Dereliction of duty

Our system of justice is based on the principle that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

When it comes to crimes committed by First Executive Assistant Prosecutor Frank Puccio those eyes are being averted.  The Office of the Attorney General is deliberately ignoring Frank Puccio's false statements in connection with a $10,000 contract.  Mr. Puccio's signed statement is evidence that cannot be explained away and is supposed to result in a criminal conviction.

When this false statement was exposed on the local news, the Bergen County Police Department opened an investigation.  Before they could act on that investigation the Office of Attorney General used it's authority to step in and take over the investigation. Without interviewing a single witness the Attorney General declared the matter closed.

It was the job of someone at the Office of Attorney General's to charge Frank Puccio and that person is derelict in his duty.

Citizens who learn of a crime committed by a public official have a civic duty and a legal right to bring a criminal charge against that official.  A citizen-signed complaint requires that a judge determine whether probable cause has been established.  Police officers and court personnel are empowered to make that determination without judicial oversight.

The judge's role in a citizen complaint is to ensure that the citizen has taken the same steps as a law enforcement officer would in finding that probable cause exists to believe a crime has occurred.

Reasonable steps by law enforcement include gathering evidence, reviewing video tape, interviewing witnesses and signing an affidavit.  If the citizen complainant has taken the same steps as a reasonable law enforcement officer then the judge must find probable cause.  This process is being modified in the County of Bergen when it comes to a complaint that I signed against Frank Puccio.

I gathered evidence that includes a signed false statement from Frank Puccio.  That false statement was used to extract $10,000 from the County Treasury.

I produced a videotape in which a witness unequivocally declares that the statements attributed to him by Mr. Puccio in that statement are false and wholly illogical.

I interviewed the witness and incorporated the content of that interview into an affidavit.

According to the United States Supreme Court an anonymous letter was sufficient probable cause to support a search warrant for a person's home under the "totality of circumstances" doctrine.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=462&invol=213

In that trial the defendants were never given an opportunity to confront the witness against them and their conviction was upheld.  In the case of Frank Puccio he will have every opportunity to cross examine the witness at trial.

Come Thursday April 30th at 09:00 I will be prepared to make a scholarly argument regarding probable cause and I will present substantial evidence demonstrating that Frank Puccio made a false statement in connection with a public bid.

The document itself is sitting out in the open, everyone involved knows the truth of what happened and the eyes of the legal community are fixed on this proceeding.

This showdown will forever stain the hands of those who aid and abet the immunization of Frank Puccio from the consequences of his crimes.  We are at a dangerous place in society when an outcome on these facts is an open question.