Saturday, April 7, 2012

Defending Longshoremen, Checkers and Maintenance Union Members When Charged with an Infraction by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.

The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is a bi-state agency (New Jersey and New York), which in the 1950’s was delegated the task, with full police and enforcement powers, to monitor and protect the shipping docks and piers of New Jersey and New York.  The agency mission was in essence to weed out corruption from the piers and to protect the dockworkers from exploitation, extortion, and other crimes and abuses, which was traditionally found to be prevalent against dockworkers working the piers of New Jersey and New York.

The majority of the shipping piers are located in New Jersey with piers and terminals in Bayonne, Jersey City, Port Newark, Port Elizabeth, and Perth Amboy, with the majority of the dock workers licensed by the Waterfront Commission working or residing in New Jersey. 

The Waterfront Commission is guided by specific rules, regulations and laws, which in many respects are unique to this agency.  Violators of the law can be prosecuted under federal law, or by the criminal statutes of New Jersey or New York, depending on the location of the offense, type of offense, or domicile of offending party.  All dockworkers employed at the New Jersey and New York piers must be licensed by the Waterfront Commission in order to be employed on the docks.  Any violation of the Waterfront laws will subject the offender to a suspension or termination of his or her Waterfront pass, thus, precluding the worker from stepping pass the gates of the pier once the license is suspended or revoked.  The loss of the Waterfront license can be temporary or permanent, depending on the character of the offender and the violation charged.

Any person in New Jersey who is charged with a 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree criminal offense or felony in New York is subject to an automatic temporary revocation of his or her Waterfront pass at the Waterfront’s discretion.

If the charge is not amicably resolved between the licensee and agency, the matter is heard before an administrative law judge.  In the event that the longshoreman receives an adverse ruling he or she can appeal the decision to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey for all longshoreman living or working in New Jersey.

Therefore, it is essential that any longshoreman, checker of maintenance worker who has been charged by the Waterfront Commission with violating the Waterfront Act, immediately obtain the services of an experienced criminal defense and waterfront attorney, who is experienced in both the laws and procedures in defending a longshoreman, checkers of maintenance worker employed on the docks of New Jersey or New York.  For over 23 years the law office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., has been defending dockworkers for matters before the Waterfront Commission for the piers of New Jersey and New York.

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Dated: April 7, 2012
277 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 261
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

New Jersey Waterfront Attorney, Longshoreman Attorney, New York Harbor Waterfront Lawyers, New Jersey Checkers Lawyer, New Jersey Union longshoreman Attorneys, Best NY Longshoreman lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Lawyer, Best Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Criminal Lawyers.

The Sanctimony of the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office in the Dharum Ravi Case.

The prosecution of Dharum Ravi for the alleged hate crime against Tyler Clementi was overreaching and in my opinion an abuse of the New Jersey hate crime statute.

The purpose of hate crime legislative enacted in almost every state of the union is to punish offenders who commit specific crimes against people because of their ethic, religious, racial, or sexual standing.  In other words if an offender attacks someone because of his or her hatred of particular group, that is a hate crime in New Jersey.  Further, under the New Jersey hate crime statute you are guilty of the crime based on the state of mind of the victim and not of the offender.  Hence, the mens rea or the state of mind of the defendant/offender is irrelevant. If the alleged victim believed that he or she was a victim of a hate crime that is sufficient under the law.

The fundamental question is whether the State under any circumstances should be punishing people for who they are?  Where is the line to be drawn between a prosecutor that punishes for thought, i.e., George Orwell’s classic 1984, and the offenders who actual commits a crime against a class of people because who they are?  The question arises should a burglar be prosecuted under a hate crime because he only burglarizes homes in “rich” neighborhoods, and hence commits a hate crime against the rich. The answer of course is no; but what would stop an overzealous prosecutor for doing such a thing, under these types of hate crime laws? 

In other words if you commit a crime while thinking a vile thought you commit a hate crime.  It has never been the law that people be prosecuted for their thoughts, but that is preciously what occurs with these hate crime prosecutions, when abused by the prosecutor.

This case is a perfect example in which the prosecuting authority over-charged a defendant.  Whether Mr. Ravi engaged in a college prank, did something stupid or was a jerk is not a hate crime.  The overcharging of Mr. Ravi with a hate crime against Mr. Clementi is typical of many prosecutors in New Jersey and is clearly the norm not the exception.  The overcharging of a defendant for a crime which was not committed is a common strategy in New Jersey to extract a guilty plea from the defendant, and forcing the defendant to either "take the plea" or risk doing serious time on the over-charged offense.  Further the prosecution of Mr. Ravi is a perfect example of how hate crime laws can be abused by juries, which happened in this case.

There is no doubt in this New Jersey criminal defense attorney's mind that Mr. Ravi will prevail on appeal and that New Jersey’s hate crime statute will eventually be held unconstitutional or stricken down by the courts on some other form procedural due process grounds by the New Jersey courses. 

Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
Dated: April 7, 2012
Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Best Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Lawyer, Best Bayonne Criminal Attorneys, Bayonne Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Newark Criminal Attorneys, Essex County Criminal Lawyers.