1 I. INTRODUCTION Defendant's Motion Is to Disqualify The

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.

Load more