I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant’s motion is to disqualify the entire Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
(BCPO) from this case, and have it reassigned to an independent prosecutor from the Office of the Attorney General, State of New Jersey (OAG) or some other independent agency. In addition the motion seeks a change of venue to another vicinage of like demographics and racial composition. The primary focus of this motion is addressed towards the disqualification of the
BCPO exclusively because Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli engaged in a personal vendetta for almost eight years against my client, the Haworth Police Department, its well respected Chiefs of Police, other police officers, the Mayor, other police officers and local officials culminating in the offenses defendant is charged with now. In addition, Molinelli and the BCPO have invaded and broken the public trust with their constant misuse and abuse of their tremendous powers to the point that Molinelli and the BCPO are the ones committing high crimes and misdemeanors at a minimum and/or committing crimes more serious than the persons they are often prosecuting.
The charges in the case stem from Molinelli’s personal crusade against defendant (a former Haworth police officer and now laid off Paterson Police Department police officer), and against Haworth officials dating back to 2004. These personal crusades or vendettas on the part of Molinelli and the BCPO reemerged in 2011 because of defendant’s attempts to gain re- employment as a police officer in Bergen County, New Jersey. The prosecution claims that defendant was forced in 2004 to resign as a police officer in Haworth, New Jersey. The prosecution alleges that defendant in seeking employment in Waldwick, New Jersey as a police
1 officer and with the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office (BCSD) did not disclose the necessary facts concerning what occurred in Haworth leading to a resignation.
The facts and evidence submitted even at this early stage of the case advanced in this motion show the charges amount to nothing more than half baked subjective and self serving notions by the prosecutor/s as to their perception of what actually occurred in 2004 when defendant resigned as a police officer in Haworth, and what he is supposed to say, write and do in answering questions on this subject when he fills out employment forms. The prosecution’s facts are disputed by the defendant because he never misled any agency or law enforcement entity about the Haworth incident. The evidence shows that defendant maintains he did nothing wrong in 2004, but was victimized by Molinelli and unlawful persons/ in the prosecutor’s office
(BCPO) and was made to resign because the BCPO used very corruptive and unlawful techniques to force defendant’s resignation. Defendant maintains he made both oral and written disclosures to the BCSD and the Waldwick P.D. on the resignation subject when he applied for employment in 2011 at both the BCSD and at the Waldwick Police Department. Defendant did not deny he resigned from the Haworth PD. Defendant provided as references to his prospective employers two Chiefs of Police (Pat O’Dea [Retired] and Chris Campbell [current]) from
Haworth P.D. Defendant also signed the necessary paperwork releasing any records to those prospective employers from any law enforcement agency including Haworth, the BCPO, etc.
Defendant never hid or falsified records.
Defendant in oral interviews/discussions told BCSD directly all of the circumstances and factual history present in the 2004 resignation incident. In Waldwick defendant had O’Dea and
Campbell speak to the officials at the PD wherein the circumstances of the 2004 incident were disclosed in detail. Molinelli and the BCPO are subject to disqualification because Molinelli, the
2 Chief Law Enforcement person in Bergen County, forgot what his position and responsibilities were, and decided to use the awesome power of his office to ruin my client’s existence and his law enforcement career. The evidence and arguments presented in order to support the factual underpinnings of this motion and what is contained in the exhibits is the product of several years of backround work from more than one source. What is presented in this case is independent reliable evidence showing a pattern of unlawful conduct on the part of Molinelli where he wields his power for his own personal gain or for reasons not in accordance with the oath he has taken.
The evidence in this motion is not just that Molinelli engaged in potential federal civil rights violations when he tortiously interfered with my client’s prospective or promised employment with various police agencies. Molinelli has routinely committed unlawful acts abusing his powers as he sees fit regardless of the fact that he is knowingly committing tyrannical civil and criminal acts against persons and the citizenry routinely on a widespread basis over a long period of time. To make matters worse, wrapped and embedded around Molinelli’s personal abuse of power and acts of selective prosecution, and worse, gleaned from the attached exhibits is his obvious affiliation and associations with members of organized crime and/or with known criminal elements.
II. THE RELEVANT FACTS
It all started for the defendant in 2004. The defendant had been a New York City Police
Officer previously and had in January of 2003 taken a job to be policeman in Haworth, New
Jersey. At the time the BCPO went on what it called a bust of organized crime elements in its jurisdiction. The BCPO under Molinelli’s direction and control in 2004 wiretapped numerous
3 persons it considered to have mob business or organized crime connections/affiliations. The wiretapping operation as it turned out actually was not really designed to prosecute criminals or criminal activity. Unfortunately and unconscionably, the BCPO under Molinelli’s direction and control wanted to discover leaks (i.e. the identity/identities of confidential informants who are members or are affiliated with the mafia working for state and federal law enforcement authorities) that had developed in New York crime family/families. Molinelli apparently potentially/probably had another motive. Using his unfettered power, Molinelli is alleged by others (not defendant Castronova) to have conspired and acted along with his then Chief of
Detectives Michael Mordaga to intentionally divulge to members of organized crime that a Frank
Lagano was a confidential informant for the New Jersey Office of Attorney General (OAG).
These events led to pleadings in 9/12 in federal court by the Lagano Estate (Ex. 2) and another pleading (Ex. 3) filed in court 9/10 by Lagano’s law enforcement contact at OAG (James
Sweeney) alleged that the BCPO told members of organized crime that had been arrested from the wiretap sweep that Lagano was an active confidential informant. (Ex. 2). Lagano was later shot execution style and the murderer has not been arrested.
Sweeney’s lawsuit ( Ex. 3) that was later sealed in the Bergen County law division alleged that (Molinelli’s right hand man in the office) Mordaga was being investigated by
Sweeney as a murder suspect suggesting that Mordaga murdered Lagano himself or ordered the hit on Lagano (Exs 1-3a). Molinelli protected Mordaga and Mordaga suddenly retired (Ex. 3a) and got his pension never to be heard from again. The pleadings filed by two separate sources showed clearly that Mordaga had unlawful business ties with a known member or associate with organized crime as the chief law enforcement officer of the county which is a clear act of official misconduct (Exs. 1-3a) and he had operated a side business in violation of state ethical
4 guidelines. Molinelli selectively took no action as a form of protection over his Chief of
Detectives.
Under Molinelli’s control and supervision, the BCPO withheld/suppressed in the
Lagano/Ates wiretaps (Ex. 6) crucial required information from the judge issuing the taps and monitoring their status (Hon. Marilyn Clark, P.J.S.C.). This led Judge Clark to suppress the taps and many arrestees went free and were never prosecuted ultimately. Judge Clark and the reviewing court were clear to point out wrongdoing/misconduct on the wiretapping operation conducted by the BCPO. (Ex. 6).
Just as with Mordaga having close personal ties and business ties to a known member or associate of the Luchese crime family, Molinelli had similar relationships with known criminal elements. (Exs. 1, 2, 3, 3a, 5, 6, 7). Molinelli traveled in 2008 with the later convicted State
Senator Joe Coniglio to Italy while Coniglio was a target in a federal probe. Also on the trip was
Dennis Oury who later pled guilty in federal court in return for his cooperation as to corruption in Bergen County. Molinelli refused to recognize that his friends were member so organized criminal activities and refused to acknowledge their criminal acts. (Id.). The same was true with his other close friend; the later convicted Joe Ferriero. (Ibid.).
Molinelli also protected unlawful activity of Mordaga when Mordaga acted while Chief of Detectives. (3a). Molinelli knew Mordaga had a side security business and he never stopped
Mordaga from conducting these unlawful acts. As Chief of Detectives Mordaga was not authorized under law t engage in such practices and Molinelli new but selectively did not charge or prosecute Mordaga. (Id.). In fact Molinelli condoned these practices until public media blew the whistle on such actions. By then Mordaga had quietly retired and his pension was safe.
5 Similarly, with respect to the trial of Ken Zisa, Molinelli acted unlawfully or unethically
when he kept tabs on the case against Zisa after being walled off from the proceeding under
Court Order. (7). Molinelli’s actions were so egregious that the trial judge in almost
unprecedented fashion acquitted Mr. Zisa of several Counts that the jury convicted him off in act
of fairness and in the interests of justice to dilute the damage done by Molinelli and his office in
that case. (7).
During these unlawful wiretaps in 2004 defendant was taped speaking with his cousin
who was later arrested by the BCPO as a part of the sting. Castronova never violated any laws in
that conversation, but the BCPO without notice to defendant or sufficient cause hauled defendant
down to the BCPO and under false pretenses made him retire. Defendant was never allowed to
hear the taped statement. The BCPO lied about the taped statements import and context, and they
lied to defendant accusing him of wrongdoing. The BCPO officials made clear to defendant that
defendant’s cousin would be prosecuted. Defendant being concerned about his cousin’s and
family’s well being resigned. Defendant was never charged, arrested or forbidden from seeking a
law enforcement job. The defendant was also not provided with or given any directive from
BCPO as to how to handle any future job application to a law enforcement agency.
Regarding the 2004 incident, defendant was in a position of adhesion and was without the presence of legal counsel. Defendant was shown his retirement papers and ordered to sign by defendants’ designees/agents. (See Ex. 1, the attached documents to Ex. #1 and defendant’s certification).
Molinelli’s designees or agents intimated in defendant’s estimation that his refusal to retire on
12/1/04 would or could result in his cousin being prosecuted more harshly. (See def. cert.). Given defendant’s position of adhesion he retired for family and personal reasons; namely hoping that his departure would leave his cousin from being made a victim of selective prosecution in retaliation to
6 defendant’s refusal to sign his retirement papers. Defendant’s cousin was later given probation and no jail time. The defendant was in a position of adhesion and was without the presence of legal counsel.
Defendant was shown his retirement papers and advised to sign by defendants’ designees/agents. (See
Ex. 1 and its attached documents).
There never was an arrest and no charges were ever filed against defendant regarding the 2004 incident. Defendant never saw any discovery but he was informed by defendants’ agents/designees that he was heard on tape talking to his cousin wherein his cousin was jousting and joking with defendant that he needed protection because someone was coming to get him. It was common knowledge that defendant while off duty as many police officers do, has offered security and protection for private persons.
Defendant jokingly offered his services. Defendant never engaged in this process and he never intended to. Such comments were never acted upon by defendant and there was no overt act or intent to ever act upon such statements by defendant. The BCPO took such statements out of context. BCPO misconstrued defendant’s jousting and hyperbolic statements made back and forth between his cousin and defendant.
The cousin offered the statement in a non serious joking manner and the response was made in a joking manner with no intent to act on what was meant in humor and made tongue and cheek. At trial the defendant will offer his cousin’s testimony in support of this fact.
Defendant is a law abiding citizen. The BCPO had not one shred of evidence that defendant ever at any time either did or attempted to offer himself as a person willing to assist his cousin’s illegal enterprise in terms of acts and deeds that he would have needed to accomplish to be in violation of law.
After the statement over one month passed but no evidence was found or gathered to show any proofs that defendant or his cousin were engaged in a relationship where defendant was offering protection to his cousin.
7 During the post resignation period for defendant then Chief of Haworth Police
Department Pat O’Dea lobbied hard to get defendant back on the force. The governmental officials locally supported the Chief’s endeavors, but Molinelli harshly dealt with these plans and exerted his extensive political influence over Haworth including O’Dea, and he stopped whatever hopes defendant had to be reemployed at Haworth P.D. O’Dea will testify that
Molinelli told him that he does not want Castronova back as a police officer is his “Backyard” for “five years.” (Ex. 1 and def. cert.).
Molinelli also fought back at the current mayor of Haworth, then Chief O’Dea, members of the Haworth Police Department who lobbied and fought hard to force Molinelli to allow defendant to get his job back in Haworth. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.). Molinelli wielded his considerable power absolutely to quash such efforts and he remains as persona non grata in
Haworth government for not relenting or acquiescing to the better judgment of the Haworth officials. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.). Defendant asserts that the efforts made on his behalf also led for him to be selectively prosecuted and singled out due to the bad blood that exists between
Molinelli, Haworth officials, the police department, and with the current Chief, Chris Campbell.
(Id.).
Molinelli not only turned his wrath on defendant; he has tried to ruin the career of Chief
Campbell. Campbell is one of the most respected law enforcement officers in Bergen County.
(Def. cert.). Campbell openly and outwardly gave defendant permission to use himself as a reference in enabling defendant to become reemployed as a police officer since 2004. Campbell since 2011 has been the victim of Molinelli and BCPO’s unlawful acts. Molinelli in 2011-present has found Campbell guilty of administrative wrongs merely because Campbell has recommended to various police departments that defendant is a good officer, a brave ex-marine, and one who
8 would be an asset to any department given his experience and accolades from the past. Campbell
continues to be harassed and pressured by the BCPO repeatedly; being called down to the BCPO
like a target to a crime to answer questions about his support for defendant’s attempts to be
reemployed by other law enforcement agencies.
In 3/2007 defendant was hired for a position in the Paterson Police Department (PPD). In his application he indicated that he resigned for personal reasons or family reasons. Defendant had apprised his new employers during the application and interview process what had transpired in 2004 in BCPO.
The BCPO has knowledge of these facts from their investigation or because PPD notified BCPO when defendant applied for the job as police officer. Acting upon this information from defendant in its normal course, the Paterson Police Department endeavored to verify the defendant’s back round information and they contacted defendants. Defendant Molinelli delegated to his’ high level designees/supervisors/ employees/agents to handle the Paterson Police Department back round check. The check done by
PPD yielded that there was no file in BCPO on defendant and no restrictions on his ability to apply for and work as a police officer. Also, there was no BCPO directive in place indicating how defendant was to answer these questions in employment applications. This meant or indicated that defendant was not ever charged with an offense in 2004. Nor was defendant charged with any administrative violation or IA charge in 2004 as to the wiretap case.
Defendant relied extensively on the actions/inactions of the BCPO in 2007 when he was hired to be a PPD officer. Defendant’s application was consistent with what he produced to
Waldwick and to the BCSD in terms of written paperwork, and just as he had done previously with Waldwick and the BCSD defendant made full disclosures and made full releases during the interview process in one form or another to PPD. This reliance of defendant is a defense to the
9 charges in this case and it is probative of defendant’s bonafide position of bias on the part of
Molinelli and the BCPO which requires their removal and mandates a change of venue.
Defendant innocently and properly relied on the BCPO’s approval of his application to the PPD when the PPD received from a high ranking designee of the BCPO confirmation that BCPO has no file against defendant and that defendant was not ever charged in this matter (see attached document from
PPD. (Ex. 4). This was after defendant’s application to Paterson Police Department had been vetted and after the BCPO was informed that defendant had not stated to PPD he was forced to retire except to say he left Haworth Police Department for personal or family reasons with regard to the incident with the wiretap.
Molinelli acting on BCPO’s behalf did not interfere with this process at PPD and in fact his designees’ express and/or implied assurances to PPD that defendant’s information to PPD officials was credible and factually accurate along with there being no file on defendant at BCPO led PPD to hire defendant as a police officer. Molinelli consistent with his statement to O’Dea earlier, had not interfered with defendant’s endeavors to become reemployed as a police officer as long as it was not in his
“backyard” (i.e. Bergen County),” and this job was in Passaic County not Bergen County.
From the time of 3/07-2011 the BCPO never interfered with defendant’s employment at PPD. As long as defendant stayed out of Bergen County, Molinelli had no quarrel to defendant indicating on his application form that he retired from the Haworth Police Department for personal or family reasons.
Defendant asserts that the PPD officials involved in this process in writing documented that the BCPO had openly indicated that defendant’s application to PPD was in order and they had no files on defendant or against him at the BCPO. Defendant relied on this action by the BCPO. Chief Campbell fully assisted defendant as a reference for this position.
10 As to the PPD employment, neither the defendant nor Campbell were ever referred for prosecution or charged when PPD was advised on the job application form that defendant left his
Haworth job for personal or family reasons. Just as with the employment applications in Waldwick and at the BCSD in 2011, defendant as he had done in PPD, fully disclosed in multiple interviews what had transpired in Haworth in 2004 and once again he used the same references to explain what had happened in O’Dea and Campbell. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.). In Waldwick, Campbell with defendant’s knowledge, assent, approval, and consent read his resignation letter from 2004 to Waldwick officials handling the promotion.
This type of reliance was/is an absolute defense to the charges and was ignored by Molinelli and the BCPO because of personal reasons related to bias/hatred/avarice against Haworth officials and as to the defendant. This justified reliance was further reinforced when defendant’s family in 2011 sought help from Molinelli and his permission as gate keeper to defendant being hired or reemployed as a law enforcement officer in Bergen County again after defendant was laid off by PPD in 2011. Exhibit #8 reveals that Molinelli indicated to defendant’s family that defendant had nothing on file in Bergen
County which would impede defendant’s reemployment attempts, and furthermore Molinelli never dictated that defendant could not indicate on any employment applications that he resigned from the
Haworth for “personal and family reasons.” (Ex. 8).
On 4/18/11 defendant was laid off his job at PPD due to budget cuts. Defendant’s wife, Heather
Castronova, is a police officer in Washington Township, Bergen County, New Jersey. Her father had emailed to defendant Molinelli around the time that defendant was laid of in 4/11 that his son in law
(defendant) was planning to aspire to make applications for reemployment and he wanted to know if there was anything in the BCPO’s files that would preclude defendant from seeking employment in
Bergen County, New Jersey. (8). Defendant Molinelli responded to said email by indicating that his
11 office has no files on defendant and he voiced stated no objection or warning or trepidation towards defendant seeking a law enforcement job in Bergen County. (Id.).
Defendant relied on the information he had received from PPD, the BCPO, and Molinelli which showed defendants had no intention of interfering with defendant’s bid to remerge as a law enforcement officer in Bergen County in the manner in which he went about the process with respect to the PPD employment application and process.
In the spring of 2011 defendant filled out an application to the Bergen County Sheriff’s
Department (BCSD). The BCSD was interested in hiring defendant. The BCSD would have hired defendant if it had not been for defendant Molinelli’s direct interference and direct acts to sabotage defendant’s employment bid at the BCSD. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.). This occurred after Molinelli learned that defendant had appeared for a formal interview with BCSD Inspector Bradley and all the under- sheriffs on 5/31/11. Defendant was given an application and he completely explained his resignation circumstances regarding Haworth, New Jersey Police Department on two occasions, the last time being a separate conversation with BCSD Investigator Bagnoulo. (Id.).During the week of June 13, 2011 defendant renounced his application with the BCSD. (Ex. 10).
This act of defendant’s was the result of the initial act of Molinelli or his designees/agents/assignees behind the scenes activity working to interfere actively with defendant’s prospective employment in the law enforcement field. In this case the tortious interference occurred with respect to defendant’s apparently positive bid to become employed at the BCSD. Molinelli tortiously interfered with defendant’s prospective employment after he was informed by Sheriff Saudino that BCSD was interested in hiring defendant. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.). Defendant was informed from a reliable source that defendant Molinelli had intimated or expressly stated words to the effect that defendant has additional problems with the BCPO or that there was more to his story then what he was being told or
12 had learned. (Id.). The renunciation of the employment attempt at BCSD effectively meant that the employment application filed by defendant was withdrawn. Such an act effectively created an absolute defense for defendant as to the indictable charges and any lesser included offense/s with respect to the
BCSD application for employment fled by defendant.
In late March 2011-April of 2011 defendant was attempting to gain employment as a police officer in Waldwick, NJ. Defendant as he had done previously at PPD informed his prospective employers in Waldwick about his resignation in Haworth. Defendant made clear that there was a process that occurred through BCPO in 2004. Defendant informed Waldwick officials handling his promotional process that he had resigned from Haworth PD in 2004, and he requested that Chief Campbell and Pat
O’Dea follow-up on the issue from 2004 wherein defendant requested that these two superiors give
Waldwick or read to Waldwick the letter of resignation from 2004 and to provide all details about the entire matter so that Waldwick had the complete picture. (Def. cert.). O’Dea and Campbell made
Waldwick aware with defendant’s consent and knowledge everything about the forced resignation. (Id.).
Molinelli then tortiously interfered with defendant’s bid to be employed in Waldwick by resurrecting with Waldwick police officials facets and information concerning the wiretap matter from
2004 and peppering such acts of denigrating defendant’s moral qualifications with conducting an investigation through Waldwick concerning defendant’s answers to certain questions on his police application to Waldwick. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.).
The BCPO forced Waldwick to turn over their employment file and application for defendant as part of their so called investigation. Defendant asserts that it was a witch hunt conducted against him by
Molinelli acting as the principal in terms of all unlawful and tortious acts committed against defendant.
(Ex. 1 and def. cert.). These unlawful and tortious acts committed by Molinelli and the BCPO directly caused Waldwick to be embroiled to be an unwitting party to their tortious and unlawful crusade against
13 defendant in terms of ruining his chances to be re-employed as a law enforcement official. Such acts served to dissuade Waldwick from hiring defendant after Waldwick had seriously considered hiring defendant as a law enforcement official.
Despite the prosecution’s constitutional duty under law to be fair in the criminal process including at the Grand Jury phase, neither defendant’s reliance defense evidence nor the renunciation defense evidence was submitted to the grand jurors hearing the case. (def. cert.). Molinelli and the BCPO knew that the renunciation evidence and the reliance evidence effectively would cause a no bill from the grand jury so predictably the BCPO refrained from presenting such evidence. (Def. cert., Exs. 9-10).
Such acts or omissions committed by the BCPO at the Grand Jury are the subject of a separate motion to dismiss the indictment which will be filed under separate cover after the present motion herein is decided on the merits.
Defendant was later in 2011 charged with criminal offenses. (Ex. 1). The charges were of a fourth degree nature falsely alleging that defendant was not truthful when he stated his inner motivation for why he retired from Haworth. The charges proceeded to the superior courts and defendant was forced to retain and pay private defense counsel to defend the criminal charge. The charges were baseless and were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: namely, to scare defendant into fearing that he would face prison time. The design was to force defendant to sign an agreement promising to relinquish his right to ever be a law enforcement official ever again. Defendant was told by BCPO that if he did not sign an agreement to relinquish his ability to ever be a law enforcement officer again, he would be indicted regarding the 2004 incident. Plaintiff never was indicted and the statute of limitations expired on the 2004 incident by the end of 2011. Defendant did not sign any agreement.
On November 23, 2011 the criminal charges were all dismissed against defendant (Ex. 1).
Thereafter, defendant decided to once again seek a law enforcement position outside Molinelli’s
14 “backyard,” given that Molinelli had taken to harassing and abusing defendant like some member of organized crime establishing a boundary in a turf war. Defendant in late March-April of 2012 began the process of being considered again for employment as a police officer in a county other than Bergen
County. The Clifton Police Department (CPD) actively pursued defendant as a prospect to be employed as a full time police officer. (Def. cert.). During the interview/application process defendant painstakingly took extra time to advise and inform CPD fully of what had occurred in Haworth and in Waldwick in
2004 and 2011 respectively. (Ex. 1 and def. cert.). At some point during the week of 4/16/12 or after that time defendant had gone through the formal interview process with Chief Messner, a lieutenant, and the borough administrator. Defendant also interviewed with Lieutenant Kelly, Detective McDermott, and
Detective Ruiz of CPD.
In all these interview sessions defendant made abundantly clear to CPD officials unequivocally what his status as to his resignation from Haworth PD (HPD) in 2004. As defendant had done in the past with Waldwick, the BCSD and now with CPD he forwarded over what PPD had determined when this entity hired defendant in 2007 (see Exs. 1 & 4 and def. cert.). Defendant also fully apprized CPD of
Waldwick PD being required by the BCPO to forward over defendant’s dossier and his police application to Waldwick and he told CPD about the arrest and dismissed charge from the BCPO in 2011. (see Exs. 1
& 4 and def. cert.).
On 4/18/12 (Ex. 1) the CPD conditionally offered defendant a position as a police officer with
CPD. Moreover, defendant had the positive recommendations and support of non BCPO law enforcement officials in his endeavors to be reemployed at PPD, CPD, BCSD, and with Waldwick PD (WPD).
Molinelli and other designees and agents from the BCPO then took aim to sabotage defendant’s new conditionally accepted employment at CPD. These persons led a rampage against Chief Campbell in retaliation for him positively supporting defendant’s attempts to be re-employed as a police officer.
15 Molinelli orchestrating all events from on top as the principal wrongdoer and law violator stepped up his unlawful attempts and tortious attempts to sabotage defendant’s career in law enforcement. This time
Molinelli and his designees continuing along the path of the deviance trail unconscionably utilized various multi tiered methods in order to sabotage defendant’s law enforcement career. (see Ex. 1 & def. cert.). Molinelli spearheaded an internal affairs set of cases against Chief Campbell for any positive recommendations he offered for defendant to law enforcement authorities considering defendant’s application to be hired. Chief Campbell was then punished under the direction of the BCPO strictly to attempt to deter him from supporting these endeavors of defendant. (see Ex. 1 & def. cert.). Second,
Molinelli, took it upon himself to speak with Chief Giardina from CPD. A reliable source informed defendant that Molinelli was quoted as saying that CPD could not hire defendant despite CPD officials bravely standing up to Molinelli and stating words to the effect that they know about the BCPO activities with respect to 2004, Haworth and now Waldwick—that the applicant/defendant fully advised them of these matters and they were hiring defendant whether Molinelli liked it or not. Molinelli denigrated defendant in making multiple negative off the cuff comments and he never responded to the fact that PPD had reported in 2007 that defendant was clear to be employed as per the BCPO. (Id.).
The reliable source further told defendant that as Molinelli continued on the speaker phone ranting and raving unsuccessfully to stop CPD from hiring defendant, Molinelli was quoted as saying he knew his acts or words would cause him “…to get sued on this one…” he did not care and he continued to berate CPD about their decision to hire defendant. (Ibid.). Molinelli along with other designees and/or agents then moved to a heightened level of maliciousness to ruin defendant’s hiring at CPD. CPD was requested than ordered by BCPO to release defendant’s application for employment at CPD. Molinelli’s intent was to embroil CPD in the controversy as they had done in Waldwick as a means of getting CPD to back down from their decision to hire defendant. CPD rebuffed this attempt after 4/18/12, and this
16 according to defendant then led to a subpoena or other mechanism to cause CPD to have to release the police application by defendant to BCPO. (Ibid.). The application was released and there was nothing in it to attack as being criminal in nature.
Molinelli then forced CPD officials to come to the BCPO where BCPO created a file against defendant designed to derail defendant’s employment offer at CPD. (Ibid.). Despite Molinelli’s best efforts to ruin defendant’s employment bid at CPD, CPD clung to their position that defendant was to be a member of their police department.
Despite this fact, Molinelli refused to acquiesce to CPD’s decision to hire defendant. Molinelli using his considerable political influences and contacts which were massaged and nurtured over the years by Molinelli (using his pay to play mentality-(Ex. 5) was reported as going behind the scenes to Clifton’s
City Attorney and reaching him (Mathew Priore, Esq.) or his designees/associates/other City personnel/managers/officials personally or through intermediaries and other third persons in their bid to sabotage defendant’s employment offer with CPD. (Ex. 1, 5, and def. cert.). This tortious and unlawful act led to defendant being denied employment with CPD despite the best efforts of top law enforcement personnel at CPD that fought for defendant to be hired in 4/12. (Id.).
In another act to permanently deter defendant from seeking a law enforcement position,
Molinelli using the awesome power of his office (BCPO) stooped to the unconscionable low level of trying to hurt defendant emotionally and personally by now putting defendant’s wife’s law enforcement career in jeopardy. This was an especially egregious act considering that the defendant and wife have only one source of income (defendant unemployed due to Molinelli and defendants) and they are parents of young children struggling to get by financially. Defendant’s wife Heather Castronova is a police officer in Washington Township. On or about 5/12/12 defendant’s wife was forced to hire PBA counsel when she was formally questioned by the BCPO (designees/agents of defendants) regarding defendant’s
17 filing of application/s to be a law enforcement officer. This outrageous act was simply done by to send a message to defendant that if he persists in taking on Molinelli in his “backyard) by trying to become employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer, it could also jeopardize his wife’s law enforcement career too. (Ibid). Note that the tape of that interview/interrogation of defendant’s wife is in the possession of the BCPO. (Ex. 1). Molinelli recognized that defendant’s wife, and ultimately the PPD would be supportive of defendant being re-employed by PPD, and he knew or reasonably believed defendant had left his name on the list of potential rehires at PPD. Furthermore, Molinelli knew or reasonably believed defendant and his supporters in law enforcement would not cease in assisting defendant. (Id.).
These events were compounded for the worse considering that Molinelli had already repeatedly acted to tarnish and blemish Chief Campbell’s service file with IA charges that were retaliatory in nature, and despite the fact that Campbell was innocent of the charges made against him by Molinelli, the BCPO, and/or their agents/designees. When Molinelli learned that PPD was planning or attempting to rehire previously laid off employees and this pool of persons included defendant. (Def. Cert and Ex. 1), this caused him to indict defendant. To make matters worse, Molinelli committed an abuse of due process and an abuse of process by indicting defendant on new charges regarding the BCSD application without ever submitting the charges with proper notice using conventional screening, arrest, processing, service of a green sheet accusation first in accordance with law so as to not allow defendant to invoke any rights or defenses pre-indictment.
Molinelli then acted to use the criminal justice process as a means or device to sabotage defendant’s future endeavors to be employed as a law enforcement officer. On or about 6/8/12 (Ex.1) the
BCPO indicted defendant for false swearing in the fourth degree and for disorderly persons offenses in acts that led defendant to assert via a Notice of Claim against the County of Bergen, Molinelli and the
18 BCPO (7/12) potential claims for Sec. 1983 violations, tortious interference, selective, wrongful, and
malicious prosecution. (Ex. 1).
This has caused defendant to once again retain private criminal defense counsel to defend the
charges in superior court. On or about 6/25/12 and thereafter defendant was contacted by PPD to be
reemployed. PPD indicated defendant was on the list and his number had been reached to be rehired or
reemployed. However, PPD indicated defendant was not to be rehired or reemployed strictly and solely
because he was under indictment. Otherwise, defendant would be back on the PPD force today.
Presently, on the previously dismissed charges, defendant was arraigned in superior court on
7/16/12, and is awaiting a new court date.
APPLICABLE LAW
When the defense files motions that impact or address difficult or unpleasant issues it matters not. The rules, the constitution, and the applicable law and any exceptions should be conscientiously applied to the unique circumstances of each case with due respect for both the rule and any exception. State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565,589, 601 A.2d 198. “[W]hen meritorious issues are raised that require analysis and explanation, our traditions of comprehensive justice will best be served by decisions that reflect thoughtful and thorough consideration and disposition of substantive contentions.” State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451,477-78, 609 A.2d 1280 (1992).
the Criminal Justice Act, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-1, provides that when a County Prosecutor has a conflict of interest, the Attorney General may supersede the case and become the attorney of record. Accord N.J.S.A. 52:17B-107. State v. Harvey III, 176 N.J. 522, 532, 826 A.2d 597 (2003).
In any event, there is simply no doubt that County Prosecutor and Attorney General assignments, as well as, exercise of statutory discretion, are subject to court review if they raise any question of conflict of interest or the defendant's right to a fair and speedy trial. See State v. J.M., 182 N.J. 402,
19 866 A.2d 178 (2005); State v. Loyal, 164 N.J. 418, 439-40, 753 A.2d 1073 (2000); In re Petition for Review of Opinion No. 569 of the Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 103 N.J. 325, 511 A.2d
119 (1986); In re Advisory Opinion on Prof'l Ethics No. 361,77 N.J. 199, 390 A.2d 118 (1978);
State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 381, 375 A.2d 607 (1977). See also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434,
443-44, 690 A.2d 594 (1997)); State v. Kirk, 145 N.J. 159, 174, 678 A.2d 233 (1996); State v.
Vasquez, 129 N.J. 189, 195-97, 609 A.2d 29 (1992).
When fundamental fairness is trampled upon by the prosecution concerning the accused’s right to equal protection under the law, due process, and as to a fair trial, courts will not hesitate to invoke their discretionary powers in order to ensure that the defendant is constitutionally protected; even if it means taking draconian remedies to vindicate the defendant’s rights. State v. Baker, 310
N.J. Super. 128, 138 (App. Div. 1998); see State v. Silvo, 341 N.J. 302 (Law Div. 2000)
[prosecutorial misconduct at grand jury led to dismissal of indictment]; and see State v. Carter, 91
N.J. 86, 113-114 (1982); see also State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1 (1991); see also State v. Macon, 57
N.J. 325, 335 (1971); see also generally Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299 (3d Cir. 1987); and see
State v. Parsons, 341 N.J. Super. 448, 458-459 (App. Div. 2001), [interests of justice required new trial and withdrawal of guilty plea after defense discovered prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence bearing on reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt]; and see Giglio v. United States, 405
U.S. 150 (1972); State v. Jones, 308 N.J. Super. 15, 41-43 (App. Div. 1998)]; also see State v.
Walker, 33 N.J. 580 (1960).
Where the wrongful and unconscionable conduct of the prosecution or law enforcement has violated the rights of the individual defendant and of the criminal justice system as a whole, fundamental fairness “…demands an appropriate remedy adequate to vindicate the resultant perversion of the judicial process as well as defendant’s resultant prejudice.” State v. Sugar, 84
20 N.J. 1, 15 (1980). To let the misconduct go unpunished “…would erode public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the judicial process.” Id. at 15. If the grievous harm caused cannot be cured by lesser sanctions a dismissal of the indictment may be warranted. State v. Peterkin, 226
N.J. Super. 25, 38-39 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 114 N.J. 295 (1998); and see Moore v. Morton,
255 F.3d 93 (3rd Cir. 2001). See also State v. Ballard, 331 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2000)
[racially based drug courier profiling], Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 693, 696 (2004), [court would not invoke procedural bar on newly discovered that Brady violations when prosecution invokes a hide and seek discovery practice].
As cases such as State v. Velez, 329 N.J. Super. 128, 137 (App. Div. 2000) have embraced as black letter law, the integrity of the criminal justice system is ill-served by allowing a conviction to stand that is contrary to basic fundamental constitutional rights. This includes in the list convictions based on evidence that is false, unproven or unreliable. State v. Gookins, 135 N.J.
42, 48-51, 637 A. 2d 1255 (1994);” see also State v. Parsons, 341 N.J. Super. 448, 458-459 (App.
Div. 2001), State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 335 (1971); see also generally Carter v. Rafferty, 826
F.2d 1299 (3d Cir. 1987); and see State v. Jones, 308 N.J. Super. 15, 41-43 (App. Div. 1998)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988).
If bad faith is established the court must delve into whether the prejudice caused by such bad faith has played a significant role in the process and fashion the appropriate remedy.
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488 (1984). This type of weighing test that is required for evaluating instances of prosecutorial misconduct is common place jurisprudence. For example with respect to destruction of evidence cases, the Court may be required to dismiss the indictment .
State v. Lewis, 137 N.J. Super. 167, 172 (Law Div. 1975), State v. Laganella, 144 N.J. Super. 268,
282-283 (App. Div. 1976), State v. Hunt, 184 N.J. Super. 304, 306-309 (Law Div. 1981), State v.
21 Montijo, supra at 491-493. Alternatively, in certain circumstances, the court if appropriate can fashion a remedy less draconian than a dismissal of the case. Arizona v. Youngblood, supra at 54,
59-60[ court gave Klawans like charge that jury could reach inference that destroyed evidence would have yielded test results against State’s interest]; see also State v. Zenquis, 251 N.J. Super.
358, 370 (App. Div. 1991) [court instructed jury that it could draw negative inference as to destroyed notes regarding witness credibility]; and see State v. Peterkin, 226 N.J. Super. 25, 37-39,
41-42 (App. Div. 1988) [trial court suppressed pre trial out of court photo array that was destroyed accidentally. Appellate court remanded matter for further hearings as to taint on in court identifications].
In our case, the only remedy is to disqualify the entire prosecutor’s office and to
change the venue. No curative instruction will suffice. Molinelli is a witness in the case,
and his credibility must be evaluated. Asking local jurors in his home county to make a
finding that he is acting with personal avarice, is acting in contravention of law, and is
untruthful is asking too much of any reasonable person residing in a location where
Molinelli could seek retribution and institute retaliation of any kind against potential
juror. No defendant should have to climb a slope that steep in a trial where he is entitled a
jury of his peers. Moreover, any juror has pocketbook issues. A pending lawsuit will
automatically make a juror believe that the county may be civilly responsible for money
damages raising peoples’ taxes if defendant was acquitted at trial.
Courts have consistently held that the proceedings must be fair and must be
objectively reasonable." State v. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34, 38, 43, 987 A.2d 567 (2010)
(quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 279, 690 A.2d 1), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850, 118
S. Ct. 140, 139 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1997). The test is whether a reasonable, fully informed
22 person would have doubts about the impartiality of the process. Id. at 44; see State v.
Kettles, 345 N.J. Super. 466, 471, 785 A.2d 925 (App. Div. 2001), The key concept is to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, which in turn depends on a belief in the impartiality of the decision making. United States v. Nobel, 696 F.2d
231, 235 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1118, 103 S. Ct. 3086, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1348
(1983)). "The rule recognizes that the fairness and integrity of the judgment is as important as the correctness of the judgment." Kettles, supra, at 470.
In the criminal arena the key axiom is that there is “[t]he heightened responsibilities of prosecutors include faithful adherence to all . . . protections accorded defendants[.]" State v. Carreker, 172 N.J. 100, 115, 796 A.2d 847 (2002). "'Because of the overwhelming power vested in his office, [a prosecutor's] obligation to play fair is every bit as compelling as his responsibility to protect the public.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Torres, 328 N.J. Super. 77, 94, 744 A.2d 699 (App.Div.2000)); see also RPC 3.8 (outlining special responsibilities of prosecutors).
An honest and reasonable evaluation of an actual or apparent conflict, or of an appearance of impropriety, "does not take place 'in a vacuum,' but is, instead, highly fact specific." In re Opinion 653, 132 N.J. 124, 132, 623 A.2d 241 (1993) (quoting In re
Opinion 415, 81 N.J. 318, 325, 407 A.2d 1197 (1979)). In that respect, the Court's attention "is directed to 'something more than a fanciful possibility.'" Ibid. (quoting
Higgins v. Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, 73 N.J. 123, 129, 373 A.2d 372 (1977)). To warrant disqualification, the asserted conflict "must have some reasonable basis." Ibid.
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
23 It is conceded that it may not be enough to disqualify a prosecutor’s office when that office is accused of violating constitutional rights State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 176-
77, 586 A.2d 85 (1991) (Marshall I), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S. Ct. 1306, 122 L.
Ed. 2d 694 (1993). In Marshall I, the trial court stated and the New Jersey Supreme Court embraced this passage: "[i]t's not a situation that seems to call for a disqualification of the
Prosecutor. It's not a situation in which the Prosecutor has this type of nefarious interest such as . . . [a] personal financial stake in the outcome of the case or something of that nature. I suppose in a sense you could always argue the Prosecutor has an interest in the outcome of any case, but this [Marshall] is not that type of situation in which the
Prosecutor has that type of interest." [Id. at 176, 690 A.2d 1.] .
In Marshall I, the capital case PCR hinged on Brady allegations and prosecutorial misconduct allegations related to the guilt and penalty phases of the case. The Court drew a line in the sand and made clear that there is a special class of cases deserving of disqualifying an entire prosecutor’s office (BCPO). It is our type of case. Molinelli has a nefarious interest; a financial stake in the outcome, personal vendettas, biased motives, and other interests of that type discussed in Marshall I which effectively bar his office being a participant in this litigation from this point forward.
With regard to the secondary request to change the venue, N.J.C.Rule 3:14-2, as stated in this brief above, the impartiality of any local jury will be unnecessarily severely tested to the point that defendant could not receive a fair trial. The jury will become too aroused in a local setting impugning upon the sanctity of judicial process and leading to an automatic question of the integrity of any adverse verdict from a local petit jury. See
State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 475, 477 (2002), State v. Wise, 19 N.J. 59, 73 (1955).
24 In this case the bonafide allegation is that the county prosecutor is acting under color of authority for an improper or unlawful purpose. He has a vendetta against defendant and/or against his former employers in Haworth, New Jersey. He has abused his power, made up facts, ignored his responsibility to fairly present charges against the grand jury, tortiously interfered with defendant’s prospective employment over an eight year period, and is now the subject of a Notice of Claim where a lawsuit is set to be filed against the prosecutor, his office, and against the County of Bergen.
Molinelli has subjectively interpreted for his own device defendant’s employment applications to two prospective employers and he considers them worthy of a criminal charge. The fact that it has no basis in fact or law is irrelevant to Molinelli. Molinelli is the one who should be prosecuted himself for numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The fact that Molinelli never took action or objected to identical employment applications from defendant to other agencies caused reliance which makes this indicted case fatal at the inception point. The fact that defendant renounced his BCSD application makes that set of charges as mooted and those charges ultimately must be dismissed. Molinelli has dealt with these two defenses by ignoring them to the point that he refused to enter these defenses as he is required to under law when presenting the case to the grand jury. That is the subject of another motion but is relevant to show Molinelli’s acts of lawlessness and bad conduct in contravention of law. It also reveals his vindictive, avarice nature which has no place in enforcing the laws of New Jersey.
The worse part about this case is that it represents one of a long line of criminal acts committed by Molinelli over several years. Molinelli has a pattern of abusing his powers for personal gain and for working for or assisting or lending countenance to criminal elements due to the fact that he is engaged in befriending known criminals. We have the trip to Italy with known
25 felons who were being prosecuted. We have Molinelli running block for his Chief of Detectives who was not prosecuted for official misconduct despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
We have Molinelli tapping into the Zisa case keeping tabs when he was supposed to be walled off from that prosecution under Court Order. We also have Molinelli directing subordinates to lie about wiretaps in 2004 to a sitting judge causing further prosecutorial misconduct incidents as was stated in the statement of facts above infra.
However, we also have Molinelli being complicit in a conspiracy to do the unthinkable.
Namely, Molinelli forgot that he was the chief law enforcement officer for the County of Bergen and decided he would recklessly or knowingly offer aid to known member/s of organized crime in locating and identifying who was the informant in their unlawful business operations. The filed pleadings as exhibits from reputable sources including a former 44 year veteran OAG Investigator
(James Sweeney-now deceased) with unparalled credentials clearly shows for all to see that
Molinelli using the powers of his office conducted wiretaps on known organized crime targets for reasons other than prosecuting the guilty. Rather, Molinelli was working recklessly or knowingly for a different client/s other than the citizenry of Bergen County. He used those wiretaps to find out the identity of the informant putting organized crime in jeopardy of being brought down or he took advantage of the Lagano wiretaps for an unlawful purpose recklessly or knowingly once they became the fruits discovered in the organized crimes tapes (State v. Ates). The informant was identified as Frank Lagano. When Molinelli discovered that Lagano was the informant the OAG what did he do with this information? Did he maintain the informant’s confidentiality? Did he contact the OAG or Sweeney? No he did nothing of these acts that are required by law. (Exs. 2-3).
He did just the opposite. He recklessly or knowingly got Lagano murdered professional style by using the wiretaps to round up and arrest known member or associates of organized crime, and
26 then leaked to and/or directed his subordinates to do the unthinkable. Molinelli apparently allowed for or directed his subordinates to reveal that Lagano was the informant; that Lagano was a or the
“Stool Pigeon” according to the Lagano Estate’s filed federal civil rights complaint. This led to
Lagano’s murder, and to make matters worse, Molinelli’s now retired chief of detectives is the suspect in the murder. In fact, Molinelli should have prosecuted the chief of detectives for being a business relationship and personal relationship with Lagano which he obviously knew about since this would be an act of official misconduct in the second degree. Instead, my client is charged with false swearing and is made scapegoat while Molinelli goes free as the chief law enforcement officer of the county after committing what could be capital offenses, and/or serious first and second degree offenses.
The culmination of this is a wrecked and corrupt system where this prosecution must be cleansed and purged away from the lawlessness presented in the BCPO which starts at the top with
Molinelli. He has interfered tortiously in ruining the career of my client. He has harassed the client’s wife. He has torpedoed defendant’s job opportunities in four towns and has done so in his typical way. Molinelli threatens people and forced them to back down in hiring or retaining defendant. He is a bully who wants absolute power and absolute control over his vicinage and beyond, and he invites a lawsuit believing albeit correctly thus far….that he is above the law and is
Teflon and immune from prosecution. This has led to the filing of a Notice of Claim and inevitably a full blown lawsuit will be filed.
These facts make it impossible for Molinelli’s office to be a part of this case. The
Marshall case specifically held that cases where the prosecutor has a personal stake in the outcome of a matter or a nefarious interest in the case renders that office as being one that must be disqualified from the case. Molinelli is a witness in this case since he personally was involved in
27 these applications fork employment and is on emails and other electronic traffic. His office will be sued as well as himself and the County of Bergen making it impossible for the BCPO to remain in any way on the case. Moreover, no jury in Bergen County can hear this case since the jury will be concerned that an acquittal could cause a civil verdict for damages against the county making jurors also conflicted as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the venue must be changed and the entire BCPO must be disqualified. the proceedings were unfair must be objectively reasonable."
Respectfully Submitted:
______By: (S) ERIC KLEINER, ESQ. ERIC KLEINER, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT ANTHONY CASTRONOVA DATED: NOVEMBER 7, 2012
28