A prosecutor's acceptance of a monetary bribe in return for overlooking criminal wrong doing and/or public corruption is no different from a prosecutor's acceptance of political support (by one of New Jersey's bosses) in return for overlooking criminal wrong doing and/or public corruption.
Christopher Christie is the former United States Attorney for New Jersey who was elected on 3 November 2009 to become the next governor of New Jersey. Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in the discharge of a public or legal duty. The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct, and it may be any money, good, property, or emolument (note: in my case emolument is a judicial position that includes a minimum $170,000 annual salary and lavish employment benefits), advantage, or merely a promise in order to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity. In early February 2009 I received an automated telephone recording from Christie who was officially announcing his candidacy for New Jersey governor. Christie stated in his recording that if elected governor he would hold government accountable for its actions; based upon his inaction in my case I suggest that Christie has no intention of holding boss-controlled government accountable. Legal Element 2. A rational jury will readily recognize the judicial wrong doing referenced above that can only be explained as an action done in order to gain something of value or as an action done as an agreement by a judicial appointee to corrupt the law upon command.
I received in my mail in May 2009 a campaign flyer that promoted Christopher Christie regarding the 2009 election for New Jersey governor; a statement on the flyer was that:
"As US Attorney, Chris Christie never shied away from the tough decisions needed to clean up corruption".
Of course Christie will not hold Buczysnki accountable for his corruption, nor will he hold any corrupt judge accountable. Because of that inaction by Christie he is guilty of a betrayal of trust more egregious than that of any of his victims in his posturing fight against public corruption.
Christie, arguably corruptly, in fact turned a blind eye to a form of public corruption that was more egregious than that of any of his targets in his posturing fight against public corruption; he knowingly allowed the sale of criminal law in my case to remain unexposed.
Before the trial in my case Christie was aware of the evidence of:
a) Ocean County judge Oles' corruption;
b) Ocean County judge Serpentelli's corruption;
c) Ocean County Prosecutor Kelaher's corruption.
After the trial in my case Christie was aware of the evidence of:
a) Appellate Division Judge Kestin's corruption;
b) Ocean County judge Buczynski's corruption;
c) the New Jersey Supreme Court's corruption.
I claim that Christie is a posturing phony regarding the fight against corruption, and that he protected by his silence the most egregious form of public corruption possible, namely judicial corruption manifested by the sale of both civil and criminal law. I will also argue to a jury regarding possible libel litigation (against me) that Christie was a corrupt US Attorney who knowingly protected a connected interest regarding the violation of federal law (Identity Theft Act); it can be credibly argued that Christie did not expose the corruption in my case because he wanted the favor of New Jersey bosses, hence that Christie took a bribe to remain silent regarding the corruption in my case.
New Jersey governmental corruption equates to high property taxes and to many other state taxes that ultimately enhance the bottom line of political bosses; does anyone really believe that Christie will do anything that negatively impacts the bottom line of the political bosses who supported him?
Christie's former federal office indeed obtained convictions for corruption that involved a few big-name political figures, however honest observers of Christie's performance will agree that the vast majority of his successes have involved picayune officials who were using their public office to enrich themselves, or friends, or family members in most cases by a few thousand dollars.
Big-name victories for Christie involve the former ex-mayor of Newark (New Jersey) Sharpe James who was recently convicted in federal court of using his office to enrich a female acquaintance. And New Jersey state senator Wayne Byrant was accused of arranging state funds to be delivered to the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) in exchange for a no-show, $30,000 per year job at UMDNJ; Bryant too was recently convicted in federal court.
But none of Christie's victories have been shown to have any effect on the large scale governmental corruption that is arguably destroying New Jersey; that governmental corruption includes a corrupt judiciary.
Christie is often quoted in the media regarding his contempt for public officials who have betrayed the public's trust. My case demonstrates not only the cover up by the New Jersey Supreme Court of egregious judicial corruption of subordinate courts, but it also demonstrates the corruption of that supreme court; the cover up of that corruption is headed by Christie's former colleague Chief Justice Stuart Rabner who also heads the sale of criminal law in my case. And the betrayal of public trust by the highest court in the state towers above that betrayal by the likes of James and Bryant.
(note: Prior to his appointment to the New Jersey Supreme Court Rabner was an ineffectual state Attorney General who could have figuratively closed his eyes and hit a significant target in the fight against corruption; his record of success however is limited to a couple of school teachers who embezzeled at most a thousand dollars of school funds.)
I requested a new trial from the New Jersey Supreme Court not only to recover my losses but also to hold Community Medical Center accountable for criminal retaliation; clearly the New Jersey Supreme Court sold not only civil law in my case but also criminal law. The offenses of James and Bryant represented betrayals of the public's trust, but their offenses were undeniably insignificant when compared to the sale of law by the state's highest court.
The corruption of Sharpe and Bryant is unquestionably insignificant when compared the the undeniable judicial corruption that was exposed by my case. Though comtemptible Sharpe and Bryant's corruption was not directed toward the destruction of an innocent individual, nor was it directed toward the sale of law and the protection of a criminally guilty connected interest.
I first tried to enlist the aid of Christie's office in September 2005 four months before the trial in my case. I provided to Christie's office tangible evidence regarding the violation of federal law that involved the Identity Theft Act (United States Code Title 18/ section 1028). I also provided to Christie's office irrefutable evidence that the Ocean County judiciary as well as the Ocean County Prosecutor's office protected Community Medical Center regarding its violation of federal law.
Note: I made Christie aware in September 2005 that the one-time Ocean County Prosecutor Thomas Kelaher stonewalled my repeated attempts to have evidence of a crime (committed by Community Medical Center) presented to a grand jury. Yet in January 2008 Christie honored Kelaher by administering the oath of office to him as Toms River's (Ocean County, New Jersey) new mayor.
I provided to Christie's office undeniable evidence that Ocean County judicial corruption was protected by not only the Appellate Division of the Superior Court but also by the state supreme court. In response to my request for aid one of Christie's subordinates sent a letter to me that incredibly ignored the fact in my case, that presumably has been clearly demonstrated by this web site, that the entire state judiciary is corrupt (click to see a photocopy of that letter); that letter that was arguably meant to brush me off informed me that my case is best handled by New Jersey's judicial system.
In response to the letter from Christie's office I disgustedly replied in a letter that the associated federal agent was a disgrace, and I insisted that Christie respond to my allegations of judicial corruption and cover up that extended to the state's highest court. Surprisingly Christie replied to my letter, however the substance of his response was unexpected (click to read a photocopy of Christie's letter); Christie defended his subordinate, and Christie too clearly ignored the overwhelming evidence of judicial corruption in my case.
Christie's letter to me confirmed that he had no intention of undertaking the hard fight against large scale governmental corruption in New Jersey, and I recognized that he is a posturing phony who refuses to wage politically-incorrect war against presumably boss-controlled governmental corruption.
Christie ignored the transparent judicial corruption in my case, and he used a ploy that was routinely used by the corrupt New Jersey authorities who were associated with my case, specifically a ploy that involves the claim that I presented no evidence of wrong doing.
The above ploy reminds one of the anecdote involving a thief who is caught in the process of loading a stolen elephant into a getaway truck. When confronted by a policeman regarding the presence of the elephant (that is standing directly behind the thief), the thief responds "what elephant? I don't see an elephant".
Christie could have taken action in my case since he in fact had jurisdiction; my case involved violation of the federal Identity Theft Act (United States Code Title 18/ section 1028); yet Christie in his letter offered the excuse that he had no jurisdiction in my case (click to read a photocopy of Christie's letter).
Christie could have enlisted the aid of his supposed partner (at that time) New Jersey Attorney General Stuart Rabner in order to call attention to the judicial corruption in my case.
Or Christie could have bypassed the New Jersey Attorney General's office (that historically and notoriously enables public corruption in New Jersey) and used his public platform regarding the fight against corruption to call attention to my case, thereby presumably forcing state action.
Christie instead did nothing. Nevertheless I kept him informed regarding the events of my case, and after his dismissal of my claims (of corruption) in September 2005 until the New Jersey Supreme Court's denial of my appeal in March 2008 I sent to him at least an additional dozen letters.
In March 2007 Christie was invited to give a town hall presentation in Seaside Park, New Jersey where I live. The advertised purposes of his presentation were:
1) how to recognize governmental corruption;
2) and what the citizens can do about governmental corruption.
I attended Christie's presentation in Seaside Park, and I was incredulous that Christie's presentation was solely about his accomplishments in the fight against corruption.
note: While still a federal prosecutor Christie was clearly campaigning for governor.
Christie advised the obvious regarding the fight against corrupt public officials, namely to vote them out of office as if that option was unknown to those in attendance at the March 2007 presentation. At the end of his presentation Christie answered questions from those in attendance; upon taking my question that had not been answered by his presentation he immediately recognized who I was; I wanted to know how to fight demonstrable judicial corruption. I explained in front of a packed town hall how he and his office ignored my case, and I explained how state authorities including the New Jersey Attorney General Stuart Rabner ignored the evidence of corruption in my case; Christie giggled at my confrontation, but I quickly scanned the room and saw that no one else found my issue and claim funny. Christie regained his composure and assured me in front of a packed town hall that he would contact the New Jersey Attorney General regarding my case; of course I never heard from the New Jersey Attorney General's office, and I never again heard from Christie despite my continued letters to his office.
I suspect that many voters consider Christie to be New Jersey's savior regarding the fight against corruption, yet those voters do not understand that the public corruption that is arguably destroying their state is not associated with the likes of corrupt mayors and low-level officials who are caught taking bribes (who were Christie's targets); New Jersey is not billions of dollars in debt because of those small-time, white-collar crooks but is obviously in debt because of organized governmental corruption.
The fact is that Christie deliberately ignored tangible evidence of the most egregious form of corruption, namely judicial corruption regarding the sale of both civil and criminal law.
(click1 click2 to see Christie's response to the same evidence of judicial corruption and cover up that was presented on the page that illustated Oles' corruption)
(click to move to the page that demonstrates Oles' corruption that also demonstrates the violation of federal law that Christie ignored regarding the theft of my identity that was used to falsely implicate me in morphine theft).
New Jersey is reputed to have one of the most corrupt governments in the country that obviously includes a corrupt judiciary, yet Christie did not indict a single judge or justice during his tenure as United States Attorney for New Jersey.
I presented to Christie tangible evidence of judicial corruption that undeniably translated to the acceptance of a bribe, yet he ignored that evidence; why?
Why did Christie not enlist the aid of his supposed partner in the fight against corruption (the New Jersey Attorney General) in order to hold accountable state judges and justices for the most egregious betrayal of trust that he supposedly condemns?
There are three legal elements according to N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 that need to be proven by a prosecutor in order to convict judges Buczynski, Kestin, and the justices of the state supreme court of accepting a bribe or something of value; this statute specifically includes judges among other public officials. Those legal elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of New Jersey citizens follow.
Legal Element 1.
It must be proven that the judge/justice accepted anything (from a political boss) that may serve as something of value or that may represent an economic gain so long as it is of sufficient value in the eyes of that judge/justice.
A judicial position and its associated minimum $170,000 annual salary excluding fringe benefits can presumably be demonstrated before a jury to be something of value or an economic gain.
A rational jury will readily recognize a judicial position as something of value.
a) It must be proven that the judge/justice accepted something of value (established by legal Element 1) in return for violating an official duty, namely in return for his disregard of the clear and established remedial legislative intent of law in my case.
The blatant disregard of the remedial intent of the law in my case is presumably obvious. It is a fact that my trial win was associated with the absence of remedies, and it is a fact on record that the trial judge denied my requests that he honor the remedial intent of the law.
b) It must be proven that the judge/justice accepted something of value (established by Legal Element 1) in return for violating an official duty, namely in return for attempting to conceal or exclude the relevant evidence of criminal retaliation in my case.
The attempted concealment of evidence of criminal retaliation by Oles, Stern, Buczynski, and Kestin is also presumably obvious.
c) It must be proven that the judge/justice accepted something of value (established by Legal Element 1) in return for violating an official duty, namely in return for lying in court or in court documents.
-Oles' gross prejudice manifested by his written opinion in my case translates to lies by him that a rational jury will recognize.
-Buczynski was caught in court transcripts demonstrably deceiving me and telling me lies.
-Kestin's brief, post-trial statement reveals his purposeful lies and purposeful concealment of the reasons for my appeal.
Legal Element 3
It must be proven that the judge/justice acted purposely; this means that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the judges/justices acted contrary to his official duty. A demonstrably biased and prejudiced Buczynski used my trial error as an excuse to deny to me remedies, and he disregarded his official duty to enforce the clear remedial legislative intent of the whistleblowing law. Buczynski's corruption was compounded by Kestin and by the justices of the state supreme court.
The aforementioned legal elements can be easily proven to convict Christie of accepting a bribe in the form of political support in return for a promise not to expose, for example, the organized corruption exemplified by my case.
Those who are placed in positions of trust, for example a prosecutor's position, must be held accountable for their failure (or refusal) to address tangible evidence of wrong doing.
Christie is aware that the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court Stuart Rabner, who is his former federal assistant in the United States Attorney's office, not only covered up evidence of egregious judicial corruption in my case but condoned the demonstrable sale of civil and criminal law.
Christie has no problem with condemning the betrayal of public trust by Sharpe James and Wayne Bryant, but I doubt that Christie will condemn Rabner for a betrayal of trust that is far more egregious than that of James and Bryant.
The evidence of judicial corruption regarding the sale of both criminal and civil law that is presented in this web site is presumably recognized by every visitor; Christie already knows about that beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence* that can easily lead to the conviction for bribery of every judge who was associated with my case.
The impossible task in a corrupt New Jersey regarding the conviction for accepting a bribe (by the judges in my case) is for a prosecutor or state Attorney General to seek an indictment before a grand jury; that prosecutor or Attorney General is of course controlled by the same force (one of New Jersey's bosses) that corrupted the judiciary.
Back to the top
Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in the discharge of a public or legal duty. The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient's conduct, and it may be any money, good, property, or emolument (note: in my case emolument is a judicial position that includes a minimum $170,000 annual salary and lavish employment benefits), advantage, or merely a promise in order to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.
In early February 2009 I received an automated telephone recording from Christie who was officially announcing his candidacy for New Jersey governor. Christie stated in his recording that if elected governor he would hold government accountable for its actions; based upon his inaction in my case I suggest that Christie has no intention of holding boss-controlled government accountable.
Legal Element 2.
A rational jury will readily recognize the judicial wrong doing referenced above that can only be explained as an action done in order to gain something of value or as an action done as an agreement by a judicial appointee to corrupt the law upon command.