This web site demonstrates the complete and organized corruption of New Jersey state government that extends from the governor's office and the state supreme court to a small-town council; it is a story supported by provided facts that will never appear in New Jersey newspapers.
The following story demonstrates not only the complete corruption of New Jersey courts, but it also demonstrates the blatant violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding free speech.....
and it also demonstrates the frightening violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens from unwarranted arrest.
The New Jersey state government's complete departure from its constitution is demonstrated; that constitution, modeled after the federal constitution, was designed so that the three branches of government were separated in order to provide checks on each other when abuses of power presented....
however, it is not an exaggeration to state that New Jersey government is controlled by a handful of political bosses who in turn control all three branches.
For those who do not care to verify libelous accusations the soon to follow ten statements are provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
For those who require proof regarding libelous accusations detailed evidence is provided, however the time required for the examination of the evidence is more than a few hours.
The home page that you are reading will require about fifteen minutes to complete and presumably provides an adequate summary of what is likely a commonplace but nevertheless serious example of organized governmental corruption.
Perhaps it can be reasoned by most visitors that the following ten libelous accusations are indeed provable; presumably defamation litigation would result from egregious but unfounded accusations....
but no such defamation litigation has occurred.
Evidence of public corruption is not erased when a new governor takes the oath of office, nor can the stonewalling and/or cover up of that evidence by a corrupt government (until a statute of limitation occurs) result in its being erased.
1. The Saint Barnabas Health Care System is New Jersey's largest health care system, and it criminally retaliated against a whistleblowing RN by staging a morphine theft that was attributed to the RN.
2. The whistleblowing RN fought back and eventually won a six-day trial against the Saint Barnabas Health Care System after winning the reversal of a judicial decision that dismissed the whistleblower's litigation for being completely without merit.
But even though the whistleblower won at trial a completely corrupt New Jersey judiciary ensured the career destruction of the RN who suffered ruinous losses as a result of his conscientious action.
3. Even though the RN won at trial the New Jersey judiciary protected the Saint Barnabas Health Care System from being held accountable for the violation of both civil and criminal law.
4. As US Attorney for New Jersey Christopher Christie covered up egregious public corruption.....,
and as New Jersey governor he continues to protect that corruption.
5. Ocean County (New Jersey) state representatives David Wolfe, James Holzapfel, and Andrew Ciesla* protect a demonstrably corrupt Ocean County judiciary regarding the sale of criminal and civil law.
*Andrew Ciesla did not run for re-election in 2011, and will presumably eventually collect a generous pension and health benefits as a result of his tenure.
6. The New Jersey oversight entity for the state's judiciary covers up evidence of the judiciary's corruption.
7. The media in New Jersey conceals from the public evidence of organized governmental corruption; indeed, a completely corrupt government could not exist without the aid of a corrupt media.
8. The media in New Jersey conceals from the public criminal and civil wrong doing by the Saint Barnabas Health Care System.
9. The whistleblowing RN's effort to expose organized governmental corruption in New Jersey was threatened by a local governmental attempt to suppress First Amendment constitutional rights regarding freedom of speech....
this attempt was aided by the local police who eventually arrested the RN, refused to give the reason for the arrest, handcuffed him to a metal bench in a cold room within the police station continuously for more than four hours, and then transferred him in handcuffs to a lock down psychiatric unit for an evaluation;
many visitors will recognize the Soviet-era ploy of confining political dissidents to insane asylums,
and a few visitors will recognize the brazen violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that protects citizens from arrest without probable cause.
10. The American Nurses Association and the New Jersey State Nurses Association concealed from its members the presumably rare story of a trial win by a whistleblowing RN who represented himself against New Jersey's largest health care system.
The following presentation on this page and on subsequent pages is for those who require proof regarding egregious allegations.
Unsupported allegations are meaningless, therefore every claim made throughout this web site regarding criminal retaliation, judicial corruption, and the cover up of judicial corruption is supported by tangible, unambiguous, and irrefutable evidence that is provided herein.
This web site demonstrates not only the cover up by the New Jersey Supreme Court of undeniable judicial corruption of subordinate courts, but it also demonstrates that the New Jersey Supreme Court blatantly disregarded its own precedent position regarding the whistle blowing law, and that it condoned the sale of both civil and criminal law to a politically connected interest.
The tangible evidence of governmental corruption presented in this web site will instill fear of the legal system into all (who are politically unconnected) who examine it.
To paraphrase the slogan of a popular television cable news network, I provide the facts, you decide. However, the evidence of corruption is detailed, and an understanding of that evidence requires both reason and thoughtful consideration of the arguments that are presented.
Frank Buczynski, who lives in Forked River, New Jersey (see photo above) was the corrupt trial judge who used my technical trial error as an excuse to defeat the primary intent of the whistleblowing law that is also known as CEPA.
It is well known that the legislative intent of the whistleblowing law is to ensure the award of remedies to a whistleblower who wins at trial; Buczynski made sure that I received no remedies even though I won at trial.
Remedies refer to the reinstatement of employment after a whistleblower has been wrongly terminated, to the return of lost wages, to the return of legal fees that were incurred as a result of fighting the illegal actions of an employer, and to the assessment of damages regarding the violation of civil and/or criminal law.
A New Jersey Supreme Court opinion stated that:
"CEPA is remedial social legislation designed to promote two complementary public purposes: to protect and thereby encourage employees to report illegal or unethical workplace activities…
our goal in the interpretation of a statute is always to determine the legislature’s intent…
a single guiding principle has instructed our interpretation of CEPA in the decades since its enactment. As broad, remedial legislation the statute must be construed liberally".
The above quote by the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledges that the legislative intent of the whistleblowing law is to protect and encourage employees.....
however, my case illustrates the nightmare of judicial corruption that a whistleblower will face if he suffers employer retaliation and attempts to seek the protection of the law.
My case illustrates that whistleblowers are not protected by the law.
The complete denial of remedies to a trial-winning whistle blower is inconsistent with a supreme court directive that legislative intent be honored...
and it is inconsistent with the directive that the whistle blowing law be considered remedial legislation.
A recent appointee to the United States Supreme Court stated the well-known task of a judge:
"the task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law".
Of course the New Jersey Supreme Court disregarded the application of law in my case because the employer who violated criminal law while in the act of violating the whistle blowing law represented the state's largest health care system.
An unfounded and easily disproven allegation of corruption against a judge would presumably result in defamation litigation by that judge against the person who made the allegation.
Also presumably, a well-supported allegation of egregious corruption against a judge would necessarily result in disciplinary action against that judge.
Accordingly, only in a completely corrupt state could a citizen prominently accuse of corruption not only a local superior court judge but also the state's chief justice and subsequently precipitate no reaction.
Attempt to suppress freedom of speech
This web site demonstrates the attempt by the town in which I live, Seaside Park, to deny my First Amendment rights regarding my effort to disseminate evidence of high-level New Jersey state governmental corruption.
Pervasive New Jersey governmental corruption is sure to continue when efforts to expose corruption are frustrated rather than applauded.
Prior to displaying the truck-mounted billboard (shown above) I obtained the authorization for the display by the local code enforcement officer, by the local police department, and by the New Jersey State Police.
I also submitted an inquiry to the New Jersey Attorney General's office regarding my plan to display a mobile billboard, and that inquiry was forwarded to the Motor Vehicle Commission; I was subsequently informed that the display of a mobile billboard was part of my First Amendment rights
(click to see a complete photocopy of the letter from the MVC that confirms my First Amendment rights, then click the Back button/left-pointing arrow in the upper left screen to return)
Informed New Jersey citizens are presumably aware that the New Jersey Attorney General (NJAG) enables corruption; those who click to see the complete copy of the letter from the MVC (above) will see that I stated my intention to display a banner urging the support for those who are serving in the United States military; I was not going to inform the NJAG that I intended to disseminate evidence of high level state corruption.
There is no difference as far as the First Amendment is concerned between a banner that urges the support for troops and a banner that announces evidence of governmental corruption.
First Amendment rights verified by the MVC (that was tasked to make that determination by the NJAG) are not relinquished upon entering any city or town in the United States.
After displaying the truck-mounted billboard for more than a year while parked in front of my residence I was abruptly threatened with the issuing of a summons that could result in a $1000 fine and/or 90 days in jail; I was informed that l would receive those penalties if I continue to park my truck (with attached billboard) on a public street or drive it on a public right of way.
The trumped-up excuse for the abrupt threat is specified by municipal Code 25-624E...
(click to see the complete violation notice, then click the Back button located in the upper left hand corner of the screen to return)
Those who view the violation notice mentioned above will understand that Code 25-624E refers to the erection of signs on public property known as limited public forums, for example on the lawn in front of the town hall, and does not refer to vehicular commercial or non-commercial signs.
Code 25-624E certainly cannot legitimately refer to vehicle-mounted billboards that expose governmental corruption.
The perverse interpretation of Code 25-624E effectively restricts protest signs to private property which, as any reasonably informed citizen knows, is blatantly unconstitutional.
No town in the United States can pass an ordinance or create a code that takes away a right that is outlined in the Bill of Rights.
Indeed, a United States Supreme Court justice stated that regarding freedom of speech ......
"streets and parks....have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, ......
such use of the streets and public places has...been a part of the priviledges, immunities, rights and liberties of citizens." Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. at 515.
The United States Supreme Court held in 1939 that parks, sidewalks, and public streets have always been recognized as legitimate forums for public communication......
Six months prior to my arrest the banner shown in the above photo was prominently displayed in Seaside Park for many weeks; what was it about the demonstrable corruption that is illustrated by this web site that the Seaside Park police did not understand?
In this instance the police exposed themselves to be willing participants in obvious harassment of an individual who was peacefully and lawfully exposing public corruption.....
in the same way that corrupt judges expose themselves by transparently lying, perverting the intent of law, or transparently ignoring the law (upon orders from a political boss) in order to retain their judicial jobs.
No reasonably informed citizen of the United States can claim to be unaware of the constitution's provision for freedom of speech and where it can unquestionably be practiced ....
and the Seaside Park Police cannot credibly claim to be unaware that my freedom of speech was being suppressed.
I paid $500 in order to avoid prolonged incarceration.
The corrupt Seaside Park municipal judge threatened to arrange the revocation of my driver's license if I failed to appear in court after I posted bail, and I would lose $500 that was taken away from me by polite thugs with badges who were knowingly in the service of a corrupt judge.
One day before my scheduled court appearance in Seaside Park Municipal Court, and one day after I displayed the above banner regarding police-aided harassment, I received in the mail an obviously hastily-prepared notice that my case has been moved to a court in another county (Monmouth Beach in Monmouth County) as if that move ensured a fair hearing before an honest judge.
As expected, my hearing in front of a judge in the neighboring county was marked by:
-the perversion of the code that I had allegedly violated regarding the banner attached to my truck,
-a twisting of facts and of definitions in order to fit an
obviously pre-determined ruling,
-and an attempt to prevent me from exercising free speech......
that attempt is a federal offense known as
acting under the color of law
in order to prevent a citizen from
exercising a constitutional right
(Title 18 U.S.C., section 242)
I ignored the ruling of a corrupt judge who attempted to deny a constitutional right, .....
and I resumed parking along State Route #35 in front of my residence where other cars legally park.
Several months after my appearance in front of the aforementioned judge, and two months after I resumed parking in front of my residence the second cycle of summonses began.
I received the first of four second-cycle summonses for my failure to obtain a permit (for sign placement) from the corrupt Seaside Park council.....
and the Seaside Park Municipal Court eventually suspended my driver's license (a federal offense, Title 18 U.S.C. , section 241) on....
31 August 2012
An obviously planned second arrest occurred, like my first arrest, on a Saturday night shortly before 11 PM when a cash bail is presumed to be more difficult....
and the arrest occurred on the day following my license suspension, 1 September 2012.
The arrest was clearly planned so that my harassment was maximized. The Seaside Park Police waited until I was about a half mile from my house before they attempted to stop my truck.
I live on the main road in Seaside Park, and I can often be seen out and around my house doing chores while numerous police cars cruise by, yet the police in order to maximize harassment waited to arrest me until I was en route to work.
This time however I recognized that the police were willing participants in political harassment and the suppression of freedom of speech, and I slowly returned to my house where I parked while police lights flashed and sirens screamed from multiple police cars.....
I did not want to leave my truck on the side of the road a half mile from my home.
The police fabricated a story that I created a risk of death to several groups of pedestrians who just narrowly missed being struck by my supposedly fleeing/eluding/evading truck that was traveling at no more than 25 MPH.....
the police officially claimed that I was speeding at 30 MPH in a 25 MPH zone......
one of these fictitious pedestrians was a female
entering a crosswalk at night pushing a baby stroller immediately in front of a police car with its siren screaming and lights flashing....
all of the fictitious pedestrians according to the police entered crosswalks immediately in front of an emergency vehicle with its lights flashing and siren screaming.
I was very aware that my actions were closely watched by the police during the half mile journey home, therefore I carefully adhered to stop signs and the speed limit...
nevertheless the police charged me with 18 moving violations all of which were trumped up.....
however, the charges did not include driving while suspended because my case was now going to be presented to a grand jury that might question the reason for my license suspension.
Had I not taken deliberate action to ensure my arrest for an offense that carries a possible minimum jail term of a year my case would have remained under the control of the corrupt judge who unlawfully suspended my driver's license....
but now I could present my case and evidence of local corruption to a jury.
I was charged with attempting to flee/evade/elude in a truck with a large billboard attached to it while speeding at 30MPH, and my bail was set at $50,000 cash ....
on the basis of my so-called creation of a risk of death or injury to others.....
while traveling at 25 MPH and obeying all stop signs and other traffic laws.......
this meant that I would be in the Ocean County Jail unless someone posted $50,000 in cash.
I spent one night in the Ocean County Jail before I could arrange bail with a bondsman....
to whom I lost $5000 that will not be returned to me.
The judge who ordered my $50,000 bail was clearly
attempting to make sure that I remained in jail,
and the policeman who maliciously fabricated a
completely false report regarding the incident did
so in order to imprison me for a period of
up to potentially ten years,
and in the process confirmed the corruption
of the Seaside Park police.
And although my truck was legally parked in front of my house the Seaside Park Police towed and impounded it.
I will represent myself at a criminal trial scheduled in June 2014, but one wonders how a fair trial can be conducted within a demonstrably and completely corrupt judicial system that in turn is part of a completely corrupt New Jersey state government.
And without doubt the judge who is assigned
to my criminal trial,
Judge Wendel Daniels
will, like his corrupt fellow judge Frank Buczynski,
fix the trial by preventing me from showing the jury the evidence that will exonerate me.
Daniels has already demonstrated that he is grossly unethical; do you think that he, like Buczynski, owes his judicial job to a political boss?
One day after my release from the Ocean County Jail I was again arrested by the Seaside Park police, and handcuffed to a metal bench for 4 hours and 30 minutes in a well-chilled room....
I was dressed in a light tank top and shorts.
One hour prior to the arrest I hand delivered a letter addressed to the Seaside Park Chief of Police....
this letter was copied to the Seaside Park Council, the New Jersey State Police, and the Ocean County Prosecutor....
in the letter I informed the Chief of Police that it was my intention to defame him by exposing his cooperation with Ocean County organized corruption regarding his aid to suppress free speech that exposes that corruption.
The four hours on that bench, while shivering because of the cold, was an ordeal that I suspect most people my age (57 at the time) could not endure.
I repeatedly asked why I was being
held, and received no reply.
I repeatedly asked to make my one
telephone call to which I thought
that I was entitled, and I was ignored.
After four hours handcuffed to the metal bench I was approached by a woman who identified herself as a mobile psychiatric screener who, after a few questions and comments, told me that I was being sent to a lock down psychiatric unit of a nearby hospital Community Medical Center ......
whose agents staged the morphine theft that started my quest to call attention to the pervasive corruption of New Jersey government.
Despite my pleas no one gave me a reason for my being transferred for further psychiatric evaluation......
I remained handcuffed while the
Seaside Park police transferred me to the
lock down psychiatric unit.
The arrest on 4 September can be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt to be a violation of a federal law known as conspiracy against rights (Title 18 U.S.C., section 241).......
and the arresting policeman reinforced his guilt when he fabricated a story designed to confine
me to a psychiatric facility.
Twenty four hours after my arrest I was released immediately after the psychiatric evaluation, but not before yet another day of my freedom was lost due to the actions of corrupt officials.
Two weeks after my overnight stay in the lock down unit I received from Community Medical Center a bill for $7670.
I was snatched off a public street by so-called law enforcement officers, held without explanation under extremely uncomfortable conditions, and denied my supposed right to a telephone call.
The circumstances of my latest adventure would seem to remind one of Soviet and Nazi Gestapo tactics that were used to silence political dissidents.
To date since 2012 I have been arrested seven times, incarcerated in the county jail six times, and survived an attempt to confine me to a psychiatric facility....
and were directly as a
result of my refusal to give up my right
of free speech regarding the banner
attached to my truck.
The local chief of police was very aware
that my free speech was maliciously denied
yet he allowed his officers to falsely arrest me......
the police chief in this case is also guilty
of violating federal law (conspiracy against rights) that pertain to preventing or inhibiting the exercise of
a constitutional right.....
Not only did the town of Seaside Park try to take away my freedom of speech on public streets regarding the banner that was attached to my truck, but it also tried to take away my right to exercise free speech on my own property
I was warned by town officials to remove the banner in front of my house that is shown by the above photo...
or else I would receive another summons....
the town claimed that I needed to get a permit for sign placement on my property, and that the sign had to conform to maximum size restrictions....
but existing town code forbids residential political signs exemplified by the above photo that defames the town's police chief.
However in a landmark 1994 United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision regarding City of Ladue v. Gilleo it was ruled that towns cannot prohibit residential political signs.....
further, SCOTUS opined that "signs may take up space and obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation"......
but in the absence of safety hazards towns clearly cannot regulate residential signs especially when speech intended to expose public corruption is involved.
The above transcript shows that Buczynski was essentially instructing the lawyer for the Saint Barnabas Health Care System to make an objection to my line of damaging questioning about the morphine theft.
Trial judges do not usually make objections.
My line of questioning was directed in this instance toward demonstrating to the jury that the Saint Barnabas Health Care System staged the morphine theft that was attributed to me; because of the strength of the evidence regarding the staging of the theft Buczynski claimed that the theft was irrelevant.
It is precisely because of the overwhelming strength of the evidence of the staging of morphine theft that every judge/justice who was associated with this case attempted to either negate the theft or cover it up; that evidence is provided in detail on subsequent pages of this web site.
For example, the pre-trial Appellate Court judge who overturned Oles' dismissal of this case transparently avoided mention of the criminal set up for morphine theft that started this case;
the written argument that I submitted to the pre-trial Appellate Court mentioned twenty four times my claim of criminal set up for morphine theft that was not only a sensational claim but was also a very relevant claim, yet.......
presumably an unfounded but sensational claim that was mentioned twenty four times would have at least been mentioned and refuted by the Appellate Court.
Buczynski did not want the Saint Barnabas Health Care System to be held liable for the violation of civil law let alone for the violation of criminal law; he was therefore attempting to remove criminal retaliation as an issue.
Buczysnki's malicious motives are further illustrated by his post-verdict statement that the jury need not determine guilt regarding the staging of the morphine theft that precipitated this litigation:
However, regarding Buczynski's lie that the morphine theft was irrelevant.....
The pre-trial Appellate Court that overturned Oles' dismissal of my case stated in its written opinion regarding the morphine theft:
"although plaintiff was originally suspended because he was suspected of morphine theft he was never asked to take a drug test".
The pre-trial Appellate Division court established the relevancy of the morphine theft when it stated in its written opinion that:
"the temporal proximity between his complaint to the State Board of Health in November 2000 and his suspension on January 8 2001 permits an inference of a causal connection."
The Appellate Division's reference to "causal connection" links my suspension to my complaint to the Board of Health; my suspension was therefore identified by the Appellate Division, perhaps unintentionally but nevertheless accurately, as the legal element retaliation.
My suspension was therefore relevant to this case.
note: Retaliation is one of the legal elements that must be proven in order to win at trial; the term legal element is explained on a later page of this web site.
I was suspended because I was suspected of morphine theft (see the above quote by the Appellate Division), therefore....
The morphine theft was relevant to my case.
Buczynski is clearly a malicious liar who remains on the bench because of a completely corrupt government.
And disregarding the pre-trial Appellate Division that opined in writing that a rational jury would conclude that my termination was unjustified, ......
and disregarding the jury's decision, ...
Buczynski stated on record that my termination was justified:
Buczynski ensured that although winning at trial I maximally suffered for my act of looking out for others who could not look out for themselves, and he ensured that my former employer was protected regarding the violation of not only civil law but also criminal law.
Further unbelievable evidence of Buczynski's corruption is provided on the Introduction page and on the page titled Buczynski's corruption. Because the evidence is unbelievable photocopies are provided with detailed explanations.
Pre-trial judge Oles tried to prevent my case from being presented to a jury.
Trial judge Buczynski made sure that the at-hand evidence of my losses was not presented to the jury, and he made sure that the Saint Barnabas Health Care System could not be found guilty of criminal retaliation.
Bribes paid with tax dollars
A judicial position and its associated perks is called a benefit, and the law allows the compensation for honest judicial performance.
However, regarding the acceptance of a benefit there is no provision for occasional blatant judicial disregard of the law and of legislative intent, or for occasional gross judicial prejudice.
Accordingly, any such malicious and deliberate judicial breach of trust cannot be lawfully compensated by a benefit.
In other words, the law does not allow compensation for demonstrably corrupt judicial actions that are taken in order to retain a benefit; accepting the aforementioned benefit in this case constitutes the acceptance of a bribe according to
One would think that a judge would be penalized for corrupting the law.
However in New Jersey a judge clearly reinforces his judicial position by corrupting the law upon command by a political boss who controls the continued employment of that judge.
Regarding the above photo that shows a banner that defames a superior court judge, it is unbelievable that a community would remain indifferent to such a judge who remains in a position of trust and authority....
yet it is a measure of the community's morals, or rather lack thereof, that is exposed by that indifference that ultimately made possible my arrest for drawing attention to serious public corruption.
It would seem that the residents of Seaside Park are a microcosm of the state's macrocosm that is responsible for empowering what is likely the most corrupt state government in the nation.
It would also seem that the residents of Seaside Park lack the morals that would otherwise enable them to understand that an individual victim of a corrupt government translates to their victimization; perhaps they think themselves invulnerable from becoming individual, isolated victims?
I appealed the outcome of a trial that I won; presumably such appeals are not common; this was the second appeal in this case of Ocean County Superior Court actions.
However, the judge associated with my second appeal was as brazenly and demonstrably corrupt as Oles and Buczynski.
That Appellate Division judge ignored the only two arguments of my appeal both of which were unquestionably grounds to grant me a new trial.
And the written opinion of the Appellate Division regarding my second appeal is filled with prejudice, demonstrable lies, and half-truths.
Judges lie, ignore the law, and ignore the facts because THEY CAN in the presence of a completely corrupt government.
I was horrified at the blatant corruption of the Appellate Division judge; his corruption is unbelievable, therefore photocopies of the evidence and the associated explanations are provided on the page titled 7-Kestin's corruption.
New Jersey Supreme Court Appeal
Although I was aware of the notorious reputation of the New Jersey Supreme Court, that was once referred to by a well known newspaper reporter as a "robed clan of clowns", I filed yet another appeal.
I not only reminded the justices of their own position regarding the whistleblowing law but I provided the evidence of Oles', Buczynski's, and Kestin's corruption.
Of course the justices not only disregarded established legislative intent and disregarded their own precedent position, but they claimed that evidence of judicial corruption was nonexistent.
The justices also required that I pay $500 to the Saint Barnabas Health Care System for their administrative costs associated with fighting my appeal that was necessitated by blatantly corrupt judges.
This story also demonstrates the cover up of judicial corruption by the entity tasked to provide oversight to the judiciary, namely the Advisory Committee for Judicial Conduct.
Only in the most corrupt state in the nation could an oversight entity cover up evidence of corruption.
As an example, judge Frank Buczynski was cleared of wrong doing by the Advisory Committee for Judicial Conduct yet this web site contains the tangible evidence that Buczynski is a corrupt judge and a deceiving liar; it would seem therefore that Buczynski has ample ground to litigate against me for defamation (see photo above).
The investigator for the Advisory Committee for Judicial Conduct who covered up the evidence of Buczynski's corruption has an annual salary (in 2009) of $90,000; the investigator's name is John Tonelli. The primary motivation for the pervasive corruption in my case, in the absence of a direct bribe, can be nothing other than the securing of a high-paying job that is coupled to excellent job benefits.
I will demonstrate the corruption of multiple New Jersey state legislators that include Ocean County (New Jersey) senator Andrew Ciesla and assemblymen James Holzapfel and David Wolfe (all three Republicans). The evidence regarding the blatant sale of civil and criminal law in my case demands the exercise of the balances upon which the three-branch system of government is based, and the refusal to merely acknowledge the detailed supplied evidence of judicial corruption is clear evidence of their (Ciesla, Holzapfel, and Wolfe) corruption by the same forces that corrupted the Ocean County judiciary.
There are few duties more important for a lawmaker than to ensure that their constituents are served by an honest judiciary that honors the clear intent of the law, yet the corrupt Republican lawmakers mentioned above will without a doubt be re-elected by an ignorant and/or unethical constituency that ignores the evidence of those lawmakers' corruption.
The people's best defense against a corrupt government is an honest media, however New Jersey corruption has flourished to the point of bankrupting the state arguably because the same forces that have corrupted the government have also corrupted the media.
It is not the corruption of individual lawmakers, mayors, or minor officials that is destroying New Jersey, but rather it is organized governmental corruption that is responsible for that destruction.
Litigation that is remarkable for repeated and blatant judicial corruption that includes the demonstrable corruption of the state's highest court is newsworthy; that such litigation was not reported by the media is credible evidence that the media too is corrupt.
Two of New Jersey's largest newspapers, the Asbury Park Press and the Newark Star Ledger, ignored a newsworthy win after a six-day trial by a whistleblowing registered nurse who represented himself against New Jersey's largest health care system, and ignored the egregious and tangible evidence of corruption at the highest level of state government that this case exposed.
The two newspaper headlines that appear on this page were published by a transparently-biased local publication known as the Ocean County Observer that is now out of business.
As will be shown in this web site the evidence of criminal retaliation and judicial corruption is overwhelming, yet the Ocean County Observer made no mention whatsoever of that evidence.
Corrupt nursing organizations
I will demonstrate to the members of the New Jersey nursing profession that the New Jersey State Nurses Association and the American Nurses Association completely and unethically ignored the win at trial of a whistleblowing registered nurse, that those organizations refused to call public attention to the malicious destruction of a registered nurse who tried to protect those who could not protect themselves, and that those organizations refused to warn fellow nurses that the whistle blowing law in New Jersey is worthless and that it provides no protection from unethical but well-connected employers who can buy the protection of New Jersey’s corrupt judiciary.
Perhaps the aforementioned nursing organizations covered up the story of a trial-winning, whistleblowing RN because it involved nurses who criminally conspired with an employer to retaliate against a whistleblower; the detailed evidence of that criminal conspiracy is provided.
Readers of this web site will see that I appealed the outcome of a trial that I won, an outcome that denied to me compensation for my ruinous losses as a result of criminal actions taken against me by the Saint Barnabas Heath Care System; those readers will easily recognize the repeated and brazen judicial corruption that I encountered before and after my trial.
The New Jersey Supreme Court denied my appeal for a new trial, but my case did not end with the decision of that demonstrably corrupt court; legal actions can only end as a result of lawful judicial decisions that adhere to clear legislative intent.
My case will end when I receive a fair trial in accordance with established-via-precedent legislative intent.
Those corrupt elected and appointed officials associated with my case cannot be exonerated (regarding their corruption) by the passage of time.
My case will end when the associated elected and appointed officials are held accountable for their corruption; I understand that in a corrupt New Jersey this accountability is unlikely.
However I am unwilling to be a silent victim of corruption, and I never again want to stand before a corrupt judge who is held unaccountable by a completely corrupt government.
Therefore I will continue to disseminate evidence of a completely corrupt government, and hope that my fellow citizens understand that they too can become victims of that government.
David A. Miller
Back to the top