Good News for Defendants of Bedminster Municipal Court and the Public at Large.

It has come to our attention that effective March 11, 2014, Frank W. Gasiorowski has resigned his position as Bedminster municipal court judge.

This sack of garbage is no longer using his position on the bench to harass citizens with impunity, and his long career of dishonor and disgrace has finally and unceremoniously come to an end.

Years ago we watched this loser prop up another Bedminster loser, Nanci Arraial, in a municipal court case by testifying on Arraial's behalf from the bench, by ignoring Arraial's perjured testimony, and by disrespecting the defendant and attorney with an erroneous decision which was eventually overturned on appeal.

Both Arraial and Gasiorowski have cost the Bedminster taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend the municipality from ongoing litigation stemming from the aforementioned decision and successful appeal more than six years ago.  To this day, Bedminster and Nanci Arraial are defendants in said ongoing legal action.

Oh, and what did Bedminster do to reward Nanci Arraial for her incompetence and misconduct? Promoted her to sergeant, of course!  Don't be fooled, Nanci Arraial is a moron cop in an armpit little town in NJ.  She's only there to fill a diversity quota for a woman/lesbian(*). Anywhere else, she'd be eaten alive and spit out like the garbage that she is.

(*)The Barnardsville News reports on 6/2/2014 that "Arraial lives in Middlesex County with her spouse, Jamie Bunch." On information and belief, the correct spelling of Arraial's spouse is Jamie Bunce.

New Bergen County Assistant Prosecutor Daryl Williams Dogged by Criminal Charges, Ethics Complaints.

This past week, five new assistant prosecutors were sworn in to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office.

Daryl A. Williams

One name in the bunch caught our attention: Daryl Williams (or Daryl A. Williams, as he is known by his former employer, the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office).

Daryl Williams first caught our attention in late 2009 when he openly violated an Expungement Order (N.J.S. 2C:52-30) in a court brief.  A citizen complaint was subsequently filed in Bergen County against Williams. 

In late 2010, Bergen County Municipal Court Judge Roy F. McGeady, with the complicity of prosecutor Andrew C. Samson, obstructed the prosecution of Daryl A. Williams, and the citizen complaint against Williams was improperly dismissed.  See Case Study complaints 3 & 4 and 6 & 7.

Nevertheless, evidence of Daryl Williams' violation of the law is documented in his brief.  Said misconduct is also a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  An attorney ethics complaint filed by this newsperson has been pending since July, 2010, with no resolution as of yet.

Did Judge McGeady and prosecutor Samson obstruct the prosecution of Daryl Williams because they knew Williams was being vetted for employment as their colleague?  Has the pending ethics complaint against Daryl Williams been suppressed for more than a year to protect his job in public employment?  We are seeking answers to these questions.

Daryl Williams next caught our attention in early 2010 when he again violated an Expungement Order (N.J.S. 2C:52-30) in Somerset County, in open court and on the record, in spite of protests on the record from our attorney, and a previous warning via letter.

At that point it became clear that assistant Somerset County prosecutor Daryl A. WIlliams could not conform his legal practice to the Rules of Professional Conduct, or to the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.  A citizen complaint was subsequently filed in Somerset County, and probable cause was found against Williams.

In early 2011, Somerville Municipal Court Judge William T. Kelleher, with the complicity of municipal prosecutor Joseph DeMarco, obstructed the prosecution of Daryl A. Williams, and the criminal charge against Williams was improperly dismissed.  See Case Study complaint 5.

Nevertheless, evidence of Daryl Williams' violation of the law is documented in the court transcript in our possession.  Said misconduct is also a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  An attorney ethics complaint filed by this newsperson has been pending since July, 2010, with no resolution as of yet.

Did Judge Kelleher and prosecutor DeMarco obstruct the prosecution of Daryl Williams because they knew Williams was being vetted for employment in another county?  Did Kelleher and DeMarco want to see Williams transferred to another county because of the embarrassment and disrepute Williams brought to their vicinage by allegations of his unethical and unlawful conduct?  Has the pending ethics complaint against Daryl Williams been suppressed for more than a year to protect his job in public employment?  We are seeking answers to these questions.

One thing is clear: the professional history and conduct of a prosecutor in New Jersey's Criminal Justice system should be spotless and impeccable.  This is necessary for the protection of the public trust, and for the maintenance of the highest levels of confidence in our government.  It is this newsperson's opinion that the continued employment of Daryl A. Williams in public service erodes that protection and that confidence.

Bergen County Municipal Court Prosecutor Andrew Samson Ignores Victim, Ethics Investigator.

In December of 2010, I filed an attorney ethics complaint against Bergen County Municipal Court Prosecutor Andrew C. Samson.  My allegations stem from Mr. Samson's part in obstructing the prosecution of three criminal defendants (Bedminster Police Detective Nanci Arraial, Bedminster Municipal Prosecutor Richard J. Guss, and Assistant Somerset County Prosecutor Daryl A. Williams) in five citizen complaints filed by me, and before the Bergen County Central Municipal Court between September 2010 and May 2011.

The details of said citizen complaints are more particularly set forth in my Case Study as complaints 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

PROSECUTOR'S QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT LEADS TO ETHICS COMPLAINT
In the Arraial complaint (Case Study, complaint 1), Samson sent me on a wild goose chase by demanding that I obtain an N.J.S. 2C:52-19 Order that he purported he needed to prosecute.  I immediately complied, and within one month, I had been before Judge Rubin on a motion for said Order, and had important information to convey to Mr. Samson.

Mr. Samson instead buried his head in the sand, failed to return my phone call, and failed to respond to my letters regarding same.  At an October 28, 2010 Motion hearing in the Arraial matter, Mr. Samson didn’t even show up for court, and the substitute prosecutor appeared to know nothing about the case.

Furthermore, according to defense counsel Richard J. Guss, Esq., Mr. Samson advised Mr. Guss to make the Motion to Dismiss (based on Mr. Samson’s refusal to provide discovery), which Mr. Samson did not oppose. Judge McGeady dismissed my complaint.

It appears that Mr. Samson sent me on a wild goose chase to get an N.J.S. 2C:52-19 Order he claimed he needed to prosecute; he simultaneously advised Arraial’s defense counsel to file a Motion to Dismiss based on his [Samson’s] refusal to provide discovery; then he ignored my phone call regarding Judge Rubin’s opinion on the N.J.S. 2C:52-19 Order; and didn’t show up for a Motion hearing in the case, which he apparently orchestrated in advance with defense counsel, so that his substitute prosecutor could be blindsided, leaving the illusion that Mr. Samson had nothing to do with the dismissal of my complaint.

On November 1, 2010, I wrote a letter to Mr. Samson alerting him of Judge Rubin's opinion regarding the N.J.S. 2C:52-19 Order that he purported he needed to prosecute, that Mr. Samson should file the Motion himself, on notice to me as defendant/beneficiary of the Expungement Order. In said letter, I also requested that Mr. Samson appeal the improper dismissal of my Arraial complaint.

Mr. Samson failed to file the appeal, and has never responded to this communication.

Before scheduled probable cause hearings on November 18, 2010 in the Guss and Williams complaints (Case Study, complaints 3 & 4), Mr. Samson preempted the probable cause hearings by representing to the court that if probable cause were found, he would refuse to provide discovery, which would result in the same dismissal as in the Arraial matter.

It appeared improper for Mr. Samson to say anything to prejudice the court against these matters. Mr. Samson seems to have meddled where he didn’t belong.

Furthermore, Mr. Samson’s communication to the court was particularly egregious because he withheld his knowledge of an easy remedy in the form of an N.J.S. 2C:52-19 Order available to him pursuant to Judge Rubin’s October 25, 2010 ruling. This information was clearly communicated in advance to Mr. Samson in my November 1, 2010 letter, and verbally before he addressed the court on November 18, 2010.

Mr. Samson appears to have ignored my letter and appears to have withheld material information from the court. As a result, Mr. Samson caused both the Guss and the Williams matters to be dismissed before the scheduled probable cause hearings could be conducted.

On November 23, 2010, I wrote letters to Mr. Samson regarding the dismissal of the Guss and Williams matters respectively. In my letters, I once again informed Mr. Samson of Judge Rubin’s opinion regarding the option of an N.J.S. 2C:52-19 Order, and I requested that Mr. Samson take steps to appeal Judge McGeady's improper dismissal of both complaints.

Mr. Samson failed to file the appeals, and never responded to either letter.

I ultimately refiled the Guss and Williams complaints (Case Study, complaints 6 & 7), only to be thwarted again when Mr. Samson failed to show up in court on May 12, 2011 in the Guss matter in response to a motion by Mr. Guss’ defense counsel.

The substitute prosecutor did not have the case file, and offered only token opposition to defense counsel’s motion. I was not privy to the motion filing discussed by defense counsel, so I could not offer guidance to the substitute prosecutor.

As a result, the Judge McGeady dismissed my complaint.

Here is a second example of Mr. Samson not showing up for a Motion hearing in a case, which it appears he orchestrated in advance with defense counsel, so that his substitute prosecutor could be blindsided, leaving the illusion that Mr. Samson had nothing to do with the dismissal of my complaint.

By way of a letter to Judge McGeady dated May 16, 2011, copied to Mr. Samson, I requested that Mr. Samson appeal the improper dismissal of my refiled Guss complaint. On May 31, 2011, I once again wrote to Mr. Samson to request an update as to the status of the appeal of the refiled Guss matter.

Mr. Samson failed to file the appeal, and never responded to either of these communications.

Also in my May 31, 2011 letter to Mr. Samson, I made a request for Mr. Samson to motion for Judge McGeady to recuse himself from two new complaints I had filed against Richard J. Guss and David T. Pfund (Case Study, complaints 8 & 9).

At that time, Mr. Samson was well aware of my pending ethics complaint against him, yet he did not even disqualify himself, and it appears that he continued to act in bad-faith.

On June 9, 2011, I was in court for scheduled probable cause hearings in the latest Guss and Pfund matters. Prior to the probable cause hearings, I moved on the record for Judge McGeady to recuse himself from all cases involving violation of my Expungement Order. Judge McGeady advised me that such a motion would have to be made by Prosecutor Samson. Mr. Samson feigned ignorance and said that he would first have to know my reasons. I then communicated my reasons on the record.

I cited Mr. Samson’s past failure to cooperate and communicate with me regarding various complaints before that Court; Judge McGeady’s orchestration of the State’s disadvantage, and systematic dismissals of all my complaints in that court with the complicity of Prosecutor Samson; Judge McGeady’s denial of my right to speak; various harassment and bullying of me by Judge McGeady’s Court Officers; etc., etc., etc. I argued that “the fix has to stop now.”

Mr. Samson refused to advocate my position, and Judge McGeady declined to recuse himself.

The stats so far:

• Five complaints, five dismissals;
• Two motion hearings, two Samson no-shows causing two dismissals with no explanation;
• One phone call to Mr. Samson, no response with no explanation;
• Four letters to Mr. Samson, no response with no explanation;
• Three requests to appeal the improper dismissals of my complaints, no response with no explanation;
• One request for a motion to recuse, ignored and refusal to advocate victim's [my] position;
• One victim [me] of three criminal defendants (Arraial, Guss, and Williams) who has been additionally victimized by Andrew C. Samson, Esq., for no good reason except Mr. Samson’s apparent failure to conform his legal practice to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

PROSECUTOR STALLS ETHICS COMPLAINT FOR SIX MONTHS

In August of 2011, I spoke with ethics investigator Joseph A. DeFuria regarding my ethics complaint. Based on that conversation, and on information currently in my possession, Mr. Samson knew about my ethics complaint on or about February 9, 2011. Mr. Samson responded to my ethics complaint on or about August 8, 2011. During those intervening months, Mr. DeFuria tried to contact Mr. Samson by phone, with no success.

It appears that Mr. Samson is as likely to ignore a complainant/victim as he is to ignore an attorney ethics investigator.

My ethics complaint against Mr. Samson is currently pending.

Do/Should NJ Judges Have Absolute Immunity?

First things first: Do New Jersey Judges have absolute immunity in the performance of their judicial duties? 

Regarding civil lawsuits, the answer appears to be yes.  Judicial immunity protects judges from liability for monetary damages in civil court for acts they perform pursuant to their judicial functions. 

In fact, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies even to allegations of malice or corruption (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (citation omitted)).  This seems to imply that malice and corruption are interpreted as judicial functions.  If you ever had more than one experience in the New Jersey court system, you know this to be true.

But do judges have immunity from criminal prosecution?  The answer may just depend on who you ask.

Hunterdon County Superior Court Judge Stephen B. Rubin would like you to believe that New Jersey judges have absolute immunity for conduct they engage in from the bench, even criminal conduct.  Judge Rubin expressed this opinion in his finding of no probable cause in three citizen complaints I filed against Bedminster Municipal Court Judge Frank W. Gasiorowski under N.J.S. 2C:52-30 (Violation of Expungement Order), N.J.S. 2C:30-2b (Official Misconduct), and N.J.S. 2C:29-1 (Obstruction).  For the story behind these complaints, see my Case Study, complaint #2.

The New Jersey Attorney General's Office doesn't seem to share Judge Rubin's opinion.  On June 4, 2010, former Jersey City Municipal Court Chief Judge Wanda Molina entered a guilty plea for fixing parking tickets.  The OAG press release indicates that Judge Molina pled guilty to conduct described as judicial action.  It appears that engaging in criminal activity is not interpreted as a judicial function by the New Jersey Attorney General.

Regarding Judge Rubin’s ruling of absolute judicial immunity, the judicial immunity doctrine does not apply to Judge Gasiorowski’s actions because violating my Expungement Order, obstructing the filing of a Complaint with the Bedminster Municipal Court, and preventing me from ordering a transcript by ejecting my attorney and me from the building are non-judicial acts.  Said non-judicial acts violate the judicial oath of office and the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Therefore, they are not the actions that a judge is permitted to engage in, and so no judicial immunity can attach.

By the way, I have since discovered that a conflict of interest existed that was not disclosed by Judge Rubin: Judge Rubin and Judge Gasiorowski were colleagues for 4½ years while Judge Gasiorowski was a Superior Court Judge in the same Vicinage 13 as Judge Rubin.  Perhaps this is the reason for Judge Rubin's questionable opinion regarding judicial immunity in the Judge Gasiorowski complaints.

Should New Jersey Judges have absolute immunity in the performance of their judicial duties?

I say no, especially when there are allegations of malice, corruption, or criminal code violations, because judicial immunity eliminates the concept of accountability in the judiciary.  In short, judicial immunity sets the stage for judicial terrorists to run rampant.

What can you do when you are victimized by the unethical or unlawful conduct of a judge?  In my experience, there is a lot you can do, but it will amount to very little.  County prosecutors don't care; the New Jersey Attorney General's Office doesn't care; the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) will blow you off if you file a complaint about a judge; assignment judges don't care; municipal division managers don't care; the New Jersey Commission of Investigation doesn't care; even the administrative director of New Jersey Courts doesn't care.

The whole system is geared toward cover-up, conspiracy, and corruption.  The fix has to stop now.

Note: For more information, read Lawless America's Brief on Judicial Immunity.

Alleged Questionable Conduct by NJ Municipal Court Judge Frank W. Gasiorowski.

After an unpleasant experience in the Bedminster Municipal Court in August 2010, which led to my filing a citizen complaint against Judge Frank Gasiorowski under N.J.S. 2C:52-30 (see Case Study, complaint #2), I decided to conduct an investigation into the existence of other allegations of misconduct against Judge Gasiorowski.

I first found a blurb reported in the New Jersey Law Journal on January 18, 2007 which stated:

A Somerset County judge is leaving the bench, for unstated reasons, 18 months before the end of his seven-year term. Superior Court Judge Frank Gasiorowski, 62, who sits in the Criminal Part, will resign on Feb. 1 (2007).

It sounded unusual to me that a Superior Court Judge would resign from his job 18 months before attaining tenure, and then take a job in an inferior court as a municipal court judge.

I dug a little deeper and found a possible reason in a report in the Courier News on January 17, 2007 with the headline "Prosecutor attempting to boot judge" which read in part:

The judge (Gasiorowski) also questioned (ex-Bound Brook inspector) Gandy and gave the impression the woman was a prostitute, the motion states. Since Gandy's guilty verdict, the defense has filed motions for acquittal and to get a new trial, motions Gasiorowski repeatedly adjourned because the case was scheduled on his days off or on his vacation, the motion states.

Then I found a story about the same case reported in the Courier News on January 18, 2007 with the headline "Superior Court judge retiring" which read in part:

On Tuesday, the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office filed a motion to remove Gasiorowski from sentencing a former Bound Brook housing inspector convicted of official misconduct because, the motion states, Gasiorowski made pre-judgements about the case, interviewed a witness during the trial and put off motions to find a reason to overturn the verdict.

Apparently, the defense filed a motion for a new trial, and Superior Court Judge Robert B. Reed vacated the (Gasiorowski) verdict and ordered a new trial on July 17, 2007.  This story is currently posted on NJ.com.

I found additional evidence of questionable conduct by Gasiorowski before he resigned his Superior Court judgeship.  On July 25, 2007, the Home News Tribune published a story titled "Alleged bank robber can't enter PTI" which reads in part:

The appellate court ruled Gasiorowski, now a municipal judge in Watchung, strayed "from the standards established in pertinent case law" when he allowed Carvalho into the PTI program despite the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office refusal to give consent, which is required for the entry of a second-degree offender into the program.

It seems that the Prosecutor's office appealed to the Appellate division and got the ruling issued by Gasiorowski reversed.  The bank robber was finally sentenced in January, 2009.

Finally, I found a story published on the internet on May 31, 2007 titled "New Jersey Corruption (2)" in which Gasiorowski's conduct is alleged to be questionable within the context of several Motions filed by an individual back in 2005.

I still don't know for sure if there is a connection between these reports of Gasiorowski's questionable conduct and his abrupt resignation from the Superior Court in 2007, but there seems to be enough evidence to support a strong correlation.

Considering what Gasiorowski's been up to since then (see Case Study, complaint #2), I have little doubt that more stories of Gasiorowski's escapades will show up in the future.

Share your Expungement Order story.

Have you ever tried to enforce an Expungement Order in New Jersey?

Have you ever been prosecuted in New Jersey for violating an Expungement Order?

Are you a legal professional or administrator in the NJ court system who could share your thoughts about how to fix the broken Expungement Order law in NJ?

We would like to hear from you.  Just use the comment feature below this post to share your story.

You can choose to remain anonymous, but please provide enough information to confirm that your perspective regarding this topic is related to a New Jersey jurisdiction. 

Please note that comment submissions are moderated and subject to editorial discretion.  Also, publication of comments is not guaranteed.

Welcome to NJ Expungement Central.

Welcome!

A good place to start is the About NJ Expungements page to learn more about our mission, or visit our Case Study page to read the results of one victim's attempts to enforce an Expungement Order in New Jersey.

We also offer information about filing attorney complaints and judicial complaints in New Jersey.

We encourage you to use the comment feature below any post, or at the bottom of any page, to communicate with us and our readers.  Please note that comment submissions are moderated and subject to editorial discretion.  Also, publication of comments is not guaranteed.