In Memory of Jason Johnson (1980 - 2000)

Part Two

Topics Covered:

Driving Record of Gary Patent

Licensed: 08-31-1999
10-16-99 SPEEDING
11-05-99 POINT SYSTEM ADVISORY
01-01-00 OBSTRUCTING PASSAGE
03-01-00 FAILURE TO OBEY SIGNAL
03-06-01 SPEEDING
06-23-00 PROBATIONARY DRIVER FEE
06-27-00 CARELESS DRIVING - FATALITY
PLUS: TOTAL OF 3 AT FAULT ACCIDENTS!

Back To Top

Pertinent Excerpts from Plea - Gary Patent

09-20-00
Judge James F. Weber J.M.C. Presiding

(We present the entire transcript.)

Colloquy

Patent: Here

Court: Patent, do you want to come up. You said you want to plead guilty to the offense, you're waiving your right to a trial, your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney.

Patent: Yes.

Court: I accept your plea to be $82.00 dollar fine, 30 dollar court cost to the charge of careless driving. Please go to the window and they will take care of you out there. It was an accident.

Patent: Uh Um.

Court: Personal injury, you have to notify the person that was injured, he was ...

Female Voice: It's the fourth time he has been here.

Patent: This is the fourth time I'm here today, and every time ...

Female Voice: ... Some times they don't come ...

Court: It's the fourth time? Original date is 9/20.

Patent: I've been here four times already and for the same charge and every time I ...

Court: The original date was the 9/20 and that's what I'm saying. You came in before the original date.

Female Voice: Yeah, it was in the ...

Patent Sr.: No, no it was the actual date today, but we rescheduled because he's already ...

Patent: ... (Unintelligible?)

Court: Okay. See if the victim was notified. I don't know who was injured in this one. No other notice went out.

Female Voice: There must be ...

Court: 82.00 dollar fine and 30.00 court cost. You can go to the window straight out and around and they'll take care of you.

NOTE: Plaintiff in the matter, the Estate of Jason Johnson was deliberately not notified of this hearing, in violation of New Jersey Statute.

Back To Top

Pertinent Excerpts from Set Aside Plea - Gary Patent

The Court: ...I look at the transcript, and I'm disturbed Mr. Patent for directly refuted. When I mentioned the fact Personal Injury, you didn't say anything. There is a transcript here, where I indicated Personal Injury, that you notify the person that was injured, then they go on, there was nothing, the only thing you were concerned about sat that time, is that you were here for a time ...

The Court: ... There is nothing in our file that indicates somebody was killed in this accident. ...

The Court: Okay, when I mention a Personal Injury, do you think it would have been appropriate at that time to advise me it wasn't a Personal injury it was a death case. I'm stirred by that. Now I'm going to make a file ... Now, on the issue of sentencing, there is an issue, there's an issue maybe double jeopardy, but nevertheless, the State, or the, the in this case, the Estate has the right to speak ... I don't, I don't know the name of the individual, I don't have anything to indicate.

At this time attorney speaks for Johnson citing New Jersey Statute for sentencing asking for 15 days in jail as a repeat offender, etc.

The Court: ... Now, under the statute, here in our Court with regard to the penalty under section 4203, as to weigh a term and not exceeding or a term not exceeding 15 days should be imposed. The Court imposed the fine that's always the case where the plea of guilty to the Careless Driving Summons. It did not, the Court did not at that time that any injuries other than Personal Injury noted. I understood that Mr. Patent didn't indicate that there was a death. But nevertheless, the Court, despite that, without certain aggravation factors, cannot change the sentence that was imposed ...

At this time there is argument between attorneys and Judge

Casale: That's what he said, the whole, there's a witness ...

The Court: Never the less ...

Speaker: I'm sorry, I have to say something

The Court: And who are you Ma'am?

Speaker: I'm Jason's stepmother.

The Court: Okay. Mr. Lomurro ... Perhaps if you could just a seat ma'am. ... I understood, Mr. Patent that you didn't tell me, please I don't want to hear anything from anybody, please stop raising your hands. ...

Followed by babble ...............

NOTE: Defendant, Patent, was secreted into the courtroom through a side door. The Judge banned the use of cameras. After this travesty, Patent was quickly ushered out of the room protected by numerous armed plainclothes policemen.

Back To Top

Pertinent Excerpts from Depositions - Gary Patent

Q- Mr. Patent, I am about to take your deposition. As part of a deposition, everything that you answer is under oath. Do you understand that?

A- Yes ..

Q- When you got onto Texas Road, where there any cars directly in front of you?

A- No, there were not...

Q- Okay. The Johnson vehicle, is it fair to say that you did not see its headlights until you entered into the curve?

A- Yes. Yes...

Q- Now, prior to entering the curve, we agreed you didn't see the headlights, correct?

A- Correct.

Q- As you enter into the curve, that is the first time you saw the headlights, correct?

A- Correct...

Q- So the conclusion you've come to when you pled guilty to this summons --

A- Uh-huh.

Q- -- was that you went into the westbound lane, correct? You reached that conclusion that at some point you went into the westbound lane, correct?

A- Yes...

Q- You don't dispute any of that; is that correct?

A- Correct...

Q- ... As you approach the curve, you slowed down to 33 to 35 miles per hour, because that's what you do; is that correct?

A- Yes.

Q- You're telling me that because you obey the speed laws?

A- Yes.

Q- That's not completely accurate statement ...

Q- You only had your license for less than a year; is that correct?

A- That's correct.

Q- In that period you pled guilty to two speeding tickets; is that correct?

A- That's correct.

Q- And in addition to that, you had four tickets in less than a year; two of which you pled to lesser offenses; is that correct?

A- I believe so, yes...

Q- So in both tickets the officer said you were going slower than 15 (m.p.h. over speed limit). One you disagree with?

A- No, I don't agree with either. I wasn't going over 15 in either.

Q- So the officers were wrong in both times and you were right?

A- As far as I recall, yes. ...

Q- Does reading this refresh your recollection that as you approached Englishtown Road on Texas Road that, in fact, there were two vehicles at that light?

A- I said it. It still doesn't stir any memory, though. ...

Q- You never saw him (Johnson) leave his lane, did you?

A- No....

Q- Well, what lane do you believe he was in?

A- He was in his lane, but partially -- there was -- he was over....

Q- Well, I'm asking you what you recall. Do you remember ever seeing his (Johnson's) car out of his lane?

A- No, I do not. ...

Q- As you sit here today, you have an independent recollection of the speed of that (Johnson's) car, correct?

A- No.

Q- Didn't you tell me, sir, under oath earlier during this deposition that you were -- I asked you, did you recall the speed of the car and did you have the opportunity? You said, yes, isn't that your testimony?

A- I did not.

Q- Sure. As you went into that curve, isn't it a fact that your wheels went into -- as you went around the curve, your wheels went over the yellow line into the other lane and you saw the lights come at you and you then went straight ahead and hit this guy. Isn't that what happened?

A- No. No. ...

Q- All right. Show you page 8 of this statement ( to police after accident) and ask you if were asked this question. "With that, do you recall what lane he (Johnson) was in?" What answer did you give?

A- I don't know Where you -- oh, " I believe that he was in his lane, as far as I can recall."

Back To Top

Pertinent Excerpts from Plea Hearing - Judge Weber

09-20-00
Judge James F. Weber J.M.C. Presiding

(We present the entire transcript.)

Colloquy

Patent: Here

Court: Patent, do you want to come up. You said you want to plead guilty to the offense, you're waiving your right to a trial, your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney.

Patent: Yes.

Court: I accept your plea to be $82.00 dollar fine, 30 dollar court cost to the charge of careless driving. Please go to the window and they will take care of you out there. It was an accident.

Patent: Uh Um.

Court: Personal injury, you have to notify the person that was injured, he was ...

Female Voice: It's the fourth time he has been here.

Patent: This is the fourth time I'm here today, and every time ...

Female Voice: ... Some times they don't come ...

Court: It's the fourth time? Original date is 9/20.

Patent: I've been here four times already and for the same charge and every time I ...

Court: The original date was the 9/20 and that's what I'm saying. You came in before the original date.

Female Voice: Yeah, it was in the ...

Patent Sr.: No, no it was the actual date today, but we rescheduled because he's already ...

Patent: ... (Unintelligible?)

Court: Okay. See if the victim was notified. I don't know who was injured in this one. No other notice went out.

Female Voice: There must be ...

Court: 82.00 dollar fine and 30.00 court cost. You can go to the window straight out and around and they'll take care of you.

NOTE: Notice here how Judge Weber permitted some unidentified woman (presumed to be Patent's mother) to repeatedly interrupt. Compare this with judge Weber demanding identity of Jason's Step-mother and advising Johnson's Attorney to silence her as appears in the Set-aside Hearing. Notice Judge proceeding with plea acceptance even after his questions were not answered re: personal injury.

Back To Top

Pertinent Excerpts from Set Aside Hearing - Judge Weber

Court : ... When I mentioned the fact Personal Injury, you didn't say anything. So you stood there and you didn't say anything. There is a transcript here, where I indicated Personal Injury, that you have to notify the person that was injured, then they go on, there was nothing, the only thing you were concerned about at that time, is that you were here for a time.

NOTE: Why would a judge, versed in New Jersey Statute, try to make this the Defendant's responsibility. It is solely the responsibility of the Prosecutor and the judge. Defendant is permitted never to incriminate himself by law. That is the Fifth Amendment.

Casale : Judge, I point out, for my inspection of the ticket, it looks like he did indicated that there was a person with injury involved.

Court: Right and I questioned it and of course I made the inquiry, we don't have the notification. There is nothing in our file that indicates somebody was killed in this accident. But when Mr. Patent stands there, and I mention Personal Injury, Mr. Patent, you knew that the other individual involved in this accident was deceased, he died.

Note: Again, by statute, the responsibility lies completely and strictly with the Court Clerk, the municipal Prosecutor and the Municipal judge. Readers are asked the question - is this gross incompetence or corruption?

Court: ... Time to advise me it wasn't Personal Injury it was a death case. I'm stirred by that. Now I'm going to make a file, the transcript and make, give me two copies please, a copy to Mr. Miller too. The matters is we're here, and the Court is required under State Statute to log the victim in this case, the Victim's representative to be heard. Now, on the issue of sentencing, there is an issue, there's an issue maybe a double jeopardy, but nevertheless, the State, or the, the in this case, the Estate ....

Note: Again the Judge places some onus on Patent when it truly lies only within his own courtroom.

Lomurro: ... (Notes Jason Johnson's unblemished driving record) ... (Re: Patent) ...This is somebody who is driving less than a year and if my records show correctly, they do show at least two speeding tickets and, perhaps an obstruction which we know probably was a downgraded offense in this short time he was driving. On the particular night he was told by his parents, not to take the car. But he knew better. So he disobeyed his parents, took the car, took the car down Texas Road, went across into Mr. Johnson's lane and took his life. In assessing penalty, your Honor, my client asks the Court to impose the fullest penalty the Court has the ability to impose. And I suggest to the Court, if not this case, when? The Court has the authority under 39:4203, to impose 15 days in jail. ... (Followed by summary of relationship of Jason and his Dad and loss incurred.)( Assertion of responsibility that Patent has continued to refuse to take for his actions.)

Casale: Attorney for Patent. Makes statements regarding Patent's version of what happened. The third story as can be viewed from depositions and police report Patent actually told 3 different stories about the accident.

Court: This, the Division of Motor Vehicles in a hearing took his license until 21?

Casale: Till, is that correct, until your 21 years old?

Patent: Uh Huh.

Note: State of New Jersey division of motor Vehicles revoked Patent's license for only 21 months. Hence this is perjury on the party of Patent, supported by his attorney.

Court: Council, what I am finding is, and I'm not diminishing the fact that Jason is dead, because that would appear to be an aggravating factor, but it not under any stretch of the imagination, under the law in the State of New Jersey, because somebody died, should that effect the Careless Driving Sentence without any aggravating factors.

Note: State Statutes: Rules Governing Practice in Municipal Courts 7:1 and 7:9 mandate driving record be considered as mitigating factor. N.J.S.A. 2C: 44-1 to 44-3 as cited demand prior record be considered in sentencing, also the totality of harm. Clearly here the Judge has broken New Jersey Statute.

Speaker: I'm sorry, I have to say something.

Court: And who are you Ma'am?

Speaker: I'm Jason's stepmother.

Court: Okay, Mr. Lomurro, I've already heard from Jason's father. Perhaps if you could just take a seat...

Note: As referenced, Judge silenced Jason's stepmother and said absolutely nothing to, and let woman remain completely unidentified. This is discriminatory action and prejudice of the parties.

Court: ... There is nothing I can do. If the Prosecutor saw fit and the County led the Prosecutor, the factors would have been there, there would have been an investigation.

Note: Here Judge lays responsibility on County and local Prosecutors, never taking any responsibility for his own Court.

Back To Top

Original Complaint V. Judge James F. Weber

Louis Johnson
February 6, 2002

To:

Larry Walton
Chief, Municipal Court Services Division
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 986
Trenton, NJ 08627

To:

New Jersey Supreme Court
Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
CN 037
Trenton, NJ 08625-0037

List of Exhibits:

A - Copy of Summons
B - N.J.S.A. 39:5-51
C - Transcripts: 9-20-2000
D - Transcripts: 5-23-2001
List of Citings:

A - N.J.S.A. 39:5-51
B - Rules Governing Practice in Municipal Courts 7:1 and 7:9
C - N.J.S.A. 2C: 44-1 to 44-3
ii. State V. Krompold 162 NJ ( Totality of Harm)
iii. State V. O'Donnell, supra 117 NJ (Vulnerability)
vi. State V. Radziwill 235 NJ Super ( Prior Record)
vii. State V. Rivers 252 NJ Super 142 (Lack of Remorse)
D - N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 Official Misconduct
E - Canons 1, 2, & 3 of Appendix to Part 1 of the code of Judicial Conduct
of the American Bar Association as Amended by The New Jersey Supreme Court

Introduction:

This is the first and the soonest that I am able to present this case before you calling for, not only the removal of a Municipal Court Judge from the bench, but for his full and formal disbarment; as, the harm he has caused to the reputation of the judicial system is so egregious that he cannot be permitted to practice law in the State of New Jersey. The actions of Judge James F. Weber, J.M.C. while presiding in Old Bridge Township, Middlesex County on the above referenced dates can only be described in one of two ways: 1. Serious criminal misbehavior of felonious influence peddling or 2. Gross Judicial Incompetence. Whichever reason divulges itself to be factual the end result is that Judge Weber must be brought up on the charge of Official Misconduct (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2).

Count 1: Prior to accepting the guilty plea on September 20, 2000 the Judge is quoted as saying, " Personal Injury, you have to notify the person that was injured, he has", and then later stated, "Okay. See if the victim was notified. I don't know who was injured in this one. No other notice went out." The Court did ask the question, obviously noted the ticket or from some source, indicating it had knowledge. The Court then ignored this knowledge and accepted the guilty plea with no notice to the victim of the Court's actions. Heed this here! The magnitude of this egregious error is manifold. The victim was not only injured, the victim was KILLED. The judge knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 39:5-51. That is Official Misconduct and a violation of all Victims' Rights protections.

Count 2: The Judge accepted the guilty plea and meted out the minimal sentence of an $85.00 fine while he had the ticket before him upon which the Detective has clearly inscribed: Case: 21079-00 MVA/DBA. Judge Weber ignored what was clearly written before him and violated general sentencing guidelines, other numerous rules of conduct and codes of judicial behavior.

Count 3: The Judge accepted the plea having seen the ticket that clearly indicated that a Case had been opened with the Middlesex County Prosecutors Office. This case was open and a Fatal Accident investigation was in progress. Yet, the judge accepted the plea again bringing gross disrespect upon his court and defaming the Rules of the Court.

Count 4: By Judge Weber accepting the guilty plea to a Careless Driving offense, non-indictable, he placed the Court in a dangerous position of exposing it to possible double jeopardy while the County was investigating, usurping the authority and legal responsibility of Middlesex County.

Count 5: By accepting the plea, endangering prosecutorial avenues, Judge James F. Weber did violate N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 committing Official Misconduct by being a public servant at the time of the action, depriving the Victim's Estate the benefits of the court and knowingly failing to perform the duty imposed upon him by law. Note here the Victim's Estate, through counsel, caused the plea to be set aside, giving Judge Weber an opportunity to correct his errors, regain Judicial integrity. ( 5-23-2001) He cited, for the record, the Defendant's contemptuous behavior and lack of remorse in addition to other concerns and refused to exhibit any Judicial behavior.

Count 6: Judge Weber did violate general sentencing rules as mandated by Part VII. Rules Governing Practice in the Municipal Courts where all sentencing is to be according to N.J.S.A. 2C: 44-1 to 44-3. See above for each separate applicable Higher Court Ruling that was to be referenced and taken into account as mitigating circumstances since the ticket was clearly marked DBA. The victim was KILLED. This was not just a little fender bender. The Defendant received four moving violations and two accidents in 11 months of driving, his last accident KILLING one fine young man. The Court specifically and completely overlooked each and every relevant facet of this case!

Count 7: Judge Weber, specifically, at the second sentencing appearance, having now full knowledge of the accident and its ramifications and the full nature of the defendant failed again and clearly violated Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Appendix to Part 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association as amended by the New Jersey Supreme court.

Conclusion:

With the allegations set now before you and the evidence and citings hereto attached I call upon you to rectify the egregious wrong committed by Judge James F. Weber while practicing upon the Bench in Old Bridge Township Municipal Court. By his actions Judge Weber is surely bringing defamation and ridicule upon the Court, for in failing to exhibit the behavior that is necessary to be a Judge he is directly and indirectly condoning the actions of the Defendant. Since, too, his wrongs are of such a magnitude he does cast serious dispersions upon the integrity of the Court in Old Bridge Township and other townships throughout the State. The potential for the existence of felonious influence peddling and other criminal activity may need to be investigated with similar cases publicly reviewed. There is no option before the higher authorities but to remove Judge Weber from the bench and bring formal charges against him leading to his disbarment.

Respectfully submitted,
Louis Johnsonbr> Admin. ad Prosequendum
For the Estate of Jason Johnson

Back To Top

Addendum to Complaint V. Judge Weber

Louis Johnson
March 7, 2002

To:

Larry Walton
Chief, Municipal Court Services Division
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
P. O. Box 986
Trenton, NJ 08627

To:

New Jersey Supreme Court
Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
CN 037
Trenton, NJ 08625-0037

To:

David Samson, Attorney General
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Richard J. Hughes justice Complex
P. O. Box 080

Trenton, NJ 08625-0080

RE: Complaint V. Judge James F. Weber, J.M.C. Old Bridge Township

Complaint V. Prosecutor W. Lane Miller Old Bridge Township

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the above referenced matter please be hereby informed that we have obtained, for the record, during depositions of one Detective Doherty, investigating officer on the case of State V. Gary Patent, a statement indicating:

1. At no time was he summoned to the court for either the initial sentencing or the following hearing after 'set aside'.

2. He terms this "unusual" in view of accepted court procedures.

A copy of this official court record may be obtained upon request.

We request this be added to the record as part of your investigation concerning the conduct of the above referenced officials of the court. At no time during either court session does either party, Judge or Prosecutor, reference the detective who would have complete knowledge of the case, its status with the higher court or the existence of any injured party. Again we do state for the court that this is misfeasance at the least.

Respectfully submitted,

Louis Johnson

Admin. ad Prosequendum per

Estate of Jason Johnson

C.c.s: All parties in receipt of original material

Back To Top

Response by New Jersey Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

HONORABLE ALAN B. HANDLER, CHAIR
HONORABLE DANIEL J. O'HERN, VICE CHAIR
EDWARD J. DAUBER, ESQUIRE
MS. THERESA M. KLUCK
ROBERT N. MCALLISTER, ESQUIRE Ms. ALICE OLICK
PETER N. PERRETTI, ESQUIRE MR. RICHARD W. ROPER
M. KAREN THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
PATRICK J. MONAHAN, JR., COUNSEL
JOHN A. TONELLI, CHIEF INVESTIGATOR

RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY
(609) 292-2552

July 25, 2002
Confidential

Louis Johnson

Re: ACJC 2002-103

Dear Mr. Johnson:

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct has completed its review of this matter, which was opened in response to your complaint concerning Municipal Court Judge James F. Weber, and it has directed me to inform you of its decision. Although the Committee has decided against the institution of formal disciplinary proceedings, it has informed the judge of the importance of determining the extent of injuries before accepting guilty pleas and the importance of notifying the victim and/or the Victim's family of any court dates. However, N.J.S.A. 39:5-51 requires the prosecutor to inform the judge in writing during the initial appearance of a defendant of the death of any person or the extent of any personal injury sustained by a person as a result of a violation of the motor vehicle or traffic laws by the defendant. That did not occur in this case, and that is not something that the Committee finds the judge responsible for.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the Committee's attention.

Dog

Return To Top

Actions of Municipal Prosecutor W. Lane Miller

Regarding the actions of the Old Bridge Township Municipal Prosecutor, W. Lane Miller, we assert there were positively none. The prosecutor remained completely mute throughout the first illegal plea acceptance by Judge Miller. It was the oath bound duty of the Prosecutor to notify the Judge in writing, which was not done. At this time the Prosecutor could have sought sidebar, called for the Court to fall into compliance with New Jersey Statute. By commission at this point the Municipal Prosecutor remained silent and violated New Jersey Statute, willfully and knowingly. At the second hearing the Municipal Prosecutor bumbled around the courtroom joking how he was 'gonna be a judge'. He yielded the entire floor and his option to speak to Attorney for Victim. He paid no mind to the Rule Of Law.

Back To Top

Original Complaint V. Prosecutor Miller with Citings

Louis Johnson
February 11, 2002

To:

David Samson, Attorney General
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 080
Trenton, NJ 08625-0080

List of Exhibits: A - Entire Judicial Complaint

1. - Copy of Summons
2. -N.J.S.A. 39:5-51
3. - Transcripts: 9-20-2000
4. - Transcripts: 5-23-2001

List of Citings:

A - 2C:2-2 General Requirements of Culpability
B - Rules Governing Practice in Municipal Courts 7:1 and 7:9
C - N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 to 44-3
D - N.J.A.C. 2C:28-1 to 28-3

Introduction:

This is the first and soonest that I am able to present this case before you calling for the removal of a Municipal Court prosecutor, though he has recently been re-appointed for another term. W. Lane Miller did, if only by omission, fail to perform his legal duties and did break New Jersey Statute thereby rendering him unfit to hold that position.

Count 1: Mr. Miller, as witnessed in transcripts of the first court appearance on September 20, 2000, failed to inform the judge that a fatality had occurred. As the case unfolded and the Court accepted the plea he failed to rectify the ensuing egregious situation when, as an official of the Court he had the power, authority and duty to stop the Judge, approach the bench or seek sidebar.

Count 2: Prosecutor Miller then becomes directly in violation of 2C:2-2 since, as a practicing attorney and servant of the State, he becomes also culpable to the actions of the Court on that day in that he knowingly permitted the Court to move forward with full knowledge that the Court was in violation of New Jersey Statute.

Count 3: Prosecutor failed in his appointed duties by permitting the Court to ignore all general rules of sentencing (N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 to 44-3) as he is to be knowledgeable of penalties and reasons for mitigation of same.

Count 4: As the second sentencing evolved (05-23-2001) as a prosecutor he heard and was direct witness to various violations of 2C: 28-1 to 28-3 on the part of the Defendant. He failed to act regarding the filing of such charges against the Defendant according to his appointed duties.

Conclusion:

With these references, allegations and attachments before you I do call upon you to rectify this gross egregious miscarriage of Justice. E. Lane Miller did, while practicing under your supervision in Municipal Court in Old Bridge Township commit these violations. By his actions he is bringing defamation upon your Court for it is also a matter of Respondeat Superior under which the lower courts do operate. His wrongs are also of such a magnitude that it may cast serious dispersions upon the integrity and validity of the Court. By both omission and commission during these two hearings Mr. Miller presents the image for the public that, as a prosecutor, he does indeed condone the actions of the Defendant. This cannot be permitted to exist. He must be subject to discipline.

Respectfully Submitted,

Louis Johnson
Admin. Ad Prosequendum
For the Estate of Jason Johnson

C.c.s.:

Back To Top

Addendum to Complaint V. Prosecutor Miller

(Same letter as RE: Judge as Estate alleges parties acted in full consort)

Louis Johnson
March 7, 2002

To:

Larry Walton
Chief, Municipal Court Services Division
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
P. O. Box 986
Trenton, NJ 08627

To:

New Jersey Supreme Court
Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
CN 037
Trenton, NJ 08625-0037

To:

David Samson, Attorney General
New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Richard J. Hughes justice Complex
P. O. Box 080
Trenton, NJ 08625-0080

RE: Complaint V. Judge James F. Weber, J.M.C. Old Bridge Township
RE: Complaint V. Prosecutor W. Lane Miller Old Bridge Township

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the above referenced matter please be hereby informed that we have obtained, for the record, during depositions of one Detective Doherty, investigating officer on the case of State V. Gary Patent, a statement indicating:

1. At no time was he summoned to the court for either the initial sentencing or the following hearing after 'set aside'.

2. He terms this "unusual" in view of accepted court procedures.

A copy of this official court record may be obtained upon request.

We request this be added to the record as part of your investigation concerning the conduct of the above referenced officials of the court. At no time during either court session does either party, Judge or Prosecutor, reference the detective who would have complete knowledge of the case, its status with the higher court or the existence of any injured party. Again we do state for the court that this is misfeasance at the least.

Respectfully submitted,

Louis Johnson
Admin. ad Prosequendum per

C.c.s: All parties in receipt of original material

Back To Top

Response by Attorney General

STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PO Box 085
TRENTON, NJ 08625-0085

DAVID SAMSON, Attorney General
PETER C. HARVEY First Asst. Attorney General Director

TELEPHONE (609) 984-6500

July 1, 2002

Mr. Louis Johnson

Re: State V. Gary Patent, Old Bridge Township Municipal Court

Dear Mr. Johnson:

In our April 17, 2002 letter to you, we informed you that we had requested the Middlesex County Prosecutor to review the concerns expressed by you concerning the actions of the Old Bridge Township Municipal Prosecutor. We also requested that the County Prosecutor inform this office of the outcome of his review.

As we explained in our initial letter, under the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, the Attorney General, through the Division of Criminal Justice, exercises general supervisory authority over each of the twenty-one county prosecutors and through the county prosecutors, the municipal prosecutors in those counties. That supervisory function permits this office to review the facts and to determine whether the prosecutor's acts were within the ambit of his or her discretion. A county prosecutor is vested with broad discretion in the performance of his or her official duties. The direct supervision of municipal prosecutors is a function performed by each County Prosecutor's Office, as they are best equipped to deal with these matters on a daily basis. Thus, in matters involving the actions of a municipal prosecutor, the Office of the County Prosecutor is responsible for the initial review and that office has the discretion to determine what, if any, further action will be taken. In reviewing the exercise of that discretion, the Attorney General, through our office, does not conduct a separate investigation nor do we superimpose our opinion over that of the prosecutor unless there is an indication of an abuse of discretion.

With respect to the matter involving the prosecution of Gary Patent in the Old Bridge Municipal Court, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office reviewed those proceedings with the Old Bridge Municipal Prosecutor. The County Prosecutor's Office has concluded that, in the Patent case, the Municipal Prosecutor acted appropriately, under the circumstances. That office has determined that no further action is needed with respect to the actions of Municipal Prosecutor.

In light of the determination made by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office, and the limited scope of our supervisory review, we have concluded that there has been no abuse of discretion by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office in the performance of their oversight responsibilities with respect to the Old Bridge Township Municipal Prosecutor. Accordingly, this office has also determined that no further action will be taken on this matter.

Very truly yours,

Stephen Monson
Deputy Attorney General

C.: Assistant Middlesex County Prosecutor, Abraham J. Chasnoff OAG, Office of Constituent Relations, K. Golden

R & 1, CJ #2002-01623-H

Back To Top

Additional Filing with Middlesex County Prosecutor

Louis Johnson

May 2, 2002

Mr. Glenn Berman
Middlesex County Prosecutor
Post Office Box 71
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0071

RE: State V. Gary Patent, Old Bridge Township Municipal Court - Referral from Stephen Monson, Deputy Attorney General

Dear Mr. Berman:

The above captioned matter was referred to you citing specifics of the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, dictating that the behavior and compliance requirements of any prosecutor in the county are under your direct supervision. As such I am personally urging you to remove the subject of this complaint from his duties.

Since the filing of this complaint I have read one lengthy article claiming the State of New Jersey has many pending bills regarding the behavior of drivers in the state. The tone of the article was not optimistic. Since filing this complaint I have both heard and read of various claims made by the new Governor of 'raising the bar' across this state. I have not seen any results of this whatsoever. Since filing this complaint I have seen local courts not even punish violations of the new graduated license law. Since filing this complaint I have not seen the State of New Jersey in any fashion whatsoever add legitimacy to its various governmental branches.

Here, with this case, we have clear breaches of Court Ethics, Court Rules and specific New Jersey Statutes by a Prosecutor. Here we also have fatal accidents on the increase, accidents on the increase, cases of road rage on the increase, etc. Let us understand full well that the response of the State of New Jersey that 'things happen' is clearly ridiculous. Each and every occurrence has both direct and indirect causes. Causation is irrefutably relevant.

I assert to you, in your capacity, that your failure to act here would be a clear indirect cause for every accident within your County. If you do not stand against misfeasance you do condone it. If you do condone it, then you also condone the behavior over which the misfeasance did rule.

I was flying over the holidays. Two young men sat across the aisle. The Jersey resident and driver was bragging to the Connecticut resident and driver about his 115 m.p.h. jaunts on the Parkway in his 'Vette. The CT man was shocked. The NJ man replied, "Hey, I'm from Jersey. It's OK to drive like an idiot." Oh, This is a true story, very true.

Trusting you will act to send the proper message to your Charges, I remain

Truly yours,

Louis Johnson

C.c.s.

Back To Top

Rebuttal to Attorney General

Louis Johnson

July 15, 2002

To:

Stephen Monson
Deputy Attorney General
State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Criminal Justice
P.O. Box 085
Trenton, NJ 08625-0085

RE: State V. Gary Patent, Old Bridge Township Municipal Court

Dear Mr. Monson:

I am in receipt of your letter of July 1, 2001 in which you referenced the above matter and my complaint regarding the mixture of incompetence and/or possible corruption, abuse of discretion, within a Municipal Court under your Jurisdiction.

Though you elected to again explain an inferior system that makes very few serious self--policing choices, it was read through none the less. The only matter of pertinent content in your letter is in the third paragraph, and I will quote:

"The County Prosecutor's Office has concluded that, in the Patent case, the Municipal Prosecutor acted appropriately, under the circumstances." (Italics added for emphasis.)

Now, just what are the specific circumstances that would permit a local Municipal Prosecutor, cognizant of abiding statute, in and of all matter of fact, to permit a Court over which he is charged and oath-bound to enforce said statute, to heretofore and continuing to ignore those same statutes? Without a clear and detailed answer to the above referenced question you have, thus far, exercised no oversight, nor has the Middlesex County Prosecutor. Hence, this matter is not closed nor shall it be dismissed in kind as you have elected to do. You have not performed your duties nor responded to a citizens complaint in any satisfactory fashion considering the gravity of the situation. A defendant committed perjury in your court, a Judge ignored all sentencing guidelines among other previously cited conditions. Your Prosecutor stood idly by in a position of, at least, misfeasance of duty.

I ask again, what are the specific circumstances that were considered by the Middlesex County Prosecutor?

Respectfully,

Louis Johnson

CCs

Back To Top

Response by Attorney General

State of New Jersey
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
PO Box 085
TRENTON, NJ 08625-0085

DAVID SAMSON
Attorney General

PETER C. HARVEY
First Asst. Attorney General

TELEPHONE (609) 984-6500

August 15, 2002

Mr. Louis Johnson

Re: State v. Gary Patent, Old Bridge Township Municipal Court

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We are in receipt of your July 15, 2002 letter, responding to our letter of July 1, 2002. In your most recent letter you continue to express your dissatisfaction with the ultimate disposition of the motor vehicle charge in the above case. Your dissatisfaction extends not only to the actions of the Old Bridge Municipal Prosecutor, but also to those of the Old Bridge Municipal Court Judge and Court personnel.

As we have explained in earlier correspondence, the oversight responsibilities of the Attorney General extend only to prosecutors. Review of actions by members of the Judicial branch and its personnel are not within the purview of that oversight responsibility.

With respect to the actions of the Old Bridge Municipal Prosecutor, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office conducted a full review of the matter. As we noted in our letter of April 17, 2002, the County Prosecutor's Office is responsible for the initial review of matter of this nature. In addition, following their review, that office has the discretion to determine what, if any, further action will be taken. In reviewing a County Prosecutor's exercise of that discretion, this Division does not conduct a separate investigation. Nor do we superimpose our opinion over that of the County Prosecutor, unless there is an indication of an abuse of discretion.

In this case, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office made a determination that no further action is needed with respect to the handling of this matter or with respect to the actions of the Old Bridge Municipal Prosecutor. Accordingly, we consider this matter closed with respect to the Old Bridge Municipal Prosecutor and no further action will be taken by this.

We are also aware that the defendant, Gary Patent, was recalled to the Old Bridge Municipal Court, following his initial appearance, and his case Was reopened. At that hearing, Which took place on May 23, 2001, you were present and you were offered the opportunity to address the Court. However, according to the transcript, your attorney XXXXX, Esq., made a statement on your behalf. Thereafter, the Court made its final ruling in the case.

Finally, We are aware that you are presently engaged in civil litigation arising from this tragic accident. XXXX Administrator [plaintiff) vs. Gary Patent [defendant], Docket XXXXXXX. We are also aware that you, as the plaintiff, are represented by legal counsel, XXXXXXX, Esq., the attorney Who made a statement on your behalf to the Old Bridge Municipal Court. Therefore, We do not believe that continuing to communicate With you over a matter that has been closed, is appropriate or beneficial.

Again, We extend our sincerest condolences on the untimely and tragic death of your son, Jason.

Very truly yours,

Stephen Monson

Deputy Attorney General

C.: Assistant Middlesex County Prosecutor, Abraham J. Chasnoff OAG, Office of Constituent Relations, K. Golden

R & 1, CJ #2002-01623-H

Note: There will be a follow-up here with further indictment of political appointee, his unconscionable attitude problem and his failure to understand the Rule of Law.

Back To Top

Conclusive: Court Illegal Venue

This is a portion of what has transpired within the Courts and around the regulatory bodies that oversee the behavior of the Judge and the Municipal Prosecutor. Upon study of the complete records, if not as obvious from these excerpts, one can clearly see that the Court of Old Bridge Township has permitted gross incompetence to rule. When this was brought to the attention of regulatory bodies they adopted the posture of ignoring Statute citings and condoning and covering up this incompetence. They elected to fail to strictly enforce the Rule of Law. As such, they have violated their Constitutional duties. When a venue does violate and permit the violations of Statute, fails to uphold the Rule of Law is it not, then, an illegal venue, a venue whose other decisions must be reviewed by a Federal Authority?

Back To Top

Addendum of Complicity by Parties

The investigating officer failed to retain notes - or concealed them. Mention was made of a witness. That witness was never produced. Middlesex County Prosecutor Nicholas Siewicz had the opportunity to investigate and failed to bring in Investigators above the admittedly minimal qualifications of Old Bridge Township (other records). He also completely ignored any allegations regarding the actions of the Old Bridge Township Prosecutor and failed also to address issues according to the Rule of Law regarding conformities of the office and duties of which all parties are oath bound. The New Jersey Supreme Court failed to sanction the Judge based upon failure of Prosecutor, and the Attorney General failed to act at all on the Supreme Court noted failing of said Prosecutor. All parties involved, the fix was in, protected each other and not the public they are oath bound to serve.

In the ending, The Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a ruling that the Prosecutor was in error in both examination and sentencing. Copies of this will be provided upon request. Also, in spite of repeated requests of both the attorney for the plaintiff and directly to the Middlesex County Prosecutor positively no response was ever given to the demand for 911 phone records and First Responding Officer's notes. Just who was there and what happened to the two vehicles the defendant acknowledged in his testimony? The police had no intention of investigating. The Old Bridge Detective lead the defendant through all questions, virtually providing desired answers. All that information was removed from the file.

Back To Top

Conclusion: Nationwide, New Jersey is called one of the most corrupt states in the Union. The Estate is of the opinion that Middlesex County may be a leader in that state. Where else can a local and a county prosecutor not need to abide by their own governing statutes? Where else can the State Attorney General's office be permitted to ignore their own governing statutes and completely insult and ridicule a grieving family. Where else does the 'old friends' network so completely invade the halls of Justice?

NOTE: Complete kits of all documents are available to any investigating entity, the press and seriously interested parties with valid reasons to obtain same. It is quite clear that, from the top down, protection of the Judge and the Prosecutor were the only thing of importance here. Justice has taken a back seat. Send your requests to:

Estate of Jason Johnson
P.O. Box 719
Englishtown, NJ 07726

Unless otherwise noted all images and text are the property of Skip Shot Ltd. and are protected by United States Copyright Law, The Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention. Skip Shot and all Marks present are Trademarks and Servicemarks of Skip Shot, Ltd., PO Box 719, Englishtown, NJ 07726 USA. All Rights are Reserved. Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by Skip Shot, Ltd. We thank you for your interest in our site and trust you will feel quite welcome to return.

Use of this site signifies your agreement to the terms of service.
Privacy Policy