Police Organization cite Prosecutors use Domestic violence
laws as tools of oppression against innocent Officers.

(2nd of a series)

A non profit Police Organization and consulting firm, known as the National/New Jersey Police Solidarity Coalition Inc. which specialize and assist active and retired Law Enforcement Officers charged with domestic violence under false pretenses recently cited :When a Law Enforcement Officer secures an order of protection (restraining order) for themselves, they are summarily ostracized, denigrated, humiliated and rebuked by Prosecutor Officials for utilizing the law in which they are statutorily bound.
The firm cited Prosecutor Officials do not follow procedures promulgated within the domestic violence statutes when officers are victims. They flagrantly subjugate the rules of law. Example: pursuant to a provision within the N.J. Criminal Statutes and codes which provides protection to all victims of domestic violence, it specifically cite:
“ No victim shall be denied relief or arrested or charged under this act with an offense because the victim used reasonable force in self defense against domestic violence by an attacker.” The defense said officers utilized was obtaining and order of protection against their attacker and were themselves summarily penalized by Prosecution Officials for following the rules of law. It should be noted Prosecutor Officials initiate this action upon receiving a counter signed frivolous complaint for retribution by the offender.

The N.J. Domestic statutes mandate: prior to issuance of a restraining order the following protocol should be adhered to : (1) A preliminary or exploratory investigation must be conducted upon receipt of a complaint of domestic violence(2) ascertain if victim exhibits any signs of injury sustained by an act of domestic violence. (3) Does probable cause exist? (4) If and is a warrant in effect or was it violated by the offender? (5) If any weapons were involved or used? (6) If an act of domestic violence actually transpired? (7) If a restraining order is needed ? or (8) Was their intent?

During our review of all Prosecutor personnel policy an investigation procedures within the complaints submitted against the accused Officers. We observed none of the aforementioned criteria was ever utilized, instituted ,exhibited or followed pursuant to the relevant statutes. Upon further examination we observed the complaints signed against the Officers were bogus, misplaced, without merit, void of any sustainable evidence in which an act of domestic violence could be applicable or actionable pursuant to the relevant statutes. We further observed all complaints signed against the Officers by their adversaries prior to hearing date were eventually dropped, dismissed, recanted or some failed to appear to avoid embarrassment as no sustainable facts of their allegations could be produce by themselves or prosecutor officials.

Example: Recently several law enforcement officers returning from their active tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan were served with restraining orders. One individual served as an ordinance and weapons training officer and the others infantry, demolition or enlisted men. All individuals upon reporting to their respective law enforcement divisions were welcomed back with orders of restraint, disarmed and are now placed on modified duty. What’s perplexing is these individuals placed their lives on the line thousand of miles away in a foreign land to protect the ideals, freedom and liberties of this country.

What’s disturbing and repugnant is upon these individuals return, they’re stripped of the very same liberties and ideals they swore to defend protect and uphold protected by the U.S. Constitution predicated upon fabricated lies of revenge and retribution. These officers are devastated and shocked as there tours required them to serve for several years. What they cannot understand is how could they be a threat to anyone when they are thousand of miles away just trying to stay a live? “ This is insulting and unbelievable complained one affected officer, we’re all innocent”. The restraining orders were issued prior to their arrivals and signed by jilted lover’s, cohabitants and spouses who have entered new relationships or wanted out of relationships.

As cited before, the present domestic violence legislation is utilized by individuals versed in the mechanics of securing said orders, wield it as a sword of mass destruction for retribution, child support and leverage in matrimonial matters. Examining these matters collectively ,our legal and investigative teams concluded, Prosecutors Officials are deficient of experience when investigating domestic issues. As purveyors of law their expertise to investigate attach or identify any violations within domestic complaints are limited. Prosecutor Officials read the language of the domestic violence statutes but are ignorant to it’s legislative intent. What’s disgusting is the Legislators, Politicians, Courts, Attorney General and Prosecutor officials all are aware of this abuse and none of them have done anything to stop, prohibit, thwart or discourage this practice.

In the matter of prosecutor officials obtaining orders of forfeiture for possession of law enforcement officers personal weapons when involved in domestic situations. We investigated complaints by the officers regarding said procedure utilized by prosecutor officials. The officers complained and questioned “ When all complaints have been dismissed or adjudicated during court proceeding and no acts of domestic violence could be proven or sustained, why have they not been rearmed, or their personal weapons have not been returned for such excessive periods of time”?. Armed with the aforementioned facts we summarized the Officers were being arbitrarily penalized for obtaining a restraining order for their own protection before their adversaries. We further reasoned they were being summarily punished on the strength of counter complaints signed by their offenders. However case law mandates in the matter of State of N.J. v. Warrick :
“ A weapons forfeiture action may not proceed if the domestic violence complaint upon which the motion is drawn has been dismissed”.

The aforementioned law is applicable to the officers and synonymous with their situations as all motions upon which the complaints by their adversaries were dismissed favorably to them. Observing this we conclude, all complaints were dismissed by the Courts, all officers were exonerated and the forfeiture process could not transpire as the complaint in which the prosecutor officials motion was predicated had been dismissed.
However in all cases we observed prosecutor officials proceeded anyway implementing fraudulent affidavits to the Courts for seizure of weapons, while culpable and with total disregard of the aforementioned law and officers rights. Subsequent to our investigation regarding such seizures we observed numerous unlawful statutory violations were implemented against these officers by prosecutor officials.
One such flagrant act and unlawful practice utilized by a particular Prosecutor agency caught our attention, which had been reported to the Court of incident with documented evidence of official misconduct, perjury, and false swearing. Said Presiding Judge totally disregarded the complaint, refused to address, investigate or institute any corrective action. The violations the prosecutor agency incorporates and flagrantly practices is the utilization of a prewritten form letter, which also serves as an affidavit and search warrant. The form cites said named individual had been found guilty of an act of domestic violence and petitions the Court for an order of forfeiture to seize all weapons, while full aware the case had not come to trial. What we found disturbing is this particular agency applied for an order of forfeiture two weeks prior to the projected hearing date, citing said named individual on the request order had been found guilty of an act of domestic violence.

What’s perplexing and disturbing is, how could the prosecutor official possibly apply for an order where as the hearing date regarding said incident would not commence for another ten (10) days. What’s astounding is, upon commencement of the hearing, the Officer was found not guilty and exonerated of all charges?
It should be noted the procedure to obtain a search warrant or order of forfeiture must be accompanied by an affidavit citing probable cause, sworn oath or affirmation that the facts an circumstances within said application are true and must pass judicial scrutiny prior to issuance. If this is not done the order is no good on it’s face. Upon further examination our investigative and legal team observed the order was signed and authorized by a Superior Court Judge. The questions at issue are : How did it get pass the scrutiny of the authorizing Judge? Was the authorizing Judge aware of this violation before signing it? Did the authorizing Judge read the request thoroughly pursuant to statute? Was the authorizing Judge aware the case had not been heard? Was the authorizing judge aware the document she was signing was a form letter? Was the authorizing Judge in collusion with the prosecutor official?

Observing this impropriety our legal team investigated further and discovered several other individuals seeking our assistance were also in possession of the same pre written documents issued under similar circumstances within the same prosecutorial jurisdiction. It’s should be noted, prosecutor officials arbitrarily pick and choose any frivolous charge within the domestic statutes in which they feel would justify their actions of penalization against innocent officers charged under false pretenses pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act of 1991. Prosecutor Officials feel they have the authority to subjugate officers rights predicated upon the N.J. Attorney Generals Directive 2003-04 which mandates the procedure in which law enforcement personnel are to be handle in domestic situations.

They are under the distinct misconception their unlawful acts are covered under the shield of qualified immunity. It should be so noted the N.J. Criminal Statute cites: “qualified immunity is applicable to all but the mentally incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law." If prosecutorial officials act outside the scope of their official capacity, they are liable an not covered by the cloak of qualified immunity.

Example: One officer involved in a domestic situation complained he received a written mandate from a prosecutor official, in which he was ordered to make a clean break from his spouse and show proof of the divorce contingent upon his being rearmed and returned to active service. Here the prosecutor officials went beyond the scope of their office and are liable for suit. Prosecutor Officials do not encumber the statutory authority to perform marriages, nor order or grant divorces. Everyone has the right to be married. If any individual feels they have been unlawfully deprived of their liberties by any prosecutorial officials, you are entitled to seek compensatory damages as they are not immune from suit.


National/New Jersey Police Solidarity Coalition Inc.
P.O. Box 72
S. Orange, N.J. 07079
www.npscinc.bloggerspot.com

January 28, 2010

cc:
Associated Press
CNN
N.J. Voice
Star Ledger
News 12