this is very plausible). |
| Number Four: |
were these decisions (in favor of the defense firms and defendant public officials) designed to enhance and secure future employment prospects with these or other defense firms (very plausible). Judge Bissell now is employed at Connell Foley, a major defense firm in this case. |
| Number Five: |
protecting taxpayers (hardly). When does a government official care about taxpayers? |
| Number Six: |
unbearable pressure exerted on these judges from the Mahwah Planning Board, the mayor, and Council members. (If so, it speaks volumes of the character of certain judges.) |
| Number Seven: |
jealousy and animus towards the plaintiff (very, very plausible). |
| Number Eight: |
afraid of punk politicians? (You never know.) |
| Number Nine: |
If Judge Bissell, the Third Circuit (name judges) and Judge Harris were under pressure from the local punk Mahwah politicians, why didn't they report this to prosecutors. |
| Number Ten: |
do certain judges owe their very being and existence to punk politicians? (Pathetic.) |
|
|
MY OBSERVATIONS AND OPINIONS |
Clearly there was "no constitution" for the plaintiff in this matter.
Manifest intentional, deliberate and calculated deprivation of a jury trial.
A first-year law student could discern these outrageous decisions.
Any judge who consciously/wrongfully deprives someone of a jury trial should be deported to Myanmar.
It seems that certain judges' mind, body and soul are owned and controlled by punk politicians (which is mind-boggling to me).
Only a vapid and lifeless individual succumbs to low life punk politicians.
I will take a polygraph exam as to any allegation and facts in this matter, however, I am. sure that not one judge, defense lawyer, or punk politician would ever take a polygraph test (in this case).
All judges (civil, criminal and administrative) should be required and subjected to a monthly polygraph as to their integrity on the bench. I hope to introduce legislation in this regard.
It is, in my opinion, that some of the biggest problems in the U.S. today are caused by miscreant judges and prosecutors in not making victims whole and in not making wrongdoers accountable, (specially the punk politicians)
The transcripts of the tapes (of the politicians' secret meetings and damaging statements made on the telephone and open meetings) are rarely ever available for a plaintiff (to make his case). Notwithstanding all the foregoing gems of evidence, the five judges in this matter consciously chose to deprive me of a jury trial by simply adopting patently obvious lies and bogus legal argument proffered by defense lawyers in this matter (on summary judgment).
I have attached a recent article in the New York Times right on point as to how certain judges are "short stopping" your right to a jury trial in violation of your constitution. |
|
|
FINAL THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS |
There are many good judges that would have made the right and correct decision, applied the law and forwarded this case to a jury.
It is the judge, in this case, and others "cut of the same cloth" that should be investigated and punished accordingly.
Any Judge who has the opportunity to apply the Constitution fairly and equitable but deliberately and purposefully elects not to — is in my opinion a "mental case".
. |
|
|
