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 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd 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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

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.

United States Supreme Court Decides Defendants Are Entitled to Correct Legal Advice in Deciding Whether to Accept or Reject Plea Offers.

The United States Supreme Court, (Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444); (Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209) in a split decision decided that criminal defendants have the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations.  The Court ruled that attorneys whom give bad legal advice to their clients during plea negotiations are ineffective and that the Courts are now required to take a more active role in plea negotiations.

The Court noted that nationally 94% of criminal defendants take a plea offer, and in federal court the number is 97% whom take pleas.  Accordingly, the Court noted in reality the criminal justice system is not a system of trial but of pleas, and accordingly, one of the most crucial stages in criminal procedure is not trials, but plea negotiations and the plea bargaining system.

In Frye, the defendant was offered a 90 day jail sentence by the prosecutor for operating his motor vehicle without a driver’s license.  Mr. Frye was not advised by his attorney of the plea offer, went to trial, was convicted and sentenced by the judge to three years in prison. 

In Cooper the facts are even more bizarre in that the defense attorney advised his client that because he shot his victim four times below the waist that he could not be convicted of attempted murder.  Because of the bad legal advice Mr. Cooper rejected the plea offer of between four and seven years and went to trial.  Convicted a trial for attempted murder Mr. Cooper was sentenced to 15 to 30 years.  The Supreme Court in Cooper held that the Mr. Cooper should be reoffered the plea that he was never advised about, and that if he accepts it, to be re-sentenced by the Judge.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has 21 years of experience and skill to fight for your acquittal, and achieve your not guilty verdict.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

Dated: March 22, 2012

 

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union Essex Bergen Passaic Hudson  Criminal Defense Attorneys, Middlesex Criminal Attorneys, Hudson County Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth NJ criminal attorneys, best new jersey criminal defense attorneys, nj best criminal lawyers, Newark criminal lawyers, New Brunswick Criminal Lawyers, NJ DUI Attorneys

The Crane Brothers Looking to Make another Easy Money Score Against the Catholic Church, on the Backs of the Faithful Catholics Who Support the Church.

Twin brothers Tom an Bill Crane are either two of the most unluckiest brothers, or consummate con-artists looking to make another easy money score against the Catholic Church claiming that they were sexually abused.

One payoff was not enough for the Crane brothers whom were part of a settlement of 5 million dollars divided by 12 different plaintiffs and their attorneys when the Crane brothers claimed that a Priest from St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Church in Mendham New Jersey molested them.

Now remarkably these two brothers are now claiming that two other priests molested them when they were living with their Father, an administrator and teacher at the prestigious Delbarton Catholic pre-school in Morris Township.  Of all of the tens-of-thousands of young men who have been educated by the great Benedictine monks from Delbarton these two unlucky men were abused by not only monks at that school, but at their local parish.  These two brothers claimed that the abuse occurred over thirty-years ago, but told no one, including there Father who worked there as a teacher and administrator.

One would need the help of a quantum computer (not yet invented), to finger out the miniscule likelihood of such abuse to have occurred by three separate Priest, at two different locations, when these two brother were growing up, while not telling anyone.

It is time that the Catholic Church and its religious orders put an end to monetary payouts to these so-called, “abused” scam artists and fight them in court to expose their lies and incredible stories, such as the one concocted by the Crane brothers.  Otherwise there will be no end to these scam artists looking to the Church for a quick payoff on the backs of the millions of faithful Catholics who give their hard earned money every Sunday to the Church which they love and respect, and which has withstood the test of time and history for 2000 years.

"If you want Peace Work for Justice."  Pope John Paul, I

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
CriminalDefenseNJ.com
Tel. No. (908) 354-7006


New Jersey Criminal Attorneys, Union County Criminal Defense Attorney, NJ Criminal Lawyers, NJ Best Criminal Trial Attorneys, Best NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Lawyers, New Brunswick Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Attorneys

Dated: March 21, 2012

The Necessity of Expunging All Criminal Records, When Possible, Even Arrests which Did Not Lead to Convictions.

A recent survey conducted found that over 90% of employers run criminal background checks on every job applicant.  Additionally, another 60% screen all job applicants with credit report checks.  Amazingly, in some cases even a bad driving record will exclude most applicants from the employment position.

Even more troubling is the fact that over 65 million potential job applicants will be excluded from any type of gainful legitimate employment because of a criminal record.

Most people do not understand and are not aware that even the mere arrest, which did not lead to a conviction, will in most cases also bar a job applicant from employment.  Most employers seeing an arrest also see with the background check what the person was arrested for.  This is especially true with someone arrested for a serious charge. 

Therefore, it is absolutely essential that anyone convicted of a crime, which is subject to an Expungement obtain one.  Further, anyone arrested but not convicted most likewise obtain an Expungement of the arrest, so that the arrest does not come up in the background check.  It is too easy for employers in this tough job market to eliminate job applicants with criminal background checks.

Law Office Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Tel. No. (908) 354-7006

NJ Expungement Lawyers, Elizabeth New Jersey Criminal Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Attorney, Middlesex County Criminal Defense Attorney, NJ Criminal Attorneys, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Attorney, Union County Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Federal Criminal Trial Attorneys, Criminal Lawyers NJ, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Jersey City Criminal Lawyers, Bergen County Criminal Lawyers, New Brunswick Criminal lawyers, Passaic County Criminal lawyers.

Dated: March 21, 2012

Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., seeks Pretrial Intervention Program For Client Alleged to Have Impersonated her Ex-Boy Friend a Parsippany New Jersey Police Detective using Facebook.

February 14, 2012

In the high profile prosecution by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, Dana Thornton is accused of using Facebook to impersonate her ex-boyfriend.  As set forth in the Grand Jury Indictment, Ms. Thornton is being charged with the crime of fourth degree identity theft, when it was alleged that she opened an account under the detective’s name and posted a number of postings, which according to the papers submitted by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, were injurious to his personal and professional repudiation as a police detective.   Today, Superior Court Judge David Ironson gave both Attorney Sanzone and the prosecutor thirty days to workout a plan as to whether Ms. Thornton would again be permitted to enter the Pretrial Intervention Program.

This case appears to be the first case in New Jersey were the identity fraud statute is being used to prosecute someone in the use of a social media website such as Facebook, under false pretenses.  There is dispute among legal commentators as to whether the New Jersey statute as enacted would cover such conduct as alleged by the State.  Many States have amended their statutes to cover such conduct, which has not yet occurred in New Jersey.  Although Judge Ironson had ruled in this case on a previous occasion that the statute does apply, no appellate decision has made a ruling on this issue.

Today’s full story from the Star-Ledger can be found at: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/belleville_woman_accused_of_cr.html

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

Criminal Defense Lawyer, NJ, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyer, NJ Criminal Defense Attorneys, New Jersey Best Criminal Defense Attorneys, NJ Criminal Trial Lawyers, Newark Criminal Lawyers, Elizabeth Criminal Attorneys.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

The United States Supreme Court Scores a Great Victory For The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches, and Again Justice Scalia Becomes a Champion of Criminal Defendants.

On January 23, 2012, the United States Court ruled that the placement of a Global Tracking Device or System on a suspect’s vehicle for 28 days violated the suspect’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In the case, U.S. v. Antoine Jones, Washington D.C. police suspecting that Mr. Jones was involved in a cocaine-selling operation, placed a tracking device on Mr. Jones’s Jeep Grand Cherokee and tracked Mr. Jones’ movements for 28 days.  At trial the prosecutor used that information to secure his conviction, which resulted in the court imposing a life-sentence of imprisonment.  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned his conviction holding that the amount of information obtained through the GPS tracking device violated Mr. Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights to the Constitution.  The Supreme Court affirmed, and Justice Scalia writing for the majority held that monitoring a vehicle’s movements without a judicial warrant constitutes a search.

The decision by the nation’s highest court sends a signal to law enforcement in the United States that they can no longer track a vehicle with such devices without a court warrant approved by a judicial magistrate.  This is great news for New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys who have been waiting in anticipation for this decision.  Criminal Defense attorneys here in New Jersey and other states have anxiously waited from our highest court to signal whether they would be increase the constitutional protections as set forth in the Bill of Rights which prohibits the States or government from using excessive and unreasonable surveillance techniques as now available to law enforcement.  Similarly, based on this decision it can also be argued and inferred that the placing of a tracking device on a suspect’s computer, without a court order, to track someone’s website history would likewise be held to be unconstitutional.

Also, this case appears to be in conflict with a recent New Jersey Appellate Division case, State v. Earls, ____ N.J. Super. _____ (App. Div. 2011) which allows law enforcement in New Jersey to track a suspect’s location data through cell-phone towers without a judicial warrant. 

Lastly, with this new decision the question is now posed is whether law enforcement in this State can use toll cameras, E-ZPass, and surveillance videos (which are numerous on major highways in the State of New Jersey), to track suspects accused of, or suspected of committing crimes?

The decision raises serious questions as to whether these surveillance devices present on our major highways also violate our Fourth Amendment protections.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr. 

A New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney who has 21 years of experience and skill to fight for your acquittal, and achieve your not guilty verdict.

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

(908) 354-7006

Dated: January 24, 2012

 

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney, New Jersey Criminal Defense Lawyers, Union Essex Bergen Passaic Hudson  Criminal Defense Attorneys.