CORRUPT DEFEAT OF NEW JERSEY'S CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT

Superior Court Appellate Division
 Judge Edwin Stern

I mentioned on a previous page within this web site that decisions by county Superior Court judges can be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court; accordingly I appealed Oles’ dismissal of my case.

The Appellate Division assigned three judges to supposedly review my appeal, however it is my belief that this three-judge panel, at least in my case, was merely for show and that a single judge decided the outcome of my appeal; that single judge was Edwin Stern who lives in West Orange.  
 
Part of the appeal process is the submission of a brief and an appendix. A brief is a written argument supported by references to case law and to evidence. An appendix is a collection of documents that serves as evidence that supports arguments that are presented in the brief. A copy of the brief that I submitted at the time of my appeal is presented on this page; that brief was written for the benefit of Appellate Division judges who had no prior knowledge of my case, and that brief had to succinctly but thoroughly explain the merits of my case. It is well known that Appellate Division judges are loath to overturn the decisions of subordinate judges, therefore my brief by necessity had to be very good especially, as it turns out, given the demonstrably corrupt culture of the New Jersey judiciary (click to see a copy of my pre-trial appellate brief, then click the Back button to return to the presentation).

In response to my brief, that was countered by the brief and appendix of the lawyer who represented the Saint Barnabas Health Care System, the Appellate Division judges issued a 22-page written opinion (click to see a photocopy of that opinion that may require a few moments to load, then click the Back button in order to return to this presentation). The written opinion of the Appellate Division can be notably contrasted to Oles’ written opinion (click to see a photocopy of Oles’ written opinion).

Unlike the written opinion of Oles, the Appellate Division’s written opinion:

1. makes no reference to my  failure (that was irrelevant) to seek peer review;

2. makes no reference (that was irrelevant) to my  failure to join a committee at Community Medical Center (hereinafter CMC);

3. makes no detailed and individual references (that were irrelevant) to my record keeping oversights that were used as an excuse by CMC to terminate me;

4. makes no reference (that was irrelevant) to the outcome of the state's investigation regarding my complaint about the abuse of diapers at CMC;  

5. does not judge my nursing performance (Oles toward the end of his written opinion proclaimed that I was guilty of poor nursing practice);

6. does cite relevant case law that pertained to the whistle blowing law, and stated that courts must liberally interpret the whistle blowing law in order to encourage conscientious whistle blowing (click to see page 13 of the Appellate Division’s opinion);

7. noted Burke’s testimony, that I knew to be perjured, regarding her sworn ignorance until the first deposition in my case of my whistle blowing activity (click to see page 19 of the Appellate Division’s opinion, then click the Back button to return);

8. noted the absence of evidence that demonstrated that my record keeping oversights endangered the welfare of a patient (click to see page 20 of the Appellate Division's written opinion);

9. noted my evidence of causal connection (that was ignored by Oles) regarding my termination for a fabricated excuse against written hospital policy;

10. noted my claim that a record keeping standard did not exist to support my termination for being a substandard record keeper (click to see page 20 of the Appellate Division's opinion);

11. noted my claim that CMC did not follow in my case its own guidelines regarding diciplinary actions when record keeping failures are cited (click to see page 20 of the Appellate Division's opinion);

12. noted the irrelevant and harassing investigation (that was ignored by Oles) that directly lead to my termination for a reason unrelated to narcotic theft that caused my suspension (click to see page 21 of the Appellate Division's opinion).

Sadly, the Appellate Division demonstrated a gross lack of ethics by refusing to acknowledge Oles’ attempt to conceal the evidence of criminal activity by CMC (click to see a photocopy of the Appellate Division’s denial of my request to address the judicial corruption in my case, then click the Back button to return).

A large segment of my brief to the Appellate Division was devoted to demonstrating my claim that I was set up for morphine theft in retaliation for my whistle blowing. In my brief I mentioned twenty four times my claim, that was supported by evidence in my appendix, that I was set up, yet the Appellate Division made only brief mention of that claim stating that "Plaintiff also contends that the investigation conducted by Burke was orchestrated"… (click to see page 20 of the Appellate Division’s opinion).

(click to see a copy of my pre-trial appellate brief in order verify the number of times I referenced the criminal set up, then click the Back button to return to this presentation)   

Like Oles, the Appellate Division attempted to conceal the evidence of criminal activity albeit for a different reason, specifically in order to protect corrupt judge Edward Oles. However the Appellate Division could not completely avoid mention of the morphine theft, and stated 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" (click to see page 16 of the Appellate Division’s opinion).

A check of the legal elements of my case (click to see an explanation of the legal element that involved a causal connection) will confirm that the Appellate Division’s reference to causal connection identified my suspension as an act of retaliation that was therefore crucially relevant but was arguably criminally concealed by Oles and was unethically minimized by the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division also stated that
"Although plaintiff was originally suspended because he was suspected of morphine theft, he was never asked to take a drug test" (click to see page 21 of the Appellate Division’s opinion). My suspension for suspicion of morphine theft was inseparable from that theft, therefore the evidence that supported my claim of set up was crucially relevant but was ignored by Oles. The Appellate Division minimized the evidence that supported my claim of set up, and briefly mentioned two issues regarding identity theft and the failure by CMC to test me for drug use (click to see pages 20-21 0f the Appellate Division’s opinion).

I provided to the Appellate Division evidence that the Ocean County Assignment Judge at that time Eugene Serpentelli was grossly prejudiced regarding the evidence against CMC and was therefore corrupt (click to see a letter written by Serpentelli in which he covers up the evidence in my case), and I also provided the evidence that the Ocean County Prosecutor completely ignored my repeated requests to address the evidence of criminal activity by CMC. Nevertheless the Appellate Division denied my request to move the trial in my case to a venue far removed from the influence of the Saint Barnabas Health Care System (click to see a photocopy of that denial). I had argued that unbiased judges regarding my case did not exist in Ocean County and that I could not get a fair trial in that venue; after the trial in my case that I won my argument was proven at disastrous cost to me. Rational readers will recognize the ploy of the Appellate Division to shirk its duty to mandate action by the Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge regarding my request to address covered up evidence of criminal activity; this ploy is the truthful statement that judges do not prosecute criminal matters, but the ploy ignores the truth that judges can order the presentation of evidence to  a grand jury who in turn will decide if the evidence warrants a criminal trial.

 Back to the top

Web Hosting Companies