Arson and Corruption Covered Up By Long Branch.
Arson and Corruption Covered Up:
Upon discovering the illegal zoning permit the end of September, Plaintiff also circulated a petition and talked with similarly concerned neighbors, and environmental groups and otherwise informed the public. Immediately thereafter, this website was hacked, and obscene and intimidating messages left. Similar voice mail messages followed with stones thereafter being thrown at the author on several occasions and his vehicle being damaged by the owner and employees of Rosario- Mazza. (the police took over one hour to respond and falsified this in the police report)
Plaintiff served a letter on Hayes and Bernich, the zoning officer under his supervision, about the worsening state of affairs with Rosario and companies, and threatening legal action and that official misconduct charges would be sought.
On January 12, 2010 an arson occurred consuming the FairTrial van and another vehicle containing construction equipment and damaged a wall of the building against which they were parked. (see photos) No mention was made of this in the local media which readily covers shoplifting, stray cats and other such events.
Plaintiff thereafter obtains an unsigned copy of a certificate of occupancy being issued to “Atlantic Paving and Misc Contractors” dated 1/19/10 and a mercantile license application for same. Plaintiff subsequently discovers in L-4039-11 and confirms that a signed CO was issued 1/19/10 and that a mercantile license had issued 8/4/09 to “Atlantic Paving & Misc. Contractors” The mercantile application confirms multiple businesses are unlawfully being covered on a single permit whereas Long Branch contends in L-4039-11 that is just the name of the one company.
Plaintiff presented these facts including the arson to the City Council on Jan.26, 2010 and Feb. 23, 2010 . The city attorney had a notice of violation issued 1/27/10 by Mr. Hayes, the Director of Building & Development with supervision over code, building and planning and zoning (also serves as Fire Marshal) to Atlantic Paving to remove the demolition company and any stockpiled equipment and materials. A re-inspection was scheduled for 2/26/10 with a summons to be issued if unabated. Hayes claims the violations were abated yet these other companies and the stockpiling continue to this day (see photos) He admits in his L-4039-11 deposition he has no proof as coincidentally, “photos are only taken of violations – not abatement.”
Mr. Hayes receives a complaint letter a week before the arson, and as fire marshal with responsibility over arsons gives a CO to a potential arson suspect a week after the arson then issues a notice of violation to remove the business one week later. Does anything seem wrong with this picture? Atlantic Paving has been in municipal court (SC 2013-028787) 18 months since 3/19/13 for exceeding the zoning permit and uses as its defense the illegal CO and mercantile license as evidence the other companies are permitted. Judge George Cieri, the regular municipal judge, first dragged it out until December than decided to turn it over to a conflicts judge.
Judge Cieri: Judge Cieri, whose office is around the corner and directly across stream from E&L’s garage, and whose rear lot is proximate to where E&L used to stockpile dirt, also served/serves as Ed Bruno/E&L’s attorney. In fact he is shown as such in a permanent restraining order brought by Long Branch and filed Jan. 8th 1986 which prohibits E&L from stockpiling dirt on that lot. As attorney, he more recently prepared a deed dated Nov. 21, 2001 for E&L to sell the same lot 40 though forgetting prior subdivision approval is required. (He was formerly planning board attorney and subdivisions are done by the planning board) The assessor considered the sale invalid As municipal judge, he also heard Bruno/E&L’s zoning code violations.(witnessed by the Plaintiff) and did find guilt though together with Long Branch failed to reign in/abate the expanded use pending site plan approval. In a compliant which the author brought in 2005 for trespassing and dumping of 300 tires on his property, the judge employed a harsh tone and sought to humiliate and treat the victim as perpetrator. Complainant was denied an impartial prosecutor (the regular prosecutor told complainant “I already got my justice out of defendant” in other related matters), the alternate would not be assigned, and complainant had to prosecute on his own. The court, together with Chief code official Hayes prevented complainant from calling or questioning certain police and code enforcement personnel who were witnesses to the trespassing and listed on police reports, instead having them give written statements to the public defender claiming they had not actually seen defendant at the scene. This followed the line adopted by Mr. Hayes under oath though an officer later identified him as #2530 and the report says “…Smith was given seven days by #2530 to remove the tires” The court also stopped the pro-se complainant from reading from his trial notes, and denied complainant’s request for another copy of the officers’ statements given to public defender (complainant’s copy had suddenly disappeared along with the police reports) . When one of the officers, finally appeared for the trespass complaint, (one police officer was said to have pneumonia in April, another suddenly “retired” after giving his statement to the public defender and was seen 3 weeks later in uniform giving a parking ticket) and complainant asked to see the documents previously submitted to be exhibits, (photos and police reports), the judge maintained there are no exhibits. Complainant prevailed on the dumping, defendant found not guilty for trespassing and full restitution was ordered but only partially recovered. This information was given to the Monmouth prosecutor which found only that no officer had committed a crime against complainant. They apparently do not consider conspiracy, perjury, witness tampering and other offenses to be crimes.
Schneider Administration Fails to Conduct an Honest Review:
Following Plaintiff’s 2/22/10 letter and appearance before council, alleging an unlawful use being created and expanded, the city attorney conducts an administrative review together with zoning officer Bernich, Asst. Planning Director Turner, their boss, Kevin Hayes and administrator Woolley. The 2/22/10 letter included the history of E&L lots and Ordinance 235, which required a CO for any new use at the time when E&L began its use and relevant tax maps & info., but was ignored. Instead the City Attorney refuses to rescind the permit and states a CO was not required and the permit is totally appropriate and instead targets and hints at retaliation against the Plaintiff who has already obtained permits following two administrative reviews, (including site plan approval), in effect at the time. The Plaintiff’s permits have previously never been an issue. The attorney’s arbitrary and capricious claim is evident particularly by the statement “The fact that zoning permits are issued does not cure the fact that site plan approval was and still is necessary” (for the Plaintiff but not for E&L?!)
In fact, the administration violates the conscientious employees protection act (CEPA) daily, as confirmed by the clerks who issued the dirty permits that they were unaware of any required postings or anything in that regard. The administration pressures employees to commit irregular and ultra vires acts, and thereafter retains them and so certainly does not want conscientious employees.
City Attorney Conflicts of Interest Ignored
The administrations biggest political supporter, James F Mazza, who is co-owner of Mazza Recycling in Tinton Falls with brother Dominick, and holds fundraisers at his home in Long Branch according to public records, is the uncle of Saverio Victor Mazza, jr. of Defendant Rosario Mazza demolition, the biggest cause of the nuisance. Since learning of Plaintiff’s knowledge of the connections thru litigation, Victor Mazza, jr. now has his own business called S. Mazza Services in Allentown, NJ. and Joe Rosario’s company is called Rosario Demolition. (see photos) A Vincent Mazza was mayor in 1965-1966 when E&L Paving unilaterally created their unlawful use. The city attorney and firm also represents James and Dominick Mazza and their Company Mazza & Sons in state and federal proceedings during Plaintiff’s prerogative writ and current matter. Other conflicts are believed to exist.
The allegations of conflict of interest were brought to the council’s attention 11/23/10 by reading and serving a written statement. The meetings for November are not found on the Long Branch website on 3/11/11 though all other minutes before and after appear. Minutes are normally posted to the website within 1-14 days. The minutes are finally posted 8/24/11 after Plaintiff’s mentioning it to the city clerk on 8/15/11 while picking up an OPRA request. The minutes, nevertheless, fail to mention the allegations of the conflicts of interest brought to the council’s attention by Plaintiff.
Zoning Board Corruption:
The “smoking gun” evidence of Long Branch’s long term planned effort to help the developer evade the zoning, land use and environmental laws has also involved the zoning board.
The special relationship with the developer is evident as its zoning board (2004), using a neighbor’s application, ZB-03-12, includes subdivisions and consolidations and bulk variances thereto of lots owned by E&L. Paving.and having nothing to do with that application. (See Appeal Record Excerpts, page 16 “Resolution”
The deceptive public notice disguises the fact that some of the lots are owned by E&L as there was public opposition in E&L’s own applications. No public opposition therefore appeared.
No minutes exist for the first hearing on 9/8/03, only handwritten notes whose author the board attorney and chairperson would not identify. The chairperson, and board attorney (whose office is located directly across the street from the E&L property), previously recused themselves in front of the board and public in E&L’s own site plan application ZB-00-06 on Nov. 13, 2000 (minutes initially missing, then found & voting sheet not showing recusal) which E&L never completed. Chairperson Janeczek was exceedingly friendly toward defendant/applicant during intermission of the 9/11/00 hearing so Plaintiff and neighbors sent a letter to the board attorney seeking recusal (see appeal record excerpts, page 14) which the attorney testified was then forward to the board secretary but which the Chairperson now claims not to have seen. The chairperson’s father happened to own Plaintiff’s property and was neighbor to Bruno/E&L. E&L’s subsequent plan ZB02-08 seeking use and other variances was filed in 2002 and was withdrawn on 8/27/07, during which time E&L’s use continued as usual and it was granted bulk variances and consolidations on 1/24/04 thru someone else’s application.
E&L Zoning File
The missing minutes for the August 12 and October 28, 2002 initial hearings of ZB02-08 before this board and missing minutes of the Sept. 8, 2003 initial Seashore Daycamp hearing primarily benefit board attorney Mr. Irene and chairperson Janeczek by attempting to hide their prior recusals
The authenticity of the Nov. 13, 2000 minutes are in question, as are at least one of its voting sheets. No original transcribed records were found for ZB 00-06, ZB 02-08 or ZB 03-12 and NJDARM (Division of Archived Records Management) has given no approval to Long Branch or its zoning board of adjustment to destroy either personal notes or zoning or planning board records during 2000-2004.
The allowance for 5 years of E&L’s application knowing he was in violation and other aforementioned facts is part of the conspiracy to enable Bruno/E&L to expand and pass on the use without his own prior site plan approval, and cover this up.
Arson “Investigation” Corrupted
The arson, though occurring at night was caught on video. No report of the arson was made to the media or FBI, which requires reporting of arsons. The arson investigator was also originally assigned to the criminal investigation to apprehend those involved in the arson. Upon first meeting the detective at Plaintiff’s office where he took photos, he referred to Joe Rosario as “junior” Rosario and it was obvious that the 2 already knew each other. He also stated he would use all resources to get the arsonists. Within a few days he was given videos of the arson, a log of Plaintiff’s review of the video clips, and offers of photos of defendant’s and their employee’s vehicles. He mentioned he was awaiting a subpeona from the prosecutor as he was suspicious of the person in the pickup truck who fortunately came by and reported the arson. He briefly talked to Rosario and Greico of Atlantic Paving who denied any knowledge. Except for one other chance meeting in the LBPD parking lot, Plaintiff never again heard from the detective. The prime suspects continued to operate and cause harm to Plaintiff. As Plaintiff later learned upon receiving the “investigation” report, the driver was identified and stated as he approached the scene, he saw a car containing 2 individuals proceeding in the opposite direction with lights off. The detective told him if he remembered anything else to get in touch with him. This was the extent of the “investigation” The prosecutor said they were never contacted by LBPD to assist them in apprehension of suspects. The investigation also did not go anywhere due to corruption on the part of the detective. On 7/29/10 Rosario makes new veiled arson threats just as Plaintiff’s contractors were making repairs to the building from the first arson, and puts fire extinguishers and torches in the street opposite Plaintiff as reminder. Plaintiff calls and emails the detective on 8/3/10 to bring his camera and see new evidence. Rosario’s sister comes out of office and has employees remove evidence within 15 minutes thereafter (video) affirming/confirming the corruption as prime reason for no serious investigation or arrests. (see photos)
Civil Action Instituted:
By April 30, 2010 matters had escalated to the point that Rosario came speeding down the street and tried to run Plaintiff over while he was taking photos. The narrow street was clogged by vehicles, and parking lot and driveway entrances were intentionally being blocked by Rosario-Mazza and Atlantic Paving. The moving of scrap metal and demolition waste was intolerable. Plaintiff filed a prerogative writ matter seeking an injunction:
1) rescinding the illegal zoning permit as it bypasses the site plan process and is therefore unauthorized 2) seeking proper enforcement (not another charade) of a notice of violation to initially remove all but the businesses listed on the zoning permit (E&L and Atlantic Paving) 3) seeking enforcement of no parking zones around the parking & driveway entrances as showing and approved on Plaintiff’s site plan on 9/16/03.
See MON L-2153-10 and Appeal thereto on homepage under “Case(s) for Reform”
See MON L-4039-11 opposite – the current action with 10/3/14 hearing date (10:00 AM). Within 9 days of filing this complaint, Long Branch thru its police committed one its most shocking civil rights violations. .